In a recent analysis, experts from the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) reflected on epistemic and geographical diversity as measured in a self-assessment of a 2022 IPBES report.[1] Although analysis shows efforts towards pluralism, the hegemony of the West prevails in the IPBES report in three interconnected ways: 1) geographic bias, 2) epistemic bias, and 3) the primacy of English.[2] Indeed, most of the evidence cited in the 2022 assessment is academic literature in English produced in and about Western Europe, Canada, and the United States.
The IPBES assessment reveals not only the platform’s internal biases but also those of the sciences more broadly. Invasion science is no exception. In this field, the geographical bias in favor of Western sites of knowledge production is also a geopolitical bias that limits the capacity of science practitioners to deliver practical and just solutions to the problems that humans and the rest of nature presently face.
Geopolitical bias
Another IPBES assessment from 2023 on “invasive alien species and their control” reports “regional gaps in data and knowledge” in the so-called “developing economies.”[3] Similarly, a 2022 study assessing the levels of consensus and controversy in invasion science surveyed 698 invasion scientists and practitioners, but the vast majority (sixty-five percent) represented Western countries.[4]
Of the thirty-three original authors of the most influential frameworks in the field, twenty-six are based in Europe, three in South Africa, and one each in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States.[5] While South Africa is not a Western country, it experienced the largest European settler-colonial and Apartheid regime in Southern Africa which, over many decades, enforced white supremacist and capitalist notions of “development.” Today, in no small part because of this legacy, post-colonial and post-Apartheid South Africa is globally perceived as the “most developed” country in Sub-Saharan Africa. And its academic institutions—especially the historically white universities—produce internationally recognized science in line with the hegemonic Western frames of science and society.[6]
Epistemic bias
The 2023 IPBES report also highlights “gaps in knowledge on invasive alien species of particular relevance to Indigenous Peoples and local communities.”[7] Although diverse, some Indigenous epistemologies tend to be relational and non-linear, focusing on care for human and more-than-human nature.[8] This contrasts with Aristotelian and Cartesian epistemologies that have dominated Western thinking and lifestyles. Hence, given the differences in value systems and the hegemony of the Western developmental mindset, it seems difficult to incorporate Indigenous epistemologies in invasion science and practice. When it comes to invasion management, conflicts ensue, resulting in epistemic violence.[9]
Moreover, invoking the principle of rigor, mainstream Western science often neglects the knowledge and perceptions of “lay” people. A bibliometric analysis of papers in English on The Web of Science says that although public engagement in invasion science has increased, the kind of engagement that counteracts epistemic biases and balances power relations remains scarce.[10] In general, scientific systems still undervalue and hence do not fund engagement beyond academia, which in turn discourages scientific workers from co-designing activities with other stakeholders.[11]
The Primacy of English
Given that cultures, epistemologies, and geographies influence languages, multilateral translations challenge the interpretations of meanings that ultimately delimit possibilities for consensus among stakeholders in invasion management.[12] Yet, one must publish in arguably “top-quality” journals in English to call oneself a scientist, to have a chance at recognition, and, correlatively, to access jobs. English is the lingua franca of science, and it is for this reason I am writing this piece in English.[13]
Despite the many journals and data in other languages (for example, Scielo and Dialnet for Spanish and Portuguese), journals in English from Western multinational publishers (e.g., Elsevier, Springer, Taylor & Francis, Wiley) are globally perceived as more prestigious, granting us more credibility if we publish papers in such journals.[14] For invasion science and practice, this has serious implications since there are hard-to-translate terms in other languages that embed critical ecological knowledge.[15] Sources in other languages provide fundamental insights into the understanding of the environment and its dynamics, as suggested by a recently published study (in English), which highlights the contribution of 15 languages to documenting the economic costs of biological invasions.[16]
The synergies
Geopolitical and epistemic biases align to uphold the primacy of English, but other European languages like Castilian and French follow close behind in terms of lending credibility to authors and journals. For example, Castilian from Spain (rather than Castilian-speaking Latin America) and French from France (rather than French-speaking Africa) dominated the database of multilingual documents reporting the economic costs of biological invasions.[17] Additionally, a screening of academic papers from across the social sciences indicates that papers by authors based in the West tend to claim universality, whereas papers from other regions do not.[18] Although invasion studies usually specify geographical locations, Western reductionist views of what is rigorous, valuable, and/or true not only hinder the fair consideration of different geographies, epistemologies, and languages but also limit the production of scientific knowledge outside of the West.
Several people are proposing (and implementing) actions to address the aforementioned biases. The references in this essay convey some of them, as do EHN’s publications. But the systemic biases described here are fed by a complex feedback loop that is difficult to break. While some practitioners recognize the problem from within, the means to enact systemic solutions are often beyond their means. In many cases, moreover, the system’s internal critics, despite their relative advantages, are also victim to precarious and highly unequal labor conditions in the global science sector and epistemic violence.[19] Nevertheless, as scientists, policy-makers, and practitioners, we have the responsibility to push for systemic changes in our spaces of influence to advance environmental and social justice, pluralism, and decolonization.[20]
The sector’s pitfalls reflect powerful political and economic orders that shape societies globally.[21] There are numerous examples of how these orders manipulate the global environmental and conservation agendas to perpetuate Western modernity, including capitalist coloniality and neo-coloniality.[22] Nonetheless, I remain confident that science, and especially invasion science, is changing.[23] The IPBES transformative change assessment provides one beacon of hope that the sciences are moving, in the words of one practitioner, “towards justice and addressing the political-economic root causes of nature’s decline.”[24] As we say in my homeland, la esperanza es lo último que se pierde (hope is always the last resource).
Acknowledgements:
I would like to thank Samia Cohen for her insightful editing, and the EHN editorial team for making the experience such a joy every time. Also, I would like to thank Jana Fried, John R. U. Wilson and Katharina Dehnen-Schmutz for their critical comments and suggestions.
[1] IPBES, “Methodological Assessment Report on the Diverse Values and Valuation of Nature of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services” edited by Patricia Balvanera, et. al. (IPBES secretariat, Bonn, Germany, 2022).; IPBES gathers “selected scientists and knowledge holders” (‘experts’) to conduct assessments that inform international policies intended to curve the planetary crisis. It attempts to consider diverse regions and knowledge systems in its assessments; IPBES Secretariat, “About. What is IPBES?,” Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services.”
[2] Louise Guibrunet, et. al., “Geographic and epistemic pluralism in the sources of evidence informing international environmental science–policy platforms: lessons learnt from the IPBES values assessment,” Global Sustainability 7, no. e36 (2024). Rooted in the Greek and Roman empires, “the West” is a fluid concept that changes depending on the lens (i.e., cultural, geographical, political, historical, etc.). For purposes of this essay, however, “the West” refers to a geopolitical entity represented by a bloc of globally hegemonic capitalist countries whose historical and classist supremacy from roughly the 15th century onwards has imposed the globalisation of their concepts of modernity, development and behaviour, hence establishing a model of how modern human societies should conduct themselves (Anievas and Nişancıoğlu 2015). This bloc includes Western Europe and those of its former colonies that suffered settler colonialism at such a scale that their post-colonial demographics are majority European descendants (i.e., the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand). The hegemony of the West by no means could have been achieved through its ‘divine intrinsic superiority’, as Eurocentrism has historically advocated. Rather, exogenous forces, including the technological and cultural legacies of the Mongolian and Ottoman empires as well as people subjected to Western colonialism, have always contributed to the West’s development (Anievas and Nişancıoğlu 2015); See Anievas, Alexander, and Kerem Nişancioğlu. How the West Came to Rule: The Geopolitical Origins of Capitalism. Pluto Press, 2015.
[3] IPBES, “Summary for Policymakers of the Thematic Assessment Report on Invasive Alien Species and their Control of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services” edited by Helen E. Roy, et al. (IPBES secretariat, Bonn, Germany, 2023).
[4] Ross T. Shackleton, et. al., “Consensus and controversy in the discipline of invasion science,” Conservation Biology 36, no. 5 (2022). These authors report that 32% of their respondents were based in Europe, 18% in North America and 15% in Oceania. They do not provide information about the countries in Oceania but, based on my experience in the field of invasion, I can say that the respondents were most likely based in Australia and New Zealand.
[5] John R. U. Wilson, et. al., “Is invasion science moving towards agreed standards? The influence of selected frameworks,” NeoBiota 62 (2020), 569–590.
[6] Thriven Reddy, “Higher education and social transformation in South Africa Case Study,” Cahiers de la recherche sur l’éducation et les savoirs [Online], 5 | 2006.
[7] IPBES, “Summary for Policymakers of the Thematic Assessment Report on Invasive Alien Species and their Control.”
[8] Kurt Jax, et. al., “Caring for nature matters: a relational approach for understanding nature’s contributions to human well-being,” Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 35 (2018), 22–29.
[9] Kūpa‘a K. Luat-Hū‘eu, et. al., “Understanding the co-evolutionary relationships between Indigenous cultures and non-native species can inform more effective approaches to conservation: the example of pigs (pua’a; Sus scrofa) in Hawai’i,” Pacific Conservation Biology 27 (2021), 442–450; Kūpa‘a K. Luat-Hū‘eu, Mehana BlaichVaughan, and Melissa R. Price, “Understanding local pig hunter values and practices as a means toward co-management of feral pigs (Sus scrofa; pua’a) in the Hawaiian Islands,” Ecology and Society 28, no. 2 (2023); Priscilla M. Wehi, et. al., “Contribution of Indigenous Peoples’ understandings and relational frameworks to invasive alien species management,” People and Nature 5 (2023), 1403–1414; Tsungai A. Zengeya, et. al., “Managing conflict-generating invasive species in South Africa: Challenges and trade-offs,” Bothalia 47, no. 2 (2017).
[10] Ross T. Shackleton, et. al., “Stakeholder engagement in the study and management of invasive alien species,” Journal of Environmental Management 229 (2019), 88–101.
[11] Priscilla Ana Powell, et. al., “Insights from experiences comanaging woody invasive alien plants in Argentina,” Ecological Solutions and Evidence 4, no. 4 (2023).
[12] Ou Qiong, “A Brief Introduction to Perception,” Studies in Literature and Language 15, no. 4 (2017), 18–28; Harri Uusitalo, et. al., “Alien Plants between Practices and Representations: the cases of European spruce and beach rose in Finland,” Plant Perspectives (2024); Gordon H. Copp, et al., “Speaking their language – Development of a multilingual decision-support tool for communicating invasive species risks to decision makers and stakeholders,”Environmental Modelling and Software 135 (2021).
[13] Tatsuya Amano, Juan P. González-Varo, and William J. Sutherland, et. al., “Languages Are Still a Major Barrier to Global Science,” PLoS Biology 14, no. 12 (2016); Tatsuya Amano, and William J. Sutherland, “Four barriers to the global understanding of biodiversity conservation: Wealth, language, geographical location and security,” Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 280, no. 1756 (2013).
[14] Rusell J. Gray, “Sorry, we’re open: Golden open-access and inequality in non-human biological sciences,” Scientometrics 124, no. 2 (2020), 1663–1675.
[15] Ismael Soto, et. al., “Taming the terminological tempest in invasion science,” Biological Reviews 99, no. 4 (2024), 1357–1390.
[16] Elena Angulo, et. al., “Non-English languages enrich scientific knowledge: The example of economic costs of biological invasions,” Science of the Total Environment 775 (2021).
[17] Angulo et al., “Non-English languages enrich scientific knowledge.”
[18] Andrés F. Castro Torres, and Diego Alburez-Gutierrez, “North and South: Naming practices and the hidden dimension of global disparities in knowledge production,” PNAS 119, no. 10 (2022).
[19] Stasja Koot, et al., “Intimidation as epistemological violence against social science conservation research,” Conservation Biology, no. 39e (2025).
[20] Esther Turnhout, “A better knowledge is possible: Transforming environmental science for justice and pluralism,” Environmental Science & Policy 155, no. 103729 (2024); IPBES, “Summary for Policymakers of the Thematic Assessment Report on the Underlying Causes of Biodiversity Loss and the Determinants of Transformative Change and Options for Achieving the 2050 Vision for Biodiversity” edited by Karen O’Brien, et. al. (IPBES secretariat, Bonn, Germany, 2024); Unai Pascual, et al., “Biodiversity and the challenge of pluralism,” Nature Sustainability, 4, no. 7 (2021).
[21] See the yearly anthology on global power and resistance “State of Power” from the Transnational Institute (https://www.tni.org/en/topic/state-of-power); IPBES, “Summary for Policymakers of the Thematic Assessment Report on the Underlying Causes of Biodiversity Loss and the Determinants of Transformative Change”
[22] Michele M. Betsill, et. al., “Philanthropic foundations as agents of environmental governance: a research agenda,” Environmental Politics 31, no. 4 (2021), 684–705; Bram Büscher, and Lerato Thakholi, “Convivial fences? Property, ‘right to wildlife’ and the need for redistributive justice in South African conservation,” Land Use Policy 141 (2024), 107–134; Tim P. Clark, and Andrés M. Cisneros-Montemayor, “Colonialism and the Blue Economy: confronting historical legacies to enable equitable ocean development,” Ecology and Society 29, no. 3 (2024); Charis Enns, and Brock Bersaglio, Settler ecologies: The enduring nature of settler colonialism in Kenya. University of Toronto Press, 2024; Frank Matose, “Hidden Struggles in Conservation: People’s Resistance in Southern Africa,” in The Politics of Nature and Science in Southern Africa, edited by Maano Ramutsindela, Giorgio Miescher, and Melanie Boehi. Basler Afrika Bibliographien, 2016, 311–22; Charlie Shackleton, and Nanamhla Gwedla, “The Legacy Effects of Colonial and Apartheid Imprints on Urban Greening in South Africa: Spaces, Species, and Suitability,” Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 8 (2021); Ysabel Muñoz Martínez, “Seeking Justice in Transitions: On Sámi and Mapuche Struggles with Green Colonialism,” Environmental History Now, May 1, 2023; Marja Spierenburg, and Harry Wels, “Conservative philanthropists, royalty and business elites in nature conservation in Southern Africa,” Antipode 42, no. 3 (2010), 647–670; Lerato Thakholi, and Bram Büscher, “Conserving inequality: How private conservation and property developers ‘fix’ spatial injustice in South Africa,” Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space 7, no. 1 (2021); Chantal Elizabeth Wieckardt, Stasja Koot, and Nadya Karimasari, “Environmentality, green grabbing, and neoliberal conservation: The ambiguous role of ecotourism in the Green Life privatised nature reserve, Sumatra, Indonesia,” Journal of Sustainable Tourism 30, no. 11 (2022), 2614–2630.
[23] Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Network, Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities and the Management and Control of Invasive Alien Species; Massai Community Members and the Massai International Solidarity Association, “A Massai Conservation Vision”, 2024.
[24] Esther Turnhout, “And finally, the IPBES #TransformativeChange assessment has been approved! Happy and proud of what we have achieved. Hope that this will change the narrative of #Biodiversity #Conservation towards #justice and addressing the political-economic root causes of nature’s decline”, LinkedIn, December 16, 2024; TaketoNews, “Current form of nature protection is inadequate: only an integrated approach can combat species loss”, December 18, 2024.
*Cover image: A scheme drawn by the author.
[Cover image description: An infographic on the biases in Invasion Science featuring an animated pink brain lifting a barbell at the center, with three surrounding biases in colored boxes: Primacy of English in a pink box, Epistemic Bias in an orange box, and Geopolitical Bias in a blue box—each one is represented with some visuals like books, historical figures, and a world map.]
Edited by Samia Cohen; reviewed by Evelyn Ramiel.