Incorporating Traditional Ecological Knowledge Into Western Science in the Arctic Council: Lip Service?

University of Calgary PRISM: University of Calgary's Digital Repository

Graduate Studies The Vault: Electronic Theses and Dissertations

2020-09-21 Incorporating Traditional Ecological Knowledge into Western science in the Arctic Council: Lip service?

Sidorova, Evgeniia (Jen)

Sidorova, E. (2020). Incorporating Traditional Ecological Knowledge into Western science in the Arctic Council: Lip service? (Unpublished doctoral thesis). University of Calgary, Calgary, AB. http://hdl.handle.net/1880/113195 doctoral thesis

University of Calgary graduate students retain copyright ownership and moral rights for their thesis. You may use this material in any way that is permitted by the Copyright Act or through licensing that has been assigned to the document. For uses that are not allowable under copyright legislation or licensing, you are required to seek permission. Downloaded from PRISM: https://prism.ucalgary.ca UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY

Incorporating Traditional Ecological Knowledge into Western science in the Arctic Council: Lip service?

Evgeniia (Jen) Sidorova

A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

GRADUATE PROGRAM IN POLITICAL SCIENCE

CALGARY, ALBERTA

SEPTEMBER, 2020

Preface

This thesis is original, unpublished, independent work by the author, Evgeniia (Jen)

Sidorova. The University of Calgary Conjoint Faculties Research Ethics Board has approved this research study. This thesis has been professionally edited.

Acknowledgements

I would like to express my gratitude to my academic supervisor, Dr. Rob Huebert, faculty and staff of the Department of Political Science at the University of Calgary, my family, friends, people whom I interviewed for this thesis, and all the wonderful people whom I met throughout these five years.

Dedication

This thesis is dedicated to Indigenous peoples in all regions of the world.

Abstract

The utilization of Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) in wildlife management has been a prominent topic for several decades. Since its establishment, the Arctic Council (AC) has emphasized the importance of TEK and its utilization in its work. Yet, the AC has not been successful in the process of knowledge coproduction. Why has TEK not been meaningfully incorporated into the Arctic Council? To answer this question, the study created and applied the

Participation-Indigenous-Local-Application-Cross-cultural evaluation scale to the AC documents in order to analyze to what degree TEK has been incorporated into them. The research included interviews with 15 Indigenous leaders, officials, and scholars who were involved in the work of

AC and/or worked with Indigenous communities and TEK projects. This study argues that lip service occurred as a result of several factors: state diversity in the perception of TEK as a concept, lesser effectiveness of Permanent Participants in the incorporation of TEK, politicization of TEK, and the resistance of Western scholars to TEK.

Table of Contents

Preface...... 1 Acknowledgements...... 3 Dedication ...... 4 Abstract ...... 5 Introduction ...... 7 Chapter 2. Theoretical IR Perspectives on the Knowledge Production Process ...... 18 Chapter 3. The Arctic Council Structure and Processes: The Role of TEK in the AC ...... 25 Chapter 4. TEK and Comanagement Regimes in the Arctic ...... 78 Chapter 5. Theory and Methodology ...... 118 Chapter 6. The Application of the PILAC Scale to AC Documents ...... 151 Chapter 7. Findings ...... 274 Chapter 8. The Implications of the Discussion on TEK in the Arctic Council: What is Hidden Behind the Major Challenges of Incorporating TEK? ...... 327 Conclusion ...... 392 Bibliography...... 403

Introduction

The discussion on Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) in resource management has

been a prominent topic for a few decades, especially across the North American Arctic and

subarctic (Berkes, 1999; Nadasdy, 1999). According to some views, traditional knowledge—

mainly traditional ecological knowledge—has practical significance for wildlife management

and ecology (Berkes, 1999). According to Sillitoe, Dixon and Barr (2005), the history of TEK

stretches back to the start of anthropology, but TEK is also related to natural resources and

development research.

Research Issues and Objectives

This study is focused on the examination the incorporation of TEK into the work of the

Arctic Council (AC). The research question is: Why has TEK not been incorporated into the AC?

The main objectives of this study include the review of the academic discussion on knowledge

coproduction in the Arctic Council and Arctic states; the creation of the evaluation scale in order

to measure to what extent TEK been meaningfully incorporated into the AC; the analysis of

findings; the examination of implications of these findings; and the investigation of general

conclusions that arise from these implications, not only for the Arctic region, but instead, in the

context of the field of international relations (IR) in general.

The purpose of this thesis is to investigate the implications of the failure of the

incorporation of TEK into the AC. From more broad IR perspectives, the study is aimed to examine the implications of the power dynamics surrounding the incorporation of subjugated knowledge into dominant knowledge frameworks.

Although TEK is a well-known concept in the Arctic region, there have not been any

systematic studies that have analyzed how exactly TEK was and is currently used at the AC. The

process of incorporation of TEK has not been explained, instructed or guided from anywhere in

the Arctic. Furthermore, the AC has not published any report or assessment that could explain

how exactly TEK should be incorporated in a meaningful way. This study developed an

evaluation scale that measures to what degree TEK has been incorporated into scientific reports.

This scale is a major contribution to this study.

This dissertation pursues several objectives. The first of them includes the analysis of the

emergence and development of TEK incorporation in the Arctic Council through monitoring of

meeting minutes of working groups and declarations. The study will analyze meeting minutes

reports and declarations in order to identify major patterns of TEK incorporation as well as the

challenges and obstacles in the process of TEK incorporation.

The second objective is to establish a scale that could evaluate the degree of the extent to which TEK has been incorporated and the application of this scale to scientific reports, assessments and any other documentation that aimed to incorporate TEK in the AC work. This scale will be designed to reflect significant components of TEK required for its meaningful incorporation, and it will be based on interviews and academic literature. This step is needed to identify the main factors that became obstacles in the process of meaningful incorporation of

TEK into the AC.

The third objective is to compare the analytical results of the application of this scale, separating TEK projects published by the Working Groups (WGs) and by Permanent Participants

(PPs). The projects of the PPs and WGs will be analyzed separately, as well as their close cultural, ethnic and linguistic connections with knowledge holders (Indigenous Elders);

Indigenous intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) are more likely to have different

perspectives on TEK incorporation. The dissertation will also evaluate to what extent the

Canadian and North American influences affected the degree of TEK incorporation in science and policy. This study will evaluate the impact of the presence of PPs and the North American

actors on TEK incorporation in the AC.

This study applies a social constructivist approach in order to explain why the

incorporation of TEK has turned into “lip service.” TEK is understood as a subjugated type of knowledge and as a social construct that has been framed by interactions between the actors. The major outcomes of the study are as follows:

State diversity in the concept of TEK: Settler–colonial relationships and Indigenous rights and policies vary from state to state, and this is why the TEK regimes similar to comanagement must be adapted to each state. The North American concept of TEK has become dominant in the

AC because Canada has rich experience in working with TEK. The comanagement regime is a middle ground between a delegation of self-governing functions to Indigenous peoples and full control over wildlife management by governments. However, the comanagement regime must be adapted to each Arctic state and their respective domestic legislation.

Politicization of TEK: TEK has been politicized by Canada and the Inuit Circumpolar

Council at the beginning of international cooperation in the Arctic. The TEK concept is viewed as a political tool of Indigenous empowerment. As a result, the Senior Arctic Officials placed a good deal of pressure on the Working Groups and Permanent Participants to incorporate TEK into their documents. Due to scientific resistance and lack of guidance on the process of incorporation, the WGs only included a few quotes from TEK into their studies, which is merely lip service.

The PPs have been less effective in the incorporation of TEK than expected: The PPs did

not translate TEK into their policy recommendations and instead, they used TEK projects a

chance to raise awareness about the needs and concerns of Indigenous communities.

Chapter 5 describes the theoretical model, which is based on a social constructivist

approach and regime theory. The model uses concepts such as dominant knowledge, subjugated

knowledge, social constructs, knowledge brokers and epistemic communities. In Chapters 6 and

7, a social constructivist approach is applied to major findings in order to explain study

outcomes.

This dissertation uses the term traditional ecological knowledge (TEK), which is

predominantly used in the academic literature by well-known scholars in the field of Indigenous

knowledge research such as Fikret Berkes, Paul Nadasdy, Henry Huntington, Peter Usher and

many others. The term TEK came into widespread use in the 1980s (Berkes, 1993). TEK, which

is a quite recently recognized concept, differs from the body of TEK, which is accumulated for

specific lands and handed down over many generations (Wavey, 1993).

The term Western science in this thesis mostly refers to the European-based type of inquiry that provides ecological and biological insights, the knowledge base for resource management, conservation, development planning and environmental assessment (Berkes, 1993).

Ecology is defined as a branch of biology in the domain of Western science (Berkes, 1993).

Ecological knowledge refers to relationships of living beings with one another and with their environment (Berkes, 1993). Similarly, policy regulations and policy-making processes in this study are related to wildlife regulations, as well as environmental and ecological legal laws and

policies in the Arctic states. Wildlife regulations refer to the ability of governments to manage

lands and natural resources (Wavey, 1993).

Argument and Research Design

This dissertation develops an innovative evaluation Participation-Indigenous-Local-

Application-Cross-cultural scale model, which measures the extent to which TEK has been incorporated into TEK projects.

The objective of the PILAC evaluation scale is to introduce indicators that assess the degree of meaningful integration of traditional ecological knowledge (Traditional and Local

Knowledge) in the Arctic Council. The Protection of Arctic Marine Ecosystems report,

Meaningful Engagement of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities in Marine Activities

(2017), understands meaningful engagement as a full representation of Indigenous points of view in the databases and reviews (PAME, 2007).

In order to analyze data, it is necessary to apply qualitative/quantitative methodology to measure the degree of TEK incorporation. The PILAC indicators are based on qualitative methodology, which suggests the use of content analysis of textual information. Content analysis is a method of analyzing the content of written documents, transcripts, and other types of written communication (McNabb, 2004).

Most TEK projects, reports and assessments include qualitative textual documentation as opposite to statistical data. This happens because of the foundation of TEK, which is often local—not systematized and universal (Sillitoe, Dixon & Barr, 2005). TEK data is also oral, intuitive, holistic, subjective and experiential (Sillitoe, Dixon & Barr, 2005).

The PILAC scale utilizes five indicators:

• Indicator P – Use of participatory methods while working with Indigenous communities;

• Indicator I – The use of Indigenous methodologies;

• Indicator L – Recognition of localized nature of TEK;

• Indicator A – The application of TEK to wildlife management;

• Indicator C – Cross-cultural communication in research studies.

This dissertation develops the guide for using this evaluation scale. The following tables demonstrate how to apply each of these indicators to the AC documents. Each of these indicators was identified and developed based on personal interviews and academic literature. The interviews helped to recognize the gaps if TEK research, and what factors lead to “lip service.”

The Structure of the Dissertation

The project has the following goals: to investigate why the AC failed to incorporate TEK

into its work by applying the theoretical model to the case study; to present the innovative

PILAC model that measures incorporation of TEK into science and policy (PILAC); to apply this

scale to the Arctic Council TEK projects and analyze the outcomes; and to present the future

scenarios of TEK incorporation in the AC.

Chapter 2 explains the theoretical assumptions about the process of knowledge

production at the international level. In this chapter, the study examines the interactions between

state and non-state actors in knowledge production and the role of non-state actors (epistemic

communities and knowledge brokers) as information providers. Chapters 3 and 4 present a

literature review of topics on traditional ecological knowledge, comanagement regimes, the

Arctic policy strategies in eight countries, and national legislation on TEK. In these chapters, I identify significant gaps in the research on TEK in the Arctic region, which includes a noticeable

gap in the academic literature regarding the political status of Permanent Participants in the

Council, as well as the character of their relations with the governments of their countries. There

is also a literature gap in terms of the comparisons, or lack thereof, between comanagement boards in North America, Russia and Nordic countries. The literature is also lacking studies that could explain why Canada has been dominant in the AC, and why other powerful states (i.e.,

Russia and the US) did not promote their perceptions of TEK in the Arctic Council.

Chapter 4 also points out that the Arctic research has a lack of meaningful comparisons among the various Arctic Indigeneities (e.g., the identities of the Saami and the Russian

Aboriginals as an example). Furthermore, Chapter 4 discovers that it is only in North America, and particularly in Canada, that the community-based regime of wildlife resources that incorporates TEK into a decision-making process has been significantly politicized and

Indigenized. Finally, Chapters 3 and 4 showed that there are many gaps in the understanding of

TEK, and these gaps often lead to “lip service.” Lip service means to say that one may agree with something, but nothing is done to support it (Cambridge Dictionary website, 2018). lip service occurs in this context when TEK is only nominally included in scientific research projects without being meaningfully incorporated in these studies. The issues with lip service and

TEK in the AC become problematic because on paper—in theory—TEK is incorporated into the

AC documents. By being constantly present in TEK projects, lip service is hiding the variety of challenges related to the incorporation of TEK in Western science. Challenges of TEK incorporation include the lack of consultation with Indigenous knowledge holders, distillation and compartmentalization of TEK, and the methodological differences between scientific and traditional knowledges (Nadasdy, 1999; Houde, 2007).

Chapter 3 suggests the use of the PILAC evaluation scale that measures the extent of the

incorporation of TEK into the AC documents. The objective of the PILAC evaluation scale is to introduce indicators that assess the degree of meaningful integration of traditional ecological knowledge (Traditional and Local Knowledge) in the Arctic Council reports by using content analysis and applying PILAC indicators to the content analysis. It also provides research questions and hypotheses on the incorporation of TEK in the AC work. The research question of this chapter is: How has the Arctic Council incorporated traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) into its work? Is it “lip service,” or is it meaningful?

Chapter 5 sets up the following three hypotheses: the inclusion of TEK into the AC work resulted in a lack of understanding of what TEK is and how to organize the process of its integration into Western science (“lip service”). Lip service occurs when the incorporation of

TEK is hypocritical and unsupported by real action. Not only does this situation result in the lack of meaningful incorporation of TEK into the AC studies, but also hides the epistemological and methodological challenges related to knowledge coproduction. The inclusion of Permanent

Participants into the AC work helped to incorporate TEK into the AC work in a more meaningful way. Permanent Participants are, in fact, Indigenous intergovernmental organizations that have close cultural, ethnic and linguistic connections to Indigenous communities. Permanent

Participants were considered the primary source of TEK (Arctic Council, 2007). The Canadian-

led projects in the AC incorporated TEK into a more successful and meaningful way.

Chapter 6 evaluates to what degree TEK has been and has not been incorporated into the

AC work. This is a major contribution of this dissertation. In Chapter 6, the study analyzes the

Working Groups and Senior Arctic Officials meeting minutes, the AC declarations and WG and

PP reports. The study applies the PILAC scale to the AC reports and assessments to test the

14 hypotheses. In addition to the application of the PILAC, Chapter 7 also provides an analysis of meeting minutes to investigate the nature of the discussions on TEK in the Arctic Council. The outcomes of the analysis of the Working Groups reports and the Permanent Participants reports are compared to each other to test the second hypothesis. Chapter 7 argues that the AC has been experiencing ups and downs in TEK incorporation, the PPs were more successful in the incorporation of TEK, and that Canadian-led projects on TEK did not dominate in TEK incorporation in the AC. This chapter also answers the question of why TEK has or has not been incorporated into the work of the AC.

In Chapter 8, the study discusses the implications of the results of reports and assessment analyses. Using the data from interviews and academic material, this study explains the outcomes of the analysis. Chapter 8 argues that TEK has always been highly politicized in the

Arctic Council because of the recognition of the value of TEK contributions to Indigenous empowerment and its role in Indigenous communities becoming a part of decision-making processes. It also discovers that the Permanent Participants can advocate for TEK, yet they are financially restricted. Politicization is the process whereby politicians are inclined to respond to issues based on perceived public opinion and whereby policy is determined more in accordance with political imperative than evidence and rationality (Goldson, 2008). Power relations between the governments and Indigenous peoples play a significant role in the integration of TEK in the

Arctic because the governments do not express much trust and understanding towards their traditional ways of subsistence and their methods of regulating natural resources. Furthermore,

Indigenous communities often do not trust governments. Lastly, Chapter 8 applies the theoretical model based on social constructivism in order to analyze to what extent the interactions between

knowledge brokers, epistemic communities and SAOs affected the process of TEK incorporation

and caused lip service.

Chapter 8 also discovers that there is a tension between TEK and Western science in the

Arctic Council. Why is there still scientific resistance towards TEK? Some scientists still hold prejudice towards TEK. Western science is much more recognized than TEK, and this fact

creates inequality between these two types of knowledge. Biological scientists and natural

resource managers tend to dismiss traditional knowledge (Berkes, 1993). Many Western

scientists question the validity of TEK and consider TEK a pre-logical, irrational and curiosity-

driven type of inquiry (Berkes, 1993).

In the concluding section of the study, the general conclusions of the study are provided

in the broader context of IR, which suggest the following points:

- State diversity in the perception of certain concepts and issues could result in lip service.

The diversity of conceptual perception and the lack of universal understanding of some of

the concepts at the international level could negatively affect the emergence of the

common regime of international cooperation on some specific issues, for example,

gender and sexuality studies;

- The politicization of subjugated knowledge could turn the discussion into a heated topic,

where the real subject and actual political measures could easily be replaced by

simplified performative actions;

- Under the conditions of a lack of conceptual understanding, conceptual diversity, and

increased politicization in international cooperation, even those actors who are expected

to provide the expertise on issues under discussion cannot avoid paying lip service and

can also be trapped into pursuing their own political agendas;

- Any alternative knowledge systems, other than authorized knowledge, are predestined to

match the principles and outcomes of Western science.

The conclusion also suggests scenarios on the future of incorporation of TEK into science

and policy in the AC: lip service, oblivion and deconstruction. The first scenario, Lip Service, could lead to the situation where, with a few exceptions similar to Arctic Climate Impact

Assessment, TEK would still be mentioned in reports and assessments, but it would not be meaningfully incorporated. The second scenario, “Oblivion,” means that the necessity to

integrate TEK under the conditions of constant frustration might result in a situation whereby

TEK will be forgotten in the future.

The third and the last scenario, “Deconstruction of TEK,” might lead to meaningful incorporation of TEK under certain conditions. These conditions include: recognition of

Indigenous communities as separate nations with their knowledges, cultures, histories, and languages; the greater inclusion of Eurasian and Scandinavian experiences of TEK holders; the utilization of TEK with the use of Indigenous methodologies, instead of “Indigenizing” Western science; and the inclusion of local non-Indigenous knowledges (e.g., the knowledge of the Pomor

people).

Chapter 2. Theoretical IR Perspectives on the Knowledge Production Process

This chapter will analyze the discussion in the literature on theoretical perspectives of

international relations regarding the interactions between actors in the knowledge production

process. By discovering the gaps in the current literature, the chapter identifies themes and

concepts in IR literature on knowledge production that had been neglected by scholars and needs

further research. Before approaching the research question, this chapter will lay out the IR

regime basis. It is crucial to investigate the theoretical foundations of the discussion on TEK in international cooperation in the Arctic before starting the actual analysis.

The Discussion of TEK in the AC from International Relations Perspectives

How is a knowledge production process organized in an anarchic environment? This

section examines the discussion of the IR theoretical perspectives on the interactions between

actors in knowledge production at the international level. The IR literature portrays states as the

most powerful actors in international cooperation. As Krasner (1999) points out, international

institutions operate in a fluid environment with no constitutive rules that preclude rulers from

contracting to establish institutional forms that might serve their interests (Krasner, 1999). In a

contested environment of international relations, powerful actors have often violated the concept

of Westphalian sovereignty by using the instruments of conventions, contracts, coercion, and

imposition. The difference in national power and interests leads to the most powerful states

violating the right of sovereign states to exclude any external authorities in their territories.

Because of the actions of more powerful actors in international politics, the conception of

Westphalian sovereignty has become an “organized hypocrisy” because international principles and norms are frequently violated by powerful rulers (Krasner, 1999). Thus, despite the cooperation facilitated by international institutions, states—particularly powerful ones—still promote their agendas and interests at the international level.

Krasner’s argument about the presence of ‘organized hypocrisy’ in international politics is also supported by Goldsmith and Posner (2005), who express their pessimism about how international law works in reality. As they both argue, international law emerges from states acting rationally to maximize their interests. The rules and norms are not as much determined by international cooperation as by the configuration of state interests, the distribution of state power, the logic of collective action, and asymmetric information. Moreover, powerful states use international law to legally justify their actions in world politics (Goldsmith and Posner, 2005).

Hence, powerful states often do not only take advantage of their power, but also use international institutions to achieve justification for their actions.

According to the literature, the presence of transnational actors such as international

Indigenous organizations in world politics can or cannot affect the meaning of concepts such as

TEK. Keohane & Nye (1977) are quite optimistic about the capacity of transnational actors to influence domestic politics; they argue that transnational organizations could potentially challenge the governments in some policy areas, and therefore, in this case, they play the role of opposition against a host government. The home government policies and views about particular issues could also be a reason for the differences in views of transnational organizations and a host government (p. xvii-xxii).

Risse-Kappen (1999) argues that the capacity of transnational actors to gain access to political systems depends on the state’s structure. The more the state is centralized, the less

access transnational actors have to penetrate domestic structures. Besides domestic structures,

the transnational influence on state politics can vary depending on the degree of international

institutionalization, the extent to which is the specific issue is regulated by bilateral agreements,

multilateral regimes, and/or international organizations (Risse-Kappen, 1999, p. 6). Thus, the capacity of transnational actors to affect states’ domestic policies varies from country to country.

However, Krasner (1999) is not as optimistic about the impact of transnational actors on domestic politics. According to him, state power is very relevant in transnational relations, and it affects interactions in two ways: 1) the more powerful states set the basic rules and define the environment within which transnationals must function; 2) if states are understood as actors, then the relative capabilities of states and transnational actors determine the outcome of specific disputes (Krasner, 1999). In the context of knowledge production, states can determine which knowledge is authorized. Transnational actors do not have enough influence to challenge state views.

The process of knowledge production in IR is also nuanced and strongly affected by powerful states. Finnemore & Sikkink (1998) argue that powerful groups play a significant role

in the social construction of ideas and interests by creating intersubjective meanings of concepts.

International organizations, in this regard, must persuade powerful states to change their behavior. IGOs and NGOs provide a lot of information and expertise on important issues

(Finnemore & Sikkink, 1998). As Finnemore & Sikkink (1998) note, the role of international

institutions is to challenge state views on particular issues, and whether the issue is good,

appropriate and deserving of praise. These persuasive strategies often involve affect, empathy,

principles and moral beliefs (Finnemore & Sikkink, 1998).

To what extent can transnational interactions influence the behavior of states and their interests? Haas (1992b) argues that interactions between the states involve a high degree of uncertainty that tends to stimulate demands for information (Haas, 1992b). In this regard, epistemic communities exist to meet state demands for information under the conditions of uncertainty in an anarchic environment (Haas, 1992b). An epistemic community is “a network of professionals with recognized expertise and competence in a particular domain and an authoritative claim to policy-relevant knowledge within that domain or issue-area.” (Haas,

1992a, p. 3). Haas argues, for example, the ecological epistemic community played a significant role in helping the government make policy decisions regarding ozone depletion and chlorofluorocarbons, which ultimately made the decision-making process more efficient to adopt and implement (Haas, 1992b). Hence, Haas states that epistemic communities could play a crucial role in the decision-making process by sharing their knowledge with policy-makers.

What are epistemic communities? Haas (1992b) notes that the term has more often been used to refer to scientific communities. Yet, it is not essential for epistemic communities to be made up of natural scientists. Haas (1992b) characterizes epistemic communities as groups that share intersubjective understanding; have shared ways of knowing; have shared patters of reasoning; have a policy project drawing on shared values; share casual beliefs; the use of shared discursive practices; and a shared commitment to the application and production of knowledge

(Haas, 1992b). Therefore, epistemic communities do not only have shared intersubjective understandings of policy issues but also a common policy enterprise as a set of common practices associated with a set of common problems (Haas, 1992b). Thus, epistemic communities might be different depending on the policy program; there are groups of natural scientists,

physicists, political scientists or members of other disciplines that can provide expertise on

particular topics.

Haas (1992b) argues that epistemic communities can influence state interests by directly recognizing them for policy-makers or by highlighting the salient dimensions of an issue from which the decision-makers may then deduce their interests. Epistemic communities may also contribute to the creation and maintenance of social institutions that guide international behavior

(Haas, 1992b). Therefore, Haas views epistemic communities as information providers that may influence state interests in an international environment. This is how transnational actors can affect knowledge production process.

Litfin (1995), on the other hand, critiques the model of epistemic communities by pointing out that environmental problems are discursive phenomena. By their discursive nature, environmental issues are contested knowledge claims, and they are negotiated under the conditions of uncertainty and ecological interdependence. In other words, the participants of the environmental dialogue struggle over the right meanings, essentially “…no meanings are ontologically fixed.” (Litfin, 1995, p. 254). Because scientists are unable to provide value-free and objective knowledge, science is always framed by knowledge brokers (Litfin, 1995). In response to Haas’ example of the ozone regime, Litfin points out that the discussion was, in fact, framed by the discovery of the Antarctic ozone hole, which played a significant role in the negotiations for the ozone treaty (Litfin, 1995). Discourse is thus important during the negotiations; moreover, the framing of particular problem or topic during the international discussion could significantly affect the political outcome (Litfin, 1995). Knowledge brokers are intermediaries between scientists and policy-makers; they translate the information and suggest interpretations of it. Scientists do not play the central role in international regimes, as Haas

suggested—they simply provide data that needs to be framed by brokers (Litfin, 1995).

Therefore, Litfin introduces her own concept of knowledge brokers as opposed to the concept of

epistemic communities suggested by Haas. In comparison with epistemic communities,

knowledge brokers do not just share technical knowledge with policy-makers, but they also interpret and translate the information. Knowledge brokers frame the data so policy-makers can better understand the data. Unlike epistemic communities, knowledge brokers are not knowledge producers, but rather, knowledge translators. Knowledge brokers are experts, not active in research, who may work for government agencies, industry or NGOs. Their influence in policy- making is to set the terms of the discourse (Litfin, 1995). Knowledge brokers do not come from the position of authority, but as intermediaries between science and policy. Knowledge brokers take advantage of the “window of opportunity,” when there is a situation of scientific uncertainty with a lack of, or only a loosely defined, scientific consensus within the scientific community and where policy-makers have to situate themselves in a landscape of conflicting advice from scientists (Litfin, 1995). Therefore, knowledge brokers can serve as intermediaries between epistemic communities and policy-makers. They do not produce knowledge; they interpret it for decision-makers. In the context of this dissertation, the IR literature puts an emphasis on the role of non-state actors that play significant roles in the processes of knowledge production and coproduction. States have the most power in global and regional affairs (Krasner, 1999;

Goldsmith and Posner, 2005), yet states still need information from experts about policy issues

(Haas, 1992). Transnational actors, such as international institutions, still have a significant capacity to affect state interests (Finnemore & Sikkink, 1998; Keohane & Nye, 1977; Risse-

Kappen, 1999). There are two channels that can affect state interests by defining policy issues: epistemic communities that provide information for policy-makers (Haas, 1992) and knowledge

brokers who translate this information for policy-makers when the “window of opportunity” arises (Litfin, 1995).

The Gaps in the IR Theoretical Literature on Knowledge Production in International

Cooperation

The review of IR theoretical sources revealed there is a gap in the literature in the discussion of the role of non-state actors in knowledge production, and their influence on state interests and political agendas in this process. Some authors, such as Haas and Litfin, distinguish non-state actors like epistemic communities and knowledge brokers, who have separate identities and play different roles as information providers and interpreters. Although it is clear that knowledge brokers (information interpreters) and epistemic communities (information providers) are distinct by their nature, it is unclear how they interact with each other. The case study of the

AC in this regard can be a good example of the presence of knowledge brokers (Permanent

Participants) and epistemic communities (Working Groups) in regional environmental cooperation. How has the discussion of TEK in the AC been constructed by knowledge brokers and epistemic communities? This gap in the literature will be addressed in this dissertation.

Chapter 3. The Arctic Council Structure and Processes: The Role of TEK in the AC

This chapter will examine the author’s opinions about the Arctic Council’s structure and processes as well as the role of TEK in its work. How does the AC emerge as an intergovernmental organization, what is the structure of the AC, and what kind of processes arise in this IGO? In addition, how does the AC deal with TEK? This section analyzes the academic literature on the structure, development and evolution of the AC and the internal discussion of

TEK in the AC. The chapter will also focus on larger Permanent Participants (ICC, RAIPON,

Saami Council) and their perception of TEK. In the discussion in the section titled, “Permanent

Participants and TEK,” the study will discuss how the perceptions of TEK by PPs can be different depending on the historical and legal context of their countries of origin. This chapter is essential to understanding the internal processes within the AC, and the influence of the AC’s structure on the interactions between actors regarding TEK.

The Discussion of the Definition of TEK

The AC has some confusion about the correct usage of the term “traditional knowledge.”

As the analysis of the AC declarations revealed, there are many definitions of TEK: traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) (as used in this dissertation), traditional and local knowledge

(TLK), traditional knowledge and wisdom (TK & W); Indigenous knowledge (IK), traditional

Indigenous knowledge (TIK), traditional knowledge (TK) and other (Arctic Council website,

2020).

The AC Declarations (1998-2017) and the Discussion of TEK.

The Ottawa Declaration (Declaration on the Establishment of the Arctic Council) was signed in 1998. According to this declaration, the Arctic states recognized “traditional knowledge of the Indigenous people of the Arctic and their communities and took note of the importance and that of Arctic science and research to the collective understanding of the circumpolar Arctic.” (Arctic Council, 1996). The founding declaration also emphasized the importance of Indigenous participation in the negotiations to create the Arctic Council.

The four working groups established by the AEPS program (Arctic Marine Assessment

Programme, Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna, Protection of Arctic Marine Environment, and Emergency Prevention, Preparedness and Response), were integrated into the Arctic Council

(Arctic Council, 1996). Therefore, the Ottawa Declaration set up the integration of traditional knowledge into its Western understanding of science as one of the founding principles of the

Arctic Council. With the integration of the AEPS Working Groups into the AC structure, their projects on TEK have become part of the AC.

Similar to the Ottawa Declaration, the Iqaluit Declaration viewed TEK in the context of the importance of Indigenous participation in the Arctic Council. The Iqaluit Declaration was signed in 1998 in Ottawa, Canada on the first AC meeting in Iqaluit, Nunavut, Canada. The new

Sustainable Development Working Group was established, and this group was encouraged to take special note of proposals that reflect the importance of traditional and Indigenous knowledge and the perspectives of Indigenous communities in developing a sustainable future for the Arctic (Arctic Council, 1998, p. 2).

The Barrow Declaration did not directly mention TEK. On the Second Ministerial

Meeting of the Arctic Council, eight Arctic states signed the Barrow Declaration. The Barrow

Declaration requested the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment to evaluate and synthesize

knowledge on climate variability and change and increased ultraviolet radiation, and support

policy-making processes and the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

(Arctic Council, 2000, p. 2).

In the Inari Declaration, the Arctic states and PPs emphasized the incorporation of TEK

into the large AC reports, including the Arctic Human Development Report and the Arctic

Climate Impact Assessment. The Inari Declaration was signed in 2002 on the occasion of the

AC’s Third Ministerial Meeting in Inari, Finland. The declaration approved the Arctic Human

Development Report as a comprehensive knowledge base for the Arctic Council’s Sustainable

Development Programme and requested the use of traditional knowledge in this report (Arctic

Council, 2002). In the chapter “Climate Change,” the declaration welcomed the good progress of

the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA) and the progress in evaluating and synthesizing

knowledge on climate variability and change. The declaration noted the methodology of

incorporating Indigenous knowledge and perspectives into the ACIA (Arctic Council, 2002).

The recognition of the importance of TEK incorporation into science and policy was

incorporated into the Reykjavik Declaration (2004) and Salekhard Declaration (2006). The

Reykjavik Declaration welcomed the continuing contribution of Indigenous and traditional knowledge to research in the Arctic (Arctic Council, 2004). In the Biodiversity Conservation chapter, the declaration supported the continued cooperation with Indigenous peoples, the use of traditional knowledge of flora and fauna, and efforts toward community-based monitoring of the

Arctic’s living resources (Arctic Council, 2004).

The Salekhard Declaration welcomed the continued incorporation of Indigenous and traditional knowledge to research and culture in the Arctic. In the chapter titled Conservation of

Arctic Fauna and Flora, the declaration supported the cooperation with Indigenous peoples of the

Arctic, the contribution of their traditional knowledge of flora and fauna to the scientific

research, and encouraged further cooperation in the development of community-based

monitoring of the Arctic’s living resources (Arctic Council, 2006).

The Tromsø (2009) and Nuuk (2011) Declarations also acknowledged the significant contribution of TEK to the ongoing research in the Arctic, with a particular emphasis on the research on climate change. The Tromsø Declaration acknowledged that Indigenous communities in the Arctic were becoming leaders in using best available traditional and scientific knowledge to help understand and adapt to the challenges related to climate change and other challengers in their communities (Arctic Council, 2009). In the chapter titled Biodiversity,

the declaration emphasized the crucial role of Arctic Indigenous communities and their

traditional knowledge in conservation and sustainable use of biological resources (Arctic

Council, 2009).

The Nuuk Declaration stated that the use of Arctic Indigenous Peoples’ traditional

knowledge is crucial. Capacity-building initiatives in the planning and implementation of

measures to adapt to climate change were noted as essential (Arctic Council, 2011).

The Kiruna Declaration (2013) highlighted the role of TEK in sustainable development

in the Arctic by recognizing that the use of traditional and local knowledge is important for a

sustainable future in the Arctic. It should be noted that for the first time in the AC, it was decided

to develop recommendations to integrate traditional and local knowledge in the work of the AC

(Arctic Council, 2013).

The Iqaluit Declaration emphasized the role played by Arctic Indigenous peoples and

their traditional knowledge in the AC. Similar to the Kiruna Declaration, the Iqaluit Declaration

welcomed the recommendations on traditional and local knowledge and recognized the

importance of using this knowledge in the work of the Council (Arctic Council, 2015). It is also

important to note that the work done by the PPs to develop their own principles for the use of

traditional knowledge was appreciated (Arctic Council, 2015). Hence, PPs were given the chance

to share their own views on TEK incorporation. The Iqaluit Declaration also recognized the

importance of scientific assessments and projections to informed decision-making in the Arctic,

in addition to incorporating traditional and local knowledge (Arctic Council, 2015).

The most recent Fairbanks Declaration recognized the importance of scientific assessments and projections to informed decision-making in the Arctic, also incorporating traditional and local knowledge and the reliance of Arctic biodiversity and inhabitants on the availability of freshwater (Arctic Council, 2017).

Hence, there is no consensus about TEK in the Arctic Council. Yet, there is no universally accepted definition of TEK in academia in general, because the words “traditional and ecological knowledge” are ambiguous (Berkes, 1999). The lack of consensus regarding the terminology of TEK is not only an issue with the Arctic Council, but rather an issue related to

TEK as a general concept. In a more recent publication, Sillitoe, Dixon, and Barr (2005) noted that TEK literature suggests a variety of terms such as rural people’s knowledge, Indigenous technical knowledge, traditional environmental knowledge, and local agricultural knowledge.

They suggest that Indigenous knowledge has been the term with the widest currency in contemporary development debates (Sillitoe, Dixon, & Barr, 2005). The term “traditional” has a negative connotation, as often denoted in the 19th-century attitudes of a simple, “savage” and static people, which is why some scholars prefer using the term “Indigenous” instead of

“traditional” (Berkes, 1999, p. 5).

The changes from the AEPS to the Arctic Council resulted in more and more prominence

to Indigenous questions (Keskitalo, 2004, p. 161). She states that the Arctic region has been

framed as an environmental and traditional Indigenous area (Keskitalo, 2004). According to

Keskitalo (2004), Canada and ICC played a crucial role in giving Indigenous actors an important

role in early AC proposals. CAFF was developed to include a focus on TEK (Keskitalo, 2004).

Hence, since the beginning of the development of Arctic Council, TEK has been promoted as an

important issue for Indigenous actors. Consequently, the reason the discussion on TEK, despite

its many challenges, is still prevalent in the Arctic Council is due to the connection of TEK to

Indigeneity, which changes the conversation into a political discussion related to decolonization and Indigenous empowerment. The use of TEK is political because it threatens to change the balance of power between Indigenous groups on the one hand versus governments, developers, and conventional resource management scientists on the other (Berkes, 1999, p. 173).

How has the discussion of TEK in the AC become politicized? The literature review indicates that the Arctic Council was created as an outcome of the idea of the regional

cooperation on the protection of the natural environment that emerged at the end of and after the

Cold War. According to Young (1992), the development of the AEPS was a region-wide

initiative. In 1989, Finland pointed out that there was a lack of international regime on

environmental monitoring and protection of the Arctic (AMAP website, 2018). The Arctic had

often been perceived as a pristine area, whereas the region had already been suffering from

pollutants (AMAP website, 2018). Keskitalo (2004) argues that the AEPS proposal was made in

the context of the environmental crisis, including transboundary pollution and ecological

deterioration. The other Arctic states, including Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, the

former USSR, and the US, supported the idea to hold a conference on the Arctic environment as

suggested by the Finnish government (AMAP website, 2018).

Although the Arctic Council was established in 1996, initiation meetings on the

protection of the Arctic environment started in 1989 (Arctic Council website, 2018). The primary

outcome of these meetings was the adoption of the Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy

(AEPS) in 1991 (Arctic Council website, 2018). The AEPS’s objectives included the provision to “provide that Indigenous perspectives, values, and practices be fully accommodated.” (cited in

English, 2013, p. 130). As such, the AEPS did not only establish global environmental cooperation in the Arctic but also provided an opportunity for TEK to be incorporated into a policy-making process in the Arctic. As Young (1992) argues, unlike the Antarctic, the Arctic region has abundant common-pool resources, which is why the idea of power-sharing emerged.

Young (1992) also notes that the Arctic is a militarized region, and its concerns involve strategic interests as well as cultural, scientific and environmental issues. Thus, the idea of environmental governance in the Arctic has been affected by the presence of common-pool resources in the region. Keskitalo (2004) argues that due to environmental concerns, the Arctic cooperation was a regime-building organization, not an issue-focused institution.

According to Young (1992), before the mid-1980s, international cooperation on the protection of the Arctic nature was weak and not highly prioritized (AMAP website, 2018).

During the Cold War paralysis, the development of international relations in the Arctic seemed inconducive towards the emergence of regional cooperation. On the one side was the USSR, which was interested in the Arctic primarily as a defensive zone and as a naval base; on the other side stood the US, Canada, Iceland, Denmark, and Norway (the NATO states), which were mostly concerned about any potential Soviet threats to Europe (Young, 1992). Finland and

Sweden stayed neutral (Young, 1992). In the 1980s, the Arctic emerged as an attractive

deployment zone for strategic weapons systems, including nuclear-powered submarines (Young,

1992).

The progressive change in the political climate caused by the Gorbachev’s "Murmansk

Initiative" in 1987 shifted the focus from the military-strategic importance of the Arctic to environmental cooperation (Gorbachev, 1987). Gorbachev called for “an integrated, comprehensive plan for protecting the natural environment of the north.” (cited in English, 2013, p. 107). Keskitalo (2004) states that Gorbachev’s speech invited Arctic states to collaborate despite the Cold War conflict. Gorbachev called for the establishment of the Arctic zone of peace, but he also suggested a six-point program of cooperation encompassing both civil and military initiatives (Young, 1992). According to Young (1992), Murmansk’s speech led to a series of steps toward international cooperation (Young, 1992). Specific developments caused a variety of initiatives that are region-wide (the Arctic Environmental Protection Agreement), subregional in scope (the Finnish/Norwegian/Soviet cooperation agreement on pollution in

Fennoscandia), and bilateral in character (e.g., Soviet/American agreements regarding the Bering

Sea) (Young, 1992). Since the end of the Cold War, the Arctic region has experienced a dramatic shift from the status of a military theatre of operations involving a strategic weapons system to a range of initiatives toward transnational cooperation (Young, 2005). The end of the Cold War resulted at the beginning of international cooperation on environmental and Indigenous issues, which opened the table for discussions on TEK.

The end of the Cold War positively affected the regional cooperation in the Arctic.

Keskitalo (2004) notes that Finland initiated the adoption of the Declaration of the Protection of

the Arctic Environment, and it was an outcome of the diminished power of the Soviet Union. The

First Consultative Meeting on the Protection of the Arctic Environment was initiated by the

Finnish government and was held in Rovaniemi, Finland in September 1991 (AEPS, 1991). After two follow-up meetings in Yellowknife, Canada in 1990 and Kiruna, Sweden in 1991, the Arctic states signed the Declaration of the Protection of the Arctic Environment (AEPS, 1991).

Young (1992) sees the Arctic as an area in which to experiment with innovative forms of an international organization that would be open to participation on the part of national governments, subnational governments and NGOs. English (2013) points out that the establishment of the AC was entirely a Canadian idea. In November 1989, the Prime Minister of

Canada, Brian Mulroney, visited the USSR, and in Leningrad, he gave a speech about the need for bilateral cooperation between the Soviet Union and Canada (English, 2013, p. 125).

Mulroney stated that the Arctic should have an intergovernmental organization that would unite the Arctic states to coordinate and promote cooperation among them (English, 2013): “And why not a council of Arctic countries eventually coming into existence to coordinate and promote cooperation among them?” (Mulroney, cited in Griffiths & Kuptana, 1991, iii).

Along with Finland, Canada was incredibly supportive of the AEPS initiative (English,

2003). English (2003) notes that during the 1980s, Canada was quite concerned about the high level of organic pollutants in the Canadian North. Hence, according to the authors, Canada was the country that proposed an Arctic Council (English, 2013; Young, 1992). The Canadian idea of intergovernmental organization was inspired by Gorbachev’s Murmansk speech in October

1987, which called for the Arctic to become a “zone of peace,” opening opportunities for political, economic, and environmental agendas previously subordinated to national security interests (Lackenbauer, 2019, p. iii).

Hence, the literature suggests that Canada proposed the idea of the Arctic Council’s because it was interested in pursuing opportunities beyond security issues in the Arctic region.

The discussion of this strategy involved not only the Arctic states, but also Arctic Indigenous peoples (AEPS, 1991). The government officials from the Canadian Department of Indian and

Northern Development (DIAND), such as Garth Bangay, were closely involved in the process of negotiations on the AEPS (English, 2013). The DIAND officials favoured broader Indigenous participation in environmental cooperation in the Arctic (English, 2013). Furthermore, in 1990, prior to the adoption of the AEPS, the Inuit Circumpolar Council participated as an observer in the Yellowknife Conference on “Protecting the Arctic Environment” (English, 2013). During the closed meeting at the conference, Mary Simon, the head of the ICC, expressed her opinion that

Indigenous voices were missing at the table (English, 2013). As English notes, from that moment, the ICC moved closer to the Canadian diplomatic table (English, 2003). The heads of the delegation agreed that ICC representatives could sit at the table with the diplomats except at the meeting of the heads of the delegation. It was a historical moment when Indigenous representatives were included in the discussion (English, 2013). Thus, the Yellowknife conference in 1990 was the turning point in Arctic cooperation, when the Arctic Indigenous peoples were allowed to discuss issues with governmental officials. The inclusion of Indigenous organizations to the AEPS provided the foundation for the emergence of Permanent Participants into the Arctic Council.

The Finns were mostly interested in the protection of the northern environment, and

Canada was strongly supportive of Arctic governance and the establishment of the Arctic

Council (English, 2013; Keskitalo, 2004). The AEPS recognized the growing sensitivity of the

Arctic environment to pollution as well as the necessity to protect the fragile environment in the

region. (AEPS, 1991).

According to Keskitalo (2004), AEPS reflected the Finnish foreign policy approach with

a focus on transboundary pollution as well as a Canadian emphasis on peoples with a traditional

relationship to the environment. Hence, AEPS is a compromise between the Finnish

environment-based approach and Canadian perceptions of the Arctic (Keskitalo, 2004). AEPS is

not an outcome of a coherent and systematic design, and it was strongly affected by the states’

views (Keskitalo, 2004).

The AEPS Working Groups and the Discussion of TEK

The discussion on TEK started with the establishment of the Arctic Environmental

Protection Strategy (AEPS) in 1991, the predecessor of the Arctic Council. The AEPS was predominantly a scientific organization, which overwhelmingly consisted of natural scientists;

the working groups were active in scientific work and they often provided generous funding

(English, 2003). As an outcome of the Declaration on the Protection of the Arctic Environment

(1991), four working groups were created for the purpose of implementing the AEPS. The Arctic

Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP) was established to monitor the levels of

pollutants in the Arctic environment. According to English (2003), AMAP was Norwegian- supported, and at its beginning, it was the only working group that functioned well (English,

2003). The Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment (PAME) Working Group was set up to take preventive and other initiatives regarding marine pollution in the Arctic. PAME, as English notes (2003) floundered, because its subject matter was roiled in controversy, featuring pitched battles between environmentalists and Indigenous peoples over the harvesting of seals, whales,

and other aquatic life. English (2003) states: “[T]he lesson was clear for working group

35 management: politics were dangerous, ‘pure science’ was preferable.” (p. 197). The Emergency

Prevention, Preparedness and Response (EPPR) Working Group was organized to provide a framework for future cooperation in responding to the threat of environmental emergencies.

According to English (2003), EPPR clearly overlapped with military interests in the Arctic; the

Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF) Working Group was created to facilitate the exchange of the information and coordination of research on species and habitats of flora and fauna (Declaration on the Protection of the Arctic Environment, 1991, p. 2-3). English (2003) states that CAFF was active but lacked the institutional and financial support of AMAP. The

Task Force on Sustainable Development and Utilization (TFSDU) was expected to be focused on

1) identification of the goals and principles of sustainable development in the Arctic; 2) opportunities to enhance Indigenous peoples’ economies and to improve the economic, social, and environmental conditions of Arctic communities; 3) issues and problems presented to the conservation, sustainable use and protection of Arctic flora and fauna; the need for new knowledge, ways of facilitating communication and the sharing of information concerning the application of new or proven technologies and management practices (Tennberg, 2000). The

Sustainable Development Working Group (SDWG) replaced TFSDU in 1998 (Koivurova &

Hasanat, 2009).

The AEPS was predominantly a scientific organization because many scientists were suspicious of Indigenous oral traditions and Indigenous methodologies. There was also a lack of funding for Indigenous participants (English, 2003). Yet, the Indigenous representatives promoted the argument for the inclusion of TEK at the ministerial meetings (English, 2003). At the opening of the AEPS seminar on TEK, many participants emphasized that the issue was not

“integration but partnership” (Hansen, 1994, cited in Tennberg, 2000). Therefore, since the

discussion of TEK in the AEPS, Indigenous peoples suggested the idea of equality of Western

science and TEK through the coproduction of knowledge and incorporation of TEK.

According to Young (1998), AMAP was the most ambitious among all AEPS working

groups. It was modeled on European Monitoring and Evaluation Programme, a monitoring

mechanism that played a key role in the development of the European air pollution regime over

the last two decades. AMAP was the most visible programme and was supposed to contribute to

learning about the nature of the Arctic’s environmental problems (Young, 1998). CAFF was

initiated by Canadians and has been dealing with issues involving protected areas, the application

of global initiatives regarding biodiversity and the role of TEK (Young, 1998). EPPR has been

focused on concerns about the dangers of oil spills under Arctic conditions. PAME has been

addressing the Arctic’s marine environment. In 1995, a Task Force on Sustainable Development

and Utilization (TFSDU) was created, and it was upgraded to the status of a fully-fledged

working group in March 1996 (Young, 1998). In 1998, TFSDU was replaced by SDWG

(Koivurova & Hasanat, 2009). According to Koivurova (2009), TFSDU had in its agenda more

high-level and controversial sustainable development issues that the SDWG eventually

addressed.

The Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme is one of six working groups of the

Arctic Council. AMAP is mandated to monitor and assess the status of the Arctic region with

respect to pollution and climate change issues; to document levels and trends, pathways and

processes, and effects on ecosystems and humans, and propose actions to reduce associated

threats for consideration by governments; to produce sound science-based, policy-relevant assessments and public outreach products to inform policy and decision-making processes

(AMAP website, 2019). Hence, AMAP goals and objectives are aimed to provide a scientific

assessment of ecological processes such as climate change and pollution in the Arctic region.

The EPPR Working Group was established with three other working groups (AMAP,

CAFF and PAME) as a part of the AEPS implementation. The EPPR is mandated to contribute

to the prevention, preparedness and response to environmental and other emergencies, accidents,

and Search and Rescue (SAR). The EPPR meets twice a year (Arctic Council website, 2019).

EPPR works with Arctic Council Working Groups and other organizations on projects and

activities including the development of guidance and risk assessment methodologies; coordination of response exercises and training; exchange of information on best practices with regards to the prevention, preparedness and response to accidents and threats from unintentional releases of pollutants and radionuclides, and to the consequences of natural disasters (Arctic

Council website, 2019).

The Sustainable Development Working Group was organized in 1998 as an outcome of

the declaration about the establishment of the Arctic Council (Ottawa Declaration). SDWG has

different priorities than its predecessor, the Task Force on Sustainable Development and

Utilization (TFSDU). The Sustainable Development Framework adopted in 2000 identified the

following priorities for SDWG, including health issues and well-being of the Arctic residents;

management of natural resources including living resources; sustainable economic activities;

education and cultural heritage; children and youth; and infrastructure development (Koivurova

& Hasanat, 2009, p. 62). The Ottawa Declaration called for the adoption of terms of reference

for a sustainable development program (Arctic Council website, 2018). In 1998, the Sustainable

Development Working Group was established (Arctic Council website, 2018).

According to Keskitalo (2003), TFSDU had three meetings before the establishment of the AC in 1996. The task force encountered conflicts in its agenda related to marine mammal issues. The conservation–utilization relationships regarding marine mammals were the most controversial. The Indigenous claims to environmental resources (fishing and hunting are allowed) confronted the environmental conservation agenda (no fishing/hunting are allowed)

(Keskitalo, 2004). The discussion on TEK was also involved, raising the conflict over the definition of traditional knowledge. “Indigenous” was later added to “traditional” in order to exclude “local” groups that might claim inclusion on the basis of traditional knowledge or a relationship to the environment (Keskitalo, 2004). Thus, TFSDU meetings raised the issue of the actual definition of TEK by attempting to determine if local non-Indigenous groups can possess this type of knowledge or not.

Overall, discussions involving TEK started in the Arctic prior to the establishment of the

Arctic Council. The main emphasis of these discussions concerned the question of the equality of

TEK with Western science. Yet, the incorporation of TEK was not often discussed because the

AEPS was predominantly a scientific organization.

After the 1993 Nuuk ministerial meeting of the AEPS, it was made clear that Indigenous organizations could participate in the meetings of Senior Arctic Affairs Officials (SAAO) and in the working groups (English, 2013). The Nuuk Declaration of the AEPS reflected the statements of the Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit relating to the vital role of Indigenous peoples in

“environmental management and development” and recognized RAIPON, the Saami Council and ICC as independent and Permanent Participants at the AEPS (English, 2013, p. 217). Walter

Slipchenko, the Canadian official, proposed the term to emphasize the many shadows between terms “observer” and a “participant.” Participants meant the presence of Indigenous

representatives at the table, with full access to discussions and documents (English, 2013). To

provide full consultation and involvement in the Arctic Council, Indigenous organizations,

including Aleut International Association, Arctic Athabaskan Council, Gwich’in Council

International, Inuit Circumpolar Council, Russian Association of Indigenous Peoples of the

North, and Saami Council, were named as Permanent Participants (Arctic Council, 1996).

The literature review suggests that the discussions of traditional ecological knowledge

(TEK) in the Arctic Council were strongly affected by the Council’s institutional structure.

Unlike other international organizations, the Arctic Council allowed international Indigenous organizations to participate in the discussion of political issues as Permanent Participants. The legal institutionalization of permanent participation in the Arctic Council led to a dramatic increase in the level of Indigenous participation in the Arctic. Even though Indigenous participants do not have the right to vote, they can still discuss political issues with state actors.

By having access to negotiations and working groups, Indigenous actors can directly affect the agenda-setting process and the design and implementation of the Arctic Council programs

(Wilson & Overland, 2007). Thus, Wilson & Overland argue that Indigenous participants

(Permanent Participants) in the Arctic Council are knowledge brokers, as they can participate in a decision-making process and provide their expertise on TEK.

The scholarly literature on the Arctic Council suggests that the possibility of Indigenous participation was actively discussed during the negotiations of the establishment of the Arctic

Council. While many Arctic states, including Finland, the US, Denmark, Canada, and Russia, encouraged Indigenous involvement from the beginning of international cooperation in the

Arctic, the institution of permanent participation of Indigenous representatives was mainly a

Canadian idea and the main Canadian concern at the same time (Tennberg, 2000, Nillson, 2009,

English, 2013, Keskitalo, 2004). Hence, Tennberg, Nillsson, English and Keskitalo suggest that

Canada was an agenda-setting actor as it insisted on the idea of Indigenous participation. In the

late 1980s, the Canadian Indigenous people, especially the Inuit leaders, were politically active

during the constitutional debates and land claims negotiations (English, 2013). Indigenous

activism in domestic politics in Canada at the end of the Cold War led to the Canadian

suggestion to include Indigenous peoples as more than mere observers, but as participants, by giving them full access to discussions and documents. The Canadian team also obtained strong support of the Inuit leader Mary Simon as a spokesperson to northern Indigenous groups in the

Arctic. After a few meetings with Indigenous communities and governmental officials, the draft declaration on the establishment of the council included international Indigenous organizations in the Arctic as Permanent Participants in the Arctic Council (English, 2013). Hence, English argues that the Canadian trends in domestic policy in the 1980s affected the discussion on

Indigenous engagement in the AC by giving international Indigenous organizations the right to sit at the same table with governmental officials.

The AEPS mentioned traditional knowledge and contribution of Indigenous communities to the Arctic a few times. According to AEPS, incorporating traditional knowledge and cultures of Indigenous peoples in the Strategy is an essential step for environmental protection (AEPS,

1991). In fact, one of the main objectives of AEPS is “to recognize and, to the extent possible, seek to accommodate the traditional and cultural needs, values and practices of the Indigenous peoples as determined by themselves, related to the protection of the Arctic environment.”

(AEPS, 1991, p. 4).

Tennberg (2000) suggests that the discussion of protection of the environment was closely tied to the incorporation of TEK. The principles of this strategy state that management

41 and planning activities in the Arctic region shall “take into account the results of scientific investigations and the traditional knowledge of Indigenous peoples.” (AEPS, 1991, p. 5). At last,

“the Actions” subchapter includes the exchange of experts, traditional knowledge, or other data to meet the intent of AEPS, which is the protection of Arctic’s natural environment (AEPS,

1991). The idea in the AEPS is that “knowledge is in people” (Huntington, cited in Tennberg,

2000, p. 63). In 1993, at the AEPS seminar in Nuuk, Greenland, it was recognized that there is

“an inseparable relationship’” between the utilization of living resources, conservation and the continuing vitality and utility of Indigenous knowledge. The AEPS identified TEK’s role as relevant to understanding the natural world and natural processes, including the role of humans in the environment (Tennberg, 2000, p. 63). Therefore, the AEPS seminar revealed that the utilization of TEK could help to protect the Arctic’s environment.

According to the literature, the Arctic Council gave the Indigenous peoples the opportunity to share their voices and include their opinions into the knowledge base. A formal role of Indigenous peoples as Permanent Participants allowed them to be involved in knowledge production (Nilsson, 2009, Tennberg, 2000). As Nilsson (2009) argues, the internal organization of the Arctic Council significantly influenced the definition of legitimate knowledge regarding climate change in the discussion of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA). Therefore,

Nilsson suggests that the establishment of the institution of Permanent Participants in the AC allowed Indigenous peoples to provide their input into knowledge production. Permanent

Participants obtained the chance to become epistemic communities in the AC.

The more recent literature suggests that the Arctic Council role has changed over time.

As Barry, Davidsdottir, Einarsson & Young (2020) state, although the AC originally focused on environmental protection and sustainability, it evolved into a forum addressing social, economic,

42 and cultural issues with regional and global implications. The evolution of the AC happened as an outcome of the Arctic increased interest and the pursuit of geopolitical agenda by the Arctic states (Barry, Davidsdottir, Einarsson & Young, 2020).

Wilson (2015) suggests three different visions of the role of the AC. According to the first vision, the AC is a non-legally binding society of and for Arctic states (Wilson, 2015). The second vision sees the AC as an indispensable institution for stewardship of the Arctic, in the sense of policing, respecting and caring for the natural environment. This idea was supported by academics such as Griffiths and Young (Wilson, 2015). The third vision reimagined the AC as a security actor, where security is understood in a broad sense, and the AC is perceived as a formal, regional institution (Wilson, 2015). The interplay between these three visions affects the development of the AC as a forum (Wilson, 2015).

Fenge (2012) views Arctic Indigenous nations as effective spokespersons internationally.

He states that they have made significant contributions to the AC, particularly in its moral standing. He also argues that PPs offered many case illustrations through sharing TEK (Fenge,

2012). He agrees that the political and economic context in which the Arctic states operate at this moment has significantly changed. The Arctic has become, as the Governing Council of the

United Nations (UN) Environmental Programme pointed out in 2003 and 2008, the globe’s environmental barometer (Fenge, 2012).

Nicol & Heininen (2014) argue that due to geopolitical and geoeconomic competition in the Arctic, the region has a tendency to re-colonize and re-marginalize its people. Indigenous groups still await the validation and authorization of their perspectives within state-centred institutions. The possible way to achieve larger Indigenous representation would be to open the

space for the inclusion of Indigenous discourse by emphasizing knowledge, identity, resilience

and people (Nicol & Heininen, 2014).

Knecht (2016) shares a similar opinion arguing that Indigenous representation is still

deficient, and it is necessary to debate Indigenous participation and the contribution of non-state actors in the AC. The Arctic states showed the highest records of participation across all Council meetings (Knecht, 2016).

Since the AEPS, Permanent Participants were expected to be experts in TEK and provide their input in TEK’s discussion. According to Haken Nilson’s report, Arctic Environmental

Strategy (AEPS) Process and Organization, 1991-1997, An Assessment (1997), Permanent

Participants’ input into the Working Groups tended to be focused on delivering and processing

Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) (Nilson, 1997, p. 8). Haken Nilson states: “By setting

priorities as to which Working Groups to focus on, by developing specific Indigenous

approaches to a buildup of knowledge, such as Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK), and by

careful selection of competent people, the Indigenous people’s organizations (IPOs) have in general gained a secure position both at the SAAO level and in the Working Groups as well.”

(Nilson, 1997, p. 37). He notes that the ICC led to promoting TEK and the development of TEK as a guiding concept for the use of Indigenous knowledge in the AEPS programs. TEK’s main application is to conduct research on nature, wildlife management, and environmental monitoring. In AMAP, ICC has played a role in developing the communications strategy, and in both AMAP and CAFF, elements related to TEK have been included (Nilson, 1997, p. 32).

Therefore, the expertise on TEK strengthened the PPs positions in the AEPS working groups.

However, despite the previous point, Nilsson argues that “a stronger emphasis on developing

expertise beyond the particular area of TEK could strengthen the IPOs standing within the

AEPS” (Nilson, 1997, p. 34).

Indigenous expertise does not quite fit Haas’ conception of “epistemic communities” because traditional ecological knowledge (TEK)—being primarily rooted in Indigenous practices, traditions, and observations—does not belong to a Euro-North American understanding of scientific knowledge (Goulet, 1998; Houde, 2007; Nadasdy, 2003; Spak, 2005;

Brook, M’Lot and McLachlan, 2006). Thus, Indigenous experts cannot be considered epistemic communities, but instead as knowledge brokers. The United Nations Brundtland Commission report identified TEK’s role as a potential source of insights for the conservation of biodiversity

(Menzies & Butler, 2006). While the local knowledge of Indigenous experts could be used to complement existing academic knowledge in the field of natural resource management (Bocking,

2004), Indigenous experts are not recognized as “authorized knowers” (Nadasdy, 2003).

Therefore, Nadasdy and Bocking view TEK as subjugated knowledge. Despite being valuable in wildlife management, TEK is often not recognized by “authorized knowers.”

The concept of knowledge brokers was also mentioned in the AC literature. Nilsson

(2009) used the case study of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA) to evaluate the role of Indigenous experts in international negotiations. Even though the ACIA is a soft-law agreement, it affected the understanding of climate change in the Arctic. The Arctic is no longer being seen as a “frozen desert,” but as a region that experienced a dramatic transformation process (Nilsson, 2009; Koivurova, 2008). By including Indigenous participants in the discussion of climate change in the Arctic, the Arctic Council changed the definition of legitimate knowledge. Nilsson (2009) argues that the negotiations on the ACIA are a telling example of how the institutional structure of the political organization can potentially change the conception

of “authorized knowledge.” However, Nilsson (2009) does not recognize Indigenous experts as

knowledge brokers. Instead, she refers on Arctic leaders Bert Bolin (founding chair of the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Robert Correll (chair of International

Arctic Science Committee (IASC) as significant drivers in the connection of global climate

science community with the policy-makers (Nilsson, 2009). However, not all authors are so

optimistic about the Indigenous participation in the work of the Arctic Council. Therefore,

Nilsson does not identify Permanent Participants as knowledge brokers. Instead, she refers to

scholars who played the role of knowledge brokers in the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment.

Though PPs could potentially be knowledge brokers, some authors argue that scientists

have more power than Indigenous organizations. English (2013) explains that the inclusion of

Indigenous peoples in the Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment (PAME) sparked a

debate between European ecologists and Indigenous groups over the harvesting of marine

animals. The Arctic Marine Assessment programme had some valuable Indigenous members, but

only a few (English, 2013). As English notes, working groups learned a lesson, “politics were

dangerous, ‘pure science’ was preferable” (English, 2013, p. 197). English admits that the

inclusion of Indigenous participants in scientific studies could result in a political debate.

The participation of PPs also affects the level of their contribution. Even though the role of Indigenous organizations in the PAME was quite modest, “the nature of cooperation within

PAME does not require the use of Indigenous peoples’ knowledge” (Lassig cited in Tennberg,

2000, p. 68). Thus, only Indigenous peoples’ presence was expected, not their active participation (Lassig, cited in Tennberg, 2000, p. 68). According to Tennberg (2000), Indigenous participation was also strongly influenced by funding. For example, the Inuit Circumpolar

Council (ICC) had more representation than other organizations, primarily because of the

funding provided by the governments of Canada and Denmark (Tennberg, 2000). As Shadian

and Tennberg demonstrate, the ICC, which plays a central role in Arctic governance, is a product

of the Canadian and Alaskan Inuit activism against the negative externalities of resource

extraction in their lands (Shadian, 2006; Tennberg, 2009). As such, Tennberg and Shadian

recognized that the AC has a severe issue with providing funding to Permanent Participants,

which could result in their capacity to participate in the AC meetings. Some PPs, such as the

ICC, have more funding opportunities than other PPs.

Because of the relatively strong power of the ICC and the Inuit leaders’ political activism, some authors assume that cooperation among the Inuit can re-examine the concept of

Westphalian sovereignty and even lead to the formation of collective political identity among the

Inuit (Shadian, 2010). According to Shadian (2010), the Inuit polity is “a post-Westphalian contemporary representation of political organization” (p. 502). However, despite the wide acknowledgement in the literature that the ICC has become the most powerful native organization, most authors still think that Indigenous actors in the Arctic do not act as separate agents. Tennberg (2009) claims that Indigenous organizations in the Arctic formed a political agency, which is based on power relations between states and Indigenous groups (Tennberg,

2009). Hence, Shadian views the ICC as an example of a post-Westphalian political organization, whereas Tennberg states that Indigenous organizations have close connections with their domestic governments.

The success of Indigenous organizations in global affairs in the Arctic did not lead to the exclusion of state actors; instead, it transformed the nature of state–Indigenous relations in the

Arctic (Tennberg, 2009). These relationships come in three necessary forms. The first, Tennberg

(2009) argues, was when Indigenous organizations obtained permanent participant statuses

instead of being involved as observer NGOs, which occurred during the establishment of the

Arctic Council. The second form occurred when Indigenous communities were identified not

only as victims of environmental threats in the Arctic, but also as experts on the Arctic natural

environment (Tennberg, 2009). Finally, when the discussion of topics other than environmental

concerns—such as the well-being of Indigenous communities—entered into the power relations

between states and Indigenous peoples in the Arctic (Tennberg, 2009). Thus, Tennberg assumes

that the inclusion of Permanent Participants into the AC changed the power dynamics between

the governments and Indigenous communities by giving the PPs the stronger voice in the

negotiations on environmental topics. According to Koivurova and Heinämäki (cited in Byers,

2013), Indigenous peoples’ limited capacity to influence political development in a more

influential led them to consider the international law in the Arctic as a political tool for the

achievement of their political objectives. Byers (2013) argues that trans-Indigenous relations in the Arctic gave them a unique opportunity to affect international law-making by bypassing their domestic governments. Therefore, Koivurova & Heinämäki and Byers state that Indigenous organizations received a powerful political tool that allows them to influence decisions made at the international level.

Despite having the status of Permanent Participants, Indigenous organizations are still entirely dependent on states legally and financially (Ingimundarson, 2014; Tennberg, 2000;

Wilson & Overland, 2007). There are many examples of tensions between states and native organizations and self-autonomies in the literature. In one case, the Russian government suspended the activities of the Russian Association of Indigenous Peoples of the North, Siberia, and Far East (RAIPON) in 2012. In another, the Greenlandic government boycotted the Arctic

Council because it did not receive the full access to the meeting in Kiruna, Sweden

(Ingimundarson, 2014; Byers, 2013). Therefore, the authors point out that despite having a special status, the PPs are still reliant on their domestic governments. As Loukacheva (2008) points out in her studies of Greenland and Nunavut, Indigenous internationalism is limited by the

principles and concepts of sovereignty, statehood and Indigenous rights on self-determination

(Loukacheva, 2008). Wilson & Overland (2007) argue that Indigenous groups and the Arctic

states are unequal in their participation. Although state actors may seem to be actively engaged

in discussion with Indigenous organizations, it is unlikely that states will consider Indigenous

interests (Wilson & Overland, 2007). Thus, state actors are still powerful enough to control their

own policy decisions, and the concept of Indigenous internationalism is not quite prevalent

because of sovereignty and statehood issues.

Overall, the AC’s literature indicates that the AEPS, the AC predecessor, was initiated by

Finland as a regional project on the protection of the natural environment in the Arctic (AEPS,

1991; English, 2013; Young, 1992). Gorbachev’s speech in Murmansk and the end of the Cold

War made a strong positive impact on the emergence of Arctic environmental cooperation

(English, 2013; Young, 1992).

Several authors point out that Canada proposed the establishment of the AC, emphasizing

the role of Indigenous organizations in its cooperation (English, 2013; Lackenbauer, 2019).

Canada strongly advocated for the inclusion of Indigenous peoples in a decision-making process

in the region (Tennberg, 2000; Nillson, 2009; English, 2013, Keskitalo, 2004). The incorporation

of traditional knowledge into environmental protection strategies has been promoted since the

establishment of the AEPS (Tennberg, 2000).

The literature also reveals that Indigenous organizations in the Arctic are strongly tied to

their states (Loukacheva, 2008, Tennberg, 2009; Ingimundarson, 2014). Even though their

opinions regarding specific issues could be neglected or debated by other members of working

groups (English, 2013; Tennberg, 2000), the status of Permanent Participants still gives them the

capacity to affect international politics in the Arctic (Shadian, 2010, Tennberg, 2009, Byers,

2013, Nillson, 2009, Koivurova, 2008). It is also clear in the literature that Canada has played the

leading role in the AC from the beginning of the Arctic cooperation (English, 2013; Keskitalo,

2003). Nilsson (2009) mentions the concept of knowledge brokers, applying it to Bob Corell,

who, along with Sheila Watt-Cloutier, advocated for recognizing climate change issues and its

impacts on the health and well-being of the Inuit communities.

Recently, the AC has evolved into a forum that is focused not only on environmental protection but also on social, cultural and economic issues within regional and global realms

((Barry, Davidsdottir, Einarsson & Young, 2020). The AC can be perceived from three separate visions: as a society of and for Arctic states, as an institution for stewardship, and as security actor (Wilson, 2015). From a global perspective, the Arctic has become a barometer of climate change (Fenge, 2012). The recent changes in the AC did not positively affect the incorporation of TEK. Re-colonization and re-marginalization have become prevalent in the Arctic, while

Indigenous participation in the AC remains low (Knecht, 2016; Nicol & Heininen, 2014).

NGO-Level Discussion on TEK in the Arctic Council

The power of NGOs and network organizations is even stronger in the era of technological progress. The ability to share information (especially ideologies, beliefs, opinions) is a source of attraction and power (Nye, 2004). High-speed Internet created a wonderful opportunity to share information that cuts across national borders (Nye, 2004)—even the remote areas of the Arctic have access to the global network. Hence, Indigenous NGOs have great

potential to become a powerful tool of public diplomacy and thus garner more influence in

discussions of TEK in the Arctic region.

As was discussed in Chapter 3, PPs play the role of knowledge brokers and scientists in

the Working Groups are epistemic communities. During the preparations of the Arctic Climate

Impact Assessment, the ICC and the scientific group that prepared the ACIA worked together.

During the work on the ACIA, Watt-Cloutier and Bob Corell visited a few global climate

change events, including a UN forum in Kenya, the World Summit on Sustainable Development

(2002), as well as a conference in Washington, D.C. (Watt-Cloutier, 2015). According to Watt-

Cloutier, Corell is “one of the best science communicators… [he] would present the research data… I would tell the human story.” (Watt-Cloutier, 2015, p. 204). In addition, some authors characterize Bob Corell, the ACIA chair, as a knowledge broker who connected Indigenous and scientific concerns (Nilsson, 2010). Robert Corell is one of the so-called knowledge brokers who

connect the interests of the global science climate community with Arctic cooperation. Thus,

having Corell’s support was particularly important for PPs (Nillsson, 2010). The ICC, in this

case, was also a knowledge broker by connecting to the Inuit communities in the Arctic and

interpreting their TEK for the ACIA report.

Therefore, it is not surprising that both Permanent Participants (led by the ICC) and some

scientists who support sustainability will act together. Within the AC, the PPs and scientists

organized the collaboration between epistemic communities and knowledge brokers. As was

discussed in Chapter 3, epistemic communities serve as channels through which consensual

knowledge comes to decision-makers (Haas, 1992). PPs as knowledge brokers serve as

intermediaries between the AC and remote Arctic Indigenous communities who produce

subjugated knowledge. Hence, the Arctic Council is an intergovernmental forum that allows for

an epistemic community of scientists and PPs as knowledge brokers to inform policy-makers

(nation-states) by giving them a body of knowledge, in this case, a merged model of TEK and

scientific data. There is a collaboration between epistemic communities and knowledge brokers

in the Arctic Council: the PPs and pro-sustainability scientists who argue for the model that

integrates TEK and science, and conservationists who wish to preserve nature at any cost.

According to Huebert (1998), during the debate on sustainability versus conservation in

the Arctic Council, Canada supported the Indigenous position, that of sustainability, whereas the

US delegation was on the side of the environmentalist groups, i.e., that of conservation (Huebert,

1998).

The Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy emphasized sustainable development in

the Arctic. The inclusion of sustainable development into the AEPS had a number of principles

influenced by Our Common Future and the Brundtland Report (Langhelle, Blindheim &

Oygarden, 2008). The World Commission defined sustainable development as “development that

meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet

their own needs.” (Langhelle, Blindheim & Oygarden, 2008). Unlike sustainability, the pro-

conservation position means untouched nature and wilderness, which also involves prohibiting

subsistence hunting for Indigenous communities (Mikkelsen et al., 2008). Conservationism is

more likely to be supported by American environmentalist organizations in Alaska that hold the

idea of a pristine wilderness (Mikkelsen et al., 2008).

The US has a different history of state–industry–Indigenous relationships. In the US

(Alaska), Northern Indigenous communities have had constant battles with environmentalists because of their differences in values (Standlea, 2006). Although some of their goals overlap,

Alaskan Natives and environmental activists have deep cultural differences that can be described

52 as subsistence against environmental preservationism (conservationism) (Standlea, 2006, p. 102).

As an Alaskan Native woman said, “For environmental groups it’s mostly about protecting at all costs, and for Native communities it really having respect for the environment.” (Mikkelsen et al., 2008, p. 168). The Gwich’in are fighting for their subsistence rights to continue to hunt caribou (Standley, 2006, p. 102).

The conception of TEK provided by the PPs during the ACIA discussion presented TEK as Indigenous knowledge. Meanwhile, some authors expressed their concern that in some parts of the Arctic, so-called Indigenous knowledge is not closely tied to the Indigenous peoples of the

North, but rather, with the experience of local communities who might not even be considered

Indigenous, for example, Norwegian fishermen, who have practiced traditional subsistence fishing for many centuries or Finnish reindeer herders. Thus, TEK should not be called

“traditional,” but rather, “local.” As Nilsson (2010) points out, the focus on Indigenous perspectives in ACIA led to the limitation of social and economic impacts that is not directly related to Indigenous communities. Therefore, this merged model of TEK/science excluded non-

Indigenous viewpoints of climate change. According to Nilsson (2010), the organization of knowledge that prioritized the viewpoints of Indigenous communities affected the discussion by focusing more on Indigenous issues rather than on the impacts of climate change on non-

Indigenous communities. Hence, due to the active role of PPs, the debate on climate change in the Arctic is less likely to consider the effects of global warming on non-Indigenous peoples.

Third, given the fact that there was an internal debate in the AC on sustainability versus conservation at the turn of the millennium (Huebert, 1998), the Arctic Council had at least two types of epistemic communities that had opposite views on environmental protection in the region. The first type of epistemic community was organized by the scientists who believe in

sustainable development and who were supported by the PPs, and the second community

consisted of environmental organizations who advocated for conservation/preservationalism

(Huebert, 1998; Haas, 1992).

In the US, pro-conservation environmentalist groups are stronger than supporters of

sustainability. Despite the activism of Native peoples in the Arctic Refuge debate, environmental

NGOs have had much more political power than Indigenous activists (Standlea, 2006, p. 103).

As Ganapathy (2008) mentions, both national and regional NGOs are better funded than any

local group of the Gwich’in activists. NGOs are also more active than Indigenous activists when

it comes to collaborating with the media, gathering the attention of the American public, and

lobbying for their interests in public policy (p. 210-211).

The problem is that both types of epistemic communities in the AC promoted

Westernized, North American-oriented, bureaucratized models of environmental policies.

Cruikshank (2004) recognizes two models: the TEK model and the environmentalist

(conservation) model. Both models are bureaucratized and encourage Indigenous peoples to convey information according to the established concepts and definitions. Both ultimately redefine Indigenous cultures in Western terms by projecting North American concerns as global

(Cruikshank, 2004).

The Discussion of Permanent Participants on TEK

This section provides an understanding of how the Permanent Participants have been able to develop themselves as Indigenous non-governmental organizations. I will focus on the major

Indigenous organizations: The Inuit Circumpolar Council, the Russian Association of Indigenous

Peoples of the Far North and Siberia, and the Saami Council. I will look at the dynamic of the

relationships between these main Indigenous organizations and Arctic states. I will then describe

how these PPs address the concept of traditional ecological knowledge.

The Inuit Circumpolar Council

The Inuit Circumpolar Council is the Arctic NGO that represents Inuit people from four

Arctic states: Canada, Russia, the US, and Greenland (Denmark). The Inuit Circumpolar

Conference (later renamed the Inuit Circumpolar Council) was created as a response to oil and

gas extraction in the Arctic (Grant, 2010). The idea was to establish an organization that could

unite the Inuit communities against the destructive policies of governments came from the

Inupiat of oil-rich North Slope in Alaska (Grant, 2010). Eben Hopson, the former Alaskan

senator, organized the first meeting of the ICC in Barrow, Alaska. He also was able to find

funding to cover the costs of transportation and accommodation (Grant, 2010). The Canadian

delegate Mary Simon was responsible for writing the draft chapter that established the

cooperation between the Inuit communities all over the Arctic (Grant, 2010).

The Government of Canada played a significant role in the development of the ICC,

particularly in the ICC Canada. Despite budget cuts in the 2018 budget, the Trudeau government

promised $400 million for Inuit housing as one of the many promises aimed at Northern

communities and residents (Harris, 2018, February 27). In addition to this, over $500 million in total was dedicated to supporting Inuit priorities, including the elimination of tuberculosis, job

skills training, national park protection and expansion, funding for Canadian Northern Economic

Development Agency, Arctic research (POLAR Knowledge Canada), and health, among other

policies designed for Northern Indigenous residents (Harris, 2018, February 27). $323.4 billion

CAD was projected in the national budget as total revenue in 2018 (Equality Growth a Strong

Middle Class, 2018). Therefore, well-being, housing, and the health of Indigenous communities,

particularly the Inuit, are specifically highlighted in the Canadian federal budget, despite the

cuts. It appears that the northern Indigenous residents are important to the federal government, regardless of whether a Conservative or a Liberal cabinet is in power.

The ICC has also been known for the humanitarian mission in Russia largely because of

Sheila Watt-Cloutier and Mary Simon’s work on behalf of ICC Canada. The program was called the “Inuit Express,” which was launched in 1999 by ICC Canada and largely funded by the

Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA). The Inuit Express was supposed to help the Inuit communities in Russia during the times of economic crisis in Russia. ICC Canada flew boxes of food and supplies to Siberian communities. Besides CIDA, the program was also supported by the Canadian government, the Canadian embassy in Moscow, as well as by the

Russian Association of Indigenous Peoples of the North (RAIPON) (Watt-Cloutier, 2015).

According to Watt-Cloutier (2015), the ICC Canada was also capable of organizing the workshop with South American Indigenous communities in Belize. It is not surprising that this project was also funded by CIDA. Watt-Cloutier states that “getting this funding from CIDA was crucial, as it allowed us to carry on our mandates internationally, such as our global involvement with the POP’s negotiations.” (Watt-Cloutier, 2015, p. 129). In addition, funding from the

Canadian government allowed the ICC to help RAIPON build its capacity in the northern regions by establishing regional offices equipped with computers and staff (Watt-Cloutier, 2015). As

Watt-Cloutier (2015) points out: “We did what we could to help our less fortunate counterparts in northern Russia.” (p. 130). However, the process of negotiating the ACIA challenged the durability of the relationships between the Canadian delegation and the ICC. As Watt-Cloutier

(2015) remembers:

I found myself wondering what the Canadian Senior Arctic Officials had been doing in the closed-door sessions that excluded the Permanent Participants. Had they been supporting our interests and resisting this new American initiative? And we worried that these last-minute changes might delay the completion of the scientific report itself. (p. 207)

Regarding the Canadian–Inuit relationships, Mary Simon notes: “We will continue to promote our own interests and rights with hopes of a better arrangement and new partnership between aboriginal peoples and other Canadians.” (Simon, 1996, p. 85). Besides environmental protection, one of the major objectives of the ICC is increased self-determination of the Inuit people (Grant, 2010). The right of Indigenous peoples to self-determination was set up by the

United Nations’ Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). According to

Article 4 of UNDRIP, “Indigenous peoples, in exercising their right to self-determination, have the right to autonomy or self-government in matters relating to their internal and local affairs, as well as ways and means for financing their autonomous functions.” (UNDRIP, 2008).

Grant (2010) notes that while the superpowers, the US and Russia, oppose this idea, the

Canadian and Danish governments favoured Indigenous rights in terms of self-government

(Grant, 2010). Despite a long history of colonial mistreatment, to some extent, the Canadian

Inuit—along with other Indigenous nations of Canada—achieved recognition as self-governed people. Among all the Indigenous communities in Canada, only the Inuit were able to form a non-ethnic self-government, the Nunavut Territory (Simon, 1996). The Nunavut Territory was

created as a result of land claims negotiations between the Canadian Inuit groups and the federal

government (Grant, 2010). In 1982, Section 34 of Constitution Act of Canada recognized the

legitimacy of Indigenous rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Grant, 2010). In June

1993, the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement and the Nunavut Act passed in the Parliament.

Nunavut was created as an outcome of this political process in 1999 (Grant, 2010).

ICC leaders Mary Simon and Sheila Watt-Cloutier represented Inuit interests on not only the domestic level, but also the international level. Both Simon and Watt-Cloutier showed their outstanding activist and leadership skills by affecting political decisions in the Arctic region. As

Grant states (2010), these Canadian Inuit women significantly advanced interest in the Arctic and its people. Because of the strong position of the ICC and its activists in Arctic politics, the ICC was able to promote its views on Indigenous knowledge more efficiently than other organizations.

With strong financial support from the Canadian government, the ICC organized a humanitarian mission to help the Russian Inuit. The organization also held workshops for other

Indigenous communities in the Arctic. As it clearly seen in their biographical notes, Simon and

Watt-Cloutier advocated for Arctic interests on behalf of all Arctic Indigenous communities, not only those in the ICC. Thus, the tremendous diplomatic achievements of the leaders of ICC

Canada, as well as the funding provided by the Government of Canada, led to the fact that the

ICC became an influential non-governmental body, not only regionally, but also globally.

Indeed, the ICC has become a powerful figure in the Arctic region.

The strong influence of the ICC and the Canadian Inuit communities in Canada and the

Arctic region leads to the following questions: First, given the fact that the ICC headquarters is located in Ottawa, and the major activist achievements were reached predominantly by the

Canadian leaders, is there a link between Canadian soft power and the reputation of the ICC?

Second, is it the case that the ICC in general and the ICC Canada, in particular, represent

Canadian interests, or is it that they represent their own political agenda? One of the smaller

research questions in this study asks: Why did the US and Canada become influential in the

discussion of TEK? It is important to answer these questions in order to analyze to what extent

PPs position, particularly the ICC, could be affected by the views of the domestic governments

(Canada and the US).

It is difficult to see to what extent the interests of the Canadian government and the ICC overlap with each other. It is clear that the government of Canada and its various divisions helped ICC Canada financially over the years. Both Simon and Watt-Cloutier recognize that the financial aid from the Canadian governmental officials was essential in supporting and empowering the activism of the ICC (Simon, 1996; Watt-Cloutier, 2015). According to Huebert

(1998), the Government of Canada supported the ICC ambitions for greater participation in the

Arctic Council. According to Keskitalo (2004), the role of the ICC as an active non-state actor in the AC cannot be separated from that of Canada and Canadian–ICC relationships. She also suggests that the dominance of Canada in the Arctic region might be a result of the common development of both Canada and the ICC, and thus their connection through discourse

(Keskitalo, 2004). Keskitalo (2004) also argues that, to a certain extent, the ICC’s actions in the

AC repeat the actions of Canada. For example, Canada suggested conservation of the Arctic

Fauna and Flora Working Group, and it was developed to include a focus on traditional knowledge (Keskitalo, 2004). Meanwhile, the ICC is seen as a major actor in introducing the concepts of sustainable development in the Arctic (Keskitalo, 2004).

Even prior to the establishment of Permanent Participant institution in the AC, on the domestic level, Canada had designed a policy of allowing for the full participation of circumpolar Indigenous communities in the Northern Contaminants Programme (NCP) (Huebert,

1998). Among other member states, Canada was the main supporter of the inclusion of northern

Indigenous organizations in the Arctic Council (Huebert, 1998). In comparison, the US

delegation was quite resistant to the inclusion of Permanent Participants in the Arctic Council.

They were concerned that the status of Permanent Participants would encourage Inuit to fight for

self-determination in Alaska (Huebert, 1998). The US position can be explained by the

difference in Arctic discourse in Alaska. The State of Alaska plays a small role in US foreign

policy. Alaska has a very low density of population, about 550 thousand people, and only 15

percent of them are Indigenous (Keskitalo, 2004). In the lower 48, Alaska is viewed as a source

of rich natural resources and as “wilderness,” due to economic development (Keskitalo, 2004).

Thus, according to Keskitalo (2004), late settlement, low integration, and small population as well as ongoing resource extraction in Alaska, made the American view of the Arctic region

different from the Canadian. Canadian discourse of the Arctic region is more Indigenous-focused

(Keskitalo, 2004).

The Canadian government allowed the Inuit from the Northwest Territories to organize

their non-ethnic self-government, but it still does not mean that Indigenous peoples of Canada

remain in a good relationship with the federal officials. The difficulties that occurred during the

ACIA negotiations also show that, as a member-state, Canada has separate interests. When Watt-

Cloutier describes her doubts about the Canadian position on climate change policy on the

closed-up meeting of the Senior Arctic officials during the ACIA consideration, it is quite

obvious that she does not always rely on the decisions of Canadian officials (Watt-Cloutier,

2015). Both Simon and Watt-Cloutier explicitly say that they acted on behalf of the Inuit in

general, not only on behalf of the Canadian Inuit. Therefore, even though Canada supported the

ICC financially, it is difficult to argue that the ICC is a main tool of Canadian diplomacy in the

Arctic.

There is another reason the ICC has its own independent interests. The American senator

John McCain contacted Sheila Watt-Cloutier directly by email, without communicating with the

Canadian representatives beforehand (Watt-Cloutier, 2015). This shows that the ICC is viewed as a separate NGO, not as a product of the Canadian government. It is a clear example of how a non-governmental organization can behave on its own. Although the ICC (including the

Canadian branch), and the Government of Canada act independently in their diplomatic relations in the Arctic, there still could be some overlaps in terms of their interests.

The Inuit Circumpolar Council has its own definition of Indigenous Knowledge (IK).

According to the Utqiagvik Declaration of 2018, which was signed on the 13th General

Assembly of the ICC in Utqiagvik, Alaska, IK is:

…[A] systematic way of thinking applied to phenomena across biological, physical,

cultural and spiritual systems. It includes insights based on evidence acquired through

direct and long-term experiences and extensive and multigenerational observations,

lessons, and skills. It has developed over millennia and is still developing in a living

process, including knowledge acquired today and in the future, and it is passed on from

generation to generation. By this definition, Inuit Knowledge is a way of life. It goes

beyond observations, ecological knowledge, and research, offering a unique ‘way of

knowing (Utqiagvik Declaration, 2018).

In the Utqiagvik Declaration (2018), Indigenous Knowledge is placed under the

Education and Language category. IK is tied to research and monitoring, equitable partnerships

in all aspects of research, and information sovereignty (Utqiagvik Declaration, 2018). From this

definition of IK, it is clear that IK is a more holistic concept than TEK. For the ICC, Indigenous

Knowledge is a way of life, that goes beyond observations, ecological knowledge, and research.”

(Utqiagvik Declaration, 2018).

IK also plays an important role in sustainable wildlife management. The ICC is determined to “advocate for the utilization and equity of IK within wildlife management, and evaluate what approaches and practices that best serve and support our rights and self- determination on wildlife management issues” (Utqiagvik Declaration, 2018). In addition, the

plan of action with regard to sustainable development includes the utilization of IK to advise on

all future practices of the Central Arctic Ocean Moratorium on Commercial Fisheries (Utqiagvik

Declaration, 2018).

The ICC pays a lot of attention to the promotion of IK in global affairs. The goals

described in the Utqiagvik Declaration involve the facilitation of the development of

International Inuit protocols on the utilization of IK; promotion and contribution of activities that

reflect the utilization of both IK and science; and making political and intellectual space for Inuit

Knowledge Holders at international fora by protecting the intellectual property rights of Inuit

Knowledge Holders (Utqiagvik Declaration, 2018).

During the Indigenous–state negotiations in Canada, Inuk Mary Simon put a good deal of

effort into promoting the recognition of TEK. The James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement

signed in 1975 was the first comprehensive land claims agreement in Canada. This agreement

created the Makivik Corporation, where Simon and her colleague Watt-Cloutier worked for many years (Simon, 1996; Watt-Cloutier, 2015). During 1978-1985, the Makivik Corporation, under the leadership of Simon, developed a research program that conceptualized “traditional

Inuit knowledge” (Simon, 1996). Simon states (1996) that Indigenous and scientific knowledge need to be combined. During the public hearings in the Great Whale Project, Simon supported

the inclusion of testimony based on Indigenous knowledge of the Elders into the report for

Hydro Quebec (Simon, 1996). Hence, Canadian resource-extractive industries started recognizing traditional knowledge and its importance for resource management as early as the

1970s.

Despite the differences in the American and Canadian viewpoints on sustainability, the

ICC achieved international success in promoting the importance of traditional knowledge.

Moreover, the application of Indigenous knowledge in the Arctic Council has become one of the

ICC priorities (ICC website, 2018). The ICC offered its own definition of IK as well as suggested fundamental concepts that promote the use of IK in a meaningful way (ICC, 2018). In

1992, the ICC representatives went to the United Nations Conference on Environment and

Development (the Earth Summit) held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (Simon, 1996). The ICC promoted the idea of recognition of Indigenous knowledge as well as Indigenous involvement in

environmental politics (Simon, 1996). Furthermore, the ICC was successful in lobbying for the

rights of Indigenous peoples to participate in this conference (Grant, 2010). Along with other

Indigenous organizations, the ICC advocated for the inclusion of traditional knowledge in the

Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA) (Watt-Cloutier, 2015). The ICC Canada website

promotes the utilization of IK in the Arctic Council, stating that IK and science are sources of

knowledge that should be utilized together in order to better inform decision-making (ICC

Canada website, 2018). The ICC Canada offers the concepts that could help to utilize IK and science in the Arctic Council in a meaningful way (ICC Canada website, 2018). These concepts include research needs and objectives to be identified by states and PPs, funding utilized to

gather data, an evaluation of which themes include the use of IK, methodologies to gain information from IK holders, and a participatory approach that ensures that information is

gathered from both science and IK. Moreover, IK methodologies are peer-reviewed and validated by IK holders and knowledge is exchanged in plain language with regards to the scientific aspects (ICC Canada website, 2018). Due to the strong leadership of Eben Hopson,

Mary Simon, Sheila Watt-Cloutier and other activists, the ICC has achieved international

recognition since the 1980s (Grant, 2010). The ICC hosts a general assembly every four years,

which includes high-level politicians from different organizations such as the United Nations, the

World Trade Organization, the Convention on Biological Diversity, and International Union for

Conservation of Nature (Watt-Cloutier, 2015).

The ICC has been actively involved in Arctic politics since the beginning of international

cooperation in the area. The Arctic Council was proposed by the Canadian government in 1989

and was strongly supported by the Inuit Circumpolar Conference (Simon, 1996). The

involvement of northern Indigenous peoples in the Council was the primary concern Inuit of leaders (Simon, 1996). ICC’s support of the creation of the AC was conditional: Indigenous communities had to be included in the decision-making processes (Simon, 1996). In 1991, the

ICC organized and sponsored the first Arctic Leaders Summit with the ICC, the Nordic Saami

Council and RAIPON (Simon, 1996). During the summit, the Indigenous leaders discussed common issues and concerns in the circumpolar region (Simon, 1996).

The political power of the ICC allowed Permanent Participants to affect the AC negotiations on the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment in 2004. According to Watt-Cloutier

(2015), the process of negotiating the ACIA suddenly stopped. The governmental officials had a closed meeting wherein they reviewed a summary of a policy document and a scientific report.

The Permanent Participants were concerned that the scientific report, which was suggested to be considered at the meeting, would have forged a policy that included traditional knowledge (Watt-

Cloutier, 2015). In addition to the concerns about the ACIA, Indigenous leaders were also

intimidated by the upcoming US presidential election, and George W. Bush’s neoconservative

policy that would rather keep American jobs than change environmental policy (Watt-Cloutier,

2015). The Permanent Participants were also intimidated by the fact that the ACIA secretariat

was funded by the American state agencies: the US National Science Foundation and the

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Grant, 2010). Although initially, the US delegation favoured the ACIA policy recommendations, in February 2004, the Americans changed their decision by announcing that the US government refused to support the ACIA policies based on the policy report (Grant, 2010). The US was the only state that resisted the adoption of this environmental agreement (Watt-Cloutier, 2015).

As a spokesperson for the ICC, Watt-Cloutier gave a speech to the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation at the hearing on climate change. At the end of a testimony that described the climate change-related impacts on the environment, Watt-Cloutier asked Senator John McCain to write a letter to Secretary of State Colin Powell, requesting him to change the US position on the ACIA (Watt-Cloutier, 2015). Shortly thereafter, the AC chair criticized this presentation, stating that the information shared at the meetings should not have been made public. In addition to this, the AC notified the Permanent Participants that they could only be represented by one person, not by two as before (Watt-Cloutier, 2015). Watt-Cloutier

(2015) assumes that strong interdependence of the member states with outside organizations, for example, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), was the primary reason the AC Chair was concerned about the political pressure that the ICC was imposing on the US government

(Watt-Cloutier, 2015).

Eventually, the ACIA passed. Watt-Cloutier stated that McCain’s letter to the Secretary of State had been an effective tactic that, along with the international pressure, pushed the US government to sign the ACIA. The policy recommendations were included as a separate document in the ACIA report (Watt-Cloutier, 2015). According to Watt-Cloutier, at this moment,

“the ACIA was the most comprehensive and detailed regional assessment of climate change

(Watt-Cloutier, 2015, p. 215).”

Therefore, the concept of IK promoted by the ICC is larger than TEK, and in addition to the ecological component, IK involves other components such as spirituality and culture. The areas that ICC associates with IK are education and sustainable development (sustainable wildlife management, in particular). The ICC puts a great emphasis on the promotion of IK concept in the variety of international organizations, especially in the Arctic Council. Overall, the ICC has already developed the concept and definition of IK, as well as a plan of political actions that are aimed to promote the importance of IK globally. Thus, ICC activism in the

Arctic was successful in the political debates around TEK. ICC activism created the context around the TEK concept.

The Russian Association of Indigenous Peoples of Siberia and the Far North (RAIPON)

The history of the Indigenous movements in Russia started in the late 1980s when the totalitarian system of the USSR began its decline (Köhler & Wessendorf, 2002). The idea to organize the First Congress of the Northern Indigenous Peoples in Moscow was supported by the then-president of the USSR, Mikhail Gorbachev (Köhler & Wessendorf, 2002). The establishment of the “Association of the Northern Peoples.” (subsequently the Russian

Association of Indigenous Peoples of the North (RAIPON)) was the direct outcome of the First

Congress of Indigenous Peoples, which was held in 1990. The Second Congress was organized in 1994; it approved the new name of the “Association of Indigenous numerically small peoples of the North” (Köhler & Wessendorf, 2002). The English abbreviation of RAIPON does not include the words “numerically small.” Historically, the Russian government aimed not to increase the number of “the northern people.” (Köhler & Wessendorf, 2002). Only “numerically small,” that being 26 Indigenous nations, were included on the list of Indigenous peoples (Köhler

& Wessendorf, 2002). In 1992, a federal draft law, “On the legal status of Indigenous numerically small peoples of Russia” set a population limit of 50,000 people (Köhler &

Wessendorf, 2002). Yet, even with this limit, not all Indigenous peoples were included under the category of “numerically small.” The governments of northern Caucasian republics protested against the inclusion of more than 20 local Indigenous communities under this category (Köhler

& Wessendorf, 2002). An official list of 45 Indigenous peoples was adopted in 2000, but the republics of the northern Caucasus were excluded from the implementation of this legislation

(Köhler & Wessendorf, 2002). Hence, neither larger Indigenous communities nor Indigenous communities of northern Caucasus are represented by RAIPON.

Russian legislation uses lifestyle, livelihoods, ethnic identity and population to establish recognition of ethnic groups as Indigenous. Of these criteria, population size is a relatively straightforward requirement, whereas others can be subject to interpretation. In Russia, groups with a population of less than 50,000 people can be considered as small-numbered Indigenous people (Federal Law, 1999, “O garantiyah prav korennyh malochislennyh narodov Rossiyskoy

Federatsii” [About Indigenous small-numbered peoples]). Larger ethnic groups that are

Indigenous —including Sakha, Komi or Chechens—are not included in this category because of their larger population. Hence, larger ethnic groups could be considered as Indigenous in a

67 broader sense; however, they lack the ability to obtain the same rights, benefits and federal protection when compared to the smaller groups. The list of the Arctic Indigenous minorities consists of 22 ethnicities, except Yakut (Sakha) (478,085 groups in the 2010 Population Census);

Komis (and Komi-Permiaks) (329,111); and Karelians (60,815) (Laruelle, 2013, p. 36). There is also a possibility that some small-numbered Indigenous groups in Russia, such as the Nenets people, could lose their Indigenous status in the future due to increases in their population

(Øverland, 2009). Therefore, due to the population criteria in the legal determination of

Indigeneity in Russia, Russian Indigenous people are underrepresented in the Arctic Council.

The underrepresentation of Indigenous communities is not the only issue that has affected the discussion of TEK by RAIPON. According to news sources and interviews with past leaders of RAIPON, there are at least three factors that significantly influence the RAIPON participation in the AC: pressure from the Russian government, tokenism, and corruption. These issues will each be addressed in turn.

The current Russian administration is more likely to be characterized as authoritarian rather than democratic. In 2012, the Russian Ministry of Justice attempted to close RAIPON and suspended its activity for six months (Survival International, 2012, November 22). In August

2012, RAIPON opposed the government’s decision to drill in the Arctic because it may have affected the traditional lifestyles of Indigenous communities (Survival International, 2012,

November 22).

Under the Putin administration, the Russian government often attempted to prevent

Russian Indigenous leaders from speaking publicly during meetings of international organizations, including the United Nations. In 2016, a former RAIPON activist, Rodion

Sulyandziga, who is the current head of the Moscow-based Centre for Support of Indigenous

Peoples of the North, reported that his apartment in Moscow was searched by the Russian police,

and that he was brought to the local police department for questioning (Nilsen, 2016, December

11). Sulyandziga was planning to organize the workshop for Indigenous peoples on that day, and the police actions prevented him from leading a seminar (Nilsen, 2016, December 11).

In 2013, RAIPON was reopened (Survival International, 2013, March 25). However, the head of RAIPON, Pavel Sulyandziga, was replaced by Grigory Ledkov in the same year

(UArctic, 2013, April 1). In 2013, Ledkov appealed to the criminal court of Russia accusing

Sulyandziga of promoting the separation of Indigenous peoples from the Russian Federation.

Even though Sulyandziga successfully defended himself in the court, he was subsequently

accused of committing other criminal offences (Litavrin, 2017, May 4). In April 2017, Pavel

Sulyandziga left Russia and applied for political refugee status in the US (Litavrin, 2017, May

4). According to Sulyandziga, the government is persecuting him because of his political views, among which is his advocacy for traditional subsistence rights of Indigenous peoples in Russia.

Sulyandziga also claims that other Indigenous leaders have been arrested for protesting resource

extraction on their lands (Litavrin, May 4, 2017). Currently, the Russian government practices

the so-called “new feudalism” towards Indigenous lands, wherein all Indigenous lands are

controlled by the government. The lands can be openly sold and bought by anyone. When new

owners privatize a land plot, they obtain subsistence rights within their lands as well. If

Indigenous communities continue to hunt on this land, they will be charged for poaching

(Litavrin, May 4, 2017).

Instead of banning RAIPON, the Russian government replaced the past RAIPON

activists with a pro-Putin administration. The co-optation of RAIPON raises some important

questions: How does this internal political division among the Indigenous leaders in RAIPON

affect the discussion of TEK among PPs? In addition, are the current RAIPON members

tokenized by the Putin’s regime? There is no study that would describe the impacts of the

Russian authoritarian regime on Indigenous organizations, but there are many reports about the political discrimination of Indigenous leaders who are in opposition to the current political

regime. Because many of the opposition leaders are not current members of RAIPON, it is hard

to say whether RAIPON represents the viewpoints of the Russian government or acts on its own.

The National Program “Indigenous-2021,” issued by RAIPON in 2017, states that the

“preservation of traditional lifestyle, transfer of language and rituals as well as skills of

subsistence use to the next generations of Indigenous peoples” are major objectives of the future

development of small-numbered Indigenous peoples in Russia. This document does not refer to

traditional knowledge, rather it focuses on traditional economies. Industrialization and resource

extraction of the territories of traditional subsistence use leads to the reduction of natural

resources for Indigenous communities (RAIPON, 2017).

According to the National Program, the government should support traditional economies

by introducing state-sponsored jobs for employees from Indigenous communities (RAIPON,

2017). The program also puts a strong emphasis on the role of entrepreneurs and local business

in the territories of traditional subsistence use, considering them as possible ways to reduce the

unemployment rates (RAIPON, 2017). Hence, traditional subsistence use is viewed mostly in the

context of resource extraction and the socioeconomic situation of Indigenous communities in

Russia. Another document, which includes recommendations from the RAIPON Working

Session, “Responsible Nature Use” (2017), recognizes the need to address the conflicts between

resource extractive industries and Indigenous communities in the Arctic. The document

emphasizes the importance of developing strong partnerships between small-numbered

Indigenous peoples and extractive companies (RAIPON, 2017). Resource-extractive companies

take the interests of Indigenous communities under consideration, so effective collaboration

between these stakeholders is possible (RAIPON, 2017).

RAIPON (2017) argues that negotiations between companies and Indigenous peoples

should be regulated on the local and regional levels. RAIPON (2017) suggests introducing a

blank contract between companies and Indigenous communities. The contract should include educational training that is aimed to provide future employment to Indigenous peoples

(RAIPON, 2017).

It should be noted that, according to RAIPON, the Russian state-owned companies such

as Rosneft, Gasprom and Gazpromneft have issues in their relationships with Indigenous

communities. Meanwhile, privately owned companies such as Lukoil, Surgutneftegaz and others,

are more likely to cooperate with Indigenous people by signing long-term agreements because of

concerns about their business reputation (RAIPON, 2017).

RAIPON notes that national parks are often created without preliminary negotiations

with local Indigenous communities. They note the construction of Bikin National Park as an example of a conflict between Indigenous communities and the government (RAIPON, 2017).

RAIPON suggests designing a model of non-conflicting interactions between national parks and

territories of traditional subsistence use (RAIPON, 2017). The park planning must be done only

after mandatory preliminary negotiations with local Indigenous people and only after receiving their approval (RAIPON, 2017). Therefore, RAIPON does identify the conflicts in interactions

between extractive industries and local Indigenous communities as well as between national

parks and territories of traditional subsistence use. However, the RAIPON documentation does

not use the term “traditional knowledge,” or “comanagement.” RAIPON mainly focuses on the

importance of formal agreements between the government, companies and Indigenous small- numbered peoples, but does not mention comanagement as one of the possible ways to prevent conflicts. In addition, RAIPON states that extractive companies should invest in social projects related to the socioeconomic development of Indigenous peoples. The companies should share

some of their stocks with Indigenous communities and even organize conjoined companies with

Indigenous communities (RAIPON, 2017). Therefore, the approach that RAIPON suggests as a

solution to improve Indigenous–industry–government interactions is contract-based.

Furthermore, RAIPON does not specify the process of signing agreements, but rather,

emphasizes the importance of Indigenous approval.

Saami Council and the Governments of Finland, Russia, Norway and Sweden

Saami people are Indigenous peoples whose traditional settlement areas are located in the

northern provinces of Finland, Sweden, Norway, and Russia (Zorgdrager, 1999). Due to the lack

of visible racial differences, the relationships between the Saami and the Scandinavian countries

are quite different from the US, Russia, and Canada (Zorgdrager, 1999). Neither the racial

aspects (like in North America) nor population size (like in Russia) have ever been a significant

determination of Saami Indigeneity. The Saami identity is predominantly based on culture. The

equation of Saami ethnic identity with cultural have dominated the interactions between the

Norwegians, Swedes and Saami (Zorgdrager, 1999).

For a considerable time, reindeer breeding was a significant component of Saami culture

in Norway and Sweden. In 1933, a Norwegian act granted the right to herd reindeer exclusively

to Mountain Saami (Zorgdrager, 1999). The Reindeer-reeding Act of 1978 recognized reindeer

herding as central to Saami culture (Zorgdrager, 1999). Similarly, the Swedish reindeer-breeding

act of 1928 turned “Lapp shall be Lapp” into a policy that granted the right of reindeer breeding

72 to persons of Saami descent (Zorgdrager, 1999). According to these policies, non-reindeer- breeding Saami were no longer recognized as Saami and they were excluded from Saami membership (Zorgdrager, 1999). However, the rise of Saami organizations in the 1950s, including the establishment of the Nordic Saami Council in 1956, helped to promote Saami interests in Norway, Sweden, and Finland (Zorgdrager, 1999). The damming of the Alta-

Kautokeino River led to waves of protests from Saami organizations. This conflict raised debates about the concepts of Saami culture and ethnicity and Norwegian–Saami relations in general

(Zorgdrager, 1999). The Saami stated that they saw themselves as an Indigenous ethnic minority with rights established by international agreements (Zorgdrager, 1999). The Coastal Saami, who were non-reindeer-breeding, claimed that reindeer breeding was not an essential part of Saami identity, and named the market economy in Norway as another form of Saami livelihood

(Zorgdrager, 1999).

As a result of these debates about Saami identity, the Norwegian government set up the constitutional amendment that recognized that “Saami people can secure and develop their own language, culture, and community.” Hence, the Saami were identified as an ethnic group

(Zorgdrager, 1999). Subsequently, the Norwegian legislature established the Saami Parliament and added a chapter on Saami language to the Saami Act (Zorgdrager, 1999). In Finland,

Norway, and Sweden, the Saami established their own Saami Parliaments. Saami can vote for the members of these parliaments. The definition of Saami, according to the electoral rules, includes subjective criterion (regarding oneself as Saami) and the use of Saami language at home by oneself or by at least one parent or grandparent (Zorgdrager, 1999). Overall, in Finland,

Norway and Sweden, the definition of Saami identity shifted from occupational criteria (reindeer

breeding) to language criteria (fluency in Saami language) and ethnic criteria (Saami descent)

(Zorgdrager, 1999).

The organization that represents Saami in the Arctic Council is the Saami Council. The

Nordic Saami Council was established in 1956 by Norwegian, Swedish, and Saami organizations

(Zorgdrager, 1999). According to the Saami council website,

The main task of the Saami Council is to consolidate the feeling of affinity among the Saami people, to attain recognition for the Saami as a nation and to maintain the cultural, political, economic, and social rights of the Saami in the legislation of the four states (Norway, Sweden, Russia and Finland) and in agreements between states and Saami representative organizations. (Saami Council website, 2018)

The highest body of the Saami Council is the Saami Conference, which meets every four

years. The Saami Conference adopts declarations and resolutions issues brought to the

conference (Saami Council website, 2018). Traditional knowledge (TK) is one of the issues that

were discussed during the conferences.

According to the Traante Declaration (2017), traditional knowledge, the Saami language and Saami traditional expressions are strongly linked to Saami traditional land and settlements.

There is no definition of traditional knowledge in the Traante Declaration (2017), but it states that “the Saami have the right to decide about Saami traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions.” Although Saami traditional knowledge is the part of “public domain,” and

Saami cannot control TK, they have the right to share the profits that they earn from utilization of TK (Traante Declaration, 2017). States should protect the rights of Saami on TK, especially when it comes to the protection of Saami TK from illegitimate use nationally and internationally

(Traante Declaration, 2017).

Saami TK is held by Saami languages. Saami languages reflect understandings of nature, the environment, and ecosystem dynamics in Sapmi (Saami homeland) (Rovaniemi Declaration,

2008). The Saami traditional subsistence activity, reindeer husbandry, is based on TK and bears

Saami traditional practices and culture. The Saami Council lobbies for Russia and Finland to recognize the Saami’s exclusive rights to reindeer herding on their traditional lands (Rovaniemi

Declaration, 2008).

The Rovaniemi Declaration (2008) recognizes that states can learn from the Saami culture regarding wildlife management policies. The Saami Council states that TK must be treated equally with Western science in terms of the policy-making process on the governance of the environment and natural resources (Rovaniemi Declaration, 2008).

According to the Kuellnegk Neark Declaration (2013), TK helped the Saami to preserve their traditional livelihoods. By using TK, Saami people have learned how to cope with climatic variations. The Saami Council recognizes the capacity of Saami TK to adapt to climate change.

States must not institutionally restrict Saami’s utilization of TK regarding coping and adapting to climate change (Kuellnegk Neark Declaration, 2013). In addition, the Saami Council states that the combination of scientific and traditional knowledge should serve a basis for policy-making process in addressing climate and environmental changes. Through their Arctic policies, Finland,

Norway, Sweden, and Russia should establish knowledge production and research in Saami region (Sapmi) (Kuellnegk Neark Declaration, 2013). Saami TK has a high significance as a foundation for resilience and governance of climate change issues (Kuellnegk Neark

Declaration, 2013).

Overall, these findings on the difference in public discourses of TEK show that the perceptions of TEK by each of these PPs are quite distinct. In some cases, TK is primarily

75 related to ecology, nature, and subsistence activities (former RAIPON, Saami Council), and in other cases, TK is highly politicized (ICC, and former RAIPON). Despite the PP status in the

AC, the current RAIPON administration does not officially use the term TK or TEK in their terminology. The distinctions in TEK perceptions are affected by differences in national legislation (RAIPON), ongoing political climate (RAIPON, ICC), and historical predispositions of Indigenous identities (Saami Council).

The Gaps in the AC Literature

Because of the unique nature of the political participation of Indigenous organizations in the AC as Permanent Participants, the AC literature does not categorize Indigenous experts as either epistemic communities or as knowledge brokers. The authors emphasize that the Arctic region is unique in providing a unique opportunity to Indigenous organizations to contribute to the discussion of political issues in the Arctic, including TEK. However, it is hard to say to what extent that the opinions of Indigenous organizations were influenced by their domestic governments. Due to the uniqueness of international Indigenous organizations’ position not only in the Arctic, but globally, there is a noticeable gap in the academic literature regarding their political status in the Council and the nature of their relations with the governments of their lands.

The AC literature also revealed that the nature of the AC evolved since international cooperation started, and the goals and objectives shifted from environmental protection and sustainable development to social, economic and cultural concerns. It is mentioned by many authors such as Keskitalo, Tennberg, and English that since the establishment of AEPS, the incorporation of TEK and Indigenous engagement have been perceived as possible policy

76 solutions to protect the Arctic’s fragile environment. Yet, there is no indication in the literature that the incorporation of TEK in the AC has ever been assessed. Despite the presence of

Permanent Participants, who play an essential role of knowledge brokers in the decision-making process in the AC, no academic source has indicated any progress in the incorporation of TEK into the Arctic Council. Thus, there is a significant gap in the literature regarding an assessment and evaluation of the incorporation of TEK into the work of the AC. Why, after more than 25 years, has no meaningful work been done regarding the incorporation of TEK in the AC? This gap will be addressed and analyzed in this study.

Chapter 4. TEK and Comanagement Regimes in the Arctic

The previous chapter revealed that the declarations of the AC are often sites of confusion regarding the definition of TEK. This section examines the literature on the general concept of

TEK and how the scholars view TEK and its incorporation. The chapter also analyzes the different regimes of comanagement in Canada, the US, Russia, Finland and the Scandinavian countries. Before the analysis the incorporation of TEK in the AC, it is essential to examine how the concept of TEK and its inclusion has been discussed in general. By comparing TEK’s general idea with the TEK concept adopted in the AC, it is possible to see whether the AC and its internal structure influenced the incorporation of TEK, either positively or negatively. What is

TEK, and how has it been incorporated at the domestic level? Is there a universal approach of knowledge coproduction?

The literature indicates that TEK is a reasonably broad concept; it can also include any information about the local fauna and flora, such as skinning, butchering, fishing and hunting

(Houde, 2007). TEK is local, kept by knowledge holders in local languages and exists for several centuries. According to the Blueberry River First Nations report, in comparison with Western science, TEK provides a broader area of nature observations and longer timelines of observations

(Leech, Bates and the Blueberry First Nations, 2016). Pearce et al. (2014) state that Indigenous communities have long histories of adaptation to the changing environment, and their accumulated knowledge about nature can help scholars to understand the changes associated with climate change.

Scholars describe TEK as a complex, local knowledge about nature, which has been accumulated for many years. TEK has a holistic nature and complexity (Berkes, 1999; Idrobo &

Berkes, 2012; Kovach, 2000). Indigenous methods are connected to storytelling, and story

evokes the holistic quality of TEK (Kovach, 2000). While local hunters observe nature and

animals for years and perceive nature in a different way, not as an object of research, but as a

native environment, an equal partner, like a mother, everything is essential for the hunter: the

position of the clouds in the sky, the temperature of the rainwater, the wind speed and the colour

of the leaves. TEK provides “rules of thumb,” which were developed by ancient resource

managers, and these rules are, in many ways as good as Western science (Gadgil and Berkes,

1991, cited in Berkes, 1999, p. 5).

The literature also indicates that disbelief in TEK’s practical utility and the necessity to

integrate TEK with management systems results in compartmentalization and distillation of

traditional knowledge (Nadasdy, 2003; Houde, 2007; Spak, 2005). Compartmentalization means

that TEK is divided into certain categories that are distinguished according to their “usefulness”

to Euro-North American resource managers (Nadasdy, 2003; Houde, 2007). Usher (as cited in

Notzke, 1995) argues that the Indigenous system of management is holistic, and reflects

Indigenous values, rules, and cosmology, which come with their own unique and authentic view of the environment (p. 190). Houde (2007) highlights six faces of TEK, including factual observations, management systems, past and current uses of nature, ethics and values, culture and identity, and cosmology. This categorization of TEK is hierarchically ordered, starting from

the “most useful” to the “least useful” types of TEK. Houde (2007) notes that factual

observations of TEK’s type are the most “requested” form of TEK in the Euro-North American

system of resource management because they are compatible with the knowledge used by

bureaucrats. Distillation of TEK means that managers are interested only in certain kinds of

information (Nadasdy, 2003). Generalized observations can supplement scientific environmental

knowledge and provide additional data while monitoring changes in nature (Houde, 2007). State-

sponsorship means comanagement regimes in Canada exercise the state’s power to educate the

younger generation of Indigenous “resource users” to see the human/environment and

human/animal relationships in a bureaucratic way (Spak, 2005). Therefore, Hadasdy, Houde and

Spak recognized several issues in comanagement boards that led to less meaningful

incorporations of TEK such as compartmentalization, distillation, and categorization of TEK.

Houde (2007) states that the spirituality and cosmology components of TEK are often neglected

by scientists.

As Chapman and Schott (2020) note, integrating TEK can often result in tokenism, when

TEK’s incorporation has the sole objective of benefitting the researchers by appeasing formal

requirements or to make their work “look good” in the eyes of other scholars. Knowledge

integration could also lead to knowledge appropriation, which is a loss of some aspects of

cultural identity or knowledge transfer capacity. Chapman & Schott (2020) argue that knowledge

integration is only one step in the process of knowledge coproduction. They also criticize the

term knowledge coproduction because it is a vague term that does not focus on preserving

knowledge systems and cultural interpretations of knowledge claims (Chapman & Schott, 2020).

Chapman & Schott propose the term knowledge co-evolution, which directly addresses power

imbalances and is aimed to create more opportunities for self-determination (Chapman & Schott,

2020). Manrique, Corral & Pereira (2018) argue that TEK is not completely integrated by all scientific and policy areas as an equally relevant source of knowledge. Observations, perspectives and adaptation strategies of Indigenous peoples are not entirely integrated (if mostly

disregarded) into scientific assessments and reports on climate change (Manrique, Corral &

Pereira, 2018). Thus, the incorporation of TEK into Western science is often controversial, and it

can result in lip service.

The literature about comanagement frequently refers to natural sciences as “science,” which includes mainstream environmentalists, biologists, and ecologists, as “Western scientists,” but excludes social scientists (Huntington, 2000). Western science is perceived as the form of knowledge system that TK incorporates (Dale & Armitage, 2011). Yet, the conception of

Western science is broad and ambiguous, and it is not clear what academic fields are meant to be scientific. Thus, the definition of what constitutes Western science is not quite clear.

The discussion of Western science and nature in North American literature is also heavily racialized. The wilderness in the Western understanding is an untouched object, a source of a variety of resources, and an opposite to culture. By Judeo-Christian tradition, nature is cursed and “the earthly realm of powers of evil.” (DeLuca, 1999, p. 220). “White wilderness” is connected to the domination of nature by White human subjects. This concept also includes the domination of other humans by white humanity. In this paradigm, Native Americans are perceived as savages of nature, a part of nature, but not as human subjects. The concept of white wilderness emerged during the Enlightenment period, and it was still dominant among mainstream environmentalists in the 20th century in the US (DeLuca, 1999). According to

DeLuca (1999), Western thought conceptualizes nature as a realm apart from humanity (p. 223), and subsequently apart from people of European descent and their culture as humanity and civilization (DeLuca, 1999). It should be noted that the discussion about white wilderness is primarily held among environmental scientists. The conception of nature, industrialism, and

Indigenous knowledge could significantly differ within the circles of social scientists, including anthropologists, sociologists and political scientists. Thus, DeLuca (1999) argues that scientific perception of nature is based on the Christian traditions and Enlightenment views, which see wilderness as a pristine, untouched object.

Cruikshank (2004) emphasizes two environmentalist axioms held towards local

knowledge and native people. According to the first axiom, Native Americans are ‘original

ecologists’ who know how to live in harmony with the wilderness. By this mythical view,

Natives intuitively know how to use wildlife resources by maintaining an “intuitive foresight of modern management strategies” (Cruikshank, 2004, p. 26). A second axiom is constructed on the

Judeo-Christian perception of nature as an object, where humans should adjust their behaviour in order to be respectful to the environment (Cruikshank, 2004). Hence, some environmentalists see

Indigenous communities as the “original ecologists.” Hence, the Western scientific views on nature are radically different from that of Indigenous people because scientists mainly see nature as an object to be controlled by a human. Meanwhile, Indigenous communities are often viewed by environmentalists as natural ecologists who intuitively know how to protect nature.

Because most wildlife managers who work with Aboriginal communities in comanagement regimes are trained as biologists, rather than social scientists, some authors argue that wildlife managers do not have sufficient skills to access and incorporate TEK into resource management (Dale & Armitage, 2011). In the interests of making collaboration easier, wildlife managers tend to invite young people as advisors instead of Elders to participate because young

Indigenous participants are likely to have better English and computer literacy (Dale &

Armitage, 2011). However, the preference of young Indigenous people often leads to a situation

where Inuit participation does not mean TEK inclusion in research projects (Dale & Armitage,

2011). The tendency to invite young Inuit for projects might be explained by the lack of training

in social sciences methodology among biologists and natural scientists. Wildlife managers often

feel uncomfortable in cross-cultural interactions (Huntington, 2000). The natural sciences,

especially biology, were given a privilege as a practice of collecting data in comanagement

82 regimes. Many wildlife managers and researchers are unprepared to collect data from TEK holders. (Huntington, 2000). Hence, scientists often prefer working with younger Indigenous people instead of being engaged with Elders. Essentially, there is a lack of cross-cultural communication in TEK research.

According to Roburn and the Trondek Hwechin Heritage Department (2012), the TEK data they collected included thousands of hours of oral history tapes, whereas only a few of these tapes have been transcribed, according to the department’s policy. Reaffirming permissions and entering the transcript into a searchable database can make it nearly impossible to access the full potential of traditional knowledge (Roburn & Trondek Hwechin Heritage Department, 2012).

Hence, the process of TEK incorporation can encounter serious copyright and technical issues.

Overall, the literature review shows that TEK is a broad concept that has a complex and holistic nature. Traditional ecological knowledge comes from practicing traditional subsistence activities (Berkes, 1999; Houde, 2007). Due to the holistic, spiritual and complex nature of TEK, which is often mistreated and misunderstood, the incorporation of TEK is often characterized as distillation and compartmentalization (Houde, 2007; Nadasdy, 2005). The incorporation of TEK into Western science can be controversial and results in lip service and tokenism in order to meet formal requirements or to “look good” in the eyes of other scholars (Chapman & Schott, 2020).

There is often a lack of cross-cultural understanding in the TEK projects because natural scientists are usually not trained in social science methodologies, whereas social scientists are less likely to be invited into the TEK projects (Dale & Armitage, 2011; Huntington, 2000).

Community-based Regimes of Wildlife Management in the Arctic

Community-based management of natural resources is a form of state–local collaboration

in a public–social partnership of common-pool resources and has been practiced for centuries in

different parts of the world (Castro & Nielson, 2001; Bocking, 2004; Lemos & Agrawal, 2009).

State agencies increase stakeholder participation by sharing resource allocation with local

communities. The core element in community-based management is decentralization (Castro &

Nielson, 2001; Bocking, 2004). Therefore, community-based management leads to decentralization of resource allocation and provides local communities’ participation in wildlife management.

Kettle (2018) states that boundary organizations such as comanagement regimes are necessary for knowledge coproduction. Boundary organizations have three specificities: engagement of individuals across the science–practice interface, production of boundary objects that provide a common currency for communication, and existence at the nexus of science and practice with separate lines of responsibility (Guston, 2001, cited in Kettle, 2018). The third feature is based on principal–agent theory, whereby boundary organizations can mediate conflict among principals and agents who are involved in the production and use of science, respectively

(Kettle, 2018).

Comanagement in North America is the most common arrangement of state collaboration with communities. Examples of cooperation between states and local stakeholders in terms of wildlife management include not only comanagement in northern Canada but also Joint Forest

Management in India, the Social Forestry Project in Bangladesh, the Lofoten comanagement system in Norway and many others. Therefore, TEK/local knowledge holders do not have to be

Aboriginal (Castro & Nielson, 2001; Bocking, 2004; Huntington, 2000). Similarly, the challenge of incorporating local ecological knowledge into contemporary science does not only refer to

TEK, but also to any locally developed ecological knowledge (McGoodwin, 2006). Thus, the

authors state that comanagement exists in many different parts of the world, and local

communities are not necessarily Indigenous.

The literature mentions community-based management of wildlife resources as a policy

program that could help to govern common-pool resources (Bocking, 2004; McGoodwin, 2006).

According to the model of the tragedy of the commons, any resource with open access will be

overused and degraded. Due to the tendency of all users to take as much as they want, common-

pool resources can be overused and destroyed (Hardin, cited in Wiener, 1995). The tragedy of

the commons raises questions about whether it is appropriate to privatize or nationalize wildlife

resources to prevent ecological degradation. However, neither privatization nor nationalization is

the best solution for common property management (Wiener, 1995; Bocking, 2004). Robards et

al. (2018) argue that despite the history of colonization, and some negative experiences with

scientists, developing trust between researchers, agencies, and Indigenous representatives can be

expected to produce mutually beneficial outcomes. More participatory engagements between local and researchers result in outcomes that are perceived as more legitimate by the public, and thus, more likely to build trust and improve communication (Robards et al., 2018). So, Bocking,

McGoodwin, Wiener and Robards et al. consider a comanagement regime as a solution to the problem of governance of common-pool resources as well as an approach to build trust between local communities, governmental officials and scientists. Comanagement could prevent environmental degradation and stimulate better local engagement in wildlife management.

Local/Indigenous systems of resource management suggest more sustainable use of common-pool resources than privatization/nationalization (Wiener, 1995; Bocking, 2004). Many authors point out that local communities are more flexible in terms of restricting their use of

resources. Local users know their limits of resource use even if they have never experienced

ecological collapse (Bocking, 2004; McGoodwin, 2006). They also note that Indigenous

ecological knowledge is adapted to characteristics of the local ecosystem; it is closely connected

to their social system and culture. Because of this, Indigenous/local resource managers are more

efficient in recognizing changes in their ecosystem. The information provided by local users is

highly specific and detailed (Bocking, 2004; Menzies & Butler, 2006). Therefore, the

involvement of local resource users provides more sustainable governance of common-pool

resources.

According to the literature, Indigenous peoples certainly encounter more difficulties than non-Indigenous TEK holders. Castro & Nielsen (2001) argue that in comparison with Norwegian fishermen in comanagement regimes, Indigenous societies are more vulnerable and less

protected because of difficulties in negotiating agreements with the state and other stakeholders.

Cross-cultural incommensurability of Western models of comanagement with Indigenous self- regulative systems, and political and economic disadvantage of Indigenous communities,

exacerbate the lack of Indigenous participation in comanagement regimes in northern Canada

(Castro & Nielsen, 2001). Therefore, due to their economic and political disadvantages,

Indigenous communities are less politically strong than non-Indigenous local communities.

North American Comanagement Regimes and their Features

The development of comanagement regimes is specific to North America (Nadasdy,

2005). The factors that affected the growth of comanagement regimes include some North

American-specific matters such as the ideological dimensions of Anglo-European liberal

capitalism, the disempowerment of Indigenous peoples, and Indigenous treaties and land claims

(Mann, 2003). Hence, the North American comanagement regimes are perceived in a settler–

colonial context.

It is noted in the literature that the Canadian comanagement boards in particular were designed to establish state–local cooperation on wildlife management, and primarily to handle resource conflicts during land claims negotiations (Rusnak, 1997). Some authors (Osherenko,

1988; Thomas & Schaefer, 1991; Binder & Hanbidge, 1993) emphasize the role of comanagement boards in the improvement of communication and understanding between

Aboriginal users and governmental representatives. The model of comanagement is used to avoid the clash of interests among stakeholders (Binder & Hanbidge, 1993). Thus, comanagement boards in North America provide better communication between Indigenous communities and other stakeholders. The second feature of comanagement boards is their politicization. In North America, traditional knowledge is a “political crowbar” that has become politicized more than anywhere else in the Arctic. In a colonial context, TEK is a claim on

Indigeneity, on the rights of lands and resources, which symbolizes a need for self-management of natural resources (Sejersen, 2004; Butler, 2006). The third feature of the discussion of comanagement boards in North America is their strong critique in the literature, mainly by anthropologists. Despite the great potential for TEK’s use and its integration with scientific knowledge, some authors note the idea of incorporating TEK into wildlife management does not work as well in practice as in theory. As Nadasdy (2003) argues, the First Nations in the

Southwest Yukon are likely to view “official” talk about TEK as a form of obfuscation. For their part, scientists and wildlife managers consider traditional knowledge as being inefficient and even non-existent (Nadasdy, 2003). Under conditions of inequality, power issues may determine which methods need to be adopted. Thus, “authorized knowers” use their privilege and power to

87 translate TEK into a form compatible with the institutions and practices of state wildlife management (Nadasdy, 2003). Therefore, North American comanagement regimes are often criticized for power inequality and the lack of acceptance of TEK by scientists and resource managers.

The disbelief in the practical utility of TEK, as well as the necessity to integrate TEK with management systems, results in compartmentalization and distillation of traditional knowledge (Nadasdy, 2003; Houde, 2007; Spak, 2005). Compartmentalization means that TEK is divided into certain categories that are distinguished according to their “usefulness” to Euro-

North American resource managers) (Nadasdy, 2003; Houde, 2007). Usher (as cited in Notzke,

1995) argues that the Indigenous system of management is holistic and reflects Indigenous values, rules, and cosmology, which come with their own unique and authentic view of the environment (p. 190). Houde (2007) highlights six facets of TEK, including factual observations, management systems, past and current uses of nature, ethics and values, culture and identity, and cosmology. This categorization of TEK is hierarchically ordered, starting from the “most useful” to the “least useful” types of TEK. Houde (2007) notes that factual observations of the type of

TEK are the most “requested” form of TEK in the Euro-North American system of resource management because they are compatible with the knowledge used by bureaucrats. Distillation of TEK means that managers are interested only in certain kinds of information (Nadasdy, 2003).

Generalized observations can supplement scientific environmental knowledge and provide additional data while monitoring changes in nature (Houde, 2007). State sponsorship means comanagement regimes in Canada exercise the state’s power to educate the younger generation of Indigenous “resource users” to see the human/environment, and human/animal relationships in a bureaucratic way (Spak, 2005). Therefore, Hadasdy, Houde and Spak recognized several issues

in comanagement boards that lead to less meaningful incorporation of TEK such as

compartmentalization, distillation, and categorization of TEK. Houde states that spirituality and

cosmology of TEK are often neglected by scientists.

The literature about comanagement frequently refers to natural sciences as “science”—

including mainstream environmentalists, biologists, and ecologists—as “Western scientists,” but

excludes social scientists (Huntington, 2000). Western science is perceived as the form of

knowledge system into which TK is incorporated (Dale & Armitage, 2011). Yet, the conception

of Western science is broad and ambiguous, and it is not clear what academic fields are meant to

be scientific. Thus, the definition of Western science is not quite clear.

Because most wildlife managers who work with Aboriginal communities in comanagement regimes are trained as biologists rather than social scientists, some argue that they do not have sufficient skills to access and incorporate TEK into resource management (Dale

& Armitage, 2011). In the interests of making collaboration easier, wildlife managers tend to invite young people as advisors instead of Elders to participate because young Indigenous participants are likely to be more proficient in English and computer literacy (Dale & Armitage,

2011). However, the preference of young Indigenous people often leads to a situation where Inuit participation does not mean the inclusion of TEK in research projects (Dale & Armitage, 2011).

The tendency to invite young Inuit for projects might be explained by the lack of training in social sciences methodology among biologists and natural scientists. Wildlife managers often feel uncomfortable in cross-cultural interactions (Huntington, 2000). Natural sciences, especially biology, were given a privilege as a practice of collecting data in comanagement regimes. Many wildlife managers and researchers are unprepared to collect data from TEK holders (Huntington,

2000). Hence, scientists often prefer working with younger Indigenous people instead of being

engaged with Elders. Thus, there is a lack of cross-cultural communication in TEK research.

Another problem for environmentalist movements is how to treat Native American

concepts. Cruikshank (2004) emphasizes two environmentalist axioms held towards local

knowledge and native people. According to the first axiom, Native Americans are ‘original

ecologists’ who know how to live in harmony with the wilderness. By this mythical view,

Natives intuitively know use the wildlife resources by keeping “intuitive foresight of modern

management strategies.” (Cruikshank, 2004, p. 26). A second axiom is constructed on the Judeo-

Christian perception of nature as an object, where humans should adjust their behaviour in order

to be respectful to the environment (Cruikshank, 2004). Thus, the perception of Indigenous

communities as “original ecologists” can be misleading.

Thus, the literature review suggests that the North American comanagement is socially

constructed and strongly affected by the North American state–Indigenous relations. It must be noted that comanagement is the most well-researched type of community-based regimes of wildlife governance. The literature revealed that the North American context deeply affected the perception of TEK by racializing the topic (focus on Indigeneity/Whiteness); by politicizing the state–local interactions (Indigenous empowerment); and by favouring natural scientists and giving them the power to interpret knowledge.

Canada and TEK

In North America, Indigenous peoples were strongly associated with nature and connection to the wilderness. The mythic image of the “ecological Indian” created by Grey Owl

(Archie Belaney) became popular in media symbolized Indigenous special relationships with the

land and nature (Forkey, 2012). Subsequently, environmentalists began viewing Indigenous

90 peoples as “original stewards of nature” and connected their practices with environmental sustainability and responsible governance of nature (Forkey, 2012). As an outcome of this perception, in 1991, the Canadian Arctic Resource Committee declared that Indigenous peoples of the Arctic have a crucial role to play in protecting the environment, conserving natural resources, and ensuring that development is ecologically and culturally appropriate (CARC,

1991, p. 34). Hence, the government of Canada attempted to engage northern Indigenous communities into environmental policy in the Arctic.

The Canadian attempt to incorporate TEK into comanagement failed because of the “let the leaders pass” policy (Padilla & Kofinas, 2018). Padilla and Kofinas (2018) categorize, for example, four cases of the development of caribou management in northern Canada: Phase one: traditional management (pre-contact to 1950s); Phase two: pre-Porcupine caribou herd comanagement, Dempster Highway construction to completion, and signing of the Porcupine

Caribou Management Agreement (1960s-85); Phase three: early Porcupine caribou herd comanagement through the Porcupine Caribou Management Board (1985-95); Phase four: later

Porcupine caribou herd comanagement with traditional knowledge in a new political context

(1995-2009) (Padilla & Kofinas, 2018).

In the 1970s, the Ministry of Indian Affairs and Northern Development appointed Justice

Thomas Berger to study the social, economic, and environmental impacts of a gas pipeline across northern territories (Blair, 2010). Berger led two projects, the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline Inquiry

(1977) and the Berger Commission Inquiry (1985). These two projects are the earliest examples of participatory inquiry that included TEK (Blair, 2010). Berger suggested a ten-year moratorium on pipeline construction until the Indigenous land claims were negotiated, and a permanent ban

on a pipeline construction across Yukon and Alaska (Blair, 2010). The Berger Inquiry and other

similar projects supported regional solutions to caribou management (Padillo & Kofinas, 2018).

A variety of comanagement regimes were established across the country. Some of them were the outcome of land claims negotiations, and some were established as a response to a resource management crisis (Notzke, 1994). According to Osherenko (1988, cited in Notzke,

1994), neither an Indigenous system of wildlife management or a state-regulated system can protect northern wildlife and ecosystems. The argument is that a government cannot implement its rules without Indigenous involvement, and, in turn, it is impossible for Indigenous

communities to protect their resources and provide access to those resources without state

involvement (Osherenko, 1988, cited in Notzke, 1994).

Some argue that the inclusion of local Indigenous communities into resource

management and the utilization of TEK appeared as a result of regulatory failures in controlling

and monitoring large migratory animals in northern Canada (Thomas & Schaefer, 1991, p. 74).

Due to the cold climate conditions, the major technical management tools—such as control or modification of hunting, predatory monitoring and safeguarding, and enhancing habitat—did not work in the Canadian North (Thomas & Schaefer, 1991, p. 74). This is despite the fact that these tools worked well in Southern Canada and the US; the circumpolar region is thought to be a defining factor in these failures. The remote, local and extreme conditions in the Northwest

Territories (NWT), for example, have meant difficulties in habitat management because of the expensive costs of management and complications such as high prices for obtaining reliable data on the caribou population, recruitment, mortality rate, and harvest level (Thomas & Schaefer,

1991, p. 74). In light of these issues, Indigenous involvement in industrial projects in the

Canadian North has been beneficial for obtaining accurate data about caribou herds and minimizing the costs of management.

According to Notzke (1994), Indigenous communities improved access to natural resources and participation in resource management through comanagement regimes have increased the value of TEK for non-Indigenous actors. Similarly, land claims agreements helped to involve Indigenous participants in the decision-making process. In the Eastern Canadian

Arctic, the Nunavut Final Agreement of 1993 increased the inclusion of TEK into wildlife management (Dale & Armitage, 2010). Negotiating this agreement took twenty years, but since then, the Inuit have had more of a voice in wildlife management than ever before. The negotiations on the Nunavut Land Claims resulted in even better incorporation of the Inuit TEK in wildlife policies (Dale & Armitage, 2010).

In the early 1990s, the Hudson Bay Programme received $1.5 million to document traditional knowledge of the Inuit and Cree communities around Hudson Bay (Richardson, cited in Cruikshank, 2004). This program was a joint initiative of the Canadian Arctic Resource

Committee (CARC), the Rawson Academy of Aquatic Science, and the Environmental

Committee of Sanikiluaq (Belcher Islands) (Notzke, 1994). The main objective of this program was to study the cumulative effects of development projects on Hudson Bay (Notzke, 1994). One of the recent projects, “Inuvialuit Knowledge: Team 10 Traditional Knowledge Project of the

Circumpolar Flaw Lead System Study,” was held in Paulatuk, Ulukhaktok and Sachs Harbour in

2011. It was a collaborative project between scientists and the Northern Indigenous communities of Canada, conducted by the representatives of the ICC Canada, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, Trent

University, Carleton University, and the CFL Team 10 Steering Committee. The goal of the project, “Two Ways of Knowing,” was to contribute to the understanding of the flaw lead system

near Banks Island and Arctic climate change (Team 10 Traditional Knowledge Project, 2011, p.

1). This example demonstrates that prior to the establishment of the Arctic Council, the

importance of Indigenous knowledge had already been recognized by the scientific community

in Canada, and by the Canadian government.

In 1997, the Canadian Arctic Resources Committee conducted a study on TEK of Inuit

and Cree in the Hudson Bay bioregion. The research revealed that TEK was rarely considered by

government agencies, industry, scientists, or others and was dismissed by some bureaucrats as anecdotal or culturally determined (Canadian Arctic Resource Committee,, 1997, p. 1).

During the study, the Cree and Inuit had problems with translating wildlife management concepts into their languages. For example, during the workshop, the word “management” implied control over animals, yet they believed it is impossible to have control over animals in the wilderness. According to their beliefs, humans do not have control over animals, and it is disrespectful to show dominance towards nature (Canadian Arctic Resource Committee,, 1997, p. 58). The research included three workshops and six working groups. The working groups’

meetings provided the discussion and documentation of TEK (Canadian Arctic Resource

Committee,, 1997, p. 72). The meeting proceedings were recorded and then translated and

transcribed into English. The data was developed into a digital text database and digital map

database (Canadian Arctic Resource Committee,, 1997, p. 73). Then, four series of maps were produced, representing more than 90 individual map sheets (Canadian Arctic Resource

Committee,, 1997). The study on TEK in Hudson Bay produced eight technical papers on the bioregion (Canadian Arctic Resource Committee,, 1997).

The land claims settlements played a key role in advancing the Canadian studies on TEK.

For example, after signing the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, the Makivik

Corporation, which was established by the Inuit of Nunavik, organized a Research Department to

gain control over reliable information about their territory, resources, culture and economy

(Brooke, 1993). One of the objectives set up by the Makivik Corporation was to “establish a set of principles and guidelines which would govern Inuit participation in all phases of research and

recognize both the intrinsic value as well as the scientific importance of Inuit knowledge to the

future success of northern science and research.” (Brooke, 1993, p. 105). Hence, the control over

the lands the Inuit obtained through the land claims settlement process helped them to control the

research process on their lands, and also to enhance the importance of the Inuit TEK in Canada.

Hence, due to the implementation of land claims agreements in the early 1990s, the Canadian

studies on traditional knowledge were more advanced than others. Meanwhile, the Saami and

Greenlandic studies on TEK were still developing.

In the early 1990s, the government of Canada aimed to establish the preservation and

enhancement of the environment as its national interest (Canadian Arctic Resource Committee,

1991). According to the report of the Working Group of the National Capital Branch of the

Canadian Institute of International Affairs (1991), the role of Indigenous peoples of Arctic

Canada in protecting the environment, conserving natural resources, and ensuring that envelop

net is ecologically and culturally appropriate was recognized as crucial (Canadian Arctic

Resource Committee, 1991, p.34). The working group supported the Indigenous land claims

settlements as well as self-government initiatives in the Arctic. It was noted that these

settlements should create legal obligations requiring the parties to follow sound environmental

management practices respectful of the distinctive requirements of the northern communities

(Canadian Arctic Resource Committee, 1991, p. 80).

The acknowledgment of traditional knowledge by governmental officials in Canada (the

Great Whale Project) as well as by scientists (the Hudson Bay Program) in the 1990s had a few political outcomes. These projects showed that linking TEK and science could be beneficial for

Indigenous communities because it allowed for their representatives to be involved in scientific research (Cruikshank, 2004). As Cruikshank (2004) notes, the increased participation of Inuit in scientific and industrial projects empowered Inuit in bureaucratic management strategies. After recognizing the advantages of linking TEK to science, Inuit preferred to build close connections with scientists (Cruikshank, 2004). In 1986, the Inuit Circumpolar Conference issued a comprehensive Arctic policy workshop report. Chapter Five of this report, titled “Cultural

Issues,” focused on the importance of traditional knowledge and the necessity to integrate traditional knowledge within future Arctic research (Précis of the 1986 ICC General Assembly,

1986, ch. 5). According to this document, “the traditional knowledge of the Inuit is entitled to equal dignity and respect accorded to any other specialized field of knowledge. Arctic governments, public and private institutes must be urged to support Inuit research centres for the coordination of Arctic research, and eventually the establishment of an Inuit research foundation and a post-secondary education system.” (Précis of the 1986 ICC General Assembly, 1986, ch.

5).

Phase Four is comanagement in a new political context. According to Padilla and Kofinas

(2018), the next stage of TEK and wildlife management relations is advanced comanagement with TEK in a new political context. The political context of wildlife management in the Western

Arctic changed after land claims in NWT and Yukon were settled in the 1980s and 1990s

(Padilla & Kofinas, 2018). By signing land claim agreements, First Nations gained more legal political autonomy.

In 2016, Natural Resources Canada hired contractors from the North Slave Métis

Alliance and the government of the Tlicho First Nation to study traditional and cultural

knowledge on climate and environmental change in the Northwest Territories (The Sun, 2016,

March 12). In her speech to the Assembly of First Nations, Catherine McKenna, the Canadian

Minister of the Environment, stated, “Traditional Indigenous Knowledge is vital when it comes

to assessing climate impacts and resource projects.” (CBC News, 2016, July 13).

Figure 1. Catalyst for comanagement in Canada.

Source: http://www.fao.org/docrep/ARTICLE/WFC/XII/0942-C1.HTM (Notzke, 1995). In Canada, comanagement regimes appeared as a result of three different policies: a)

settlement of land claims agreements with First Nations and the Inuit (comprehensive claims- based comanagement); b) adoption of wildlife management regulations, which occurred as a consequence of resource crisis (crisis-based regime); c) policy measures implemented as a result of Indigenous-state negotiations (policy-based regime).

The US (Alaska) and TEK

The United States participates in Arctic relations through its most remote state: the State of

Alaska. Because of the use of traditional ecological knowledge in wildlife management, Alaskan

Natives have collaborated with wildlife managers and scientists for decades. Traditional

knowledge has been included to wildlife management in Alaska through two legal mechanisms:

1. The collaboration of federal agencies (such as National Marine Fisheries Service,

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) with Alaska Native organizations

(e.g., Alaska Beluga Whale Committee) through comanagement practice;

2. Formal wildlife regulations that include local and traditional knowledge into federal

legislative acts (under the process of review);

Comanagement has been legally introduced in US federal legislation through Section 119

of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) of 1972. Section 119, “Marine Mammal

Cooperative Agreements in Alaska”, notes that “[t]he Secretary may enter into cooperative agreements with Alaska Native organizations to conserve marine mammals and provide comanagement of subsistence use by Alaska Natives.” (Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972,

p. 77). The amendments in MMPA were introduced in 1994 and were intended to recognize the

rights of Alaska Native organizations to participate in the comanagement of subsistence

resources (Agreement for Comanagement of the Western Alaska Beluga Whale Population, May

2001).

According to the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries

(NOAA), comanagement provides full and equal participation to Alaskan Natives on decisions

that affect the subsistence management of marine mammals (NOAA website, 2018). Cooperative

agreements with Alaskan Natives allow the use of traditional and contemporary Alaska Native

knowledge and wisdom (TKW) combined with scientific information for decision-making

processes regarding marine mammal comanagement (NOAA website, 2018). In accordance with

Section 119 of MMPA, NOAA Fisheries and the US Fish and Wildlife Services signed

cooperative agreements with the following Alaska Native organizations: Alaska Beluga Whale

Committee, Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission, Aleut Marine Mammal Commission, Alaska

Native Harbor Seal Commission, Cook Inlet Marine Mammal Council, Ice Seal Committee,

Indigenous People’s Council for Marine Mammals, Traditional Council of St. George Island, and

Tribal Government of St. Paul (NOAA website).

Cooperative agreements are more likely to consider the traditional knowledge of Alaskan

Natives as data that can be used alongside scientific information for research purposes.

According to a 1999 agreement between the National Mating Fisheries Service and the Alaska

Beluga Whale Committee, “The ABWC, in consultation with NMFS, may conduct research on

the biology, natural history and traditional knowledge of the Western Alaska population of beluga whales. NMFS personally may participate in such data collection.” (Section 5, Agreement between NMFS and the ABWC (North Slope website, 2001). One of the primary goals of the agreement between Aleut Marine Mammal Commission and National Marine Fisheries Service includes “promotion of scientific research and the collection of data, including the traditional knowledge of Aleut and other Alaska Natives, in order to facilitate management decisions concerning the Species in the AMMC Region and elsewhere as appropriate.” (Introduction,

Agreement between AMMC and NMFS, 2017 (North slope website, 2001).

Hence, in comanagement agreements, traditional knowledge is viewed as the type of data that can complement scientific information and, in combination with science, can enhance decision-making processes in conservation, management, and utilization of marine mammals in

US waters in and around Alaska (NOAA website, 2018). The fisheries’ management, however, is not regulated by MMPA.

Fisheries Management in Alaska and TEK

Thornton et al. (2010) argue that the current plan of fishery management in Alaska does

not take local and traditional knowledge into account. Although the herring population in the

Gulf of Alaska is under the risk of depletion, the State of Alaska continues to manage fisheries

conservatively. To estimate herring biomass, fishery managers in Alaska use the Age–Structure–

Assessment model, which does not see the marine ecosystem as a complex phenomenon and

does not include local observations as the source of data (Thornton et al., 2010). This

conservative type of fishery management was criticized by local residents and biologists at the

State House Committee (Thornton et al., 2010). In 2010, the Alaska Department of Fish and

Game released “A Program for Improving Management and Research of Fisheries in the

Southeast Region-Herring,” which did not include elements of social scientific inquiry nor Local

and Traditional Knowledge (Thornton et al., 2010).

According to Raymond-Yakoubian and Moncrieff (2017), it is problematic to incorporate

traditional knowledge into Western Alaskan fisheries policy and management processes on a consistent basis. The fisheries management within 3-200 nautical miles (exclusive economic zone) off the coast of Alaska is regulated by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council

(NPFMC). This agency is one of eight regional councils established by the Magnuson-Stevens

Fishery Conservation and Management Act in 1976 (Raymond-Yakoubian, Raymond-

Yakoubian and Moncrieff, 2017). The NPFMC is overseen by the Department of Commerce’s

100

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). The role of NPFMC is to develop management plans

and regulations that can be adopted by NMFS, which implements them (Raymond-Yakoubian,

Raymond-Yakoubian and Moncrieff, 2017). With the exception of the Bering Sea Fisheries

Ecosystem Plan (FEP), the NPFMS has not yet integrated traditional knowledge or TK holders into their policies and management (Raymond-Yakoubian, Raymond-Yakoubian and Moncrieff,

2017). As of 2018, this plan was still under review. The role of FEP is to provide information and guide the NPFMC in their fishery management. NPFMC adopted an “ecosystem-based

fisheries management” approach, which regulates the broader ecosystem of the Bering Sea

instead of focusing on a single species. The FEP is a policy document that is supposed to

implement this approach (Raymond-Yakoubian, Raymond-Yakoubian, and Moncrieff, 2017).

The pre-draft of the Bering Sea Fisheries Ecosystem Plan (FEP) published by NPFMC on

February 2, 2018, mentions the incorporation and integration of local and traditional knowledge

as an approach to managing the Bering Sea ecosystem in a more comprehensive manner (Bering

Sea Fishery Ecosystem Plan, 2017). FEP describes local and traditional knowledge (LTK) as the

observations and experiences of local people in a region who may be, but are not necessarily,

Indigenous (Bering Sea Fishery Ecosystem Plan, 2017). This perception of traditional knowledge

is distinct from NOAA comanagement agreements that are more likely to associate traditional

knowledge with Alaska Natives and their subsistence use of marine mammals. By local non-

Indigenous LTK holders, the FEP is referring to “members of large-scale commercial fishing

groups or residents in remote communities that depend on subsistence fishing and harvesting for

survival (Bering Sea Fishery Ecosystem Plan, 2017).

The FEP also recognizes the utility of social science in the management process. Local

ecological knowledge and traditional ecological knowledge are a part of social science

101 information. LEK and TEK are similar in terms of including knowledge regarding species and ecosystems that is gained through personal engagement with the environment and shared, but unlike TEK, LEK is more recent (Bering Sea Fishery Ecosystem Plan, 2017). The main difference between LEK and TEK is that TEK is transferred over multiple generations (FEP, pre- draft, 2017). The FEP understands LEK and TEK as parts of a bigger concept, LTK. The

NPFMC Council seeks to integrate LTK into the decision-making process on a case-by-case basis (Bering Sea Fishery Ecosystem Plan, 2017). The Council also plans to put more emphasis on the development of collaborative relationships between LTK holders and the Council members (FEP, pre-draft, 2017).

The FEP pre-draft includes a sub-chapter on the operationalization of LTK in Council processes in the short, medium, and long terms. The long-term solution is aimed to integrate

LTK into the process at all stages. The example that is given for long-term policy is the Arctic

Borderlands Ecological Knowledge co-op (Bering Sea Fishery Ecosystem Plan , 2017), which is a community-based society that assesses and monitors changes in the range of the Porcupine

Caribou Herd in Northwest Territories, Yukon and Alaska (Arctic Borderlands Ecological

Knowledge Society website, 2018). Another example of a potential approach for LTK incorporation into the FEP is a case study of an environmental assessment and management from

Canada (as described by Usher, 2000, cited in the FEP pre-draft, 2017). Due to the lack of the utilization of traditional and local knowledge within the US wildlife management system, the

NPFMC is more likely to rely on the Canadian experience of TEK integration. As the NPFMC is responsible for the development of management plans and regulations that will subsequently be adopted by a large federal agency (Raymond-Yakoubian, Raymond-Yakoubian and Moncrieff,

102

2017), the integration of LTK into the Bering Sea Fisheries Ecosystem Plan has the potential to become a leading example for other fisheries management plans in the US.

Figure 2. Catalyst for comanagement in Alaska.

The Conception of Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Community-based Wildlife

Management Regimes in Wildlife Management in Russian Academic Literature

The academic literature on the use of TEK in Russia (Siberia and the Far North) could be divided into English-language sources (mainly published in the US and Canada) and Russian- language sources (published in Russia). Both sources use the term “traditional ecological

103

knowledge” in the context of a Western understanding. For instance, Klokov (2012) defines TEK

as knowledge about nature, which originates through the experience of the traditional use of

nature by certain Indigenous groups. In a broad sense, this knowledge could be accumulated by

local populations whose lifestyle is closely related to the use of nature (p. 9). Klubnikov et al.

(2000) refer to the spiritual and cultural beliefs of the Altaian people, their local knowledge of

plant biodiversity, cultivation and harvesting of crops such as pine nuts, beekeeping, and organic

honey production as examples of TEK.

Despite the familiarity with the concept of TEK, Russian-speaking authors predominantly

use the term “tradicionnoye prirodopol’zovaniye” (traditional use of nature, or TUN) to refer to

Northern Indigenous people’s knowledge of wildlife management. This phrase also includes a traditional economy within the concept (Zakharova & Kirko, 2011). Klokov (1997) refers to

TUN as a crucial element of the existence of Indigenous groups, indeed the loss of TUN

coincides with the disappearance of Indigenous nations and their acculturation to the dominant

Russian culture (Klokov, 1997). Thus, the Russian authors do not use the term “TEK,” but refer to “traditional use of nature” or TUN instead.

Panikarova & Vlasov (2013) define “tradicionnoye prirodopol’zovaniye” as an activity that emerged as a result of the adaptation of nations to natural conditions of occupied territories.

This activity is sustained by the use and maintenance of natural resources in order to support an autonomous ethnocultural existence of Indigenous peoples. In their case study of the Hakass people in Siberia, Panikarova & Vlasov (2013) categorize hunting, fishing, foraging, gardening, and logging as traditional uses of nature. They note that the local knowledge of the Hakass still plays a significant role in their activities related to traditional uses of nature (Panikarova &

Vlasov, 2013). Klokov (1997) introduces the term “ethno-economic systems,” which are based

104 on reindeer herding and hunting as traditional activities of Nenets, Nganasan, Dolgan, and Entsy peoples (case study – Taimyr autonomous district). Therefore, in comparison with TEK, TUN is not a type of knowledge, but rather an activity of Indigenous communities derived as a result of their adaptation to local nature.

Unlike TEK, TUN has a legal definition recognized by Russian law. The federal law,

“About the Territories of Traditional Use of Nature by Indigenous Small-Numbered Peoples of

Siberia, the Far North, and the Far East” (2001) defines TUN as “historically emerged approaches of the renewable use of plants and animals, and any other natural resources by

Indigenous small-numbered peoples of the North, Siberia, and the Far East of Russia.” This

Federal Law was adopted to reach three key goals: 1) to protect the lifestyle and original habitats of small-numbered peoples; 2) to save and develop the original cultures of small-numbered nations; 3) to the preserve the biological diversity of the territories’ traditional use of nature

(Federal Law “About Territories of Traditional Use of Nature,” 2001). Similar to other legal documents of Indigenous peoples in Russia, this document only grants TUN to small Indigenous groups, which excludes large-numbered Indigenous nations (Federal Law “About Territories of

Traditional Use of Nature,” 2001).

Thus, despite the fact that traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) and traditional use of nature (TUN) are very similar conceptually, the latter is more likely to mean an activity, local/Indigenous type of economy, whereas the former refers to information and data accumulated by long-term experience. TEK is not separated into a different concept, and it is usually considered as a part of the traditional use of nature (Klokov, 1997).

Klokov (1997) argues that there are three different models of resource management. The first model of wildlife management is based on the Western mainstream environmentalist

105 paradigm; nature and wilderness are treated as separate from humanity, and any use of biological resources such as hunting, fishing, foraging and so on must be limited to a certain extent. The second model of wildlife governance, which is used in Russia, is called eco-optimization of wildlife resources. This model suggests the rational use of natural resources in the conditions of the state protection of the wilderness. The rational use of resources is based on quantitative measures that guarantee high productivity and low expenses (Klokov, 1997). The third model prioritizes the rights of Indigenous peoples to use wildlife resources locally. It is assumed that

Indigenous groups have been a part of local ecosystems for centuries, and that they learned how to use local wildlife resources without the risk of harming nature (Klokov, 1997). Klokov (1997) notes that the first approach is quite weak in Russia, and the current model is based on the combination of the second and third models of wildlife management. Hence, Klokov assumes that Western and Russian models of wildlife management are organized differently, and the

Russian approach is more likely to favour Indigenous local wildlife governance. Thus, the

Russian wildlife management model is quite authentic and encourages local self-governance of natural resources.

The model of the Russian comanagement agency that Murashko & Yakel (2008) suggest is more similar to the North American version than Klokov’s model. They define ecological comanagement as an opportunity for the public to participate in the decision-making processes regarding environmental issues. Murashko & Yakel (2008) see Indigenous participation as an important part of stakeholder discussions about the protection of nature. Therefore, Murashko &

Yakel (2008) suggest the alternative to a comanagement model, which could be more adaptable to the Russian conditions.

106

It is difficult to say if an authentic model of the use of TEK has been suggested by

Russian authors. Despite the differences in social, political, and historical contexts between

Russia and North America, the problems of common governance of common-pool resources, and

the integration of TEK into wildlife management, are the same. However, it should be noted that

the literature on the utility of TEK in Russia does not analyze any existing policy models; the

authors only suggest the possible alternatives to state-governed wildlife management. It should also be noted that the Russian sources use primarily authentic terminology (territories of traditional nature use; traditional use of nature), which are conceptually different from the

Western terms.

Still, the term “traditional knowledge” is used occasionally in domestic legislation. For example, the “Strategy of Polar Bear Preservation in Russian Federation” (issued by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Ecology) states that the “traditional knowledge of Indigenous residents can give valuable information about the current state of polar bear population.” (Ministry of

Natural Resources and Ecology of Russia, 2010). Another document titled “Concept of

Preservation and Development of Intangible Cultural Heritage”, issued by the Ministry of

Culture recognizes “knowledge and rituals related to nature and the Universe” as one of the

examples of “expression of intangible cultural heritage.” (Ministry of Culture of Russia, 2017).

Finally, the “Strategy of Preservation of Amur Tiger in Russia” (2010) issued by the Ministry of

Natural Resources and Ecology recommends the promotion of “traditional knowledge and rituals of Indigenous peoples that are aimed to preserve and respect Amur tigers.”

Hence, the Russian law is far from recognizing the practical importance of traditional ecological knowledge. Even though the legislation refers to traditional knowledge in a few documents, the Russians are more likely to view this term as an intangible concept that should be

107

preserved as culture or language. Other than that, there is no reference to traditional ecological

knowledge as information that should be used by scientists. Thus, TEK is not significant to the

Russian legislation. The lack of practical importance of TEK and its intangibility might have

been the factors that led to the prevalence of the concept of “traditional nature use” instead of

“traditional knowledge.”

The centralized, top-down approach of natural resource management in Russia led to surprising results. The federal government and President Vladimir Putin’s attention to the protection of traditional lands of the Udege people near the Bikin River in the Far East of Russia resulted in the creation of Bikin National Park in 2015 (Sulyandziga & Lavin, 2017).

The creation of Bikin National Park was related to the Russian attempt to revive the population of Amur tigers (Bocharnikova, 2017)—Vladimir Putin issued several decrees regarding their preservation (Bocharnikova, 2017). Despite the success of Bikin National Park, the term comanagement is not legally fixed in the Russian law. The introduction of comanagement in Russia will depend on the development of civil rights in Russia (R.

Sulyandziga, personal communication, June 2018). Although the creation of Bikin National Park involved the process of consultation with the Udege community, the decision-making process was entirely controlled by the Putin’s administration and the Ministry of Natural Resources

(Bocharnikova, 2017). Therefore, the utilization of TEK and the introduction of any type of comanagement regime in Russia is only possible by using a top-down approach, where the entire

process is led by the federal government.

Figure 3. Catalyst for comanagement in Russia.

108

National parks comanagement:

The federal laws (presidential decrees and decrees of federal agencies) set up de-facto comanagement regime in Bikin National Park

Although Russia has never introduced the concepts of “traditional knowledge” and

“comanagement” into national legislation, the opening of Bikin National Park in 2015 ultimately

became a de-facto case of a TEK regime. The Russian comanagement regime is clearly a result of the implementation of a top-down approach. The Putin administration expressed interest in consultation with Indigenous representatives, and subsequently included their wishes into presidential decrees. The federal laws (decrees of the Ministry of Natural Resources of Russia) also reflected the willingness of the government to cooperate with Indigenous communities in

Primorye. Thus, the top-down approach established a de facto comanagement regime between the administration of the national park and local Indigenous communities. Due to the similarities in the policy approach (direct political decision, not the result of treaties or federal laws implementation), the Bikin comanagement regime might be similar to a policy-based

comanagement in Canada (e.g., Aulavik National Park).

North European (Nordic) TEK – Saami Knowledge

109

The English-written literature on Scandinavian/Nordic TEK includes more emphasis on

the discussion on the utility of TEK than the Russian sources. In a case study of the Coast Saami,

Eythorsson (1993) introduces the term “ethnoecology,” which means the knowledge based on

economic adaptation on natural resources in their local environment for many generations

(Eythorsson, 1993, p. 134). He also discusses traditional knowledge as local knowledge about

the environment. A traditional adaptation of the Coast Saami is seen in fjord fishing, which is small-scaled (Eythorsson, 1993). Hence, the Saami also have a distinct version of traditional ecological knowledge.

Kitti, Gunslay, and Forbes (2006) similarly discuss practitioners’ knowledge—here defined as locally developed practices in resource use—in their study of Saami reindeer management. This type of knowledge is usage-oriented and consists of experience working to secure subsistence from nature (p. 144). For TEK practitioners, knowledge has a holistic nature, closely tied to the Saami language, which comes from experience and practice of reindeer management (Kitt, Gunslay, and Forbes, 2006). The authors argue that practitioners’ knowledge has the potential to complement scientific knowledge. Recently in Fennoscandia, discussions began pertaining to the integration of scientific and traditional knowledge. In 1998, the Saami parliament of Finland suggested using practitioners’ knowledge in research projects, and in 2003, the same initiative was discussed during the seminar, “Practitioners Knowledge in Reindeer

Herding,” in Norway (Kitt, Gunslay, and Forbes, 2006). Thus, similar to the Russian TUN, practitioners’ knowledge is connected to traditional subsistence activities of local Indigenous communities. In addition, the Saami practitioners’ knowledge has only recently been recognized.

110

It is also noted that practitioners’ knowledge has changed as a result of Swedish and

Finnish cultural dominance. Due to technological development, some of the local knowledge of the weather (especially snow) and animals has been lost (Kitti, Gunslay, and Forbes, 2006). As any other Indigenous knowledge, Saami knowledge is characterized as holistic, accumulated through observations, and reflected in the language. Saami TEK is the part of “Indigenous paradigm” as an opposite to Western culture and science (Kuokkanen, 2000). Therefore, similar to North American TEK, Saami TEK is also considered holistic.

The Joint Nordic research program ‘Snow and Ice’ (research of long-term changes in snow and ice conditions) was organized by the Nordic Council of Ministers in order to investigate the perspectives of Saami TEK holders on climate change. This study demonstrated that Saami hunters observe a greater scope of changes than scientists. Moreover, Saami knowledge helped scientists to interpret their data from different, “new” (to the scientists, that is) and creative perspectives (Riseth et al., 2010). Besides the participation of Indigenous herders, the “Snow and Ice” program had an interdisciplinary focus that involved not only meteorologists, ecologists, and snow physicists, but also linguists and economists (Riseth et al., 2010). Hence, the Nordic countries have already organized the studies on Saami knowledge.

The misunderstanding between the Saami’s perception of nature and Swedish environmental policy is described in Torp’s (2001) article, “Traditional Saami Knowledge of

Predators and Swedish Environmental Policy.” According to Torp (2001), the difference in views on predatory control between the Saami community and the Swedish Environmental

Protection Agency led to serious conflict. Because their culture is rooted in reindeer herding, which naturally carried concerns about their personal safety as well as the safety of the reindeer, the Saami argued that the wolf population should be removed from their area. Despite the Saami

111

protests against predators on their pasturelands, the Swedish government and environmentalists

did not listen to the complaints. Instead, environmental concepts and principles such as “natural

rules,” “biological diversity,” and “ecological balance,” were reflected in Swedish environmental policy and norms. As a result, the Saami could not follow a predator that killed reindeer, and on top of this, it was illegal to carry weapons in a cross-country vehicle (Torp, 2001, p. 9). Hence,

Torp’s study demonstrates that the Saami people were engaged in conflicts with Swedish government because of different views on wildlife management.

Overall, the concepts of TEK, nature and science in Nordic sources are similar to that in

North America. Even though some concepts such as ethnoecology and practitioners’ knowledge, among others, sound different for the North American scholar, the understanding of nature in these countries is based on Judeo-Christian traditions of nature as a separate entity. Similarly, there is some level of skepticism among scientists and policy-makers towards the Indigenous knowledge of the Saami people.

Saami Pastoralism in Finland, Sweden and Norway

The literature on reindeer pastoralism offers interesting observations on state–Indigenous

wildlife management cooperation in Sweden, Finland and Norway. Reindeer pastoralism is a

traditional activity of the Saami people, which is their source of food, identity and culture

(Ingold, 1978). According to the literature, there is a debate as to whether or not pastoralism should remain as an Indigenous reindeer management system or transform into a meat

production industry (Ingold, 1978; Bjørklund, 1990; Paine, 1972). Hence, reindeer pastoralism encountered issues with capitalist meat production.

112

The literature suggests that although the Saami domesticated reindeer at least a thousand

years ago, pastoralism (or pastoral adaptation) is a quite recent trend, which originated in the late

16th century as a result of colonization and trading in Finland, Sweden, and Norway (Melkevik,

2002, Ingold, 1978, Bjørklund, 1990; Lundmark, 2007). Hence, Saami traditional knowledge is

related to pastoralism and reindeer herding.

Many authors note that the Saami’s traditional activity of reindeer herders is connected to

their ethnicity, culture, and identity (Melkevik, 2002; Forrest, 1997; Lundmark, 2007; Bjørklund,

1990). Norwegian and Swedish Saami have a legal monopoly on reindeer herding because the

right to practice reindeer herding is only granted to those whose parents or grandparents were

herders and if this activity represented the main source of income (Melkevik, 2002, p, 199;

Williams, 2003). Moreover, only those of Saami heritage or a non-Saami who marries a reindeer

herder are legally able to engage in reindeer husbandry (Williams, 2003). As a result of the

governmental policy, therefore, reindeer herding has become an integral part of the Saami

identity and culture in Norway and Sweden. However, unlike Norway and Sweden, reindeer

management in Finland is practiced both by Finnish and Saami, the Finnish herders have their

associations (Ingold, 1978; Williams, 2003). Therefore, due to governmental policies, reindeer

herding has become strongly connected to Saami identity and culture.

In the debate between the extensive and intensive reindeer models, authors are divided

into two opposing camps: those against modernization (intensive) and those who support it

(extensive). Extensive or transhumance migratory reindeer-herding in Norway encourages Saami

to make reindeer herding a profitable industry. As Melkevik (2002) notes, without economic

incentives from the government, the reindeer industry would not be profitable. On the other hand, the transformation of reindeer herding into a meat production industry creates problems for

113

the Saami, whose identity relies on reindeer herding as their traditional cultural activity

(Melkevik, 2002). Bjørklund (1990) argues that the traditional model of reindeer foraging,

called siida, prevents overgrazing of pasturelands. This adaptive management strategy prevents

overgrazing by dividing and regrouping the herds in order to change their size and composition;

thus, Saami herders prevent overgrazing by keeping the size of the herd within the capacity of

the seasonal grazing area (Bjørklund, 1990). This intensive model of reindeer husbandry

suggests the use of TEK in wildlife management, an approach that is closely related to the

Indigenous identity of Saami people (Bjørklund, 1990; Melkevik, 2002; Forrest, 1997). Hence,

traditional Saami reindeer-herding activity has been under pressure to transform into a profitable

industry.

In contrast, Ingold (1972) argues that only a rationalized, modern type of pastoralism

could secure the future of people from northern Finland, regardless of their ethnicity/culture.

Reindeer herding should be separated from the culture and developed as an economy. Therefore,

modernized, extensive pastoralism is a preferable wildlife management policy for northern

Finland (Ingold, 1972). Bjørklund (1990) questions the concepts of “traditional” and “modern”

pastoralism. He argues that the domestication of reindeer by the Saami was developed as the

outcome of their adaptation to new circumstances only in the last 150-200 years. Therefore, it is

not clear whether Saami pastoralism is a traditional, Indigenous activity of the Saami or if it was

the Saami’s response to changes in local ecosystems (Bjørklund, 1990). Hence, pastoralism might be derived from a Saami response to environmental changes in local ecosystems.

Overall, the literature on Saami pastoralism (local, intensive, TEK-based activity) in

Sweden, Finland and Norway does not explicitly consider Saami reindeer-herding as an alternative to comanagement. The authors mainly focus on discussions of “modernization” of

114 reindeer herding, and as a result, the transformation of this industry to profit-based meat production. While the authors do not refer to pastoralism as a local form of community-based wildlife management, it is clear that Saami pastoralism is, in fact, state–local cooperation in terms of wildlife species. It is thus surprising that Saami pastoralism has not been presented as an alternative to comanagement in the discussion of the Arctic Council.

The Gaps in the TEK and Comanagement Literature

This section of the literature revealed that the types of community-based regimes of resource management are quite diverse in the Arctic. The same argument can be applied to the concepts of local/Indigenous knowledge. Russian sources showed some similarities with the

North American literature in terms of the ideas of community-based wildlife management.

However, the concept of Indigenous knowledge in Russia is perceived differently than in the

Canadian and Alaskan approaches. The Russian authors perceive Indigenous/local knowledge as an outcome/part of a traditional lifestyle or activity. The concept of traditional knowledge in the

Russian literature is not emphasized as much as the concept of traditional use of nature, which has a different contextual meaning than TEK. Similarly, the Nordic sources suggest the alternative regime of community-based wildlife management in the Arctic (Saami pastoralism).

Saami pastoralism is one of the types of community-based resource management regimes

(public–social partnership), but it is managed in a different way than comanagement.

Surprisingly, the literature does not see the Saami pastoralism as an alternative to comanagement or as one of the types of comanagement regimes. At the same time, the literature does not recognize the North American comanagement’s domination in the discussion of the local-based wildlife governance regime. The Nordic sources do not classify the Saami pastoralism as the form of community-based regimes of governing reindeer in the circumpolar conditions. Instead,

115

the discussion of pastoralism is related mainly to the dilemma of future of reindeer herding:

should this industry be intensive (locally managed; TEK is used) or extensive (managed by the

state; TEK is not used)?

The debate on extensive–intensive forms of reindeer herding in the Nordic countries is

not “Indigenized” or politicized to the same extent as in North America, even though the sources

are translated into English. This study also perceives a gap in the comparisons, or lack thereof,

between comanagement boards in North America and Nordic Saami pastoralism. This gap is

likely explained by the absence of English translations of Russian sources, and it is because of

this language divide that, up until now, a comparison of Russian and North American concepts

of TEK has not been possible.

The TEK/science model is an outcome of the Canadian treaty system that was based on

the recognition of Indigenous rights on the lands. The success of Mary Simon in promoting

traditional knowledge in Canada was mostly due to the fact that, as an Indigenous representative, she had already been given a voice in the public hearings in the Great Whale Project. Hence, the

Canadian legal system was already well prepared for Indigenous participation. The North

American dominance of the TEK concept will be addressed in the following chapters.

The literature on the nature of TEK and its incorporation showed that the authors are quite skeptical about the ability of Western scientists to incorporate TEK in a meaningful way; there is an indication that TEK can be compartmentalized, distilled, and as a result, tokenized by scientists. However, despite the criticism and skepticism towards knowledge coproduction, the literature does not demonstrate exactly how the process of meaningful incorporation of TEK should be organized and what requirements should be included in this process to avoid lip service and tokenism. This question will also be addressed in following chapters.

116

117

Chapter 5. Theory and Methodology

The main research question is: Why has the Arctic Council not incorporated TEK into its work?

Theoretical Approach

Regime Theory

As Chapter 2 revealed, states are powerful actors that often promote their agendas and interests internationally and they use international institutions to achieve justification of their actions (Goldsmith & Posner, 2005; Krasner, 1999). More powerful states set their basic rules and define the environment within which transnational actors interact (Krasner, 1999).

In the context of knowledge production, states can determine which knowledge is authorized. Transnational actors do not have enough influence to challenge states’ views (Risse-

Kappen, 1999). The process of knowledge production in IR is also nuanced and strongly affected by powerful states. Powerful groups play a powerful role in the social construction of ideas and interests by creating intersubjective meanings of concepts; IGOs and NGOs provide a lot of information and expertise on important issues (Finnemore & Sikkink, 1998). Interactions between the states involve a high degree of uncertainty that tends to stimulate demands for information (Haas, 1992).

There are two channels that can affect state interests by defining policy issues: epistemic communities that provide information for policy-makers (Haas, 1992) and knowledge brokers who translate this information for policy-makers when the “window of opportunity” arises

(Litfin, 1994). In this regard, epistemic communities exist to meet state demands for information under the conditions of uncertainty in an anarchic environment (Haas, 1992). Epistemic

118

communities can influence state interests by directly recognizing them for policy-makers or by

highlighting the salient dimensions of an issue from which the decision-makers may then deduce

their interests (Haas, 1992). Knowledge brokers can serve as intermediaries between epistemic

communities and policy-makers. They do not produce knowledge; they interpret it for decision-

makers (Litfin, 1994).

Social Constructivism

TEK is a subjugated knowledge. This is one of the factors why the process of the

incorporation of TEK in the AC has experienced lip service. Power and knowledge are

intimately connected and directly impact one another, so that “there is no power relation without

the correlative constitution of a field of knowledge that does not presuppose and constitute at the

same time power relations” (Foucault, cited in Abrahamsen, 2000, p. 14). Foucault (1980, cited

in Hartman) argues that “we are subjugated to the production of truth through power and we

cannot exercise power except through the production of truth.” According to Hartman (2000),

the political nature of knowledge is expressed through the so-called insurrection of subjugated

knowledge (Foucault, cited in Hartman, 2000), when sociopolitical movements challenge

privileged truths by providing their subjugated knowledge. Thus, TEK is the form of subjugated

knowledge, because Western scientific knowledge has dominated the discourse of resource

management in the Arctic for a long time. Because TEK is subjugated knowledge, the value of

TEK is not recognized in all Arctic states, and there is still scientific resistance towards TEK.

Organizations can be effective agents of social construction in part because the rational- legal authority they embody is widely viewed as legitimate and good (Boli & Thomas, 1998, cited in Finnemore & Sikkink, 2001). For example, the Organization for Security and

Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) uses its legitimacy and perceived impartiality to carry out

119

“seminar diplomacy” among its members—teaching them new values and new models of

behavior (Finnemore & Sikkink, 2001). Similarly, the Arctic Council Working Groups can play

the role of epistemic communities by promoting certain views on TEK, for instance, by seeing

the utilization of TEK as a substantial contribution to Indigenous engagement and empowerment.

The AC Working Groups set the agenda in a way that perceived TEK as a highly politicized

issue. TEK has to be included in every project and assessment because the agenda setters (the

AC Working Groups) see the recognition of TEK as a large contribution to Indigenous

empowerment and reconciliation with Indigenous communities.

This study argues that as epistemic communities, the AC Working Groups shaped the discussion of TEK in a certain way that affected the perception of TEK. Because Canada and the

US were active in the Working Groups that discussed TEK (e.g., CAFF and SDWG), they were

able to frame the context of this discussion. As the literature review indicated, in comparison to

the US and Canada, the Nordic countries and Russia have a very distinct history of settler–

colonial relationships where TEK has not been much recognized as a valuable and useful type of

data. Yet, despite the lack of TEK recognition outside of Canada and the US, the AC still

acknowledged the significance and value of TEK in Ottawa Declaration (Arctic Council, 1996).

As the literature indicated, the North American perception of TEK is closely related to land

claims and Indigenous rights activism. TEK and Indigenous activism in North America are very

highly politicized. As a result of the active involvement of Canada and the US in the AC

Working Groups, the discussion of TEK is “politicized” in the AC as well.

This study will test three hypotheses:

120

H1: TEK is only nominally incorporated into the AC – lip service; H2: The inclusion of PPs changed/improved the incorporation; H3: Canadian-led projects were more successful than others in incorporating TEK.

This study has developed a theoretical model of the discussion of TEK in the Arctic

Council. The study argues that the concept of TEK was not given, but instead, it was created and framed in the process of interactions between epistemic communities, state actors and knowledge brokers (see Figure 1). This study uses regime theory and a social constructivist approach in the analysis of the incorporation of TEK in the AC.

121

Figure 4. The theoretical model of the discussion of TEK in the Arctic Council.

Hypotheses:

According to the first hypothesis (H1), the inclusion of TEK into the AC work resulted in a lack of understanding of what TEK is and how to organize the process of its integration into

Western science. The study uses the term “lip service.” lip service occurs when TEK is only nominally included in scientific and policy assessments. In 1996, Mary Simon announced that

Indigenous peoples’ knowledge gets “a lot of lip service” (Simon, cited in Tennberg, 2000, p.

69).

The lip service scenario can be characterized by the need to integrate TEK to empower

Indigenous communities, but in fact, there is no real understanding how TEK can be applied and

122

used by scientists. One of the possible reasons for lip service to occur might be the lack of

understanding of how an international regime of TEK integration/knowledge production should be established. Even given the fact that TEK is a universal concept, Indigenous knowledges in the Arctic do not use the same approaches and methodologies—they are all very diverse.

As the literature review indicated, Canada, the US, Russia and Scandinavian countries have different models of incorporating TEK into their domestic legislation. Therefore, the difference in legal systems negatively affects the capacity of the international community in the

Arctic to set up one particular model of utilization of TEK that could be universal and could be

applied everywhere. Under the conditions whereby there is a lack of good ideas on how to organize the process of integration of TEK in the Arctic, the attempts to utilize TEK in scientific assessments and reports will continuously fail. As John Crump said, “I think one of the areas has been and continues to be discussed, I guess, is how to ensure it’s [TEK] being used properly; that said, a number of working groups have made significant attempts to do that.” (John Crump,

personal communication, June 25, 2019).

The other reason for the lack of meaningful integration of TEK into projects and

assessments might be the consideration of TEK as being inefficient and even nonexistent

(Nadasdy, 2003). The disbelief in the practical utility of TEK, as well as the necessity to

integrate TEK with management systems, results in compartmentalization and distillation of traditional knowledge (Nadasdy, 2003; Houde, 2007; Spak, 2005). Compartmentalization means that TEK is divided into certain categories that are distinguished according to their “usefulness” to Euro-North American resource managers (Nadasdy, 2003; Houde, 2007). Factual observations

of the type of TEK are the most “requested” form of TEK in the Euro-North American system of

resource management because they are compatible with the knowledge used by bureaucrats

123

(Houde, 2007). A distillation of TEK means that managers are interested only in certain kinds of

information (Nadasdy, 2003).

Because most wildlife managers who work with Aboriginal communities in

comanagement regimes are trained as biologists, rather than as social scientists, some argue that

they do not have sufficient skills to access and incorporate TEK into resource management (Dale

& Armitage, 2011). Wildlife managers often feel uncomfortable in cross-cultural interactions

(Huntington, 2000). The lack of cross-cultural expertise often leads to a lack of understanding of how to properly utilize TEK.

At last, “lip service” can occur because of the lack of understanding of how to utilize

TEK in policy regulations. According to Ellis (2005), even with good intentions to understand traditional knowledge, policy-makers of the dominant Western society are unavoidably enmeshed in their own cultural values, practices, and institutions. As a result, for example, in the

Northwest Territories, Canada, TEK policy requirements provided virtually no guidance for implementation. As a result, organizations are left to interpret and implement these policies as they see fit (Ellis, 2005, p. 70).

Thus, the first hypothesis (H1), is that incorporation of TEK in the Arctic Council projects might involve “lip service.” “Lip service” occurs due to a lack of understanding of how to meaningfully integrate TEK, while TEK is only nominally included in scientific assessments and reports. The study will apply a PILAC evaluation scale to all projects and assessments that incorporated TEK into their work. The study will also look at meeting minutes and their mention of TEK to analyze the level of success of these discussions. Finally, a graph will be created that will show the general patterns of TEK integration into the work of the AC. Is there a specific tendency? Is the process of integration of TEK evolving or degrading? Are there ups and downs?

124

According to the second hypothesis (H2), the inclusion of Permanent Participants into

AC work helped to incorporate TEK into the AC work in a more meaningful way. According to the literature review, the internal structure of the Arctic Council, which is a high-level intergovernmental forum, strongly affected the discussion of TEK (Nillson, 2009). Unlike other international environmental regimes, the Arctic Council allowed Indigenous organizations to participate in the discussion of environmental issues as Permanent Participants (Nilsson, 2009;

Tennberg, 2000; Heinämäki, 2009, Nilsson, cited in Doelle, 2009; Thorpe, cited in Arctic

Council, 2004). By using this opportunity, Permanent Participants are able to participate in the discussion about the conception of TEK and its utilization in the Arctic environmental regimes similar to “knowledge brokers.” (Nilsson, 2009; Litfin, 1995; O’Neill, 2009). By doing this, along with scientists, Permanent Participants are able to promote their interests—including the utilization of TEK—on the international level, even given the fact that the amount of their contributions to the discussion in the AC is unclear (Nillson, 2009; Byers, 2013).

The literature review revealed that Indigenous organizations in the Arctic are strongly tied to their states (Loukacheva, 2008, Tennberg, 2009; Ingimundarson, 2014). Even though their opinions regarding certain issues could be neglected or debated by other members of working groups (English, 2013; Lassig, 2000), the status of Permanent Participants still gives them a capacity to affect international politics in the Arctic (Shadian, 2010, Tennberg, 2009, Byers,

2013, Nillson, 2009, Koivurova, 2008).

Therefore, there is a strong possibility that the Permanent Participants play a crucial role in the incorporation of TEK into the work of the Arctic Council. The study will analyze the working groups’ meeting minutes to investigate the PP’s impact on the integration of TEK. The

125

study will also evaluate reports and assessments published by PP’s in order to see to what extent

PPs were able to integrate TEK into Western science.

The third hypothesis states the Canadian-led projects in the AC incorporated TEK into a more successful, meaningful way. The literature review indicated that not all regimes of practical implementations of TEK are legally institutionalized in the Arctic. Only in North America, and particularly, in Canada, the community-based regime of wildlife resources has been politicized and Indigenized to a great extent. Comanagement is one of the models of state–local wildlife governance or public–social partnership (Delmas & Young, 2009), which was derived as a result of historical state–Indigenous relationships, the evolution of environmental politics in North

America, and the attempt to empower Indigenous peoples politically (Nadasdy, 2005; Nadasdy,

2015; Winn, cited in Rusnak, 1997). The literature review indicated that a new political context in Canada brought up more attention to the role of TEK in resource extraction projects (Padilla &

Kofinas, 2018). Catherine McKenna, then Canada’s Minister of Environment, stated,

“Traditional Indigenous Knowledge is vital when it comes to assessing climate impacts and

resource projects.” (Cheadlea, 2016, July 13).

126

Interviewees’ Selection

The interview selection included representatives of the following Arctic Indigenous

organizations: Aleut International Association (AIA); Arctic Athabaskan Council (AAC);

Gwich’in Council International (GCI); Inuit Circumpolar Council (ICC); Russian Association of

Indigenous Peoples of the North (RAIPON); and Saami Council (SC) because of their status of

Permanent Participants of the Arctic Council. This list is publicly available on the website of the

Arctic Council (http://www.arctic-council.org/index.php/en/about-us/permanent-participants).

The researcher will contact these organizations by email and ask them about interviewing, and

the choice of representatives will be made by the organizations themselves.

The study also conducted interviews with participants (non-Indigenous people) who are directly

involved in the work of the Arctic Council, particularly persons who participate/have

participated in the discussion of the use of traditional ecological knowledge in the Arctic. These

participants will be chosen according to the literature review.

` The study selected these interviewees to find data on the gaps that were not covered by

official documents or academic literature. The study chose to interview Indigenous activists

because they worked with the PPs reports and were involved in the AC meetings on behalf of

PPs. The research also selected persons who were involved in discussions of TEK and preparation of TEK projects in the Working Groups. The research also interviewed governmental organizations and officials (e.g., Global Affairs Canada) that participated in knowledge coproduction processes at the domestic and international levels.

127

The study invented the PILAC indicators scale to analyze the Arctic Council reports and assessments from 1993-2019. These documents were selected as they mentioned TEK and its incorporation in their content. The sources were selected by way of a purposive sampling technique and analyzed using qualitative content analysis and manual coding techniques. To find reports on this topic, the study searched for the themes “traditional ecological knowledge,” “local knowledge,” “Indigenous knowledge,” “traditional and local knowledge,” “Traditional knowledge and wisdom.” A total of more than 40 reports were included in the analysis. So, these reports and studies included TEK as part of their research or they at least mentioned TEK in their texts. The sources analyzed in this article are available online on the Arctic Council website

(https://arctic-council.org/index.php/en/).

128

Qualitative Content Analysis

Content analysis is a method of analyzing the content of written documents, transcripts,

and other types of written communication (McNabb, 2004). Content analysis is used to describe

attributes of messages without reference to the intentions of a message sender. Content analysis

is used in political science quite often. Counting how many times in a speech a candidate

denigrates the character of a political opponent is an example of the application of content

analysis in political science (McNabb, 2004). Content analysis is a research tool used to

determine the presence of certain words, themes, or concepts within some given qualitative data

(i.e., text) (Columbia University website, 2019). Using content analysis, researchers can quantify

and analyze the presence, meanings and relationships of certain words, themes, or concepts.

Researchers can then make inferences about the messages within the texts, the writer(s), the

audience, and even the culture and time of surrounding the text (Columbia University website,

2019).

Differences between Basic (Quantitative) Analysis and Qualitative Content Analysis.

Basic or quantitative content analysis is the most common method in the

multidisciplinary literature. The basic content analysis aims to content features that could be

categorized with little or no interpretation by the coder. This type of content analysis uses quantitative data and centers on the use of descriptive statistics (Drisko & Maschi, 2015). The key difference between basic and qualitative analysis is that the former relies mostly on frequency counts of low inference events that are manifest or literal and that do not require the researcher to make an extensive interpretive judgement. Qualitative analysis involves greater judgements in coding and in data analysis (Drisko & Maschi, 2015). For this study, it is crucial

129 to distinguish between the meaningful incorporation of TEK and “lip service,” which means a greater level of interpretation than is required by basic content analysis. Therefore, even though basic content analysis is in widespread use and more popular, this type of content analysis does not fit the goals and objectives of this particular study.

Table 1. The AC Working Groups and Permanent Participants.

The Arctic Council Working Groups Permanent Participants reports reports and meeting minutes CAFF ICC SDWG RAIPON PAME AIA AMAP AAC ACAP GCI EPPR Saami Council

To identify the difference between successful integration (meaningful) integration of

TEK into the AC work and “lip service,” the study designed the PILAC evaluation scale as explained at the beginning of this chapter. The study will use this scale to assess the degree of meaningful integration of TEK in the AC reports and assessments. The study will apply the evaluation scale to reports and assessments that include TEK.

Table 2. PILAC indicators.

Indicators PILAC - P – participation of Indigenous communities in studies; evaluation - I – Indigenous methodologies; scale - L – Recognition of localized nature of TEK; - A – Application of TEK to policy-making process; - C – Cross-cultural communication in studies.

130

What is considered to be a meaningful integration of TEK into science? The literature review indicated that “lip service” tends to be a great challenge when it comes to the incorporation of TEK at the domestic level. How does one evaluate reports and assessments that incorporate TEK in the Arctic Council? Based on interviews and academic sources, the dissertation developed an evaluation scale that involves five indicators that assess the degree to which traditional ecological knowledge was incorporated into the studies. The PILAC scale is based upon the use of qualitative analysis (content analysis), which will be explained below.

The PAME report, Meaningful Engagement of Indigenous Peoples and Local

Communities in Marine Activities (2017), understands meaningful engagement as a full representation of Indigenous points of views in the databases and reviews (PAME, 2007). In order to avoid the lip service stage, when TEK is only nominally included in scientific assessments, it is important to identify basic criteria/indicators of meaningful integration of TEK into science.

After reviewing articles on the integration of TEK in global research and analyzing interviews with Indigenous leaders and scholars involved in TEK research, the study has identified five indicators of meaningful inclusion of TEK into Western science.

- P – Participation of Indigenous communities in studies;

- I – Indigenous methodologies;

- L – Recognition of localized nature of TEK;

- A – Application of TEK to policy-making process;

- C – Cross-cultural communication in studies.

Quick Guide on the PILAC Evaluation Scale

131

The PILAC evaluation scale is the first tool to analyze the level of the incorporation of

TEK into scientific reports and assessments. There is no other qualitative model for TEK

analysis and application currently in existence.

The objective of the PILAC evaluation scale is to introduce indicators that assess the

degree of meaningful integration of traditional ecological knowledge (Traditional and Local

Knowledge) into the Arctic Council reports by using content analysis and applying PILAC indicators to content analysis.

Coding Techniques.

The PILAC scale is based on manual deductive coding. Deductive coding begins from

scratch and creates codes based on the qualitative data itself. The researcher does not have a set

codebook; all codes arise directly from the reports (Getthematic.com, 2019). Deductive manual

coding includes several stages: Deductive coding applies predefined codes (PILAC

indicators), then assigning those codes to the new qualitative data. Deductive coding is also

called concept-driven coding (Getthematic.com, 2019). Coding the qualitative data makes the

messy scripts quantifiable (Medium.com). In this case, qualitative data from the TEK projects turn

into quantitative data. The predefined codes were created on the basis of interviews and academic

literature. While creating the predefined codes, the research attempted to identify what was

missing in the TEK incorporation process. As a result, the data from interviews and literature was

synthesized into the set of indicators (predefined codes), which can be applied to any research that

claims to incorporate TEK.

The deductive coding with the use of PILAC indicators involves several stages (based on

Getthematic.com, 2019):

132

1) Identifying the document that mentions TEK or the incorporation of TEK;

2) Reading through the document;

3) Identifying whether the predefined codes match the qualitative data in the report;

4) Assigning the score based on the PILAC scale (1-4).

What are the PILAC Indicators?

The adoption of this list of indicators should allow for the evaluation of the reports released by Working Groups and Permanent Participants during their work in the AC.

How are These Indicators Defined?

P – Participation of Indigenous Communities in Studies Indicator P recognizes whether any participatory method (e.g., photovoice) was used in a study.

This indicator answers the question: Were any participatory methods used while working with

Indigenous communities?

Measurement Guidance/Recommendations include the following:

1 – Low or absent – Indigenous participation is not recognized; participatory methodology is not

used in the study;

2 – Medium – Indigenous participation is recognized; PAR method is not identified in the study;

3 – High – Indigenous participation is recognized; PAR method is identified in the study;

4 – Very high – PAR method is identified; Indigenous co-authorship is recognized.

133

For example, the following words can be included in studies: “semi-directive interviews,”

“participation,” “surveys,” “participatory action” and others. The example of the use of the sentence: “Interviews and focus groups were used in study.”

The study applied this indicator by using the combination of Ctrl+F in Microsoft Office

Word for searching for text within a message and looking for keywords (e.g., “semi-directive interviews,” “participation,” “surveys,” “participatory action”). The list of keywords is not restricted. Alternatively, by reading the text of a report and highlighting keywords.

For example, the scale assigns 4 points (very high) to the study after recognizing the following sentences in a report: Indigenous peoples participated in this study as focus groups.

The focus group was held at Blueberry River First Nations reserve, and included a total of eight knowledge holders (Leech, Bates and the Blueberry River First Nation, 2016, p. 10). BRFN were recognized as co-authors and coresearchers of the report.

How does the first indicator (P - participation of Indigenous communities in studies) reflect a meaningful integration of TEK in the coproduction of knowledge?

According to Gunn-Britt Retter, utilization of TEK works best through participation; knowledge holders should be a part of any research that informs decision-making, and it requires a systematic approach to how we bring TEK to the decision-making process (personal interview,

November 5, 2018). Tero Mustonen notes that academia tends to capture Indigenous knowledge for the purpose of writing theses, articles or working on research projects. These studies often contain some elements of TEK, just to say that Indigenous knowledge was included. Mustonen is supportive of Indigenous communities who are saying: “We have not been consulted. We have not been given this possibility to influence how things are being discussed or what is going on.”

134

(Tero Mustonen, personal communication, March 22, 2019). Stephanie Irlbacher-Fox suggests

that in some cases, Indigenous communities might anticipate that sharing their knowledge will be

used against them. Thus, it should be very clearly defined how TEK is going to be used

(Stephanie Irlbacher-Fox, personal communication, March 4, 2019).

Many methods can be used to apply participatory action research to studies on the integration of TEK. In addition to PAR methods, suggested by Yohe et al. (2007), Hormel

(2017) suggests using the photovoice method (as one of the examples of participatory methods) that was developed to open avenues for politically marginalized populations to identify important places and issues where they live, and to share their experiences. Research participants are asked to take photos that provide an answer to research questions (Hormel, 2017).

The use of participatory methodologies such as participatory mapping, community-based assessment, photovoice method or scenario-based exercises can help to create dialogues that connect Indigenous communities, governments and scientists (Yohe et al., 2007, p. 832-833).

That being said, Indigenous communities must be research participants of the study. Ford et al.

(2016) suggest that Indigenous scholars, elders and thought leaders must be represented at the lead author and contributing author levels (p. 351).

As Castleden, Sloan Morgan & Neimanis (2010) argue, research is one of the dirtiest words in the Indigenous vocabulary, as in many cases, the Western scientific paradigm implies research on Indigenous communities rather than with them, leading to a lack of Indigenous control over the research process or outcomes (Castleden, Sloan Morgan & Neimanis, 2010), p.

23). Determination of community co-authorship and acknowledgement of the intellectual contribution of Indigenous collaborators is crucial, and this topic requires further research

(Castleden, Sloan Morgan & Neimanis, 2010).

135

Indicator: I – Indigenous Methodologies.

Indicator I identifies if Indigenous knowledge holders participated as co-authors of a research study and/or had control over the data in a study. This indicator answers the question:

Are Indigenous communities/knowledge holders involved in the study as subjects, not objects?

Measurement Guidance/Recommendations include the following:

1 – Low or absent – Indigenous methodology is not recognized; Indigenous communities did not collect and document their knowledge as equal partners;

2 – Medium – Indigenous methodology is recommended to be used but not identified in the study; Indigenous communities did not collect and document their knowledge as equal partners;

3 – High – Indigenous methodology is applied to the study; Indigenous communities did not collect and document their knowledge as equal partners;

4 – Very high – Indigenous methodology is applied to the study and/or Indigenous communities collected and documented their knowledge as equal partners/collaborators.

For example, the following words can be included in studies: “Indigenous methodology,”

“Indigenous partnership in a research,” and/or “co-authorship with Indigenous partners”

For example, the scale assigns 4 points (very high) to the study after recognizing the following sentences in a report: “This project adopted Siida (Saami) method.” To apply this indicator, the scale suggests using the combination of Ctrl+F in Microsoft Office Word for searching for text within a message and looking for keywords (e.g., “Indigenous methodology,”

136

“Indigenous partnership in a research,” “co-authorship with Indigenous partners”). The list of

keywords is not restricted. Alternatively, by reading the text of a report and highlighting

keywords.

How does the second indicator (I - the use of Indigenous methodologies) reflect a

meaningful integration of TEK in the coproduction of knowledge?

The process of coproduction of TEK and Western scientific knowledge often involves the

possibility of compartmentalization and distillation of TEK. According to Nadasdy (2005),

compartmentalization means putting knowledge into categories, and distillation is understood as

interest only in certain kinds of data (e.g., information that can be reflected in numbers and lines

on maps) (Nadasdy, 2005). Compartmentalization and distillation of Indigenous knowledge

come from the Western systems and methodologies (Larry Merculieff, personal interview,

February 20, 2019). However, a lack of Indigenous methodologies and approaches might result

in compartmentalization and distillation of TEK. According to Heikillä (2006), wildlife

management is approached as a process of intercultural communication, where TEK and

scientific knowledge are the interpretative resources rather than closed and compact realms of

knowledge (p. 73). The outcomes and statements of these sources are perceived as culturally

constructed interpretations of reality (Heikillä, 2006, p. 74). There is a need in the dialogue

between Indigenous and scientific perceptions before the process of integration (Heikillä, 2006).

Simple insertion of Indigenous categories into ecological knowledge would not make it

applicable. There are also some starting points in Western science that Saami reindeer herders might find doubtful, whereas for environmental managers, these points might sound self-evident

(Heikillä, 2006, p. 89).

137

Gratani et al. (2014), in their study on the integration of TEK and science in Australia, suggest that the concept of integration is controversial, as integration may lead to the extrapolation of some TEK to be utilized in mainstream natural resource management while disregarding the cultural context of TEK (p. 169). Integration may also result in cultural erosion of already marginalized Indigenous communities (Gratani et al. 2014).

According to Gratani et al.’s (2014) study, TEK is not valued and used enough in the management due to the lack of understanding of what TEK is and what contributions it can make to wildlife management; there is lack of trust towards the validity of TEK and the managers’ requirement to simplify decision-making, while including TEK in the process makes it even more difficult (p. 172).

In some states such as Canada and the US, the government requires to utilize TEK in scientific assessments. For example, according to Circumpolar Protected Areas Monitoring

Report No. 4 (2011), national parks in Canada are comanaged and require that State of the Parks

Reports have a TEK section, and report the perspective of the condition of the land from

Indigenous communities (CAFF, 2011, p. 10). The lack of understanding of how to apply TEK to wildlife management on the one hand, and the state requirement to include TEK into reports and assessments on the other hand, may result in a lack of capacity to utilize TEK meaningfully.

What is the right solution to avoid compartmentalization and distillation of TEK during the process of integration? Larry Merculieff argues that there are many projects that call for incorporation of TEK into Western science, but incorporation does not fit, because that agency, researcher, or university system have their own mission. They ask for data that fits their research query and their hypothesis, and that shrinks what TEK is into their Western model. What science does is take pieces of information that Indigenous peoples have. Unlike Indigenous Elders,

138

researchers are not looking for the context; they are looking for specific pieces. For communities,

context is important (personal interview, February 20, 2019). Thus, Larry Merculieff believes

that local and regional Indigenous groups should develop their own capacity to look at the

information that they are receiving, and then interpret it for Western science (personal interview,

February 20, 2019). Similarly, Stephanie Irlbacher-Fox suggests that the process of TEK integration should be done by Indigenous peoples using self-governing functions (personal interview, March 4, 2019).

Are Indigenous communities/knowledge holders involved in the study as subjects, not objects? Yet, current legislation of the Arctic states does not allow Indigenous self-governments to emerge. However, even given the lack of self-governing functions for Indigenous communities, it is possible to overcome the barriers of inequality between colonial governments and Indigenous communities when it comes to the coproduction of knowledge by simply allowing Indigenous communities to collect, document and validate their Indigenous knowledge.

As a recent example, the Wood Buffalo Environmental Association (WBEA) established a partnership with Fort McKay First Nation in Alberta, Canada (Wood Buffalo Environmental

Association website, 2019). In 2010, the members of Fort McKay First Nation approached

WBEA with concerns about observed changes in quantity and quality of blueberries and cranberries growing on their traditional lands. As a result, WBEA and the members of Fort

McKay First Nation established the Fort McKay Berry Focus Group.

Indicator: L - Recognition of Localized Nature of TEK.

139

Indicator L recognizes whether TEK has been identified as local in order to avoid overgeneralizations of TEK. Are Indigenous cultures/languages/knowledges specifically recognized?

Measurement Guidance/Recommendations include the following:

1 – Low or absent – Indigenous communities are not recognized by their names; TEK is recognized only as “Indigenous knowledge” without a connection to a certain group;

2 – Medium - Although TEK is recognized only as “Indigenous knowledge”, with no reference

to a specific group/knowledge, the report recognizes specific Indigenous groups and Arctic

regions;

3 – High - The report recognizes specific Indigenous groups and Arctic regions, TEK is

connected to these communities and identified as their knowledges;

4 – Very high – The report recognizes specific Indigenous groups and Arctic regions, TEK is

connected to these communities and identified as their knowledges; the report identifies unique

specificities and differences of their Indigenous knowledges from other Indigenous groups.

Reference to an ethnicity/culture (e.g., Blackfoot) and local area (e.g., Calgary, AB).

For example, the following words can be included in studies: “The Sakha Traditional

Knowledge was collected for this study.” To apply this indicator, the scale suggests using the combination of Ctrl+F in Microsoft Office Word for searching for text within a message and looking for keywords (e.g., “people”, “nation”, “community”). The list of keywords is not restricted. Alternatively, by reading through the text of a report and highlighting keywords.

Example of application of this indicator to a study:

140

For example, the scale assigns 4 points (very high) to the study after recognizing the

following sentences in a report: “Blueberry River First Nations (BRFN) Indigenous Knowledge

was recognized as specific for the northeast of BC and northwest of Alberta. The diversity of

TEK terminology was described on page 9 of the report. BRFN has chosen the term Indigenous

knowledge for this study.” (Leech, Bates and the Blueberry First Nations, 2016, p. 9).

Indicator: A - Application to Wildlife Management.

Indicator A identifies if TEK has been used as recommendations for policy-makers. This indicator answers the question: Has TEK been actually applied to policy recommendations through the use of methods to document TEK (maps, graphs, tables) and were Indigenous communities identified as advisors in recommendations?

Measurement Guidance/Recommendations include the following:

1 – Low or absent – No scientific methods of TEK documentation (maps, graphs, tables) (maps, graphs, tables) were used in a study; policy recommendations/study outcomes do not include phrasing that refers to Indigenous communities specifically as a subject and their will (identified, noted, express the view, pointed out), or reference to TEK as a data source (e.g., based on TEK,

IK etc.) was used in study outcomes/policy recommendations;

2 – Medium – Scientific methods of TEK documentation (maps, graphs, tables) were used in a study, but policy recommendations do not refer to TEK data, they do not use phrasing that refers to Indigenous communities specifically as a subject and their will (identified, noted, express the view, pointed out).

3 – High – Scientific methods of TEK documentation (maps, graphs, tables) were used in a study, and policy recommendations do not refer to TEK data, they do not use phrasing that refers

141 to Indigenous communities specifically as a subject and their will (identified, noted, express the view, pointed out).

4 – Very high – Scientific methods of TEK documentation (maps, graphs, tables) were used in a study, and policy recommendations do not refer to TEK data, they do not use phrasing that refers to Indigenous communities specifically as a subject and their will (identified, noted, express the view, pointed out). Policy recommendations include joint management with Indigenous communities over natural resources.

The use of methods to document TEK such as maps, graphs, and tables must be prevalent in a research project. For example, the following words can be included in studies: “Indigenous communities recommended, identified, noted, express the view, pointed out.” The example of use in a sentence: “Based on TEK, the report proposes the following recommendations…”

To apply this indicator, the scale suggests using the combination of Ctrl+F in Microsoft

Office Word for searching for text within a message and looking for keywords (e.g., “map,”

“figure,” “graph,” etc.; “Indigenous communities recommended, identified, noted, express the view, pointed out”). The list of keywords is not restricted. Alternatively, by reading through the text of a report and highlighting keywords.

Measurement Guidance/Recommendations include the following:

Pages 45-53 of the report identified BRFN management recommendations for Muskeg and Mountain Caribou. Figures 4a, 4b, 5a, and 5b (maps of forage potential for boreal caribou in winter and foraging habitat in proximity to security for boreal caribou) are based on BRFN

Indigenous knowledge (Leech, Bates and the Blueberry First Nations, 2016, p. 27-30). The study outcomes refer to BRBN recommendations as a guidance.

142

How does the third indicator (L – recognition of localized nature of TEK) reflect a

meaningful integration of TEK in the coproduction of knowledge?

Tero Mustonen states that “We need to acknowledge that we should not forget that the

Evenki, Selkup, Khanty, all these other local groups have their own specific knowledges. That

should be recognized and not superimposed with too much of a North American concept.”

(personal communication, March 22, 2019). TEK cannot be generalized or homogenized.

Despite great similarities between the regions, there is a need to study the specific culture, land and ecosystems as distinct entities and not to generalize too much (Tero Mustonen, personal communication, March 22, 2019).

According to Tero Mustonen, TEK is always place-bound. TEK is specific to certain families, certain bloodlines and specific oral histories, ways of life. Therefore, the deeper parts of that knowledge have to do with how human societies are connected with the land—forests in the boreal, tundra, lakes, rivers and so forth (Tero Mustonen, personal communication, March 22,

2019). TEK is also very localized and tied to a specific area. In order to acquire TEK, one has to

be present in the taiga, on the river, in the forest, etc. (Pavel Sulyandziga, personal

communication, June 13, 2018). TEK is local-based and this is a key point (Lawson Brigham,

personal communication, March 24, 2019).

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was criticized as homogenizing

knowledge, cultures and ways of knowing (Ford et al., 2016, p. 351). According to Ford et al.

(2016), human dimensions of climate change are place- and culture-specific (Ford et al., 2016, p.

351), and it is incorrect to treat all Arctic Indigenous communities as one Indigenous group and their knowledges as one knowledge. The localized nature of Indigenous knowledge must be recognized in the research, otherwise applying the model of TEK integration that has worked

143

already in one country or region might fail in other places. The model of TEK utilization must be

relevant to not only a region or a country, but to a specific community. The differences and local

specificities among Indigenous communities and their knowledge require changes in

methodologies and approaches of gathering and documenting TEK in the Arctic.

Grenier (1998) suggests that while working with Indigenous knowledge, the development of a research framework must include appropriate methods to ensure that the research methods are tailored to Indigenous cultures, abilities and requirements and effectively represent their points of view (Grenier, 1998, p. 53). There is also always a possibility that some parts of TEK cannot be shared because it is too sacred, risky to disclose, or weakly protected from appropriation and misuse (Hiwasaki et al., 2014, p. 25). For example, Pavel Sulyandziga notes that there is a concept of a secret of kin, when only kin members have access to this knowledge.

Even if someone belongs to the same ethnicity, even they cannot gain access to this knowledge

(personal communication, June 13, 2018).

Indicator: C - Cross-Cultural Communication.

Indicator C identifies whether cross-cultural analysis was used in a study. This indicator answers the question: Has cross-cultural expertise been included in a study?

Measurement Guidance/Recommendations include the following:

144

1 – Low or absent – There is no indication that social scientists were involved in a research

project;

2 – Medium – The study briefly mentions the involvement of social scientists in research project;

3 – High – The study indicates that social scientists played an important role in the study,

particularly in the process of cross-cultural communication between Indigenous communities and

researchers;

4 – Very high – The study provides a detailed analysis of how social scientists were involved in a

research project. The social scientists led the project and organized cross-cultural communication process between Indigenous communities and researchers.

For example, the following words can be included in studies: “involvement of social scientists,” “anthropological expertise,” “cross-cultural expertise.” Example of use in a sentence:

“Social anthropologists were involved in this project.”

To apply this indicator, the scale suggests using the combination of Ctrl+F in Microsoft

Office Word for searching for text within a message and looking for keywords (e.g.,

“involvement of social scientists,” “anthropological expertise,” “cross-cultural expertise.”). The list of keywords is not restricted. Alternatively, this indicator can be assessed by reading the text of a report and highlighting keywords.

For example, the scale assigns 2 points (medium) because the study briefly mentions the involvement of BRFN coresearchers in research projects.

How does the fourth indicator (A – the application of TEK to wildlife management) reflect a meaningful integration of TEK in the coproduction of knowledge?

145

There are two different scenarios that might emerge in studies the involve TEK: a) the entire study contains TEK observations, but they are not applied to existing policy mechanisms, and basically, the study is a repository of TEK itself (Bannister & Smith, 2010). Thus, it is essential to assess whether the project/study actually inserted TEK into government policy; b)

The policy recommendations are included at the end of study report, but they do not include

TEK. For example, in the case of the Arctic Biodiversity Assessment (ABA), TEK was collected but not fully utilized in the research study. As Henry Huntington noted: “Arctic Biodiversity

Assessment. To me, it is one such example where they include a few quotes but the effort fully to engage with Indigenous knowledge, that was not there.” (Henry Huntington, personal communication).

The previous three indicators (participatory methodology, the use of Indigenous methodologies/coproduction of TEK under the control of Indigenous communities, and the recognition of localized nature of TEK) help to develop a research methodology that could be sensitive to the cultures, languages, rituals and traditions of Indigenous communities. Therefore, the adoption of this methodology that covers these points will provide a better possibility that

TEK would be meaningfully integrated into scientific research. However, fulfilling these requirements is still not enough to recognize the true value of TEK and provide its meaningful integration. It is crucial to identify how and where the outcomes and the results of TEK study will be used in the foreseeable future. The collection and documentation of TEK must have some outcomes in terms of a decision-making process. There should be a legal mechanism that allows researchers and Indigenous communities to frame their study outcomes as policy recommendations and/or to publish their study in peer-reviewed literature. Otherwise, studies on

TEK will eventually become a waste of time.

146

Bannister & Smith (2010) argue that a lot of information on TEK implementation in

wildlife management exists as “grey literature” (e.g., government, community and contract reports, strategic or stewardship plans, discussion papers, newsletters, websites, and the publications that are not peer-reviewed and not controlled by commercial publishing interests)

(p. 1). This grey literature has challenges in terms of access because it is not systemized and catalogued, and thus, it creates difficulties in accessing and applying relevant information to policy and practice (Bannister & Smith, 2010). The TEK database system proposed by Bannister

& Smith (2010) should not be intended as a repository of TEK itself. The TEK contents should be intended to be published articles on TEK application to wildlife management (Bannister &

Smith, 2010, p. 2) Was TEK actually utilized towards the coproduction of knowledge? TEK must be intended to be applied to resource/wildlife management. The identification of goals, purposes, and outcomes of the study must be present in a study to avoid the worst possible outcome—the lip service stage.

One solution to avoid the situation when TEK is not reflected appropriately in projects is to share the outcomes of a research project with engaged Indigenous communities to ensure the data is correct. According to Global Affairs Canada, there is an issue whereby scientists often

leave the community after data collection, and the community does not see the outcomes of their

research; this is why there is a need for a better understanding of the impact of this research on a

community and the ways this information is shared and used once the research is completed.

Thus, the community must have the full picture of a research as well. There should be a back-

and-forth process on these matters (Global Affairs Canada, personal interview, March 15, 2019).

Thus, the research outcomes should be shared with Indigenous communities, otherwise

Indigenous communities that shared their knowledge might feel used. The Fort McKay Berry

147

Focus Group Study, for instance, uses a verification method to confirm with the participants that the reporting and conclusions are accurate and a sharing method to appropriately share the findings of the monitoring with other communities and stakeholders (WBEA website, 2019).

Gratani et al.’s (2014) study suggests that the lack of trust in the validity of TEK compared to scientific knowledge, and the lack of serious commitment of government organizations to engage with local Indigenous communities in Australia are factors that sufficiently limit the application of TEK (Gratani, 2014, p. 175). Certainly, there are legal and political distinctions in the way Arctic states accept TEK and its application to wildlife management. In Canada, TEK can be used to improve scientific research, to provide environmental baseline data, as a decision-making tool in environmental impact assessments, and to monitor development impacts (Grenier, 1998, p. 10). Depending on a country/region and their national legislation, scientific studies on TEK can be applied only to a limited extent, excluding these states where the value and importance of TEK are not recognized at all. For example, TEK is recognized in Russia as “traditional use of nature,” but the Russian legislation does not provide any legal norms that can regulate its use and application to resource management such as a comanagement regime (Rodion Sulyandziga, personal interview, June 28,

2018). Thus, legal incorporation of TEK into national legislation poses significant limitations in terms of meaningful incorporation of TEK. Hence, it is important to recognize that national legal regulations on wildlife management should allow TEK to be included in the policy-making processes.

PILAC (Participation, Indigenous Methods, Localization, Application, Cross-Cultural

Communication) Evaluation Scale of TEK Integration into Western Scientific Knowledge

148

Based on these five indicators, the study suggests the use of the PILAC evaluation scale

to assess the degree of meaningful integration of TEK in scientific research. Every published

study/report that integrated TEK will be assessed by using these four indicators (Figure 2). Each

of these indicators assesses studies by giving them 1-4 points depending on their relevance to the

PILAC scale requirements. The criteria for these indicators are described above in the previous subchapter. After assessing every AC report that integrated TEK, the study will situate them on the separate chart that will show how meaningfully every report integrated TEK into the study.

The lower the evaluation score, the higher the chances that this report will be closer to “lip service.”

149

Figure 5. PILAC evaluation scale.1

1 The numerical rankings were set up in accordance with score calculations. 5A score of 5 means that the project met each indicator at the lowest rank (1), 9 means that at least one indicator achieved higher rank, yet other indicators did not meet the requirements. For divided numerical rankings by low, medium and high, the study divided the highest possible score (20) on three equal parts.

150

Chapter 6. The Application of the PILAC Scale to AC Documents

This chapter will examine the integration of TEK in the Arctic Council. The purpose of this chapter is to answer the question: How has TEK been integrated into the Arctic Council? For this purpose, the study will: 1) analyze meeting minutes and protocols of the meetings held by the

AC Working Groups; 2) apply the PILAC evaluation scale, discussed in Chapter 3, to the Arctic

Council reports and assessments.

This chapter will analyze the reports and assessments released by the AC Working

Groups: Conservation of Arctic Fauna and Flora (CAFF), Arctic Monitoring and Assessment

Programme (AMAP), Sustainable Development Working Group (SDWG), Emergency

Prevention, Preparedness and Response (EPPR), Arctic Contaminants Action Program (ACAP), and Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment (PAME).

The chapter will also examine the documents published by the Permanent Participants of the AC: Aleut International Association (AIA), Arctic Athabaskan Council (AAC), Gwich’in

Council International (GCI), the Inuit Circumpolar Council (ICC), and the Saami Council (SC).

As the Russian Association of Indigenous Peoples of Siberia and the Far North (RAIPON) has not released any reports on TEK, this thesis has not examined RAIPON’s reports. The AC declarations will also be examined in this chapter. Besides this, the chapter will analyze the meeting minutes from the board meetings of the AC Working Groups, AEPS, and the AC Senior

Arctic Officials meetings.

151

The Types of Documents for Analysis and the Basis for Scaling

The study will analyze the AC meeting minutes, and it will apply the PILAC scale to the following AC reports and assessments:

• Indigenous Knowledge Database Assessment (1994-1996)

• Review of comanagement systems (1994-1996)

• Mapping Project on Beluga Whale (1999) in Chukotka

• Mapping Project on Beluga Whale (1999) in Alaska

• Project on Ethical Principles for Arctic Research (1994-1996)

• Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (2004-2005) (in collaboration with AMAP)

• Circumpolar Biodiversity Monitoring Program reports (2004-2011)

• Arctic Biodiversity Assessment (2013)

• Community Observation Network for Adaptation and Sustainability (CONAS) (2014)

(CBM network)

• Traditional Knowledge and Community-Based Monitoring Progress Report (2015)

• Traditional Knowledge Progress Report 2017-2019 (2019)

• Snow, Water, Ice, and Permafrost in the Arctic (SWIPA) (2017)

• Adaptation Actions for a Changing Arctic in Bering, Chukchi, Beaufort (BCB) region

(2017)

• AMAP Assessment 2018 Biological Effects of Contaminants on Arctic Wildlife and Fish,

Arctic Biota

152

• Arctic Offshore Oil and Gas Guidelines (2009)

• Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment (2009)

• Meaningful Engagement of Indigenous Peoples and Communities in Marine Activities

(MEMA); Part I Report

• The Field Guide for Oil Spill Response in Arctic Waters (1998)

• The Guide to Oil Spill Response in Snow and Ice Conditions in the Arctic (2015)

• The EPPR Strategic Plan (2016)

• Arctic Human Development Report (2004)

• Capacity Building Overview of the Arctic Council (SDWG, 2009 a)

• Vulnerability and Adaptation to Climate Change in the Arctic (VACCA) (2009)

• The Circumpolar Information Guide on Mining for Indigenous Peoples and Northern

Communities (2011)

• Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (2014)

• Recommendations for the Integration of Traditional and Local Knowledge into the Work

of the Arctic Council (2015)

• Strategic Framework: The Human Face of the Arctic (2017)

• Establishing a Circumpolar Local Environmental Observer Network report (2017)

• Framework for the circumpolar expansion of the Local Environmental Observer network

(2017).

The Analysis of the AEPS/AC Working Group Meetings and the Arctic Council Senior

Arctic Officials Meetings

153

Similar to the states’ national legislation, the debates on traditional knowledge in the

Arctic have been changed and evolved throughout the time framework. The analysis of official

reports published by the AC and the working groups will provide an understanding of how TEK

has been defined, integrated into policy processes, and utilized in the Arctic Council. To track

the evolution of the discussions on traditional knowledge, the study will analyze the meeting

minutes of the board meetings (e.g., Senior Arctic Officials and working group meetings) in

chronological order. Close attention will be made to the process of discourse formation on TEK.

It is important for this research to investigate what actors were involved in the TEK discourse

formation, what they said about TEK, and how they were able to participate in the policy-making

processes that incorporated the discussion on TEK. The time period is from 1991 until 2018. I

will analyze to what extent TEK was meaningfully incorporated into the AC work through

analysis of the AC meetings and by applying the PILAC evaluation scale to reports and assessments.

ICC Report: The Participation of Indigenous Peoples and the Application of their

Environmental and Ecological Knowledge in the Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy

The report, The Participation of Indigenous Peoples and the Application of their

Environmental and Ecological Knowledge in the Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy, was

published by the Inuit Circumpolar Conference for Canadian Indian and Northern Affairs in

August 1993 and follows up on the AEPS. Lorraine Brooke was an expert who was hired by the

ICC to write this report about the application of TEK to the AEPS (Brooke, 1993). This report

gives some information about the roots of the discussion on TEK in the AEPS. The report has

some background information on issues that gave Indigenous peoples the opportunity to

participate in the AEPS (Brooke, 1993).

154

Henry Huntington states that in the early 1990s, everyone was excited about the incorporation of TEK. However, he also says that the first attempts to engage Indigenous knowledge into the Arctic Council were frustrating (Henry Huntington, personal communication,

February 19, 2019).

The incorporation of environmental and ecological knowledge of Indigenous peoples in resource management and sustainable development in the Arctic was another priority. The utilization of environmental and ecological knowledge in the Arctic was seen as a way to involve

Indigenous peoples in the process of implementation of the AEPS (Brooke, 1993). The material on Indigenous representation in the AEPS in the report reflected mostly the Canadian experience of Indigenous and non-Indigenous representatives (Brooke, 1993). However, as the report states, other Indigenous representatives from the circumpolar region agreed that these views and concerns are related to their experience as well (Brooke, 1993). Similarly, the working definition of Indigenous knowledge was taken from the research conducted with the Inuit (Brooke, 1993).

Brooke’s report for ICC was the study on the application of TEK to science. According to

Tennberg (2000), during the IASC Council meeting in 1991, Indigenous communities expressed their view that the Arctic scientific community has not been very receptive to the idea of including Indigenous knowledge. The IASC saw itself as “a science organization,” and including human and social sciences have been problematic in the IASC (Tennberg, 2000, p. 60). Mary

Simon stated in 1996 that Indigenous peoples’ knowledge gets “a lot of lip service.” (Simon, cited in Tennberg, 2000, p. 69).

According to Brooke’s report, the ICC has been active in working on the conceptualization and promotion of TEK since the 1980s. The ICC report mentions the work on the Inuit Regional Conservation Strategy (IRCS), which was supposed to ensure sustainable

155

development in the Arctic (Brooke, 1993). As a part of the development of the IRCS, the Inuit

communities across the Arctic conducted research on subsistence use of natural resources

(Brooke, 1993). The ICC report on the Saami TEK reveals that in the early 1990s, the Saami

traditional knowledge was not widely recognized by scientists, so TEK in northern Scandinavia

was not a subject of a serious study (Brooke, 1993). The Greenlandic case included in the ICC

report involves the study of TEK on beluga and narwhal. The study was initiated by the Joint

Danish and Canadian Commission on Conservation and Management of Beluga and Narwhal

(Brooke, 1993). At the time of the AEPS negotiations, the Greenlandic and Saami TEK were still

in the process of definition, conceptualization, and the struggle with the legal recognition by their

national legislation.

The Canadian Inuit, particularly the Inuit of Nunavik and the Inuvialuit, contributed to

the IRCS report because, according to the report, they had already had a lot of experience with

the collection of TEK. The ICC report recognizes that the experience of TEK utilization in

Canada was different from Alaskan and Saami (Brooke, 1993). Due to land claims settlements and their implementation, some Inuit communities had already started the development of TEK databases. It is also mentioned that ICC Canada put a lot of effort towards ensuring the

recognition and implementation of the Inuit Regional Conservation Strategy on the international

level through the AEPS (Brooke, 1993).

The Canadian government funded the ICC to help them to prepare a project proposal

responding to the AEPS implementation as well as to the work plan suggested by the CAFF

Working Group (Brooke, 1993). The ICC proposal named “The Application of the Ecological

and Environmental Knowledge of Circumpolar Indigenous Peoples within the Arctic

156

Environmental Protection Strategy” was given to the member states for their consideration. The

US and Canada were interested in this project.

According to Henry Huntington, Brooke’s report for the ICC was a significant study on

TEK, and after this study, Canada and the US decided to do a project on the beluga whale. One of the recommendations in Brooke’s report was to do a pilot project and demonstrate what traditional knowledge could offer to the CAFF working group. As a follow-up, the US and

Canada sponsored the beluga whale project, with each country contributing around USD $25,000 into this project. That was enough funds for the ICC to hire Huntington to write a proposal to the

US National Science Foundation to conduct the research (Henry Huntington, personal communication, February 19, 2019). Yet, neither the US not Canada tried to control the study in any way. They were willing to provide some financial support and let the ICC to go ahead and do the research (Henry Huntington, personal communication, February 19, 2019).

After the proposal was approved, the ICC was granted a contract to develop an issues paper that would guide the implementation of the AEPS (Brooke, 1993) Thus, the ICC Canada as well as the Canadian government were active in constructing the concept of traditional knowledge and its utilization since the beginning of environmental cooperation in the Arctic.

In order to conduct the research on TK, ICC contacted the Inuit from Canada, Alaska,

Greenland, and the Saami representatives. The representatives were asked to prepare regional inventories and case studies (Brooke, 1993). The Russian representatives were unable to join the working team (Brooke, 1993). In March 1993, the Indigenous representatives participated in a workshop in Copenhagen. The objectives of this workshop were to review the results of the teamwork, and also to debate the issues related to each of the regional inventories (Brooke,

1993). So, with the financial support of the Canadian government, ICC was a leader in the

157

discussion on the conceptualization and utilization of traditional knowledge in the AEPS.

According to one view, Canada has the largest population of Indigenous peoples in the Arctic,

and this fact was a reason that motivated the Canadian government to be active towards the

support of TEK (Global Affairs Canada, personal communication, March 2019). However, this is

not true, because Russia has more than 180 ethnicities inhabiting the territory of contemporary

Russia, but only 40 are officially recognized as Indigenous (IWGIA website, 2020).

Therefore, since the establishment of the Arctic environmental regime, the state actors

were aimed to incorporate traditional knowledge into environmental protection as well as to

ensure Indigenous participation in the policy-making process. Although the AEPS does not

provide the legal definition of “traditional ecological knowledge,” it is implied that traditional

knowledge is related to Indigenous peoples and their cultures.

Given the fact that at the beginning of the discussion on AEPS, the eight Arctic states had neither cooperated on environmental or Indigenous issues in the region nor established the concepts such as traditional knowledge, it should be noticed that most of the discourse on TEK came from the Canadian side. The ICC report written by Lorraine Brooke shows that the findings on TEK were mostly based on the Canadian experience of Indigenous and non-Indigenous

representatives because the Canadian Indigenous communities had already had the experience

working with TEK (Brooke, 1993). The importance of TEK in Canada began to be recognized in

the early 1970s, and TEK was required for documenting Indigenous land use and occupancy

throughout the Canadian Arctic. These studies were required to support the land claims process.

Moreover, the Canadian government provided funding to the ICC to write and publish this report

(Brooke, 1993).

The Analysis of Brooke’s Report (1993) by the PILAC Scale.

158

The PILAC evaluation aims to evaluate to what degree TEK has been incorporated into

TEK projects. The PILAC scale uses five indicators. By using qualitative content analysis, the

study will apply these five indicators to the AC projects in order to identify keywords or phrases

that meet the requirements of each indicator. After identifying keywords and key phrases, the

study will interpret their meanings to evaluate to what degree each TEK project contained the

parameters each indicator is asking for (e.g., Indigenous participation; recognition of the localized character of TEK; application to policy recommendations).

The PILAC evaluation scale applied to the ICC report, The Participation of Indigenous

Peoples and the Application of their Environmental and Ecological Knowledge in the Arctic

Environmental Protection Strategy (see Table 1 in the Appendix I). According to the scale, there

is a moderate possibility (14/20) that TEK was meaningfully integrated into this study.

Indigenous peoples did not contribute to this report as co-authors. The report overgeneralized the experience of Indigenous communities in the Arctic because the material on Indigenous representation in the AEPS in the report reflected mostly the Canadian experience of Indigenous and non-Indigenous representatives (Brooke, 1993). There was a lack of inclusion of Indigenous communities, and their observations were presented as the experience of Indigenous communities in the Arctic in general. Few Arctic communities participated in the study, and the report tends to homogenize their experiences as experiences of one group instead of recognizing their localized nature.

At the same time, the report has particular strengths, which include the use of participatory methods (workshops) that were used to work with Indigenous peoples. The application of TEK to the policy-making process was made through the use of mapping as a method to document TEK. The policy recommendations were developed, and they directly refer

159

to the knowledge and experience of Indigenous communities as policy recommendations

mention: “Indigenous peoples are concerned….” Overall, the ICC report was the first attempt to

establish a policy framework on TEK using Indigenous perspectives from all over the Arctic region.

AEPS Working Groups and the Discussion of TEK

Conservation of Arctic Fauna and Flora (CAFF)

Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF) is the biodiversity working group of the

AC. CAFF serves as a tool to cooperate on species and habitat management and utilization, to share information on management techniques and regulatory regimes, and to facilitate more knowledgeable decision-making processes (Arctic Council website, 2020). It provides a mechanism to develop common responses on issues of importance for the Arctic ecosystem, such as development and economic pressures, conservation opportunities and political commitment

(Arctic Council website, 2020).

CAFF Meeting Minutes (1994-2012)

The analysis of reports of the CAFF meeting minutes from 1994-1996 CAFF board meetings shows that the initiatives on projects related to traditional knowledge were predominantly taken on by Canada and the US.

CAFF III 1994

Since the beginning of its international cooperation, the CAFF Working Group started developing projects related to the use of TEK. There were four projects led by Canada and the

US. In 1994, the US and Canada led the Indigenous Knowledge Mapping Project on Beluga

160

Whale, which was supposed to include the field research and the seminar in order to prepare

recommendations to the 1995 CAFF meeting and the 1996 AEPS Ministerial meeting (CAFF,

1994, p. 14). Canada took the lead on the Indigenous Knowledge Database Assessment project, which resulted in a report to the 1995 CAFF meeting (CAFF, 1994, p. 15). This project was taken over by Canada, because, according to the Canadian representative Gerald McKeating,

Canada’s involvement in CAFF was focused strongly on integrating traditional knowledge into the program (CAFF, 1994). The project was a collaborative effort between Canada and ICC

Canada over a few years (CAFF, 1994, p. 102). The Indigenous Knowledge Data Directory project was supposed to develop the data directory, exploring formats that provide the flexibility and accessibility to reflect the dynamic nature of Indigenous knowledge and the extent of

Indigenous and other data available in electronic media (CAFF Work Plan, 1995). In 1994, the

US and Canada started preparing a report on a review of comanagement systems that described the structure, strengths, and weaknesses of comanagement systems in the US, Canada and all over the Arctic (CAFF, 1994, p. 15).

At the CAFF meeting in 1994, the US and Canada (Fred McFarland) presented a report on Indigenous People’s Pilot Mapping Project on the Beluga Whale, which investigated the use of Indigenous knowledge on the Beluga population in the Chukchi–Bering Strait area (CAFF,

1994, p. 29). The timeline of the pilot project was from May 15, 1995 until October 31, 1998

(North Slope Science Initiative website, 2019). The research was funded by the US National

Science Foundation, and the Principal Investigator was Dr. Henry Huntington (North Slope

Science Initiative website, 2019). Beluga whales were selected for the pilot project because they migrate across national boundaries and are of scientific interest (Tennberg, 2000). In addition, it was noted that there was TEK research on belugas in northern Quebec, West Greenland, the

161

eastern Canadian Arctic, and the Inuvialuit region of Western Canada. This work complemented a pilot project on TEK on beluga whales (CAFF, 1994, p. 112). The pilot project was divided into two parts: fieldwork and a seminar (CAFF, 1994, p. 110). According to the report, TEK was recognized as a valuable source of natural history data, which, nevertheless, must compete with other sources of data (CAFF, 1994, p. 111). The report claimed to establish a framework for future research and incorporation of TEK in the AEPS process (CAFF, 1994, p. 111). In the report, TEK was viewed as a) coherent worldview; b) embodying a holistic view of ecology

(CAFF, 1994, p. 112). Overall, the beluga whale project was going to establish a future framework for incorporating TEK into scientific knowledge. This is one of the early projects that recognized equality between Western science and Indigenous knowledge. The US National

Science Foundation funded this project, so TEK was taken seriously in a high-level decision- making process.

Project on Ethical Principles for Arctic Research

Taylor Brelsford from the US presented a synopsis of the work to compile ethical principles for Arctic research, and he also mentioned that most of the information came from the

US and Canada (CAFF, 1994, p. 4). Nine statements were received from universities, governments and Indigenous peoples’ organizations in response to a request to CAFF countries.

These responses were divided on common themes, which included the notion of informed consent based on full information regarding the purposes, methods and funding of research projects. Other themes involved local participation in project design and implementation, including the training and employment of local assistants and respect for cultural traditions, language and local knowledge as a component in scientific research. Respect for dignity, privacy and confidentiality of participants; acknowledgement of the community, participation and

162

contribution in the final report and a return of all final reports to participating communities were

also recognized as project themes (CAFF, 1994, p. 30). According to the presentation, there were

two completely new approaches in research. One of these new approaches was a proposal for a

model of participatory research in which researchers and Indigenous communities work closely

in selecting research topics and methodology and cooperate in data collection and analysis.

Another approach suggested a negotiated research agreement between the researcher and

Indigenous community which would provide clear and binding provisions on the roles and

responsibilities of all parties (CAFF, 1994, p. 30). It was recommended by a presenter to

continue the compilation of statements with special attention to Greenland, Scandinavia and

Russia. The objective of the project was to conclude with a common set of principles for Arctic

research that can be adopted by the AEPS (CAFF, 1994, p. 30). Therefore, through participatory research and negotiated research agreements, this particular US project was promoting the idea of equality between scientific knowledge and knowledge held by Indigenous communities.

A Seminar on the Integration of Indigenous Knowledge

The CAFF Working Group held a seminar on the integration of Indigenous knowledge in

September 1994. The recommendations from this seminar included: a) the exploration of

comanagement as a model for the effective participation of Indigenous people in resource

management; b) the necessity to create a directory of existing databases of Indigenous

knowledge (CAFF, 1994, p. 71).

L. Halonen from the Saami Council presented a report on the Indigenous people’s

seminar, where he stated: 1) comanagement, as a model for the effective participation of

Indigenous people in resource management, needs to be explored. If comanagement of

renewable resources is to be effective, formal agreements between Indigenous peoples and

163

governments will be required; 2) a directory of existing databases of Indigenous knowledge is required. The work initiated under the CAFF should be continued (CAFF, 1994, p. 71). In addition to that, it was recommended that Indigenous hunting, fishing and gathering and reindeer herding be secured in parks and protected areas in order to protect Indigenous knowledge about these areas (CAFF, 1994, p. 72). Thus, this seminar reflected the views of Indigenous peoples on the incorporation of TEK.

CAFF IV 1995

At the CAFF meeting in 1995, the ICC representative Henry Huntington presented the

Indigenous Knowledge Mapping Project. He reported that the Pilot Mapping Project for Beluga

Whales was funded by the US, Canada and the US National Science Foundation (North Slope

Science Initiative website, 2019). The amount of the NSF grant was USD$143,201.00 (National

Science Foundation website, 2019). The project was halfway completed and ready to be presented at the CAFF meeting in 1996 (CAFF, 1995). The Mapping Project included cooperation, consultation, and participation of Indigenous communities (CAFF, 1995). After the completion of the fieldwork, the project coordinators planned a seminar in 1996 to prepare recommendations for CAFF and AEPS on the integration of TEK in their programs and TEK utilization in wildlife management and conservation (CAFF, 1995).

The ICC representative, Frank Anderson, presented the Indigenous Knowledge Database

Assessment at the CAFF meeting in 1995. The project failed to capture Indigenous knowledge due to its dynamic nature and its transfer through oral traditions based on the personal experience of participants (CAFF, 1995). The original aim of the project was to prepare a summary report on Indigenous knowledge databases and an assessment of them—this proved to be impractical because of an insufficient number of databases to provide such an assessment (CAFF, 1995).

164

(CAFF, 1995). The ICC and Canada decided to build a framework data directory and upload it to

the Internet. The new directory was supposed to contain information on individual, community

and organizational experts who possessed TEK and would allow anyone to access the necessary

information for their individual needs (CAFF, 1995).

The Canadian representative Frank McFarland presented a report on comanagement

systems. The project was intended to involve both Indigenous and government parties in

comanagement studies (CAFF, 1995). It was reported that Alaska Native organizations were

involved in the discussion with the US government regarding marine mammals’ management as

a result of amendments to the US Marine Mammal Act (CAFF, 1995). Because of this, the US postponed the review of this project until the CAFF meeting in 1996 (CAFF, 1995).

The ICC representative, Frank Anderson, presented a report on the status and future directions of Indigenous peoples’ role in CAFF and the AEPS (CAFF, 1995). The report put an emphasis on communications and community involvement. Besides this, Anderson addressed four important issues in Indigenous participation in CAFF: participation, TEK, disseminating information and local community involvement (CAFF, 1995). It was noted that Indigenous communities participate at the AEPS by contributing to the various working group meetings and the SAAO meetings, but the continuation of this required ongoing support that should be developed with all AEPS states. Indigenous peoples should also decide for themselves on an approach to project work that would best meet the needs and capacities of their organizations

(CAFF, 1995). The report also focused on the recognition of TEK by the academic and professional research communities equally to the knowledge held by scientific research (CAFF,

1995). The paper also proposed to develop a strategy for Indigenous organizations and the

Indigenous Peoples Secretariat, which would focus on regional and local communications

165

(CAFF, 1995). At the end, the paper recommended supporting Indigenous communities in their

participation in the CAFF meetings (CAFF, 1995). Therefore, the report recognized the

importance of the role of Indigenous communities in the CAFF decision-making process. Their

contributions, including sharing of TEK, were considered to be equal to the Western scientific

knowledge.

CAFF V 1996

The Indigenous Knowledge Mapping on the Beluga Whale project produced unexpected

results, not likely to be captured by questionnaires (CAFF, 1996). Semi-direct or open-ended interviews were conducted with Inuit communities in Alaska and Chukotka (CAFF, 1996). The report was produced by Henry Huntington and co-authored with Nicolas Mymrin in Russia

(CAFF, 1996). The project left the unanswered question of how to utilize collected TEK and apply it to conservation and environmental protection (CAFF, 1996). It was also noted that TEK

could not be separated from its source, and its utilization needs the full participation of

Indigenous peoples (CAFF, 1996). The dialogue between the scientists and the TEK holders was

also considered to be important (CAFF, 1996). Huntington pointed out that the main question

was how to obtain meaningful involvement reflecting some of the Indigenous perspectives in

both the goals and the practice of conservation and management. He also said that through the

review process, communities and individuals had a chance to identify sensitive information and

delete it if they so wished (CAFF, 1996).

The process of learning TEK turned out to be very complicated. For non-knowledge

holders, TEK has a lot of things to learn. “Because it has so much detail. Again, equivalent to

learning another language. If you start learning a language, your mother tongue, there is evidence

we start learning it before we are even born, that’s very different than saying waiting until you

166

turn 30 and trying to pick up a new language. For the concept of TK, to understand the details in

the depths is a life-long study.” (Henry Huntington, personal communication, 2019).

Overall, according to Henry Huntington, even though the project gained attention and

publicity, the project did not make a big difference in the incorporation of TEK. He says that the project outcomes are frustrating despite the project showing the importance of TEK and the other

positive attributes of engaging with TEK, as well as learning from TEK (Henry Huntington,

personal communication, February 2019). Therefore, the Beluga Whale Mapping project did not

meet initial aspirations, despite showing how TEK could be documented, because there was little

substantive follow-up and no real progress towards a greater Indigenous role in research,

management, and decision-making

Ethical Principles for Arctic Research

Taylor Brelsford presented a project on ethical principles for Arctic research. The Senior

Arctic Officials asked the International Arctic Science Committee (IASC) to assist with this

project. IASC considered draft guidelines of ethical principles for Arctic research at a meeting in

Bremenhaven in April 1996 but was unable to reach consensus on adopting these guidelines.

IASC prepared a statement that said, “a circumarctic set of ethical principles appears not to be

only elusive… but perhaps undesirable and unnecessary.” According to the CAFF meeting

minutes, this statement suggests that the undesirability of a proposed set of ethical rules results

from the great diversity of national codes of ethics in the Arctic countries, and from the fact that

other universally accepted ethical principles and national codes of ethics still continue to operate.

(CAFF, 1996). Brelsford stated that further course of action would be determined by the SAAOs.

ICC reacted by asking how national standards among CAFF member states compared to the

proposed circumarctic codes of ethics and noted that lack of ethical standards and especially lack

167

of consent among scientists were still ongoing issues in Inuit communities (CAFF, 1996).

Brelsford reported that that the standards of ethics adopted by the Arctic states differed

substantially. Some national standards addressed almost all of the proposed research ethics

standards, and others were less well developed (CAFF, 1996). Brelsford also stated that

collaborative science with community involvement is the best practice of science in the Arctic

and it had been widely recognized within CAFF (CAFF, 1996). Therefore, IASC was quite

resistant to the adoption of proposed research ethics standards, which included negotiated research agreements between Indigenous communities and scientists as well as a participatory

research model, which included closer collaboration between researchers and communities on

the choice of methodology and cooperation in data collection and analysis. Therefore, despite the

ICC expressing concern about the lack of consent and ethical standards in scientific research

regarding Inuit communities, the IASC refused to adopt proposed research ethics standards, calling the proposed ethical standards “undesirable and unnecessary.” Meanwhile, the adoption of a new set of ethical standards at the international level would have sufficiently increased the quality of collecting TEK data, as the new standards proposed a participatory approach in

research and called for respect to Indigenous languages, culture and traditions.

At the Fifth Meeting of the CAFF international working group in 1996, the report on the

Indigenous Knowledge Data Directory was postponed due to the preparation for the Inuvik

Ministerial Meeting (CAFF, 1996). Due to the meeting, the new deadline for the completion of the Indigenous Knowledge Data Directory was set. It was reported that the final product would be an operational directory of databases on the ICC website—a framework by which information on Indigenous knowledge can be made available to the wider public via providing information

168

on their content, structure and cultural context. The final product was proposed to be ready by

early 1997 (CAFF, 1996).

The review of the comanagement system project revealed that there was no universal definition of comanagement. The CAFF project also showed that comanagement as a model for

effective participation of Indigenous communities in resource management needed to be further

explored (Tennberg, 2000). However, common elements of comanagement were also identified.

The common components of comanagement included the sharing of responsibility, co-operation

and balancing of power between agencies and users, communicating and networking,

recognizing and overcoming cultural and linguistic barriers, a consensus style of decision-

making, and the use of both TEK and scientific knowledge in resource management (CAFF,

1996). There were several important differences in how the term “traditional knowledge” was

used (CAFF, 1996).

This difference in term usage led to the lack of similarities in the structure and role of the

comanagement units (CAFF, 1996). The main findings of the comanagement system project

came from the American Arctic. The emphasis of the project was modified according to the

focus on a planned international conference on comanagement, which was held in Inuvialuktun,

Canada in September 1996 (CAFF, 1996).

The conference identified many advantages of comanagement, most of which emerged in

better communication and consensus-building. Among the disadvantages recognized were lack

of governmental good will, overlapping jurisdictions, ambiguous authority and cultural

differences. It was emphasized that comanagement committees only succeed to the extent that

they retain effective communication with local hunters (CAFF, 1996). Hence, according to the

169

report, the success of the comanagement regime mostly relied on the establishment of effective

communication with TEK holders.

CAFF VI 1997

In 1997, the CAFF working group was fully integrated with the Arctic Council (CAFF,

1997). The Indigenous observers were no longer referred to as observers, but as Permanent

Participants (CAFF, 1997). As Mary Simon stated, during the negotiations on the creation of the

Arctic Council, there was resistance towards the inclusion of Indigenous organizations beyond those with NGO status (Huebert, 1998). However, because the precedent had been already established through the AEPS, the opponents had less to say against the inclusion of Indigenous organizations into the Arctic Council (Huebert, 1998). After the debates, it was concluded that the three Permanent Participants of the AEPS would remain as Permanent Participants in the

Arctic Council (Huebert, 1998). According to Huebert (1998), the inclusion of Permanent

Participants in the Arctic Council was mainly reached not only because of the precedent provided by the AEPS, but also because of the support of Canada and the leadership of Mary

Simon. As a chief negotiator, Simon was strongly supported by the Canadian Ministers of

Foreign Affairs, André Oullet and Lloyd Axworthy (Huebert, 1998). The inclusion of TEK into wildlife management was considered under the subtheme 5.5, Integration of Indigenous Peoples, facilitated by Fred McFarland, Canada (CAFF, 1997). It was noted by the Canadian delegation that CAFF’s longstanding objective was to incorporate TEK as an appropriate type of knowledge

(CAFF, 1997). This statement was accurate, according to the CAFF Framework Document,

Chapter IV Operating Principles: “Indigenous Peoples and their knowledge are integral to

CAFF.” (Program for the Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna, 1991). The Indigenous

Peoples Secretariat (IPS) pointed out that the entire concept of TEK and its utilization was

170

extremely complicated and was still under consideration internally within the IPS (CAFF, 1997).

The integration and application of TEK was suggested to be a collaborative project between the

IPS and the CAFF Secretariat (CAFF, 1997).

CAFF VII 1999

It was recommended to ensure that the CAFF overview report “Arctic Conservation

Issues: Status and Trends of Arctic Flora, Fauna and Habitats,” captured traditional knowledge.

Indigenous perceptions of wildlife could be included (e.g., photo of a polar bear with photo of a carving of a polar bear) (CAFF, 1999, p. 63). The introduction of the report should have included the data of how Indigenous peoples work with government on comanagement and conservation

(CAFF, 1999, p. 64). Chapter 3 of the report was suggested to include the description of process of Indigenous peoples’ use of resources and their traditional knowledge. It was also recommended to incorporate the information of how to slow the loss of the Indigenous knowledge base (CAFF, 1999, p. 65).

The consolidated report of the breakout groups on “Monitoring Circumpolar

Biodiversity” (CAFF/AMAP collaboration) suggested the creation of a workshop to advance incorporation of TEK into the monitoring work (CAFF, 1999). The main objective of a circumpolar biodiversity monitoring network was to provide a means to share information, provide advice and coordinate national monitoring efforts to be internationally compatible

(AMAP model). (CAFF, 1999, p. 71). The network was supposed to use a community-based approach to monitoring to be effective and efficient, including the use of Indigenous/traditional knowledge (CAFF, 1999, p. 71). Suggested resource people were Bill Heal, Henry Huntington and Natalia Vasilieva. According to the goals of the monitoring workshop for the program, TEK could provide a retrospective understanding of change that could be made available to Ministers

171

more quickly than such information could be generated by other means (palynology, for

example) and might provide other insights (CAFF, 1999, p. 72).

Similarly, Work Group A: Flora Conservation Issues (Break-out Session 5: Implementing

Other Aspects of the Strategic Plan) suggested compiling a report on Indigenous knowledge about and use of plants around the Arctic to complement work on rare plants. The work group pointed out that the inclusion of Indigenous knowledge is essential to CAFF’s work (CAFF,

1999, p. 82).

Stephen Kakfwi, who spoke on behalf of the Canadian delegation, mentioned that the development of comanagement processes originated in Canada as a result of land claims negotiations in northern Canada. He also said that he found it encouraging that this concept has also been recognized in the Arctic Council and was reflected in the CAFF Strategic Plan (CAFF,

1999, p. 27). Hence, the comanagement regime was first established in northern Canada.

CAFF VIII 2000

The reports presented at the CAFF VIII in Sweden, such as the Bycatch Workshop,

CAFF Seabird Work, CAFF Flora Work, Circumpolar Protected Areas Network, were mostly the results of scientific work and did not mention TEK as part of their projects (CAFF, 2000).

Some of the workshops, such as the CAFF/AMAP Circumpolar Biodiversity Monitoring

Network, were aimed to provide recommendations for the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment

(ACIA) (CAFF, 2000). The seabird working group, as well as CAFF flora work, were also expected to contribute to the ACIA (CAFF, 2000). Hence, the incorporation of TEK into CAFF

172

projects was strongly encouraged at the meetings. Yet, most projects were based on scientific

work and did not incorporate TEK. TEK was not mentioned in these projects.

The Circumpolar Biodiversity Monitoring Program (CAFF/AMAP Project)

One of the major issues discussed during the CAFF meeting was the discussion on

finding a common understanding of how AMAP and CAFF would work on the ACIA, how they

would continue working on it, and then demonstrate this for Senior Arctic Officials (CAFF,

2000). The Circumpolar Biodiversity Monitoring Network, proposed during the CAFF VII in

1999, was a collaborative project between AMAP and CAFF, and it was supposed to advance the

incorporation of TEK into the monitoring work. The workshop was held in Reykjavik on

February 7-9, 2000. Among the ten main recommendations developed in the workshop, it was

recommended to establish a drafting committee to incorporate local and Indigenous peoples in

community-based monitoring (CAFF, 2000, p. 7). In addition, it was emphasized that CAFF

must reach out to both local and Indigenous communities (CAFF, 2000, p. 9). However, the main

concerns regarding the Circumpolar Biodiversity Monitoring Program were not about the

incorporation of TEK into the monitoring work, but rather, about obtaining funding for research,

synthesizing research methods and existing data, and using and implementing monitoring

(CAFF, 2000, p. 9). The main conclusions of the workshop included: focusing monitoring

activities on the impacts of climate change and taking a pragmatic approach to the development of a circumpolar program through the establishment of expert networks on key species and habitats of the Arctic (CAFF, 2000, p. 7). Therefore, the initial focus of the program on the incorporation of TEK into monitoring changed to the establishment of expert networks across the

Arctic.

CAFF Board Meeting, Uppsala, 2001

173

Circumpolar Biodiversity Monitoring Program.

Iceland introduced the discussion paper on the Circumpolar Biodiversity Monitoring

Program (CBMP). RAIPON noted that Indigenous peoples were not mentioned in the paper.

Iceland explained that participation by Indigenous peoples in the networks was taken for granted.

John Hammar noted that at least two Indigenous peoples’ representatives are involved in the

Arctic Char Network (CAFF, 2001, p. 5). The Secretariat noted that a community-based

monitoring element was still planned but that so far, it had been difficult to find a coordinator

(CAFF, 2001, p. 5).

CAFF IX 2002

CAFF decided to develop a framework for a circumpolar biodiversity monitoring

program, which will include community-based monitoring. Iceland would continue, with the

assistance of the CAFF Working Group, to seek the resources required for implementation

(CAFF, 2002).

The Circumpolar Flora Group decided that a process to gather and incorporate traditional

knowledge pertaining to the use and conservation of Arctic plants would be scoped out by the

Circumpolar Group, in cooperation with Permanent Participants (CAFF, 2002).

So, similar to CAFF VIII, TEK was not much discussed during the CAFF IX Working

Group Meeting. The CAFF Input to Inari Declaration mentioned that “Indigenous traditional

knowledge will be fully used in the Arctic Human Development Report (AHDR) (CAFF, 2002).

However, it was not discussed how exactly TEK would be incorporated into AHDR (CAFF,

2002).

174

CAFF input into the Inari Declaration also included noting the methodology of incorporating

Indigenous knowledge and perspectives into the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (CAFF,

2002). Hence, CAFF suggested incorporation of TEK into ACIA and AHDR, but it was not suggested how the process of utilization of TEK in these reports should be done.

CAFF Management Board Meeting, Alaska, the US, 2003

The planning of the International Workshop on Classification of Arctic Vegetation was discussed during the meeting. This workshop was supposed to give information about the process of gathering and incorporating traditional knowledge for the use and conservation of

Arctic plants (CAFF, 2003, p. 7). The Aleut International Association raised a concern that the

Commander Islands were excluded from the Circumpolar Arctic Vegetation Map and from other

CAFF maps (CAFF, 2003, p. 6). The Chair of CFG placed an inquiry for bibliographic citations of the National Representatives. The Aleut International Association indicated that there was an individual on the Commander Islands who might be interested in this topic. There was a concern about the ownership of traditional knowledge and its application to the topic (CAFF, 2003).

CAFF supported the involvement of Permanent Participants (Aleut International Association, the

Gwich’in Council International) in this discussion (CAFF, 2003). Hence, the PPs were able to provide assistance in terms of finding volunteers for projects involving TEK.

The Circumpolar Flora Group’s meetings were scheduled for April 28-30, 2003. There was a potential discussion between the Aleut International Association and the CFG Chair about attendance of a Russian specialist at this meeting to address the gathering and incorporation of traditional knowledge for the use and conservation of Arctic plants (CAFF, 2003, p. 7).

175

The Gwich’in Council International (GCI) expressed interest in the incorporation of traditional knowledge for biodiversity and conservation activities (CAFF, 2003). GCI was willing to lead this proposal in conjunction with the Indigenous Peoples Secretariat (CAFF,

2003). The project could have potentially had relevance and importance to other CAFF projects, such as the Circumpolar Biodiversity Monitoring Project (CAFF, 2003, p. 12). Gwich’in Council

International would work through with IPS and consider developing a proposal, which would then be submitted to the CAFF Management Board (CAFF, 2003, p. 12). Hence, this is one of the cases when the Permanent Participants expressed their willingness to work with TEK projects.

There was a discussion of cooperation with SDWG and CAFF with respect to traditional knowledge project, which was not named. The issue was raised whether it would be useful for

CAFF to participate in a meeting of the IPS and the Permanent Participants (CAFF, 2003, p. 14).

Therefore, the GCI initiative about the TEK project on biodiversity and conservation (which was not named) as well as potential attendance of PPs and IPS meetings by CAFF representatives signalled that the AC working groups began to cooperate with PPs on TEK projects. The CAFF working group began to be interested in the PPs expertise on TEK.

CAFF Progress Report and 2004-2006 Work Plan, Presented to the SAO and AC

Ministers Fourth Ministerial Meeting, November 2004, Reykjavik, Iceland

The US and Permanent Participants led the project that was supposed to gather and incorporate traditional knowledge pertaining to the use and conservation of Arctic plants. It was discovered that there was a wealth of information that existed on this topic and a number of

176

organizations that had been working in this area. The Circumpolar Flora Group would seek

cooperation from these organizations on the further development of this project, and the Aleut

International Association had submitted an action item to the CAFF 2004-2006 Work Plan on

Traditional Use and Conservation of Plants from the Aleutian, Pribilof, and Commander Islands

to be completed by 2006 (CAFF, 2004, p. 7). This is another example of how the PPs cooperated

with CAFF on TEK projects.

CAFF Progress Report, Presented to the SAO, Khanty-Mansiysk, October 2005

According to the report, there has been a strong focus on establishing cooperation with

international conventions and organizations outside of the Arctic Council. CAFF is increasing

the level of cooperation with other Working Groups and participating in the Focal Point for

ACIA follow-up. The number of meetings where CAFF is expected to participate continues,

therefore, to increase, as does the workload and travel of the CAFF Secretariat. However, the

CAFF Secretariat continues to face a very serious financial situation with country contributions

having remained unchanged since 1996, and a support staff shortage with only one 20-hours-a-

week administrative assistant providing office support (CAFF, 2005). Hence, the CAFF report

mainly emphasized their cooperation with other working groups and external organizations.

There was no discussion pertaining to TEK.

CAFF Summary of Presentation to SAO, Tromsø, Norway, April 2007

In the Climate Change and ACIA Follow-up of the Salekhard Declaration, it says:

“Community-based monitoring through the CBMP is being implemented to gather and compile

Indigenous and local knowledge of the effects of climate change. Traditional knowledge will

177

also be incorporated into the 2010 Arctic Biodiversity Assessment.” (CAFF, 2007). Therefore,

CAFF suggested to Senior Arctic officials to incorporate TEK into the ABA report but did not provide any guidance or instruction on how to accomplish this task.

CAFF Progress Report 2009 Work Plan 2009-2011

It was reported that, “ABA will provide up to date scientific and traditional ecological knowledge, identify gaps in the data record, identify key mechanisms driving change and produce recommendations.” (CAFF, 2009, p. 2). This did not occur (see the analysis on ABA below). Thus, the ABA report was supposed to integrate TEK into its findings and provide recommendations on the basis of TEK and scientific knowledge. However, despite integration of

TEK was suggested in the work plan, it was still hard to convince scientists to include TEK into scientific findings. Tero Mustonen, one of the TEK coordinators for the ABA says: “There was a talk of a traditional knowledge compendium and I had to fight to convince 26 or 28 co-authors, most of which are scientists from natural sciences, on how Indigenous knowledge should be handled.” (personal communication, March 22, 2019). Therefore, despite the recommendations to integrate TEK on a high level of the policy-making process, it was still difficult to convince scientists to accept TEK as equivalent to Western science.

Report from CAFF Biennial, Akureyri, Iceland, February 1-3 2011

It was noted that Arctic Biodiversity Assessment process had taken good steps in including TEK. The ABA had adopted an approach where there was a TEK coordinator for

Eurasia and North America. The ABA steering committee had made a commitment to incorporating TK within the ABA and had learned from the mistakes of other assessments

(CAFF, 2011, p. 4). Hence, the ABA attempted to collect TEK from all over the Arctic, this is

178

why TEK coordinators for Eurasia and North America were appointed. Including Eurasian TEK

into the ABA was important. As Tero Mustonen says: “There’s so much emphasis and

dominance by North American Arctic states regarding these concessions in the AC that we

wanted from very early on to try to make sure that the Siberian voices are included.”

CAFF Progress Report Lulea, Sweden, November 8-9, 2011

One of the latest developments from the CAFF work: an inventory of existing

community-based monitoring was compiled, including local traditional knowledge and

traditional knowledge, monitoring programs and datasets to facilitate integration into monitoring

and assessment efforts (CAFF, 2011, p. 6).

CAFF Progress Report to SAO, Stockholm, Sweden, March 2012

A community-based monitoring registry project was planned to identify and maintain

current inventory of local/TEK knowledge and datasets to facilitate their discovery and use into

CBMP projects (CAFF, 2012, p. 3).

CAFF Management Board Meeting, Salekhard, February 28-March 1, 2012

It was reported that compendiums of TEK would be developed (CAFF, 2012). According

to Tero Mustonen, the TEK compendium was developed but it was not published by the Arctic

Council (this will be discussed later in the chapter). Therefore, there was no consensus between

TEK coordinators and scientists about how TEK should be included in the ABA, and eventually,

these debates led to the development of the TEK compendium, which was rejected for

publication by the Arctic Council.

Arctic Biodiversity Congress (ABC), December 2014

179

The ABC agenda included a session on the coproduction of knowledge and many

additional sessions emphasizing the application of TEK (CAFF, 2015). The session on TK

included a presentation on Saami knowledge (Árbediehtu), the Atlas of Community-Based

Monitoring in a Changing Arctic (ICC Alaska), the Sustainable Development Working Group and its work on TEK (SDWG chair, Canadian Chairmanship), and Multiple Evidence Base

Approach to connect TEK with science in an equal way (Stockholm Resilience Centre,

Stockholm University). The Atlas of Community-Based Monitoring in a Changing Arctic was developed as an online website, and it will be discussed below.

CAFF Reports and Assessments

As the meeting minutes indicated, since 1993, the CAFF Working Group was working on several projects on the incorporation of TEK, but not all of them were approved and published. I analyzed each of the CAFF reports that included TEK and applied the PILAC scale to them.

Mapping Projects on Beluga Whale (1999)

According to the PILAC scale (see Tables 2 and 3), these projects have a moderate possibility (15/20) that TEK was meaningfully integrated into this study. The recognition of the localized nature of TEK was a strong feature of the Beluga Whale reports. TEK observations were collected, the existing data was drawn on maps, cross-cultural expertise was included, but the report lacks the application of TEK to wildlife management. On the one hand, researchers documented TEK by using a mapping method, but, on the other hand, they did not suggest any conclusions based on TEK that could be used in resource management regulations. In other words, the reports did not suggest any policy recommendations to be included in national wildlife regulations in Russia and the US. In comparison, Brooke’s report for ICC included a

180

subchapter “Proposed Actions and Recommendations to Ministers,” which proposed the concept

of an Indigenous peoples’ land use and ecological mapping project to be undertaken by

Indigenous peoples in the circumpolar region (Brooke, 1993, p. 83). Another recommendation

included developing a special program area for the participation of Indigenous peoples and

support for sustainable use (Brooke, 1993). These recommendations were based on knowledge

and expertise of Indigenous communities (Brooke’s report suggests: “Indigenous communities

are concerned.”).

Therefore, the Beluga Whale projects in Chukotka and Alaska collected TEK data and

documented it using maps, yet they did not provide any TEK recommendations for resource

management. Huntington & Communities of Buckland, Elim, Koyuk, Point Lay, and Shaktoolik

(1999) emphasize the limitation of his study by saying what remains to be developed are better means of integrating TEK approaches with those of Western science, better ways of using TEK in resource management, and a better understanding of how TEK can help conservation, including the sustainable use of living resources

Table 2 is based on the spreadsheet designed for the application of the PILAC model. It

shows all five indicators, points for each indicator, and provides the examples of keywords and

phrases from the TEK projects

Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (2004): Impact of a Warming Arctic

According to key finding number eight of the ACIA (2004) report, Indigenous

observations and perspectives are crucial for developing an understanding of the process and

impacts of climate change. The report states that Indigenous communities across the Arctic were

noticing changes that were unique in their extensive experience (ACIA, 2004). The ACIA tried

181

to integrate Indigenous knowledge and insights with scientific data to bring together complementary perspectives on climate change (ACIA, 2004). The ACIA report compiled

Indigenous observations of climate change into several topics: 1) physical environmental changes; 2) predictability of the environment; 3) travel safety on sea ice; 4) access to resources;

5) changes in animal distribution and condition (ACIA, 2004).

Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (2004)

The chapter of the ACIA report named The Changing Arctic: Indigenous Perspectives, is entirely dedicated to the concept of Indigenous knowledge and its application to climate change.

The goal of this chapter was to show some of the Indigenous observations of climate change using the series of case studies from the US (Alaska), Canada (Nunavut), Greenland, Russia

(Kola Peninsula), and Fennoscandia (Sapmi) (Arctic Council, 2004).

According to the ACIA report (Arctic Council, 2004), only a few projects on climate change included Indigenous participation. Indigenous observations and scientific data have some complementary perspectives. For instance, while biologists tie a changing climate to changing animal migration patterns, Indigenous knowledge helps to explain how animal migrations may be triggered by seasonal cues (Arctic Council, 2004). There are also cases when Indigenous and scientific knowledge do not agree. The difference between scientific and local observations of climate change is a matter of scale. The scientific models of climate change provide information on regional scales, whereas Indigenous observations are more localized (Arctic Council, 2004).

Most of the research on Indigenous knowledge was done in Canada, as well as a small systematic study conducted in Eurasia and Greenland (Arctic Council, 2004). Bob Corell, the

ACIA chair, stated that the authors kept the idea of a dialogue for five years. He went to speak with every single Arctic nation twice per year. To carry the message, at every AC meeting, Bob

182

Corell presented the process of working on ACIA, providing a shared knowledge perspective. He also met with every Indigenous organization (Bob Corell, personal communication, February 25,

2019). As a chairman of this process, he always had an idea of working together. The Bush administration was not always friendly to the project, but the authors ignored them (Bob Corell, personal communication, February 25, 2019). Hence, according to Bob Corell, the process of collecting TEK encountered some resistance from the US administration at the time of the study.

Most of the TEK was collected in Canada.

The report states that the issue of linking Indigenous and scientific observations was often neglected. It is difficult to determine how Indigenous knowledge can be incorporated into science in an efficient way. Another problem is to discover how to involve Indigenous communities in scientific research as well as how to communicate scientific findings to these communities (Arctic Council, 2004). Establishing trust in a relationship with Indigenous peoples is a large part of this problem (Arctic Council, 2004). The ACIA report argues that collaborative research, such as the case studies in the ACIA, is the most promising model for addressing challenges of climate change (Arctic Council, 2004).

The ACIA report (Arctic Council, 2004) concludes that despite the differences in geographical locations, Indigenous observations of climate change are quite similar. Sharing

Indigenous knowledge could serve as a foundation upon which individuals, communities and regions can take action. Collaborative approaches are the most likely to be effective in terms of identifying climate change challenges (Arctic Council, 2004).

Integration of TEK into ACIA

183

Indigenous observations were collected all over the Arctic and divided into four regions.

The TEK was documented by using mapping methods and by the use of tables. TEK data,

according to the report, supported scientific observations about climate change. Indigenous

observations were collected based on the regional characteristics, yet the report recognized

Indigenous peoples of the Arctic mostly as one group instead of perceiving them as separate nations with authentic cultures and ethnicities. Hence, the report homogenized the concept of

TEK by neglecting its localized nature.

No specific participatory method, such as interviews or workshops, was identified in the

report. Despite the use of maps and tables that reflected TEK, policy recommendations of the

report do not refer to Indigenous peoples’ knowledge and their expertise (e.g., based on TEK,

Indigenous communities noted). Therefore, there might be a chance that policy recommendations were mostly based on scientific observations, and TEK observations were used to justify science.

Overall, according to the PILAC scale, there is a moderate possibility that TEK was

meaningfully integrated into this study (see Table 3). TEK observations were collected but no

specific participatory method was recognized in this study. The researchers documented the

existing TEK data on the maps, but the policy recommendations did not specifically refer to TEK

observations and Indigenous communities, which means there is no indication that TEK was applied to policy. Therefore, the ACIA report collected and documented TEK, but did not specify whether TEK was actually utilized for policy-making purposes.

Circumpolar Biodiversity Monitoring Program (CBMP) (proposed in 1999, since

2004)

184

In 1999, CAFF and AMAP suggested the Monitoring Circumpolar Biodiversity program

(CAFF/AMAP collaboration) (CAFF, 1999). The Framework Document for the Circumpolar

Biodiversity Monitoring Program was developed in 2004 (CAFF, 2004). The CBMP is facilitating an integrated, ecosystem-based approach to monitoring through the development of five Expert Monitoring Groups (EMGs) representing major Arctic themes (Marine, Coastal,

Freshwater, Terrestrial Vegetation & Terrestrial Fauna) (Vongraven et al., 2009). Each of these

EMGs was focused on the integration of TEK and science in their plans (CAFF, 2015). The coastal EMG was aimed to build a product based on the coproduction of knowledge. The terrestrial EMG was focused on the engagement of TEK holders in their expert workshops

(CAFF, 2015). The Marine EMG was directed to investigate participatory approaches to engage

TEK through work with ICC (CAFF, 2015). The engagement of TEK holders and the recognition of their significant role in the entire process was the objective of the Freshwater

EMG. It is also noted that the Canadian Freshwater team was the most active in finding the approaches to incorporate data from TEK holders (CAFF, 2015).

Executive Summary, Framework Document: Circumpolar Biodiversity Monitoring

Program (May 2004)

In the CBMP Implementation Strategy, Component 4: Cooperation, Partnership and

Capacity Development, the framework document says: “[W]ith the assistance of Permanent

Participants and the Indigenous Peoples Secretariat, CAFF will develop approaches to community-based biodiversity monitoring, and the means to include traditional knowledge and the participation of Indigenous peoples and local communities into biodiversity monitoring”

(CAFF, May 2004, p. 4).

CAFF CBMP Report No. 1: November 2004

185

The report states that CAFF will develop approaches to community-based monitoring,

and the means to include TEK and the participation of Indigenous peoples and local communities

into biodiversity monitoring (CAFF, 2004, p. 21). The report also says that Permanent

Participants will submit discussion papers on community-based monitoring in support of cooperation with the CBMP (CAFF, 2004, p. 21). That being said, the PPs were supposed to play a crucial role in the integration of TEK into the CBMP. Yet, there is no indication that PPs were involved in the preparation of the CBMP.

CAFF CBMP Report No. 4: Shorebirds—Supporting Publication to the CBMP

Program (November 2004)

The Committee for Holarctic Shorebird Monitoring (CHASM) was formed as the

essential first step for guiding the implementation of an effective circumpolar program for

monitoring Arctic-nesting shorebirds (CAFF, 2004, p. 1). The report does not mention TEK, but

it included “improvement of existing status and trend assessments of Arctic-nesting shorebirds

by conducting syntheses of existing data and knowledge at local and regional levels” as one of the general recommendations (CAFF, 2004, p. 6). However, it was not specified what constitutes

knowledge at local and regional levels specifically.

CAFF CBMP Report No. 5: Rangifers—Supporting Publication to the CBMP

Program (November 2004)

This report introduced the Circum-Arctic Rangifer Monitoring and Assessment

(CARMA) program that was funded by the US National Science Foundation, Northern

Ecosystem Initiative (Environment Canada), International Arctic Science Committee (IASC),

and the Canada Climate Change Action Fund. The program was coordinated by Don Russell

186

(Environment Canada) and Gary Kofinas (University of Alaska Fairbanks). The program

monitored Rangifer populations and human interactions with Rangifer population (CAFF,

November 2004, p. 2). According to the report, local knowledge, field-based biological monitoring, and remote sensing are all considered to be critical elements in the CARMA

Network (CAFF, November 2004, p. 4).

CAFF CBMP Report No. 9: Supporting Publication to the Circumpolar Biodiversity

Monitoring Program Framework Document (November 2004)

According to the CAFF CBMP No. 9, the CBMP program included community-based

monitoring in order to take traditional knowledge and Indigenous peoples’ perspectives into

account (CAFF, November 2004). Traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) of the Indigenous

peoples was recognized as a vital element of CBM (CAFF, November 2004, p. 5). The report

provided insights regarding community-based monitoring from the perspectives of Aleut

International Association, Gwich’in Council International, RAIPON and the Saami Council

(CAFF, November 2004, p. 8).

CBMP Report No. 11: (October 2006)—Rangifers

This report is a second publication regarding the CARMA program. The report mentioned that CARMA was linked to other research projects related to Rangifiers. Norway presented the Arctic Vulnerability Network Study: Reindeer Herding in Changing Climate-

Coping Mechanisms and Adaptive Capacity (EALAT). According to the report, EALAT was a parallel project to CARMA (and also a network under the CBMP), focusing on domestic

reindeer herding in Arctic and sub-Arctic Eurasia. CARMA coordinators were supposed to meet

187

with the EALAT team to ensure that the methodologies are compatible and transferable (CAFF,

2006, p. 8).

CBMP Report No. 12: A Strategy for Developing Indices and Indicators To Track

Status and Trends in Arctic Biodiversity

The report introduced the indicator Trends in Use of Traditional Knowledge in Research,

Monitoring and Management. This indicator was supposed to illustrate, on a regional basis, the degree to which traditional knowledge is used to influence research, monitoring and management decisions around the Arctic (Gill & Zöckler, 2008, p. 9). However, a specific description of this indicator nor any instruction on how this indicator would have been used was provided. On the one hand, the lack of guidance on how to incorporate TEK into reports was an outcome of the lack of understanding of what TEK is and how it can be applied to wildlife management. On the other hand, the inclusion of TEK was actively promoted during the discussions in the AC

Working Groups, and the need to include TEK as well as the lack of understanding of what is the nature of TEK led to “lip service.” This study will examine what factors led to lip service in the analysis below.

CBMP Report: No. 13. A Strategy for Facilitating and Developing Community-Based

Monitoring—Approaches in Arctic Biodiversity Monitoring (March 2008)

The report was prepared by Henry Huntington (the US) under the CAFF program. This is a supporting publication to the circumpolar biodiversity-monitoring program (CBMP). The strong emphasis of the CBMP was placed on the meaningful involvement of Arctic residents for greater Indigenous participation in circumpolar monitoring (Huntington, 2008, p. 4). According to the report, residents of the Arctic are able to recognize subtle environmental changes and offer

188

insights into their causes. They are community-based monitors by virtue of their day-to-day lives. Indigenous peoples, as the report states, wish to influence their environmental understandings to scientific discourse, not only because they have a lot of information to suggest but also because their exchange is a significant step towards full participation in resource management activities (Huntington, 2008, p. 1). The report identified a set of challenges related to the incorporation of TEK into science. Indigenous knowledge does not lend itself easily to most data management approaches, therein posing a threat to lose valuable data and interpretation (Huntington, 2008, p. 2).

There are limited human and institutional resources in the smaller communities in which community-based programs typically occur. (Huntington, 2008, p. 2). The report also recognized that it is challenging to develop a sense of shared enterprise between locals and scientists, and it requires accommodating different views and longstanding fears of environmental management actions (Huntington, 2008, p. 2). One of the CBMP’s key goals was to develop and provide a data management system for community-based information, including Indigenous knowledge and related interpretation (Huntington, 2008, p. 3). Another goal was to develop training manuals to engage Arctic peoples in monitoring activities (Huntington, 2008, p. 3). The training manuals were supposed to examine the full spectrum of successful and established CBM programs in order to direct the creation of new programs (Huntington, 2008, p. 4). Training manuals will help to design programs with the benefit of best practices in citizen science and the application of

Indigenous knowledge from the Arctic region (Huntington, 2008, p. 5). CBM, according to the report, was likely to involve the recording of observations and analysis based on Indigenous and/or traditional knowledge (Huntington, 2008, p. 6). It was noted in the report that IK is highly contextual and often qualitative (Huntington, 2008, p. 6). Because of its qualitative nature, TEK

189

often had difficulties with integration into Western science. Most of scientific reports and

assessments are based on quantitative data, and it was difficult for scientists to include

qualitative observations into quantitative data. These differences will be discussed in the

Findings subchapter below.

CAFF CBMP Report No. 14: Developing an Integrated and Sustained Arctic

Biodiversity Monitoring Network (March 2008)

The report provided the CBMP response on the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment

recommendations. The ACIA, published in 2004, addressed recommendations towards Arctic

biodiversity that the CBMP was to fulfil, either fully or in part (Gill M.J. et al., 2008).

In response to an ACIA recommendation: “For some areas, such as the central and eastern Russian Arctic, few or no current records of Indigenous observations are available…

[M]ore research is clearly needed.” The CBMP responded: “Community-based monitoring techniques will be employed by the CBMP to track the status and trends of Arctic biodiversity and understand the mechanisms driving this change, such as those from human-induced climate change.” (Gill M.J. et al., 2008, p. 27).

ACIA recommended: “In Eurasia and Greenland, little systematic work on Indigenous knowledge has been done, and research in these regions is clearly needed.” CBMP responded:

“Systematic long-term community-based biodiversity monitoring programs that involve

Indigenous observations are expected to be developed in different parts of the Arctic, such as in parts of Eurasia, where feasible (Gill M.J. et al., 2008, p. 28). ACIA recommended: “Problems to be tackled: determining how Indigenous knowledge can best be incorporated into scientific systems of knowledge acquisition and interpretation.” CBMP responded: “Through the CBMP’s

190

development of pilot community-based biodiversity monitoring programs, the program will be

exploring ways for involving, utilizing and synthesizing information regarding that the status and

trends of Arctic biodiversity derived from scientific, Indigenous and citizen science-based

approaches.” (Gill M.J. et al., 2008, p. 28). ACIA recommended: “There should be collaboration

with Indigenous and other local peoples’ monitoring networks where relevant. It would be

advantageous to create a decentralized and distributed, ideally web-based, meta database from the monitoring and campaign results, including relevant Indigenous knowledge.” CBMP

responded: “The CBMP will be integrating and standardizing information from current

monitoring programs using a decentralized, distributed web-based data portal and will be filling

gaps in geographic, temporal and elemental biodiversity monitoring coverage as resources

become available. The approach taken will utilize both remote sensing information as well as

community-based monitoring techniques involving Indigenous observations.” (Gill M.J. et al.,

2008, p. 29).

Therefore, the ACIA recommendations were mostly pointing out the lack of Indigenous

observations in some parts of the Arctic (Eurasia and Greenland), and the lack of information on

how Indigenous knowledge would be incorporated into the CBMP. While CBMP announced the

development of potential monitoring programs in parts of Eurasia, CBMP responses did not give

any specific information on the latter issue, which was the incorporation of TEK observations

into the program. Therefore, CBMP promised to expand the TEK monitoring networks in other

Arctic regions; however, the problem with incorporation of TEK in CBMP remained as the

program was not guided by any instructions on how the process of incorporation of TEK should

be done.

191

CAFF CBMP Report No. 15: Framework for a Circumpolar Arctic Seabird

Monitoring Network (September 2008)

The report does not mention TEK. Monitoring seabirds did not include Indigenous observations, only scientific data collection.

CAFF CBMP Report No. 16: A Framework for Monitoring Arctic Marine Mammals:

Findings of a Workshop Sponsored by the US Marine Mammals Commission and US Fish and Wildlife Service (Valencia, March 2007) (September 2009)

The topic named Local Monitoring Networks and Traditional Ecological Knowledge was included in the workshop program (Simpkins et al., 2009). According to the report, workshop participants emphasized the need for the development and maintenance of effective local

monitoring networks and the collection and integration of traditional ecological knowledge as

part of a comprehensive monitoring framework (Simpkins et al., 2009, p. 7). It was mentioned

that TEK could guide or augment research, management, and conservation efforts targeting

marine mammals. Local hunters may be the first to detect important changes in the Arctic resulting from climate change (Simpkins et al., 2009, p. 7).

CAFF CBMP Report No. 19: Circumpolar Marine Biodiversity Monitoring Plan -

Background Paper (December 2009)

The report identified the value of TEK for monitoring activities as well as its equality to

scientific knowledge, but at the same time, it noted the difficulties of integrating TEK into

scientific data. According to the report, observations based on Indigenous knowledge would

normally provide deeper insights, but these data are more difficult to collect and process and

therefore, much more difficult to integrate with other types of data sets (Vongraven et al., 2009,

192

p. 8). The report also recognized that there are a variety of terms related to Indigenous knowledge such as Traditional Knowledge, Local and Traditional Knowledge, Indigenous and

Traditional Knowledge etc.), and it recommended the use of the term Indigenous and Traditional

Knowledge (ITK) for use by CBMP (Vongraven et al., 2009, p. 8). The term ITK means the knowledge passed from generation to generation over hundreds of years and that may exhibit a sufficient difference with the Western Knowledge system in how the knowledge is acquired, transferred, utilized, and preserved (Vongraven et al., 2009, p. 9).

CAFF CBMP Report No. 20: Tracking Trends in Arctic Wildlife (March 2010)

The report does not have the information on TEK. The report included only scientific data and analysis of Arctic biodiversity. Indigenous observations were not included and mentioned.

CAFF CBMP Report No. 21 (October 2010)

This report recognizes the lack of standardized terminology regarding TEK. It describes the application of TEK as “a difficult, poorly understood and confusing issue.” (CAFF, 2010, p.

7) The report suggests the following English-language terms for TEK: Local and Traditional

Knowledge (LTK), Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK), Indigenous and Traditional

Knowledge (ITK), and Traditional Knowledge and Wisdom (TKW) (CAFF, 2010). In addition, the report states that the English language terms often do not translate well. The meaning and application of the word “traditional” sounds similar in many languages, but the meaning and application can be different (CAFF, 2010, p. 7). The terms of Indigenous and traditional are not synonymous, and while IK can exist only in Indigenous communities, traditional denotes that any long-time resident of a particular locale possesses definite qualities unknown to outsiders

193

(CAFF, 2010, p. 7). Furthermore, the report emphasizes the issue related to the protection of

Indigenous knowledge as intellectual property (CAFF, 2010). The questions of ownership and

protection of TEK as intellectual property was raised many times in the academic literature, as

when researchers publish the results of their work, they may place sensitive Indigenous

knowledge in the public domain (Berkes, 1999).

CAFF Monitoring Report No. 26: Arctic Freshwater Biodiversity Monitoring Plan

Annual Report (2017) and Work Plan (2018)

Freshwater Expert Network (FEN) Update, Canada: The report indicated that funding to support the acquisition of Traditional and Local Knowledge remained a challenge and should have been addressed in the following years (Lento et al., 2018).

CAFF Monitoring Series Report No. 29: Circumpolar Biodiversity Monitoring

Program Strategic Plan: 2018-2021 (February 2018)

Objective 1.3 of the Strategic Plan stated that Traditional and Local Knowledge should be included in CBMP when possible. The report recognized that documenting TLK and using these systems of knowledge appropriately, along with scientific and management settings is not a simple task. The Arctic Biodiversity Monitoring Plans include efforts and strive to better utilize different sources of information and support the inclusion of TLK from the inception of projects through an analysis of information gained, and to build a strong and diverse network of experts within both science and TLK (Christensen et al., 2018, p. 8).

CAFF Proceeding Series Report No. 4: Circumpolar Protected Areas Monitoring. Workshop report and supporting document to the CBMP Arctic Protected Areas Monitoring Group

(March 2011)

194

The report states that the loss of traditional knowledge (diminished involvement of northern peoples/communities) in management and decisions threatens the northern management framework (Castellanos et al., 2011). In addition, the report says that there were costs with acquiring and using TEK. In addition, it stated that examples were needed to understand how best to apply that knowledge to facilitate funding from this group’s perspective (Castellanos et al., 2011).

Despite the fact that CBMP reports mention the importance of TEK inclusion many times, the PILAC scale shows (see Tables 5-8) that all reports have a very low possibility (5-7 points) that they meaningfully incorporated TEK. Some reports suggest using community-based involvement as part of the TEK integration process, but they do not use Indigenous methods, and

Indigenous communities were not involved in these reports as co-authors. Indigenous communities were not recognized as distinct, local communities with authentic cultures and languages—the reports refer to them as one homogenous group. There is no indication that cross-cultural expertise was included in CBMP reports. The TEK observations were not included in policy recommendations, and no particular methods of documenting TEK (e.g., maps, graphs, tables). The CBMP reports are a clear example of “lip service” in the work of the AC. The reports only acknowledge the utility and importance of TEK, but they do not integrate TEK in the scientific study.

The Arctic Biodiversity Assessment – Report for Policy-Makers (2013)

The ABA was published in 2013. The purpose of the Arctic Biodiversity Assessment

(ABA) is to synthesize and assess the status and trends of biological diversity in the Arctic

(Meltofte et al., 2013). According to the ABA report for policy-makers, the ABA provides the

195

most recent knowledge, received from scientific articles and combined with insights from TEK

holders (Meltofte et al, 2013). The application and utilization of TEK was also included in the

list of recommendations, suggested by the ABA. Regarding the sustainable management of the

Arctic living resources and their habitat, it was suggested to improve the use and integration of

TEK and science in managing harvests. It was also suggested to improve the development and

use of CBM as a significant source of data (Meltofte et al, 2013). The recommendations

regarding public awareness and knowledge included the recognition of the significance of TEK

and its utilization in the assessment, planning, and management of biodiversity in the Arctic

(Meltofte et al, 2013).

Documenting traditional knowledge and using it appropriately in scientific and management settings is not a simple task. According to the ABA, it is challenging to document

TEK and to use it in scientific settings. There is a need for cross-cultural understanding between two worldviews. The reduction of data to facts leads to the loss of contextual information as well as associations that turn observations into a consistent system of understanding (Meltofte et al, p.

6).

The CAFF on Traditional Knowledge and Community-Based Monitoring Progress

Report (2015) provided some information on the process of preparation for ABA. To coordinate

and facilitate the inclusion of TEK into the ABA, CAFF appointed TEK coordinators——one for

Eurasia, and one for North America (CAFF, 2015). The Eurasian report was not finalized due to

security concerns expressed by the representatives of TEK holders (CAFF, 2015). The process of

preparing the North American report on TEK and biodiversity change was led by Canada, and it

was supposed to be delivered during the US Chairmanship of the Arctic Council (CAFF, 2015).

196

According to the ABA website, in order to better include traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) into the ABA, two TEK coordinators were appointed whose roles were to gather TEK and to work with lead authors to facilitate the inclusion of TEK into the ABA (Arctic

Biodiversity Assessment website, 2019). The knowledge collected during this process is also being compiled into a compendium that aims to document and portray traditional knowledge, observations and viewpoints from Indigenous communities (Arctic Biodiversity Assessment website, 2019). The ABA website says that the TEK compendium is an oral history-driven document, as opposed to a methodological guide or literature review (Arctic Biodiversity

Assessment, 2019). The coordinator for Eurasia was Dr. Tero Mustonen (Finland) (Arctic

Biodiversity Assessment website, 2019). As of March 2019, the TEK Compendiums for Eurasia and North America were in development (Arctic Biodiversity Assessment website, 2019).

Tero Mustonen and Camilla Bratland published an article on the research on TK in

Norway and Finland, in which they argue that expectations at the international policy level towards traditional knowledge integration with science are at times unrealistically high, and hard to meet at local levels and in national policy contexts. According to the article, there are major gaps in how traditional knowledge is understood and included in management and research projects. TEK is dismissed or marginalized even after attempts to include traditional knowledge in management, and there are examples where salmon fishers act as data gatherers and contribute to traditional knowledge at the TEK local levels and in national policy contexts They also noted that, surprisingly, the projects that seem to fulfil Arctic expectations of traditional knowledge coproduction with science (projects with high legitimacy), seem to have the least impact on policy, and vice versa. Thus, some have argued for a rethinking of how a legitimate and policy- relevant knowledge coproduction process should be conducted (Bratland & Mustonen, 2018).

197

According to the PILAC scale (see Table 9 in the Appendix), the ABA acknowledged the utility of TEK, but did not integrate TEK in the scientific study (seven points). TEK observations were collected, but they were not integrated into maps and figures in the report. The introduction states that it draws on a vast number of scientific publications, supplemented by “eyewitness” observations from Indigenous peoples in the context of TEK (CAFF, 2013, p. 23). However, there is no indication that TEK was included in the conclusions and policy recommendations.

Indigenous communities from Eurasia and North America are not seen as communities with distinct cultures and languages; the report refers to them only as “Indigenous peoples in the

Arctic.” Indigenous communities were not recognized as co-authors of the report, and

Indigenous methods were not used in this study. It is hard to say how much of the TEK data was collected and utilized during the preparation process, but, obviously, there is no indication that the included TEK was applied to the policy-making process.

Maps and figures in the report are based on scientific data. The report includes a few quotes from Indigenous observations, but they are not reflected in maps and figures. The interviews indicate that similar to the ACIA, there was scientific resistance in ABA towards the inclusion of TEK (Tero Mustonen, personal communication, March 22, 2019). In this regard,

Henry Huntington was correct when he said: “Arctic Biodiversity Assessment. To me, it is one such example where they include a few quotes but the effort [to] fully engage with Indigenous knowledge that was not there.” (personal communication, February 19, 2019). This statement seems to appear correct, as the PILAC scale demonstrates the same results regarding the incorporation of TEK (lip service).

Atlas of Community-Based Monitoring and Indigenous Knowledge in a Changing Arctic

(Online Project)

198

The Digital Atlas of Community-Based Monitoring and Indigenous Knowledge in a

Changing Arctic maps several projects and networks around the Arctic and subarctic; this. This

atlas was designed to showcase the many community-based monitoring (CBM) and Indigenous

Knowledge (IK) initiatives across the circumpolar region (ACBM website, 2019). The atlas is

available online: http://www.arcticcbm.org/. The CAFF worked with the Exchange for Local

Observations and Knowledge of the Arctic (ELOKA) and the ICC to explore ways of

contributing to the atlas (CAFF, 2015). As of 2019, the atlas shows the CBM and IK initiatives

in Canada, Alaska, Europe and Russia base maps (ACBM website, 2019).

According to the website, the atlas is being developed by the Inuit Circumpolar Council

Canada in partnership with Brown University, ELOKA, and Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami’s Inuit

Qaujisarvingat: Inuit Knowledge Centre. The atlas will interface with the Sustaining Arctic

Observing Networks (SAON) program to help community-based monitoring projects connect with one another and become a more defined network. A secondary phase of the project will involve in-depth interviews with CBM practitioners to identify best practices and challenges

(Alaska Community-based monitoring website, 2019). Alaska Ocean Observing System and

Alaska Sea Grant are content partners in this effort, contacting programs and gathering data for the atlas (Alaska Community-Based Monitoring website, 2019). As the atlas is not a text

material, this study was not able to apply qualitative content analysis to this TEK project.

Community Observation Network for Adaptation and Sustainability (CONAS) (2014) (CBM

Network)

According to the CAFF report (2015), the CONAS was built on the work of the Bering

Sea Sub-Network (BSSN). CONAS is a CBM network in the Bering Sea that documents local

199

knowledge of environmental change, including challenges and opportunities encountered by

Indigenous peoples adapting to the outcomes of climate change in order to inform effective

adaptive responses (CAFF, 2015, p. 3). The study was not able to apply the PILAC scale to this

project, as there is no published report on that project.

Traditional Knowledge and Community-Based Monitoring Progress Report (April 2015)

This report was published in 2015 and provided a short overview of the CAFF projects on TEK and community-based monitoring. In the report, TK and CBM indicated that there were

some concerns about methodology for the utilization of TEK, as it is still unclear what particular

approach should be used to incorporate TEK into Western science. However, the report did not suggest any specific methodology that could evaluate the incorporation of TEK, and instead, provided a short overview of each report that mentioned TEK. There were no recommended

indicators of a meaningful evaluation of TEK integration in this report. Another concern mentioned in the ABA is related to security issues of TEK holders in Eurasia (CAFF, 2015).

Furthermore, according to the TK & CMB report (CAFF, 2015), TK and CMB are the concepts that are frequently perceived as being related to each other, but CAFF views them as separate, seeing TK as a systematic way of knowing, and CBM as a tool to collect data based on observations (CAFF, 2015). The report does not provide any indicators of incorporation of TEK into the CAFF work, and instead, just lists the projects that were organized under the CAFF’s

work and were supposed to integrate TEK. The PILAC scale shows (see Table 10) that this

report did not provide any recommendations on how to incorporate TEK into Western science.

There is no recommendation about how the process of TEK integration should be conducted.

The report also does not evaluate the extent to which TEK was included in the CAFF projects.

The report simply lists all CAFF projects that promised to include TEK into its work.

200

The lack of recommendations in TK & CBM could result from the lack of initial

guidelines on the incorporation of TEK, as well as from the lack of understanding of what

constitutes TEK.

“Arctic Traditional Knowledge and Wisdom: Changes in the North American Arctic” (Draft

Version and the Actual Report April 2017)

The report named Arctic Traditional Knowledge and Wisdom: Changes in the North

American Arctic (2017) is written in large part by North American Arctic Indigenous peoples,

and it acknowledges the importance of including Arctic Indigenous peoples’ Traditional

Knowledge and Wisdom to fully understand the nature of biodiversity and biodiversity changes

in the North (CAFF, 2017). The CAFF submitted this report to the Senior Arctic Officials

meeting in 2017 (Arctic Council website, 2018). According to the introduction, this report is a

compilation of Arctic Indigenous perspectives and understandings on biodiversity change in the

Arctic and examples of the application of Traditional Knowledge and Wisdom (TK&W) in

managing fish, wildlife, and habitats (CAFF, draft version, 2017). The report compiles the perspectives of Indigenous authors and others who cooperate with Indigenous communities in government, scholarly community, and research (CAFF, draft version, 2017). Due to its North

American focus, contributions for this report came from the Aleut International Association

(AIA), Arctic Athabaskan Council (AAC), and Gwich’in Council International (GCI) (CAFF, draft version, 2017). ICC neither did not nominate authors not directly participate in report preparation (CAFF, draft version, 2017). The Inuit perspectives presented in this report were gathered from previously published reports (CAFF, 2017, p. 10). The report is aimed to advance the consideration of including Arctic TK&W into decision-making processes regarding wildlife

201

and fisheries management (CAFF, draft version, 2017). The goal of this report is to provide

assistance to policy-makers, resource managers and scholars in understanding Indigenous

worldviews and their traditional knowledge and, also, to support the discussion on the

incorporation of TK systems with scientific analyses in the areas of biodiversity conservation

and sustainability (CAFF, draft version, 2017). Many Indigenous authors contributed to this

report. Their names and biographies are listed under ‘Contributing Authors’ (CAFF, draft

version, 2017, p. 1).

The lead author of this report, Ilarion (Larry) Merculieff (Aleut International Association) gave an interview for this study. Ilarion Merculieff was nominated as lead author because of his

extensive experience working with Arctic Indigenous peoples and scientists, and his cultural

upbringing and knowledge as a tradition bearer (CAFF, draft version, 2017, p. 1). He stated that

the concept of traditional knowledge should be called “traditional ecological knowledge and

wisdom.” Larry Merculieff notes that knowledge without wisdom is useless, which is something

that is missing from Western science. Therefore, he defined traditional knowledge as knowledge

and wisdom from people who had sustained intimate contact with their environment for

generations. It’s a life way, it’s not a way of life, we live it.” (Larry Merculieff, personal

communication, February 20, 2019).

Integration of TEK in “Arctic Traditional Knowledge and Wisdom: Changes in the North

American Arctic” (Draft Version and the Actual Report, April 2017)

This is the report that was prepared by Permanent Participants (Aleut International Association,

Gwich’in Council International, and Arctic Athabaskan Council). The report demonstrated (see

Table 11) a very high possibility that TEK was incorporated into the report. The report was

written in co-authorship with Indigenous peoples in North America, all Indigenous communities

202

were separately recognized and their knowledge was also distinctively perceived. The report included cross-cultural expertise of the lead authors who were trained as anthropologists.

However, the main weakness of this report is that the case studies that showed the actual application of TEK to wildlife management were taken from a separate study that was organized by Environment and Climate Change Canada. Meanwhile, TEK observations that were collected specifically for were not even included in policy recommendations. The authors did not use any methods to document TEK, such as maps and graphs. The conclusions at the end of the report refer to recommendations for action, such as equal partnership and participation of Indigenous communities, but they do not propose to change environmental regulations based on Indigenous perspectives, expertise and knowledge.

Traditional Knowledge Progress Report 2017-2019 (2019)

The report provides an overview of efforts to include TEK within the work of CAFF and describes its progress during the 2017-2019 AC Ministerial period. The report notes that a lack of funding support and capacity hinders the effective utilization of TEK and TEK holders within

CAFF activities (CAFF, 2019). The report lists activities that were organized during 2017-2019 under the CAFF program. According to the report, a major focus for the utilization of TEK has been through the Circumpolar Biodiversity Monitoring Program. It was noted that it was not possible to utilize TEK or involve TEK holders in the development of the State of the Arctic

Marine Biodiversity Report (part of the CBMP program). According to the report, the development of the CBMP Coastal Plan involved meeting with TEK holders. One of the steps in

CBMP Strategic Plan 2018-21 is to include TK and science in any revisions of the Arctic

Biodiversity Monitoring Plan. The Arctic Biodiversity Congress in 2018 involved the participation of TEK holders through engagement in dialogues and providing presentations.

203

There were a few projects that are led by Permanent Participants, including the Community

Observation Network for Adaptation and Security (CONAS) (led by AIA), Salmon Rivers of

Arctic Rivers (led by AIA, AAC, Saami Council and RAIPON), and Nomadic Herders:

Enhancing the Resilience of Reindeer Herder’s Ecosystems and Livelihoods (Russia, AIA in

cooperation with the Association of World Reindeer Herders) (CAFF, 2019). Hence, the amount

of AC projects on TEK led by Indigenous organizations increased, which could potentially

increase the chance of meaningful incorporation of TEK.

The PILAC scale shows (see Table 12) that this report did not incorporate TEK at all.

There is an absence of guidance material on how the process of TEK integration should be done.

In addition, the report does not evaluate the extent to which TEK was included in the CAFF projects, but rather simply lists all the ongoing AC projects that incorporate TEK.

Findings from the CAFF Working Groups Reports and Meetings Regarding TEK

TEK has been an important focus of the CAFF work, and this emphasis resulted in a few workshops on the application of TEK, and three large projects (1993-1996). Throughout 1993-

1996, four projects were led by Canada and the US regarding the utilization and application of

TEK (the workshop on comanagement systems, Indigenous Knowledge Mapping Project on

Beluga Whale, and Indigenous Knowledge Database Assessment). The results of these projects did not meet the expectations to develop a mechanism of incorporation of TEK into Western

science.

After the unexpected results of the first four projects on TEK, it was not discussed as

much during the CAFF board meetings (1996-2012). The Indigenous organizations (Permanent

Participants) often initiated this topic, expressing their concerns about the inclusion of TEK into

204

scientific reports. The work on the utilization, application, and incorporation of TEK into

scientific knowledge was continued through the CAFF workshops. The data from 2012-2018 is

unavailable in the online archives. The ACIA report, which was released in collaboration with

ACIA, was the largest study on climate change that claimed to incorporate TEK.

The collaborative initiatives between CAFF and Permanent Participants at CAFF 2003-

2004 meetings were a positive tendency within CAFF Working Group. This means that CAFF welcomed PPs’ expertise and knowledge on TEK. As a result of these initiatives, in 2017, a few

Permanent Participants—including GCI, AIA and AAC—published a report titled Arctic

Traditional Knowledge and Wisdom: Changes in the North American Arctic.

Overall, the discussion of TEK has been quite prevalent in CAFF over the years. The reports incorporated TEK with varying success. The results of the application of the PILAC scale will be discussed further in Chapter 7.

Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme

AMAP Meeting Boards (1998-2017)

The analysis of the 12th (1999) to the 31st (2017) AMAP Working Group meetings showed that in comparison with CAFF, the AMAP Working Group is predominantly Western science-

focused. According to Tennberg (2000), the relationship between Indigenous communities and

science is controversial. Indigenous peoples are concerned about who controls the research, and whether these scientific studies are beneficial to their communities and environment (Tennberg,

2000). There is also a resistance by scientists regarding the role and utility of traditional knowledge (Tennberg, 2000). On their behalf, Indigenous communities are also quite skeptical of the value and accuracy of scientific knowledge (Tennberg, 2000). So, the vast majority of the

205

projects within this working group were merely technical and based on scientific methods.

Tennberg (2000) also notes that the AMAP report on pollutants aims to develop more scientifically based criteria. However, some of the meetings did include the discussion of TEK and/or inclusion of Indigenous peoples in AMAP work.

AMAP 12th Working Group Meeting, Helsinki, Finland, December 1998.

During the 12th AMAP meeting in Norway in 2000, TEK was mentioned within the discussion on the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA). It was indicated that ICC encouraged to include TEK into the ACIA (AMAP, 2000, p. 6). Terry Fenge stated that there are many publications on TEK that cover Indigenous Peoples’ knowledge with respect to climate change, including Voices from the Bay, which describes observations on climate change by Inuit and Cree communities around Hudson Bay. He also said that it is essential to include TEK into global negotiations on climate change (AMAP, 2000, p. 6-7).

AMAP 14th Working Group Meeting, Trondheim, Norway, September 2000.

TEK was not discussed during the meeting (AMAP, 2000). RAIPON and Saami Council representatives attended the meeting. The meeting agenda included the discussion on AMAP goals and objectives such as AMAP operating guidelines, AMAP Assessment Guidelines,

AMAP Inventory of Sources, and AMAP Thematic Data Centres.

AMAP 15th Working Group Meeting, Stockholm, Sweden, August 2001.

TEK was not discussed during the meeting (AMAP, 2001). Of all PPs, only the Saami

Council was present at the meeting. It was a joint meeting between AMAP and the Fourth

Assessment Steering Group/Cross-Fertilization meeting.

206

AMAP 16th Working Group Meeting, Torshavn, Faroe Islands, April-May 2002.

TEK was not discussed during the meeting (AMAP, 2002).

AMAP 17th Working Group Meeting, Boulder, CO, USA, May 2003.

TEK was not discussed during the meeting (AMAP, 2003). The meeting agenda included

a report about the production of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment. The production of the

scientific report, costs for the involvement of scientists, a professional writer for the overview

document, graphic production and layout were covered by a special contribution from USA and

an in-kind contribution from all Arctic countries and Permanent Participants (AMAP, 2003).

Hence, the PPs financially contributed to the production of the ACIA report.

AMAP 18th Working Group Meeting, Oslo, Norway, 2004

At the 18th AMAP meeting in 2004, Bob Corell (ACIA ASC Chair) delivered a report on

the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment. He reported that the ACIA integrated scientific

knowledge with Indigenous insights (AMAP, 2004). He also mentioned that over the past four

years, some 250-300 individuals were involved in this work (AMAP, 2004). In the discussion on

possible follow-up to the ACIA, it was noted that linking science and TEK strengthened the

ACIA assessment by covering knowledge gaps (AMAP, 2004, p. 39) The scientific portion of

the ACIA assessment had some knowledge gaps that needed to be addressed (AMAP, 2004).

Thus, the use of TEK helped to cover these gaps in knowledge (AMAP, 2004, p. 39).

AMAP 19th Working Group meeting, St Petersburg, Russia, September 2005.

TEK was not discussed during the meeting (AMAP, 2005). The ACIA follow-up section included a discussion on the creation of expert groups for the ACIA, which will include

207

“independent experts.” The invitation to nominate these experts was sent to IGOs, NGOs,

Indigenous groups, and observers. It was highlighted in the meeting minutes that Permanent

Participants and observers would have the same role in this expert group as they have in any

other AC group (AMAP, 2005). Hence, PPs were included in this ACIA expert group.

AMAP 20th Working Group Meeting, Stockholm, Sweden, June 2006.

TEK was not discussed during the meeting (AMAP, 2006). ACIA follow-up included a note that there is a need to restructure the mechanism to direct ACIA follow-up by the Arctic

Council WGs after the October Ministerial meeting. It was also noted that any new structure should ensure the involvement of relevant scientists for the issues to be addressed, Indigenous people’s representatives and national experts on adaptation and mitigation (AMAP, 2006).

Therefore, it was insisted upon that the inclusion of Indigenous representatives into ACIA preparation was important.

AMAP 21st Working Group Meeting, Hanover, NH, USA, March 2007.

TEK was not discussed during the meeting (AMAP, 2007). The meeting agenda included

mostly scientific projects such as the Oil and Gas Assessment, a discussion on international

cooperation, and an AMAP progress report to the SAO meeting (AMAP, 2007).

AMAP 22nd Working Group Meeting, Quebec, Canada, December 2008.

TEK was not discussed during the meeting (AMAP, 2008). The discussion on Snow,

Water, Ice and Permafrost in the Arctic included the item “Confirming participants in the

SWIPA project.” Alona Yefimenko (AC Indigenous Peoples’ Secretariat) stated that IPS intends to nominate one person to the SWIPA IT as soon as resources had been identified (AMAP,

2008). Hence, Indigenous peoples were invited to participate in SWIPA preparation.

208

AMAP 23rd Working Group Meeting, San Francisco, CA, USA, February 2010.

During the workshop on the AMAP Assessment and Monitoring Programme at the

AMAP 23rd Working Group meeting (2010), it was mentioned that there was a need in the

development and implementation of a proper strategy for using Traditional Knowledge (AMAP,

2010). It was also noted that community-based monitoring in research and the use of TEK should be encouraged (AMAP, 2010).

AMAP 24th Working Group Meeting, Tromsø, Norway, January 2011.

The observer from the European Environment Agency presented information on relevant activities that are being coordinated and initiated by the EEA and recent developments in

Brussels. The relevant activities included a planned workshop on using Arctic traditional knowledge in EEA environmental monitoring work (AMAP, 2011, p. 24). This was one of the proposed activities in the item, “Messages from observing countries on their AMAP-related activities.” (AMAP, 2011).

AMAP 25th Working Group Meeting, Moscow, Russia, October 2012.

TEK was not discussed during the meeting (AMAP, 2012).

AMAP 26th Working Group Meeting, Stockholm, Sweden, October 2012.

The discussion on the Food and Water Security Project recognized the need to ensure that

Permanent Participants would be directly involved to bring local expertise and the use of

traditional knowledge into this work (AMAP, 2012, p. 15).

Tom Armstrong (USA), co-chair of Sustaining Arctic Observing Networks (SAON),

presented the goals and cornerstones of SAON. One of the elements of this project involved

209

community-based monitoring. It was recognized that SAON has the ability to bring in traditional

knowledge, and this information should be encouraged (AMAP, 2012, p. 23). The purpose of the

Sustaining Arctic Observing Networks (SAON) is to support and strengthen the development of

multinational engagement for sustained and coordinated pan-Arctic observing and data-sharing

systems. SAON was initiated by the Arctic Council and the International Arctic Science

Committee, and was established by the 2011 Ministerial Meeting in Nuuk (Arctic Council

website, 2019).

AMAP 27th Working Group Meeting, Torshavn, Faroe Islands, September 2013.

The delegation from Canada presented the priorities of the Canadian chair of the Arctic

Council, for which the overarching theme is “Development for the People of the North,” with a

focus on responsible Arctic resource development, safe Arctic shipping, and sustainable

circumpolar communities. A number of initiatives are being taken by the Arctic Council and its

WGs, including the protection of traditional ways of living in the Arctic and promotion of

traditional and local knowledge (AMAP, 2013, p. 6).

Jon L. Fuglestad, AMAP Deputy Executive Secretary, presented an overview of the

Adaptation Actions for a Changing Arctic Part C (AACA-C) project and the draft

implementation plan. Delegations noted that the draft Implementation Plan was a good starting

point for further development (AMAP, 2013, p. 8). Key points brought up in the discussion

included the fact that PP organizations should be included in the work from the outset and

Traditional Knowledge should be utilized together with scientific results and analyses (AMAP,

2013, p. 9). This is another place that PPs should be included in AMAP projects.

AMAP 28th Working Group Meeting, Whitehorse, Yukon, Canada, September 2014.

210

During the discussion on the assessment on the Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) at

the 28th AMAP meeting, the ICC representative Eva Kruemmel asked for the reflection of the local/traditional knowledge in the assessments and reiterated the importance to better link the work of the POPs and Human Health expert groups in their respective assessments. (AMAP,

2014, p. 8).

AMAP 29th Working Group Meeting, Tromsø, Norway, September 2015.

The discussion on Pan-Arctic Report included the ICC placing emphasis on the

importance of a proper reflection of Arctic Indigenous knowledge in the reports (AMAP, 2015,

p. 5). After this statement, the ICC was asked to help ensure that TEK is properly reflected in the

pan-Arctic report (AMAP, 2015, p. 5). Marianne Kroglund explained that they had an extensive

process for the Barents region with several workshops to capture Indigenous knowledge. Tom

Armstrong asked for the ICC’s support to help ensure the knowledge is reflected appropriately in

the pan-Arctic report (AMAP, 2015, p. 5).

During the discussion of AMAP Work Plan 2017-2019, representatives from Canada and

the US emphasized the necessity to consider traditional knowledge early on in AMAP’s work,

but not at the end (AMAP, 2015, p. 11). The ICC representative, Eva Kruemmel, suggested to

AMAP to develop a framework with an implementation plan for guidance on how TEK should

utilized before the beginning of projects (AMAP, 2015, p. 11).

AMAP 30th Working Group Meeting, Helsinki, Finland, November 2016.

This meeting included a discussion on the approval of Snow, Water, Ice, Permafrost in

the Arctic (SWIPA), the summary for policy-makers, and the presentation of the key findings

and recommendations for the summary of policy-making documents for SWIPA. The Permanent

211

Participants noted that Indigenous peoples and their knowledge should be mentioned specifically

in the recommendations, and this research should also include community-based monitoring

(AMAP, 2016, p. 5). PPs remarked that a statement was missing on the vulnerability of Arctic

Indigenous people and that they were particularly suffering from climate change (AMAP, 2016,

p. 5). The SWIPA Chair, Morten Skovgaard Olsen, noted that the SWIPA group was having difficulties with incorporating Indigenous and local knowledge into their work. However, he also mentioned that the cooperation with TEK holders was established during the project (AMAP,

2016, p. 6).

AMAP 31st Working Group meeting, Reykjavik, Iceland, September 2017.

The recommendations to the report on AMAP Strategic Framework 2018-2026, which

were given during the AMAP 31st Working Group meeting, reflected the necessity to indicate

how to work with traditional and local knowledge (AMAP, 2017). At the same meeting, the

discussion of the role of International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) identified

the incorporation of traditional knowledge as one of the potential areas of cooperation between

ICES and AMAP (AMAP, 2017).

AMAP 32nd Working Group Meeting, Kiruna/Giron, Sweden, September 2018.

Åsa Larsson-Blind, President of the Saami Council, noted that AMAP had done well in communicating with Indigenous Peoples. She challenged AMAP to take further steps to work even more closely with Indigenous people, as they see changes first and can bring this knowledge forward. She emphasized the great need to use the best available knowledge for policy-making, including Indigenous knowledge and greater use of community-based monitoring

(AMAP, 2018, p. 5).

212

The Saami Council presented the report on the project, “Reindeer Husbandry Under

Pressure,” which was led by the Saami community and Stockholm University. This project

concerned land use and how the land can be used in the traditional way in the context of climate

change and a changing environment. The project combined traditional knowledge with Western

science in a study of weather data combined with observations of snow (AMAP, 2018, p. 5).

Richard Bellerby presented an overview of the 2018 Arctic Ocean Acidification (AOA)

assessment. He noted that among other recommendations, greater inclusion of Indigenous

knowledge is needed (AMAP, 2018, p. 5). The lack of TEK inclusion might have been needed

because TEK could contribute to a need for more monitoring based on ecosystem approach and

training people to sample, and research was needed into a long-term response to ocean acidification (AMAP, 2018).

There was also a Mercury Assessment/Scoping of 2021 update assessment. It was noted that the new section on Indigenous perspectives was appreciated and Canada wanted to document Indigenous knowledge on other topics, such as climate change and food webs (AMAP,

2018, p. 12).

The joint workshop between HHAG and POPs/Hg EGs: ICC suggested that, even though

the workshop would not be held in Ottawa, an informal meeting might be arranged among the

participants, including Indigenous knowledge holders (it was not identified who exactly), to

discuss the topics for the workshop (AMAP, 2018, p. 19). In terms of the SWIPA/IPCC work

progress and AMAP’s future climate work, the ICC found the proposal on ecosystem effects of

climate change to be interesting, stating that ecosystem changes are important to Indigenous

Peoples, who are closest to these changes. It was stated that the participation of Indigenous

213

knowledge holders in this work and other AMAP climate work should be ensured (AMAP, 2018,

p. 20).

Finland presented a status report on its priority on meteorological cooperation. There

would also be a side event at the 2019 Ministerial Meeting on Indigenous knowledge and

meteorology (AMAP, 2018).

Monitoring guidelines and NIPs reporting for AMAP climate monitoring program were

discussed. The WG considered this a useful update and agreed that marine observations should

also be included and that linkages to global programs, Indigenous knowledge, and community‐ based monitoring were important. “Adding Indigenous knowledge and local knowledge and community-based monitoring (CBM), where relevant” was included as an agenda item into decision/action plan. (AMAP, 2018, p. 23). However, there is no indication that the process of adding TEK and CBM was explained and guided.

The AMAP Reports and the Incorporation of TEK.

Adaptation Actions for a Changing Arctic in Bering, Chukchi, Beaufort (BCB) Region (2017).

The report titled Adaptation Actions for a Changing Arctic in Bering, Chukchi, Beaufort

(BCB) region (2017) recognizes adaptation to climate change and changing social and economic conditions in the Arctic as important issues in the BCB region. The report identifies the integration of TEK with science as one of the factors that contribute to successful adaptation in the region (AMAP, 2017, p. 14). The combination of TEK with scientific knowledge is needed to ensure accurate information on local conditions, to fully understand the reality of change impacts at the community level, and to empower local communities (AMAP, 2017, p. 14).

214

According to the report, the incorporation of local traditional knowledge alongside scientific

knowledge is an important element in the BCB region (AMAP, 2017, p. 248).

The PILAC scale shows (see Table 14 in the Appendix) that despite the involvement of

social scientists into TEK projects, and case studies of local Indigenous communities in the BCB

region, there is still a low possibility that TEK was meaningfully incorporated into this report.

The Indigenous communities in the BCB region are not recognized by their names, cultures, and

languages, the report refers to them as local Indigenous communities. TEK data was neither

collected nor documented. The report does not apply TEK to the policy-making process. The policy recommendations are not based on TEK. Hence, TEK was not meaningfully incorporated, and this report is “lip service” in terms of the incorporation of TEK.

Snow, Water, Ice, and Permafrost in the Arctic (SWIPA) Summary for Policy-makers

(2017).

According to the SWIPA summary for policy-makers (2017), this report is based on observations, methods, and studies that include contributions from traditional and local knowledge (AMAP, 2017, p. 4). In Chapter 9 of the SWIPA report on sea ice, the SWIPA report states that documentation and the use of traditional knowledge has been crucial to climate change research at the community level. Many Indigenous observers noted changing seasons conditions over the past decade (SWIPA, 2011). Changes in sea ice and conditions appeared to be faster than it was predicted in the ACIA (SWIPA, 2011). Due to the extent and speed of climate change, traditional knowledge may no longer be as reliable and relevant for understanding the nature, and it comes with a high degree of uncertainty (SWIPA, 2011). According to the PILAC scale (see Table 14 in the Appendix), there is a low possibility that TEK was incorporated in this study. Though the report states that TEK has been crucial to climate change research, there is no

215

indication that Indigenous communities were involved in this research; there is no particular participatory method that was applied to the study, and TEK is not applied to resource management. The report’s messaging and recommendations are not based on TEK. Thus, TEK data was neither collected nor documented.

AMAP Assessment 2018: Biological Effects of Contaminants on Arctic Wildlife and Fish,

Arctic Biota

According to the AMAP Assessment in 2018, titled Biological Effects of Contaminants on Arctic Wildlife and Fish, Arctic biota is affected by numerous natural and anthropogenic stressors, including climate change, invasive species, hunting pressure and so on. Wildlife is exposed to a complex series of different stressors as well (AMAP, 2018). Biologists often use oversimplified scenarios based on the negative effects of a single stressor. Meanwhile, there are many factors that may act cumulatively to impact the Arctic environment (AMAP, 2018). The observations of TEK holders are needed for the integration of collected data into a holistic picture of Arctic wildlife health (AMAP, 2018). The PILAC scale (see Table 15 in the

Appendix) showed that similar to the SWIPA Report and Adaptation Action for a Changing

Arctic in Bering, Chukchi, Beaufort (BCB) region reports, AMAP Assessment 2018 Biological

Effects of Contaminants on Arctic Wildlife and Fish, Arctic biota is an example of “lip service.”

TEK data was not documented through the use of maps and graphs. The report acknowledges the utility of Indigenous knowledge holders’ engagement and calls for future research on addressing concerns of knowledge holders and coproduced knowledge approach but does not apply TEK to its scientific analysis.

216

Findings from AMAP Meetings and Reports

From the period of 1999-2017, the AMAP Working Group did not have any specific projects related to the application and utilization of traditional knowledge. In comparison with the CAFF, the AMAP’s projects and discussions are more Western science-oriented and mention

TEK fewer times than the CAFF projects.

The discussion on TEK in the AMAP is mostly related to the necessity to integrate TEK into scientific assessments. The integration of TEK in reports was mostly mentioned as a recommendation. The most recent AMAP board meetings from 2015-2017 raised the question of how specifically TEK should be applied and utilized in scientific assessments. Thus, the integration of TEK into the AMAP scientific assessments has been challenging so far. The findings from the PILAC application on the AMAP reports will be more thoroughly discussed in

Chapter 7.

Protection of Arctic Marine Environment (PAME) (1999-2017)

PAME 1999 Akureyri, Iceland

PAME’s meetings occur twice a year in different locations. During the 1999 PAME meeting in Iceland, the integration of traditional and other ecological knowledge was discussed during the Circumpolar Marine Workshop. The workshop was co-sponsored with PAME, CAFF, and IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) (PAME, 1999). The goals of the workshop included the development of practical measures to protect the Arctic marine environment, conserve its biological diversity, and facilitate improved collaboration among

Arctic countries, Indigenous peoples, and other stakeholders (PAME, 1999, p. 3). PAME’s

217

mandate is to address policy and non-emergency pollution prevention and control measures

related to the protection of the Arctic marine environment from both land and sea-based

activities. These include coordinated action programmes and guidelines complementing existing

legal arrangements (Arctic Council website, 2019).

The integration of traditional and other ecological knowledge was involved in the draft

criteria for evaluating PAME Offshore Guidelines. The draft evaluation questions for

incorporation of TEK were the following: Has traditional ecological knowledge been considered

in the decisions about the activity? Is the collection and application of traditional knowledge

non-biased by the industrial operator? (i.e., is it in control of those having the knowledge, a

public panel, or an independent management panel comprised of Western scientists and those

with traditional knowledge? (PAME, 1999, p. 19). Consultation with local and Indigenous

communities and the incorporation of TEK was emphasized as one of the four standards for

rating oil and gas projects (PAME, 1999, p. 17). Similarly, the critical principles of the Offshore

Guidelines mentioned community consultation and the incorporation of TEK into the decision-

making process (PAME, 1999, p. 19). Traditional knowledge was used as one of the indicators

for the adequacy of biological information upon which to evaluate the quality of baseline

information and the effects considered in the Environmental Impact Assessment. The first table

in the report titled, “Status of Knowledge Important for Decision-Making Biotic Resources”, that

included TEK was based on the matrix used by the US National Research Council (1994)

(PAME, 1999, p. 21).

PAME 2000, Copenhagen, Denmark

TEK was not discussed during the PAME board meeting. The discussion focused on

Offshore Oil and Gas Guidelines, Regional Programme of Action, Circumpolar Marine

218

Workshop, analysis of international agreements and relations with other organizations (PAME,

2000).

PAME 2001, Washington, DC, US

TEK was not discussed during the PAME board meeting. The PAME meeting discussion included a review of legal instruments, offshore oil and gas guidelines, Regional Programme of

Action, and Shipping Proposals (PAME, 2001).

PAME 2001, Moscow, Russia

TEK was not discussed during the PAME board meeting. The PAME meeting discussion included a review of legal instruments, Regional Programme of Action, relations with other organizations and working groups, shipping activities, and other PAME related activities such as

PAME message to World Summit Sustainable Development (PAME, 2001).

PAME 2002, Reykjavik, Iceland

TEK was not discussed during the PAME board meeting. The PAME meeting discussion included: Review of legal instruments, Regional Programme of Action, shipping activities, relations with other organizations and working groups, and offshore oil and gas (PAME, 2002).

PAME 2003, Stockholm, Sweden

The discussion during the PAME board meeting in 2003 was influenced by the World

Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in 2002. The WSSD 2002 revealed the

“implementation gap.” In addition, according to the PAME 2003 report, there has been an incredible number of agreements, conventions and institutions formed with the intention to achieve sustainable development, but an implementation gap remains. While the frameworks

219

exist and principles such as precaution and the ecosystem approach are widely accepted and included in most multilateral instruments, the present challenge is how to implement these principles to meet sustainable development goals and objectives (PAME, 2003, p. 4).

The report from the meeting of Chairs of the Working Groups mentioned the need to integrate the cross-cutting themes, i.e., sustainable development, capacity-building, traditional knowledge, mainstreaming of gender issues and the implementation of the World Summit

Sustainable Development Plan of Implementation (PAME, 2003, p. 2). The PAME Guiding

Principles for the development of strategic plan included the involvement of Indigenous peoples and incorporation of Indigenous knowledge (PAME, 2003, p. 2).

A summary of major changes made to the updated version of the 1997 Offshore Oil and

Gas Guidelines: Section 3 – Arctic Communities, Indigenous Peoples, Sustainability and

Conservation of Flora and Fauna, was updated to include more discussion of traditional knowledge and protection of Indigenous peoples’ lifestyles (PAME, 2003, Appendix IX – 1).

Hence, PAME documents were supposed to incorporate TEK.

PAME 2004, Helsinki, Finland

TEK was not discussed during the PAME board meeting. PAME meeting included the discussion on PAME activities, including Arctic Waters Oil Transfer Guidelines and Arctic

Marine Strategic Plan (PAME, 2004).

PAME 2005, Aalborg, Denmark

TEK was not discussed during the PAME board meeting. The discussion on the AMSA involved the inclusion of town hall meetings in the Arctic in order to provide full participation of all stakeholders (including Indigenous communities) (PAME, 2005).

220

PAME 2005, Copenhagen, Denmark

TEK was not discussed during the PAME board meeting. The discussion included the

AMAP Oil and Gas Assessment, Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment, and Ecosystem Approach.

PAME 2006, Murmansk, Russia

TEK was not discussed during the PAME board meeting. The discussion was on the

AMSA, Ecosystem Approach, Port Reception Activities, AMSP Communication Plan, and the

2006-2008 PAME Plan.

PAME 2006, Oslo, Norway

Assessment of Oil and Gas Activities in the Arctic: Indigenous Peoples involvement was identified as one of the gaps in AMSA (PAME, 2003, p. 3). It was noted that the PAME

Working Group normally did not raise funding for the conduct of the actual assessment work; however, it might raise funds for core activities associated with the assessment process such as participation of Indigenous peoples’ representatives. Therefore, Indigenous participation was identified as a core activity for AMSA assessment (PAME, 2006, p. 3). Subsequently,

Indigenous peoples in the Arctic were involved in the AMSA Town Hall meetings (AMSA,

2009).

PAME 2007, Copenhagen, Denmark

TEK was not discussed during the PAME board meeting. RAIPON and ICC participated in the roundtable discussion on the AMSA aims. From an ICC perspective, one of the major concerns of increased shipping is the impact on our social and cultural pursuits. Ships break ice and when ice is broken, it becomes fragmented, weaker, and harder to maintain its structure, yet Indigenous

221

culture is very dependent on having stable ice conditions as a means of transportation. RAIPON

noted that Russia has the biggest Arctic area and that there is a lot of Indigenous use across the

Arctic. They expressed particular interest in Chapter 4 and informed the meeting that they had

developed and articulated a survey and distributed it to their communities (PAME, 2007). Hence,

PPs expressed their concerns about the Arctic marine shipping and emphasized the importance of

PAME’s necessity to listen to Indigenous communities while preparing this study.

PAME 2008, Helsinki, Finland and PAME 2008, St. John, Newfoundland, Canada

Arctic Marine Strategic Plan (AMSP): The List of Strategic Actions for Improvement of

Knowledge and Understanding of the Marine Environment included evaluation and

incorporation, of traditional ecological knowledge and community-based scientific monitoring in marine research, assessments and reports; involvement of Indigenous and local people and consultation with communities in the distribution and use of the information (CAFF, AMAP)

(PAME, 2008, p. Appendix V – 1).

PAME, 2009, Oslo, Norway

ANNEX VI: Questionnaire regarding Environmental Impact Assessment processes within the offshore oil and gas industry: The question of how traditional knowledge was taken into account was included in the report (PAME, 2009, Annex VI-1).

PAME, 2010, Washington DC, USA; Copenhagen, Denmark

TEK was not discussed during the PAME board meeting. The Arctic Ocean Review

(AOR) Communication and Outreach Plan included building capacity and the engagement of

Arctic residents and Permanent Participants as one of its strategic measures (PAME, 2010).

222

PAME 2011, Reykjavik, Iceland

TEK was not discussed during the PAME board meeting. The meeting agenda included follow-

ups on the AMSA, the 2009 Offshore Oil and Gas Guidelines, the Arctic Ocean Review Project

and the Ecosystem Approach (PAME 2011).

PAME 2012, Stockholm, Sweden

Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment II: The status report from the co-leads of the projects

(Norway, Canada, Denmark/Greenland and the United States) on Arctic areas of heightened

ecological and cultural significance of the Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment (AMSA) received

feedback from ICC Alaska. ICC Alaska stated that the AMASA IIC Draft 4 should not be

finalized or submitted as it still lacks use of TEK (PAME, 2012, p. 41).

The CAFF WG Meeting discussed AMSA IIC and recommended that Draft #4 should

have a 30-day or more review time as per AC Rules of Procedure, and that the cultural section

needs more work under SDWG and with PP input on Traditional Ecological Knowledge before

this portion could be sent for National Review with the ecological portion (PAME, 2012, p. 41).

PAME 2013, Rostov-on-Don, Russia, Rovaniemi, Finland

TEK was not discussed during the PAME board meeting. PAME invited member governments and Permanent Participants to submit to PAME I-2014 any information they may have on subsistence marine use in the Arctic (PAME, 2013). Hence, PPs were asked to contribute to the data on subsistence marine use.

PAME 2014, Girdwood, Alaska, Whitehorse, Yukon

223

Joint AMAP/PAME Sessions (co-chaired by AMAP and PAME Chairs): The Arctic

Council Initiative on Promoting Traditional Knowledge (Jim Gamble, AIA/Jutta Ward, SDWG

Chair) was included in agenda of the meeting.

PAME 2015, Akureyri, Iceland

During the discussion on the Survey of Arctic Indigenous Marine Use (AMSA II (A),

SDWG Chair Jutta Wark presented on the SDWG Local and Traditional Knowledge Initiative

(PAME, 2014, p. 4).

PAME 2016, Stockholm, Sweden, Portland, Maine

The PAME Chair and Secretariat mentioned that SDWG prepared seven

recommendations for the Integration of Traditional and Local Knowledge (TLK) and will

integrate TLK into its work by using the checklist as adopted by the SAO when enveloping new

project proposals (PAME, 201, p. 1).

PAME, 2017, Copenhagen, Denmark

TEK was not discussed during the PAME board meeting. PAME welcomed an update at

PAME II-2017 by the Aleut International Association on its Arctic Indigenous Marine Use:

Tools For Communities Project (PAME, 2017). Hence, PPs were submitting contributions to the

AMSA chapter on Arctic Indigenous Marine Use.

PAME, 2018, Quebec City, Canada

TEK was not discussed during the PAME board meeting. ICC and Canada provided an

update on the 4th Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) Workshop held in Cambridge Bay, Nunavut,

Canada (March 19-21, 2019). The workshop was supposed to focus on “Exploring ways to

224

support Indigenous/Local involvement in, and Indigenous/Local led, marine protection in the

circumpolar Arctic Ocean” (PAME, 2018). One of the presentations by the Government of

Canada acknowledged that Canada has a long history of Indigenous participation in protected

area planning and management. The first modern land claim agreement (signed in 1975)

established the first of what are now referred to as “comanagement bodies” (PAME workshop,

2019). Hence, the workshop recognized that the comanagement body as a political institution

originated in Canada, and it was an outcome of a land claim agreement.

PAME, 2019, Malmo, Sweden

Arctic Offshore Resource Exploration and Development: PAME notes that the Secretariat will seek guidance from the Arctic Council Secretariat on the agreed use and capitalization of

Indigenous Peoples and Indigenous/traditional knowledge and local knowledge (PAME, 2019, p.

5).

PAME Reports and TEK

Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment (2009)

The Arctic Council at the Ministerial Meeting in Reykjavik, Iceland, in November 2004

called for a PAME working group to “conduct a comprehensive Arctic marine shipping

assessment as outlined under the Arctic Marine Strategic Plan (AMSP) under the guidance of

Canada, Finland and the United States as lead countries and in collaboration with the Emergency

Prevention, Preparedness and Response (EPPR) working group and the Permanent Participants

as relevant.” The Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment, or the AMSA 2009 Report, was approved

at the 2009 Ministerial Meeting in Tromsø (PAME website, 2019).

225

The Arctic Marine Incidents Workshop was organized in cooperation with the US Coast

Guard and the US Arctic Research Commission. The workshop focused on the qualitative risk factors for five plausible Arctic marine incidents developed by the organizing committee and bear some similarities with incidents that have already occurred in polar waters. The workshop included seven themes, and two of them included the involvement of local Indigenous communities and the use of their knowledge (AMSA, 2009, p. 176).

Theme (D) Strategies to Improve Prevention and Preparedness: One of the strategies for this theme was to improve knowledge for Arctic incident response through training and engagement of the local community, responders and the maritime industry, that Arctic

Indigenous people should be trained in response, and local communities must participate in response operations (AMSA, 2009). Theme (F) Strategies to Foster Community Involvement included the following strategies: involve Indigenous people and local communities in planning, response, recovery and restoration decisions and operation; and conduct outreach to local communities and keep all stakeholders well-informed (AMSA, 2009, p. 177).

The chapter titled “Human Dimensions of the AMSA” was dedicated to Indigenous inhabitants of the coastal areas of the Arctic region. This chapter recognized that marine shipping affects or might affect the lives of Indigenous coastal communities and their use of the marine environment (AMSA, 2009, p. 128). It was emphasized that a collaborative management approach and careful planning are required to identify and respond to negative impacts of marine shipping and to identify and harness positive benefits (AMSA, 2009, p. 128). In order to present the plan of AMSA and expectations of increased marine shipping as well as to seek input from

Arctic residents regarding their views and perceptions of marine shipping, the AMSA organizers

226

held town hall meetings in various locations in the Arctic (Canada, Norway, Iceland, the US

(Alaska) (AMSA, 2009, p. 130).

The town hall meetings were a good way of engaging Indigenous communities into a conversation about possible impacts of Arctic marine shipping in the foreseeable future. Even though, as Professor Brigham noted, the discussions did not involve TEK, town hall meetings were well-attended and involved a large number of Indigenous participants (3000 people attended 14 meetings). As an outcome of the town hall meetings, constructive engagement of local residents in a planned Arctic marine development project was recommended as one of the policies to help reduce negative impacts and assist in a smooth interaction and increase positive benefits from marine shipping (AMSA, 2009, p. 133).

Lawson Brigham said that the AMSA team conducted 13 specialized workshops in addition to the AMSA Town Hall Meetings. All of the workshops also included Permanent

Participant representatives. The AMSA team held workshops on scenarios, Arctic marine incidents/accidents, environmental impacts (especially the impact of oil on the Arctic marine environment), marine insurance, Russia's Northern Sea Route, and more. Each of the workshops included discussions related to Arctic marine operations and their impacts on Indigenous communities. However, not all of these discussions—several on highly complex topics—were related directly to TEK. The AMSA team worked hard to make sure Indigenous voices were heard during the conduct of the workshops. (Lawson Brigham, personal communication, March

2019).

227

Therefore, the AMSA preparation involved Indigenous participants in town hall

meetings and workshops, but these activities did not include the discussion on TEK and its incorporation with Western science.

According to the PILAC scale (see Table 16 in the Appendix), there is a moderate

possibility that TEK was integrated into this study. The organization of town hall meetings with

Indigenous residents all over the Arctic certainly played an essential role in the inclusion of their

insights and observations in this report. Hence, the AMSA study effectively used a participatory

methodology with Indigenous communities. However, there is also a lack of involvement of

cross-cultural experts, and it is not clear to what extent Indigenous observations were included in

the findings section. Indigenous observations were not documented.

Arctic Offshore Oil and Gas Guidelines (2009)

It was noted that Indigenous communities started actively participating in the decision- making process regarding oil and gas, project planning, environmental assessments and regulations. Project planning, environmental assessments and regulations should incorporate

Indigenous and traditional knowledge in the situations when they address local issues and develop approaches to mitigate environmental damage and negative socioeconomic consequences (PAME, 2009, p. 9).

The Arctic Offshore Oil and Gas Guidelines report (PAME, 2009) stated that the capacity of institutions (governmental, the public, and NGOs) should be strengthened in order to make sure that scientific, technical and traditional knowledge are available to the processes and are effectively used in Arctic oil and gas activities (PAME, 2009, p. 9). It was recommended that

228

Arctic states should integrate TEK into the decision-making process involving siting studies and disposition of resource use rights (PAME, 2009, p. 12).

When monitoring biodiversity, the best available knowledge that includes TEK should be employed. Independent scientific peer review and public input should be used to assure program quality (PAME, 2009, p. 14). TEK is also mentioned as one of the sources of information for the

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA)

(PAME, 2009). EIA is used to recognize the potential impacts of offshore oil and gas development (PAME, 2009, p. 13). SEA is a process for evaluating the environmental consequences of a proposed policy, plan or initiative (PAME, 2009, p. 16).

Regarding environmental monitoring, it was recommended that the operators should take into account local Indigenous communities for contractual monitoring activities as well as drawing upon Indigenous and traditional knowledge for the identification of historical environmental extremes and trends. The operators should establish cooperative relationships with local

Indigenous communities (PAME, 2009, p. 24). Where appropriate, Indigenous and traditional knowledge should also be used in training programs for operators and control personnel (PAME,

2009, p. 41). It is not specified in the document how exactly TEK should be used in training

sessions for personnel.

Subchapter 5.4., Risk Assessment/Hazard Identification of the Arctic Offshore Oil and Gas

Guidelines (2014) stated that the Arctic climate conditions in the marine area such as extreme

cold, moving ice, icing, darkness, dense fog, etc., could be unsafe for human health. In addition,

that for the best assessment of operational risk, the operator should consider local and traditional

knowledge (LTK) on weather and sea ice implications for marine transportation (PAME, 2014).

229

The PILAC scale (see Table 17 in the Appendix) indicates that this is “lip service.” The report acknowledges the utility of Indigenous knowledge holders’ engagement and calls for future research on addressing concerns of knowledge holders and coproduced knowledge approach, but does not apply TEK to science. TEK was not documented and recommendations are not based on TEK

Meaningful Engagement of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities in Marine Activities

(MEMA) Part I (2017)

Part I of the MEMA report analyzed 272 Arctic Council recommendations regarding

Indigenous engagement in Arctic activities and presented the compilation of recommendations generated by the Arctic Council on Indigenous engagement. As such, the report is entirely based on the analysis of textual documentation and does not provide any original data. The report identified the Arctic Council recommendations, including the incorporation of Traditional and

Local Knowledge into research, planning, reports and assessments. Community-based monitoring was recommended as an effective way to incorporate TLK into a project (MEMA,

2017, p. 7). The AC also recommended consultation as a mechanism for engagement (MEMA,

2017, p. 7). The AC recommendations were taken by MEMA as a baseline for the analysis of the wider range of engagement practices, which will be reflected in Part II (MEMA, 2017).

Therefore, MEMA was designed to provide recommendations for the meaningful inclusion of

TEK into the AC work by using textual analysis of the AC documentation. However, the report did not provide any evaluation of existing documents, reports and assessments.

As MEMA did not have primary data based on TEK, and it mostly provided the analysis and assessment of the AC work on TEK, the study did not apply the PILAC scale to this report.

230

Findings from PAME Meetings and Reports

Similar to the AMAP, TEK was not the primary focus of the PAME board meetings. It is quite clear from the meeting reports that the inclusion of TEK was insisted upon by members of the PAME working group (not by PPs). Yet, most of PAME reports and assessments demonstrated that incorporation of TEK into the PAME work was “lip service.” In comparison with AMAP, the PAME Working Group had more attempts to incorporate TEK by involving

Indigenous communities into its work, and the AMSA report is a good example of it. But, in comparison with CAFF, PAME had much less work related to the incorporation of TEK into scientific assessments, and the inclusion of TEK at PAME meetings was discussed much less often than at CAFF meetings. Permanent Participants did not release any reports in the PAME

Working Group.

Emergency, Prevention, Preparedness and Response (EPPR)

The Arctic Council online archive does not have any data on the EPPR board meetings for 1996-2019. However, the reports from 1998-2018 are available on the AC website. The

EPPR has not produced any specific report dedicated to the use of traditional knowledge. A few reports briefly mentioned the importance of TEK and local knowledge. This means that in comparison with other working groups, the utilization and incorporation of TEK has much less to do with the EPPR work and activities. The EPPR primarily works with prevention, preparedness and response to accidents from pollutants and chemicals, and TEK has little or nothing to do with these subjects.

The Field Guide for Oil Spill Response in Arctic Waters (1998).

231

According to the Field Guide for Oil Spill Response in Arctic Waters (EPPR, 1998),

“knowledge of local conditions, priorities and resources is of primary importance in all response operations. Knowledge of local oil products or crude oils is essential in terms of safety and in the development of a Health and Safety Plan for first responders. This knowledge is also critical in any decision by first responders to burn spilled, contained or recovered oil” (EPPR, 1998, p. 2-

7). The importance of local knowledge is also emphasized in the evaluation of the feasibility of the planned activities and environmental effects of the actions (EPPR, 1998, p. 7-10). The

chapter titled Feasibility and Net Environmental Benefit of the same report state that “the

decision process for establishing response and protection priorities must include local knowledge

and input from local inhabitants. The potential effects of the spill and those of the response

operations on subsistence and other economic activities are part of the overall assessment. Local

knowledge (the Arctic Council uses terms such as local knowledge, TEK, and Indigenous

knowledge interchangeably) also is used in the assessment of environmental concerns or issues,

as there frequently exists a strong connection between the environment and subsistence or

economic activities.” (EPPR, 1998, p. 7-10).

The PILAC scale (see Table 18 in the Appendix) demonstrates that this report is “lip

service.” TEK was not incorporated into this report. The use of local knowledge is only

recommended, and the process of obtaining and utilizing of TEK is not described. The process of

TEK collection and documentation is not described in the report. TEK is recognized only as

“local knowledge,” with no reference to a specific group/knowledge (EPPR, 1998). The guide

does not provide any guidance on utilization of TEK in case of oil spill response; methods of

providing participation of local inhabitants are not identified.

232

The Guide to Oil Spill Response in Snow and Ice Conditions in the Arctic (2015).

Chapter II-4 Net Environmental Benefit Analysis (NEBA) of the Guide to Oil Spill

Response in Snow and Ice Conditions in the Arctic (2015) considers local traditional knowledge as a significant source of data on the spatial and seasonal distribution of regional harvesting activities and the identification of critical populations/stocks of fish, birds and mammals upon which local communities rely on (EPPR, 2015, p. 32). According to Arctic Environmental

Hazards and National Mitigation Programs (EPPR, 2015), due to their vulnerability to ecological, environmental, social, economic, cultural, and spiritual impacts of oil spills,

Indigenous communities should be trained in response planning and measures in order to properly respond to emergency situations (EPPR, 2015). Indigenous, traditional, ecological and local knowledge are essential parts of preparedness and response plans (EPPR, 2015).

Indigenous communities and their knowledge also play a significant role in planning and responding to emergencies (EPPR, 2015). To avoid and mitigate accidents and environmental emergencies, companies should communicate and coordinate with Indigenous communities during industrial or development activities (EPPR, 2015). Again, there is no indication of how

TEK should be applied to oil spill response. The keyword in these EPPR reports is “should,” which indicates what is probable, not mandatory.

The PILAC scale (see Table 19 in the Appendix) shows that this is “lip service.” TEK was not incorporated into this report. The use of local knowledge was only recommended, and the process of obtaining and utilizing of TEK was not described. It was only noted in the report that “local traditional knowledge is a crucially important source of information on the spatial and seasonal distribution of regional harvesting activities and the identification of critical populations/stocks of fish, birds and mammals upon which regional communities depend” (p.

233

32). There is no description of how the process of using TEK should be organized. TEK is recognized only as “local traditional knowledge”, with no reference to a specific group/knowledge.

The EPPR Strategic Plan (2016).

The EPPR Strategic Plan (EPPR, 2016) expresses similar ideas to the previous documents’ views of TEK and the involvement of Indigenous communities into emergency preparedness. According to this plan, it is crucial to involve Indigenous communities into emergency prevention, preparedness and response (EPPR, 2016). Due to their closeness to the activities that pose risks of emergencies, Arctic Indigenous communities are likely to be affected by these accidents. Because of this, they can also intervene in these incidents faster than any local and national resource (EPPR, 2016). Arctic Indigenous communities can also lend their traditional knowledge to the process of emergency prevention and response (EPPR, 2016).

Overall, the EPPR reports suggest the idea of Indigenous participation and utilization of

TEK in case of emergency response and preparedness, but there is a lack of instructions on how to apply and utilize TEK.

According to the PILAC scale (see Table 20 in the Appendix), similar to other EPPR reports, this report is “lip service.” TEK was not incorporated into this report. The use of local knowledge is only recommended, and the process of obtaining and utilizing of TEK is not described.

The use of participatory methods, Indigenous methods, and methods of documenting

TEK are lacking in the report. The report does not provide any guidance on how to use TEK or

234

specific example of how local inhabitants could contribute their knowledge in preparedness and

response actions.

Findings from EPPR Reports.

The utility and importance of local knowledge were mentioned only in two reports: The

EPPR Strategic Plan (2016), the Guide to Oil Spill Response in Snow and Ice Conditions in the

Arctic (2015). The Permanent Participants did not release any reports in the EPPR Working

Group. Hence, attempts to incorporate TEK into EPPR work turned into “lip service.” The EPPR

reports will be discussed further in Chapter 7.

Sustainable Development Working Group

The Arctic Council online archive does not have any data on the SDWG board meetings.

However, the reports of this working group, including drafts, are available.

SDWG Reports (1998-2017)

The SDWG website has a collection of archived reports from 1998 until 2017. However, only a few of them included TEK.

Arctic Human Development Report (2004).

In the Arctic Human Development Report (2004), traditional and local ecological knowledge is placed in the chapter, Resource Governance. The report states that the integration of Western science with local knowledge is a key trend in Arctic resource governance (AHDR,

2004). TEK is considered to be a part of everyday life for Indigenous communities in the North.

There are some challenges in integrating knowledge systems. It is critical not to use Indigenous knowledge outside of the local context; in this case, TEK becomes “just another form of data”—

235

it is artificially dissected from the cultural whole in which it is embedded (AHDR, 2014). Hence, the AHDR put a strong emphasis on the cultural dimensions of TEK. According to the AHDR

(2004), there is a challenge of drawing meaningfully from TEK. The incorporation of TEK must be done carefully, otherwise it can be problematic. Uncritical use can lead to misunderstandings.

AHDR does not specify what could be considered as a misunderstanding, and does not provide any examples of the lack of interpretation. Meanwhile, uncritical use can result in pitfalls such as perceptions of Indigenous peoples as “natural conservationists” or “original ecologists.” (AHDR,

2004).

According to the AHDR, the integration of TEK serves as a reminder that there is a diversity of knowledge systems. The awareness of traditional knowledge results in the development of community-based resource management approaches (AHDR, 2004). In the

Arctic region, there is increasing interest in political devolution and comanagement as strategies for devising more efficient resource management (AHDR, 2004). Devolution refers to the transfer of power to more local and regional jurisdictions and governments. Comanagement involves a sharing of power between the state and resource user communities. AHDR (2004) uses the case of the Nunavut as political devolution on a macro-scale. Shared management of polar bear in Alaska and Chukotka are considered to be the case study of comanagement

(AHDR, 2004). The report does not provide original research on TEK, but provides a lot of material on the incorporation of TEK and its challenges, as well as successful cases from the academic literature and governmental reports.

According to the PILAC scale, there is a high possibility that the integration of TEK described in this report was done thoroughly (Table 21 in the Appendix). Despite the fact that

AHDR is a compilation of existing knowledge and does not provide primary data (original

236

research), the information on TEK and comanagement provided in the Resource Governance chapter meaningfully incorporate TEK and Western science. Some cases of successful examples of TEK incorporation include Inuit Land Use and Occupancy Project and Voices of the Bay—

both are from Canada. AHDR also provides great examples of customary law and practice that regulate resource use, such as the James Bay Cree system of hunting territories allotted to specific individuals. This Cree practice serves to limit the risks of the overexploitation of beavers. Similarly, Inuit hunters on Victoria Island use self-limiting practices in hunting for ducks (AHDR, 2004). These examples provide a useful explanation of how TEK can be used in resource management. The TEK data, though, is not documented by using scientific methods such as mapping and GIS.

What is important in the AHDR report (2004) is that Richard Caulfield (the Resource

Governance chapter’s author) described, clarified and explained customary practices of

Indigenous hunters in the Canadian Arctic (e.g., self-limiting practices in hunting), and as a result, TEK appeared to be more understandable for non-TEK holders and policy-makers. Yet, the primary research on TEK in the AHDR was not conducted, and the chapter on TEK and resource governance is merely a compilation of existing literature.

Capacity Building Overview of the Arctic Council (SDWG, 2009a)

The report of the Capacity Building Overview of the Arctic Council (SDWG, 2009 a) is aimed to provide a handy reference to the work of the Arctic Council for the many groups and individuals living and working in the Arctic (SDWG, 2009 a, p. 8). This document states that local community knowledge makes the contribution of local Indigenous communities valuable to society (SDWG, 2009). Arctic peoples have kept community knowledge for centuries, and the

Arctic Council is looking for new approaches to utilize this data to the challenges of sustainable

237

development in the circumpolar North (SDWG, 2009 a). The report argues that traditional

ecological knowledge can provide valuable information about wildlife resources, habitat, and

ecological processes (SDWG, 2009 a, p. 7).

According to the PILAC scale, there is a low possibility that TEK was incorporated into

this report (Table 22 in the Appendix). The use of local knowledge is only recommended, and the process of obtaining and utilizing of TEK is not described. The report acknowledges the utility of TEK, but does not explain how the process of knowledge coproduction works. TEK was not collected and documented for this report.

EALAT Reindeer Herders’ Voice: Reindeer Herding, Traditional Knowledge and

Adaptation to Climate Change and Loss of Grazing Land (2009)

In 2009, SDWG published a report titled, EALAT Reindeer Herders’ Voice: Reindeer

Herding, Traditional Knowledge and Adaptation to Climate Change and Loss of Grazing. This project was initiated by the Association of World Reindeer Herders (WRH) to address the challenges of climate change, such as loss of pastures to maintain and develop robust reindeer herding communities (SDWG, 2009 a). The EALAT project was aimed to be a long-term

contribution towards capacity building in reindeer herding societies with a special focus on

adaptation to the challenges of climate change and loss of pastures (SDWG, 2009 a).

The report consists of four regional chapters (the Saami region, Yamalo-Nenets

Autonomous Okrug, Russia, Republic of Sakha, Russia, and Chukotka Autonomous Okrug,

Russia (SDWG, 2009a). The report recognized that the first major task is to make TEK available

to more people. TEK is knowledge that has not been written down, so it creates difficulties for

238

some people to use (SDWG, 2009a). Another major task was the implementation of TEK alongside scientific knowledge in governance, public plans, industrial development projects and so on. There were also identified issues of ownership, intellectual property rights, documentation issues, ethics, storage questions, and the need for enhanced understanding from the academic and professional community on the handling and understanding of TEK (SDWG, 2009a). To address those challenges, EALAT authors sought collaboration with all levels of research and other academic institutions (SDWG, 2009a). The report developed a few recommendations to the

SDWG. In regard to TEK, it was recommended to support knowledge sharing on impacts and adaptation measures connected to climate change and loss of grazing land, while also recognizing the value of traditional knowledge as a foundation for adaptation (SDWG, 2009 a).

Therefore, EALAT recognized the importance of TEK in terms of the development of approaches towards the adaptation to climate change. The report also identified some characteristics of TEK that make it difficult to use, such as the fact that it is not written down, it has issues with intellectual property rights, and it is still not well-understood by academic and professional communities. This suggests there should be special regulations adopted by the

Arctic Council and member states to regulate the use of TEK by researchers and policy-makers.

Overall, the EALAT report demonstrated moderately high possibility (15/20) of incorporating TEK (Table 23 in the Appendix). Linguists and social scientists were involved in

EALAT workshops and interviews. The research adopted a participatory methodology to work with Indigenous communities.

What makes this report unusual is that the EALAT researchers used a novel method that was developed for Siida-based monitoring of snow change and grazing conditions. The researchers also used the Saami language and terminology. This is the first time that an AC

239

report used a research method that incorporated Indigenous Saami culture and their language.

Accordingly, the researchers tried to understand how the Saami view nature and reindeer herding

by adopting their customary practice (Siida). The Indigenous researchers also identified each

community by their names and did not refer to them simply as “Indigenous peoples.” This is

important because the Nenets and the Saami do not speak the same language and have distinct

cultures, so their customary practices of reindeer herding might be different.

The major weakness of this study is the lack of application of TEK to resource

management systems in Scandinavia and Russia. The conclusions put a strong emphasis on

socioeconomic aspects of reindeer herders’ livelihoods, but they do not suggest policy

recommendations based on TEK. The TEK observations collected throughout the study are not

documented by using scientific methods such as maps or graphs.

Vulnerability and Adaptation to Climate Change in the Arctic (VACCA) (2009)

In 2009, the SDWG Working Group released the report named, Vulnerability and

Adaptation to Climate Change in the Arctic (VACCA). The VACCA project was aimed to achieve two goals (SDWG, 2009b). The first goal was to conduct a study that would collect and disseminate information on the existing and ongoing research and strategies on adaptation to climate change in the Arctic. The second was to set up an international expert/stakeholder workshop in which leading experts, decision-makers, working group representatives and other important stakeholders would discuss the issues related to vulnerability and adaptation to climate change. The outcomes of this workshop were expected to be the recommendations for potential work on this issue in the Arctic Council (SDWG, 2009 b).

240

Regarding TEK, the VACCA survey concluded that some projects showed that the use of

local knowledge for dealing with climate change was important and valuable (SDWG, 2009 b).

In addition, it was noted that some of the analyzed projects showed a valuable integration of local, traditional, and scientific knowledge bases, thus generating methods that could be used all

over the Arctic region (SDWG, 2009 b). The VACCA workshop recommended using Indigenous

and local knowledge in compiling and sharing information for Arctic vulnerability and

adaptation work (SDWG, 2009 b). However, there was no specific example in the report of how

TEK was applied to scientific knowledge.

According to the PILAC scale, (see Table 24 in the Appendix) TEK was not incorporated

into this report. The use of local knowledge is only recommended, and the process of obtaining

and utilizing of TEK is not described. However, what makes this report distinguishable from other “lip service” projects is that it was acknowledged at one of the VACCA workshops that

“Indigenous people are doing their own climate change assessments using their own knowledge and worldviews, including their own technologies and customary laws” (VACCA, 2009, p. 68).

Hence, this statement recognizes that Indigenous communities do not only possess their own knowledge, but they also use their own methods and customary laws while they collect and utilize TEK. This finding provides an opportunity for the Indigenous community to be coresearchers in TEK projects and to use their own methodologies.

EALAT (2011)

After the publication of the first export, another EALAT study was conducted by the SDWG and the report was released in 2011 (Magga et al., 2011). The project collected and analyzed

241

traditional knowledge of Saami and Nenets reindeer herders, specifically looking at winter ecological conditions (Magga et al., 2011, p. 21). As an outcome of the EALAT study, 14 recommendations were produced. Regarding TEK, it was suggested to support the establishment of community-based monitoring of climate change in reindeer herding areas in the Arctic, where traditional knowledge is included (Magga et al., 2011, p. 65). Traditional knowledge should be included in the impact assessments related to the loss of grazing land (Magga et al., 2011, p. 65).

Indigenous peoples should be supported in their right to govern their knowledge as a part of their adaptation process to climate change and loss of grazing land (Magga et al., 2011, p. 65).

The PILAC scale (see Table 25 in the Appendix) showed that there are challenges that must be met in the process of incorporation of TEK (issues of ownership, intellectual property rights, ethics, storage issues, understanding of TEK). The report included cross-cultural expertise— many scientists from various disciplines were invited for this study. The interviews and workshops were organized to collect TEK. TEK observations were collected but not documented.

However, similar to the first EALAT report, the recommendations are mostly related to socioeconomic factors, support of Indigenous communities and a call for action, but these recommendations are not based on TEK. TEK observations were collected, but it is not clear how they were applied to wildlife management.

The Circumpolar Information Guide on Mining for Indigenous Peoples and Northern

Communities (2011)

The Circumpolar Information Guide on Mining for Indigenous Peoples and Northern

Communities, released in 2011, was aimed to increase the capacity of Indigenous and local

242

communities to understand, affect and participate in mining-related development to increase benefits and reduce negative outcomes on their livelihoods, cultures and nature (SDWG, 2011).

According to the report, traditional knowledge should be fully utilized in environmental assessments. The mining companies are in charge of soliciting traditional knowledge or making the integration of this data possible (SDWG, 2011). The Indigenous communities should have the right to decide how to integrate traditional knowledge with non-Indigenous sources (SDWG,

2011).

The PILAC scale shows that there is a low possibility that TEK was incorporated into this study (Table 26 in the Appendix). The report acknowledges the utility of TEK, but does not integrate TEK in the scientific study. There is no indication that a participatory methodology should be used during the process of TEK utilization—this report did not use Indigenous methodologies. The utility of TEK is acknowledged; however, it is not identified how TEK should be applied to wildlife management/science. There is a lack of social scientists involved in this study. Thus, the report acknowledges the utility of TEK, but does not integrate TEK in the scientific study.

The Sea Ice Never Stops: Circumpolar Inuit Reflections on Sea Ice Use and Shipping in Inuit

Nunaat (2014)

In 2014, SDWG and ICC Canada released the report named The Sea Ice Never Stops:

Circumpolar Inuit Reflections on Sea Ice Use and Shipping in Inuit Nunaat. Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC) financially supported this project. The report investigates the Inuit use of sea ice. According to the document, Inuit Traditional Knowledge has

243

provided a tremendous amount of data for researchers and decision-makers regarding climate

change and its impact on environment and communities (SDWG, 2014). The role of ICC in

providing connections between governmental bodies, the academic community and the Inuit was particularly emphasized in the report. It was noted that ICC supported the efforts of the Arctic

Council and other bodies to improve communication with the Inuit. These relationships helped the Inuit to develop mechanisms to better engage and coordinate with the shipping industry and other economic actors (SDWG, 2014). It was also noted in the report that the Inuit generated much success by working collaboratively with others, including non-Indigenous researchers, and by contributing to the work of international and Arctic-wide studies (SDWG, 2014). Inuit

traditional knowledge was integrated into the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment and played a

significant role in International Polar Year research projects. The ICC also documented the

knowledge of the Inuit who have occupied the Beaufort Sea area for the Circumpolar Flaw Lead

System project (SDWG, 2014). ICC Canada has been a leader in the Circumpolar Flaw Lead

System study since 2008 (SDWG, 2014).

The PILAC scale shows (see Table 27 in the Appendix) that there is a relatively high

possibility that this report incorporated TEK, but there is a lack of application of TEK to wildlife

management. The conclusions mostly refer to Inuit perspectives (e.g., Inuit are adaptable and

strong) but they do not apply Inuit TEK to the policy-making process. TEK observations were

not documented, and report conclusions are not based on TEK.

Notwithstanding, the report demonstrates a high level of cross-cultural expertise and the

use of participatory methods (interviews with Inuit communities). The report also recognizes that

Inuit communities are distinct from each other depending on their location; thus, it was

acknowledged that TEK has a localized nature.

244

Overall, similar to other reports published by PPs, EALAT and ATK &W, this report provides Indigenous perspectives on development of the Arctic region, but these recommendations/insights are not based on TEK.

Arctic Human Development Report II (2014)

In the chapter titled Resource Governance, TEK is mentioned in the subchapter,

Integrating Knowledge Systems in Arctic Resource Governance. The AHDR II report notes that calls for funding proposals now commonly require the integration of traditional knowledge as well as the participation of local communities in study designs (AHDR, 2014). It is also noted in the report that the use of GPS technologies allowed for the real time observations of local users to be captured and, thus, to advance the application of Indigenous and local knowledge (AHDR,

2014). The AHDR report also states that many scientists and resource managers still view traditional knowledge as an information source separate from its worldview and everyday practice (AHDR, 2014).

According to the PILAC scale (see Table 28 in the Appendix), AHDR (2014) is very similar to the first AHDR report. The chapter Resource Governance that included TEK is mostly based on the analysis of domestic legislation regarding Indigenous rights and wildlife management in Alaska, Russia, and Fennoscandia, but no original research was conducted. The chapter on TEK is a compilation of existing literature that attempts to investigate how to apply

TEK to policy processes and legislation.

245

Recommendations for the Integration of Traditional and Local Knowledge into the Work of the Arctic Council (2015).

In 2015, the SDWG Working Group released “Recommendations for the Integration of

Traditional and Local Knowledge into the Work of the Arctic Council.” The recommendations addressed important issues in terms of the inclusion of traditional knowledge. It was emphasized that every project proposal or outline should describe how it would use TLK in the project. If the project will not use TLK, it must indicate why (SDWG, 2015). In the final report to SAOs, it stated that every project must describe how TLK was used in the project, and also indicate if there are any lessons that can be learned in terms of better inclusion of TLK in the future work

(SDWG, 2015). The importance of better integration of TLK was also emphasized in the recommendation to create an inventory of lessons learned and best practices of TLK integration.

The recommendations also included the use of consistent terminology regarding TLK, and the development of consensus-based guidelines and processes for more efficient incorporation of

TLK (SDWG, 2015). Hence, the SDWG document raised an important issue regarding the lack of guidelines on the integration of traditional knowledge in the Working Groups projects. Indeed, many Working Groups projects mentioned the importance of inclusion and application of TEK

(TLK) into their assessments; however, only a few of these projects specified the procedures of using TEK, and they did not report how they utilized TEK in their work.

The PILAC scale (see Table 29 in the Appendix) demonstrates that this report is mostly

“lip service.” TEK is recommended to be included in the AC work, but the process of incorporation of TEK is not described.

Strategic Framework: The Human Face of the Arctic (2017)

246

In 2017, SDWG published a report titled Strategic Framework: The Human Face of the

Arctic, describing the integration of Indigenous Peoples’ traditional knowledge and local knowledge into the SDWG structure and its initiatives was recognized as one of the SDWG guiding principles (SDWG, 2017). The report states that SDWG will meaningfully incorporate

TEK into its structure and its initiatives. SDWG stated that this policy measure improves the global community’s understanding of the region and results in better outcomes (SDWG, 2017).

The SDWG projects that include Indigenous peoples and other Arctic residents as respected

experts were considered to be a critical link to successful interdisciplinary opportunities in Arctic

research and to building knowledge and capacity among communities and research institutions

alike (SDWG, 2017).

Strategic Framework: The Human Face of the Arctic (2017) constitutes the context in

which the SDWG’s activities will be conducted over the period 2017-2030. Thus, this document

does not provide any research on TEK, but it mentions the incorporation of TEK as one of the

main strategies of the SDWG Working Group in the future.

Findings from SDWG

Overall, it is quite clear that the SDWG reports (EALAT, 2009; VACCA, 2009;

Circumpolar Information Guide on Mining for Indigenous communities, 2011 and others) put a

strong emphasis on the recognition of the value of traditional knowledge in the Arctic Council.

Unlike the other working groups, the SDWG widely promoted the application and utilization of

TEK as well as Indigenous participation in wildlife management all over the Arctic region.

Besides the CAFF, the SDWG is the only working group that developed the recommendations

on the integration of traditional knowledge to the Arctic Council. Due to its specific focus on

sustainable development, the SDWG reports are more likely to use social sciences

247

methodologies instead of being framed by natural sciences. The findings from SDWG reports

will be more thoroughly discussed below.

Arctic Contaminants Arctic Program Working Group (ACAP)

The ACAP Working Group was established in 2006 as a part of the AC plan to address

the Arctic pollution sources identified through AMAP (Arctic Council website, 2018). The 2000

Barrow Ministerial Meeting endorsed the Arctic Council’s Action Plan to Eliminate Pollution in the Arctic (ACAP). The priorities of ACAP were selected on the basis of the findings by AMAP related to POPs, heavy metals, radioactivity, and the depletion of the ozone layer (Koivurova &

Hasanat, 2009, p. 63). There are only a couple of ACAP reports that mention TEK.

Establishing a Circumpolar Local Environmental Observer Network Report (2017)

According to the Establishing a Circumpolar Local Environmental Observer Network

Report, local observers are very effective in noticing small changes in weather, landscapes and seascapes, as well as animals and plants (ACAP, 2017). Recognizing the need for a tool to document and share environmental observations, the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium

(ANTHC) created the Local Environmental Observer (LEO) Network in 2009 (ACAP, 2017a).

The project was aimed to increase awareness of vulnerabilities to the impacts of unusual changes in nature. The goal was to connect community members with technical experts (ACAP, 2017a).

During the US Chairmanship of the AC, the LEO Network was expanded to create a foundation for a Circumpolar Local Environmental Observer (CLEO) network (ACAP, 2017a). The new hubs were opened in Canada, and as a result, the LEO Network covers the entire Pacific coast of

248

North America (ACAP, 2017a). To open new hubs in Europe, the project partners organized two

workshops in the Fenno-Scandinavian region (ACAP, 2017a). According to the report, both

technical experts and community experts provide consultations, so the information they deliver is

based on TEK and science. The CLEO platform allows them to interact with one another and

collaborate on monitoring, research and outreach (ACAP, 2017a). The tools and methods tested

in Arctic North America serve as a template for the expansion of the circumpolar LEO Network

(ACAP, 2017a).

The PILAC scale shows that the report demonstrates a moderate possibility (12 points) of

TEK incorporation (Table 30 in the Appendix). The CLEO network suggests the innovative

approach of incorporating TEK through establishing connections between community and

technical experts. The goal of this network is very clear: increasing awareness about changes in

the environment. The major strength of the CLEO project is that it connected community experts

with scientists. Community experts were given the authority to edit observations in their areas

and provide consultations based on traditional, scientific, and local knowledge. However, the

localized nature of TEK was not identified.

The report has a very clear purpose for the application of TEK to policy and science: It was mentioned that the purpose of the report was to increase awareness of vulnerabilities to the impacts of unusual changes in the environment, compared to what is expected based on traditional knowledge. Community experts and technical experts were supposed to provide consultations and build bridges between types of knowledge. Yet, it is not explained what methods to document TEK will be used.

Framework for the Circumpolar Expansion of the Local Environmental Observer Network

249

Another report released by ACAP in the same year was released, titled Framework for the Circumpolar Expansion of the Local Environmental Observer Network (ACAP, 2017 b).

This report introduced the framework for the expansion of the LEO Network in the circumpolar

North (ACAP, 2017 b). The document established three phases for the achievement of this goal.

Phase One was to establish North American chapters of LEO in the US (Alaska) and the

Canadian Arctic and to develop a framework for the expansion of the LEO network in the Arctic.

Phase Two was to establish an additional country, regional hubs/activities (Finland, Norway and

Sweden and other areas with Saami communities). The last phase was dedicated to linking all

LEO chapters into circumpolar LEO network—CLEO (ACAP, 2017 b).

Therefore, despite the fact that ACAP had just been recently formed, this group has

already working on a project that provides a tremendous contribution to the integration of TEK

into science. The Local Environmental Observer program that connects technical and community

experts is Alaskan-founded and well established in Arctic North America. According to the reports, the LEO has significant potential to spread all over the Arctic region.

The PILAC scale shows that this report did not incorporate TEK (Table 31 in the

Appendix). The report included discussions and workshops into the program. The importance of

TEK is recognized. Yet, the process of incorporation of TEK was not explained. In comparison to the previous ACAP report, “Establishing a Circumpolar Local Environmental Observer

Network Report (2017)”, this report does not say much about TEK and its process of incorporation, including consultations with community experts. The previous report had more information about the objectives of working with community experts (to increase awareness of the vulnerabilities and impacts of unusual changes in the environment compared to TEK). This report is mostly focused on the establishment of the LEO network in the Arctic regions.

250

Findings from ACAP Reports

The analysis of the ACAP reports and assessments demonstrates that the Circumpolar

Local Environmental Observers Project proposes a promising idea: the connection of scientists

and community experts (Indigenous communities) in order to exchange observations of climate

change. Although the ACAP Working Group emerged only very recently, the ACAP TEK

projects on the establishment of the LEO network appear to be quite promising for the process of

knowledge coproduction in the future.

The Discussion of TEK in the Arctic Council Declarations and Senior Arctic Officials

Meetings (1996-2017)

The Arctic Council was established in 1996 by the Ottawa Declaration. According to

English (2013), Canada proposed the idea of the Arctic Council and invited governments by letter to join the cooperation (Keskitalo, 2003, English, 2013). The AEPS had to become a part of the AC. After negotiations, four working groups and the Indigenous Peoples Secretariat were incorporated within the council (English, 2013, p. 207). The Task Force on Sustainable

Development would become a part of the sustainable development pillars within the council

(English, 2013). Keskitalo (2003) argues that the US and Canada had a disagreement on Arctic issues for future AC work: the US put a strong emphasis on environmental issues, whereas

Canada advocated for Indigenous issues (p. 72). The US was concerned that certain proposals related to Indigenous rights will turn into a “hunting license” for attacking US marine mammal legislation (Keskitalo, 2004, p. 72). Canada, with the help of Indigenous NGOs, particularly the

ICC, were fighting for the inclusion of sustainable development and Indigenous participation in

the Arctic Council (Keskitalo, 2004). As a result, greater Indigenous involvement through

Permanent Participants, as well as the recognition of sustainable development as one of the main

251

pillars, has been successfully integrated into the structure of the Arctic Council (Keskitalo,

2004).

The AC is the successor to the AEPS, but it has different strategies. According to English

(2013), AEPS was mostly a scientific-oriented organization focused on environmental issues,

with AMAP being a dominant working group. The Arctic Council included Indigenous

traditional rights in sustainable utilization (Keskitalo, 2004). In this context, the focus on

traditional knowledge in the AC declarations appears to be a perfect way to emphasize this shift

from an earlier focus on environmental science to a later recognition of Indigenous rights as well as the importance of sustainability in the Arctic.

Arctic Council and the Establishment of the Institution of Permanent Participants

Meeting Minutes from SAO Meetings

To manage the developments that occur during the breaks between Ministerial Meetings,

the members of the AEPS established a group known as the Senior Arctic Officials (SAAOs).

This group was expected to attend consultative meetings at least once a year to monitor progress

in the implementation of the AEPS and to make preparations for ministerial conferences (Young,

1998, p. 40). The institution of the Senior Arctic Officials was inherited by the Arctic Council

(Arctic Council website, 2019).

US Chairmanship 1998-2000

Meetings in Anchorage, Alaska, May 5-6, 1999

In the discussion of this item, Indigenous organizations promoted the utilization of

traditional and local knowledge in Arctic research. Patricia Cochran of the Alaska Native

252

Science Commission advocated for the inclusion of local Indigenous communities in Arctic research and the integration of “traditional knowledge” in the discussion regarding threats in the

Arctic environment and actions towards them. She gave a few examples of how TEK could be integrated into this research: “color and taste of Eskimo tea were changing, seal skins used to be opaque, now they are translucent, ice is forming later, melting earlier, weaker and dirtier” and some other examples (Arctic Council, 1999). Hence, Cochran provided examples of Indigenous observations that could be included in scientific studies. Cochran also asked for adequate funding for the collection, compilation, and integration of traditional knowledge as one of the concerns of

Indigenous communities and establishing a database of traditional knowledge as another (Arctic

Council, 1999). It is not clear whether the funding for TEK projects was increased. The ICC made a comment that emphasized the need to include local observations and traditional knowledge in research and its inventories (Arctic Council, 1999). The discussion on the establishment of the University of the Arctic included the incorporation of scientific and traditional knowledge as one of its expectations in the future (Arctic Council, 1999).

SAO Meeting in Washington DC, USA, November 18-19, 1999

Norway developed a project called the Arctic Council Action Plan (ACAP) to Eliminate

Pollution in the Arctic. Canada stated that it had some language on how to use “traditional knowledge” in the plan and would bring specific projects to the February 1999 meeting (Arctic

Council, 1999). The ACAP Working Group is an outcome of this Norwegian project. ACAP’s major project is the Circumpolar Local Environmental Observer (CLEO) Network, which is supposed to combine knowledge of community experts (traditional and local knowledge) and technical experts about climate change (Arctic Council, 2019). CLEO Network reports were analyzed in the previous subchapter.

253

Finnish Chairmanship (2000-2002)

SAO Meeting in Finland, Oulu May 15-16, 2002

Canada initiated the development of the Arctic Council’s capacity building strategy

(Arctic Council, 2002). The “Capacity Building Overview of the Arctic Council” report was released in 2009, and this was analyzed in the previous subchapter. The Gwich’in Council

International welcomed this project and highlighted the necessity to strengthen the integration of knowledge on sustainable development within the community at large (Arctic Council, 2002).

The Gwich’in Council International pointed out that it could be difficult to find data at the community level, and noted the importance of promoting communication. The GCI also encouraged stronger participation of PPs in the efforts of the Working Group (Arctic Council,

2002).

ACIA report

The Permanent Participants were actively involved in the discussion Arctic Climate

Impact Assessment, especially in the part where TEK was discussed. The SAOs welcomed the active participation of the PPs and see the role of traditional knowledge in the preparation of the

ACIA documentation as essential. The Arctic Athabaskan Council and the ICC expressed their wish to strengthen the PP’s involvement and the role of traditional knowledge in the ACIA process in all of its stages (Arctic Council, 2002). The ICC underlined that scientific discussion about climate change should have a human face and the effects on the everyday life of people deserve special attention. They were concerned as well that the policy recommendations should be specific, like the First AMAP Assessment, and not general like the draft CAFF

254

recommendations, and that the implications should be fully discussed with the PPs (Arctic

Council, 2002). By saying that scientific discussion about climate change should have a human face, the PPs meant that the ACIA recommendation must be applied to the policy-making process in order to make a positive impact on Indigenous communities.

Sheila Watt-Cloutier, who represented ICC at that meeting, wrote in her book that ICC felt that they had to push back hard to prevent American politicking from minimizing the potential influence of the ACIA. “The science and TEK contained in the other two reports needed to be accompanied by a proposal for action if the entire assessment was to be effective— and if the Arctic communities were to have any hope that their world and their culture would be protected.” (Watt-Cloutier, 2015, p. 207). Therefore, the ICC position was to promote policy implications of the ACIA, instead of focusing only on those scientific aspects that would not necessarily have an impact in Indigenous communities.

SAO Meeting in Inari, Finland, October 7-8, 2002

Dr. Mrja-Liisa Sutinen and Dr. Ludger Muller-Wille presented the final version of the

“Sustainable Development of Northern Timberline Forests” report. They emphasized that the tundra-taiga zone should be understood as the site of multidisciplinary issues where the focus is not only on the forest areas, but also on land use issues. The report stated that the utilization of

Indigenous traditional knowledge is important (Arctic Council, 2002, p. 10). The project arranged a workshop in Rovaniemi, Finland, in May 2002. The organizers emphasized the need for continuous circumpolar monitoring of human aspects and species as well as the need to develop more effective legislation (Arctic Council, 2002, p. 10).

Russian Chairmanship (2004-2006)

255

SAO Meeting in Reykjavik, Iceland, November 22-23, 2004

The goal of this forum was to discuss how to implement and promote capacity and

expedite human changes in the North. The forum concluded that it was important to have both

traditional knowledge and scientific knowledge in the North (Arctic Council, 2002). The

Northern Research Forum Third Open Meeting report, The Resilient North (prepared by Lassi

Heininen) called the circumpolar North a “laboratory” for interrelations of two different kinds of

knowledge, Western science and traditional ecological knowledge. The report raised two relevant questions: how do these new structures promote an open discussion between different stakeholders, and how is this kind of discussion utilized in the decision-making processes?

Furthermore, how is new scientific knowledge, either on its own or combined with traditional

knowledge and common understanding, used in the decision-making processes (The Resilient

North, 2004, p. 3)?

The report also stated the importance of both traditional (ecological) knowledge and scientific knowledge or better still, a combination of the two, are used in the decision-making processes. The prerequisite would be that traditional knowledge be supported by decision-makers and academics, as has been done in many research projects concerning the impacts of climate change (The Resilient North, 2004, p. 3). The report states that the application of TEK and science to policy-making processes would make the circumpolar North more relevant in world politics (The Resilient North, 2004, p. 2).

Norway Chairmanship (2006-2009)

SAO Meeting in Narvik, Norway, November 28-29, 2007

256

The Arctic Biodiversity Assessment presented by CAFF was supposed to provide a synthesis of the most current scientific research and Traditional Ecological Knowledge on Arctic biodiversity (Arctic Council, 2007). Permanent Participants were considered to be the primary source of TEK, and TEK was supposed to be integrated into each chapter (Arctic Council, 2007).

During the discussion, PPs showed their strong support for the ABA. The Arctic Athabaskan

Council offered to be a lead author to incorporate TEK (Arctic Council, 2007).

The Aleut International Association provided a report on the BSSN project. The Bering

Sea Sub-Network (BSSN): International Community-Based Environmental Observation Alliance

for Arctic Observing Network (AON) is led by AIA and funded by the National Science

Foundation. Traditional knowledge and local observations of the changes affecting the Bering

Sea’s natural resources were collected simultaneously in the area spanning across the Bering Sea

and including diverse Indigenous communities: Aleut, Chukchi, Koryak, and Yupik (Arctic

Council, 2007). The project was funded by a PP and provided a tool to create interactions

between TK and Western science (Arctic Council, 2007). The WGs were invited to cooperate

with BSSN, in addition to the existing partnership with the CBMP. Both PAME and AMAP

noted possibilities for cooperation with the project. PPs expressed support for the project as it

engages Indigenous communities actively in the assessment of the environment and use of TK

(Arctic Council, 2007).

Therefore, the AIA was particularly interested in leading the project on community-based

observations because it involved the incorporation of TEK. There is a tendency among other PPs

projects such as EALAT (Saami Council), Arctic Traditional Knowledge and Wisdom (AIA,

GCI, and AAC), and The Sea Ice Never Stops (ICC). PPs tend to work on the projects directly or

indirectly related to TEK.

257

SAO Meeting in Kautokeino, Norway, November 19-20, 2008

SAOs and PPs asked for better participation of PPs and the inclusion of TEK in the

SWIPA process (Arctic Council, 2008).

SAO Meeting in Haparanda, Sweden, November 14-15, 2012

The ABA, which included compendiums of TEK as one of the components, was recognized as having THE potential to become as important as the ACIA and might have become a reference document for biodiversity in the Arctic (Arctic Council, 2012).

SAO Meeting in Stockholm, Sweden, March 20-21, 2013

The ARR project summarized how climate change affected the Arctic. The ARR studied how resilience is “built into” the traditional knowledge of Indigenous peoples of the Arctic

(Arctic Council, 2013). The integration of TK in the project from the beginning was praised

(Arctic Council, 2013).

SAO Meeting in Whitehorse, Yukon, October 22-23, 2013

The emphasis of this initiative was decided to be on promoting rather than protecting traditional ways of life. The goal of this project was to create a compendium of best practices, which can be used in advocacy and promotion efforts (Arctic Council, 2013). The project was also mindful of the work underway to incorporate traditional local knowledge into the AC work

(Arctic Council, 2013).

SAO Meeting in Yellowknife, Canada, March 26-27, 2014

The Task Force had decided to focus on reducing barriers to cross-border scientific cooperation. It was pointed out that there were some challenges to addressing Traditional

258

Knowledge in this particular task force. This challenge was addressed in other groups as well

(Arctic Council, 2014). Therefore, the incorporation of TEK encountered difficulties in terms of international scientific cooperation.

The chair of the SDWG, Jutta Wark, noted that the Kiruna Declaration indicated the

need to integrate TLK. She stated that the focus was on implementation. Jim Gamble from AIA

noted that incorporating TLK was a longstanding priority for the AC. He presented some

principles and recommendations that were discussed in the TLK workshop held in Reykjavik,

Iceland, in February 2014. The principles included: a) the appropriate use of TK in the AC; b)

consistency of approaches; c) ethical considerations; d) knowledge exchange and benefits; e)

efforts to enhance capacity. Proposed recommendations included: a) conduct outreach to enhance

understanding of traditional knowledge; b) incorporate TLK lens into AC decision-making

processes; c) conduct “lessons learned” reviews upon the completion of a project; d) improve

efforts to translate project materials into local languages (Arctic Council, 2014). The workshop

was largely focused on traditional knowledge, and it was noted that more work is needed on the incorporation of local knowledge (Arctic Council, 2014). As an outcome of this presentation, the

SDWG Working Group released Recommendations for the Integration of Traditional and Local

Knowledge into the Work of the Arctic Council in 2015, which was, according to the PILAC

analysis (see Table 27 above) a “lip service.”

The objective of the project was to develop recommendations for the consistent inclusion

of traditional and local knowledge into the work of the AC. Two workshops were held in 2014

and they were organized by the Indigenous Peoples Secretariat (IPS). The project proposal was

drafted to develop practical recommendations to integrate TLK into the work of the AC.

Recommendations on TLK were expected to be delivered in 2015.

259

The PP representatives developed the project ‘Fundamental Traditional Knowledge

Principles,” and it included a working definition of TK as well as 13 fundamental principles to strengthen the use of TK (Arctic Council, 2014). Denmark and the US expressed strong interest in the discussion of TK initiative. The workshops for this initiative were provided by Canada and

Iceland. Canada and Iceland have previously provided funds for the two workshops (Canada =

$60,000, Iceland = $25,000 for support related to venue and logistics; Canada = $68,000; Total =

$153,000). No further workshops on traditional and local knowledge are planned before April

2015 (SDWG, proposal draft, 2014). Other member states expressed reservations regarding the written TK principles (Arctic Council, 2014).

The draft of the Promoting Traditional and Local Knowledge (2014) Project and

Recommendations for the Integration of Traditional and Local Knowledge into the Work of the

Arctic Council (2015). The recommendations were published by SDWG on the basis of the 2014 project draft. The study compared the draft to the adopted version, and it was discovered that the draft had 17 recommendations for consideration, and two additional items for local knowledge recommendations. Yet, only seven recommendations were included in 2015. The recommendations that were not in the final version included: promoting translation of relevant project materials into appropriate local languages; establishing a collaborative group with PPs,

WGs, and a minimum of two (2) sponsoring States, to develop an implementation framework and a review process for the use of traditional knowledge by WGs; creating a peer review process of TEK elements in applicable AC projects to be conducted by PPs, championing TEK outreach, education and communication to enhance the use of TEK in the AC; using Indigenous institutions of knowledge, boundary organizations, and programs to facilitate the bringing of knowledge systems, enhanced interaction between TEK holders and researchers, more advanced

260

knowledge exchange between domestic and circumpolar platforms, as well as communication

and outreach activities; and building TEK capacity at community, regional and international

levels by supporting the hiring of Indigenous and non-Indigenous interns (SDWG, draft

proposal, 2014).

Therefore, most of the recommendations that were rejected by the SDWG were related to

collaboration and engagement with Indigenous communities (translation of projects into local

languages, hiring Indigenous interns, use of Indigenous institutions of knowledge to facilitate the

bringing of knowledge systems; enhanced interaction between TEK holders and researchers) as

well as closer involvement of PPs into the AC projects that incorporate TEK (establishing a

collaborative group with PPs; and creating a peer review process of TEK elements in applicable

AC projects to be conducted by PPs).

Therefore, there is some resistance from member states who expressed reservations

regarding the written principles. Thus, resistance was towards the use of Indigenous languages

during the research process, the employment of Indigenous interns and the use of Indigenous methods. Not all member states have experience working with Indigenous communities and documenting TEK. In the case of Canada, as Stephen Kakfwi noted, it had a long history of comanagement boards (and thus, experience with TEK), because of land claims agreements

(CAFF, 1999). Other countries do not have the same amount of experience working with

Indigenous peoples, so they hesitated to adopt some recommendations regarding Indigenous engagement.

States also did not support the idea of greater involvement of PPs into the AC work on

TEK projects. The ideas of greater inclusion of PPs into the AC work, such as collaborative groups with PPs, and a peer-review process of TEK elements to be conducted by PPs, were also

261

rejected by the AC. Part of it can be explained by the lack of funding that PPs have to attend the regular meetings of the AC. PPs often do not have enough funds to visit meetings (Bob Corell, personal communication, February 25, 2019).

SAO Meeting Whitehorse, Yukon, March 2015

The SDWG Chair, Jutta Wark, presented the objectives and goals of the project. She noted that while the traditional and local knowledge recommendations were being presented to

SAOs for their approval, the PPs developed separate TK principles that would be presented to

SAOs, but rather remain as a stand-alone PP document independent of the AC. SDWG indicated that they wanted to the PP-led work done on TK principles to be recognized in the Ministerial

Declaration (Arctic Council, 2015).

Task Force on Scientific Cooperation VII Meeting, Reykjavik, Iceland.

As promised at the Copenhagen meeting, the Permanent Participants (represented by AIA and SC at the Reykjavik meeting) provided a more detailed description of the integration on traditional and scientific knowledge in the form of a non-legally binding Appendix. It was decided that States would need more time to discuss this issue in their respective capitals (Arctic

Council, 2015). The appendix is not available online.

The SDWG presented seven working projects in that area that were consistent with the

US Chairmanship projects, such as energy security, water resources and food security. The ICC supported SDWG work on traditional knowledge (“SDWG Recommendations for the Integration of TLK to the Work of the AC (2015)”). The US also expressed support for SDWG work on traditional and local knowledge recommendations. Canada noted the importance of work on

262

traditional knowledge and its inclusion in the tracking plan. The traditional and local knowledge

recommendations were approved (Arctic Council, 2015).

The AIA presented background information on the upcoming three-day funding

workshop (March 17-19, Whitehorse) to address enhancing the capacity of the Permanent

Participant organizations, focusing on financing. The goals of the workshop included: discuss the

nature of successful partnerships between PPs and foundations; work towards an agreement on

the appropriate nature and management of a Permanent Participant Capacity Fund (Arctic

Council, 2015). The planned outcome was a paper documenting the workshop’s discussions,

findings and decisions focusing on increasing PP financial capacities (Arctic Council, 2015).

Yet, according to the interviews, the situation with funding for PPs has not changed a lot;

they still experience financial difficulties with travel money. “Despite efforts over the years to

create funding mechanisms that would enhance Permanent Participants’ roles at the Arctic

Council, and still there is a struggle for financial resources and also technical resources” (John

Crump, personal communication, June 25, 2019).

The tracking tool has helped provide greater transparency and a better overview of the

Council’s ongoing work and thanked the Working Groups for their contributions. SDWG and

Aleut International Association asked whether it could be confirmed that the traditional and local knowledge column had been integrated into the tracking tool, which was confirmed by the ACS

Director (Arctic Council, 2015). As a result, the Amarok Tracking tool was developed. The report on Amarok was presented in the SAO meeting in Fairbanks, Alaska (March 16-17, 2016).

SAO Plenary meeting Fairbanks, Alaska, March 16-17, 2016

263

Canada expressed its wish to see in the future a CAFF presentation to SAO’s on “Arctic

Traditional Knowledge and Wisdom.” Canada suggested that this presentation might be appropriate with the delivery of the CAFF report (Arctic Council, 2016). The CAFF Chair acknowledged the importance of traditional and local knowledge in the project (Arctic Council,

2016).

Amarok: Tracking Tool Report

The Amarok Tracking Tool introduced the filling forms for the CC reports. A tracking tool, the Amarok, has been established to document life cycle phases of various projects and initiatives (the Arctic Institute, 2019, February 9). The Amarok report introduced examples of filling forms for the AC forms. One of the questions in these forms asks: “Initiative description

(Please detail if/how Traditional Knowledge has been incorporated)” (Arctic Council, 2016, p.

1). As one of the examples, the response that was given as an example for the ACAP report,

“Reduction of Black Carbon Emissions from Residential Wood Combustions”: “Compile

information on black carbon emissions along with abatement instruments and measures / Phase

1. Desk study on emission inventories and abatement instruments and measures for a reduction

on black carbon / Phase 2: to be decided” (Arctic Council, 2016, p. 2). This response does not

provide any guidance on how to incorporate TEK into scientific knowledge.

Canada asked for a clearer understanding of where the responsibility lies for the

implementation of the recommendations on integrating TLK that are contained in the Iqaluit

Declaration (2015) and the accompanying SAO Report to Ministers. In particular, Canada’s

interest was in the development of a lexicon for AC use when speaking or writing about TLK.

SDWG noted its understanding that the SAOs decided to determine the way forward on

developing a lexicon at their October 2015 meeting. The SAO agreed and suggested that Canada

264

chair a small group of States and PPs to determine whether consensus could be reached on a lexicon for AC use by the end of the US Chairmanship. Several PPs expressed concern about investing additional time to develop a lexicon when past efforts were not successful; those voicing concerns emphasized the need for the process to be conducted with respect for PP culture and that any lexicon would need to be acceptable to the PPs (Arctic Council, 2016).

Therefore, the Canadian delegation paid attention to the fact that there was an inconsistency when it comes to the use of TEK terminology. PPs pointed out that past efforts to develop a lexicon for TEK were not successful.

Michael Daumer, German Minister of Foreign Affairs, spoke on behalf of AC Observers.

He said that the AC is attractive to Observer states because the Arctic region, and the issue of climate change that is so visible in the Arctic, and are of global interest. He expressed Observers’ support for the inclusion of TLK in research done in the Arctic (Arctic Council, 2016). Hence, the AC Observers saw the connection between climate change research and the utility of TEK.

Volker Rachold, executive secretary of the International Arctic Science Committee

(IASC), spoke on behalf of the NGOs. Mr. Rachold asked the eight Arctic States to take a strong voice in climate negotiations and in communicating the urgent need to reduce climate emissions, and highlighted his desire for the AC to support SAON, as well as efforts to establish international funding mechanisms to monitor and combat climate change that does not yet exist.

The IASC took special note of the value of both science and TLK and of the importance of facilitating science-to-policy knowledge transfer in climate change research (Arctic Council,

2016). Therefore, the IASC emphasized the importance of TEK in climate change research.

Findings from the Discussion of TEK in the Arctic Council Declarations and SAO Meetings

265

Starting from the Ottawa Declaration, all Arctic Council declarations mentioned the importance of integration of traditional knowledge (TLK, TEK) into scientific assessments, the work of the Arctic Council, and in the decision-making process in the Arctic in general. The integration of traditional knowledge into science was established as one of the founding principles of the Arctic Council (Ottawa Declaration, 1996). In the AC declarations, TEK was recognized as being particularly important for developing a sustainable future in the Arctic

(Iqaluit Declaration, 1998; Kiruna Declaration, 2013) in the formal declarations. TEK was considered to be important because it is connected to Indigenous communities and Indigenous participation was supposed to enhance incorporation of TEK.

TEK is connected to the discussion of sustainable development in the Arctic Council.

According to the Brundtland Report (1987), sustainable development is a form of development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. That being said, TEK is considered to be “sustainable,” given the fact that

Indigenous communities in the Arctic have been able to maintain their traditional lifestyles for many centuries. Sustainability also means that economic development should be conducted in the most environmentally benign manner possible, recognizing inherent limits in the earth’s capacity to provide resources for human use and to assimilate resulting wastes. The Inuit and

Cree from the Hudson Bay bioregion suggested the use TEK in a cumulative impact assessment and TEK could help in the implementation of principles of sustainability (CARC, 1997, p. 1).

TEK is considered to be crucial for the studies of climate variability and change (Barrow

Declaration, 2000; Inari Declaration, 2002; Tromsø Declaration, 2009; Nuuk Declaration,

2011). The Arctic Climate Impact Assessment incorporated both TEK and scientific observations of climate change (Arctic Council, 2004).

266

This means that for the AC, TEK is an essential component of Indigeneity, studies of climate change, and support of Indigenous communities in the Arctic. In some way, the use of

TEK is believed to increase Indigenous engagement, and this is why the discussion of inclusion

TEK is so prevalent in the Arctic Council. The discussion of traditional knowledge during the

SAO meetings can be divided into two separate topics: 1) the necessity to incorporate traditional knowledge into the AC and working group projects; 2) the expression of concerns and challenges related to the application, utilization and integration of traditional knowledge.

The AC has experienced issues with inconsistency in TEK terminology. Almost every single TEK declaration mentions traditional knowledge, yet these declarations use inconsistent terminology. I tracked down all of the AC declarations, and they use different terms for TEK: traditional and Indigenous knowledge (Iqaluit Declaration (1996); traditional knowledge

(Ottawa Declaration, 1998); traditional knowledge (Inari Declaration (2000); Indigenous and traditional knowledge (Reykjavik Declaration, 2004); Indigenous and traditional knowledge

(Salekhard Declaration (2006); traditional knowledge (Tromsø Declaration (2009); Arctic

Indigenous Peoples’ traditional knowledge (Nuuk Declaration (2011); traditional and local knowledge (Kiruna Declaration, 2013); traditional and local knowledge (Iqaluit Declaration,

2015); traditional and local knowledge (Fairbanks Declaration, 2017). Therefore, there are many terms that were used regarding TEK in the AC work.

At the SAO Plenary meeting in Fairbanks in 2016, Canada suggested the development of a lexicon for AC use when speaking or writing about TEK (Arctic Council, 2016). Several PPs expressed concern about investing additional time to develop a lexicon when past efforts were not successful; those voicing concerns emphasized the need for the process to be conducted with

267

respect for PP culture and that any lexicon would need to be acceptable to the PPs (Arctic

Council, 2016).

Global Affairs Canada stated that the Arctic Council decided to use the term “Traditional and Local Knowledge” in its work (personal communication, March 15, 2019). PPs were actively involved in the discussion of TEK and into the preparation of projects related to the incorporation of TEK into the AC work. The SDWG organized a workshop where the PPs wrote their recommendations on better integration of TEK into the AC work. They wrote 17 recommendations for the incorporation of Indigenous knowledge, and two for local knowledge, and only seven of them were adopted by the SDWG. The rejected recommendations were related to collaboration and engagement with Indigenous communities (translation of projects into local languages, hiring Indigenous interns, use of Indigenous institutions of knowledge to facilitate the bringing of knowledge systems; enhanced interaction between TEK holders and researchers) as well as closer involvement of PPs into the AC projects that incorporate TEK (establishing a collaborative group with PPs; creating a peer review process of TEK elements in applicable AC projects to be conducted by PPs).

The States also did not support the idea of greater involvement of PPs into the AC work on TEK projects. The ideas of greater inclusion of PPs into the AC work, such as collaborative groups with PPs, and a peer-review process of TEK elements to be conducted by PPs was also rejected by the AC. Part of it can be explained by the lack of funding that PPs have to attend the regular meetings of the AC. PPs often do not have enough funds to visit meetings (Bob Corell, personal communication, February 25, 2019).

If the AC adopted all of the proposed recommendations, it would definitely contribute to more meaningful incorporation of TEK into the AC work. The use of Indigenous institutions of

268

knowledge and the hiring of Indigenous interns would contribute to the use of Indigenous

methodology and give Indigenous peoples more power to be involved in research projects. The use of local languages during the research process could definitely help to enhance cross-cultural communication and recognition of a localized nature of Indigenous communities. The involvement of PPs into the AC projects on TEK would help to better reflect TEK data using scientific methods and to apply TEK to policy recommendations. Therefore, this study argues

that the recommendations that were rejected by the AC had essential elements of meaningful

incorporation of TEK, such as the use of Indigenous methods, cross-cultural communication, the

application of TEK to policy-making processes and the recognition of the localized nature of

TEK.

There is a close connection between the discussion on TEK in the AC and the presence of

Permanent Participants in the AC. The participation of Indigenous communities in the decision-

making process was one of the pillars of the Arctic Council. The creation of the institution of

Permanent Participants was one of the ways to engage Indigenous communities into the Arctic

politics. Indigenous perspectives have been considered to be important for the work of the Arctic

Council not only on environmental issues, but in general. Since the beginning of the Arctic

cooperation, it has been quite clear that Indigenous participation is essential for the work of the

Arctic Council. TEK and PPs are two elements of one essential component of the Arctic cooperation—Indigenous participation. Permanent Participants are expected to be engaged in the discussion on the inclusion of TEK in the Arctic Council.

In the analysis of the SAO meeting minutes, I discovered that PPs tend to focus on the

inclusion of TEK into the Working Groups’ projects. For example, PPs supported the SDWG

project “Recommendations for the Integration of TEK…” (2015), by attending two SDWG

269

workshops and by writing a draft of these recommendations. PPs were also involved in the Task

Force for Scientific Cooperation work by writing an annex for the better inclusion of TEK into

Task Force projects (unavailable online) (Arctic Council, 2015). In 2002, the Gwich’in Council

International emphasized the necessity to strengthen the integration of knowledge on sustainable

development within the community at large (Arctic Council, 2002). The workshop on traditional

and local knowledge in 2014 noted that more work was needed on the incorporation of local

knowledge (Arctic Council, 2014). The Aleut International Association led the project the Bering

Sea Sub-Network (BSSN): International Community-Based Environmental Observation Alliance

for Arctic Observing Network (AON). In 2002, ICC underlined that scientific discussion about

climate change in ACIA should have a human face and the effects on the everyday life of people

deserve special attention (Indigenous communities) (Arctic Council, 2002). Therefore, PPs

usually advocate for the use of TEK in the AC, and they also contribute to the incorporation of

TEK as experts.

Canada played an active role in the discussion of TEK. The Canadian delegation actively

participated in the discussion of TEK incorporation at the SAO meetings. I will bring a few

examples. In 1999, Norway developed a project named “Arctic Council Action Plan (ACAP) to

Eliminate Pollution in the Arctic.” Canada stated that it had some language on how to use

“traditional knowledge” in the plan and would bring specific projects to the February meeting

(Arctic Council, 1999). In 2002, Canada initiated the development of an Arctic Council capacity- building strategy, which subsequently involved the utilization of TEK as one of its recommendations (Arctic Council, 2002). In 2014, the PP representatives developed the project

‘Fundamental Traditional Knowledge Principles,” and it included a working definition of TK as well as 13 fundamental principles to strengthen the use of TK (Arctic Council, 2014). The

270

workshops for these initiatives were provided by Canada and Iceland. Canada and Iceland have previously provided funds for the two workshops (Canada = $60,000, Iceland = $25,000 for support related to venue and logistics; Canada = $68,000; Total = $153,000).

As it was mentioned above, in 2016, Canada expressed its interest in the development of a lexicon for AC use when speaking or writing about TLK. The SAO agreed and suggested that

Canada chair a small group of States and PPs to determine whether consensus could be reached on a lexicon for AC use (Arctic Council, 2016).

Canada was interested in the discussion of TEK in the AC because it had more experience with TEK at the domestic level. The Canadian practices of collecting and documenting TEK derived from comanagement boards and land claims agreements. For example, in order to implement the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, the Makivik

Corporation in Nunavik established the Research Department in 1976. One of the objectives for the establishment of a Research Department was to recognize the intrinsic value of Inuit knowledge (Brooke, 1993). Thus, even before the foundation of the Arctic Council, Canada had had rich experience working with TEK in the Arctic.

The PPs experienced problems with funding for participation at the meetings. At the SAO meeting in Reykjavik in 2015, the AIA presented background information on the upcoming three-day funding workshop (March 17-19, 2015, Whitehorse) to address enhancing the capacity of the Permanent Participant organizations, focusing on financing (Arctic Council, 2015) The interviews indicated that PPs still experience many issues with travel funding (John Crump, personal communication, June 25, 2019).

271

The Arctic Council has experienced problems with the incorporation of TEK into its work. PPs provided their recommendations, but not all of them were adopted in the final document. Therefore, since the establishment of the Arctic Council and AEPS, the discussion on

TEK integration in the Arctic Council was quite prevalent. All the AC declarations supported the integration of TEK into scientific assessments and reports. During the SAO meetings, the topic about the necessity of incorporating TEK was raised many times. It was strongly encouraged to utilize TEK in major AC reports such as the ACIA and AHDR. However, at the same time, it is quite clear that the integration of TEK into the work of AC as well as into scientific assessments has been challenging so far. Even the attempts to explain what the definition of traditional knowledge was quite complicated: Permanent Participants presented their own version of the definitions and principles of TEK (Fundamental Traditional Knowledge Principles). The PP version of TK was not presented to the SAO. Overall, the work on the integration of TEK into the AC work is still ongoing.

Overall Findings from Chapter 6

The Arctic Council has not developed clear instructions and directions on how to incorporate and apply TEK to wildlife management in the Arctic. Despite the relative success of

TEK studies in North America (e.g., Voices from the Bay), there is still no universal definition of

TEK. The qualitative content analysis of the AC Working Groups projects, reports, meeting minutes and assessments in this chapter revealed that there are a few major challenges that create obstacles in the process of incorporating TEK at the international level including the lack of understanding of TEK, and resistance from Western scientists towards TEK.

The process of TEK incorporation failed to meaningfully engage with TEK. Both epistemic communities and knowledge brokers could not translate TEK into policy. As the

272

PILAC scale showed, most of WG reports only nominally included TEK into their reports, causing lip service and tokenism. CAFF and SDWG Working Groups have been mostly involved in the process of knowledge coproduction, but even their TEK projects did not incorporate TEK in a meaningful way (e.g., ABA, ACIA, AHDR). PPs collected and documented TEK, yet they failed to translate TEK into the language of policy-makers. These findings will be further discussed in the next chapter.

273

Chapter 7. Findings

Chapter 7 presents the results of the PILAC analysis of the AC documents. The first

section of the chapter will explain the overall results from the application of the PILAC scale to

the AC documents classifying the analysis outcomes by the PILAC indicators. Then, the results

will be analyzed by every Working Group in chronological order.

Then, the second section will analyze the general findings from the PILAC analysis,

including lip service, the difference between PPs projects on TEK and WGs projects, as well as

the Canadian/North American involvement into knowledge coproduction. The section will also

look at the main challenges of incorporating TEK, such as the lack of understanding of TEK and

resistance from Western scientists.

Hypotheses and Findings

As it was mentioned in Chapter 5, the study has three hypotheses. According to the first

hypothesis (H1), the inclusion of TEK into the AC work resulted in a lack of understanding of

what TEK is and how to organize the process of its integration into Western science. The second

hypothesis (H2) states that the inclusion of Permanent Participants into the AC work helped to

incorporate TEK into the AC work in a more meaningful way. The third hypothesis states the

Canadian-led projects in the AC incorporated TEK into a more successful, meaningful way. The

first hypothesis (null hypothesis) testing resulted in the conclusion that there is lip service in the incorporation of TEK (Table 1 below) so this hypothesis was accepted. The second hypothesis was also accepted, as the findings showed that PPs reports demonstrated higher scores in the

PILAC scale. The third hypothesis was rejected as the Canadian-led projects did not demonstrate any significant difference in the incorporation of TEK.

274

PILAC Evaluation Results: Projects and Reports in the Arctic Council Working Groups that Included TEK and Community-Based Monitoring

Table 1. Projects and reports in the Arctic Council Working Groups that included TEK and community-based monitoring (PPs projects are in a separate table). WG Contributing Reports that included TEK and community- Points by countries/Wor based monitoring. the PILAC king Groups2 CAFF USA, Canada Indigenous Knowledge Database Assessment N/A (not (1994-1996) finished) USA, Canada Review of comanagement systems (1994-1996) N/A (not finished) USA, Canada, Mapping Project on Beluga Whale (1999) in 15 Russia Chukotka USA, Canada Mapping Project on Beluga Whale (1999) in 15 Alaska USA Project on Ethical Principles for Arctic research N/A (not (1994-1996) finished) USA, Norway, Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (2004-2005) 15 Iceland, (in collaboration with AMAP) Canada, UK All Arctic states Circumpolar Biodiversity Monitoring Program 5-7 reports (2004-2011) Denmark, Arctic Biodiversity Assessment (2013) 7 Finland, Canada, USA, Russia, Australia, Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Norway and others USA Community Observation Network for Adaptation N/A (no and Sustainability (CONAS) (2014) (CBM published network) report available) CAFF Traditional Knowledge and Community-Based 5 Monitoring Progress Report (2015)

2 According to ‘Acknowledgements’ section of the reports.

275

CAFF Traditional Knowledge Progress Report 2017- 5 2019 (2019) AMAP Canada, Snow, Water, Ice, and Permafrost in the Arctic 5 Denmark, (SWIPA) (2017) Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, USA USA, Norway, Adaptation Actions for a Changing Arctic in 9 Russia, Canada, Bering, Chukchi, Beaufort (BCB) region (2017) Denmark, Finland, Sweden Canada, AMAP Assessment 2018 Biological Effects of 5 Denmark, Contaminants on Arctic Wildlife and Fish, Arctic Finland, biota Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden, USA PAME N/A Arctic Offshore Oil and Gas Guidelines (2009). 5 Canada, Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment (2009). 10 Finland and USA PAME Meaningful Engagement of Indigenous Peoples Mostly and Communities in Marine Activities (MEMA); provided Part I Report the analysis and assessment of the AC work on TEK EPPR Russia, USA, The Field Guide for Oil Spill Response in Arctic 5 Iceland, Waters (1998). Denmark, Canada USA, Denmark The Guide to Oil Spill response in snow and ice 5 conditions in the Arctic (2015) EPPR The EPPR Strategic Plan (2016). 6 SDWG All Arctic Arctic Human Development Report (2004) 13 states Canada, Finland Capacity Building Overview of the Arctic Council 5 (SDWG, 2009 a) Norway Vulnerability and Adaptation to Climate Change 7 in the Arctic (VACCA) (2009).

276

Canada, USA The Circumpolar Information Guide on Mining 5 for Indigenous Peoples and Northern Communities (2011).

All Arctic Arctic Human Development Report (2014) 12 states SDWG/ Recommendations for the Integration of 6 Permanent Traditional and Local Knowledge into the Work of Participants the Arctic Council (2015).

Arctic Strategic Framework: The Human Face of the N/A (not states/Permanen Arctic (2017). much TEK t Participants data included) ACAP USA, Canada Establishing a Circumpolar Local 12 Environmental Observer Network report (2017).

USA, Canada Framework for the circumpolar expansion of the 8 Local Environmental Observer network (2017).

Average 8.5

Findings: Lip Service is Prevalent in the AC Work

The analysis showed that the null hypothesis of this study is plausible. Since the signing of the AEPS, traditional knowledge has always been an issue of particular importance for the actors in the Arctic. AEPS (1991) states that the integration of traditional knowledge with science has been viewed as a crucial step towards the protection of the Arctic environment. The

Ottawa Declaration (1996) and all of the following AC declarations announced that the integration of Indigenous knowledge into scientific assessments into the work of the AC and decision-making processes in the Arctic is very important. The use of TEK is crucial in the development of a sustainable future, studies of climate change and conservation, and it is a tremendous contribution to the research in the Arctic (Tromsø Declaration, 2009; Kiruna

277

Declaration, 2013, Iqaluit Declaration, 2015 and others). The utilization of traditional

knowledge has always been the issue of particular importance in Arctic environmental

cooperation. The integration of traditional knowledge with science, as well as participation of

Indigenous communities in the decision-making processes, have also been viewed as crucial steps towards the protection of the Arctic environment (AEPS, 1991). According to the AC reports, knowledge coproduction is the most promising method for climate change studies, and a key trend in resource management. The SAO meetings discussed the need to integrate traditional knowledge in ACAP, AC Capacity Building Strategy, ACIA, ABA, SWIPA, ARR, and the Task

Force for Enhancing Scientific Cooperation in the Arctic (Arctic Council, 1999, 2002, 2007,

2008, 2012, 2013). Hence, the AC and its working groups view TEK as a valuable source of data.

Yet, according to the interviews, TEK has not been integrated into the work of the Arctic

Council after more than 20 years of discussion. In 1996, Mary Simon said: “Indigenous peoples’ knowledge gets ‘a lot of lip service.’” (Simon, cited in Tennberg, 2000, p. 69). In 2018-2019, several interviews were conducted indicating that the AC still has not incorporated TEK to a great extent, and there is still “lip service.” After talking to a few officials, scientists and

Indigenous leaders, and asking them about the discussion of TEK in the AC, responses such as,

“It seems like in 25 years we’ve made very little progress towards incorporating and drawing on

TEK,” were received (Henry Huntington, personal communication, March 19, 2019).

Another interview responses stated: “It is [the discussion of TEK in the Arctic Council] still touching the surface,” (Larry Merculieff, personal communication, February 20, 2019) and

“One of the areas has been and continues to be discussed, I guess, is to how to not discern, not

278

how to define Indigenous knowledge, but how to ensure it’s being used properly” (John Crump,

personal communication, June 25, 2019).

The summary table demonstrates that on the one hand, there are many reports that can be

considered “lip service,” and one the other hand, there is some success in incorporating TEK into

the AC documents. The average score, according to the PILAC scale, is 8.5 out of 20 (low

possibility of TEK incorporation), which means that the first hypothesis was right (H1:

incorporation of TEK in the Arctic Council projects might involve “lip service”).

The lip service reports and assessments do not use Indigenous participation as a method at all. They also tend to refer to Indigenous communities as one group of people. They do not attempt to use Indigenous methodology, and do not apply TEK to policy recommendations.

Many of these reports include recommendations to utilize TEK without any instruction or guidance on how to organize the process of collecting and utilizing TEK. All these reports nominally include TEK, and they do even have actual fieldwork studies with Indigenous communities. The only lip service report that had the actual fieldwork study with Indigenous communities is the Arctic Biodiversity Assessment. Yet, the ABA failed to incorporate TEK because it did not document TEK by reflecting this data on maps and graphs, and its policy recommendations are not based on TEK. The ABA also tended to refer to Indigenous communities as one group of people, and it did not thoroughly explain what participatory method was used while working with Indigenous peoples. The ABA only included a few quotes from

Indigenous observations, and did not utilize these observations in the study.

As will be argued below, lip service occurred in reports and assessments due to the lack of instructions and guidance on how to incorporate TEK in the AC. The other reasons are the presence of scientific resistance towards TEK and the lack of recognition of the value of TEK in

279

several Arctic states. Combined with the high level of politicization of TEK in the AC, which pushed the AC Working Groups to incorporate TEK, the misunderstanding of this concept eventually resulted in lip service.

All of the successful reports that demonstrated higher points have certain strengths and weaknesses. These reports were divided into several groups to show how they succeeded in meeting PILAC indicators.

The lip service tendency has been noticed regarding practical integration of TEK into the

Arctic Council and its working groups. Many reports of the working groups, including AMAP,

PAME, and EPPR, state that TEK is valuable and is needed to be included in their scientific reports and assessments. However, they do not specify the procedures of utilization and integration of TEK into the research and decision-making process. The AMAP board meetings raised the issue of how TEK should be utilized in scientific reports a few times (AMAP, 2015-

2017). In 2015, the SDWG working group presented the recommendations on the utilization of

TEK to the Arctic Council. The recommendations recognized that there is a lack of guidelines on how to utilize TEK in the scientific assessments and reports. It also states that there is a need to create an inventory of best practices of TEK integration (SDWG, 2015).

The AC reports state that it was difficult to find the right approach to integrate two types of knowledge (AHDR, 2004; ACIA, 2004). The workshop on traditional and local knowledge in

2014 noted that the integration of TEK needs more work to be done (Arctic Council, 2014).

Therefore, the integration of TEK into science has been considered to be useful, but it was hard to implement in practice. According to Bob Corell, the ACIA Chair, the Arctic Council has become more respectful of Indigenous knowledge than they were ten years ago. Every two years, the AC has a new chair. However, the AC behaviour is to close the doors for only eight people in

280

the room—eight countries—they do not include others (personal communication, February 25,

2019).

According to several AC reports, it is difficult to find the right approach to integrating the two types of knowledge (ACIA; AHDR). A figure was drawn that shows the dynamics of TEK incorporation into the AC work (Figure 14).

281

Figure 6. The process of TEK incorporation into AC projects, according to the PILAC scale (1993-2019).

The process of TEK incorporation into AC projects, according to PILAC scale (1993-2019) … EALAT (SDWG) (2011) CBMP No. 12.(2008) Report Arctic Biodiversity Assessment The EPPR Strategic Plan EPPR Strategic The (2016). Arctic Climate Impact Assessment Impact Climate Arctic CBMP Report: No.CBMP 13. 2008). (March Report: CBMP Report No. 11. (October 2006). CBMP No. 11. (October Report Recommendations for the Integration of… CAFF CBMP Report No. 14. March 2008. CBMP No. 14. March CAFF Report EALAT Reindeer Herders’ Voice: reindeer Arctic Human Development Report(2004) Arctic Human Development Report(2014) The Sea Ice Never Stops. Circumpolar Inuit… Circumpolar Stops. Never Sea Ice The Arctic Traditional Knowledge and Wisdom:… Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment (2009). CAFF CBMP No. 1. 2004. November CAFF Report AdaptationActions for a Changing Arctic in… Mapping Project on Beluga Whale in Alaska CAFF CBMP Report No. 19. December 2009. CBMP No. 19. December CAFF Report AMAP Assessment 2018Biological Effects of… CAFF CBMP No. 5. (NovemberCAFF Report 2004). CBMP No. 9. (NovemberCAFF Report 2004). CAFF CBMP Report No. 16. September 2009. CBMP No. 16. September CAFF Report Framework for the circumpolar expansion of… Traditional Knowledge Progress Report 2017-… Arctic OffshoreOil and Gas Guidelines (2009). Traditional Knowledge and Community-Based… and Knowledge Traditional The Field Guide for Oil Spill Response in Arctic… The Circumpolar Information GuideMining… on Snow, Water, and Ice, Permafrost inArctic… the Mapping Project on Beluga Whale in Chukotka The Guide to Oil Spill response insnow and ice… Establishing a Circumpolar Local Environmental… Local a Circumpolar Establishing Vulnerability and Adaptation to Climate Change… The Participation of Indigenous Peoples and the… Capacity Building Overview of Arctic the Council… Score CAFF Monitoring Series Report No. 29. February… CAFF Proceeding Series ReportNo. 4 March 2011.

282

Figure 14 shows that there is no particular tendency (rise or decline) in the degree of TEK

incorporation in the Arctic Council. The graph of TEK incorporation can be characterized as

“ups and downs.” Furthermore, the graph implies that the AC experiences challenges in TEK

incorporation. There is no common practice of incorporating TEK into the AC work. When it

comes to projects that involve TEK, every AC Working Group relies on its own expertise and

knowledge. The WGs do not learn from each other; there is no evidence in meeting reports that

WGs had a general workshop on integrating TEK. The graph shows that the first attempts to

incorporate TEK began in the early 1990s.

There were a few attempts to overcome the challenges of TEK integration. For example,

according to EALAT (SDWG, 2009), there are some characteristics of TEK that make it difficult to use such as the fact that it is not written down, it has issues with intellectual property rights, and it is still not well understood by academic and professional communities. During 1993-1996,

CAFF worked on three projects regarding traditional knowledge: the Indigenous Knowledge

Mapping Project on the Beluga Whale, the Indigenous Knowledge Database Assessment, and a

report on a review of comanagement systems in North America. However, the initial

expectations for all of these three projects were not met.

In addition to those, there was a fourth US-led project, Research Ethics in the Arctic,

which was supposed to set up conditions for the involvement of Indigenous participants in

research. This project would potentially accommodate Indigenous participants and protect them

from unethical studies. The project suggested and negotiated research agreements between

Indigenous communities and scientists as well as the participatory research model, which

included a closer collaboration between researchers and communities on the choice of

283

methodology and cooperation in data collection and analysis. IASC refused to adopt proposed

research ethics standards, calling the proposed ethical standards “undesirable and unnecessary”

(CAFF, 1996). The IASC reaction is an example of scientific resistance towards research on

TEK.

The earlier AC studies showed that TK is a dynamic concept that cannot be easily digitized (CAFF, 1996). In addition, it was not possible to investigate how to apply TEK in conservation and environmental protection (CAFF, 1996). There was no universal concept of comanagement in the Arctic, and the terminology that was used in this regard was different

(CAFF, 1996). Hence, the initial attempts to conduct research on the integration of TEK into science, as well as the decision-making process in regard to wildlife management, were unsuccessful. CAFF, AMAP, PAME and SDWG board meetings involved the discussion of

TEK, where it was clearly mentioned that the incorporation of TEK was a challenging and difficult task.

Finding 2: Permanent Participants did a better job of incorporating TEK, but they struggled with translating TEK into policy recommendations.

The second hypothesis is also plausible. According to the interviews, TEK discussion is positively affected by the PPs. The presence of Permanent Participants definitely helps to continue incorporation of TEK into the work of the Arctic Council. According to Lawson

Brigham, one of the lead authors of the Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment, because the AC has the presence of the Indigenous groups at the Arctic Council with the senior levels of sovereign states, TEK gets better play, visibility, and articulation. With direction from the Senior Officials,

TEK is better integrated and discussed within these assessments. Because attention is given appropriately, the presence of the senior leaders of the PPs, the AC in its organizational structure

284

has been reasonably responsive. It is not perfect; yet, it is a great leap forward and integrating

traditional knowledge into various complex and sophisticated studies and discussions on a whole

range of things happening, or would focus [go to] the Arctic Council on environmental

protection and sustainable issues.” (Lawson Brigham, personal communication, February 24,

2019).

Hence, PPs do help to understand TEK better by providing their expertise at the AC

table. The meeting reports of SAO meetings showed that PPs are actively involved in the discussion of TEK at the SAO and Working Group meetings, they promoted the incorporation of

TEK into the AC reports (e.g., ICC pushed SAOs to include TEK recommendations into ACIA to this report will have a “human face”), and PPs began to collaborate with working groups on preparing studies and publishing reports on TEK projects.

Yet, according to Pavel Sulyandziga, the discussion on TEK in the Arctic Council is not very active. Actually, the discussion on TEK is considered very important. “The promotion of

TEK is more similar to marketing. There is not much about the actual traditional knowledge, and the PPs need tougher negotiations. Indigenous peoples should promote TEK. To what extent

TEK will be promoted, depends on efforts of Indigenous peoples’ themselves” (personal communication, June 13, 2018). Hence, some PPs believe that discussion of TEK should be more active, and only PPs could promote knowledge coproduction more intensively.

The AC reports, projects, and PPs reports were separated in order to find out the differences between WGs and PPs projects regarding TEK incorporation (see Table 1 and Table

2).

285

Table 2. TEK in the AC reports (including PPs reports).

PP Contributing PPs reports that included TEK and Points countries community-based monitoring.

ICC Canada (funded The Participation of Indigenous Peoples and the 14 (AEPS) this project), Application of their Environmental and USA, Denmark Ecological Knowledge in the Arctic (Greenland), Environmental Protection Strategy (AEPS) Russia AIA, GCI, Canada, USA Arctic Traditional Knowledge and Wisdom: 18 AAC Changes in the North American Arctic (2017) (CAFF) SC Russia, EALAT Reindeer Herders’ Voice: reindeer 15 Norway, herding, traditional knowledge and adaptation to Finland climate change and loss of grazing land (2009) (SDWG) SC Russia, EALAT (2011) (SDWG) 14 Norway, Finland ICC Canada The Sea Ice Never Stops. Circumpolar Inuit 15 Reflections on Sea Ice Use and Shipping in Inuit Nunaat (2014) (SDWG)

Average 15.2

The PILAC analysis showed that PPs reports tended to incorporate TEK much better than the AC reports. All of these reports met four PILAC indicators (participatory methods,

Indigenous methods, localized nature, and cross-cultural communication) (Figure 1). None of the

286

PPs reports can be put under the category of “lip service.” The PPs did an excellent job by inviting social scientists to the presence of cross-cultural communication, they applied participatory methods by using interviews and workshops, and all of them referred to Indigenous peoples as separate nations with authentic cultures and languages. In most PPs’ reports,

Indigenous leaders, activists, organizations were cited as co-authors. EALAT report was the only study in the AC that integrated the novel method that used Siida-based monitoring of snow change and grazing conditions as well as Saami terminology.

Figure 1. Application of PILAC scale to WG and PP reports.

Application of PILAC indicators to the AC reports 6

0 Working Groups (8.5) Permanent Participants (15.2) Participatory Indigenous Localized

287

The average score of TEK incorporation into PPs reports is significantly higher (15.2 out of 20, high possibility of meaningful incorporation of TEK into science) than the average score of AC reports in general (8.5 out of 20). Therefore, the second hypothesis (H2: the inclusion of

Permanent Participants into the AC work helped to incorporate TEK into the AC work in a more meaningful way) is correct, as PPs reports incorporated TEK in a more meaningful way than that of the AC working groups.

However, despite showing significant efforts toward the collection of TEK, PPs reports did not apply TEK to policy recommendations. With the exception of the ICC report prepared by

Lorraine Brooke (1993), none of these reports documented TEK by using scientific methods

(graphs, maps, tables). The study recommendations were included at the end or the beginning of each report, but they, with the exception of Brooke’s report, were not based on TEK. Instead, these policy recommendations tend to put a strong emphasis on the Arctic Indigenous communities themselves and their livelihoods.

There is a tendency among PP studies to focus attention on socioeconomic issues of

Indigenous peoples. The study recommendations in EALAT (2009, 2011), The Sea Ice Never

Stops (2014), Arctic Traditional Knowledge and Wisdom (2017) either reflect general information about Indigenous peoples of a case study (e.g., Inuit are adaptable and strong (The

Sea Ice Never Stops, 2014), report about socioeconomic conditions of Indigenous peoples, and provide key messages for action regarding Indigenous knowledge. The message about socioeconomic conditions could include examples such as: “degradation of pasture lands combined with the consequences of a changing climate present substantial challenges to the future of reindeer husbandry” (EALAT, 2009, p. 2). The examples of key messages for actions

288

included: “Increase financial and other support for Indigenous peoples and organizations to actively engage in research and science initiatives and to effectively address their concerns.”

(ATK & W, 2017, p. 66) and “determine the status of reindeer pastures within each of the Arctic states and facilitate the process of surveying and registration of reindeer pastures within a state

(EALAT, 2009, p. 65).

Successful examples of the application of TEK to policy-making processes can be found in Brooke’s report (1993). “There exists ample evidence that the European ban on sealskin products and pressures to reduce or eliminate whaling, for example, have had serious economic impacts on many Indigenous peoples and local communities in the circumpolar region.” (Brooke,

1993, p. 78). Another example is related to documentation of TEK:

Experiences from various regions in the circumpolar area have shown that the mapping of Indigenous land-use patterns and their environmental and ecological knowledge is a very successful and productive way of moving information from an oral tradition into a format that can be understood by Western scientists and researchers (Brooke, 1993, p. 80). Hence, in these examples, Brooke combined Indigenous observations and turned them into policy advice for sustainability issues and TEK.

The AK & W (2017) report suggests the Peary caribou case study from Canada

(conducted by Environment Canada) that includes TEK contributions to the Peary caribou science assessment:

Northern residents identified areas where the land is unlikely to support suggested historical population estimates. Traditional knowledge holders also participated in the evaluation of the consequences of different management scenarios on Peary caribou population trends and sizes in the Arctic. The analysis of the scientific data and ITK is currently underway and both sources of knowledge will be included in the scientific assessment report…In conclusion, ITK has enhanced the science assessment by providing local-scale ecological information. (ATK & W, 2017, p. 50).

289

Therefore, the authors of PPs reports could have documented and translated TEK into

policy implications, but despite having rich TEK data, they did not reach this objective, either

intentionally or occasionally. Overall, PPs projects on TEK tend to provide better engagement

and involvement with Indigenous peoples. Their studies show a high level of cross-cultural

communication as PPs always invite social scientists to their projects; PPs studies always apply

participatory methods while working with communities such as workshops and interviews.

Indigenous people are usually credited as co-authors (e.g., ATK & W), and, in some cases,

researchers use Indigenous methodology (e.g., novel method, based on Siida in EALAT, 2009).

Indigenous communities and their knowledge are presented as case studies, which shows that the

Arctic region has distinct nations with unique cultures and languages. Yet, the application and documentation of TEK is the only parameter of meaningful incorporation of TEK that PPs’

projects struggled to integrate into their reports.

As it will be mentioned below in Chapter 6, the PPs failed to provide policy

recommendations based on TEK because they paid more attention to the low socioeconomic

status of northern Indigenous communities in their findings.

Finding 3. The studies on the North American Arctic did not dominate in the WG/PP

reports. In comparison with the average score of TEK projects in the AC, TEK projects in

which Canada was involved, did not demonstrate a more meaningful incorporation of TEK

into Western science.

It must also be noted that almost all of early projects related to TEK integration were

initiated by Canada and the US. The study on the AEPS implementation of traditional knowledge

was run by ICC and mainly conducted in Canada. The three projects ran by CAFF were led by

Canada and the US and were mostly conducted in Arctic North America. The CAFF report on

290

Arctic Traditional Knowledge and Wisdom, published in 2017, covers the North American

region. The ACAP project LEO was set up in Canada and the US, and it was supposed to be

expanded to the Fennoscandian region and the northwest of Russia. The only projects that are not

related to North America are EALAT and ABA, which were conducted in Russia and

Fennoscandia. According to Tero Mustonen, “There’s so much emphasis and dominance by the

North American Arctic regarding these concessions in the AC that we wanted from very early on to try to make sure that the Siberian voices are included.” (personal communication, March

2019). Henry Huntington explained the active Canadian and American involvement into one of the earlier CAFF projects, Beluga Whale Mapping Project by saying; “I don’t remember the US or Canada trying to control the study in any way. It was more that they were willing to provide some support and let ICC to go ahead and do it.” (personal communication, March 19, 2019).

According to diplomats from Global Affairs Canada, Canada is most vocal about TEK in the Artic Council because the Canadian population of Indigenous peoples in the Arctic is higher than anywhere else (personal communication, March 15, 2019). There are no sources that provide evidence of an opposing argument. The SAO meeting reports indicate that Canada has been actively involved in the discussion of TEK.

Several sources indicate that Canada has a rich and long experience with studies on TEK starting in the 1970s. In order to implement the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, the

Makivik Corporation in Nunavik established the Research Department in 1976, which collected and documented TEK (Brooke, 1993). In 1999, Stephen Kakfwi, who spoke on behalf of the

Canadian delegation, mentioned that the development of comanagement processes originated in

Canada as a result of land claims negotiations in northern Canada (CAFF, 1999, p. 27).

According to John Crump:

291

One of the advantages of comanagement is that it allows for an expanding concept of what, in fact, [Indigenous] rights are, and that’s what’s happening. What happened certainly in Canada is exceptional, where the state not always willingly negotiated the sharing powers and responsibilities, but all of all that goes back to the Canadian constitutional foundation before Canada started. So, the idea of sharing power responsibility is embedded in the Canadian system, even though it’s not really been enacted or implemented in a very positive way over time. (personal communication, June 25, 2019). Hence, the constitutional foundation of Canada not only allowed the Canadian government to negotiate land claims with Indigenous communities, but also established

comanagement boards that led to the practice of collecting and documenting TEK as a result. Not

all the Arctic states followed the same pathway.

Due to the lack of studies on TEK in the Arctic regions other than North America, it was

challenging to conduct the studies on TEK in other Arctic regions. The early CAFF projects on

TEK and comanagement were mostly done in Canada and the US (CAFF 1993-1996). The ICC

report on the application of traditional knowledge in the AEPS mostly reflected the Canadian

experience of Indigenous and non-Indigenous representatives (Brooke, 1993). The CAFF report,

Arctic Traditional Knowledge and Wisdom in the North American Arctic (2017), was conducted

in North America. In the ACIA (2005), most of the studies on TEK were done in Canada, and

only a small study was conducted in Eurasia and Greenland. The dominance of North American

and especially Canadian studies on TEK can be explained by the well-established database of

TEK in Canada (Brooke, 1993). The process of land claims settlements in Canada resulted in

greater control of Indigenous communities over their territories, resources, culture and economy

(Brooke, 1993). After receiving more autonomy at the local and regional level, Canadian

Indigenous peoples were able to have a stronger voice in a policy-making process regarding environmental protection (CARC, 1991). As a result, the Canadian Inuit provided a great contribution in the studies of TEK Brooke, 1993). The ACAP project, Circumpolar Local

292

Environmental Observer (2017), was initiated in Canada and the US and it was planned to include other parts of the Arctic (ACAP, 2017). The North American focus dominates in the studies of TEK.

Not all of the successful TEK projects are led by North American states or Canada. For example, the EALAT project was focused on reindeer communities in Fennoscandia and Siberia

(EALAT, 2009), and it was quite successful in accordance with the PILAC scale. However, the

Canadian case studies of the application of TEK to policy-making were outstanding (Brooke,

1993; AHDR, 2004, 2014; AK &W, 2017).

Yet, North American and Canadian TEK projects did not constitute a majority of TEK projects in the Arctic Council. Using the data from Table 36 (Projects and reports in the Arctic

Council Working Groups that included TEK and community-based monitoring) and Table 37

(Projects and reports published by Permanent Participants that included TEK), I created two figures (see Figure 12 and Figure 13), which show the percentage of TEK projects that involved

Canadian researchers and/or case studies from Canada and the percentage of North American involvement into TEK projects. As these graphs indicate, Canada was involved only in 29 percent of all AC projects on TEK. Yet, both Canada and the US were engaged in almost half of the TEK projects in the AC (42 percent). International teams of scientists led most TEK projects, according to Tables 36 and 37. Therefore, most TEK projects were not led by any particular country, and the percentage of TEK projects, where the US and Canada were involved, does not constitute a majority of all AC projects on TEK.

According to the PILAC analysis, Canadian TEK projects did not demonstrate results any better than the average score. A separate table was created (see Table 38), which shows all TEK projects in which Canada/Canadian researchers contributed. The average score of TEK

293

incorporation into AC projects in which Canada was involved is 6.62 out of 20. This number is

approximately 2 percent less than the average score for WG reports (Table 36), which is 8.5, and

about 8 percent less than the average score of PPs reports (Table 37) (15.2 out of 20). Hence, the

TEK projects, in which Canada was involved, did not demonstrate a more meaningful

incorporation of TEK.

Overall, despite the already established history of collecting and documenting TEK,

especially in Canada, the North American projects on TEK did not dominate in the Arctic

Council. Although the Canadian practice of TEK utilization shows great examples of applying

TEK to policy recommendations, the Canadian projects did not demonstrate any better

incorporation of TEK into science and policy. Therefore, the third hypothesis (H3: the Canadian- led projects in the AC incorporated TEK into a more successful, meaningful way) is wrong, as according to the PILAC scale, the Canadian TEK projects demonstrated poorer results than the

AC reports in general.

294

Figure 7. Percentage of TEK projects in which Canada was involved.

PERCENTAGE OF TEK PROJECTS WITH CANADIAN INVOLVEMENT IN THE ARCTIC COUNCIL

Canada Other countries

29%

71%

Figure 8. Percentage of TEK projects in which the US and Canada were involved.

PERCENTAGE OF TEK PROJECTS WITH NORTH AMERICAN INVOLVEMENT IN THE ARCTIC COUNCIL

USA and Canada Other countries

42%

58%

295

Table 3. TEK projects with Canadian involvement. Projects with Points Canadian involvement USA, Canada Indigenous Knowledge Database Assessment (1994-1996) N/A (not finished) Canada (funded The Participation of Indigenous Peoples and the 14 this project), USA, Application of their Environmental and Ecological Denmark Knowledge in the Arctic Environmental Protection (Greenland), Strategy (AEPS) (1993) Russia USA, Canada Review of comanagement systems (1994-1996) N/A (not finished) USA, Canada, Mapping Project on Beluga Whale (1999) in Chukotka 15 Russia USA, Canada Mapping Project on Beluga Whale (1999) in Alaska 15 USA, Norway, Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (2004-2005) (in 15 Iceland, Canada, collaboration with AMAP) UK All Arctic states Circumpolar Biodiversity Monitoring Program reports 5-7 (2004-2011) Denmark, Finland, Arctic Biodiversity Assessment (2013) 7 Canada, USA, Russia, Australia, Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Norway and others Canada, Denmark, Snow, Water, Ice, and Permafrost in the Arctic (SWIPA) 5 Finland, Iceland, (2017) Norway, Russia, USA USA, Norway, Adaptation Actions for a Changing Arctic in Bering, 9 Russia, Canada, Chukchi, Beaufort (BCB) region (2017) Denmark, Finland, Sweden Canada, USA Arctic Traditional Knowledge and Wisdom: Changes in 18 the North American Arctic (2017) (CAFF) Canada, Denmark, AMAP Assessment 2018 Biological Effects of 5 Finland, Iceland, Contaminants on Arctic Wildlife and Fish, Arctic biota Norway, Russia, Sweden, USA Canada, Finland Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment (2009). 10 and USA Russia, USA, The Field Guide for Oil Spill Response in Arctic Waters 5 Iceland, Denmark, (1998).

296

Canada Canada The Sea Ice Never Stops. Circumpolar Inuit Reflections on 15 Sea Ice Use and Shipping in Inuit Nunaat (2014) (SDWG)

All Arctic states Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (2004) 13 Canada, Finland Capacity Building Overview of the Arctic Council 5 (SDWG, 2009 a) Canada, USA The Circumpolar Information Guide on Mining for 5 Indigenous Peoples and Northern Communities (2011).

All Arctic states Arctic Human Development Report (2014) 12 Arctic Strategic Framework: The Human Face of the Arctic N/A (not states/Permanent (2017). much Participants TEK data included) USA, Canada Establishing a Circumpolar Local Environmental 12 Observer Network report (2017).

Framework for the circumpolar expansion of the Local 8 Environmental Observer Network (2017). Average 6.62

297

The Analysis of the AC documents by Each PILAC Indicator

Indicator P: Participatory Method

The indicator “P” recognizes whether any participatory method was used in a study while

working with Indigenous communities (e.g., photovoice, interviews, workshops). The AC reports

applied different participatory methods in their work. The CAFF project, Mapping Project on

Beluga Whale (1999), in Alaska and Chukotka used semi-directive interviews with Indigenous participants from Chukotka, Russia. The ACAP report, Establishing a Circumpolar Local

Environmental Observer Network (2017), indicated that the CLEO network involves workshops with community experts and technical experts. Community experts reviewed and edited observations in their areas and provided consultations based on traditional, scientific, and local knowledge. The PAME report, Establishing a Circumpolar Local Environmental Observer

Network Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment (2009), organized town hall meetings with

Indigenous communities all over the Arctic to listen to their perspectives about Arctic marine

shipping. Hence, several AC reports adopted participatory methods to work with Indigenous

communities and did it successfully.

Indicator Two: Indigenous Methods/Indigenous Engagement as Co-authors

While all of the AC reports failed to use Indigenous methodologies, the Beluga Whale

project, led by Henry Huntington and Nikolai Mymryn, gave co-authorship credit to Indigenous

communities in Chukotka and Alaska.

Indicator Three: Localized Nature

This indicator “L” recognizes whether TEK has been identified as local in order to avoid

overgeneralizations of TEK. Several AC reports directly refer to Indigenous communities in their

298

case studies, recognizing them by their names. The CAFF project, Mapping Project on the

Beluga Whale (1999), in Alaska and Chukotka, recognized the Communities of Novoe Chaplino,

Sirenkik, Uelen, and Yanrakinnot (Chukotka) and the Communities of Buckland, Elim, Koyuk,

Point Lay and Shaktoolik (Alaska) as local communities, not as just Indigenous peoples of the

Arctic. Similarly, the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (2004) and Arctic Human Development

Report (2014) chapters on TEK included case studies of the Canadian Inuit, Inupiat, Saami and

others.

Indicator Four: Application to Policy

Indicator “A” identifies whether TEK was applied to wildlife management policy. This indicator includes two components: TEK documentation, and the presence of recommendations that are based on TEK. Has TEK been actually applied to policy recommendations through the use of methods to document TEK (maps, graphs, tables), and were Indigenous communities identified as advisors in recommendations? Not all of the reports could meet both requirements to satisfy the requirements for this indicator. The AMAP/CAFF collaborative project, Arctic

Climate Impact Assessment (2004-2005) and Mapping Project on Beluga Whale (1999) in

Alaska and Chukotka demonstrated an excellent job in documenting TEK through the use of

scientific maps and tables. Yet, the Beluga Whale project used mapping technology to document

TEK, but it did not suggest any policy recommendations.

Despite having maps and tables based on TEK, the ACIA recommendations do not

directly refer to TEK and Indigenous communities as a source of policy recommendations (e.g.,

according to the Indigenous communities in the Arctic). ACIA key findings such as: “Arctic

climate is not warming rapidly and much larger changes are projected,” (ACIA, 2005, p. 22)

include mostly scientific observations such as: “Observations suggest that precipitation has

299

increased by roughly 8% across the Arctic over the past 100 years, although uncertainties in measuring precipitation in the cold arctic environment and the sparseness of data in parts of the region limit confidence in these results.” (ACIA, 2005, p. 22). The maps and graphs that support this finding are based on scientific knowledge. There is also one quote that shows that

Indigenous observations were also included in the report:

Ice is a supporter of life. It brings the sea animals from the north into our area and in the fall, it also becomes an extension of our land. When it freezes along the shore, we go out on the ice to fish, to hunt marine mammals, and to travel... When it starts disintegrating and disappearing faster, it affects our lives dramatically. (ACIA, 2005, p. 25). This TEK observation gives information about rapidly melting ice, and the importance of ice for

Indigenous livelihoods. Other than that, it does not give any specific information that could be documented and utilized for policy-making purposes.

Only the SDWG reports (Arctic Human Development Reports (2004, 2014)) showed how

TEK practices (hunting, fishing) could be applied to resource management legislation. The

AHDR (2004) report suggests that the customary practices of Indigenous peoples can be used in resource management regulations: “In Canada, the James Bay Cree use a system of hunting territories allotted to specific individuals. This practice serves to limit risks of overexploitation of beaver” (AHDR, 2004, p. 129). Yet, AHDR research is based on already-existing data, and it compiled governmental reports and academic literature together as a review. Therefore, the AC

WGs demonstrate variable success in applying TEK to policy regulations, and this tendency occurs due to a lack of transdisciplinary scholars from different fields of study in the AC projects.

Indicator Five: Cross-Cultural Communication

300

The Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (2004-2005), the Mapping Project on Beluga

Whale (1999) in Alaska and Chukotka, the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (2004) and the

Arctic Human Development Report (2004, 2014) demonstrated that social scientists, including anthropologists and political scientists, were involved in these studies. The only exception among successful reports is the Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment, where it was not indicated if any social scientists were involved in the study.

The Working Groups TEK Reports and the PILAC Analysis Results

Despite many years of the discussion of traditional knowledge in the Arctic region, it has been difficult for the Working Groups to establish the guidelines on the process of integration of

TEK into assessments. Many reports of the Working Groups, including AMAP, PAME, and

EPPR, mention the importance of the application of TEK in environmental monitoring, risk assessments, and other guidelines. Nevertheless, they neither specify the procedures of utilization and incorporation of TEK into the decision-making process nor provide an actual Indigenous engagement into their projects. As a result, for the past few years, the discussion on TEK has become so-called “lip service.” Meanwhile, the AC discussion of TEK incorporation continues.

According to the 2015-2017 AMAP meeting minutes, the question of how specifically TEK should be utilized in scientific assessments was raised a few times during the board meetings.

SDWG, PAME and CAFF released reports that attempted to provide recommendations on meaningful incorporation of TEK into the AC work. PPs often put an emphasis on the inclusion of TEK during SAO and WG meetings. As this chapter demonstrated, SDWG and CAFF put a good deal of effort into the integration of TEK into its reports and assessments, but these efforts were not always successful.

Figure 9: TEK in the AC reports (including PPs reports).

301

TEK IN REPORTS

CAFF AMAP PAME EPPR SDWG ACAP

35% 29%

9% 12% 9%

The six Working Groups had projects that attempted to integrate TEK and community- based monitoring into scientific reports and assessments (Figure 11). There are two working groups that have intensely promoted the value of TEK and its utilization, application and integration into wildlife management—the Conservation of Arctic Fauna and Flora Working

Group (35 percent of all projects) and Sustainable Development Working Group (29 percent of all projects). Only 6 percent of ACAP projects involved research on TEK. The larger percentages of TEK projects in CAFF and SDWG statistical numbers can be explained by the inclusion of

Indigenous engagement and knowledge into mandates of these Working Groups. According to

CAFF Framework Document, Indigenous Peoples and their knowledge are integral to CAFF (p.

2). The SDWG mandate states that this working group pursues opportunities to protect and enhance the environment and the economies, culture and health of Indigenous peoples and Arctic communities. The guiding tenet running throughout the work of the SDWG is to pursue initiatives that provide practical knowledge and contribute to building the capacity of Indigenous peoples and Arctic communities to respond to the challenges and benefits from the opportunities

302

in the Arctic region (SDWG website, 2019). Hence, the inclusion of TEK into CAFF and

SDWG’s mandates and goals provides an explanation of the greater number of TEK projects in these working groups.

The CAFF Working Group and TEK Incorporation (1993-2018)

1993-1996

As the CAFF meeting minutes indicated (CAFF, 1993), in the early 1990s, the CAFF working group started working on four projects that included TEK. The Canadian and American scholars set the task of finding methods for working with Indigenous knowledge through three projects: Project on Ethical Principles for Arctic research (led by the US), Indigenous Knowledge

Database Assessment (the US and Canada), a review of comanagement systems (the US and

Canada) and the Pilot Beluga Whale Study project in Chukotka and Alaska (leads: the US and

Canada) (CAFF, 1994).

The early CAFF attempts to run the projects specifically designed to utilize TEK (1993-

1996) were unsuccessful. As a result of these three projects, TEK appeared as a dynamic concept that proved difficult to capture and digitize (CAFF, 1996). It was impossible to investigate how to apply TEK in Conservation and environmental protection (CAFF, 1996).

Early CAFF attempts to run the projects specifically designed to utilize TEK (1993-1996) were unsuccessful. The results of these projects did not meet the expectations to develop a mechanism of incorporation of TEK into Western science. There was no guidance on how to incorporate TEK, the lack of explanation of how the process of incorporating TEK works and should be organized. Because of these three projects, TEK appeared as a dynamic concept that is hard to capture and digitalization (CAFF, 1996). It was impossible to investigate how to apply

303

TEK in conservation and environmental protection (CAFF, 1996). Some of these early CAFF

projects were either rejected by the Arctic Council (Project on Ethical Principles for Arctic

research) or not finished (Indigenous Knowledge Database Assessment, review of comanagement systems). The workshop on comanagement systems resulted in the conclusion that there was a lack of the universal definition of comanagement in the Arctic countries. The lack of common terminology led to confusion about the structure and roles of comanagement units (CAFF, 1996).

Most of the data on comanagement came from the North American Arctic (CAFF, 1996),

and it was reported that it was impossible to transform a comanagement regime into the universal

model (CAFF, 1996). The epistemology of TEK did not allow for the researchers to transfer this

knowledge in a computer database (CAFF, 1996). Despite the long-term work with Inuit communities in Russia and the US, the Indigenous Knowledge Mapping Project on Beluga

Whales also produced unsatisfactory results. It was reported that although the necessary data was collected, the project coordinators were uncertain about the use and application of TEK in wildlife management (CAFF, 1996). The Beluga Whale Pilot project resulted in two scientific

articles published in the Journal of the Arctic in 1999 (Mymrin, Communities of Novoe

Chaplino, Sireniki, Uelen, and Yanrakinnot & Huntington, 1999). The Beluga Whale projects in

Alaska and Chukotka were led by Henry Huntington and Nikolay Mymrin; they collected TEK

data and reflected this data on the maps, but the authors did not apply TEK to recommendations.

After the failure of the pioneer projects, the discussion of introducing traditional knowledge into

Arctic politics faded for a short time.

The purpose of these reports was to demonstrate what the utility of TEK to CAFF was.

According to Henry Huntington:

304

One of the recommendations [of Lorraine Brooke’s report for ICC] was to do a pilot project and demonstrate what traditional knowledge could offer to the CAFF working group. At that point, the US and Canada said okay, that sounds good, we’ll each put in something like 25 thousand dollars. That was enough for ICC to hire me to write a proposal to the US National Science Foundation for actual funding to go and do a research. That’s how it got started. (personal communication, February 19, 2019). The Beluga Whale Pilot projects in Chukotka and Alaska (PI: Henry Huntington) turned into published articles in the journal, Arctic. These articles were published in 1999.

The Project on Ethical Principles for Arctic Research proposed the adoption of a new set of ethical standards at the international level that would have sufficiently increased the quality of collecting TEK data. The new standards proposed a participatory approach to research and with respect to language, culture and traditions. The IASC refused to adopt proposed research ethics standards, calling the proposed ethical standards “undesirable and unnecessary.”

1997-2004

After the unexpected results on the first four projects on TEK, TEK was not discussed as much during the CAFF board meetings (1996-2012). The Indigenous organizations (Permanent

Participants) often initiated this topic, expressing their concerns about the inclusion of TEK into scientific reports. The work on the utilization, application, and incorporation of TEK into scientific knowledge was continued through the CAFF workshops.

Since 2004, CAFF has started working on large projects: CBMP and ACIA (with

AMAP). The Circumpolar Biodiversity Monitoring Programme (2004-2011) mention the application of TEK in their work as well as the integration of TEK with science as their priorities. However, these reports never specify how particularly TEK will be utilized in their work. These reports may include TEK observations, but they do not apply TEK to policy recommendations. The reports, under the category of “lip service,” do not see Indigenous

305

peoples as separate nations with distinct cultures, languages and knowledges. Instead, they refer to them only as “Indigenous peoples of the Arctic.” These reports failed to engage with TEK on any level.

The “lip service” reports have a distinguishable feature—they acknowledge the importance and utility of TEK, but they have not done the actual research on TEK; they have not

collected TEK data, nor have they specified the process of integration of TEK into their work.

The reports published by the Circumpolar Biodiversity Monitoring Program (2004-2018)

emphasized the need for the collection and integration of traditional ecological knowledge as

part of a comprehensive monitoring framework several times. However, CBMP reports never

specified the mechanism of inclusion of TEK into scientific reports. According to CAFF

Proceeding Series Report No. 4 March 2011, examples were needed to understand how best to

apply that knowledge to facilitate funding from this group’s perspective. CAFF CBMP Report

No. 21 October 2010 recognized the lack of standardized terminology regarding TEK. The

application of TEK was a difficult and confusing issue. The CAFF Monitoring Series Report No.

29. February 2018 stated that documenting TLK and using these systems of knowledge

appropriately along with scientific and management settings is not a simple task.

The Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (2004-2005) does include participatory methods

working with Indigenous communities and it used mapping methods to document TEK such as

maps and tables. However, the ACIA policy recommendations did not refer to Indigenous

peoples’ knowledge and their expertise (e.g., “based on TEK”, “Indigenous communities

noted”). Therefore, there might be a chance that policy recommendations were mostly based on

scientific observations, and TEK observations were used to justify science. TEK observations

306

were collected, the existing data was drawn on maps, but policy recommendations did not specifically refer to TEK.

Bob Corell noted that “…the steering committee was not happy with that idea [of incorporation of TEK] at all. One of the steering committee members from Bergen, Norway, a fisheries oceanographer, a senior research scientist, said to me, ‘We’re not going to have any of this apocryphal knowledge .... He then added one year later, he said that ‘this Indigenous knowledge was so helpful that in moved my research ahead by years.’” (personal communication, February 25, 2019). Hence, the ACIA experienced strong scientific resistance towards TEK.

Despite scientific resistance, the project was successful in terms of incorporating TEK.

According to Bob Corell, in the first year, the ACIA authors made a decision that every chapter had equal partners. Despite the lack of understanding and miscommunication, the researchers and Indigenous communities were able to communicate to the point and publish papers jointly in the Western world, and the Indigenous authors were equal to scientists. They received a lot of kudos and awards for including TEK in the process. It was an enormously stressful project, but the researchers had a mechanism in which they could work within this dialogue strategy (Bob

Corell, personal communication, February 25, 2019).

Because ACIA is a climate change assessment, it also had to struggle against state resistance against climate change. John Crump said: “There are different views among the governments [in the Arctic Council] as well. We saw that recently when the United States didn’t want to talk about climate change. And so they sank the whole idea of an official declaration for the first time in the history of the Council.” (interview, June 25, 2019). When the US began to understand what the actual implications of the ACIA were, the policy drafting team was

307

dismissed, and its task was taken over by the Senior Arctic Officials (Nilsson, 2009, p. 83). As a

result of the US opposition towards the policy document, the final text did not go further than

commitments that had been already made on the global arena and the lack the role of new

knowledge about climate change was constrained by existing frames of climate change as a

global issue (Nilsson, 2009, p. 83).

The ACIA was the first AC document that did not only include a scientific report but also a popular science summary. The ACIA policy documents were new products in the AC setting

(Nilsson, 2009, p. 83). The policy document was prepared by a policy drafting team with national representatives and the PPs. Nilsson argues that the ACIA gave Indigenous peoples the role of knowledge providers they had not previously had in climate science (Nilsson, 2009, p.

83). As Sheila Watt-Cloutier noted: “The policy document, which we’d worked so hard to include, was more than many expected but less than we’d hoped for initially.” (Watt-Cloutier,

2015, p. 216).

Hence, the adoption of the ACIA faced major political opposition from a superpower against the implications of this report. This is where political power restricted scientific knowledge, and as a result, it affected the incorporation of TEK as well. Therefore, the lack of beliefs in climate change and scientific evidence of climate change could also be an obstacle in the incorporation of TEK.

2013-2018

The meeting minutes reports from 2012-2018 are unavailable in online archives. The

Arctic Biodiversity Assessment (2013) included some Indigenous observations, but TEK data was not documented by using maps or graphs. The study outcomes provided recommendations that

308

were not based on TEK. Similarly, the Arctic Biodiversity Assessment for policy-makers noted that it was challenging to document TEK and to use it in scientific settings—there was a need for cross-cultural understanding. The reduction of data to facts leads to the loss of contextual information as well as associations that turn observations into a consistent system of understanding. Tero Mustonen, the coordinator of ABA, stated that not all collected TEK was included in ABA. The ABA was a compromise, the report has some successes in the incorporation of TEK, yet, the ABA also contained elements and nasty examples of the old colonial power, scientific power, and the refusal of Indigenous knowledge as a viable way of understanding ecosystem change. Without it, the report could have been much better (Tero

Mustonen, personal communication, March 2019).

The ABA collected actual data, but they did not include TEK into their recommendations. As Henry Huntington says, “Arctic Biodiversity Assessment. To me, it is one such example where they include a few quotes but the effort to fully to engage with Indigenous knowledge was not there. This is 20 years after we had been talking so enthusiastically about all this stuff in Reykjavik and elsewhere. That’s why it’s so frustrating.” (personal communication,

February 2019).

He said that Western natural scientists often showed their resistance towards the inclusion of TEK into ABA. There was also a dominance of studies on the North American Arctic and the lack of attention to Eurasia (personal communication, March 2019). TEK was not included in the way they wanted in the ABA. The draft of the TEK compendium that was an alternative to ABA was proposed to the Arctic Council but was rejected. The reason TEK was weak in some chapters was not because of the lack of material, but “it’s more to do with how power and science work” (Tero Mustonen, personal communication, March 2019).

309

Traditional Knowledge and Wisdom: Changes in the North American Arctic (2017) was led by Permanent Participants. These reports describe the process of collecting TEK data and the use of participatory methods while working with Indigenous communities, but they do not apply

TEK to recommendations. The PPs prepared the report on Arctic Traditional Knowledge and

Wisdom: Changes in the North American Arctic (2017), which was dedicated to collect

Indigenous observation of TEK in North America, to identify the ways of integration of TEK into Western science, and also to suggest possible actions to overcome challenges of incorporating Indigenous world views into wildlife management.

Larry Merculieff (Aleut International Association), the lead author of this report, stated that traditional knowledge and wisdom (TKW) is a more accurate term for Indigenous knowledge. He noted that this term reflects a familiarity with Indigenous knowledge that is better than “traditional” and “local.” He stated that Western systems ignore the contextual information of Native knowledge, they compartmentalize it. Because of ignorance and biases, Western systems take TK & W “with a grain of salt.” There is also mistrust and lack of cross-cultural communication between Indigenous peoples and scientists (Larry Merculieff, personal communication, 2019). The report, Arctic Traditional Knowledge and Wisdom: Changes in the

North American Arctic (2017), brought up the project between the Russian team of scientists from the Shirshov Institute of Oceanology and Alaska Natives as an example of successful incorporation of TK & W and science. According to Larry Merculieff, the project succeeded because of similar ways in how the Russian team and the Native people viewed and operated with the knowledge (Larry Merculieff, personal communication, March 2019).

PILAC analysis of ATK&W report demonstrated that this report had a lot of strengths in terms of collecting TEK: Indigenous peoples were co-authors, it implemented participatory

310

methods; cultural anthropologists were invited to provide cross-cultural communication between

researchers and communities. The report also recognized a localized nature of Indigenous

communities by identifying each community and their knowledge as local and unique. However,

the major weakness of this report is the application to Western science and policy recommendations. TEK data, which was collected for this report, was not documented by using scientific methods such as maps and graphs. The study outcomes refer to socioeconomic actions towards Indigenous communities in the Arctic, but they do not refer to TEK observations or any policy advice related to wildlife regulations. The lack of policy recommendations based on TEK, and the presence of calls for action for socioeconomic impact are the tendencies that were noticed while the PPs projects that involved TEK were analyzed.

According to the report, knowledge is an intellectual (brain) function and wisdom is an experiential (heart/spiritual) function. Both are needed in order to understand anything in a deeper sense (CAFF, 2017, p. 13). Larry Merculieff criticized the approach taken by the Western

system to incorporate traditional knowledge and wisdom into wildlife management. He says that

because of their ignorance and biases, Western scientists take Native information provided by

Native people with a grain of salt. Meanwhile, there is undeniable evidence of the value of

Indigenous knowledge and wisdom (Larry Merculieff, personal communication, February 20,

2019). Even the term “local and environmental knowledge” is very problematic. First of all, it is saying what Indigenous community knows is only local. As Merculieff argues, in the Bering Sea, there are distance foragers, near-shore foragers, depth foragers, and surface foragers all living on the island in a heavy concentration during their breeding periods. There are species going to the continental shelf, some feed locally, some feed at the surface, some feed at the depth (Larry

Merculieff, personal communication, February 20, 2019). In addition, there is a thermal curtain

311

from top to bottom of the ocean around the Pribilof Island that makes it very unique. The Bering

Sea gyre runs through these curtains, traps things in it, and samples what is happening in entire

Bering Sea. So, Indigenous communities always knew, before it was shown in Western research, that this information is not just local. What Alaska Natives saw in Pribilof Islands in the 1970s, for example, was flagging an ecosystem-wide issue that was occurring because of the decline of all these species. They are still going through the declines. When Merculieff was there last in

1995, the northern fur seal population was 1.2 million and now they are under 400 thousand. The

females are disappearing. Seals migrate all the way to the continental shelves. So, Alaska

Natives know this is an ecosystem-wide issue, but Western marine science never acknowledges

what Alaska Natives observed as Indigenous people, to what is happening with the animals.”

(Larry Merculieff, personal communication, February 20, 2019).

This means that TEK findings are not acknowledged by Western science, and TEK

holders use different methods of collecting their knowledge, and their findings are often opposite

from what scientific findings suggest. Mr. Merculieff’s interview also means that TEK

observations are based on a holistic view of nature and connected to traditional practices and

lifestyles. Western science does not recognize the validity of TEK observations.

Larry Merculieff was the editor and chief contributor to the Traditional Knowledge and

Wisdom report, but the AC only calls it traditional knowledge. The incorporation of TEK, as

Merculieff says, should fit the Western science requirements, and neglects the complexity of

TEK. If it requires a study on walrus populations, for example, Western scientists ignore the

contextual information of Native knowledge (Larry Merculieff, personal communication,

February 20, 2019). Therefore, according to Merculieff, the AC reports often neglect the

complexity of TEK.

312

Larry Merculieff was commissioned to study comanagement models in North

America. He developed recommendations, which, as he says, were mostly ignored by the

Western system. Some of comanagement models, such as walrus comanagement agreement here in Alaska, they work (Larry Merculieff, personal communication, February 20, 2019).

Because local people are responsible for managing their own. But overall, these systems do not work because what’s happened at least in Alaska, is local communities do not have control over it, the government has control over it and so local people must comply with what federal government requires (Larry Merculieff, personal communication, February 20, 2019).

“For example, the Native marine mammal group, that consortium of groups around

Alaska, they all signed comanagement agreements, most of what they are doing is the mission of the agency, not their own mission. They are not given that latitude to spend much effort on their own thing, to collect blood samples, tissue samples and so on. Merculieff says that it really sad to see how comanagement was implemented in the US.” (Larry Merculieff, personal communication, February 20, 2019).

In the process of the draft preparation, CAFF asked the PPs (AIA, AAC, and GCI) to nominate Indigenous authors from their regions (CAFF, draft version, 2017). The last chapter of the draft report consisted of challenges and opportunities for the integration of TK&W with

Western science (CAFF, draft version 2017). This chapter identifies several challenges such as mistrust between Indigenous peoples and scientists, as well as potential actions to overcome this challenge, such as increasing opportunities for cross-cultural learning, understanding, and trust building (CAFF, draft version, 2017). Larry Merculieff said the following about trust between the governments and Indigenous communities:

313

The system is set in the way where it must protect its own interest. They don’t want to lose jurisdiction over X, Y, and Z and they don’t want [to] trust us either. Even given the fact that we have thousands of years of experience in these things. (Larry Merculieff, personal communication, 2019).

He also strongly emphasized that there are problems with cross-cultural communication between Indigenous peoples and scientists:

We are frequently called to go to the various agency meetings and university meetings. They expect us to take twenty minutes or so to explain what our whole culture is. The context of information is connectedness, everything is connected. And this is the way people in villages live their lives. And so I say, can you tell us in so many words about traditional knowledge. It’s impossible to describe the culture in ten, fifteen, twenty minutes, etc. But that’s all that these groups expect of us, that we are going to talk about Native people as one group, for example. And the scientists and policy-makers, a lot of them don’t have cross-cultural orientation experience, so they come not knowing and understanding of what traditional knowledge and wisdom is. (Larry Merculieff, personal communication, 2019). Hence, Larry Merculieff points out that there are few aspects that create challenges towards TEK incorporation: the lack of understanding of contextual nature of TEK by scientists;

Western scientists do not often have proper training in cross-cultural communication; scientists and policy-makers expect Indigenous communities to adjust TEK to Western scientific standards.

The report suggested the example of best practices of incorporating TK & W into scientific research. The partnership between the residents of St. Paul Island in Alaska with

Russian scientists from the Shirshov Institute of Oceanology directed by Dr. Mikhail Flint is viewed as a successful case of incorporating Indigenous perspectives with science (CAFF, 2017, p. 71). As Larry Merculieff says: “I proposed to him because we tried to do this in the US and couldn’t find anyone willing to do this, work with our people in the Bering Sea, to study the

Bering Sea ecosystem.” (personal communication, 2019). The Russian team, composed of seven individuals, brought their specialized knowledge in marine biology. The Aleut people immersed

314

these scientists in Aleut ways of knowing (CAFF, 2017, p. 71). The Russian team worked with the Aleut people for four years on the issue of what was happening in the Bering Sea (CAFF,

2017, p. 72).

The Russian–Aleut partnership mostly succeeded because of similar ways of how the

Russian team and Native people viewed operated the knowledge. As Larry Merculieff says,

“Dr. Mikhail Flint uses the second generation, which is transdisciplinary, not multidisciplinary, where every member of his team was equally proficient in every other specialty this team had. There were seven scientists, all of them with different disciplines. Each of the members of this team could work together. His team worked together for 20 years. So, it was a perfect match. The Russian scientists looked at things in a complex way, similar to Alaska Natives, and they understood the whole synergistically operates in the way that pieces don’t explain. Indigenous peoples see that everything is connected. Alaska Natives and the Russian scientists were working on the research program for the last four years” (Larry Merculieff, personal communication, February 20, 2019). The report is unavailable online and at the libraries. The Russian scientists used transdisciplinary approaches in their work that allowed them to build a complex picture of the

Bering Sea ecosystem, which was suitable to TEK. Meanwhile, Larry Merculieff expressed his frustration about the lack of partnership between the US scientists and Native people.

Larry Merculieff argues that the results of their study could revolutionize Western marine science all over the world. Canada, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Korea published the report. But the study was not allowed to be published in the US because one of the peer-review team members called the report primitive science. Merculieff believes that the study was characterized as primitive because of the connection with Native people as partners (Larry Merculieff, personal communication, February 20, 2019).

315

So, the partnership between Alaska Natives and the Russian scientists revealed that the perfect match between TEK and science is possible only if science could look at nature in a holistic way, not a compartmentalized way. This could possibly occur by using a transdisciplinary methodology. Furthermore, the project also indicated that there is a significant difference between the praxis of Russian science and the Western science, and the former tends to apply complex, non-compartmentalized, interdisciplinary approaches to study nature, which is more similar to TEK methods.

316

AMAP

2015-2018

In comparison with the CAFF, the AMAP’s projects and discussions are more Western scientific-oriented and mention TEK lesser times than the CAFF projects. The AMAP reports such as the AMAP assessment 2018 and SWIPA, included TEK into the list of policy recommendations, but did not specify how exactly TEK should be applied to science and resource management. The AMAP work (including other working groups) on ACIA was a large project that included the long-term work on the integration of TEK.

The discussion on TEK in the AMAP was mostly related to the necessity to integrate

TEK into scientific assessments. The integration of TEK in reports was mostly mentioned in the form of a recommendation. The most recent AMAP board meetings from 2015-2017 raised the question of how specifically TEK should be applied and utilized in scientific assessments. So, the integration of TEK into the AMAP scientific assessments has been challenging so far. In fact,

AMAP board meetings show that there were difficulties with the incorporation of TEK into

AMAP assessments. For instance, the SWIPA Chair Morten Skovgaard Olsen noted that the

SWIPA group was having difficulties with taking into account Indigenous and local knowledge

(AMAP board meeting, 2016). During the workshop on the AMAP Assessment and Monitoring

Programme at the AMAP 23rd meeting (2010), someone put an emphasis on a proper strategy for using TEK. In 2015, the ICC raised a question of the importance of the proper reflection of TEK in the reports. Meanwhile, the challenges of incorporating TEK were not specifically named, and it was not described what “proper inclusion of TEK” means. This might be explained by the lack of PPs involvement into AMAP work, as some of the meeting minutes indicate that AMAP meetings had a lack of PPs in attendance, and the PPs were not actively involved in AMAP

317

discussions. Although PPs were involved in some projects, such as the ACIA report (AMAP–

CAFF collaboration), PPs did not publish any reports with this Working Group. AMAP is a

predominantly “hard science”-oriented working group.

The PILAC analysis shows that all reports that involved TEK can be put in the category

“lip service.” TEK data was not collected and documented, and only the utility and importance

of TEK was recognized.

PAME 2009-2016

PAME Offshore Guidelines (2009) included the utilization of TEK and community

consultations as criteria for evaluation and as standards for rating oil and gas projects. However,

it was not specified exactly how TEK should be utilized and integrated into assessments. The use

of TEK is only recommended for various purposes (impact assessments, training sessions,

consultations). The detailed guidelines, instructions, approaches that could specify the

procedures of integration of TEK in Western science are lacking. The report did not involve the

use of Indigenous methods, and it did not recommend using participatory methods with

Indigenous communities. Indigenous communities were recognized as one group and not as

separate nations. TEK was not documented and recommendations were not based on TEK.

Hence, most PAME reports are in the category of “lip service.” The only exception would be the Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment (2009). The preparation of this report included

14 town hall meetings with more than 3000 Indigenous people. As the meeting reports showed, the discussion on the AMSA was focused on the importance of Indigenous participation (PAME,

2006). As a result, the AMSA (2009) put a strong emphasis on Indigenous engagement in the

318

decision-making process regarding marine shipping. The AMSA team organized several town

hall meetings and workshops that involved many Indigenous participants all over the Arctic.

According to Lawson Brigham, one of the AMSA lead authors and contributors, the AMSA

team: “We had 14 town hall meetings around most of the Arctic, except Russia, where they

spoke to roughly 3000 Indigenous people in these communities. Three thousand is not many, but

one of the major studies at least [had a team that] got a sense of what the Indigenous

communities were, what would ground hunters and people who use the waterways do, what their

concerns were, [and] what they would think was positive and negative about an increase of marine traffic in their area.” (Lawson Brigham, personal communication, March 2019).

The Indigenous communities saw many negative issues related to potential oil spills, crossing tracks that they make to make their hunting runs. Yet, they also saw the advantage of longer meetings of navigation and greater access to commodities and services for support and supply, particularly in the Canadian Arctic, where there are slightly growing populations and the need for more services and goods in the summer. Thus, Indigenous peoples did see the some of the positive aspects of having greater access and more marine shipping, jobs and opportunities in new ports and infrastructure. So, quite a balance of pluses and minuses how they saw their lives. (Lawson Brigham, personal communication, March 2019). Hence, Indigenous communities viewed the upcoming industrial development as being

full of advantages and disadvantages. The AMSA project engaged with Indigenous communities

and included Indigenous opinions about the Arctic shipping issues.

The main goal of these meetings and workshops was to identify how marine shipping

would affect Indigenous livelihoods. However, the use of TEK was not directly discussed during

the meetings. The PILAC scale showed that the AMSA study had a great use of participatory

methodology with Indigenous communities. However, there was also a lack of involvement of

cross-cultural experts, and it is not clear to what extent Indigenous observations were included in the findings section. The scientific methods to document TEK such as mapping were not used to

319

document TEK, and policy recommendations were not based on Indigenous expertise. However, given the fact that AMSA had town hall meetings with Indigenous communities in the Arctic and

Indigenous perspectives were included in the town hall sections, there is a moderate possibility that TEK was integrated into this study.

2017-2018

MEMA (2017) made a step towards identifying the procedures and approaches to incorporate TEK into PAME assessments. However, only the first part of the report was published, which analyzed the AC recommendations regarding the utilization of TEK. The integration of TEK into the assessments, as well as the use of community-based monitoring, were primarily discussed as recommendations. This report is entirely based on the analysis of textual documentation and does not provide any original data. The report did not provide any evaluation of existing documents, reports and assessments that included TEK.

EPPR

EPPR Working Group and Incorporation of TEK

1998-2014

EPPR reports and guides indicate that the EPPR Working Group did not incorporate TEK into its work. The Field Guide for Oil Spill Response in Arctic Waters (1998) only mentioned the

TEK’s importance and did not specify how TEK should be incorporated into oil spill responses.

This was the only EPPR report that mentioned TEK in the 1990s.

2014-2018

320

The utility and importance of local knowledge was mentioned in only two reports: The

EPPR Strategic Plan (2016), the Guide to Oil Spill Response in Snow and Ice Conditions in the

Arctic (2015), The Permanent Participants did not release any reports in the EPPR Working

Group. Hence, attempts to incorporate TEK into EPPR work turned into “lip service.”

The nature of the EPPR as a working group might explain the lack of incorporation of

TEK into EPPR projects as well as absence of projects specifically related to TEK’s utilization.

The EPPR Working Group’s activities are mandated to investigate best practices with regards to

the prevention, preparedness and response to accidents and threats from unintentional releases of

pollutants and radionuclides, and to the consequences of natural disasters. As industrial

production in the Arctic region has only recently, there is not enough data on the environmental

impacts of oil spills or unintentional releases of chemicals. Building corporate relations with

Indigenous communities and engaging with them into a conversation about sustainability and

resistance against negative impacts of petroleum industry is often complicated and can create

conflict. Historically, interactions between resource-extractive companies and Indigenous

communities have been antagonistic (Lertzman & Vredenburg, 2005). Therefore, the

incorporation of TEK into EPPR might require additional efforts to engage both corporations and

Indigenous communities into a conversation.

SDWG 2004-2008

AHDR, 2004, and its successor, AHDR II (2014), provided excellent examples of how to

apply TEK to policy-making processes, but they only use secondary data, which is a compilation

of academic articles and governmental reports. The AHDR reports demonstrated that modern

321

technologies help to advance this integration by capturing real time observations of local users

(AHDR, 2014). The scientific community often perceives TEK as being separated from the local

context and everyday practice, which makes its use challenging (AHDR, 2004; AHDR, 2014). In addition, a sharing of power in community-based resource management approaches results in greater legitimacy in management for sustainability (AHDR, 2004). Hence, the AHDR reports provide great examples TEK’s use in resource management, but the chapters on TEK are not based on original research.

2009-2018

Vulnerability and Adaptation to Climate Change in the Arctic (2009), and the Capacity

Building Overview of the Arctic Council (2009) did not provide any guidance on how to collect and document TEK. They did not include what participatory method should be used while working with Indigenous communities, and did not use Indigenous methods and/or Indigenous peoples as co-authors; thus, TEK was not applied to policy recommendations in these documents.

The EALAT reports were the studies that collected TEK data and involved Indigenous peoples as co-authors. However, instead of providing conclusions based on TEK, they offered socioeconomic recommendations (EALAT, 2009; EALAT, 2011) or described general perspectives of Indigenous communities in a certain region without utilizing TEK as a source of data (The Sea Ice Never Stops, 2014). The SDWG reports in this category were released or prepared by Permanent Participants. The EALAT project organized by SDWG conducts studies on reindeer herding in climate change conditions by collecting traditional knowledge from

Indigenous communities in Fennoscandia and Russia (SDWG, 2009, 2011). The report also identified some characteristics of TEK that make it difficult to use such as the fact that it is not

322

written down, it has issues with intellectual property rights, and it is still not well-understood by

academic and professional communities.

Similar to VACCA (2009), the Circumpolar Information Guide on Mining for Indigenous

Peoples and Northern Communities (2011) did not provide any instructions on TEK utilization.

Recommendations for the Integration of Traditional and Local Knowledge into the Work of the

Arctic Council (2015) include suggestions such as, “Establish best practices for communicating

the results and findings back to TLK holders, communities, and those that have contributed”

(SDWG, 2015). The Recommendations did not provide any actual guidance or instructions on

incorporating TEK into the AC work.

The 2017 Strategic Framework named the integration of traditional knowledge into

SDWG structure as one of its guiding principles (SDWG, 2017). Compared with other working

groups, such as AMAP, PAME and CAFF, the SDWG’s work is much less “hard science”- oriented and puts more focus on social sciences. The intensity of the SDWG engagement related to the study of TEK is similar to the CAFF, as both groups show active PPs involvement into these working groups’ projects. Although the number of TEK projects carried out by the SDWG

(10) is a bit less than by the CAFF (12), the majority of PPs reports were published in collaboration with the SDWG. This means that the SDWG and CAFF objects of study better

correspond with TEK and the Permanent Participants.

ACAP 2017-2018

323

The analysis of the ACAP reports and assessments demonstrates that the Circumpolar

Local Environmental Observers Project proposes a promising idea: the connection of scientists

and community experts (Indigenous communities) to exchange observations of climate change.

The CLEO network has a clear objective, which is based on the coproduction of Western

and Indigenous knowledge. This objective is aimed to increase awareness of vulnerabilities to

the impacts of unusual changes in the environment, compared to what is expected based on

traditional knowledge. The presence of a clear goal in the CLEO program is an asset for this

project. lip service reports, for instance, did not mention the incorporation of TEK in their goals

and objectives, so it was not entirely clear how TEK would benefit from their findings. ‘Lip service’ reports only mentioned the importance of utilization of TEK because of political pressure. Here, in the CLEO program, TEK is already the major component of research, so this aspect reduces the chances that CLEO will turn into a “lip service.” Yet, the ACAP reports on

CLEO did not identify the process of how the CLEO network can combine scientific and

Indigenous observations—Indigenous communities are perceived as one group. The inclusion of community experts might give some control over research to Indigenous communities. Still, it is

not clear to what extent the power over knowledge will be shared with them.

Overall, the final reports on the CLEO program are not released yet, so there is a lack of

finished original research. In comparison with other Working Groups, CLEO’s ACAP proposals

show a good balance between ‘hard science’ and social sciences, which might result in a high

level of TEK incorporation in the future.

324

Findings

Overall, the discussion on TEK raises more questions than providing answers. These follow-up questions will be answered in the next chapter.

Finding 1

Although traditional knowledge has always played a crucial role in the Arctic Council’s work, lip service is prevalent. The integration of TEK into Western science is a challenging and difficult process, but despite challenges, there is still an ongoing work on the integration of TEK.

The TEK regime in the AC does exist. The follow-up question for Finding 1: What are the reasons of “ups and downs” in the AC work on incorporating TEK? Why is there a lack of understanding of how to incorporate TEK after more than 25 years?

Finding 2

Permanent Participants did a better job of incorporating TEK, but they struggled with translating TEK into policy recommendations. The follow-up question for Finding 2: Why did

PPs not apply their TEK data to policy-making processes in their reports?

Finding 3

The studies on the North American Arctic did not dominate in the WG/PP reports. Yet,

42 percent of TEK projects in the AC are North American. In comparison with the average score of TEK projects in the AC, TEK projects in which Canada was involved did not demonstrate a more meaningful incorporation of TEK into Western science. The follow-up question for

325

Finding 3: Why there is a dominance of Canadian/North American concepts in the Arctic

Council?

These findings and follow-up questions will be discussed in the next chapter.

326

Chapter 8. The Implications of the Discussion on TEK in the Arctic Council: What is Hidden Behind the Major Challenges of Incorporating TEK?

This chapter identifies the major implications of the discussion of TEK in the AC. The

previous chapter identified several findings from the analysis of the AC documents and meeting

minutes.

Firstly, TEK of the Indigenous peoples of the Arctic was recognized as important by the

AC’s Ottawa Declaration in 1996. However, when it comes to the incorporation of TEK, lip

service is predominant in the AC work. Why, after more than 25 years, is there a lack of

understanding of how to incorporate TEK? Why is the discussion of TEK still ongoing in the

AC? The lack of guidance and instructions on how to collect, document and translate TEK in the

language of policy-makers is the major challenge. As Chapter 5 indicated, the AC has not

released any instructions to guide the WGs (epistemic communities) and PPs (knowledge

brokers) in the process of knowledge coproduction. Meanwhile, as Chapter 4 revealed, the

concept of TEK has been politicized by Canada and the ICC. As a result of politicization, the

concept of TEK has been framed as a political tool for Indigenous empowerment.

Second, according to the PILAC analysis, Permanent Participants were more successful

in incorporation of TEK, but they struggled with translating TEK into policy recommendations.

Why did PPs not apply their TEK data to policy-making recommendations in their reports?

Again, because the concept of TEK has become politicized, instead of translating TEK into policy recommendations, the PPs preferred to design their own policy solutions to improve the socioeconomic well-being of Indigenous communities in the Arctic. Thus, PPs considered the

327

TEK projects as an opportunity to raise awareness about socioeconomic issues within Indigenous

communities.

Third, according to the PILAC analysis in Chapter 5, the North American Arctic studies

did not dominate in the WG/PP reports. In comparison with the average score of TEK projects in

the AC, TEK projects that involved Canada did not demonstrate a more meaningful

incorporation of TEK into Western science. Yet, 42 percent of TEK projects in the AC are North

American. Why there is a dominance of Canadian/North American concepts in the Arctic

Council? As Chapter 4 and 5 revealed, Canada has rich experience with domestic TEK incorporation. Canada led the first projects of TEK, advocated for Indigenous engagement, and promoted the value of TEK. The ICC and Canada, as two powerful actors in the AC, framed the concept of TEK as a tool for Indigenous political empowerment in the Arctic, and “Indigenized”

the concept of TEK. As Chapter 5 indicated, TEK is not necessarily related to Indigenous

communities; it can be local if it has been practiced through traditional subsistence activities and

transferred through generations. Nevertheless, in the AC, TEK is mostly perceived as Indigenous

knowledge, and not often as “local.”

Finally, Chapter 2 revealed that the comanagement regime in Canada has been

successful. Why has it not been possible to establish a specific model of a knowledge

coproduction regime that would work on the international level? The comanagement regime has

been working successfully in Canada. Yet, due to distinct histories of settler–colonial

relationships in the region and differences in domestic legislation, TEK has to be incorporated

through separate, independent regimes of comanagement. Thus, the regimes of TEK

incorporation are not universal—every Arctic state has to create its own regime of TEK

incorporation.

328

The application of the theoretical model to the process of TEK incorporation is revealed

in Graph 5. Why, after more than 25 years, is there still a lack of understanding of how to

incorporate TEK? Why is the discussion of TEK ongoing in the AC?

TEK has always been highly politicized in the Arctic Council; therefore, it is still a prominent topic. The study applied the theoretical model suggested in Chapter 3 and based on the analysis of documents and reports in Chapter 5, as well as historical background of the AC in

Chapter 4, the study suggests that politicization greatly affected the process of TEK incorporation. Graph 5 shows why there is still lip service in the process of TEK incorporation

(see Graph 5).

Chapter 8 will divide the implications of these findings on major themes:

- State diversity of the use of TEK, and the lack of universal regime of TEK utilization

in the Arctic;

- The lesser effectiveness of PPs in knowledge coproduction than was expected;

- Politicization of TEK.

The chapter also recognized minor themes in these implications:

- The lack of understanding of TEK;

- The resistance from Western scholars.

Major Themes in Implications of the Discussion of TEK in the AC

State Diversity in the Use of TEK.

The requirement to incorporate TEK into the AC combined with the lack of understanding of the concept of TEK and its incorporation into science, scientific resistance and

329

racism against TEK led to the lack of success in knowledge coproduction. TEK remains a

mysterious type of knowledge that claimed to be considered and included in reports and

assessments, but in fact, it is rarely understood. Many AC reports such as SWIPA claim to

incorporate TEK, but they only nominally include TEK without even organizing actual field

studies with Indigenous communities.

As some TEK projects showed (Brooke, 1993; AHDR, 2004; AHDR 2014; ATK&W,

2017), Canada has rich experience of working with TEK. The British legal system of treaties and

land agreements with Indigenous communities produced comanagement boards, which shared

decision-making with Indigenous peoples. As a result, the most successful cases of incorporation

of TEK into policy and science were taken from the Canadian experience (Brooke, 1993; AHDR,

2004; AHDR 2014; ATK&W, 2017). In this regard, why did not comanagement regime work

elsewhere in the Arctic? First of all, what is comanagement? According to the literature review,

community-based management of natural resources is the form of state–local collaboration or

public–social partnerships of common-pool resources that have been practiced for centuries in

different parts of the world (Castro & Nielson, 2001; Bocking, 2004; Lemos & Agrawal, 2009).

State agencies increase stakeholder participation by sharing resource allocation with local

communities. The core element in a community-based regime is decentralization (Castro &

Nielson, 2001; Bocking, 2004).

The literature review also revealed that the development of comanagement regimes is

specific to North America (Nadasdy, 2005). The factors that affected the growth of

comanagement regimes include some North American-specific matters, such as the ideological

dimensions of Anglo-European liberal capitalism, the disempowerment of Indigenous peoples, and signing treaties and land claims agreements with Indigenous communities (Mann, 2003).

330

Thus, historically developed settler–colonial relations caused the emergence of comanagement regimes in North America, particularly in Canada.

This study argues that the Canadian/North American views and concepts do not necessarily dominate in the Arctic Council. There is a diversity of different types of TEK across the Arctic. The analysis of the SAO and WG meeting minutes indicated that Canada was active during the discussions of TEK. The Canadian delegation was constantly raising questions about the incorporation of TEK, and the recognition of TEK utility. The reports and assessments of the working groups demonstrated that Canada led several projects on TEK (Indigenous Knowledge

Database Assessment (1994-1996) and/or provided funding for a few of them (e.g., the

Participation of Indigenous Peoples and the Application of their Environmental and Ecological

Knowledge in the Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy (AEPS). Furthermore, it was recognized at the meetings that comanagement processes (and TEK incorporation into science) originated in Canada as a result of land claims negotiations in northern Canada (CAFF, 1999, p.

27). In some reports, such as ATK&W (2017) and AHDR (2014), successful examples of TEK incorporation into decision-making were taken from the Canadian experience of working with

TEK projects. Hence, although Canada did not lead all studies on TEK, the Canadian representatives were active in the TEK discussions. Yet, the active involvement of the Canadians is not a consistent trend.

For example, during the ACIA discussion, North American states represented half of the

ACIA participants (24 percent of the Canadians and 25 percent of the US members)

(Kankaanpää, 2012, p. 95). However, during the AHDR discussion, the majority of state representatives were from Norway (25%), 19% were Canadians, and 15% of the participants were from the US (Figure 16, Representation of Nationalities) (Kankaanpää, 2012, p. 95). Thus,

331

the Canadian participation trends were not consistent during the process of the development of

AC projects.

332

Figure 10. Representation of nationalities in ACIA and AHDR (Kankaanpaa, 2012, p. 95).

ACIA

USA Canada Norway Russia Finland Sweden Denmark Iceland Non-Arctic

6% 3% 4% 25% 5%

11%

24%

14%

AHDR

USA Canada Norway Russia Finland Sweden Denmark Iceland Non-Arctic Other

6% 3%1% 15%

13%

4% 19% 3%

11%

25%

333

In Chapter 5, the PILAC analysis of Canadian-led projects showed no correlation

between Canadian involvement in the TEK projects in the AC and the meaningful incorporation

of TEK. Yet, 42 percent of TEK projects in the AC are North American. In comparison with the

average score of TEK projects in the AC, TEK projects in which Canada was involved did not

demonstrate a more meaningful incorporation of TEK into Western science. Hence, the active participation of Canada in the discussion of TEK projects did not make a large difference in terms of TEK incorporation. Yet, Canada was an agenda-setter in the discussion of TEK. How did it happen?

First of all, there are also large differences between European and North American views on nature. The use of the concept “TEK” in the AC does not necessarily mean that North

American, European and Russian concepts are the same.

In [the] European view, there are wild areas and national parks, but also places where people are living and people doing things, carrying on their lives. In North America, national parks are places where you keep people out (Henry Huntington, personal communication, February 19, 2019). Based on this statement, North American wildlife management clearly separates human beings and nature, whereas in Europe, human beings can coexist with nature. Hence, North American and European perspectives on wildlife management are organized in a distinct manner.

Comanagement regimes in Canada emerged as an outcome of this perception of nature as a pristine area where human beings are not allowed to live.

Consequently, the emergence of comanagement regimes in Canada, which required integrating common-property management systems with Western systems, raised the issue of incorporating TEK with scientific knowledge (Doubleday, 1993). “Comanagement in Canada tried to reconcile Indigenous and public interests under the common system, and this is a system that exists currently in Canada and the provinces” (Stephen Van Dine, personal communication,

334

January 7, 2019). Therefore, the idea of incorporating TEK with Western science also comes from Canada and comanagement regimes. As the literature indicated in Chapter 2, Russia and the

Nordic countries have not put as much effort into the recognition of the value of TEK in wildlife

management as the Canadians.

As the literature indicated in Chapter 2, TEK is a diverse concept with many different

terms and definitions of traditional knowledge (e.g., practitioners’ knowledge, traditional use of

nature). This study argues that TEK terminology, and even the term TEK itself, comes from

North America, particularly Canada. Tero Mustonen states that TEK terminology comes from a

North American context and is being exported to Russia, Greenland and other countries (Tero

Mustonen, personal communication, March 22, 2019).

The adoption of the same term for the entire region, while neglecting regional definitions

(TUN, Siida) reflects the accepted belief that TEK is universal and has the same content in each

Arctic state. Despite the notion that TEK is a diverse concept and unique for each local area, it is still considered to be universal all over the Arctic. According to Tero Mustonen, it is very trendy

to study these concepts and then claim that things are the same in Ontario or Kamchatka or

anywhere in the Arctic. Even though there are great similarities between the regions, there

should be an emphasis on the need to study specific culture, land and ecosystems as distinct

entities and not to generalize too much. Different Indigenous peoples, such as the Evenki,

Selkup, and Khanty, have their own specific knowledges. That should be recognized and not

imposed too much of a North American concept (Tero Mustonen, personal communication,

March 22, 2019).

Thus, adopting a common concept of TEK for the AC is rooted in the perception of TEK

as a universal type of knowledge that is homogeneous all over the region. According to Stephen

335

Van Dine, “the North American approach on TEK does not dominate, it would be hard to find a

universal or common level of support of the concept, it is probably very diverse” (Stephen Van

Dine, personal communication, January 7, 2019).

Second, Canada was actively involved in the Arctic cooperation since the AEPS, and it has already been successful in promoting the terms “Arctic”, frontier and “Nordicity.”

(Keskitalo, 2012). The definition of the concept of TEK (IK, TLK) as “knowledge,” not “use” or

“practice” was first mentioned in the Declaration of the Establishment of the AC of 1996, when

Canada promoted Indigenous participation (Ottawa Declaration, 1996). Since the AEPS, the

Canadian delegation was the most active in Arctic cooperation (Keskitalo, 2012). As a result of

active Canadian participation in Arctic cooperation, the definitions of the “Arctic” (the areas

above 60 degrees north), frontier, and “Nordicity” are terms that originated from Canada

(Keskitalo, 2012).

Third, similar to the “Arctic,” TEK is a social construct. The body of TEK is different

from the TEK concept. TEK took place within a few short years, and the body of TEK was

handed down over many generations (Wavey, 1993). TEK is a term that was derived in

academia, and was subsequently adopted in the Arctic Council as a result of the active

involvement of the Canadian delegation into the AEPS and the establishment of the AC.

Similarly, the concept of Indigeneity is very different in Scandinavia than it is in North

America Kvist (cited in Keskitalo, 2004) states that “making comparisons with North American

native policy, it is important to note that no initial contact date can be established for the meeting

of Saami and Scandinavians.” (p. 148). According to Henry Huntington,

“There is a clear distinction of Europeans and Indigenous peoples in North America: People who came before 1492 are Indigenous, and people who arrived after 1492 are not. In Russia and Scandinavia, things were more

336

complicated, and the history is a much longer period. The Pomors on the White Sea are Russian, but they have been there as long as anyone else. Both people of Norwegian ancestry and Saami have been in Norway for a long time. There tends to be a good deal of focus on some of these North American concepts; however, the North American way of looking at these matters may not be the same way as in Scandinavian countries or for Russia. The starting point tends to be North American way of looking at such things. Primary works published in Russian are not going to be accessible to seven other states in the AC. Regarding the concept of TEK, Iceland is not really Indigenous, but there is nobody else—so do Icelandic fishermen or sheep farmers have traditional knowledge? They certainly do. There is a bit of this concept of local and traditional knowledge in North America, that it refers to Indigenous peoples. Including others is contentious, Permanent Participants—this is a political pyramid question. (Henry Huntington, personal communication, February 19, 2019). Therefore, North American concepts of Indigeneity and nature are distinct from the

European and Russian perspectives. Because English is the language of international communication, it gives some advantages and popularity to the North American publications on

TEK.

Transfer of self-governing functions to Indigenous communities (Indigenous self- governance of wildlife) is the best option. Comanagement can be a good middle ground if there is no alternative solution. Despite their acclaimed success, comanagement boards provide a power imbalance. According to Henry Huntington, “In a typical comanagement, there is a government on the one side, which has many resources and a statutory power to regulate wildlife and so on.” (personal communication, February 19, 2019). As he also noted, “On the other side, there are members of the communities, for whom comanagement is not a full-time job, so they may not have support for investing the time and reading all the background reports, keeping up with all of the later studies, going to other meetings, etc. In most cases, the government still retains some ultimate power. The decisions made by comanagement boards are subject to review by the governmental agencies, such as the Ministry of Fisheries. The Minister cannot change anything unless there is a good reason to. However, these good reasons can be broad enough,

337

leaving to the minister if she/he wants to adopt those recommendations of the comanagement

board. So, the challenge of comanagement is a power imbalance.” (Henry Huntington, personal

communication, February 19, 2019).

Therefore, comanagement regimes do not provide a sufficient balance of political power between Indigenous communities and governments, because initially, the government has more resources to regulate wildlife management.

“The integration of TEK requires a dialogue where two partners have agreed that they are

going to manage together, but it has to be built on mutual respect for each other. And there’s

nobody that goes on the outside making critical observations that are inconsistent with that

process.” (Bob Corell, personal communication, February 25, 2019). As Corell says, what

comanagement means is,

I come with my argument, you come with your argument [then we] will manage it together. This agreement does not have the initial trust that one is going to trust the other person’s perspective, and one is going to be willing to understand their point of view to the point. It is believed that comanagement is true joint ownership from all the parties and there’s a good chance at work. But there’s too much, that’s too many ideas that are thrown out in the literature about comanagement, which are nothing more than the Western will, the way that Westerners going on. It is not this idea that all participants are in the same room and they are going to build a real relationship to work and when they walk away, they had two parties but one who brings different perspectives to the table, but in fact participants are not two different groups. The reason why there is a difficulty with a comanagement model in Norway, when they encounter a challenge, they have to use the legislative bodies of the Norwegian government to resolve the answer. Sometimes, there has to be a system where there is only one way to make the decision and that’s the rule of law. But one can’t stop the rule of law down into a setting where one is trying to resolve a difficulty between a body such as reindeer herders who have been around for seven thousand years, and the decision becomes decided only through the courts (Bob Corell, personal communication, February 25, 2019). Therefore, according to Bob Corell, even comanagement boards do not provide enough

trust and respect for stakeholders’ opinions. There is a lack of trust and respect for Indigenous

338

views, as Western thinking has more power. The lack of cross-cultural understanding in

comanagement boards might also contribute to the lack of understanding of Indigenous views

and perspectives.

The comanagement boards are doing their best to work together, but according to her observations of comanagement boards, the scientists are always speaking louder than most

Indigenous peoples (Allice Legat, personal communication, August 9, 2019). Hence, scientists are more likely to be heard than Indigenous representatives.

Comanagement regimes can have some limitations, especially in less populated regions in the Arctic. Henry Huntington states that there are also certain limitations in comanagement when it comes to a geographic location. He also notes discussion on a round table tends to leave it to the available people. “Comanagement board discussions are limited to whoever is in the

room. That could be a big limitation depending on the area that is covered. For example, if it is

the Nunavut wildlife comanagement board, they are covering all of Nunavut. There are a lot of

communities in Nunavut, 26 or something. Even if there is one person from each community, it

is not going to be enough” (Henry Huntington, personal communication, February 19, 2019).

Having only one person from each community is impractical. “There is also a challenge

that one can ask ten questions and then attend a comanagement meeting and discover that the

really interesting questions are questions 11 to 12 that they did not ask. They might have to go

back. But the same is true with science. If one does not know something, they cannot make it up,

they have to go back and study it again.” (Henry Huntington, personal communication, February

19, 2019). Hence, the efficiency of comanagement boards might be limited in small areas such as

Nunavut, when there is a lack of Indigenous representatives.

339

As Huntington says, one of the challenges is that there are very few Indigenous peoples

in a position of power within governmental institutions.

“For example, in Greenland, there is an Indigenous government running things

themselves, and Greenlanders have a form of self-management for wildlife

because they have a majority in these governmental positions. However, in

Canada and Alaska, there are largely people of European descent. Would

comanagement still exist if all the Department of Fisheries were replaced with

Inuit is a question. Greenland’s experience suggests that there would still be a

role for some form of comanagement of hunter input even if there is

Indigenous input (Henry Huntington, personal communication, February 19,

2019).

Thus, the Canadian comanagement model does not work elsewhere in the Arctic.

It is challenging for the Russian comanagement regimes to emerge because the Russian

government is quite centralized and less likely to share its power with Indigenous peoples. Pavel

Sulyandziga believes that lands and resources in Russia should be brought under the control of

Indigenous peoples through the agreements (personal communication, June 13, 2018).

“Indigenous peoples should have governing functions. Otherwise, they will be dependent on the

government. In order to give the opportunity to Indigenous peoples to develop, the government

should transfer them control over resources” (Pavel Sulyandziga, personal communication, June

13, 2018). “But, there should be certain conditions for Indigenous wildlife governance, such as educating and training Indigenous peoples. The government should develop preconditions for the development of an actual self-government without any pressure and external intervention. In

Russia, there is no well-developed democracy; corruption in Indigenous communities must be

340

avoided. Members of communities must be responsible and capable.” (Pavel Sulyandziga,

personal communication, June 13, 2018). Thus, the implementation of comanagement requires

certain preconditions such as educational training, Indigenous self-government, and the elimination of corruption within communities. The delegation of self-governing functions to

Indigenous communities would be much more preferable than comanagement regimes. Gunn-

Britt Retter states that her preference would be self-governing wildlife management for the

Saami. Saami Parliament, and also local associations of Saami, recognize that there are very few areas where Saami are in the majority; other than that, there is a predominantly mixed population. In that sense, comanagement is better than nothing, and it is good [for] the conditions of a lack of self-governance as a second choice (Gunn-Britt Retter, personal communication,

November 5, 2018). Therefore, Russia and Nordic Indigenous communities have legal and political challenges with shared control over resource management, and the best approach to deal with this challenge would be to share governance over resources with Indigenous peoples.

Comanagement, in this case, is not the best option.

Self-governing functions in wildlife management for Indigenous communities are also important because it gives more opportunities to Indigenous peoples to control TEK incorporation. Furthermore, the delegation of self-governing functions to Indigenous peoples would help to achieve social justice. After more than 20 years of studying TEK in the Northwest

Territories, Canada, Stephanie Irlbacher-Fox came to the conclusion that the application of TEK has to be done by Indigenous peoples using self-governing functions. She argues that Indigenous peoples should lead the process of utilizing TEK.

As Stephanie Irlbacher-Fox states, nothing [has] been given to Indigenous peoples.

Indigenous peoples should have their governance. States should accommodate Indigenous

341

peoples. She states that the question how we apply this knowledge turns into another question do

we apply this knowledge (Stephanie Irlbacher-Fox, personal communication, March 4, 2019).

Indigenous management authorities would be an excellent alternative to comanagement

(Stephanie Irlbacher-Fox, personal communication, March 4, 2019). Therefore, even in Canada, a comanagement regime does not really provide enough opportunities to utilize TEK in wildlife management. Indigenous peoples should lead the process of utilizing TEK.

Comanagement regimes can also turn the Indigenous recommendations into lip service.

Larry Merculieff studied comanagement regimes in North America, and he developed recommendations that, as he said, were mostly ignored by the Western system. Some

comanagement regimes do work, such as walrus comanagement agreements in Alaska, because local people are responsible for managing their own resources. However, these comanagement systems do not work because the federal agencies have control over comanagement agreements, and local communities must comply with what the federal government requires. As Merculieff notes, Native marine mammal groups, consortium of groups around Alaska all signed comanagement agreements. But much of what they do is fulfill the mission of the agency, not their own mission. Instead of following their own goals and objectives, they collect blood samples, tissue samples and so on, for the government. He stated that it is “really sad” to see how comanagement was implemented in the US (Larry Merculieff, personal communication,

February 20, 2019).

Self-governing functions could give Indigenous peoples the real opportunity to make decisions. Henry Huntington argues that if Indigenous communities received functions to have their self-governance, they could decide what resources they need. They may have questions for biologists as well as for Elders, and they could do things as they see fit (personal communication,

342

February 19, 2019). Whether this is a better solution is a good question. Many biologists could say that it sounds scary to them because Indigenous peoples could make bad decisions. But the existing system can also make bad choices. Who has the power to make a mistake?

“In comanagement, there is a minister looking over Indigenous peoples’ shoulders and saying that seems like a bad idea and changes their decision. So, in a comanagement regime, the minister is the one who has a power to make a mistake, but not the comanagement board. In the

Indigenous self-governance model, Indigenous peoples can make a mistake, so they have an

ultimate power.” (Henry Huntington, personal communication, February 19, 2019). So, in order to effectively utilize TEK, Indigenous communities should have self-governing functions over wildlife management.

However, self-governance regimes for Indigenous peoples might be challenging to implement. Not all Arctic states have similar systems of jurisdiction over the lands and resources. Alaska and the Canadian Arctic have separate types of comanagement regimes.

Lawson Brigham states that in Canada, there might be a stronger voice in Nunavut, because it has self-governing of wildlife management, but in the State of Alaska, regional governments and federal governments have particular roles (personal communication, February 24, 2019). In some instances in Alaska, more than half of the area is owned by the federal government, but

Indigenous groups with a management system own 20 percent of the land. “Maybe it would be

possible to have regional self-government but because of the large migrations of birds, fish, seals

and walruses to other places, it might be challenging” (Lawson Brigham, personal

communication, February 24, 2019). Therefore, land jurisdiction over resources is often divided

between Indigenous communities, federal and regional governments. Animal migrations from

one territory to another make the jurisdiction over wildlife resources challenging.

343

Under the conditions of the lack of Indigenous self-governance over natural resources, a comanagement regime is a good alternative for knowledge coproduction. Henry Huntington distinguishes three basic categories of wildlife management: 1) government management without the Indigenous power; 2) power-sharing and comanagement; 3) full Indigenous governance with transferring all authority to the Indigenous organization. For him, comanagement is a reasonable intermediate step if there is no capacity in an Indigenous community to carry on all of these functions. It would then make sense to have additional resources that the government can provide (Henry Huntington, personal communication, February 19, 2019).

Even though a comanagement regime is not a perfect solution for the incorporation of

TEK, it still provides some level of knowledge coproduction. According to Global Affairs

Canada, it is possible to establish self-governing functions for an Indigenous organization or land claims group under certain circumstances. Nevertheless, even within self-governed Indigenous systems, they use both Western science and Indigenous knowledge, so there is still the coproduction of knowledge. There are mechanisms and there are ways that can be used, so self- governance can be done in a very useful way by those who best understand these issues (Global

Affairs Canada, personal communication, March 15, 2019). Thus, even Indigenous systems tend to rely on Western science.

Western science is important for Indigenous communities as well. The diplomats from

Global Affairs Canada state that there are well-managed boards in Canada, but they never discount Western science just because they are Indigenous and for them, Indigenous knowledge is of priority. However, they always include both sides, and this is the way they have done their business for a long time. The coproduction of knowledge is the integration of Western science and Indigenous knowledge, and it is absolutely crucial, but there should not be a fear of allowing

344

Indigenous organizations and groups the ability to self-govern these functions (Global Affairs

Canada, personal communication, March 15, 2019).

Comanagement regimes are diverse; each state adopts comanagement in a specific way

that suits their domestic legislation. The diplomats from Global Affairs Canada believe that there

is no one comanagement model. Every situation is different. Strong cultural consultations and

meaningful engagement with Indigenous peoples are necessary, not just imposing a model that

has already worked somewhere else because it is uncertain whether the same model will work in

another place (Global Affairs Canada, personal communication, March 15, 2019). Similarly, Bob

Corell says that Canada has dealt with comanagement regimes in one way, Norway in another,

and Russia is dealt with it in a more complicated way. Each country brings its own perspective.

Even to this day, the allocation of pasturelands for reindeer herding is a contentious issue in

Norway, Sweden and Denmark (Bob Corell, personal communication, February 25, 2019).

Therefore, comanagement regimes must be adjusted to the legal and political structures of each

Arctic state.

It is impossible to set up and manage the universal type of comanagement regime at the

regional level in the Arctic. Tero Mustonen believes that because comanagement is a human

process, there is no universal model of comanagement. It will always be tied up with the context

of that place and that community and their rights, and how state might recognize it. Indigenous

governance is being actively destroyed or being negatively affected by global forces. According

to him, this trend has been quite strong in Russia for the past 20 years. There are some countries

such as Finland, where Indigenous communities or local communities do not have land rights.

Then, in places such as Greenland, there is a very long and well-established Home Rule that has

been updated over the past few years, but nevertheless, many of the Greenlanders feel that their

345

rights are trampled and they do not have any voice. In places such as Inuvialuit, Canada,

formalization of co-management may also create trouble compared to the Indigenous systems

that had existed before (Tero Mustonen, personal communication, March 22, 2019). Hence,

every Arctic region has differences in wildlife governance and Indigenous rights, and every type

of comanagement will have to adjust not only to particular state, but also to particular location.

Overall, a comanagement regime is a middle ground between delegating self-governing functions to Indigenous communities and allowing the government to have full control over wildlife management. Indigenous self-governance over wildlife resource is in favour, but due to the lack of legal mechanisms that could provide self-governing functions to Indigenous peoples, comanagement seems as a good second choice. Comanagement still has to deal with many challenges mostly related to power imbalances. There is no single model of comanagement that could work everywhere in the Arctic, and every situation requires its own solution. Would it be possible to create a common comanagement regime in each Arctic state that could work everywhere? Given the interviewees’ responses, mostly likely not. The comanagement model worked with a relative success in Canada, but it does not necessarily mean that a proposal of an international agreement for establishing regimes similar to comanagement in other Arctic states would contribute to better incorporation of TEK into the AC work.

Comanagement does not work everywhere in the Arctic region. Besides the lack of universal model of TEK utilization, there is another concerning question related to state diversity of TEK: the value of TEK is not recognized in all Arctic states. As Pavel Sulyandziga mentioned, rich countries have more opportunities and resources to promote the value of the

TEK concept (personal communication, June 13, 2018). In some states, TEK/comanagement boards are not even included in national legislation. In Canada, the process of integrating TEK

346

into domestic politics has been occurring for many decades. So, Canada is one of the Arctic

states that has recognized TEK’s value and importance on the domestic level. However,

recognition of TEK at the domestic level is not always the case in other Arctic states.

The incorporation of TEK must have special prerequisites. The common law system in

the US and Canada allowed to integrate TEK with Western science. The establishment of

comanagement boards in the North American Arctic (Alaska and Canada) has been formalized

since the Inuvialuit Final Agreement in 1984. This arrangement happened in the context of common law, which is embedded in the British Commonwealth system. This work was done

because the domestic law allowed for it (Tero Mustonen, personal communication, March 22,

2019).

Hence, some Arctic states might be more supportive of TEK because this item is already

present in their domestic politics. Even though “comanagement as a term has emerged as a concept for elsewhere” (Tero Mustonen, personal communication, March 22, 2019), there is still not much done in other Arctic states. “Comanagement is not an official legal term in Russia. If

the Russian legislation and politicians recognized the true value of TEK, TEK would be legally

incorporated, and would soon become the part of the Russian legislation” (Rodion Sulyandziga,

personal communication, June 28, 2018).

Comanagement does not work elsewhere, especially in Russia, where the government is

highly centralized and is not willing to share its power with Indigenous peoples. Pavel

Sulyandziga from RAIPON says that comanagement is a good approach, but it needs certain

preconditions. It would be better if reindeer farms in Russia were given under the control of

reindeer herders. The state has more resources and power than Indigenous peoples. Under the

347

conditions of authoritarianism, the government dictates the terms to Indigenous peoples without giving them the voice.” (Pavel Sulyandziga, personal communication, June 13, 2018).

Therefore, it is quite challenging and even impossible to implement the Canadian comanagement model in other Arctic regions outside of Canada without the consideration of the

relationships between Indigenous peoples and their governments. These relationships are

historically derived throughout many centuries, and thus, state-colonial histories deeply affect

the process of TEK utilization in the Arctic Council by introducing strong differences in power

relations between Indigenous peoples and the eight Arctic states.

Power relations between the governments and Indigenous peoples play a significant role

in the integration of TEK in the Arctic. The lack of legal recognition of comanagement in areas

outside of North America does not necessarily mean that comanagement has never been

implemented in other regions. The utilization of TEK becomes a political question again, when it

comes to TEK regimes. “It depends on what form of government exists because there are various

forms of comanagement models around the circumpolar Arctic” (John Crump, personal

communication, June 25, 2019). For example, according to Tero Mustonen, the Finnish

organization Snowchange worked in Sakha (Yakutia), Russia, between 2003 and 2009. They

worked to establish small-scale comanagement arrangements for the lower Kolyma and Chersky

nomadic communities. The goal of these exercises was to see what kind of exportability

questions could emerge if they try to arrange a comanagement regime as a vehicle to address

inequality and lack of rights that exist in Russia today (Tero Mustonen, personal communication,

March 22, 2019). Similarly, in Finland, there is very little change to the established power

situations (Tero Mustonen, personal communication, March 22, 2019). That being said, the

actual utilization of TEK in wildlife management depends on national legislation, particularly on

348

what rules currently exist in domestic Indigenous and environmental legislation of the Arctic states, and to what extent they allow Indigenous communities to participate in resource management.

In Sweden, unequal power relations between the Saami minority and Swedish majority influenced the process of negotiations on the agreement on Laponia. The Laponia area in northern Sweden was listed as a World Heritage site in 1996 after 15 years of negotiations. The

Saami have secured significant influence and control of the site (CurrentConservation.org, 2019).

The Laponia management arrangement closely engages with Saami traditional knowledge—

árbediehtu—and uses their concepts as guidelines for decision-making and knowledge sharing.

Laponia became a symbol for pan-Saami mobilization (Current Conservation.org, 2019).

According to Gunn-Britt Retter, if the negotiations on Laponia were consensus-based, there

could have been a Saami majority on the board. “Somehow people were afraid that if Saami had

a majority, they would make foolish decisions. But of course, any Saami can make foolish as

well as wise decisions as anyone else can” (Gunn-Britt Retter, personal communication,

November 5, 2018). Thus, not all Arctic states are ready to share their power over wildlife management with Indigenous communities. Meanwhile, sharing governance over wildlife management is essential for the incorporation of TEK into policy.

The governmental and Indigenous methods of wildlife conservation are quite the

opposite. Indigenous communities tend to share catches of fish with each other. According to

Larry Merculieff, he advocated for four years for a take of halibut along all of coastal Alaska for

all Native people (personal communication, February 20, 2019). Alaska Natives were waiting for

legal recognition by the International Halibut Commission, the North Pacific Fishery

349

Management Council for halibut, and then by the State of Alaska that governed its jurisdiction within three miles.

The way how Alaska Natives traditionally take halibut is that people would go out and fish for halibut, get as much as they can, and give it away to the village. The federal government came and asked Alaska Natives to regulate this process, because the federals were afraid that Alaska Natives could sell halibut, and not just use it for food. Alaska Natives were allowed to fish halibut. To fish halibut, the person has to have a signed form from somebody who wants to fish for halibut for their subsistence, and only one person can be designated. This legal regulation absolutely changed the way how traditionally Alaska Natives fish for halibut. This regulation is based on distrust of individuals and designed to make sure that individuals do not waste or sell halibut, but Alaska Natives never wasted or sold fish. There are always some exceptions, but most Native people understand that how they take wildlife will affect all Native people. Most of Alaska Natives are aware of consequences, but this regulation is based on Western fear that this fish and wildlife will be sold for money. (Larry Merculieff, personal communication, February 20, 2019). Larry Merculieff’s story about the traditional way of fishing for halibut and strict federal regulations in Alaska is similar to the tradition of fishing for crucian in the Republic of Sakha

(Yakutia). The winter and summer fishing for crucian is the Indigenous Sakha tradition and it is called ‘munha’. Many people get together around the lake, and they use a fishnet for taking crucian from the water. Sometimes, the amount of prey can exceed 100 kilograms. After the fishing is done, all of the fish is divided between village residents. The Sakha fishermen take care of the lakes where they fish for crucian, and do not allow cattle and horses to come close to these lakes. They do not practice munha on the same lake more often than once per two or three years. However, if the Sakha did not practice munha at all, the crucian would have died out in these lakes due to overpopulation. Therefore, munha is an Indigenous Siberian way of wildlife conservation. The Russian legislation allowed the residents of Sakha Republic to use fishnets a few times per year, while in other provinces, the use of the fishnet is considered to be commercial fishing (Vesti Yakutii, 2018, May 16). However, in 2018, the Ministry of

350

Agriculture of Russia decided to restrict the periods for net fishing in the Republic of Sakha by

introducing new bans on fishing in May and June. According to Vesti Yakutii (2018, May 16),

the federal government introduced these restrictions because of their attempts to prevent the loss

of fish populations in spring season (Vesti Yakutii, 2018, May 16). Hence, the Russian

government also does not trust the Indigenous ways of regulating biodiversity. The Yakut

practice of munha is one example of Indigenous practices of conservation, which should be

recognized legally as TEK.

Therefore, Indigenous communities in the Arctic often encounter a lack of understanding

regarding their traditions and ways of wildlife management and conservation. The governments do not express much trust and understanding of their traditional ways of subsistence and their

ways of regulating natural resources. Meanwhile, Indigenous communities do not trust the

governmental policies and regulations towards natural resources. There should be a compromise

regarding the use of traditional knowledge and Western/Russian systems.

Why, despite being knowledge brokers, PPs did not succeed in the incorporation of TEK?

The inclusion of Permanent Participants into the decision-making process was the primary factor why the AC had strong possibilities to incorporate TEK into decision-making.

Yet, as Chapter 7 revealed, the participation of PPs in the AC has not made a larger positive impact in the process of incorporation of TEK. A few factors affected TEK incorporation by the

PPs: lack of travel funding, politicization of TEK, lack of access to the closed AC meetings, and the lack of guidance on how to translate TEK into a policy-making language.

Why, despite being knowledge brokers, PPs did not succeed in the incorporation of TEK?

This study argues that the financial restrictions of PPs sufficiently challenged PPs’ capacities to

351

participate at the AC meetings. Some PPs, such as the ICC, are directly funded by their domestic governments, but others often encounter travel funding issues.

The PPs collected and documented TEK, but they did not translate TEK into the language of policy-makers. Instead, they provided policy action strategies, which were not based on TEK.

These recommendations were primarily aimed to increase the socioeconomic status of

Indigenous communities. The PPs did not translate TEK into policy recommendations because of the lack of guidance and instructions. What is more obvious is that the PPs conducted TEK studies to raise awareness about the worsening socioeconomic conditions and the social and financial inequalities of northern Indigenous peoples. The goals of the PPs were not to incorporate TEK into policy, but to make policy-makers aware of existing Indigenous issues.

The Permanent Participants have the right to participate actively and consult in proceedings of the AC (Ottawa Declaration, 1996). Their role as members of the AC is to articulate Indigenous concerns and perspectives that may not be fully represented by the national governments (Nord, 2015). Yet, they do not have the right to vote individually like the Member

States (Nord, 2015). The PPs can also exercise “informal vetoes,” if not votes, within the body

(Nord, 2015). Yet, despite not having individual votes, according to the Rules of Procedure, PPs are consulted on a wide range of matters, including the agenda, location of meetings, selection of representatives for purposes of Senior Arctic Official meetings, etc. (Dorough, 2017). Hence,

PPs still have substantial influence over the issues discussed in the AC (Dorough, 2017).

As Nilsson (2009) argues, the political representation of Indigenous peoples as

Permanent Participants in the AC provided a venue for introducing TEK in a way that would have been very difficult to ignore politically. For instance, during the preparation of the Arctic

Climate Impact Assessment, Permanent Participants took an active role in working groups and

352

scientific steering committees. Because of PPs, several chapters in ACIA came to highlight

Indigenous observations and perspectives (Nilsson, 2009, p. 83). Thus, the role of Indigenous

organizations as Permanent Participants gave them the role of knowledge providers that they had

not previously had in climate science (Nilsson, 2009, p. 83).

For a couple of decades, the PPs have had a high profile at the table with the Arctic

states—they do not have an extra vote, but they have more persuasion since they and their ancestors have lived in the Arctic much longer (Lawson Brigham, personal communication,

February 24, 2019). They bring additional knowledge and additional insights into the Arctic of which are extremely valuable. For that standpoint, sharing of TEK in context within all the working groups in the AC is extremely important for the assessments in the AC (Lawson

Brigham, personal communication, February 24, 2019). This is the why the PPs are present in all negotiations, such as oil spill preparedness and response agreement. Indigenous viewpoints were part of the communication process. Viewpoints do not necessarily mean TEK, but nonetheless, all of those views were taken into account in negotiation by the sovereign states of those particular agreements (Lawson Brigham, personal communication, February 24, 2019). It is very important to have the Indigenous groups, such as Permanent Participants, to share their observations across the board in various processes. Because we have the presence of the

Indigenous groups at the AC, TEK gets better play, better visibility and becomes articulated much better. It is a great leap forward to integrate TEK into various complex and sophisticated studies and discussions on a whole range of things happening (Lawson Brigham, personal communication, February 24, 2019). Hence, the presence of PPs at the table results in constant inclusion of TEK in any discussion in the Arctic Council, as PPs are experts in TEK, and they could always promote inclusion of TEK in some aspects of the AC work.

353

In the discussion of TEK, PPs play the role of knowledge brokers. As PPs directly

represent the interests of Indigenous communities, they have the large capacity to reach out to

TEK holders (Indigenous Elders). PPs do not produce TEK—they are intermediaries between

Indigenous TEK holders and the AC. They translate TEK and share this information with

authorized knowers.

The largest obstacle in the AC and sufficiently affects the capacity of PPs to serve as knowledge brokers is their funding, as Permanent Participants are financially restricted. In 1996,

the Indigenous Peoples Secretariat stated: “many working groups were unattended or the

Indigenous peoples’ representatives were ill-prepared” (cited in Tennberg, 2000, p. 68). As

Tennberg states, the funding to support the participation of the Indigenous representatives was

minimal—only Canada and Denmark provided the majority of funds. This explains why the Inuit

were more often represented than other Indigenous peoples (Tennberg, 2000).

Because PPs have limited budgets, it is challenging for them to rent offices and pay

people (Henry Huntington, personal communication, January 2019). Even given that some PPs

receive funding from several states, they still do not have enough funds to support their

travelling. Gunn-Britt Retter states that the Saami Council does not have enough financial

strength to contribute to the work of the Arctic Council, yet it receives funding from three

countries: Finland, Sweden and Norway. Despite the fact the Saami Council is well-recognized and has the capacity to participate in Working Group meetings and SAO meetings, they are not dominant experts to be the part of the assessment. They cannot expect Saami experts to do their work for free. The Saami experts have many things to do. If the Saami Council cannot pay them to participate, the SC misses this opportunity to contribute (Gunn-Britt Retter, personal

354

communication, November 5, 2018). Therefore, PPs miss opportunities to contribute to the AC

assessments because due to the lack of funding, they cannot be present at the meetings.

It is obvious that states have more resources than PPs. Bob Corell notes that, in

comparison to state delegations, Indigenous peoples have a lack of resources. The state delegations have infinite resources: they can easily buy airplane tickets, pay the hotel bills and they are paid for the dinners. Indigenous peoples do not have finances, and it has been the biggest single difficulty (Bob Corell, personal communication, February 25, 2019). Hence, the lack of funding for PPs creates the situation where the PPs are underrepresented in the discussion. The Member States always have the capacity to participate.

Yet, some PPs are wealthier than others. According to Lawson Brigham, some

Indigenous organizations have more funding and more means to participate in the Arctic

Council. There should be a pool of funding in the AC to enhance Indigenous participation. The

impediment has really been financial, not political or organizational (Lawson Brigham, personal

communication, February 24, 2019). There are no political obstacles for PPs in the Arctic

Council, but more financial; the PPs have to make decisions based on the resources and

capacities that they have to engage with. Something that the AC members are continuously

working on is finding better resources for people (Global Affairs Canada, personal

communication, March 15, 2019). The better financial support of Indigenous people can help to

engage PPs without any barriers. The lack of financial resources results in the lack of

institutional organizational capacity. The opportunity to discuss issues still exists regardless of

these barriers (Global Affairs Canada, personal communication, March 15, 2019). Therefore, the

unequal access to financial resources and funding among PPs creates an inequality in their

capacity to contribute to the discussion of TEK.

355

The ICC Canada has had more capacity to participate because it was funded directly by

the Canadian government. Since the early 1990s, the Canadian government had a strategic

interest to support Indigenous participation in the Arctic. One of the most important priorities for

the Canadian Institute of International Affairs in Canada’s international relations in the Arctic

was “fuller participation by the affected public, especially aboriginal peoples, in scientific research and policy formulation” (CARC, 1991, p. 63). As John Crump: “Indigenous peoples’

organizations are always at the mercy of how the government might be feeling and do

governments necessarily want to fund organizations that criticize them? I would say not always.”

(personal communication, June 25, 2019). As an example that illustrates this statement, the

Government of Canada played a significant role in the development of the ICC, particularly in

the ICC Canada (as shown in Table 1). With a large amount of funding from the home country,

ICC Canada could afford to not only establish a stable structure and reputation at home, but also

help other Indigenous groups in the Arctic. Russia is one of the military superpowers in the

Arctic, but RAIPON has never had as much governmental support as its Canadian counterpart.

The ICC Canada is directly funded through the Canadian federal budget. According to

the ICC financial statements for the past few years, the Government of Canada was a major

contributor to the ICC revenues (see Table 40).

Table 3. The Inuit Circumpolar Council (Canada), statement of operations (only the first two positions in the budget chart are included). Year Major contributors Amount of funding (Canadian dollars) 2011 Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development $482 809 Canada 2011 Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada $215 747 2012 Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development $535 724 Canada 2012 Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada $ 174 055

356

2013 Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development $ 632 849 Canada 2013 Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada $226 253 2014 Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development $923 840 Canada 2014 Dept of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development $312 494 2015 Aboriginal Affairs & Northern Development Canada $1 203 100 2015 Administration income from projects $217 941 2015 Dept of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development $171 828 2016 Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada $256 487 2016 Global Affairs Canada $170 000 Source: Financial statements of ICC (Canada) Inc., retrieved from the ICC official website, www.inuitcircumpolar.com/ICC-canada.html. According to the information presented in Table 1, two governmental bodies, Indigenous

and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) and Global Affairs Canada (GAC), largely contributed to

the ICC revenues from 2011 to 2016. It should also be noted that in 2015, under the Harper

government, the amount of funding from Indigenous and Northern Affairs increased by almost

double in comparison with the previous years. In 2016, the Trudeau cabinet cut down the INAC

contributions, but both INAC and GAC remained as the major sources of the ICC budget. So, the

governmental support of ICC Canada shows the high importance of Canadian-Inuit relationships

for the government. In addition, funding from the Canadian government allowed the ICC to help

RAIPON to build its capacity-building in the northern regions by establishing regional offices

equipped with computers and staff (Watt-Cloutier, 2015). As Watt-Cloutier (2015) points out:

“We did what we could to help our less fortunate counterparts in northern Russia.” (p. 130).

Therefore, ICC has had much more financial opportunities than other PPs, which allowed this

organization to provide financial aid to other Indigenous peoples.

The other reason that limits PPs capacity to play the role of knowledge brokers in the

discussion of TEK is logistics. The PPs have limited ability to reach all Indigenous communities

in the Arctic. Some other interviewees question to what extent the PPs can represent all

357

Indigenous peoples in the Arctic. Tero Mustonen says that he is afraid that the governmental

process of discussing TEK is locked out in the Council. None of the PPs have links to the

hundreds of villages and communities. There is a critical question in terms of legitimacy; for example, does the Saami Council speak for all of the Saami? Can the PPs speak for all of the hundreds of local people that are keepers of Indigenous knowledge? (Tero Mustonen, personal communication, March 22, 2019). Hence, PPs cannot always translate TEK from knowledge holders to the AC. The author will discuss the concept of knowledge holders in a following subchapter.

States, as major international actors, have more power in a decision-making process. Bob

Corell states that despite arguing that the incorporation of Indigenous knowledge is one of the primary issues in the Arctic Council, state representatives sometimes close the door, where they only have eight people in the room from eight countries. The Senior Arctic Officials now frequently meet—all eight of them—without any Indigenous people in the room (Bob Corell, personal communication, March 2019). Therefore, PPs do not always have access to the SAO meetings.

Permanent Participants have large financial challenges, which deeply affect their ability to participate in the discussion of TEK in the Arctic Council. The PPs are challenged by limited funding availability because they have to travel to different parts of the world in order to participate in the meetings. Not all governments financially support Indigenous organizations. In addition, the Arctic Council has closed informal meetings with state representatives, where

Indigenous peoples are not allowed to participate. The PPs are not necessarily represented by knowledge holders at the meetings, they only translate TEK to the AC, and they cannot instantly connect to thousands of Indigenous villages and communities in the Arctic. Thus, their capacity

358

to play the role of knowledge holders is limited. In general, PPs are struggling financially; however, some PPs, such as the Inuit Circumpolar Council, are largely supported by their national governments and, thus, have much better capacities to attend the meetings. As it was discussed, Canada funded the ICC directly from the governmental budget. Also, given the fact that in the early 1990s, Canada and the US were very active in researching TEK, does the North

American view on TEK dominate in the Arctic Council? This question will be discussed later in the chapter.

How successful were the PPs as knowledge brokers? As it was discussed in Chapter 5, the PPs released five reports that claimed to incorporate TEK. According to the analysis of reports based on the PILAC scale, Permanent Participants were successful in engaging with

Indigenous communities, collecting and documenting TEK. Furthermore, the reports also indicated that the PPs invited social anthropologists in order to provide cross-cultural communication and understanding between participants. Yet, they did not incorporate TEK data that they collected into policy recommendations. Instead, their policy recommendations mostly emphasized the importance of socioeconomic factors related to Indigenous communities.

The interviewees speculate that there are two possible reasons for that: (a) socioeconomic well-being is a major priority, so the Permanent Participants take every opportunity to raise it, and (b) documenting TK is relatively straightforward but translating it into policy is much harder, so it is difficult to say where to begin (Henry Huntington, personal communication,

September 18, 2019). PPs might attempt to make a political impact through these reports. “When

I read [the reports], [it’s just] bits and pieces, because they were trying politically to make certain movements for socioeconomic benefits for something.” (Allice Legat, personal communication,

359

August 9, 2019). Therefore, PP reports might see the TEK projects as their opportunity to

promote change regarding the socioeconomic conditions of Indigenous peoples in the Arctic.

Regarding the difficulties of translation of TEK into policy recommendations, Henry

Huntington says that ttranslating TK into policy is as much or more a matter of power dynamics

as it is a technical question of how one uses TK observations alongside scientific ones, which is

not nearly so hard as some people make it out to be. To resolve power dynamics is to shift the

structure of government agencies, scientific institutions, decades or centuries of deferring to

“science” as a source of “truth,” etc. But that still doesn’t explain why the Permanent

Participants and others do not make recommendations like that (Henry Huntington, personal communication, September 18, 2019).

Hence, the challenges of incorporating TEK might be another reason the PPs did not translate TEK data into policy in their reports. However, given the fact that some countries such as Canada already had successful experience of adopting policy recommendations based on

TEK, the challenges of translating TEK into policy language might not be a primary reason.

The first possible explanation suggested by Henry Huntington (PPs see TEK reports as their opportunity to raise the issue of socioeconomic well-being) is more likely to be true. The

Arctic Council is the only intergovernmental organization in world politics that allows

Indigenous organizations to participate in a decision-making process. Permanent Participants have been expected to provide their input on the discussion of TEK. Because the majority of the

Arctic states do not pay a lot of attention to Indigenous issues at the domestic level, PPs might perceive TEK and projects related to TEK as their opportunity to be heard by their governments.

This is merely speculation about lack of policy recommendations based on TEK in PPs reports.

360

Therefore, as knowledge brokers, PPs collected and documented data from TEK holders,

but their interpretation of TEK did not reflect the original data. Instead, PPs policy

recommendations were based on their own political agenda, which, in many cases, was aimed to

improve socioeconomic conditions of Indigenous communities in the Arctic. This statement, again, shows that as a social construct, TEK has been framed as a tool for Indigenous empowerment.

Why didn’t the presence of PPs positively affect the discussion of TEK? This study suggests the following model of the PPs impact on the incorporation of TEK in the AC (Graph

5). According to this model, PPs failed to prevent lip service in TEK incorporation because of the following reasons: lack of funding, lack of outreach to the communities, closed AC meetings,

and, at last, the PPs pushed their own political agenda instead of translating TEK.

Politicization of TEK

This study argues that the politicization of the concept of TEK highly affected the process

of its incorporation. The actions of each actor were affected by politicization. The Senior Arctic

Officials pushed the epistemic communities to incorporate TEK into reports and assessments,

and have not provided any guidance. Knowledge brokers were expected to provide their

expertise on TEK and translate TEK into the format suitable for epistemic communities and

SAOs. The knowledge brokers published several reports with the epistemic communities, but

given the fact that TEK is a political tool, their efforts resulted in the call for socioeconomic

actions. Epistemic communities still struggle with the acceptance of TEK as a legitimate type of

knowledge, but the increasing pressure of SAOs forced them to include a few quotes from TEK

data into their assessments (distillation of TEK).

361

Why was the definition of TEK in the AC so strongly connected to Indigeneity? As it was

discussed in Chapter 4, recognition of the value of TEK contributes to Indigenous empowerment

and helps Indigenous communities to be a part of decision-making processes. The politicization

of TEK turns the incorporation of TEK into a political tool for Indigenous empowerment and

decolonization. Because TEK is mostly perceived as Indigenous knowledge, and Indigenous

communities have been involved in unequal power relations with their governments, Indigenous

empowerment is definitely a significant component of the discussion of TEK in the Arctic. The

idea of Indigenous empowerment carries ideological and political implications into the TEK

discourse. The requirement to include TEK in the decision-making process presents unique and powerful opportunities for many communities to be heard (Parlee & Caine, 2018).

Why did the politicization of the TEK concept cause lip service? In other parts of the world, such as Australia, the use of TEK provided a mechanism, a point of entry, to implement comanagement and self-government and to integrate local values into decision-making (Berkes,

1999). As the Arctic Council has the unique structure that allows Indigenous organizations to participate as knowledge brokers, PPs were given a chance to translate and interpret TEK from epistemic communities (Elders) to authorized knowers (Working Groups and Senior Arctic

Officials).

PPs as knowledge brokers serve as intermediaries between the AC and remote Arctic

Indigenous communities who produce subjugated knowledge. As Tennberg notes (2000), the acknowledgement of TEK as a different type of knowledge can be seen as a response to the need of recognizing the role of local communities in producing knowledge about the circumpolar regions and the demands by the local communities for researchers to acknowledge their contribution to Western science (Tennberg, 2000, p. 65). According to Tero Mustonen, all Arctic

362

nations, whether it’s Kolyma or Greenland, Iceland or Finland, have undergone violent and

imposed colonial process at some point in their history. Indigenous peoples have been bulldozed

by the colonial process, which continues in some parts of the Arctic such as Alaska, with the

pressure of industrial projects (Tero Mustonen, personal communication, March 22, 2019). This

statement reveals that ongoing resource-extractive processes in the Arctic region place significant pressure on Indigenous communities, making the pressure similar to the colonial process.

The debates on the incorporation of TEK are part of a larger discussion on colonialism and decolonization of Indigenous peoples in the Arctic. On the one hand, politicization of TEK makes incorporation process more difficult, as researchers and policy-makers have significant amount of responsibility when it comes to meaningful incorporation of TEK, as it involves respect, reciprocity, trust, and other important values to recognize. On the other hand, politicization of TEK gives the opportunity to Indigenous communities to empower themselves, and, again, keeps this conversation about knowledge coproduction still going. The interviewees revealed that TEK could be considered as a political mechanism for Indigenous empowerment, especially in the North American context.

Henry Huntington tells a story from Alaska that tells us something about Indigenous empowerment and TEK. According to him,

For many people, TEK is means rather than end. In Anchorage, there are several offshore oil and gas platforms with permits to dump certain things overboard such as the wastewater from washing the dishes or taking a shower. This is unusual—in most places in the US, this is not allowed. The agency responsible for permit renewal was conducting the study and to decide if permit should be renewed. The tribe of the area said that the agency needs to include TEK in this study, and the agency agreed to hire a few people for this study. (Henry Huntington, personal communication, February 19, 2019).

363

Henry Huntington was one of the people they hired. The tribe responded that they were

expecting the agency to fund the tribe to do this job. In some ways, that is a reasonable answer:

the tribe is capable of doing this, though perhaps not having much of experience in documenting

TEK in that way (Henry Huntington, personal communication, February 19, 2019). As

Huntington notes, what was really surprising was that the tribe did not want someone to come to

them and interview their members, then sending this study to decision-makers. The tribe wanted

a greater role in that decision. The use of TEK in that case was the means to that end and it was

taken away. What Indigenous communities really wanted, was to have a greater role in making

decisions.” (Henry Huntington, personal communication, February 19, 2019).

Hence, the community of Alaska Natives from Anchorage perceived the project on TEK

as their chance to be the part of a decision-making process. They wanted to be included in the

dialogue about the future industrial project. Henry Huntington states that the same statement is

accurate at the Arctic Council and elsewhere. Indigenous leaders are not asking to hire

academics and do interviews with them. Indigenous peoples are saying they want to share the

power over their futures, resources, lands and waters. TEK seems to be one way of getting

attention, but this is not the ultimate goal (Henry Huntington, personal communication, February

19, 2019). Therefore, some Indigenous peoples would prefer to participate in studies on TEK as

coresearchers, as the collection and utilization of TEK gives them a chance to obtain some control over industrial and extractive processes in their lands.

For Gunn-Britt Retter from the Saami Council,

“TEK is not a political tool, it is about survival. It is about choices that one has in their life. When TEK is addressed at the international or national levels, and when Indigenous peoples require TEK or IK to be a part of the decision- making process, and they call for recognition of TEK, which is about the empowerment of Saami people and knowledge holders. That is how they can

364

use their Indigenous knowledge to make better decisions. The methods of utilizing TEK work best through participation, and it is also about empowerment. TEK holders should be a part of any research that informs decision-making, so it also requires a systematic approach as to how TEK is brought in to a decision-making process. There is a need to support participants who contribute to the knowledge. In Saami daily business, it’s not about empowerment; it’s about survival.” (Gunn-Britt Retter, personal communication, November 5, 2018). Thus, TEK is a large component of Indigenous livelihoods, and it empowers Indigenous peoples.

Hence, TEK allows Indigenous peoples to be a part of a decision-making process in terms of the control of resources, climate change, or any other issues that might directly affect the lives of Indigenous communities. TEK as a local knowledge of nature and the environment does not necessarily belong to Indigenous communities. The concept of TEK in the AC went through a politicization process and has been Indigenized.

Therefore, the politicization of the concept of TEK resulted in the pressure to incorporate

TEK despite the lack of guidance and understanding of this concept by non-experts. On the one hand, politicization of TEK helped the discussion of TEK to keep going in the AC despite the lack of success in knowledge coproduction. On the other hand, due to the lack of instructions, the politicization of TEK led to lip service when TEK was not meaningfully included in reports and assessments.

Given the fact that Canada actively participated in the first three projects on TEK in the

CAFF Working Group, and promoted the value of TEK at the several meetings, the discussion of

TEK was influenced by the Canadian perception of TEK. Moreover, as it was discussed above,

Canada proposed the creation of the AC—it insisted on the inclusion of Indigenous participants into a decision-making process, and it has a tremendous amount of experience working with

365

comanagement regimes and incorporating TEK into policy. The Canadian government provided

generous financial support to the ICC Canada. Therefore, unlike other state actors, Canada has

been interested in promoting the value of TEK incorporation.

Moreover, the reason Canada has been promoting TEK in the AC is because it has been

strongly politicized at the domestic level. As it was mentioned in the first major theme on State

Diversity, Canada has rich experience working with TEK. The section of this chapter on PPs also

noted that ICC Canada received a large amount of financial help from the Government of

Canada. At last, the most recent version of Canada’s Arctic and Northern Policy Framework stated that internationally, Canada will bolster its efforts to champion Indigenous knowledge in the Arctic (Government of Canada, 2020).

Figure 15 shows how politicization framed the interactions between knowledge brokers, epistemic communities, SAOs and TEK holders.

366

Figure 11. Lip service in the process of TEK incorporation in the AC.

367

Minor Themes in Implications of the Discussion of TEK in the AC

Minor Theme 1: Lack of Understanding of TEK and its Use in Scientific Projects

First of all, there is a lack of a universal understanding of what TEK is. The AC documentation uses different terms regarding TEK such as TLK (traditional and local knowledge); TEK (traditional ecological knowledge); TK (traditional knowledge); IK

(Indigenous knowledge), TK & W (traditional knowledge and wisdom). The Permanent

Participants presented their own version of the definitions and principles of TEK (Fundamental

Traditional Knowledge Principles). Due to the lack of a universal definition of comanagement, it was difficult to find a common comanagement concept in the Arctic (CAFF, 1996).

At the SAO meeting in 2016, Canada asked for a clearer understanding of where responsibility lies for the implementation of the recommendations on integrating TLK that are contained in the Iqaluit Declaration (2015) and the accompanying SAO Report to Ministers. In particular, Canada’s interest was in the development of a lexicon for AC use when speaking or writing about TLK. The study conducted an interview with diplomats from Global Affairs of

Canada, who stated that traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) is an outdated term that was used predominantly in the 1990s. The current term used in the Arctic Council is “traditional and local knowledge.” (personal communication, March 15, 2019). There is also a debate on whether local knowledge and Indigenous knowledge are the same. Can TEK be learned by non-

Indigenous peoples? This is one of the issues that will be discussed in the next chapter.

Minor Theme 2: Resistance from Western Scientists to Accept TEK

There is a point of view that the integration of TEK with a Western system is wrapped up in politics and settler–colonial relationships. According to Stephanie Irlbacher-Fox, White people

368

spend a lot of time trying to find what traditional knowledge is. TEK is a profound political

threat to a capitalist settler–colonial state. In colonial states, Indigenous peoples have a low status

and were seen as subhuman (Stephanie Irlbacher-Fox, personal communication, March 4, 2019).

So, if one wants to understand TEK, they need to learn more about settler–colonial systems

(Stephanie Irlbacher-Fox, personal communication, March 4, 2019). Thus, the settler–colonial

relationship and power inequality significantly affected the incorporation of TEK. Due to

colonialism, TEK has always been an anecdotal, subjugated type of inquiry, whose validity is

often being questioned (Berkes, 1993). Even the term TEK is Western-originated. For

Indigenous peoples, the term traditional is not acceptable, as Indigenous lifestyles have changed considerably over the years (Berkes, 1993). Ecological knowledge is also not the term of preference because Indigenous peoples refer to their knowledge of the land rather than to ecological land. Land is more than just a physical landscape; it includes the living environment

(Berkes, 1993). When it comes to TEK incorporation, Western scientists often tend to compartmentalize (divide TEK on separate parts) and distillate TEK (take only the pieces of

TEK they need) (Nadasdy, 1999). Therefore, TEK incorporation is strongly affected by the power imbalance between TEK and Western science, which originated in the process of colonization.

TEK is holistic; Western science is compartmentalized. TEK is oral and qualitative;

Western science is written and mostly quantitative. It was noted that there was a need for the sufficient funding for the collection, compilation, and integration of traditional knowledge as well as the need to create a database on TEK (Arctic Council, 1999). The studies of climate change have shown that scientific and Indigenous observations have a difference in scale: scientists look at regional scale, local observers tend to capture observations on the local scale

369

(ACIA, 2005). Besides this, TEK is often viewed by scientific communities as a data that can be separated from its local context, which makes its utilization challenging (AHDR, 2004; AHDR,

2014). Due to the swift changes in climate variability, it was noted that TEK might not be reliable as it comes with a high degree of uncertainty (SWIPA, 2011).

Tero Mustonen, the TEK coordinator for ABA, said that

The Arctic Biodiversity Assessment was a compromise. There [are] some successes that the research team is very proud that something survived, but it also contained elements and nasty examples of the old colonial power, scientific power, and the refusal of Indigenous knowledge as a viable way of understanding ecosystem change, and so much it could have been so much better. But that’s why we put forward this life in the circuit world as a mechanism to show how rich and the right and nuanced and [a] deep example [of] the Siberian Indigenous knowledge. (personal communication, March 22, 2019). Tero Mustonen, TEK coordinator of ABA, gave an interview for this study. The inclusion of TEK into ABA was challenging because of the differences between TEK and Western science. As Mustonen says, he had to convince 26 or 28 co-authors on how TEK should be handled. Most of these co-authors were scientists from the natural sciences (Tero Mustonen, personal communication, March 22, 2019). Some steps brought success; for example, every chapter opens now with the real oral history from a real community, most of them in Siberia

(Tero Mustonen, personal communication, March 22, 2019).

Dr. Mustonen noted that there is a dominance of North American TEK in ABA: “I very strongly felt that we should not abandon Northeastern Siberia, Western Siberia, and pull up the other parts of Russian North. There’s so much emphasis and dominance by the North American

Arctic regarding these concessions in the AC that we wanted from very early on to try to make sure that Siberian voices are included,” (personal communication, March 22, 2019). Hence, TEK

370

projects tend to cover mostly North America, neglecting other Arctic regions such as Eurasia and

Scandinavia.

Tero Mustonen said that TEK was not included in ABA in the way they wanted it to be

included. He said they created a TEK compendium as an alternative, but the Arctic Council refused to publish the draft.

According to Tero Mustonen, power and science affected the inclusion of TEK. As he states, some steps in the report were successful. “There are some chapters in the ABA where

Indigenous knowledge was very weak, and that’s not because materials are not available. ABA has to deal with how power and science work, and how compromises work. Sometimes far more materials [were proposed] than were making it to the final take (Tero Mustonen, personal communication, March 22, 2019). “The chief scientist from Denmark was very resistant towards including Indigenous knowledge, as it can be understood as a living system with the close proximity and deep understanding of nature as it happens. There were resistant individuals, there were eight years, there were power struggles, and there were very complex personalities over 28 chapters or 26”. (Tero Mustonen, personal communication, March 22, 2019).

Therefore, Tero Mustonen’s interview shows that there was a chance to incorporate TEK

into scientific knowledge about biodiversity, as a large amount of TEK data was collected during

the process of writing the Arctic Biodiversity Assessment. However, not all of TEK data was

included in the ABA assessment. The TEK compendium, which was developed as a draft and

which has more TEK data, was rejected to be published by the Arctic Council. He noted that the

main reason of it was scientific resistance towards the inclusion of TEK. Hence, despite the

attempts to promote TEK inclusion during CAFF meetings, many scientists still opposed TEK as

legitimate source of knowledge. Dr. Mustonen said that not all TEK was included into the ABA,

371

but the alternative version of ABA TEK COMPENDIUM, titled "Life in the Cyclic World" was

published on the website Snowchange.org.

Similarly, Larry Merculieff expressed his disappointment with how the Western system does not recognize Indigenous ways of knowing. What is interesting about the findings of CAFF report on Traditional Knowledge and Wisdom (2017) is that the example of successful incorporation of TEK and science suggested in the report involved Alaska Native participants and Russian scientists. According to Merculieff, the project was successful because the Russian science views nature in a holistic way, similar to the Indigenous observations, without compartmentalizing the information on separate categories.

Table 4. Formation of the TEK regime in the Arctic Council.

Year (s) Stage 1991 The recognition of importance of TEK in AEPS 1993-1996 First projects on TEK in CAFF 1996 The formation of the Arctic Council. The recognition of the importance of TEK for the AC; the establishment of the PPs. 1997-2004 Lip service 2004 The new attempts to incorporate TEK (ACIA, AHDR) 2005-2009 Lip service 2009-2011 The new attempts to incorporate TEK (EALAT, AMSA) 2011-2017 Lip service 2017- The new attempts to incorporate TEK (2017-ongoing) (AHDR, ATK & W, ongoing CLEO).

Thus, the discussion on the utilization of TEK in the Arctic Council is ongoing. The

Member States and Permanent Participants continue to try to discover successful approaches to

integrate TEK into the policy-making process.

372

Some scientists in the Working Groups still resist TEK. There is a state-colonial power over TEK and there is also the dominance of Western science over TEK. Scientists often

misunderstand TEK. In comparison with TEK, which has a holistic view of nature, science is

compartmentalized and segmented (Nadasdy, 2005).

Tennberg (2000) argues that Indigenous peoples consider that the Arctic scientific

community has not yet welcomed the idea of including the knowledge of Indigenous peoples.

The IASC saw itself as “a science organization,” not as “a tool for social or policy action”

(Tennberg, 2000, p. 60).

As was mentioned in Chapter 3, the Arctic scientific community plays the role of an epistemic community in the AC. As epistemic communities, the WGs have a strong claim to a body of knowledge that is valued by society. Epistemic communities apply their causal knowledge to a policy enterprise subject to their normative objectives (Haas, 1992). Epistemic communities have a consensual knowledge base (Haas, 1992). Hence, the WGs are authorized knowers as Western science is valued by society.

As epistemic communities, the Working Groups in the AC produce authorized knowledge, which has much stronger recognition than TEK. The AC was founded with a strong recognition of the importance of science and management operations in the Arctic (Stephen Van

Dine, personal communication, January 7, 2019). When the countries came together in the Arctic

Council, it worked effectively on various science agendas. Traditional science structure—when the knowledge is recognized universal around the world, is peer-reviewed and has its own norms and practices—is very dominant in the Arctic Council (Stephen Van Dine, personal communication, January 7, 2019). TEK has not seen a significant amount of incorporation in the

AC, or the same amount of support in the AC. Therefore, it has been somewhat disadvantaged,

373

which resulted in a kind of competitive spirit between the legitimacy and value of TEK and

Western science. However, over the years, the AC built a bridge between these two types of science: TEK and Western science (Stephen Van Dine, personal communication, January 7,

2019).

TEK needs to be acknowledged and valued; otherwise, it cannot compete with the power

and authority of Western science. A significant amount of scientific misunderstanding of TEK is

ongoing. Western science is an authorized knowledge and it has distinctions from TEK. Western

science is compartmentalized. Larry Merculieff argues that scientists are only hitting the tip of

the iceberg in terms of what Native people know. “Ice scientists study X and sea ice, and mammal biologists study X and marine mammals—it’s very segmented. Native ways of

knowing are connecting things all the time.” (Larry Merculieff, personal communication,

February 20, 2019). Hence, TEK and science have different perceptions of the world, which are

not always compatible. When it comes to wildlife management, TEK has a holistic view of nature, whereas Western science tends to observe things separately from each other.

Larry Merculieff gives an example of how Western science is compartmentalized:

Here in Alaska, scientists are studying climate change. I attended the meeting in interior Alaska, the person who was explaining that they were doing aerial surveys, how they conduct these kinds of surveys, and why. He went for 45 minutes. The chief spokesperson among chiefs said, “Have you noticed that the water levels are going down in all our rivers?” And the guy said: “I’m doing aerial transects, not hydrology, that’s not my field of expertise.” The chief spokesperson said, “Do you know that when the water levels go down, the forage that moose eat are eliminated?” The scientist said, “That’s another section of my division, I don’t deal with that. I’m just dealing with aerial transects.” The Elder said, “Do you notice that there are more beaver dams in this area?” And, of course, the guy said, “That’s not my specialty, different department.” The Elder said, “Do you know when there are more beavers, there are much more beaver dams.” So the guy, very frustrated, said: “Maybe you should talk with the Board of Game?” You could hear the silent groans amongst the chiefs because the Board of Game are required to use the best available science to make decisions. The best available science does not

374

include the Native ways of knowing. It’s Western science. They never got together. This is an example of scientists of looking at one thing to make a decision and Native people are looking at series of things. (Larry Merculieff, personal communication, February 20, 2019).

Thus, the compartmentalization of TEK occurs when scientists attempt to divide complex, holistic TEK observations into separate divisions and departments. In this case, a scientist argues that aerial transects, water, and beaver dams should be studied separately, as they

belong to the different fields of science. Meanwhile, for the Indigenous Elder, these things are

inseparable and strongly connected.

Western science is not as complex as TEK. TEK is not divided into disciplines and

subdisciplines. According to Larry Merculieff, Yupik Elders from Alaska know a lot about salmon and this information comes not only from fish, but also from observing everything about

the flora and vegetation area near the river, and how fast they are growing, what kind of species

of plants, the wind direction, the storms, and the sea ice. Scientists attempt to predict the amount

of salmon population from their data based on sonar readings and what is found in weirs. Alaska

Natives know that salmon has collective intelligence, and salmon species know when the

succeeding year will be problematic for them. So, in one year, there is a lot of salmon and then

it’s a time to cut down. According to Yupik Elders, because of the way the Western management

systems worked in Alaska for the last 100 years, ever since then, every single species, and every

single plant and animal has declined, and they continue to decline. In ten years, salmon is

predicted to disappear completely from Alaska because of the ways it has been managed (Larry

Merculieff, personal communication, February 20, 2019). Therefore, some Indigenous peoples in

Alaska do not agree with the Western scientific ways of wildlife management, and they assume

that current policy regulations will eventually lead to negative ecological consequences.

375

The existence of dissimilarities between Western science and TEK does not necessarily mean that these two types of knowledge cannot complement each other. The ability of TEK to complement Western science is actually why TEK should be utilized. The complex and holistic nature of TEK is why it is useful for scientists as TEK provides a new source of data. Diplomats from Global Affairs Canada state that communities have a very different view on nature because they possess knowledge that Western scientists do not. Indigenous communities know about herd migrations, what the currents are in certain areas, how that affects their lives and all kinds of day-to-day matters. Western science is looking at it from a different kind of perspective and they assume that all of a sudden, their hypothesis could fail at the end of the day. Western scientists do not consider that TEK was on the ground of the people who are inherently exposed to this understanding of what is being studied (Global Affairs Canada, personal communication, March

15, 2019). Thus, TEK can potentially bring some data about nature and wilderness that Western

science does not have.

Yet, after 25 years of research on TEK, some scientists from the Working Groups are still

quite resistant towards TEK. Bob Corell argues that TEK is an equal partner, but that can be a

hard sell for scientists:

“There are a variety of ways in which human beings can use to understand the world where they live. One of the most powerful ways has to do with scientific knowledge. But Indigenous peoples have another way of doing it that uses the technique of shared ideas, trust, skills, and experience in order that they can build this Elder system. Elder does not mean age, it means depth of knowledge. Indigenous knowledge is another knowledge platform that is gaining respect and will get even more respect in the future.” (Bob Corell, personal communication, February 24, 2019). Hence, TEK is absolutely different from Western science as it sees the world in a

different way than traditional Western science. As an outcome of colonial processes, TEK is

subjugated knowledge, and Western science is authorized knowledge.

376

However, there are some nuances when it comes to scientific groups. The academic

literature does not recognize that the concept of science is not homogeneous. The authors tend to

refer to Western science instead of distinguishing between various branches. One of the

interviews indicated that Russian science is not as compartmentalized as Western, and it is more interdisciplinary. Western science is a term that is often used in the discourse of TEK, but the term Russian science has rarely been used in the discussion of TEK. Larry Merculieff says that he worked with a Russian team of scientists for four years, and the Russian scientists did not compartmentalize observations but rather understood how the whole synergistically operates in the way that pieces do not explain. He states that their findings could revolutionize Western marine science all over the world, but their report is not allowed to be published in the US.

Canada, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Korea published their report, but the US did not because there is a member of peer-review team who said: “This is primitive science.” Larry Merculieff believes that it was characterized as primitive because of the connection of this study with Native people as partners (Larry Merculieff, personal communication, February 20, 2019). Therefore, racism is also a prevalent factor, which creates obstacles for TEK to be perceived as a legitimate type of knowledge, equal to Western science.

Despite 25 years of efforts to incorporate TEK, there is a tension between TEK and

Western science in the Arctic Council as well. Some scientists hold prejudice towards TEK. The largest AC scientific projects, the Arctic Biodiversity Assessment and the Arctic Climate Impact

Assessment, experienced strong scientific resistance towards the incorporation of TEK.

According to Tero Mustonen (personal communication, March 22, 2019), when he worked for the Arctic Biodiversity Assessment, there were some chapters where TEK was very weak, and not

because materials were unavailable. Some of the Indigenous groups proposed far more materials

377

that were making it to the final version, and it’s all about how power and science work. The

ABA chief scientist from Denmark was very resistant towards including TEK because TEK can

be understood as a living system with the close proximity and deep understanding of nature.

Mustonen’s team published their own compendium of TEK, which is their own version of the

Arctic Biodiversity Assessment. This document, Life in the Cyclic World: A Compendium of

Traditional Knowledge from Eurasian North, contains the voices of hundreds of Indigenous

peoples from Russia and Saami and some other places. They spent some years to ensure that they

hold on certain principles on how TEK looks like. It has the characteristic of living knowledge

that is of high quality over species ecosystems, past events that have happened, colonization

processes, nature concepts of conservation, equity issues and so on. (Tero Mustonen, personal

communication, March 22, 2019).

The process of incorporating TEK into the ACIA was also challenging. According to Bob

Corell, the scientific community was resistant towards the inclusion of TEK into the Arctic

Climate Impact Assessment. In 1999, when he was chair of the ACIA, he proposed a true partnership with Indigenous communities and the inclusion of TEK into the report, which sounded very revolutionary. As a chair, Bob Corell suggested that they will have full participants from Indigenous communities in every single chapter, appropriate to the knowledge base of that chapter, and he said if there is still disagreement against the inclusion of TEK after one year of work, his opponents won (Bob Corell, personal communication, February 25, 2019). So, in this

case, Bob Corell had to fight for the inclusion of TEK into the ACIA against other scientists,

which means that Western scientists do not always hold the same position regarding TEK, and

there can be disagreements about the value of TEK. Hence, scientific resistance towards TEK as

378

well as racism towards Indigenous communities resulted in “lip service” when TEK is only

nominally included in scientific reports.

Because TEK is subjugated knowledge, the Indigenous methodologies are not as well- known and studied as Western scientific methods. “In traditional Western science, there are standards of practice of the journal rules, publications and peer reviewers. Whereas TEK is more experiential, more culturally rooted—it’s more than just passing over a memory stick or data key.” (Stephen Van Dine, personal communication, January 7, 2019). Indigenous methodologies and approaches are not recognized and not determined—there is a lack of Indigenous standards and protocols similar to Western science, and this reason makes incorporation of TEK challenging and difficult. Moreover, Western science is much more widely recognized than

TEK. According to Parle & Caine (2018), the recognition of TEK as much more than anecdote,

opinion, or simple data is still a major challenge in the Western Arctic (p. 9).

Therefore, compared with traditional Western science, which is authorized knowledge,

TEK has much less recognition as a legitimate type of knowledge in the Arctic Council. There is

a lot of misunderstanding in scientific circles of what TEK is, what methodologies and

approaches it uses, and how it can be transferred to scientific data. Western scientists tend to

compartmentalize TEK observations, taking only these pieces that fit their studies.

Did knowledge brokers (PPs) collaborate with epistemic communities (WGs) on TEK

projects in the AC? Is there any connection between knowledge brokers and epistemic

communities? As Chapter 5 indicated, knowledge brokers did collaborate with epistemic

communities on several reports (AEPS, CAFF, SDWG Working Groups), but the actual

translation of collected data into policy recommendations did not occur.

379

As shown in Chapter 7, the WGs often included only a few quotes from TEK observations into their reports, or they provided recommendations about TEK utilization without any descriptions and explanations of how TEK should be used. Hence, the WGs often do not understand what the nature of TEK is, and how TEK can be integrated into Western science and policy. The lack of understanding of TEK as a concept combined with the pressure to mention the importance and value of TEK results in lip service.

The necessity to incorporate TEK is closely related to the reconciliation of the Arctic states with Indigenous communities. The utilization of TEK could potentially contribute to the political empowerment of Indigenous communities by giving them some amount of control over wildlife management, and some capacity to participate in resource management. The incorporation of TEK becomes a political question. By including TEK into reports and assessments and recognizing the utility of TEK, the AC working groups contribute to Indigenous empowerment. However, because the WGs often resist TEK and there is a lack of guidance in the process, the WGs mostly pay lip service.

Due to the subjugated nature of TEK and the lack of universal recognition of TEK as a legitimate source of knowledge, PPs cannot play the role of epistemic communities in the AC.

The Working Groups serve this role in the AC, and only they can directly affect the policy- making process in the AC because they produce authorized knowledge. Even though all TEK projects released by PPs were issued in collaboration with the WGs because of scientific resistance towards TEK, epistemic communities in the AC could not find common ground with knowledge brokers.

Overall, the challenges of the integration of traditional knowledge into Western science have not yet been overcome. However, the Arctic Council and its working groups still attempt to

380

investigate the best approaches to combine these two systems of knowledge. Diplomats from

Global Affairs Canada stated that the discussion on TEK have quickly moved forward during last couple of years. TEK is something that is regularly on the table. Every project in the Arctic

Council is being asked about how traditional local knowledge is going to be incorporated into this project and what considerations are being made (personal communication, March 2019).

Based on the analysis of the discussion on TEK in the AEPS, the AC and its working groups, this study argues that there is an established regime of TEK in the Arctic Council.

What Next? The Future of TEK

Overall, there are many challenges in incorporating TEK with science in the Arctic Council, and therefore, it is difficult to predict the future of this concept. The study suggests a few potential ways of the future development of the TEK concept in the Arctic Council.

• Lip Service - TEK would remain in the AC reports and assessments, but it would not be

meaningfully incorporated;

• Oblivion - Due to constant frustration from many unsuccessful attempts to incorporate

TEK, TEK will be forgotten;

• TEK integration through the finding of other ways of deconstruction of TEK as a

concept—the recognition of Indigenous communities as separate nations, the higher

engagement with Eurasian and Scandinavian TEK, the use of Indigenous methods, and

the inclusion of non-Indigenous TEK would lead to better and more meaningful

incorporation of TEK in the AC.

Lip service as the first possible scenario for the development of TEK in the Arctic Council.

381

As discussed in Chapter 5, “lip service was present in the AC for a few years. The need to incorporate TEK into the reports and assessments was mentioned during the meetings of the working groups. Still, in reality, there was no direct guidance on how to include TEK into the

Arctic Council work. The incorporation of TEK into many AC reports is still not entirely meaningful. For example, one of the PAME chapters, cited in Chapter 5, states: “regarding

environmental monitoring, it is recommended that the operators should consider local Indigenous

communities for contractual monitoring activities as well as drawing upon Indigenous and

traditional knowledge for the identification of historical environmental extremes and trends. The

operators should establish cooperative relationships with local Indigenous communities.”

(PAME, 2009, p. 24). This recommendation does not provide any guidance or instruction on how

to collect, integrate, and apply TEK.

According to several interviews in Chapter 5, Western science is much better recognized

in the Arctic Council. It is not quite challenging for international scientists to work together on

Arctic projects, as scientists from different parts of the world use similar or same methodologies

and approaches such as quantitative techniques, peer-reviewed process, tools and instruments,

and data collection techniques. The existence of a system of scientific methods and approaches

and a peer-review process might explain how scientists from many different locations can

collaborate as a team. In the case of TEK, it seems to be very challenging to unify the

experiences and knowledges of Indigenous peoples all over the Arctic without the use of

Indigenous research methods.

The lack of standard rules and policies on the incorporation of TEK in the Arctic Council

also contributes to “lip service.” Scientists and policy-makers might have the best intentions to

integrate TEK. However, the absence of guidance on knowledge coproduction and TEK

382

translation into Arctic science and policy inevitably leads to a situation where the reports only

claim to incorporate TEK instead of making progress.

As was discussed above, TEK is strongly associated with Indigenous empowerment, so

political and ideological pressure to recognize the value of TEK and incorporate it with science

would continue to be prevalent in the AC. However, if it is still impossible to find the right

approach to fully understand how TEK works in combination with science, the lip service

scenario will continue to occur in the AC. With a few exceptions similar to ACIA, TEK would

still be mentioned in reports and assessments, but it would not be meaningfully incorporated.

“Oblivion” as a second possible scenario.

The holistic, localized, and qualitative nature of TEK, which is the opposite of Western science,

makes it very challenging to integrate TEK into science and policy at the international level.

Every country has to deal with its way of regulating the incorporation of TEK. Scientific

resistance to accept TEK as a legitimate form of knowledge is a challenging factor for the

integration of TEK, as traditional Western science is a recognized type of knowledge. Existing power relations between Indigenous peoples and Arctic states make the situation with TEK even more complicated, as states have the power to control knowledge production. The necessity to integrate TEK under the conditions of constant frustration might result in the situation when

TEK will be forgotten in the future.

According to Bob Corell, “The AC has become less respectful of Indigenous knowledge than they were ten years ago.” (personal interview, February 25, 2019). Henry Huntington says, “It is frustrating to see that after 25 years, only very little progress has been made towards incorporating and drawing on TEK.” (personal interview, February 19, 2019). It is quite possible

383

that the scientific community might conclude that TEK and Western science have significant

differences in their observations of nature and wilderness, and thus, they are incompatible in

terms of coproducing knowledge. Thomas & Schaefer (1991) suggested this comparison of TEK

and science (Figure 18) that clearly shows that there are substantial distinctions between

Indigenous and scientific approaches:

Figure 12. Comparison of Indigenous and scientific methods (Thomas & Schaefer, 1991).

Many factors can lead to the “Oblivion” scenario, such as differences in knowledge systems and methodologies, many unsuccessful attempts to integrate TEK and science, scientific bias towards TEK, and also the frustration that comes from Indigenous leaders. For example, the

Aleut leader Larry Merculieff argues that during the AC meetings, Indigenous participants are allowed to talk only for five or ten minutes, which is not enough for them to explain their knowledge. Indigenous peoples are also not geared to speak in bullet points (Larry Merculieff,

384

personal interview, February 20, 2019). Incorporating TEK with science means that TEK should

fit the requirements of Western science (Larry Merculieff, personal interview, February 20,

2019). Overall, the use of Western scientific frameworks, requirements, and methodologies in utilizing TEK does not result in the successful integration of TEK, and it frustrates Indigenous representatives, as only certain parts of their knowledge are being used. The “Oblivion” scenario might be a direct continuation of the “lip service scenario.

“Deconstruction of TEK” as a concept.

Despite the fact that North American ideas do not dominate in the Arctic, TEK concept and comanagement regimes have been well developed in Canada. Nonetheless, the Canadian-led

projects were not more successful than the projects where other countries were involved. The AC

needs a “remake” of TEK. First of all, TEK must be depoliticized and become free of the

ideological component. Traditional knowledge of local non-Indigenous communities, such as

Icelandic fishermen, should be part of TEK studies as well. The politicization of TEK leads to

the lack of meaningful engagement of TEK with the work of the AC; TEK is only nominally

included to serve political purposes. Indigenous communities must be recognized as separate

nations with their knowledges, cultures, histories, and languages. While TEK is a universal term,

it should be perceived as the knowledge that belongs only to a particular local group or

community (e.g., the Sakha TEK).

Second, the greater inclusion of Eurasian and Scandinavian experiences of TEK holders

would also help to understand the concept of TEK better, and it will help to explore the diversity

of traditional knowledges in the Arctic. The TEK of northern Canada and the US (Alaska) is

much better studied and collected than in other Arctic regions.

385

Third, instead of “indigenizing” Western science, TEK should be utilized with the use of

Indigenous methodologies. According to some interviewees, such as Larry Merculieff, the integration of TEK through existing legal mechanisms such as comanagement boards does not result in a meaningful integration of TEK, which could reflect its holistic nature. The scientists tend to compartmentalize TEK, and only certain parts of TEK are included in Western science

(Larry Merculieff, personal interview, February 20, 2019). As Stephen Van Dine noted, science is peer-reviewed and has its norms and practices (personal interview, January 7, 2019). In comparison to science, TEK is not well recognized, and Indigenous methodologies are not as well-known as scientific methods and approaches. Nevertheless, this fact does not mean that

Indigenous research methodologies do not exist.

For this purpose, greater engagement between scientists and Indigenous communities

should be considered, including participatory methods and transfer of control over research to

TEK holders. Social scientists, including anthropologists, linguists, and political scientists, should be invited to each TEK study as they can often provide effective cross-cultural communication with Indigenous groups.

The adoption of Indigenous methodologies, the depoliticization of TEK, and the inclusion of TEK from Eurasia and Scandinavia, as well as the addition of local non-Indigenous knowledges, are policy actions that can be introduced as parts of a third scenario,

“Deconstruction of TEK.” These actions might change the current understanding of what TEK is

and how it should be integrated with science. There is no practical, reliable model or regime of

TEK that could be adopted at the international level and work everywhere in the Arctic, but

creating a universal guide on the incorporation of TEK in the Arctic is entirely possible.

386

387

Conclusion for Chapter 8

TEK as a conception was claimed to be crucial in the work of the Arctic Council. But

when it comes to the incorporation of TEK, lip service is predominant in the AC work. The

chronological graph of the AC reports in Chapter 5 showed that the process of incorporation of

TEK into the work of the AC has not been done in a meaningful way. Why is there a lack of understanding of how to incorporate TEK after more than 25 years?

The study identified several implications of the discussion of TEK in the AC. The study divided these implications on three major themes:

State diversity: All Arctic states perceived TEK and its utilization in quite unique, authentic ways. TEK is a diverse concept, and its regime of utilization is implemented differently everywhere in the region. State diversity of the use of TEK resulted in the absence of a universal model of TEK regime. The comanagement regime is a middle ground between the delegation of self-governing functions over wildlife management to Indigenous communities and the full control of the governments. However, it is still not recognized that there is a diversity of different types of TEK across the Arctic besides the comanagement model. Due to the fact that Indigenous peoples all over the Arctic have very local types of TEK, and they cannot be treated as one

Indigenous group, comanagement regimes should be localized for each specific region. Thus, a comanagement regime should be adapted to each Arctic state and its domestic legislation.

Lesser effectiveness of PPs: The PP were expected to be experts in the process of knowledge coproduction. The PPs collaborated with the Working Groups, and they also participated in the AC meetings. However, the PPs did not translate TEK into a policy-making

388

language. The possible reasons why the PPs did not incorporate TEK into policy include: 1) lack

of guidance and instructions on how to translate TEK; 2) the lack of funding for some PPs; 3) the

perception of TEK and the use of TEK as a political tool that could help PPs to raise awareness

about socioeconomic Indigenous issues in the Arctic. Hence, PPs were less effective in

knowledge coproduction than it was expected. Despite being knowledge brokers, PPs did not

translate TEK from TEK holders into policy recommendations; instead, they promoted their own

policy agenda for socioeconomic action. The politicization of TEK concept encouraged PPs to

use any chance to raise awareness about the unsatisfactory conditions of northern Indigenous

communities.

Politicization of TEK: As a result of the ICC and Canada’s attempts to promote the value of TEK, TEK incorporation has become highly politicized. The incorporation of TEK in the AC is associated with Indigenous empowerment and engagement. TEK has become an issue of social justice and decolonization. This is not a common perception of TEK. The politicization of the concept of TEK affected the process of incorporation of TEK. The interactions between the SAOs, knowledge brokers and epistemic communities have been shaped by the politicization of TEK. The politicization of TEK has started since Canada and the ICC began promoting the value of TEK in the AC. The incorporation of TEK into Western science had only been the

Canadian/North American trend before the AC establishment. The incorporation of TEK has become possible as a direct outcome of comanagement boards in Canada. Canada has been active in the TEK projects since the 1990s, and as it was mentioned above, it played a crucial role in framing the concept of TEK. Canada and the ICC politicized TEK. Canada has rich experience working with TEK. As Canada is one of the great powers in the AC, it was able to put pressure on knowledge brokers, the Permanent Participants and epistemic communities, the

389

Working Groups, to incorporate TEK at any cost. The politicization of TEK in the AC has

resulted in the “Indigenized” character of TEK concept. On the one hand, the use of TEK is

supposed to empower Indigenous communities in the Arctic—it is politicized and supported by

Permanent Participants. All of these factors contribute to the prominence of TEK as a concept discussed in the AC. On the other hand, because Indigenous peoples have less political influence than their home governments, the value of their knowledge is not as recognized as the value of

Western science, and there is scientific resistance against the use of TEK. Thus, the process of incorporation of TEK remains challenging.

The chapter also recognized minor themes in these implications:

Lack of understanding of TEK: While in Canada, the government promotes TEK, but in other Arctic states, TEK is a subjugated type of knowledge, which is not well understood by non-Indigenous people. Thus, the AC and Arctic states have a lack of understanding of TEK.

Western scientific resistance towards TEK: Some Western scholars resisted the incorporation of TEK into the AC studies. TEK and Western science have different metatheoretical natures. TEK is complex and holistic, while science is compartmentalized, quantitative and relies on peer review. Science has more power, authority and acceptance than

TEK. The Working Groups serve as epistemic communities in the AC, and they often resist TEK because they do not consider it a legitimate source of knowledge. As there is a lack of guidance on the process of incorporation and ongoing pressure to include TEK into scientific assessments,

WGs usually include only a few quotes from TEK data. Therefore, the process of knowledge coproduction results in lip service.

390

391

Conclusion

The incorporation of TEK into science and policy has encountered several difficulties

since its emergence into the English-speaking world. The process of TEK integration has met

with methodological challenges because of the differences between the qualitative, holistic,

spiritual and sophisticated nature of TEK and predominantly quantitative, reductionist and

computer-based essence of Western scientific knowledge (Thomas & Schaefer, 1991). Power

relations between the governments, Indigenous peoples, and scientists led to the lack of respect

towards TEK, and this type of inquiry has been mostly viewed as anecdotal, curiosity-driven and

inaccurate (Berkes, 1993). The combination of power inequality and methodological differences

resulted in the compartmentalization (a division of TEK into separate parts) and distillation

(neglecting the complex nature of TEK and choosing only certain pieces of it) of TEK

(Nadasdy, 1999). As a result, TEK data was adjusted to the needs Western science and many projects did not reflect the complexity and spirituality of TEK (Nadasdy, 1999).

At the international level, the incorporation of TEK has become more difficult in domestic matters. In many parts of the world, TEK has become a symbol of Indigenous control over cultural information and a revitalization of the past (Berkes, 1993). Indigenous knowledge has become a part of Indigenous empowerment (Berkes, 1993). However, not all of the states in the Arctic equally respected and valued TEK. In some countries such as Russia, TEK is not legally recognized as a type of knowledge, but instead, is closely tied to traditional subsistence activities (Consultant Plus, 2001)—Russian legislation only mentions the “traditional use of nature” (Consultant Plus, 2001). In Nordic countries, the legislation recognizes practitioners’

knowledge related to Saami reindeer management (Kitt, Gunslay, and Forbes, 2006). Therefore,

392

the perceptions and understandings of TEK all over the Arctic region greatly vary among the

countries, which complicates an international, cooperative effort to incorporate TEK.

Since the adoption of the Ottawa Declaration in 1996, and the establishment of the institute of Permanent Participants, the incorporation of TEK into Arctic Council work has become one of its main priorities. The AC recognized the value of TEK as a valid source of data and supported Indigenous participation as one of its founding principles (Ottawa Declaration,

1996). Nevertheless, no one has evaluated to what degree TEK was integrated into the AC. Was the AC successful in overcoming the obstacles of TEK incorporation?

This dissertation had the following objectives. First, it established the theoretical model of the analysis of interactions between actors in the discussion of TEK in the AC; second, it set up the indicators that could evaluate the degree to which TEK was incorporated into the AC’s reports and assessments. Third, it analyzed the meeting minutes’ and reports of the Working

Groups and applied PILAC indicators to AC documents. Achieving these objectives provided an understanding how TEK was incorporated into the AC’s work—if so, the degree of the incorporation of TEK varied, depending on two primary conditions. These conditions were as follows: The first factor is if the reports and assessments were released by the AC Working

Group or by the Permanent Participants. The reports of PPs incorporated TEK more effectively than that of the Working Groups. The second factor that affects the incorporation of TEK depends on which working group published the report. According to the results of this study, the

Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna Working Group and Sustainable Development Working

Group had a more meaningful engagement with TEK than other Working Groups in the AC.

The previous eight chapters analyzed the concept of TEK. Chapters 2, 3 and 4 investigated the challenges of incorporating TEK into science and policy, and the impact of the

393

power relations that cause tensions between government, scientists and Indigenous communities.

Chapter 5 set up the theoretical and methodological foundation of the study, including the

PILAC scale. Chapter 6 applied the PILAC scale to AC documents. Chapter 7 analyzed the

findings of this analysis. Finally, Chapter 8 recognized and explained the implications of the lack

of TEK incorporation into AC work.

Through assessing documents on TEK published by the Arctic Council and analyzing

interviews in Chapters 6 and 7, this dissertation discovered that the AC’s work on the incorporation of TEK predominantly lacked the meaningful incorporation of TEK into policy.

Furthermore, the study demonstrated that meaningful incorporation of TEK into the AC work could vary depending on the subject of research. Moreover, the Arctic Council does not suggest any guidance about incorporating TEK in a meaningful way. The research findings suggest a model that might help assess to what extent TEK and science were merged in documents. Chapter 8 has the following implications:

• State diversity in perception and incorporation of TEK resulted in the absence of

a universal model of TEK utilization at the international level;

• TEK has been politicized and is mostly perceived as a tool for Indigenous

empowerment;

• Permanent Participants had were less successful in the translation of TEK into

policy recommendations because of a lack of funding, the difficulties of the TEK

translation process, and the necessity to raise awareness about socioeconomic

issues in the Arctic.

394

Besides these major implications, the AC and Arctic states also encountered a lack of understanding of the concept of TEK. Due to distinct metatheoretical perspectives, Western

scientists often demonstrated their resistance towards the incorporation of TEK.

This concluding chapter revisits the concept of TEK in the Arctic and the challenges and

obstacles in the process of incorporating TEK.

State diversity in the perception of certain concepts and issues could result in lip service.

In this dissertation, the term Traditional Ecological Knowledge is used, as traditional

knowledge is a very complex concept (besides wildlife and the environment) that transfer from

generation to generation, such as shamanistic healing practices and epic stories about ancient

warriors. In the concept of TEK, the term “ecological” refers to wildlife and resource

management; as such, this study aimed to focus on Indigenous practices governing their local

resources, such as reindeer herding, hunting, and fishing. The term Indigenous was found to be problematic; according to Chapter 4, there are local non-Indigenous communities in the Arctic such as the Pomors in Russia, who possess unique knowledge about the governance of wildlife resources. Moreover, in some Arctic states, not all Indigenous communities are legally

recognized as Indigenous; for instance, the knowledge of the Sakha (Yakut) people is not

acknowledged as Indigenous Knowledge to some.

All Arctic state have their own definitions of TEK in domestic legislation, e.g., traditional

use of nature (in Russia) and practitioners’ knowledge (Sweden). Furthermore, as Chapter 4 indicated, TEK is mostly used in English-speaking academic literature from the 1990s, which was included in the literature review. TEK is also a more conventional abbreviation than local ecological knowledge (LEK). The discussion about terminology is closely related to recognizing

395

who is considered to be a knowledge holder. Knowledge holders can be non-Indigenous identified individuals who practice traditional activities (e.g., Pomors from Russia) (Lawson

Brigham, personal communication, February 24, 2019). Thus, TEK is not necessarily related to

Indigenous communities. The indigenization of TEK occurred because of the politicization of this concept by powerful actors.

Indigenous knowledge is very diverse, and the correct term for it would reference a particular ethnic Indigenous group, such as Sakha knowledge, Inuvialuit knowledge, Dene knowledge, and others. In general, traditional ecological knowledge as a concept generated much confusion about how to title it appropriately. The Arctic Council Working Groups continuously used different titles for this concept, such as traditional knowledge, Indigenous knowledge, traditional ecological knowledge, traditional knowledge and wisdom, and other titles. The AC declarations also demonstrated confusion with TEK titles, naming it traditional Indigenous knowledge, local knowledge, or Indigenous knowledge. Therefore, the knowledge of Indigenous peoples about wildlife and the environment may cover not only areas where the community lives, but also entire ecosystems. PPs tend to use the term Indigenous Knowledge as discussed in

Chapter 6.

As Chapter 4 indicated, Arctic states used different titles for TEK domestically, and some do not perceive TEK as a valuable and valid source of data. In Russia, for example, the

incorporation of TEK into science and policy is not legally recognized. It was also mentioned in

Chapter 4 that Canada was active in promoting the incorporation of TEK in the AC as a way to

reconcile with Indigenous communities and increase their engagement into policy. The difference in TEK perception as a concept resulted in difficulty in the creation of a universal model of knowledge coproduction.

396

State diversity in the perception of the concept could create major obstacles when it comes to international cooperation and regime establishment. As the study showed, states understand concepts differently due to historical, social and legal differences. As the implications of colonialism and Indigenous legislation emerged in distinct and authentic ways in Arctic states, governmental policies towards TEK and its use significantly differed in North America and

Eurasia, especially in terms of the value of TEK and its role in the Arctic politics. Only Canada and the US have perceived the incorporation of TEK as a tool for Indigenous empowerment.

Fennoscandian countries and Russia have not been paying much political attention to this topic.

This means that similar patterns that include the lack of universal understanding of concepts could arise in other areas. Thus, this study argues that the nature of state engagement in the AC is predefined by a state’s own interests and perceptions; the subjugated nature of TEK in states besides Canada and the US discouraged putting more efforts into the evolution of knowledge coproduction. The study speculates that if all Arctic states were interested in TEK and its incorporation at the regional level as much as Canada, the collective efforts would have allowed for the investment of more energy and intellectual potential into this subject. As a result, lip service could have been avoided.

From a general IR perspective, this study showed that the diversity of conceptual perception and the lack of universal understanding of some concepts at the international level could negatively affect the emergence of a common regime of international cooperation on some specific issues; for example, gender and sexuality studies. Without a universal perception of these issues, these conceptual disputes could lead to lip service.

397

Under the conditions of politicization, political measures could be easily replaced by simplified performative actions.

Active Canadian involvement in the first TEK projects and the promotion of the value of

TEK by ICC resulted in the concept’s politicization. The rising politicization of the issue is characterized by public awareness, and the formation of accessible needs and concerns (Zurn,

Binder, & Ecker-Ehrhardt, 2012). Concerns about Indigenous empowerment and reconciliation with Indigenous communities led to the framing of the TEK concept as a tool for the achievement of political goals and purposes. With Canada being actively involved, the SAOs placed significant pressure on WGs and PPs to incorporate TEK. TEK has become a concept associated with social justice, so it needed to be included in every AC document. The combination of several factors: the lack of guidance on the process, increasing pressure to include TEK, as well as scientific skepticism towards TEK, resulted in the WGs including only a few quotes from their TEK data into their reports. The politicization of TEK also affected PPs’ projects by encouraging the use of these projects as a tool to raise awareness about socioeconomic issues of Indigenous communities. The discussion of TEK is still prevalent in the

AC because TEK is strongly connected to social justice and reconciliation. Therefore, the politicization of TEK by Canada and the ICC, as well as the interactions between WGs, SAOs, and PPs, engaged this social construct as a political tool.

As Canada has been the most experienced in the incorporation of TEK in the Arctic, it could be argued that the politicization of TEK emerged as bottom-up initiative. In this case, instead of the AC encouraging state implementation of TEK, Canada pushed the AC and other state members to confirm the regional worth of TEK within this forum.

398

The politicization of subjugated knowledge, similar to Canada and TEK, can turn the discussion into a heated topic, where the real subject and political measures could be replaced by simplified performative actions. The lip service demonstrated by the inclusion of the word TEK and the praise of its value in the AC reports such as SWIPA, instead of actual incorporation, is an outcome of this politicization. As such, real political measures could be substituted by incremental performative steps.

From IR perspectives, similar performative actions under conditions of politicization could happen with other subjugated topics in the area of race and ethnicity. For example, the

Black Lives Matter movement in 2020 politicized the topic of racism against Black people. As an example of lip service and performative actions, the rice company Uncle Ben’s, owned by

Mars Inc., decided to scrap the image the brand has used since the 1940s of a Black farmer in its advertisements and packaging, and could change the product’s name (The Guardian, June 18,

2020). Hence, instead of actual policy measures to fight racism, Uncle Ben’s merely removed the image of a Black farmer from its logo.

Under the conditions of conceptual diversity and politicization even experts can pursue their own political agendas.

The Arctic Council is the only intergovernmental organization that allowed Indigenous

IGOs to participate in a decision-making process by creating the institute of Permanent

Participants (Arctic Council website, 2020). Since its establishment, the incorporation of TEK has officially been recognized as an essential issue for the AC (Ottawa Declaration, 1996).

Permanent Participants were expected to provide their expertise on TEK (Arctic Council, 2007).

Thus, by creating strong preconditions for the TEK collection and utilization, the AC gave hope

399

to global Indigenous communities. It was believed that in the foreseeable future, TEK would be

perceived as a valuable, useful and vital source of knowledge.

The internal political structure of the Arctic Council was a significant precondition that

significantly influenced the process of TEK incorporation. The existence of the institution of

Permanent Participants made a significant difference in the process of incorporating TEK.

Because Permanent Participants are, in fact, Indigenous organizations, their reports were much

more developed in comparison to Working Group projects. The presence of Indigenous

organizations does positively affect the process of TEK incorporation. PPs serve the role of

knowledge brokers in the AC, delivering TEK from TEK holders to the AC. PPs were expected

to serve as intermediaries between TEK holders and the AC.

Nevertheless, even though the PPs were quite successful in the collection and

documentation of TEK, they did not translate TEK into the language of policy-makers. The projects of PPs regarding TEK have their difficulties, such as including policy recommendations based on TEK in their reports. Nonetheless, they do not reflect TEK and mostly refer to the call

for socioeconomic action. This occurred, in part, because of the lack of instructions from the AC,

but the main reason is that the concept of TEK is politicized, and the PPs used TEK projects

raise awareness about socioeconomic conditions of northern Indigenous communities.

In general, the analysis of PPs work on TEK showed that non-state actors that are

expected to deliver and translate information (knowledge brokers) can also experience the effects

of politicization and conceptual diversity of the issue. In this TEK study, Permanent Participants

could not translate TEK into policy for various reasons, including the necessity to promote their

agenda and difficulties with translation of TEK into policy-making language. Furthermore, the

translation of information into policy recommendations requires special skills and training,

400

including familiarity with political terms and definitions, and the political lobbying that was

absent in TEK project preparations. This aspect of the TEK projects has never been raised at meetings. Hence, with a lack of conceptual understanding, conceptual diversity, and increased politicization in international cooperation, even those actors who are expected to provide the expertise on issues cannot avoid paying lip service and can be trapped into pursuing their own political agendas.

Any alternative knowledge systems, other than authorized knowledge, are predestined to match principles and outcomes of Western science.

TEK remains a poorly understood concept. From social constructivist perspectives, TEK

is a social construct shaped by interactions between actors in an international institution. This study discovered that the concept of TEK was politicized as a result of the political mobilization of Canada and the ICC in the early 1990s. Canada actively supported Indigenous engagement, and the ICC promoted the value of TEK and its incorporation into Western science. The concept of TEK was Indigenized. For many years, the AC did not reach a consensus about the definition of TEK. In Chapter 7, it was revealed that WGs would often include only a few quotes from

TEK observations into their reports, or provide recommendations about TEK utilization without any descriptions and explanations of how TEK should be used. Hence, the WGs did not fully understand TEK and how it can be integrated into Western science and policy. The lack of understanding of TEK as a concept combined with the pressure to mention the importance and value of TEK resulted in the so-called “lip service.”

This study demonstrated that the lack of understanding of a concept leads to the absence of any instruction or guidance on how to incorporate the information into international

401

cooperation. In addition, it can result in resistance to accept this information. Authorized knowers protect their legitimate right to produce knowledge and when subjugated knowledge contradicts their findings, they might reject it. The compartmentalization and distillation of TEK is the result of the attempts of authorized knowers (Western scientists) to protect the legitimacy of Western science. Western scientists as authorized knowers use only those parts of TEK that do not contradict their own findings. Thereby, any alternative knowledge systems—other than authorized knowledge—are predestined to match principles and outcomes of Western science.

Local non-Indigenous knowledge or any other non-Western system of knowledge can also be rejected for the same reasons. In the future, it is possible that the knowledge systems of space aliens will experience the same levels of resistance from Western scientists.

Overall, the study of the utilization of TEK in the Arctic Council suggests several topics for further analysis. First, it would be interesting to analyze how local self-governance regimes could improve the incorporation of TEK in projects by allowing local and Indigenous communities to fully engage in research. Second, studies on the process of translation of TEK findings into science and policy-making are necessary, as the importance of this step is undermined. Third, more studies are needed to focus on collaborations between interdisciplinary

Western scientists and Indigenous communities, as the transdisciplinary focus of these studies could help to avoid the compartmentalization of TEK.

402

Bibliography.

Abrahamsen, R. (2000). Disciplining democracy: Development discourse and good governance in Africa. Zed Books.

ACAP (2017). Framework for the Circumpolar Expansion of the Local Environment Observer

Network. Retrieved from https://oaarchive.arctic-council.org/handle/11374/1942.

ACAP (2018). Fact Sheet - Establishing a Circumpolar Local Environmental Observer (CLEO)

Network 2018 Update. Retrieved from https://oaarchive.arctic-council.org/handle/11374/2170.

AHDR (2004) (Arctic Human Development Report). Akureyri: Stefansson Arctic Institute.

Retrieved from http://www.svs.is/en/projects/ahdr-and-asi-secretariat/ahdr-chapters

AHDR. (2014) (Arctic Human Development Report). Akureyri: Stefansson Arctic Institute.

Retrieved from http://norden.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:788965/FULLTEXT03.pdf

AMAP (1998). Minutes of the Twelfth Meeting of the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment

Programme (AMAP) Working Group. Helsinki, Finland. 7-9 December, 1998. AMAP Report

99:2 Retrieved from https://www.amap.no/documents/download/50/inline

AMAP (2000). Minutes of the Fourteenth Meeting of the AMAP Working Group. Trondheim,

Norway. 5-6 September 2000. AMAP Report 2000:7 Retrieved from https://www.amap.no/documents/doc/minutes-of-the-14th-meeting-of-the-amap-working- group/53

AMAP (2001). Minutes of the Fifteenth Meeting of the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment

Programme (AMAP) Working Group, and the Fourth Meeting of the Assessment Steering Group

403

II (ASG-II) / Cross-Fertilization Meeting (see Annex 1). Stockholm, Sweden. 27-30 August,

2001. AMAP Report 2001:2 Retrieved from https://www.amap.no/documents/doc/minutes-of- the-15th-meeting-of-the-amap-working-group/54

AMAP (2002). Minutes of the 16th Meeting of the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment

Programme (AMAP) Working Group. Torshavn, Faroe Islands. 30 April-3 May 2002. https://www.amap.no/documents/doc/minutes-of-the-16th-meeting-of-the-amap-working- group/55

AMAP (2003). Minutes of the 17th Meeting of the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment (AMAP)

Working Group. Boulder, Co., USA. 12-14 May, 2003. Retrieved from https://www.amap.no/documents/doc/minutes-of-the-17th-meeting-of-the-amap-working- group/56

AMAP (2004). Minutes of the 18th Meeting of the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment

Programme (AMAP) Working Group. Oslo, Norway, 14-16 April, 2004. Retrieved from https://www.amap.no/documents/doc/minutes-of-the-18th-meeting-of-the-amap-working- group/57

AMAP (2005). Minutes of the 19th Meeting of the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment

Programme (AMAP) Working Group, St Petersburg, Russia, 12, 13, and 16 September 2005.

Retrieved from https://www.amap.no/documents/doc/minutes-of-the-19th-meeting-of-the-amap- working-group/58

AMAP (2006). Minutes of the 20th Meeting of the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment

Programme (AMAP) Working Group, St Petersburg, Russia.

404

AMAP (2007). Minutes of the 21st Meeting of the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment

Programme (AMAP) Working Group, Hanover, NH, USA, 12-14 March 2007. Retrieved from

https://www.amap.no/documents/doc/minutes-of-the-21st-meeting-of-the-amap-working-

group/60

AMAP (2008). Minutes of the 22nd Meeting of the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment

Programme (AMAP) Working Group Quebec, Canada, 7–10 December 2008. Retrieved from

https://www.amap.no/documents/download/60/inline

AMAP (2010). Minutes of the 23rd Meeting of the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment

Programme (AMAP) Working Group, San Francisco, CA, USA, 11-12 February 2010. Retrieved

from https://www.amap.no/documents/doc/minutes-of-the-23rd-meeting-of-the-amap-working- group/62

AMAP (2011). Minutes of the 24th Meeting of the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment

Programme (AMAP) Working Group, TromsÃ¸Â¸ Norway, 19-21 January 2011. Retrieved from

https://www.amap.no/documents/doc/minutes-of-the-24th-meeting-of-the-amap-working-

group/63

AMAP (2011). Minutes of the 25th Meeting of the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment

Programme (AMAP) Working Group, Moscow, Russia, 3-5 October 2011. Retrieved from

https://www.amap.no/documents/doc/minutes-of-the-25th-meeting-of-the-amap-working-

group/66

AMAP (2012). Minutes of the 26th AMAP WG Meeting. Stockholm, Sweden, 3–5 October

2012. Retrieved from www.amap.no/documents/download/243

405

AMAP (2013). Minutes of the 27th Meeting of the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment

Programme (AMAP) Working Group, Torshavn, Faroe Islands, 16-18 September 2013.

Retrieved from https://www.amap.no/documents/doc/minutes-of-the-27th-meeting-of-the-amap- working-group/986

AMAP (2014). Minutes of the 28th Meeting of the AMAP Working Group Whitehorse, Canada;

16-18 September 2014. Retrieved from www.amap.no/documents/download/2076

AMAP (2015). Minutes of the 29th AMAP WG Meeting Tromsø, Norway 13-15 September

2015. Retrieved from www.amap.no/documents/download/2573

AMAP (2016). Minutes of the 30th Meeting of the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment

Programme (AMAP) Working Group, Helsinki, Finland, 28 November - 1 December 2016.

Retrieved from https://www.amap.no/documents/doc/minutes-of-the-30th-meeting-of-the-amap- working-group/1522

AMAP (2017). Adaptation Actions for a Changing Arctic: Perspectives from the Barents

Area. Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP), Oslo, Norway. xiv + 267pp.

Retrieved from https://www.amap.no/documents/download/2981/inline.

AMAP (2018). Minutes of the 32nd Meeting of the AMAP Working Group Kiruna/Giron,

Sweden;25–27 September 2018. Retrieved from https://www.amap.no/documents/download/3174/inline

AMAP (2018).AMAP Assessment 2018: Biological Effects of Contaminants on Arctic

Wildlife and Fish. Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP), Oslo, Norway. vii+84pp. Retrieved from https://www.amap.no/documents/download/3080/inline

406

AMAP. (2017). Snow, Water, Ice and Permafrost in the Arctic. Retrieved from http://www.amap.no/documents/doc/Snow-Water-Ice-and-Permafrost-in-the-Arctic-

SWIPA-2017/1610 .

Archibald, L. (2006). Decolonization and healing: indigenous experiences in the United States,

New Zealand, Australia and Greenland. Ottawa: Aboriginal Healing Foundation.

Arctic Borderlands Ecological Knowledge Society. (2019). Retrieved from https://www.arcticborderlands.org/.

Arctic Council (1991). Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy. Retrieved from: http://arctic- council.org/filearchive/artic_environment.pdf.

Arctic Council (1996). Ottawa Declaration. Declaration on the establishment of the Arctic

Council. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/11374/94

Arctic Council (1999). Minutes of the Arctic Council Senior Arctic Officials Meeting.

Anchorage, Alaska, U.S.A., May 5-6 1999. Retrieved from https://oaarchive.arctic- council.org/handle/11374/263

Arctic Council (1999). Minutes. Arctic Council Senior Arctic Officials Meeting in Washington

D.C., U.S.A. November 18-19, 1999. Retrieved from https://oaarchive.arctic- council.org/handle/11374/273

Arctic Council (2000). Barrow Declaration. The Second Ministerial Meeting of the Arctic

Council. Barrow, Alaska, United States. October 13, 2000. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/11374/94

407

Arctic Council (2000). Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna Arctic Council Working Group

Report to Senior Arctic Officials Fairbanks, April 26-28, 2000. DRAFT. Retrieved from https://oaarchive.arctic-council.org/handle/11374/420

Arctic Council (2000). Minutes (Draft - 4/12/2000) . Arctic Council Senior Arctic Officials

Meeting Washington D.C., U.S.A. November 18-19, 1999. Retrieved from https://oaarchive.arctic-council.org/handle/11374/279.

Arctic Council (2001), ARCTIC COUNCIL MEETING OF SENIOR ARCTIC OFFICIALS.

Oulu, Finland May 15-16, 2002. MINUTES. Retrieved from https://oaarchive.arctic- council.org/handle/11374/551

Arctic Council (2001). Minutes. Arctic Council Senior Arctic Officials Meeting in Rovaniemi,

Finland, June 12-13, 2001. Retrieved from https://oaarchive.arctic- council.org/handle/11374/285.

Arctic Council (2001). MINUTES. ARCTIC COUNCIL SENIOR ARCTIC OFFICIALS’

MEETING Rovaniemi, Finland June 12-13, 2001 (final). Retrieved from https://oaarchive.arctic-council.org/handle/11374/467

Arctic Council (2002). Minutes. Arctic Council Senior Arctic Officials Meeting in Inari, Finland,

October 7-8 2002 . Retrieved from https://oaarchive.arctic-council.org/handle/11374/294

Arctic Council (2002). The Inari Declaration. The Third Ministerial Meeting of the Arctic

Council. October 10, 2002. Inari, Finland. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/11374/94

Arctic Council (2003). Minutes (draft). Arctic Council Senior Arctic Officials meeting in

Svartsengi, Iceland, October 23-24 2003. Retrieved from https://oaarchive.arctic- council.org/handle/11374/326

408

Arctic Council (2003). Minutes. Arctic Council Senior Arctic Officials Meeting in Reykjavik,

Iceland. April 9-10, 2003. Retrieved from https://oaarchive.arctic-council.org/handle/11374/322

Arctic Council (2004). Arctic Climate Impact Assessment. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge

University Press, 2004.

Arctic Council (2004). Draft minutes. Arctic Council Senior Arctic Officials meeting Reykjavik

November 22-23, 2004. Retrieved from https://oaarchive.arctic-council.org/handle/11374/348

Arctic Council (2004). Minutes; Senior Arctic Officials Meeting, Selfoss, 4-5 May 2004 .

Retrieved from https://oaarchive.arctic-council.org/handle/11374/2053

Arctic Council (2004). The Reykjavik Declaration. The Fourth Ministerial Meeting of The Arctic

Council. November 24, 2004. Reykjavik, Iceland. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/11374/94

Arctic Council (2005). Minutes (draft). Arctic Council Senior Arctic Officials meeting in

Yakutsk, Russia, April 6-7 2005. Retrieved from https://oaarchive.arctic-

council.org/handle/11374/350

Arctic Council (2005). Minutes (draft). Arctic Council Senior Arctic Officials meeting in

Khanty-Mansiysk, Russia, October 12-14 2005. Retrieved from https://oaarchive.arctic-

council.org/handle/11374/361

Arctic Council (2005). Minutes (draft). Arctic Council Senior Arctic Officials Meeting in

Khanty-Mansiysk, Russia, October 12-14, 2005. Retrieved from https://oaarchive.arctic- council.org/handle/11374/366

Arctic Council (2006). The Salekhard Declaration. The Fifth Ministerial Meeting of The Arctic

Council. October 26, 2006. Salekhard, Russia. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/11374/94

409

Arctic Council (2007). Meeting of Senior Arctic Officials. Draft Annotated Agenda. 28-29

November 2007. Narvik, Norway. Retrieved from https://oaarchive.arctic-

council.org/handle/11374/379

Arctic Council (2007). Minutes (draft). Arctic Council Senior Arctic Officials meeting in

Tromsø, Norway, April 12-13 2007. Retrieved from https://oaarchive.arctic-

council.org/handle/11374/371

Arctic Council (2008). Meeting of Senior Arctic Officials. FINAL Report. 19-20 November

2008. Kautokeino, Norway. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/11374/862

Arctic Council (2009). Meeting of Senior Arctic Officials Final Report. 10 February 2009

Copenhagen, Denmark. Retrieved from https://oaarchive.arctic-council.org/handle/11374/898

Arctic Council (2009). Meeting of Senior Arctic Officials. FINAL Report. 23-24 April 2009.

Svolvær, Norway. Retrieved from https://oaarchive.arctic-council.org/handle/11374/383

Arctic Council (2009). Meeting of Senior Arctic Officials. FINAL Report. 12-13 November

2009 Copenhagen. Retrieved from https://oaarchive.arctic-council.org/handle/11374/960

Arctic Council (2009). Tromsø Declaration. The Sixth Ministerial Meeting of the Arctic Council.

April 29, 2009. Tromsø, Norway. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/11374/94

Arctic Council (2010). Meeting of Senior Arctic Officials. FINAL Report. 28-29 April 2010

Ilulissat. https://oaarchive.arctic-council.org/handle/11374/979

Arctic Council (2010). Meeting of Senior Arctic Officials. Final Report. 19-20 October 2010.

Tórshavn. Retrieved from https://oaarchive.arctic-council.org/handle/11374/1016

410

Arctic Council (2011). Meeting of Senior Arctic Officials. Copenhagen. 16-17 March 2011.

Final Report. Retrieved from https://oaarchive.arctic-council.org/handle/11374/1052

Arctic Council (2011). Meeting of Senior Arctic Officials. Luleå. 8-9 November 2011. Final

Report. Retrieved from https://oaarchive.arctic-council.org/handle/11374/1083

Arctic Council (2011). Nuuk Declaration. The Seventh Ministerial Meeting of the Arctic

Council. May 12, 2011. Nuuk, Greenland. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/11374/94

Arctic Council (2012). Meeting of Senior Arctic Officials. Haparanda, Sweden. 14-15 November

2012. Final Report. Retrieved from https://oaarchive.arctic-council.org/handle/11374/1193

Arctic Council (2012). Meeting of Senior Arctic Officials. Stockholm. 28-29 March 2012. Final

Report. Retrieved from https://oaarchive.arctic-council.org/handle/11374/1116

Arctic Council (2013). Kiruna Declaration. The Eight Ministerial Meeting of the Arctic Council.

May 15, 2013. Kiruna, Sweden. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/11374/94

Arctic Council (2013). Meeting of Senior Arctic Officials Whitehorse, Yukon, Canada. October

22-23, 2013. Plenary Meeting. Final Report. Retrieved from https://oaarchive.arctic-

council.org/handle/11374/747

Arctic Council (2013). Meeting of Senior Arctic Officials. Stockholm, Sweden. 20-21 March

2013. Final Report. Retrieved from https://oaarchive.arctic-council.org/handle/11374/1201

Arctic Council (2014). Arctic Council SAO Meeting. Whitehorse, Canada. 4-5 March 2015.

Final Report. Retrieved from https://oaarchive.arctic-council.org/handle/11374/1412

Arctic Council (2014). Arctic Council SAO Meeting. Yellowknife, Canada. 22-23 October 2014.

Final Draft Report. Retrieved from https://oaarchive.arctic-council.org/handle/11374/1363

411

Arctic Council (2014). SAO Meeting. Yellowknife, Canada. 26-27 March 2014. Final

Report. Retrieved from https://oaarchive.arctic-council.org/handle/11374/1290

Arctic Council (2015). Iqaluit Declaration. The Ninth Ministerial Meeting of the Arctic Council.

April 24, 2015. Iqaluit, Yukon, Canada. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/11374/94

Arctic Council (2015). Summary report. SAO plenary meeting. Anchorage, Alaska. 21-22

October 2015. Retrieved from https://oaarchive.arctic-council.org/handle/11374/1576

Arctic Council (2016). Summary report, SAO Plenary meeting, Portland, Maine, October 2016 .

Retrieved from https://oaarchive.arctic-council.org/handle/11374/1834

Arctic Council (2016). Summary report. SAO plenary meeting. Fairbanks, Alaska. 16-17 March

2016. Retrieved from https://oaarchive.arctic-council.org/handle/11374/1762

Arctic Council (2017). Fairbanks Declaration. Declaration of the Foreign Ministers of the Arctic

States at the 10th Ministerial meeting of the Arctic Council, held in Fairbanks, Alaska, 10-11

May, 2017. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/11374/94

Arctic Council (2017). Summary report, SAO Plenary meeting, Juneau, Alaska, March 2017 .

Retrieved from https://oaarchive.arctic-council.org/handle/11374/2044

Arctic Council (2017). Summary Report, SAO Plenary meeting, Oulu, Finland, October 2017 .

Retrieved from https://oaarchive.arctic-council.org/handle/11374/2109

Arctic Council (2018). Summary Report, SAO Plenary meeting, Levi, Finland, March 2018 .

Retrieved from https://oaarchive.arctic-council.org/handle/11374/2165

Arctic Council (2019). Report: SAO plenary meeting Ruka, Finland | 13-14 March 2019 .

Retrieved from https://oaarchive.arctic-council.org/handle/11374/2349

412

Arctic Council. (1991). Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy. Retrieved from: http://arctic- council.org/filearchive/artic_environment.pdf.

Arctic Council. (1996). Ottawa Declaration. Declaration on the establishment of the Arctic

Council. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/11374/94

Arctic Council. (1998). The Iqaluit Declaration. The First Ministerial Meeting of the Arctic

Council. Iqaluit, Canada, September 17-18, 1998.Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/11374/94

Arctic Council. (1998). The Iqaluit Declaration. The First Ministerial Meeting of the Arctic

Council. Iqaluit, Canada, September 17-18, 1998.Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/11374/94

Arctic Council. (1999). Minutes of the Arctic Council Senior Arctic Officials Meeting.

Anchorage, Alaska, U.S.A., May 5-6 1999. Retrieved from https://oaarchive.arctic- council.org/handle/11374/263

Arctic Council. (2002). The Inari Declaration. The Third Ministerial Meeting of the Arctic

Council. October 10, 2002. Inari, Finland. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/11374/94

Arctic Council. (2004). Arctic Climate Impact Assessment. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge

University Press, 2004.

Arctic Council. (2004). The Reykjavik Declaration. The Fourth Ministerial Meeting of The

Arctic Council. November 24, 2004. Reykjavik, Iceland. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/11374/94

Arctic Council. (2006). The Salekhard Declaration. The Fifth Ministerial Meeting of The Arctic

Council. October 26, 2006. Salekhard, Russia. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/11374/94

Arctic Council. (2007). Meeting of Senior Arctic Officials. Draft Annotated Agenda. 28-29

November 2007. Narvik, Norway. Retrieved from https://oaarchive.arctic- council.org/handle/11374/379

413

Arctic Council. (2009). Tromsø Declaration. The Sixth Ministerial Meeting of the Arctic

Council. April 29, 2009. Tromsø, Norway. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/11374/94

Arctic Council. (2013). Kiruna Declaration. The Eight Ministerial Meeting of the Arctic Council.

May 15, 2013. Kiruna, Sweden. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/11374/94

Arctic Council. (2015). Iqaluit Declaration. The Ninth Ministerial Meeting of the Arctic Council.

April 24, 2015. Iqaluit, Yukon, Canada. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/11374/94

Arctic Council. (2016). Summary report. SAO plenary meeting. Fairbanks, Alaska. 16-17 March

2016. Retrieved from https://oaarchive.arctic-council.org/handle/11374/1762

Arctic Council. (2017). Fairbanks Declaration. Declaration of the Foreign Ministers of the Arctic

States at the 10th Ministerial meeting of the Arctic Council, held in Fairbanks, Alaska, 10-11

May, 2017. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/11374/94

Arctic Council. (2019). Report: SAO plenary meeting Ruka, Finland | 13-14 March 2019 .

Retrieved from https://oaarchive.arctic-council.org/handle/11374/2349

Bannister, K. & M.A. P. Smith. (2010). Developing an indigenous traditional knowledge database: A discussion paper on feasibility. BC Forest Science Program and BC First Nations

Forestry Council. Victoria and Vancouver, BC. 13(1); 1-10

Barry, T., Daviðsdóttir, B., Einarsson, N., & Young, O. R. (2020). The Arctic Council: an agent of change?. Global Environmental Change, 63, 102099.

Beach, H. (1981). Reindeer-herd management in transition: the case of Tuorpon Saameby in

Northern Sweden (Doctoral dissertation, Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis).

Bering Sea Fishery Ecosystem Plan. (2017). NPFMC.org. Retrieved from https://www.npfmc.org/bsfep/.

414

Berkes, F. (1999). Traditional ecological knowledge and resource management. Philadelphia and London: Taylor and Francis.

Binder, L. N., & Hanbidge, B. (1993). Aboriginal people and resource co-management. The

Inuvialuit of the western Arctic and resource co-management under a land claims settlement. Traditional Ecological Knowledge. Concepts and Cases. Canadian Museum of

Nature, Ottawa.

Bjørklund, I. (1990). Sami reindeer pastoralism as an indigenous resource management system in northern Norway: a contribution to the common property debate. Development and

Change, 21(1), 75-86.

Blair, B. (2010). Risk Society On The Last Frontier: Indigenous Knowledge And The Politics Of

Risk In Oil Resource Management At Alaska's North Slope (Doctoral dissertation).

Bocharnikova, A. V. (2017). Transformation of Institutions Governing Traditional Nature

Management (a Case Study of the Udege People of the Bikin River Basin). Regional Research of

Russia, 8(1), 121-131.

Bocking, S. (2004). Nature's experts: science, politics, and the environment. Rutgers University

Press.

Brook, R., M’Lot, M., & McLachlan, S. (2006). Pitfalls to Avoid When Linking Local and

Traditional Knowledge With Expert-Based Science.Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ryan_Brook/publication/284888981_Pitfalls_to_avoid_wh en_linking_traditional_and_scientific_knowledge/links/5663539908ae4931cd5edbae/Pitfalls-to- avoid-when-linking-traditional-and-scientific-knowledge.

415

Brooke, L. F. (1993). The participation of indigenous peoples and the application of their environmental and ecological knowledge in the Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy.

In Inuit Circumpolar Conference, Ottawa.

Butler, C. (2006). Historicizing indigenous knowledge: practical and political issues. Traditional ecological knowledge and natural resource management. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln,

Nebraska, USA, 107-126.

Byers, M. (2013). International law and the Arctic (Vol. 103). Cambridge University Press.

CAFF (1994). CAFF International Working Group Proceedings: 3rd Annual Meeting,

Reykjavik, Iceland, September 26-28, 1994. Retrieved from https://www.caff.is/administrative- series/summaries-from-caff-board-meetings/180-caff-international-working-group-proceedings-

3rd-annual-meeting-reykjavik-icelan

CAFF (1995). CAFF International Working Group Proceedings: 4th Annual Meeting, Moscow,

Russia, September 18-22, 1995. Retrieved from https://www.caff.is/administrative- series/summaries-from-caff-board-meetings/181-caff-international-working-group-proceedings-

4th-annual-meeting-moscow-russia-se

CAFF (1996). CAFF International Working Group Proceedings: 5th Annual Meeting,

Rovaniemi, Finland, September 9-11, 1996. Retrieved from https://www.caff.is/administrative- series/summaries-from-caff-board-meetings/182-caff-international-working-group-proceedings-

5th-annual-meeting-rovaniemi-finlan

CAFF (1997). CAFF International Working Group Proceedings: 6th Annual Meeting, Nuuk,

Greenland, September 27-30, 1997. Retrieved from https://www.caff.is/administrative-

416

series/summaries-from-caff-board-meetings/183-caff-international-working-group-proceedings-

6th-annual-meeting-nuuk-greenland-s

CAFF (1999). CAFF Board Meeting: Summary, Trondheim, Norway, December 13-15, 1999.

Retrieved from https://www.caff.is/administrative-series/summaries-from-caff-board- meetings/172-caff-board-meeting-summary-trondheim-norway-december-13-15-1999

CAFF (1999). CAFF International Working Group Proceedings: 7th Annual Meeting,

Yellowknife, Canada, April 28-30, 1999. Retrieved from https://www.caff.is/administrative- series/summaries-from-caff-board-meetings/184-caff-international-working-group-proceedings-

7th-annual-meeting-yellowknife-cana

CAFF (2000). CAFF Board Meeting: Summary, Copenhagen, Denmark, May 8-10, 2000.

Retrieved from https://www.caff.is/administrative-series/summaries-from-caff-board- meetings/175-caff-board-meeting-summary-copenhagen-denmark-may-8-10-2000

CAFF (2000). CAFF International Working Group Proceedings: 8th Annual Meeting,

Trondheim, Norway, September 6-9, 2000. Retrieved from https://www.caff.is/administrative- series/summaries-from-caff-board-meetings/185-caff-international-working-group-proceedings-

8th-annual-meeting-trondheim-norway

CAFF (2001). CAFF Board Meeting: Summary, Stockholm, Sweden, April 2-4, 2001. Retrieved from https://www.caff.is/administrative-series/summaries-from-caff-board-meetings/173-caff- board-meeting-summary-stockholm-sweden-april-2-4-2001

CAFF (2001). CAFF Board Meeting: Summary, Uppsala, Sweden, August 29-30, 2001.

Retrieved from https://www.caff.is/administrative-series/summaries-from-caff-board- meetings/171-caff-board-meeting-summary-uppsala-sweden-august-29-30-2001

417

CAFF (2002). CAFF Board Meeting: Summary, Akureyri, Iceland, April 9-10, 2002. Retrieved

from https://www.caff.is/administrative-series/summaries-from-caff-board-meetings/176-caff-

board-meeting-summary-akureyri-iceland-april-9-10-2002

CAFF (2002). CAFF International Working Group Proceedings: 9th Annual Meeting, Abisko,

Sweden, August 28-30, 2002. Retrieved from https://www.caff.is/administrative-

series/summaries-from-caff-board-meetings/186-caff-international-working-group-proceedings-

9th-annual-meeting-abisko-sweden-au

CAFF (2003). CAFF Board Meeting: Summary, Girdwood, Alaska, March 11-13, 2003.

Retrieved from https://www.caff.is/administrative-series/summaries-from-caff-board-

meetings/177-caff-board-meeting-summary-girdwood-alaska-march-11-13-2003

CAFF (2003). CAFF Board Meeting: Summary, Homer, Alaska, November 18-20, 2003.

Retrieved from https://www.caff.is/administrative-series/summaries-from-caff-board-

meetings/174-caff-board-meeting-summary-homer-alaska-november-18-20-2003

CAFF (2005). CAFF Board Meeting: Summary, Helsinki, Finland, February 1-3, 2005.

Retrieved from https://www.caff.is/administrative-series/summaries-from-caff-board-

meetings/178-caff-board-meeting-summary-helsinki-finland-february-1-3-2005

CAFF (2006). CAFF Board Meeting: Summary, Helsinki, Finland, February 13-15, 2003.

Retrieved from https://www.caff.is/administrative-series/summaries-from-caff-board-

meetings/179-caff-board-meeting-summary-helsinki-finland-february-13-15-2006

CAFF (2006). Human-Wild Rangifer Systems. Expert Network Monitoring Plan. Supporting publication to the CAFF Circumpolar Biodiversity Monitoring Program – Framework

Document. By CARMA in cooperation with CAFF. CAFF CBMP Report No. 11, CAFF

418

International Secretariat, Akureyri, Iceland. Retrieved from http://library.arcticportal.org/1314/1/human-wild-rangifer.pdf

CAFF (2011). CAFF Progress Report to Senior Arctic Officials: from the CAFF 2011 Biennial

Meeting. Retrieved from https://www.caff.is/administrative-series/summaries-from-caff-board- meetings/135-caff-progress-report-to-senior-arctic-officials-from-the-caff-2011-biennial-meet

CAFF (2012). CAFF Board Meeting Highlights: Salekhard, Russia: February 28- March 1, 2012.

Retrieved from https://www.caff.is/administrative-series/summaries-from-caff-board- meetings/161-caff-board-meeting-highlights-salekhard-russia-february-28-march-1-2012

CAFF (2015). Work plan 2015-2017. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/11374/398

CAFF (2017). Arctic Traditional Knowledge and Wisdom: Changes in the North American

Arctic. Retrieved from https://www.caff.is/monitoring-series/412-arctic-traditional-knowledge- and-wisdom-changes-in-the-north-american-arctic/download

CAFF. (1995). CAFF International Working Group Proceedings: 4th Annual Meeting, Moscow,

Russia, September 18-22, 1995. Retrieved from https://www.caff.is/administrative- series/summaries-from-caff-board-meetings/181-caff-international-working-group-proceedings-

4th-annual-meeting-moscow-russia-se

CAFF. (1996). CAFF International Working Group Proceedings: 5th Annual Meeting,

Rovaniemi, Finland, September 9-11, 1996. Retrieved from https://www.caff.is/administrative- series/summaries-from-caff-board-meetings/182-caff-international-working-group-proceedings-

5th-annual-meeting-rovaniemi-finlan

419

CAFF. (2017). Arctic Traditional Knowledge and Wisdom: Changes in the North American

Arctic. Retrieved from https://www.caff.is/monitoring-series/412-arctic-traditional-knowledge- and-wisdom-changes-in-the-north-american-arctic/download

Canada's Arctic and Northern Policy Framework. (2020). Government of Canada. Retrieved from https://www.rcaanc-cirnac.gc.ca/eng/1560523306861/1560523330587.

Canadian Arctic Research Committee (CARC). (1991). The role of Canada in the Arctic international affairs. Government of Canada.

Castellanos, Gilbert (et al). (2011). Workshop report and supporting document to the

Circumpolar Biodiversity Monitoring Program (CBMP) Arctic Protected Areas Monitoring

Group. CAFF International Secretariat, CAFF Proceedings Series Report Nr. 4. ISBN: 978-

9935-431-07-3. Retrieved from https://www.caff.is/monitoring-series/73-circumpolar-protected- areas-monitoring-workshop-report-gridwood-u-s-a-march-28-3/download

Castleden, H., Morgan, V. S., & Neimanis, A. (2010). Researchers' perspectives on collective/community co-authorship in community-based participatory indigenous research. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 5(4), 23-32.

Castro, A. P., & Nielson, E. Indigenous People and Co-management: Implications for Conflict

Management (2001) 4 (4/5). Environmental Science and Policy, 229.

Chapman, J. M., & Schott, S. (2020). Knowledge coevolution: generating new understanding through bridging and strengthening distinct knowledge systems and empowering local knowledge holders. Sustainability Science, 1-13.

420

Cheadlea B. (2016, July 13). Environment minister tells AFN traditional Indigenous knowledge

is key. CBC News. Retrieved from https://www.cbc.ca/news/indigenous/environment-minister-

tells-afn-traditional-indigenous-knowledge-key-1.3677944

Christensen, T., S. Longan, T. Barry, C. Price, and K.F. Lárusson. (2018). Circumpolar

Biodiversity Monitoring Program Strategic Plan 2018-2021. CAFF Monitoring Series Report

No. 29. Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna, Akureyri, Iceland. ISBN: 978-9935-431-71-4.

Retrieved from https://oaarchive.arctic-

council.org/bitstream/handle/11374/2118/CBMP_Strategic_Plan_2018-

2021.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

Circumpolar Biodiversity Monitoring Program Terrestrial Steering Group. 2015. Arctic

Terrestrial Biodiversity Monitoring Plan Annual Plan 2014: Annual Report on the

Implementation of the Circumpolar Biodiversity Monitoring Program’s Arctic Terrestrial

Biodiversity Monitoring Plan (CBMP-Terrestrial Plan). CAFF Monitoring Report No.16. CAFF

International Secretariat, Akureyri, Iceland. ISBN: 978-9935-431-43-1. Retrieved from

https://oaarchive.arctic-

council.org/bitstream/handle/11374/1322/Terrestrial_Annual_Report_2014.pdf?sequence=1&is

Allowed=y

Columbia University website. (2019). Content analysis. Columbia University website. Retrieved

from https://www.mailman.columbia.edu/research/population-health-methods/content-analysis

Cruikshank J. (2004). Uses and Abuses of ‘Traditional Knowledge’: Perspectives from the

Yukon Territory. In: David Anderson and Mark Nuttall (eds.) Cultivating Arctic Landscapes:

Knowing and Managing Animal Populations and the Environment in the Circumpolar

North. Oxford: Berghahn. p. 17-32, 2004

421

Cruikshank, J. (2004). Knowledge': Perspectives from the Yukon Territory. Cultivating Arctic landscapes: Knowing and managing animals in the circumpolar north, 17.

Dale, A., & Armitage, D. (2011). Marine mammal co-management in Canada’s Arctic:

Knowledge co-production for learning and adaptive capacity. Marine Policy, 35(4), 440-449.

Datta, R., Khyang, N. U., Prue Khyang, H. K., Prue Kheyang, H. A., Ching Khyang, M., &

Chapola, J. (2014). Participatory action research and researcher’s responsibilities: an experience with an Indigenous community. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 18(6),

581-599.

Delmas, M. A., & Young, O. R. (Eds.). (2009). Governance for the environment: New perspectives. Cambridge University Press.

DeLuca, K. M. (1999). Image politics: The new rhetoric of environmental activism. The Guilford

Press.

Dorough, D. S. (2017). The rights, interests and role of the Arctic Council permanent participants. In Governance of Arctic shipping (pp. 68-103). Brill Nijhoff.

Doubleday N.C. (1993). Finding Common Ground: Natural Law and Collective Wisdom. In

Inglis, J. (Ed.). (1993). Traditional ecological knowledge: Concepts and cases. IDRC, pp. 41-54.

Drisko, J. W., & Maschi, T. (2015). Content analysis. Pocket Guides to Social Work R.

Ellis, S. C. (2005). Meaningful consideration? A review of traditional knowledge in environmental decision making. Arctic, 66-77.

English, J. (2013). Ice and Water: Politics Peoples and the Artic Council. Penguin Canada.

EPPR (1998). Field Guide for Oil Spill Response in Arctic Waters. Retrieved from https://oaarchive.arctic-council.org/handle/11374/109.

422

EPPR (2001). OPERATING GUIDELINES for the Emergency Prevention, Preparedness and

Response Working Group (EPPR). Retrieved from https://oaarchive.arctic-

council.org/handle/11374/446.

EPPR (2013). Summary Report and Recommendations on the Prevention of Marine Oil

Pollution in the Arctic. Retrieved from https://oaarchive.arctic-council.org/handle/11374/106.

EPPR (2015). Guide to Oil Spill Response in Snow and Ice Conditions. Retrieved from

https://oaarchive.arctic-

council.org/bitstream/handle/11374/403/ACMMCA09_Iqaluit_2015_EPPR_Guide_to_Oil_Spill

_Response_Report.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

EPPR (2016). The EPPR Strategic Plan. Retrieved from https://oaarchive.arctic-

council.org/handle/11374/1712

EPPR (2017). Field Guide for Oil Spill Response in Arctic Waters: Second Edition 2017.

Retrieved from https://oaarchive.arctic-council.org/handle/11374/2100.

EPPR. (1998). Field Guide for Oil Spill Response in Arctic Waters. Retrieved from

http://hdl.handle.net/11374/109.

Equality + Growth, A Strong Middle Class. (2018). Budget Plan. Retrieved from

https://www.budget.gc.ca/2018/docs/plan/toc-tdm-en.html.

Exner-Pirot, H. (2014, July 22). U.S. steps up Arctic game with appointment of Papp as special

representative. Alaska DispatchNews.com. Retrieved from

http://www.adn.com/article/20140722/us-steps-arctic-game-appointment-papp-special- representative

423

Eythorsson, E. (1993). Sami fjord fishermen and the state: traditional knowledge and resource management in northern Norway. Traditional ecological knowledge: Concepts and cases, 132-

142.

Federal Law “About Territories of Traditional Use of Nature.” (2001). Consultant Plus.

Retrieved from http://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_31497/.

Fenge, T. (2012). Canada and the Arctic Council: Our turn to conduct the Arctic orchestra. Policy Options, 1.

Fierke, K. M. 2013.“Constructivism.”. International Relations Theories: Discipline and

Diversity, 183-204.

Finnemore, M., & Sikkink, K. (1998). International norm dynamics and political change. International organization, 887-917.

Finnemore, M., & Sikkink, K. (2001). Taking stock: the constructivist research program in international relations and comparative politics. Annual review of political science, 4(1), 391-

416.

Ford, J., Maillet, M., Pouliot, V., Meredith, T., Cavanaugh, A., & IHACC Research Team.

(2016). Adaptation and indigenous peoples in the United Nations framework convention on climate change. Climatic Change, 139(3-4), 429-443.

Forkey, N. S. (2012). Canadians and the natural environment to the twenty-first century (Vol.

10). University of Toronto Press.

Forrest, S. (1997). Territoriality and State-Sami Relations. Prince George, BC: University of

Northern British Columbia.

424

Ganapathy, S. (2008). Partial alliances: The politics of environmentalism and Native rights in

Alaska. Temple University.

Gill M.J., M.C. Raillard, C. Zöckler and R.B. Smith. 2008. Developing an Integrated and

Sustained Arctic Biodiversity Monitoring Network: The Circumpolar Biodiversity Monitoring

Program Five Year Implementation Plan. CAFF CBMP Report No. 14, CAFF International

Secretariat, Akureyri, Iceland. Retrieved from http://library.arcticportal.org/1692/1/CBMP_Implementation_Plan_March_2008.pdf

Gill, M.J. and Zöckler, C. (2008). A Strategy for Developing Indices and Indicators to Track

Status and Trends in Arctic Biodiversity. CAFF CBMP Report No. 12, CAFF International

Secretariat, Akureyri, Iceland. Retrieved from http://library.arcticportal.org/450/1/CAFF_CBMP_Report_No.12_---

_A_Strategy_for_Developing_Indices_and_Indicators_to_Track_Status_and_Trends_in_Arctic_

Biodiversity.pdf

Goldsmith, J. L., & Posner, E. A. (2005). The limits of international law. Oxford University

Press.

Goldson, B. (2008). Politicization. In B. Goldson (Ed.), Dictionary of youth justice. Willan

Publishing. Credo Reference: http://ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca/login?url=https://search.credoreference.com/content/entry/willany outhj/politicization/0?institutionId=261.

Gorbachev, M. (1987). “Speech in Murmansk at the Ceremonial Meeting on the Occasion of the Presentation of the Order of Lenin and the Gold Star to the City of Murmansk”, Murmansk,

USSR. October 1, 1987. Retrieved from http://www.barentsinfo.fi/docs/Gorbachev_speech.pdf

425

Goulet, J. G. A. (1998). Ways of knowing: Experience, knowledge, and power among the Dene

Tha. UBC Press.

Grant, S. D. (2010). Polar imperative: A history of Arctic sovereignty in North America. D & M

Publishers.

Gratani, M., Bohensky, E. L., Butler, J. R., Sutton, S. G., & Foale, S. (2014). Experts'

perspectives on the integration of indigenous knowledge and science in Wet Tropics natural

resource management. Australian Geographer, 45(2), 167-184.

Grenier, L. (1998). Working with indigenous knowledge: A guide for researchers. IDRC.

Griffiths, F. (1987). Politics of the Northwest Passage. McGill-Queen's Press-MQUP.

Griffiths, F., & Kuptana, R. (1991). To Establish an International Arctic Council. Canadian

Arctic Resources Committee.

Griffiths, F., Huebert, R., & Lackenbauer, P. W. (2011). Canada and the changing Arctic:

Sovereignty, security, and stewardship. Wilfrid Laurier Univ. Press.

Haas, P. M. (1992a). Banning chlorofluorocarbons: epistemic community efforts to protect

stratospheric ozone. International organization, 46(1), 187-224.

Haas, P. M. (1992b). Introduction: epistemic communities and international policy

coordination. International organization, 46(1), 1-35.

Harris K. (2018, February 27). Budget 2018: Liberals spend billions to close gaps for working

women, Indigenous families. CBC.ca. Retrieved from https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/federal-

budget-2018-main-1.4552933.

Hartman, A. (2000). In search of subjugated knowledge. Journal of Feminist Family

Therapy, 11(4), 19-23.

426

Heikkilä, L. (2006). Reindeer talk: Sámi reindeer herding and nature management. fi= Lapin

yliopisto| en= University of Lapland|.

Heinämäki, L. (2009). Protecting the rights of indigenous peoples–Promoting the sustainability

of the global environment?. International Community Law Review, 11(1), 3-68.

Hiwasaki, L., Luna, E., & Syamsidik, S. R. (2014). Local & indigenous knowledge for

community resilience: Hydro-meteorological disaster risk reduction and climate change

adaptation in coastal and small island communities. Jkt UNESCO, 60.

Hormel, L. (2017). Designing Community Participatory Action Research: A Proposal for Using

Photovoice Method to Center Indigenous Knowledge. SAGE Publications, Ltd..

Houde, N. (2007). The six faces of traditional ecological knowledge: challenges and

opportunities for Canadian co-management arrangements. Ecology and Society, 12(2).

Huebert, R. (1998). New directions in circumpolar cooperation: Canada, the arctic environmental

protection strategy, and the arctic council. Canadian Foreign Policy Journal, 5(2), 37-57.

Huntington H. (2008). A Strategy for Facilitating and Promoting Community-Based Monitoring

Approaches in Arctic Biodiversity Monitoring. CAFF CBMP Report No. 13, CAFF International

Secretariat, Akureyri, Iceland. Retrieved from

http://library.arcticportal.org/451/1/CAFF_CBMP_Report_No.13_---

_A_Strategy_for_Facilitating_and_PromotingCommunity-

Based_Monitoring_Approaches_in_Arctic_Biodiversity_Monitoring.pdf

Huntington, H. P. (2000). Using traditional ecological knowledge in science: methods and

applications. Ecological applications, 10(5), 1270-1274.

427

Huntington, H. P., & Communities of Buckland, Elim, Koyuk, Point Lay, and Shaktoolik.

(1999). Traditional Knowledge of the Ecology of Beluga Whales (Delphinapterus lencas) in the

Eastern Chukchi and Northern Bering Seas, Alaska. Arctic, 49-61.

Ingimundarson, V. (2014). Managing a contested region: the Arctic Council and the politics of

Arctic governance. The Polar Journal, 4(1), 183-198.

Ingold, T. (1978). The rationalization of reindeer management among Finnish

Lapps. Development and Change, 9(1), 103-132.

International Secretariat, Akureyri, Iceland. 46 pp Retrieved from http://library.arcticportal.org/309/1/CircumpolarBiodiversityFramework.pdf

Inuit Circumpolar Council (2019). ICC Canada. Retrieved from https://www.inuitcircumpolar.com/icc-canada/.

IWGIA website (2020). The Indigenous World. IWGIA website. Retrieved from https://www.iwgia.org/en/.

Kankaanpää, P. (2012). Knowledge structures of the Arctic Council for sustainable development.

In Axworthy T. (2012). The Arctic Council. Its place in the future of Arctic governance. Walter and Duncan Gordon Foundation.

Keohane, R. O., & Nye, J. S. (Eds.). (1971). Transnational relations and world politics.

Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Keskitalo, E. C. (2012). Setting the Agenda on the Arctic: Whose Policy Frames the Region?.

The Brown Journal of World Affairs, 19(1), 155-164.

Keskitalo, E. C. H. (2004). Negotiating the Arctic: The construction of an international region.

Routledge.

428

Kettle, N. P. (2018). Knowledge Co-production in Contested Spaces: An Evaluation of the North

Slope Borough–Shell Baseline Studies Program. Arctic, 72(1), 43-57.

Kingdom of Denmark Strategy for the Arctic 2011–2020. Governments of Denmark, Greenland,

and the Faroe Islands. Retrieved from http://library.arcticportal.org/1890/1/DENMARK.pdf

Kitti, H., Gunslay, N., & Forbes, B. C. (2006). Defining the quality of reindeer pastures: the

perspectives of Sámi reindeer herders. In Reindeer management in northernmost Europe (pp.

141-165). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.

Klokov, K. B. (1997). Tradicionnoe prirodopol'zovanie narodov Severa: koncepcija sohranenija i

razvitija. [Traditional use of nature of people of the North: conception of preservation and

development]. Jetnogeograficheskie i jetnojekologicheskie issledovanija, (5), 23.

Knecht, S. (2016). The politics of Arctic international cooperation: Introducing a dataset on

stakeholder participation in Arctic Council meetings, 1998–2015. Cooperation and

Conflict, 52(2), 203-223.

Köhler, T., & Wessendorf, K. (2002). Towards a New Millenium [sic]: Ten Years of the

Indigenous Movement in Russia (No. 107). Iwgia.

Koivurova, T. (2008). From High Hopes to Disillusionment: Indigenous Peoples' Struggle to (re)

Gain Their Right to Self-Determination. International Journal on Minority and Group

Rights, 15(1), 1-26.

Koivurova, T., & Hasanat, M. W. (2009). The climate policy of the Arctic Council. In Climate

Governance in the Arctic (pp. 51-75). Springer, Dordrecht.

Krasner, S. (1999). Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP.

429

Kuellnegk Neark Declaration (2013). Saami Council. Retrieved from

http://www.saamicouncil.net/fileadmin/user_upload/Documents/Julgg%C3%A1%C5%A1tusat/S

R_mall-_Kuellnegk_Neark_Declaration__2013.pdf

Lackenbauer, P. W., & Lalonde, S. (2019). Russia, Canada, and the Circumpolar

World. Breaking the Ice Curtain?, 93.

Lackenbauer, W., & Huebert, R. (2014). Premier Partners: Canada, the United States and Arctic

Security. Canadian Foreign Policy Journal, 20(3), 320-333.

Langhelle, O., Blindheim, B. T., & Øygarden, O. (2008). Framing oil and gas in the Arctic from a sustainable development perspective. In Arctic Oil and Gas (pp. 29-58). Routledge.

Laruelle, M. (2013). Russia's Arctic strategies and the future of the Far North. Routledge.

Leech S., Bates P., and Blueberry River First Nation. (2016). BRFN Indigenous Knowledge

Study of Chinchaga Muskeg Caribou and Pink Mountain Caribou. Report. Retrieved from

http://www.bcogris.ca/sites/default/files/brfn-indigenous-knowledge-study-boreal-and-northern-

caribou-28nov16-final-ver-3.pdf

Lemos, M. C., & Agrawal, A. (2009). Environmental governance and political

science. Governance for the environment: New perspectives, 69-97.

Litavrin M. (2017, May 4). Indigenous peoples in Russia are under the feudal law.

OpenRussia.org. Retrieved from https://openrussia.org/notes/709081/#disqus_thread.

Litfin, K. T. (1995). Ozone Discourses: Sciences and Politics in Global Environmental

Cooperation. International Environmental Affairs, 7, 196-196.

Loukacheva, N. (2008). The Arctic promise: legal and political autonomy of Greenland and

Nunavut. University of Toronto Press.

430

Lundmark, L. (2007). Reindeer pastoralism in Sweden 1550-1950. Rangifer, 9-16.

Magga, O., Mathiesen, S., Corell, R., & Oskal, A. (2011). EALAT/reindeer herding, traditional

knowledge and adaptation to climate change and loss of grazing land. Arctic Council SDWG

EALAT Report. Alta, Norway. Accessed online: www. arctic-council. org.

Mann, M. (2003). Capitalism and the dis-empowerment of Canadian Aboriginal peoples.

Anderson R, Bone R (eds) Natural resources and aboriginal people in Canada: readings, cases and commentary. Captus Press, Concord, 18-29.

Manrique, D. R., Corral, S., & Pereira, Â. G. (2018). Climate-related displacements of coastal

communities in the Arctic: Engaging traditional knowledge in adaptation strategies and

policies. Environmental Science & Policy, 85, 90-100.

McGoodwin, J. R. (2006). Integrating fishers’ knowledge into fisheries science and

management. Menzies CR (ed.), 175-192.

McNabb, D. E. (2004). Research methods for political science: Quantitative and qualitative

methods. Routledge.

Melkevik, B. (2002). The Law and Aboriginal Reindeer Herding in Norway. Sustainable Food

Security in the Arctic: State of Knowledge, (52), 197.

Meltofte, H., Barry, T., Berteaux, D., Bültmann, H., Christiansen, J. S., Cook, J. A., ... &

Friðriksson, F. (2013). Arctic Biodiversity Assesment. Synthesis. Conservation of Arctic Flora

and Fauna (CAFF).

Menzies, C. R., & Butler, C. (2006). Introduction: understanding ecological

knowledge. Traditional ecological knowledge and natural resource management, 1-17.

431

Ministry of Culture of Russia (2017). Concept of Preservation and Development of Intangible

Cultural Heritage. Ministry of Culture of Russia. Retrieved from

https://culture.gov.ru/documents/kontseptsiya-sokhraneniya-kulturnogo-naslediya/.

Ministry of Natural Resource and Ecology of Russia (2010). “Strategy of Polar Bear

Preservation in Russian Federation”. Ministry of Natural Resource and Ecology of Russia.

Retrieved from https://wwf.ru/upload/iblock/129/pb_strategy_rus.pdf.

Ministry of Natural Resource and Ecology of Russia (2010). Strategy of Preservation of Amur

Tiger in Russia”. Ministry of Natural Resource and Ecology of Russia. Retrieved from

http://amur-tiger.ru/assets/docs/strategita-tigr-russ.pdf

Murashko O. & Yakel Yu. (2008). Ecological Comanagement is the Basis of Interactions between Indigenous peoples, the Government and Extractive companies [Jekologicheskoe soupravlenie — osnova vzaimodejstvija korennyh malochislennyh narodov, organov vlasti i promyshlennyh kompanij]. In the Federation Council (2008). Issues in Interactions between

Indigenous Peoples and Industry. Retrieved from http://council.gov.ru/media/files/41d44f243f298c2efb01.pdf.

Murashko, O. A., & Dallmann, V. K. (2011). Transformacii tradicionnogo obraza zhizni i

pitanija korennogo naselenija neneckogo avtonomnogo okruga. Vestnik Moskovskogo

universiteta. Serija 23. Antropologija, (4).

Mymrin, N. I., Communities of Novoe Chaplino, Sireniki, Uelen, and Yanrakinnot, &

Huntington, H. P. (1999). Traditional knowledge of the ecology of beluga whales

(Delphinapterus leucas) in the Northern Bering Sea, Chukotka, Russia. Arctic, 62-70.

432

Nadasdy, P. (2003). Hunters and bureaucrats: power, knowledge, and aboriginal-state relations in the southwest Yukon. UBC Press.

Nadasdy, P. (2005). The anti-politics of TEK: the institutionalization of co-management discourse and practice. Anthropologica, 215-232.

Nicol, H. N., & Heininen, L. (2014). Human security, the Arctic Council and climate change:

competition or co-existence?. The Polar Record, 50(1), 80.

Nilsen T. (2016, December 11). Indigenous Peoples activist detained in Moscow. Barents

Observer. Retrieved from https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/2016/12/indigenous-peoples-

activist-detained-moscow.

Nilson, H. R. (1997). Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy (AEPS): process and

organization, 1991-97 organization, 1991-97: an assessment.

Nilsson A.E. (2009). A Changing Arctic Climate: Science and Policy in the Arctic Climate

Impact Assessment. In Koivurova, T., Keskitalo, E. C. H., & Bankes, N. (Eds.). (2010). Climate

governance in the Arctic (Vol. 50). Springer Science & Business Media, pp. 77-96.

NOAA website (2020). Co-management (2019). Retrieved from

https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/tags/co-management.

Nord D. C. (2015). Responding to change in the North. Comparing Recent Canadian and

American Foreign Policies in the Arctic. In Battarbee, K. & Fossum J.E. (2015). The Arctic

contested (pp. 49-68). P.I.E. Peter Lang.

433

Nordic Council of Ministers (2010). Arctic Social Indicators. A Follow-up to the Arctic Human

Development Report. Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Ministers. Retrieved from http://library.arcticportal.org/712/1/Arctic_Social_Indicators_NCoM.pdf.

North Slope website. (2001). ABWC-NFMS Agreement for Co-management of the Western

Alaska Beluga Whale Population. North Slope. Retrieved from http://www.north-

slope.org/assets/images/uploads/ABWC_NMFS%20Coop%20Agreement%201999.pdf.

Notzke, C. (1994). Aboriginal peoples and natural resources in Canada. Captus Press.

Nussbaum A. (2017, December 20). Arctic Refuge Just the Start of Trump’s Move to Unlock

Alaska Oil. Bloomberg. Retrieved from https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-

20/arctic-refuge-just-the-start-as-trump-moves-to-unlock-alaska-oil

Nye Jr, J. S. (2004). Soft power: The means to success in world politics. Public affairs.

Nystén-Haarala, S., & Kotilainen, J. (2016). Institutions, interest groups and governance of natural resources in Russia. In The changing governance of renewable natural resources in

Northwest Russia (pp. 27-48). Routledge.

O'Neill, K. (2009). The environment and international relations. Cambridge University Press.

Osherenko, G. (1988). Can comanagement save Arctic wildlife?. Environment: Science and

Policy for Sustainable Development, 30(6), 6-34.

Padilla, E., & Kofinas, G. P. (2018). Formal Hunting Regulations. When the Caribou Do Not

Come: Indigenous Knowledge and Adaptive Management in the Western Arctic, 190.

Paine, R. (1972). The herd management of Lapp reindeer pastoralists. Journal of Asian and

African studies, 7(1), 76.

434

PAME (1999). Working Group meeting report. February 15-18. Ottawa, Canada. Retrieved from https://www.pame.is/index.php/document-library/pame-reports-new/pame-working-group- meeting-reports/214-pame-i-1999-meeting-report/file

PAME (1999). Working Group meeting report. November 1-2. Akureyri, Iceland. Retrieved from https://www.pame.is/index.php/document-library/pame-reports-new/pame-working-group- meeting-reports/233-pame-ii-1999-meeting-report/file.

PAME (2000). Working Group meeting report .June 5-8. Copenhagen, Denmark. Retrieved from https://www.pame.is/index.php/document-library/pame-reports-new/pame-working-group- meeting-reports/222-pame-i-2000-meeting-report/file

PAME (2001). Working Group meeting report. January 9-12. Washington, DC. Retrieved from https://www.pame.is/index.php/document-library/pame-reports-new/pame-working-group- meeting-reports/223-pame-i-2001-meeting-report/file

PAME (2001). Working Group meeting report. October 9-11. Moscow, Russia. Retrieved from https://www.pame.is/index.php/document-library/pame-reports-new/pame-working-group- meeting-reports/241-pame-ii-2002-meeting-report/file

PAME (2002). Working Group meeting report. April 16-18. Reykjavik, Iceland. Retrieved from https://www.pame.is/index.php/document-library/pame-reports-new/pame-working-group- meeting-reports/224-pame-i-2002-meeting-report/file

PAME (2003). Working Group meeting report. February 25-27. Stockholm, Sweden. Retrieved from https://www.pame.is/index.php/document-library/pame-reports-new/pame-working-group- meeting-reports/225-pame-i-2003-meeting-report/file

435

PAME (2004). Working Group meeting report. February 3-6. Helsinki, Finland. Retrieved from

https://www.pame.is/index.php/document-library/pame-reports-new/pame-working-group-

meeting-reports/226-pame-i-2004-meeting-report/file

PAME (2005). Working Group meeting report. February 23-25. Copenhagen, Denmark.

Retrieved from https://www.pame.is/index.php/document-library/pame-reports-new/pame-

working-group-meeting-reports/227-pame-i-2005-meeting-report/file

PAME (2005). Working Group meeting report. September 19-20. Aalborg, Denmark. Retrieved from https://www.pame.is/index.php/document-library/pame-reports-new/pame-working-group- meeting-reports/242-pame-ii-2005-meeting-report/file

PAME (2006). Working Group meeting report. August 29-30. Murmansk, Russia. Retrieved from https://www.pame.is/index.php/document-library/pame-reports-new/pame-working-group- meeting-reports/243-pame-ii-2006-meeting-report/file

PAME (2006). Working Group meeting report. March 1-3. Oslo, Norway. Retrieved from https://www.pame.is/index.php/document-library/pame-reports-new/pame-working-group- meeting-reports/228-pame-i-2006-meeting-report/file

PAME (2009). Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment 2009 Report. Retrieved from https://oaarchive.arctic-council.org/handle/11374/54.

PAME (2009). Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment. Retrieved from

http://www.pame.is/amsa/amsa- 2009-report.

PAME (2009). Arctic Offshore Oil and Gas Guidelines. Retrieved from https://oaarchive.arctic-

council.org/handle/11374/63

436

PAME (2010). Working Group meeting report. March 3-5. Copenhagen, Denmark. Retrieved

from https://www.pame.is/index.php/document-library/pame-reports-new/pame-working-group- meeting-reports/217-pame-i-2010-meeting-report/file

PAME (2011). AMSA 2011 Progress Report: Status on Implementation of the AMSA 2009

Report Recommendations. Retrieved from https://oaarchive.arctic-council.org/handle/11374/56

PAME (2011). Working Group meeting report. March 21-23. Reykjavik, Iceland. Retrieved from

https://www.pame.is/index.php/document-library/pame-reports-new/pame-working-group- meeting-reports/244-pame-ii-2011-meeting-report/file

PAME (2011). Working Group meeting report. March 26-27. Stockholm, Sweden. Retrieved from https://www.pame.is/index.php/document-library/pame-reports-new/pame-working-group- meeting-reports/213-pame-i-2012-meeting-report/file

PAME (2013). AMSA 2013 Progress Report Status on Implementation of the AMSA 2009

Report Recommendations. Retrieved from https://oaarchive.arctic-council.org/handle/11374/57

PAME (2013). Working Group meeting report. September 24-26. Rostov-on-Don. Retrieved

from https://www.pame.is/index.php/document-library/pame-reports-new/pame-working-group- meeting-reports/237-pame-ii-2013-meeting-report/file

PAME (2014). Arctic Offshore Oil and Gas Guidelines. Systems Safety Management and Safety

Culture. Avoiding Major Disasters in Arctic Offshore Oil and Gas Operations. Retrieved from https://oaarchive.arctic-council.org/handle/11374/418.

437

PAME (2014). Working Group meeting report. February 11-13. Girdwood, Alaska. Retrieved

from https://www.pame.is/index.php/document-library/pame-reports-new/pame-working-group- meeting-reports/218-pame-i-2014-meeting-report/file

PAME (2015). Arctic Council. Status on Implementation of the AMSA 2009 Report

Recommendations. Retrieved from https://oaarchive.arctic-council.org/handle/11374/415

PAME (2015). Working Group meeting report. February 3-5. Akureyri, Iceland. Retrieved from

https://www.pame.is/index.php/document-library/pame-reports-new/pame-working-group- meeting-reports/219-pame-i-2015-meeting-report/file

PAME (2016). Working Group meeting report. February 1-3. Stockholm, Sweden. Retrieved

from https://www.pame.is/index.php/document-library/pame-reports-new/pame-working-group-

meeting-reports/220-pame-i-2016-meeting-report/file

PAME (2017). Arctic Council Status on Implementation of the AMSA 2009 Report

Recommendations. Retrieved from https://oaarchive.arctic-council.org/handle/11374/1957

PAME (2017). Meaningful Engagement of Indigenous Peoples and Communities in Marine

Activities (MEMA); Part I Reporthttps://oaarchive.arctic-council.org/handle/11374/1930.

PAME (2017). PAME Work Plan 2017-2019. Retrieved from https://oaarchive.arctic- council.org/handle/11374/1935

PAME (2017). Working Group meeting report. January 29-February 1. Copenhagen, Denmark.

Retrieved from https://www.pame.is/index.php/document-library/pame-reports-new/pame-

working-group-meeting-reports/221-pame-i-2017-meeting-report/file

438

PAME (2018). Working Group meeting report. February 11-14. Quebec City, Canada. Retrieved

from https://www.pame.is/index.php/document-library/pame-reports-new/pame-working-group-

meeting-reports/232-pame-i-2018-meeting-report/file

PAME (2019). Working Group meeting report .February 4-7. Malmo, Sweden. Retrieved from

https://www.pame.is/index.php/document-library/pame-reports-new/pame-working-group- meeting-reports/414-pame-i-2019-meeting-report/file

PAME. (2009). Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment 2009 Report. Retrieved from

https://oaarchive.arctic-council.org/handle/11374/54.

Panikarova, S. V., & Vlasov, M. V. (2013). Osobennosti tradicionnogo prirodopol'zovanija

korennyh narodov Juzhnoj Sibiri [The features of traditional use of nature of indigenous peoples

of southern Siberia]. Regional'naja jekonomika: teorija i praktika, (27).

RAIPON (2017). Indigenous-2021. RAIPON website. Retrieved from http://www.raipon.info/.

Raymond-Yakoubian, J., Raymond-Yakoubian, B., & Moncrieff, C. (2017). The incorporation of

traditional knowledge into Alaska federal fisheries management. Marine Policy, 78, 132-142.

REPORT. SURVEY OF LIVING CONDITIONS IN THE ARCTIC: Inuit, Sámi and the

Indigenous Peoples of Chukotka and the Kola Peninsula. https://oaarchive.arctic-

council.org/handle/11374/827

Riseth, J. Å., Tømmervik, H., Helander-Renvall, E., Pohjola, V., Labba, N. T., Labba, N., ... &

Johansson, C. (2010). “Snow and Ice” Sami TEK and Science in concert for understanding

climate change effects on reindeer pasturing. Polar Record, 47, 202-217.

Robards, M. D., Huntington, H. P., Druckenmiller, M., Lefevre, J., Moses, S. K., Stevenson, Z.,

... & Williams, M. (2018). Understanding and adapting to observed changes in the Alaskan

439

Arctic: Actionable knowledge co-production with Alaska Native communities. Deep Sea

Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography, 152, 203-213.

Roburn, S., & Tr'ondëk Hwëch'in Heritage Department. (2012). Weathering changes: Cultivating

local and traditional knowledge of environmental change in Tr'ondëk Hwëch'in traditional

territory. Arctic, 439-455.

Rovaniemi Declaration (2008). Saami Council. Retrieved from

http://www.saamicouncil.net/fileadmin/user_upload/Documents/Julgg%C3%A1%C5%A1tusat/S

R_mall-_Rovaniemi_Declaration.pdf

Rusnak, G. (1997). Co-management of natural resources in Canada: A review of concepts and

case studies. Minga working paper; no. 2.

Russell, D and Kofinas, G., (2004). Rangifers Expert Network Monitoring Plan. Supporting

publication to the CAFF Circumpolar Biodiversity Monitoring Program – Framework

Document. CAFF CBMP Report No. 5, CAFF International Secretariat, Akureyri, Iceland. 10 pp

.Retrieved from http://library.arcticportal.org/1312/1/RangifersCBMPreport5.pdf

SDWG (2004). Capacity Building Overview of the Arctic Council. Retrieved from

https://oaarchive.arctic-council.org/handle/11374/28.

SDWG (2009). EALÁT. Reindeer Herders' Voice: Reindeer Herding, Traditional Knowledge

and Adaptation to Climate Change and Loss of Grazing Land. Retrieved from

https://oaarchive.arctic-council.org/handle/11374/47.

SDWG (2009). Vulnerability and Adaptation to Climate Change in the Arctic. Retrieved from

https://oaarchive.arctic-council.org/handle/11374/44.

440

SDWG (2009b). Vulnerability and Adaptation to Climate Change in the Arctic. Retrieved from https://oaarchive.arctic-council.org/handle/11374/44.

SDWG (2011). Circumpolar Information Guide on Mining for Indigenous Peoples & Northern

Communities. Retrieved from https://oaarchive.arctic-council.org/handle/11374/45.

SDWG (2013). Arctic Social Indicators. ASI-II. Retrieved from https://oaarchive.arctic- council.org/handle/11374/48

SDWG (2014). Promoting Traditional and Local Knowledge. Project Proposal. Retrieved from https://oaarchive.arctic-council.org/handle/11374/1377

SDWG (2015). Recommendations for the Integration of Traditional and Local Knowledge into the Work of the Arctic Council. (DRAFT). Retrieved from https://oaarchive.arctic- council.org/handle/11374/1479

SDWG (2015). Recommendations for the Integration of Traditional and Local Knowledge into the Work of the Arctic Council. Retrieved from https://oaarchive.arctic- council.org/handle/11374/412.

SDWG (2016). EPPR Strategic Plan. Retrieved from https://oaarchive.arctic- council.org/handle/11374/2108

SDWG (2017). Meeting Summary: Sustainable Development Working Group (SDWG),

Kotzebue, Alaska, February 07-08, 2017. Retrieved from https://oaarchive.arctic- council.org/handle/11374/1976

SDWG (2017). SDWG Strategic Framework 2017. Retrieved from https://oaarchive.arctic- council.org/handle/11374/1940.

441

SDWG (2017). The Human Face of the Arctic. Retrieved from https://www.sdwg.org/wp- content/uploads/2017/04/SDWG-Framework-2017-Final-Print-version.pdf

SDWG (2017). The Sea Ice Never Stops. Circumpolar Inuit Reflections on Sea Ice Use and

Shipping in Inuit Nunaat. Retrieved from https://oaarchive.arctic-council.org/handle/11374/410

SDWG (2017). The Sea Ice Never Stops. Circumpolar Inuit Reflections on Sea Ice Use and

Shipping in Inuit Nunaat. Retrieved from https://oaarchive.arctic-council.org/handle/11374/410

SDWG. (2009a). EALÁT. Reindeer Herders' Voice: Reindeer Herding, Traditional Knowledge and Adaptation to Climate Change and Loss of Grazing Land. Retrieved from https://oaarchive.arctic-council.org/handle/11374/47.

Sejersen, F. (2004). Horizons of sustainability in Greenland: Inuit landscapes of memory and vision. Arctic Anthropology, 41(1), 71-89.

Shadian, J. (2010). From states to polities: Reconceptualizing sovereignty through Inuit governance. European Journal of International Relations, 16(3), 485-510.

Sillanpää, L. (1997). A comparative analysis of indigenous rights in Fennoscandia. Scandinavian political studies, 20(3), 197-217.

Sillitoe, P., Dixon, P., & Barr, J. (2005). Indigenous knowledge inquiries: a methodologies manual for development. Indigenous knowledge and development series.

Simon, M. M. (1996). Inuit: one future--one Arctic (Vol. 1993). Cider Press.

Spak, S. (2005). The position of indigenous knowledge in Canadian co-management organizations. Anthropologica, 233-246.

Standlea, D. M. (2006). Oil, globalization, and the war for the Arctic refuge. SUNY Press

442

Sulyandziga, P., & Lavin, T. (2017). Parks and Arbitration: A leader of Russia's Udege community describes the decades-long fight to create Bikin National Park, the first to safeguard

Indigenous rights. World Policy Journal, 34(4), 6-10.

Survival International (2013, March 25).. Success. Russia’s Indigenous organization reopens.

Survival International. Retrieved from http://www.survivalinternational.org/news/9069

Survival International. (2012, November 22). Russian indigenous peoples’ organization ordered to close. Survival International. Retrieved from https://www.survivalinternational.org/news/8845.

Sustained Arctic Observing Networks – Initiating Group (SAON-IG) https://oaarchive.arctic- council.org/handle/11374/828

Team 10 Traditional Knowledge Study (2011). Presentation. Inuit Circumpolar Council.

Retrieved from http://ipy.nwtresearch.com/Documents/Presentations/ScottNickels_CFL_Team10_Presentation.p df

Tennberg, M. (2000). Arctic environmental cooperation: A study in governmentality. Routledge.

Tennberg, M. (2009). Regional governance, path-dependency and capacity-building in international environmental cooperation. Changing Governance of Renewable Natural

Resources in Northwest Russia. Ashgate, Aldershot, 245-257.

Thomas, D. C., & Schaefer, J. (1991). Wildlife co-management defined: the Beverly and

Kaminuriak caribou management board. Rangifer, 11(4), 73-89.

443

Thornton, T. F., Moss, M. L., Butler, V. L., Hebert, J., & Funk, F. (2010). Local and Traditional

Knowledge and the Historical Ecologyof Pacific Herring in Alaska. Journal of Ecological

Anthropology, 14(1), 81-88.

Torp, E. (2001). Traditional Sami knowledge of predators and Swedish environmental policy. Acta Borealia, 18(2), 3-22.

Traante Declaration. (2017). Saami Council. Retrieved from http://www.saamicouncil.net/fileadmin/user_upload/Documents/Julgg%C3%A1%C5%A1tusat/T

R%C3%85ANTE_DECLARATION_english.pdf.

Traditional Knowledge (2019). Wood Buffalo Environmental Association. Retrieved from https://wbea.org/traditional-knowledge/.

Utqiaġvik Declaration. Inuit Circumpolar Council. Retrieved from https://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=AwrUimSWaehdpCEAhBMXFwx.;_ylu=X3oDMTByYnR1Zm d1BGNvbG8DZ3ExBHBvcwMyBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzcg--

/RV=2/RE=1575541271/RO=10/RU=https%3a%2f%2ficcalaska.org%2fwp-icc%2fwp- content%2fuploads%2f2019%2f05%2fFINAL-Utqiagvik-Declaration-

2018.pdf/RK=2/RS=JD_wS1RETSKlvjwSNrBUtBVigEU-

Watt-Cloutier, S. (2015). The right to be cold: one woman's story of protecting her culture, the

Arctic and the whole planet. Penguin Canada.

Wavey R. (1993). International workshop on Indigenous Knowledge and Community-Based

Resource Management: Keynote Address. In Inglis, J. (Ed.). (1993). Traditional ecological knowledge: Concepts and cases. IDRC, pp. 11-16.

444

Wiener, J. (1995). Common property resource management and northern protected areas. Human

Ecology and Climate Change. People and Resources in the Far North, 207-217.

Williams, L. (2011). Canada, the Arctic, and post-national identity in the circumpolar

world. Northern Review, (33).

Williams, S. M. (2003). Tradition and change in the sub-arctic: Sami reindeer herding in the

modern era. Scandinavian Studies, 75(2), 229.

Wilson, E., & Øverland, I. (2007). Indigenous issues. In International cooperation and Arctic

governance (pp. 45-67). Routledge.

Wilson, G. N., & Smith, H. A. (2011). The Inuit Circumpolar Council in an era of global and

local change. International Journal, 66(4), 909-921.

Wilson, P. (2015). Society, steward or security actor? Three visions of the Arctic

Council. Cooperation and Conflict, 51(1), 55-74.

Yohe, G., Lasco, R., Ahmad, Q. K., UK, N. A., Cohen, S., Janetos, T., ... & Malone, T. (2007).

Perspectives on Climate Change and Sustainability 3. change, 25(48), 49.

Young, O. R. (1992). Arctic politics: Conflict and cooperation in the circumpolar north.

Dartmouth College Press.

Young, O. R. (1998). Creating regimes: Arctic accords and international governance. Cornell

University Press.

Zakharova, K. N. & Kirko, V. I. (2011). Tradicionnaja hozjajstvennaja dejatel'nost'—

jetnosohranjajushhij obraz zhizni.[Traditional ecological activity – ethnopreservational way of life]. Arktika i Sever, (12).

445

Zakharova, K. N. & Kirko, V. I. (2011). Traditional farming is the background of vital activity of the indigenous minorities. Journal of the Siberian Federal University. Retrieved from https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/traditional-farming-is-the-background-of-vital-activity-of-the- indigenous-minorities.

Zorgdrager, N. (1999). Culture and ethnic identity: The Sami of Scandinavia. Arctic Identities.

Continuity and change in Inuit and Saami societies. Leiden, Leiden University Aardal, Bernt

(2002b): Valgstatistikk. http://home. online. no/% 7Eb-ardal/valgstat. htm.

446

Appendix 1.

Table 1. PILAC and the ICC report (1993)

Indicator The Participation of Indigenous Peoples and the Application of their Environmental and Ecological Points Knowledge in the Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy P (Use of High. A three day workshop was held with the Indigenous representatives from various parts of the 4 participatory Arctic. methodology) I (Use of Low/Absent. The report was written by Lorraine Brooke on the behalf of ICC. The report does not 1 Indigenous indicate that Indigenous methods were used in this study. methodologies) L (Recognition Medium. The report constantly refers to Indigenous knowledge of the Arctic and Indigenous 1 of a localized peoples of the Arctic but there are case studies of Greenland and Nunavik and Alaska attached to the nature of TEK) report. A (Application High. The report was prepared for the Government of Canada and includes maps based on TEK and 4 of TEK to policy recommendations based on TEK. The policy recommendations mention: “Indigenous peoples wildlife are concerned…” management) C (cross- High. The report demonstrates cross-cultural expertise. The importance of cross-cultural 4 cultural understanding is emphasized in the report. expertise) Overall There is a moderate possibility that TEK was meaningfully integrated into this study. The report 14 evaluation overgeneralized the experience of Indigenous communities in the Arctic. Indigenous peoples did not contribute to this report as co-authors.

447

Table 2. Mapping Project on Beluga Whale (1994-1996, published in 1999) (Chukotka region, Russia) (Mymrin, the Communities of Novoe Chaplino, Sirenkik. Uelen, and Yanrakinnot and Huntington, 1999).

Indicator Project Score Mapping Project on Beluga Whale in Chukotka, Russia (Mymrin, the Communities of Novoe Chaplino, Sirenkik. Uelen, and Yanrakinnot and Huntington, 1999) (CAFF) P (Use of High, semi-directive interviews with Indigenous participants from Chukotka, Russia were used as a 4 participatory method (Mymrin, the Communities of Novoe Chaplino, Sirenkik. Uelen, and Yanrakinnot and methodology) Huntington, 1999, p. 63). I (Use of Low/absent. Indigenous methods were not used in this study. 1 Indigenous methodologies) L (Recognition High, Indigenous knowledge of Indigenous hunters of Chukotka was recognized as unique for this 4 of a localized particular location (Chukotka). nature of TEK) A (Application Medium, figures 2-5 (maps) are based on Indigenous observations of belugas migration. However, no 2 of TEK to recommendations were provided regarding wildlife management in Russia. wildlife management) C (Cross-cultural High – Henry Huntington, who was a principal investigator, is a social scientist and an expert of TEK. 4 communication) Overall There is a moderate possibility that TEK was meaningfully integrated into this study. TEK 15 evaluation observations were collected, the existing data was drawn on maps, but there was no application of TEK to wildlife/resource management.

448

Table 3.Mapping Project on Beluga Whale (1994-1996, published in 1999) (Alaska, the US) (Huntington, the Communities of Buckland, Elim, Koyuk, Point Lay and Shaktoolik, 1999)

Indicator Project Score Mapping Project on Beluga Whale in the Eastern Chukchi and Northern Bering Seas, Alaska) (Huntington, the Communities of Buckland, Elim, Koyuk, Point Lay and Shaktoolik, 1999) (CAFF) P (Use of High, semi-directive interviews with Indigenous participants from Alaska were used in this study 4 participatory (Huntington et al., 1999). methodology) I (Use of Low/Absent. Indigenous methods were not used in this study. 1 Indigenous methodologies) L (Recognition High, Indigenous knowledge of Indigenous hunters of Alaska was recognized as unique for this 4 of a localized particular location in the Arctic (Alaska). nature of TEK) A (Application Medium. Mapping techniques were used to combine TEK and US Geological Survey maps. Figures 2-5 2 of TEK to are based on Indigenous observations. However, no recommendations were provided regarding wildlife wildlife management in the US (Alaska). management) The study itself indicates that there is a need in better means of integration TEK approaches with those of Western science, better ways of using TEK in resource management and a better understanding of how TEK can help conservation (Huntington et al., 1999). C (Cross-cultural Medium, figures 2-5 (maps) are based on Indigenous observations of belugas migration. However, no 4 communication) recommendations were provided regarding wildlife management in Russia. Overall High – Henry Huntington, who was a principal investigator, is a social scientist and an expert of TEK. 15 evaluation

449

Table 4. Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (2004-2005)

Indicator Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (2004-2005) Points

P (Use of Medium, Indigenous observations and perspectives were documented for the study (ACIA, 2005, p. 2 participatory 92). However, no specific participatory method/approach was identified in the report. methodology) I (Use of Low/Absent, this report does not use Indigenous methodologies. 1 Indigenous methodologies) L (Recognition High, although TEK is recognized only as “Indigenous knowledge”, with no reference to a specific 3 of a localized group/knowledge, the report recognizes specific Indigenous groups and Arctic regions (e.g. Inuit in nature of TEK) Nunavut, Canada; Sachs Harbour, Canada; Qanaaq, Greenland etc.) Indigenous observations are separated by four ACIA regions. A (Application Medium. Indigenous observations were reflected on the maps, and then included into policy 2 of TEK to recommendations. However, policy recommendations in the report do not refer to Indigenous wildlife communities and their advice regarding resource management regulations. management) C (cross-cultural High – social scientists (e.g. Mark Nuttall) were involved in this study. 4 communication) Overall There is a moderate possibility that TEK was meaningfully integrated into this study. TEK 12 evaluation observations were collected, the existing data was drawn on maps, but, policy recommendations did not specifically refer to TEK.

450

Table 5. CBMP reports 1-9.

Indicator Project: Points Circumpolar Biodiversity Monitoring Program reports (2004-2017) (CAFF) CAFF CBMP Report No. 1. CAFF CBMP Report No. 5. CAFF CBMP Report No. 9. November 2004. (November 2004). (November 2004). P (Use of High, use of community- Low/Absent. Local knowledge is High, use of community-based 3/1/3 participatory based monitoring and identified as crucial, but monitoring and community methodology) community involvement are Indigenous participation is not involvement are suggested as tools to suggested as tools to recognized as part of the research integrate TEK into CAFF work. integrate TEK into CAFF process. work. I (Use of Low/Absent. The use of Low/Absent. The use of Low/Absent. The use of Indigenous 1/1/1 Indigenous Indigenous methods is not Indigenous methods is not methods is not suggested in this methodologies) suggested in this report. suggested in this report. report. L (Recognition of a Low/Absent. Indigenous Low/Absent. Indigenous Low/Absent. Indigenous 1/1/1 localized nature of communities and their communities and their knowledges communities and their knowledges TEK) knowledges are not are not recognized as being are not recognized as being recognized as being specifically tied to particular specifically tied to particular specifically tied to particular locations in the Arctic locations in the Arctic. locations in the Arctic A (Application of Low/Absent. The proposed Low/Absent. The proposed Low/Absent. The proposed CBM 1/1/1 TEK to wildlife community-based program CARMA network was supposed to study does not provide information management) was supposed to involve involve local knowledge in on how TEK will be applied to local Indigenous research; however, the methods to resource management. communities in research; integrate their knowledge were not however, the methods to clearly identified. integrate their knowledge were not clearly identified. C (cross-cultural Low/ Absent – there is no Low/ Absent – there is no Low/ Absent – there is no indication 1/1/1 communication) indication of involvement of indication of involvement of social of involvement of social scientists in social scientists in a study. scientists in a study. a study.

451

Overall evaluation Lip service. The report Lip service. The report Lip service. The report 7/5/7 acknowledges the utility of acknowledges the utility of TEK, acknowledges the utility of TEK, but TEK, but does not integrate but does not integrate TEK in the does not integrate TEK in the TEK in the scientific study. scientific study. scientific study.

452

Indicator Project: Points Circumpolar Biodiversity Monitoring Program reports (2004-2017) (CAFF) CBMP Report No. 11. (October CBMP Report No. 12. CBMP Report: No. 2006). 13. (March 2008). P (Use of Low/Absent, local knowledge Low/Absent, Indigenous High, use of 1/1/3 participatory is identified as crucial, but participation is not community-based methodology) Indigenous participation is not recognized as part of the monitoring and recognized as part of the research process. community research process. involvement are suggested as tools to integrate TEK into CAFF work. I (Use of Low/Absent, The use of Low/Absent, The use of Low/Absent, The use 1/1/1 Indigenous Indigenous methods is not Indigenous methods is of Indigenous methodologies) suggested in this report. not suggested in this methods is not report. suggested in this report. L (Recognition Low/Absent, Indigenous Low/Absent, Indigenous Low/Absent, 1/1/1 of a localized communities and their communities and their Indigenous nature of TEK) knowledges are not recognized knowledges are not communities and their

453

as being specifically tied to recognized as being knowledges are not particular locations in the specifically tied to recognized as being Arctic particular locations in the specifically tied to Arctic particular locations in the Arctic A (Application Low/Absent, The proposed Low/Absent, It is Low/Absent, to 1/1/1 of TEK to CARMA network was suggested to use an develop and provide a wildlife supposed to involve local indicator Trends in Use data management management) knowledge in research; of Traditional Knowledge system for however, the methods to in Research, Monitoring community-based integrate their knowledge are and Management to information, not clearly identified. illustrate to what degree including Indigenous

traditional knowledge is knowledge and related used to influence interpretation; research, monitoring and however, the methods management decisions to integrate their around the Arctic. knowledge are not

However, the methods to clearly identified. integrate their knowledge are not clearly identified. C (cross- Low/ Absent – there is no Low/ Absent – there is Low/ Absent – there 1/1/1 cultural indication of involvement of no indication of is no indication of communication) social scientists in a study. involvement of social involvement of social scientists in a study. scientists in a study. Overall Lip service. The report Lip service. The report Lip service. The 5/5/7 evaluation acknowledges the utility of acknowledges the utility report acknowledges TEK, but does not integrate of TEK, but does not the utility of TEK, but TEK in the scientific study. integrate TEK in the does not integrate scientific study. TEK in the scientific study.

Table 6. CBMP reports 11-13

454

Table 7. CBMP reports 14-19.

Indicator Project: Points: Circumpolar Biodiversity Monitoring Program reports (2004-2017) (CAFF) CAFF CBMP Report CAFF CBMP Report No. CAFF CBMP Report No. 14. No. 16. September 19. December 2009. March 2008. 2009. P (Use of Medium, the use of training Low/Absent use of High, participation 2/1/3 participatory manuals is proposed to participatory methods are divided by methodology) engage Arctic residents in methodology was not three types: citizen monitoring activities. identified in the report. science, local stewardship, However, the content of and humans as sensors. these training manuals is not revealed. I (Use of Low/Absent , Indigenous Low/Absent The use of Low/Absent The use of 1/1/1 Indigenous communities and their Indigenous methods is Indigenous methods is not methodologies) knowledges are not not suggested in this suggested in this report. recognized as being specific report to particular locations in the Arctic L (Recognition Low/Absent , Indigenous Low/Absent , Low/Absent , Indigenous 1/1/1 of a localized communities and their Indigenous communities communities and their nature of TEK) knowledges are not and their knowledges knowledges are not recognized as being specific are not recognized as recognized as being to particular locations in the being specific to specific to particular Arctic particular locations in locations in the Arctic the Arctic A (Application Low/Absent Incorporation of . Low/Absent The need Low/Absent TEK is 1/1/1 of TEK to scientific-based approaches for the development and identified as being a wildlife and local knowledge is maintenance of effective valuable source of data for

455

management) suggested but the local monitoring community-based methodology of documenting networks and the monitoring, but TEK is not identified. Policy collection and methodology of recommendations in the integration of traditional documenting TEK is not report do not include advice ecological knowledge as identified. Policy from Indigenous part of a recommendations in the communities. comprehensive report do not include monitoring framework advice from Indigenous is emphasized but but communities. the methodology of documenting TEK is not identified. Policy recommendations in the report do not include advice from Indigenous communities. C (cross- Low/ Absent – there is no Low/ Absent – there is Low/ Absent – there is no 1/1/1 cultural indication of involvement of no indication of indication of involvement communication) social scientists in a study. involvement of social of social scientists in a scientists in a study. study. Overall Lip service. The report Lip service. The report Lip service. The report 6/5/7 evaluation acknowledges the utility of acknowledges the utility acknowledges the utility TEK, but does not integrate of TEK, but does not of TEK, but does not TEK in the scientific study. integrate TEK in the integrate TEK in the scientific study. scientific study.

456

Indicator Poin Project: ts: Circumpolar Biodiversity Monitoring Program reports (2004-2017) (CAFF) CAFF Monitoring Series Report No. 29. February 2018. CAFF Proceeding Series Report No. 4 March 2011. P (Use of Medium, the involvement of Indigenous communities was Medium. It is recognized that people are often 2/2 participatory recognized in the report. ignored in the discussion. methodology) I (Use of Low/ Absent The use of Indigenous methodologies is Low/ Absent The use of Indigenous 1/1 Indigenous mentioned but not specified. methodologies is not identified. methodologies) L (Recognition Low/ Absent , Indigenous communities and their knowledges Low/ Absent , Indigenous communities and their 1/1 of a localized are not recognized as being specific to particular locations in knowledges are not recognized as being specific nature of TEK) the Arctic to particular locations in the Arctic

A (Application Low/ Absent The importance of co-production of knowledge Low/ Absent It is recognized that there are no 1/1 of TEK to for the Coastal Monitoring Plan is identified, but no specific champion examples of integrating local wildlife mechanism of TEK documentation is recognized. Policy knowledge into biodiversity monitoring in a management) recommendations in the report do not include advice from meaningful way. Policy recommendations in Indigenous communities. the report do not include advice from Indigenous communities. No specific mechanism of TEK documentation is recognized. C (cross- Low/ Absent – there is no indication of involvement of social Low/ Absent – there is no indication of 1/1 cultural scientists in a study. involvement of social scientists in a study. communication) Overall Lip service. The report acknowledges the utility of TEK, but Lip service. The report acknowledges the utility 6/6 evaluation does not integrate TEK in the scientific study. of TEK, but does not integrate TEK in the scientific study. Table 8. CBMP reports 29 and 4 (proceeding series).

457

Indicator Project: Arctic Biodiversity Assessment: status and trends in Arctic biodiversity (2013); Points Arctic Biodiversity Assessment: Report for Policy Makers (2013) (CAFF) P (Use of Medium, but participatory methodology is not determined. TEK coordinators were appointed 2 participatory to document Indigenous observations in Eurasia and North America (CAFF, 2013). methodology) No specific approach/methodology of work with Indigenous communities was identified. I (Use of Low/absent, this report did not use Indigenous methodologies. 1 Indigenous methodologies) L (Recognition Low/Absent, the ABA tends to refer to “Indigenous peoples in the Arctic” and their 2 of a localized “traditional knowledge” instead of recognizing them as separate, independent communities nature of TEK) (CAFF, 2013). A (Application Medium. The introduction states that it draws on a vast number of scientific publications, 1 of TEK to supplemented by ‘eye witness’ observations from Indigenous peoples in the context of TEK wildlife (CAFF, 2013, p. 23). However, the report does not indicate that maps and figures documented management) TEK. There are many scientific maps in the report, but there is no sign that these maps were at least partly based on TEK observations. Policy recommendations did not include Indigenous perspectives. C (cross-cultural Low/ Absent – there is no indication of involvement of social scientists in a study. 1 communication) Overall Lip service. The report acknowledged the utility of TEK, but did not integrate TEK in the 7 evaluation scientific study. Table 9.Arctic Biodiversity Assessment.

458

Indicator Traditional Knowledge and Community-Based Monitoring Progress Report (April 2015) Points

P (Use of Low/Absent. The report does not recommend using participatory methods in tEK projects. 1

Table 10.Traditional Knowledge and Community-Based Monitoring Progress Report (April 2015)

459

participatory methodology) I (Use of Low/Absent. The report does no recommend using Indigenous methods. 1 Indigenous methodologies) L (Recognition Low/Absent. The report does not recommend to recognize localized nature of TEK. 1 of a localized nature of TEK) A (Application Low/Absent. The report does not recommend to document TEK using scientific methods and to 1 of TEK to include Indigenous perspectives into policy recommendations. wildlife management) C (cross- Low/Absent. The report does not recommend to use cross-cultural expertise. 1 cultural expertise) Overall Lip service. The report states that considerable progress was made in initiatives to engage TK and 5 evaluation CBM that furthers the goals of the Arctic Council but it does not provide any explanations of how this progress was made. There is no description of how successful integration of TEK should look like.

460

461

Table 11.Application of PILAC scale to “Arctic Traditional Knowledge and Wisdom: Changes in the North American Arctic”

Indicator “Arctic Traditional Knowledge and Wisdom: Changes in the North American Arctic” (draft version Points and the actual report, April 2017) P (Use of High. The report is based on interviews with Indigenous people from North America. 4 participatory methodology) I (Use of High. The report’s lead author is an Indigenous Aleut leader Larry Merculieff, and uses its own 4 Indigenous terminology (traditional knowledge and wisdom). The Aleut International Association was also methodologies) helping with report. L (Recognition High. Indigenous people are recognized by their ethnicities and locations in North America. 4 of a localized nature of TEK) A (Application Medium. The chapter Examples of co-application of TK and science in the Canadian Arctic provides 2 of TEK to information about projects in Canada that did incorporate TEK with science (organized by wildlife Environment and Climate Change Canada). However, TEK perspectives, collected for this report, management) were not applied to policy-making process. Instead, recommendations for action such as equal partnership and participation of Indigenous communities are given at the end of report. TEK is not documented by scientific methods (maps and graphs), and study outcomes do not refer to TEK. C (cross- High. Anthropologists Dr. Allice Legat and Dr. Mark Ebert were contributing authors for this report. 4 cultural expertise) Overall The ATK&W report demonstrated high possibility (18/20) of incorporating TEK. However, the 18 evaluation major weakness of this study is the lack of application of TEK to resource management systems in North America. The case studies of TEK projects in the Canadian Arctic were organized by a group of consultants from Environment and Climate Change Canada but not by the authors of report.

462

Indicator Traditional Knowledge Progress Report 2017-2019 (2019) Points

P (Use of Low/Absent. The report does not recommend using participatory methods in TEK projects. 1 participatory methodology) I (Use of Low/Absent. The report does no recommend using Indigenous methods. 1 Indigenous methodologies) L (Recognition Low/Absent. The report does not recommend to recognize a localized nature of TEK. 1 of a localized nature of TEK) A (Application Low/Absent. The report does not recommend to document TEK using scientific methods and to 1 of TEK to include Indigenous perspectives into policy recommendations. wildlife management) C (cross- Low/Absent. The report does not recommend to use cross-cultural expertise. 1 cultural expertise) Overall Lip service. The report states that considerable progress was made in initiatives to engage TK and 5 evaluation CBM that furthers the goals of the Arctic Council but it does not provide any explanations of how this progress was made. There is no description of how successful integration of TEK should look like.

Table 12. Traditional Knowledge Progress Report 2017-2019 (2019)

463

Table 3. Adaptation Actions for a changing Arctic in Bering, Chukchi, Beaufort (BCB) region (2017)

Indicator Adaptation Actions for a changing Arctic in Bering, Chukchi, Beaufort (BCB) region (2017) Points

P (Use of Low/Absent. Inuit participation in a decision-making process, including incorporation of TEK was 1 participatory encouraged but it was not specified which participatory method should be used. methodology) I (Use of Low/Absent. The use of Indigenous methods was not indicated in the report. 1 Indigenous methodologies) L (Recognition Medium. The report provided case studies of local Indigenous communities in the BCB region, but 2 of localized their TEK was not recognized as separate. nature of TEK) A (Application Low/Absent. The report did not apply TEK to policymaking process. The policy recommendations 1 of TEK to were not based on TEK. TEK was not documented through the use of scientific methods such as wildlife maps and graphs. management) C (cross- High. The report covered results of socio-economic analysis. Social scientists were involved into 4 cultural report preparation. expertise) Overall Lip service. The report recognized the importance of incorporation of TEK into policy-making 9 evaluation process, but it does not include TEK observations and its policy recommendations are not based on TEK.

464

Table 14. Project: Snow, Water, Ice, and Permafrost in the Arctic (2017) (AMAP)

Indicator Project: Snow, Water, Ice, and Permafrost in the Arctic (2017) (AMAP) Score

P (Use of Low/absent, the report did not use participatory methodology. 1 participatory methodology) I (Use of Low/absent, this report did not use Indigenous methodologies. 1 Indigenous methodologies) L (Recognition of Low/absent, TEK was recognized only as “traditional knowledge”, with no reference to a specific 1 a localized nature group/knowledge. of TEK) A (Application of Low/absent. TEK was not applied to resource management. The report messages and 1 TEK to wildlife recommendations were not based on TEK. management) C (Cross-cultural Low/ Absent – there was no indication of involvement of social scientists in a study. 1 communication) Overall The report acknowledged the utility of TEK (“TEK can help to detect change and adapt to it.” 5 evaluation (AMAP, 2017), but did not integrate TEK in the scientific study.

465

Table 15. Biological effects of contaminants on Arctic wildlife and fish (2018)

Indicator Project: Biological effects of contaminants on Arctic wildlife and fish (2018) (AMAP).

P (Use of Low/Absent , the report did not use participatory methodology. 1 participatory methodology) I (Use of Low/Absent, this report did not use Indigenous methodologies. 1 Indigenous methodologies) L (Recognition Low/Absent TEK was recognized only as “Indigenous knowledge”, with no reference to a specific 1 of a localized group/knowledge. nature of TEK) A (Application Low/Absent TEK was not applied to resource management. The report messages and recommendations 1 of TEK to were not based on TEK. The TEK data was not documented. wildlife management) C (cross- Low/Absent. There is no indication that social scientists were involved in a study. 1 cultural expertise) Overall Lip service. The report acknowledged the utility of Indigenous knowledge holders’ engagement and 5 evaluation calls for future research on addressing concerns of knowledge holders and co-produced knowledge approach, but did not apply TEK to science.

466

Indicator Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment (2009) Points

P (Use of High – 14 Town Hall meetings were organized across the Arctic region to listen to Indigenous 4 participatory views on Arctic marine shipping. About 3000 Indigenous residents were consulted (AMSA, 2009; methodology) Lawson Brigham, interview, March 2019). I (Use of Low/Absent – No use of Indigenous methodologies was indicated. Indigenous communities did 1 Indigenous not co-author the study. methodologies) L (Recognition Medium – some communities were recognized by their names (.e.g. hunters from Resolute and 2 of a localized Iqaluit), but the report mostly refers to them as “Indigenous residents.” ) nature of TEK) A (Application Medium – Some Indigenous insights were included into the section Town Hall meetings. 2 of TEK to However, Indigenous insights were not based on TEK (AMSA, 2009). The findings are mostly wildlife based on scientific knowledge. The Indigenous observations were not documented and reflected management) on maps/graphs. C (cross- Low/Absent – there was no indication that social scientists were involved in a study. 1 cultural expertise) Overall The organization of Town Hall meetings with Indigenous residents all over the Arctic definitely 10 evaluation played an essential role in inclusion of their insights and observations in this report. Hence,, AMSA study had a great use of participatory methodology with Indigenous communities. However, there is also a lack of involvement of cross-cultural experts, and it is not clear to what extent Indigenous observations were included into findings section. There is a moderate possibility that TEK was integrated into a study. Table 16. Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment

467

Table 17.Arctic Offshore Oil and Gas Guidelines (2009)

Indicator Project: Arctic Offshore Oil and Gas Guidelines (2009) (PAME) Points

P (Use of Low/Absent Indigenous and traditional knowledge was recommended to use as a source for 1 participatory environmental impact assessment, and strategic environmental assessment, but there is no reference methodology) to participatory methodology that can be implemented. It was just mentioned that “establishment of cooperative relationships with resident Indigenous communities… should be pursued.” (PAME, 2009, p. 24). I (Use of Low/Absent , this report did not use Indigenous methodologies. 1 Indigenous methodologies) L (Recognition Low/Absent. TEK was recognized only as “Indigenous and traditional knowledge”, with no 1 of a localized reference to a specific group/knowledge. nature of TEK) A (Application Low/Absent, the use of TEK was only recommended for various purposes (impact assessments, 1 of TEK to trainings, consultations). The detailed guidelines, instructions, approaches that could specify the wildlife procedures of integration of TEK in Western science are lacking. TEK was not documented and management) recommendations are not based on TEK. C (cross- Low/Absent. There is no indication that social scientists were involved in a study. 1 cultural expertise) Overall Lip service. The report acknowledged the utility of Indigenous knowledge holders engagement and 5 evaluation calls for future research on addressing concerns of knowledge holders and co-produced knowledge approach, but did not apply TEK to science.

468

Table 18.The Field Guide for Oil Spill Response in Arctic Waters (1998).

Indicator The Field Guide for Oil Spill Response in Arctic Waters (1998). Points

P (Use of Low/Absent. There was no indication that participatory methods were used in this guide. 1 participatory methodology) I (Use of Low/Absent. There was no indication that Indigenous methods were used in this guide. 1 Indigenous methodologies) L (Recognition Low/Absent. TEK was recognized only as “local knowledge”, with no reference to a specific 1 of a localized group/knowledge. nature of TEK) A (Application Low/Absent. The Guide only recommended to include local knowledge and input from local 1 of TEK to inhabitants into decision-making process ( Field Guide for Oil Spill Response in Arctic Waters, wildlife 1998). TEK data was not collected and not documented, and the process of collection and management) documentation of TEK is not described. C (cross- Low/Absent. There was no requirement to involve social scientists into the process of obtaining 1 cultural local knowledge. expertise) Overall Lip service. TEK was not incorporated into this report. The use of local knowledge is only 5 evaluation recommended, and the process of obtaining and utilizing of TEK is not described.

469

Table 19. The guide to oil spill response in snow and ice conditions in the Arctic (2015)

Indicator The guide to oil spill response in snow and ice conditions in the Arctic (2015) Points

P (Use of Low/Absent. There was no indication that participatory methods were used in this guide. 1 participatory methodology) I (Use of Low/Absent. There was no indication that Indigenous methods were used in this guide. 1 Indigenous methodologies) L (Recognition Low/Absent. TEK was recognized only as “local traditional knowledge”, with no reference to a 1 of a localized specific group/knowledge. nature of TEK) A (Application Low/Absent. It was only noted in the report that “local traditional knowledge is a crucially 1 of TEK to important source of information on the spatial and seasonal distribution of regional harvesting wildlife activities and the identification of critical populations/stocks of fish, birds and mammals upon management) which regional communities depend” (p. 32). There was no description of how the process of using TEK should be organized. C (cross- Low/Absent. There was no requirement to involve social scientists into the process of obtaining 1 cultural local traditional knowledge. expertise) Overall Lip service. TEK was not incorporated into this report. The use of local knowledge was only 5 evaluation recommended, and the process of obtaining and utilizing of TEK was not described.

470

Table 20. The EPPR Strategic Plan (2016).

Indicator The EPPR Strategic Plan (2016). Points

P (Use of Medium. It was recognized that “Arctic inhabitants may participate in both preparedness and 2 participatory response actions and contribute their traditional knowledge to the process” (EEPR, 2016). But, methodology) participatory methods were not identified in the Plan. I (Use of Low/Absent. There was no indication that Indigenous methods were used in this Plan. 1 Indigenous methodologies) L (Recognition Low/Absent. Indigenous peoples were recognized only as “Indigenous inhabitants”, with no reference 1 of a localized to a specific group/knowledge. nature of TEK) A (Application Low/Absent. It is indicated that “EPPR recognizes the importance of involving Arctic inhabitants, 1 of TEK to and seeks their inclusion in its work.” (EPPR, 2016). However, the process of integrating TEK was wildlife not described. management) C (cross- Low/Absent. There was no requirement to involve social scientists into the process of obtaining local 1 cultural traditional knowledge. expertise) Overall Lip service. TEK was not incorporated into this report. The use of local knowledge was only 6 evaluation recommended, and the process of obtaining and utilizing of TEK was not described.

471

Table 21. Arctic Human Development Report (2004)

Indicator Arctic Human Development Report (2004) Points

P (Use of Medium. The chapter Resource Governance referred to power-sharing (including knowledge) 2 participatory between Indigenous communities and government agencies through co-management agreements. methodology) However, there was no indication that participatory methods (interviews, focus groups) were used in case studies. I (Use of Low/Absent. There was no indication that Indigenous methods were mentioned in the report. 1 Indigenous methodologies) L (Recognition High. Indigenous communities were identified by their names (e.g. Inupiat) and their case studies 4 of a localized were separated by specific locations in the Arctic (e.g. Nuiqsut). nature of TEK) A (Application Medium. There were examples of how TEK can be applied to resource use (e.g. cultural practices of 2 of TEK to hunting in Russia, Canada, the US (Alaska), but there was no primary TEK data. The report did not wildlife provide examples of how TEK could be documented in maps and graphs. management) C (cross- High. Richard Caulfield, who wrote the chapter Resource Governance, is a social scientist. 4 cultural expertise) Overall There is a high possibility that integration of TEK described in this report was done thoroughly. Even 13 evaluation though, AHDR is a compilation of existing knowledge and does not provide a primary data, information on TEK and co-management, given in Resource Governance chapter, meaningfully incorporates TEK and Western science. In other words, AHDR thoroughly explains how TEK can be incorporated into Western science, but it does not provide primary data.

472

Indicator Capacity Building Overview of the Arctic Council (SDWG, 2009 a) Points

473

P (Use of Low/Absent. There was no indication that participatory methods were used in this report. 1 participatory methodology) I (Use of Low/Absent. There was no indication that Indigenous methods were used in this report. 1 Indigenous methodologies) L (Recognition Low/Absent. Indigenous peoples were recognized only as “local Arctic people”, without any reference 1 of a localized to a specific group/knowledge. nature of TEK) A (Application Low/Absent. It was only mentioned that “community knowledge of area’s ecology can shed light on 1 of TEK to wildlife resources.” (SDWG, 2009 a, p. 7), but it was not identified how exactly the process of wildlife obtaining/incorporating TEK should be done. The process of collecting and documenting TEK was not management) explained. C (cross- Low/Absent. There was no indication that social scientists should be involved into studies on TEK. 1 cultural expertise) Overall Lip service. TEK was not incorporated into this report. The use of local knowledge is only 5 evaluation recommended, and the process of obtaining and utilizing of TEK is not described. Table 22. Capacity Building Overview of the Arctic Council (SDWG, 2009 a)

474

Table 23. EALAT Reindeer Herders’ Voice: reindeer herding, traditional knowledge and adaptation to climate change and loss of grazing land (2009).

Indicator EALAT Reindeer Herders’ Voice: reindeer herding, traditional knowledge and adaptation to climate Points change and loss of grazing land (2009). P (Use of High. The study was based on community-based workshops and interviews. 4 participatory methodology) I (Use of Medium. A novel method was developed for Siida based monitoring of snow change and grazing 2 Indigenous conditions, but Indigenous communities did not co-author the research. The researchers also used the methodologies) Sami language and terminology. L (Recognition High. The Indigenous communities of reindeer herders were identified by their names (e.g. Nenets), 4 of a localized and their locations (e.g. Finnmark). nature of TEK) A (Application Low/Absent. The report is based on TEK observations but they are not applied to policy-making 2 of TEK to process. TEK observations were not documented by using scientific methods. The wildlife recommendations are mostly related to support of Indigenous communities (e.g. “it is important to management) support capacity building for Indigenous societies facing climate change” (EALAT, 2009, p. 15). C (cross- High. Linguists and social scientists were involved into EALAT workshops and interviews 4 cultural expertise) Overall The EALAT report demonstrated high possibility (15/20) of incorporating TEK. The major 15 evaluation weakness of this study is the lack of application of TEK to resource management systems in Scandinavia and Russia.

475

Table 24. Vulnerability and Adaptation to Climate Change in the Arctic (VACCA) (2009).

Indicator Vulnerability and Adaptation to Climate Change in the Arctic (VACCA) (2009). Points

P (Use of Medium. It was recognized that there should be partnership with Indigenous communities, but 2 participatory participatory methods were not identified. methodology) I (Use of Medium. Indigenous methodologies were not identified but it is mentioned at one of the panels that 2 Indigenous “Indigenous people are doing their own climate change assessments using their own knowledge and methodologies) worldviews, including their own technologies and customary laws” (VACCA, 2009, p. 68). L (Recognition Low/Absent. Indigenous peoples were recognized only as “Indigenous peoples,” without any 1 of a localized reference to a specific group/knowledge. nature of TEK) A (Application Low/Absent. It was stated that knowledge sharing is needed, especially incorporating traditional and 1 of TEK to local knowledge, but it is not described how the process of incorporating TEK should go. It was also wildlife stated that traditional knowledge should be collected, shared and used in teaching, but the process of management) collection and utilization was not described. C (cross- Low/Absent. There was no indication that social scientists should be involved into studies on TEK. 1 cultural expertise) Overall Lip service. TEK was not incorporated into this report. The use of local knowledge was only 7 evaluation recommended, and the process of obtaining and utilizing of TEK is not described.

476

Table 25. EALAT (2011)

Indicator EALAT (2011) Points

P (Use of High. The report has many interviews with Indigenous communities. There were workshops 4 participatory with Indigenous communities in different parts of the Arctic. methodology) I (Use of Low/Absent. Indigenous methods were not used in this study. 1 Indigenous methodologies) L (Recognition High. Each community of reindeer herders was identified by their name and location. 4 of a localized nature of TEK) A (Application Low/Absent. The report recognized that there are challenges that have to be met in the 1 of TEK to process of incorporation of TEK (issues of ownership, intellectual property rights, ethics, wildlife storage issues, understanding of TEK). However, the recommendations were mostly related management) to support of Indigenous communities, and they were not based on TEK. The report was based on TEK observations but they were not applied to policy-making process. TEK observations were collected but not documented by using scientific methods. C (cross- High. EALAT actively involved reindeer herders, linguists, lawyers, anthropologists, 4 cultural biologists, geographers, economists, philosophers (the ethical dimension) as well as expertise) Indigenous institutions and organisations, relevant industrial enterprises and management authorities. Overall The EALAT report demonstrated moderate possibility (14/20) of incorporating TEK. The 14 evaluation major weakness of this study is the lack of application of TEK to resource management systems in Scandinavia and Russia.

477

478

Table 26. The Circumpolar Information Guide on Mining for Indigenous Peoples and Northern Communities (2011).

Indicator The Circumpolar Information Guide on Mining for Indigenous Peoples and Northern Points Communities (2011). P (Use of Low/Absent. There was no indication that participatory methodology should be used during 1 participatory the process of TEK utilization. methodology) I (Use of Low/Absent, this report did not use Indigenous methodologies. 1 Indigenous methodologies) L (Recognition Low/Absent, the Guide tends to refer to “Indigenous communities” instead of recognizing 1 of a localized them as separate, independent communities (CAFF, 2013). nature of TEK) A (Application Low/Absent. The utility of TEK was acknowledged. However, it was not identified how 1 of TEK to TEK should be applied to wildlife management/science. wildlife management) C (cross- Low/ Absent – there was no indication of involvement of social scientists in a study. 1 cultural expertise) Overall Lip service. The report acknowledged the utility of TEK, but did not integrate TEK in the 5 evaluation scientific study.

479

Table 27. The Sea Ice Never Stops. Circumpolar Inuit Reflections on Sea Ice Use and Shipping in Inuit Nunaat (2014).

Indicator The Sea Ice Never Stops. Circumpolar Inuit Reflections on Sea Ice Use and Shipping in Inuit Points Nunaat (2014). P (Use of High. Face-to-face interviews based upon Inuit experience and community workshops were 4 participatory used. methodology) I (Use of High. It was not indicated that Indigenous methods were used in this study but the report 4 Indigenous was prepared and published by the Inuit Circumpolar Council. methodologies) L (Recognition High. There are case studies of the variety of locations where the Inuit are allocated. 4 of a localized nature of TEK) A (Application Low/Absent. The conclusions mostly referred to Inuit perspectives (e.g. Inuit are adaptable 1 of TEK to and strong) but they did not apply Inuit TEK to policy-making process. TEK observations wildlife were not documented, and report conclusions were not based on TEK. Similar to EALAT management) and ATK &W, this report provided Indigenous perspectives on development of the Arctic region, but these recommendations/insights were not based on TEK. C (cross- High. The ICC Canada prepared and published this report. 4 cultural expertise) Overall There was a relatively high possibility that this report incorporated TEK, but there was a lack 16 evaluation of application of TEK to wildlife management.

480

Table 28. Arctic Human Development Report II (2014).

Indicator Arctic Human Development Report II (2014). Points

P (Use of Low/Absent. The chapter Resource Governance was mostly based on the analysis of 1 participatory domestic legislations on resource governance. There was no field work with Indigenous methodology) communities done. I (Use of Low/Absent. There was no indication that Indigenous methodologies were used in this 1 Indigenous report. methodologies) L (Recognition High. Indigenous communities were identified by their ethnicities and locations (e.g. Alaska 4 of a localized Natives, Saami). nature of TEK) A (Application Medium. The Indigenous rights and governance over natural resources were discussed in the 2 of TEK to context of resource governance, but utilization of TEK was not much included into this wildlife discussion. management) C (cross- High. The chapter Resource Governance was prepared by social scientists (anthropologists, 4 cultural political scientists). expertise) Overall The chapter Resource Governance that included TEK was mostly based on the analysis of 12 evaluation domestic legislations regarding Indigenous rights and wildlife management in Alaska, Russia, and Fennoscandia but there was no actual fieldwork done.

481

Table 29. Recommendations for the Integration of Traditional and Local Knowledge into the Work of the Arctic Council

Indicator Recommendations for the Integration of Traditional and Local Knowledge into the Work of Points: the Arctic Council (2015). P (Use of Low/Absent. The use of participatory methods was not recognized. 1 participatory methodology) I (Use of Low/Absent. It was not indicated that Indigenous methods should be used. 1 Indigenous methodologies) L (Recognition Low/Absent. TEK was recognized as Traditional and Local knowledge without a reference to 1 of a localized any specific knowledge, culture or ethnicity. nature of TEK) A (Application Medium. It was indicated that TEK should be incorporated in the AC projects but not 2 of TEK to described how so. wildlife management) C (cross- Low/Absent. There was no indication that social scientists were recommended to be included 1 cultural in TEK projects. expertise) Overall Lip service. TEK was recommended to be included into the AC work but the process of 6 evaluation incorporation of TEK was not described. (2015).

482

Table 30. Establishing a Circumpolar Local Environmental Observer Network Report (2017).

Indicator Establishing a Circumpolar Local Environmental Observer Network Report (2017) Points

P (Use of High. The workshops with Indigenous communities were the part of CLEO network. 4 participatory methodology) I (Use of Low/Absent. There was no indication that Indigenous methods were used in the report. 1 Indigenous methodologies) L (Recognition Low/Absent. Traditional knowledge was not recognized locally, and referred to only as traditional and local 1 of a localized knowledge. nature of TEK) A (Application Medium. The report had a very clear purpose for application of TEK: It was mentioned that the purpose of 2 of TEK to the report was to increase awareness of vulnerabilities to the impacts of unusual changes in the environment, wildlife compared to what is expected based on traditional knowledge. Community experts and technical experts were management) supposed to provide consultations and build bridges between types of knowledge. Yet, it was not explained what methods to document TEK would be used. C (cross-cultural High. Community experts reviewed and edited observations in their areas and provided consultations based 4 expertise) on traditional, scientific, and local knowledge. Overall The report demonstrated moderate possibility of TEK incorporation. The CLEO network suggested 12 evaluation innovative approach of incorporating TEK through establishing connections between community and technical experts. The goal of this network was very clear: increasing awareness about changes in the environment. However, the localized nature of TEK was not identified, and the process of connecting TEK with Western science was not clarified.

483

Table 31. Framework for the Circumpolar Expansion of the Local Environmental Observer Network

Indicator Framework for the Circumpolar Expansion of the Local Environmental Observer Network Points

P (Use of High. Discussions and workshops with local communities were included into the program. 4 participatory methodology) I (Use of Low/Absent. There was no indication that Indigenous methods were used in the report. 1 Indigenous methodologies) L (Recognition Low/Absent. Traditional knowledge was not recognized locally, and referred to only as traditional and local 1 of a localized knowledge. nature of TEK) A (Application Low/Absent. It is not recognized how the process of incorporating TEK should be done. 1 of TEK to wildlife management) C (cross-cultural Low/Absent. There was no indication that social scientists were involved into this study. 1 expertise) Overall Lip service. The importance of TEK was recognized but the process of incorporation of TEK was not 8 evaluation explained.

484

485