2.1Integrating Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Western Science

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

1Project objectives

2Methodology

2.1Integrating traditional ecological knowledge and western science

2.1.1What is TEK?

2.1.2Why integrate TEK and WS?

2.1.3Best practices for integrating TEK and WS

2.1.4Integrating TEK in the SOAER

2.2Impact-chain analysis

2.3Identification of the core set of indicators

2.4Data assessment

3Proposed Soaer indicators

References

Annex 1 – Long list of Basin Management Issues IDentified during the 2013 HAtfield workshop

Annex 2 – impact chain Mind map

1

IISD.org Aquatic Ecosystem Indicators for the Mackenzie River Basin - Final report

This report describes the outcome of a project undertaken by the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) in response to a request from the Government of the Northwest Territories the for identification of indicators for the Mackenzie River Basin Board’s (MRBB) 2017 State of the Aquatic Ecosystem Report (SOAER).

The report is structured in three sections including this introduction:

• Section 1describes the objectives the project
• Section 2 describes the methodology used by IISD to identify the indicators
• Section 3 presents the findings.

1Project objectives

The State of the Aquatic Ecosystem Report (SOAER) is intended to:

•provide Ministers with an understanding of the current state of the Mackenzie basin aquatic ecosystem

•inform basin residents and decision-makers about the basin’s ecological integrity

•identify gaps and inconsistencies in knowledge and ecological monitoring practices and identify possible improvements, and

•highlight the value of traditional knowledge as an integral component in ecological assessment.

The MRBB requested assistance in identifying aquatic ecosystem health indicators for use in the SOAER. Hatfield Consultants was contracted in December 2013 to convene holders of traditional ecological knowledge and representatives of federal, provincial and territorial governments to 1) identify basin management issues to be covered in the 2017 SOAER report and 2) identify indicators to inform those issues. Results of the workshop included almost 80 potential indicators for consideration.

Between September and November 2015, a SOAER Indicators Working Group was created to review and shortlist the indicators proposed by Hatfield Consultants. Criteria for the shortlist included 1) relevance to the basin management issues expressed by participants at the 2013 workshop; 2) alignment with the MRBB Master Agreement (and bilateral agreements where available); and 3) availability of data for all six sub-basins within the Mackenzie River basin. The Working Group identified 12 indicators that met each of the criteria and labelled these as “core” indicators for the 2017 SOAER. Twenty-nine indicators were identified as conceptually valid but lacking sufficient data for reporting by 2017; these were described as “additional” indicators. The 38 remaining indicators required clarification before further evaluation against the criteria.

The primary objective of IISD’s project was to build upon these two previous efforts to identify a final core set of indicators for the 2017 SOAER that islimited in number, pragmatic, cost effective and feasible. To the extent possible, the objective was also to review the availability of data to compile the core set. The core indicators should:

• be comprehensive and provide for a complete assessment of the state of the Mackenzie basin and the natural/human inputs and activities that impact it, and
• reflect the state of the basin’s aquatic ecosystems from the perspective of both the traditional knowledge of the Aboriginal peoples of the basin and western science.

In addition to the core indicators for the 2017 SOAER, the objective included identification of a final set of “additional”indicators that might be considered for or future editions of the SOAER but that are not feasible for the 2017 report.

2Methodology

The methodology used by IISD to identify the core and additional indicators for the SOAER is described below. The following points are covered:

• the recommended approach to ensuring that both traditional knowledge and western science are reflected in the selected indicators and in the SOAER
• the impact-chain methodology used to identify the key categories of indicators required for a complete assessment of the state of the basin and the inputs/activities that influence it
• the approach used in identifying the core and additional SOAER indicators, and
• the approach to assessing data availability for the core set of indicators.

2.1Integrating traditional ecological knowledge and western science

The MRBB recognizes that the Indigenouspeoples of the Mackenzie basin have acquired a vast store of traditional ecological knowledge (TEK)[1]through centuries of living in harmony with the land (MRBB, no date_A). The Mackenzie River Basin Transboundary Waters Master Agreement directs the MRBB to consider the needs and concerns of Indigenous peoples through the provision of culturally appropriate communication and the incorporation of TEK. This is to be based on the understanding that:

• the land is a powerful teacher
• TEK encompasses the physical, emotional, intellectual, and spiritual dimensions of life
• TEK complements and enhances Western science (WS), and
• scientists and TEK holders must work in partnership to gain a more thorough understanding of the natural environment.

The MRBB wants to find better ways to use TEK for decision making and for reconciling traditional knowledge with the views of the WS community (MRBB, no date_B).Below, we discuss how this might be accomplished in the context of the 2017 SOAER.

2.1.1What is TEK?

TEK has been variously defined as:

• “knowledge and values, which have been acquired through experience, observation, from the land or from spiritual teachings, and handed down from one generation to another” (Government of the Northwest Territories, 2005; p. 2)
• “knowledge gathered and maintained by groups of people, based on intimate experience with their environment” (Huntington et al., 2004; p. 21)
• “a cumulative body of knowledge, practice and belief, evolving by adaptive processes and handed down through generations by cultural transmission” (Berkes, 1999; p. 8).

The common elements of these definitions are:

• the gathering of knowledge based on direct experience of the environment, and
• the passing of this knowledge down from generation to generation to ensure development of a cumulative body of knowledge.

Both of these are essential characteristics of TEK.

Other important characteristics include those in Table 1below (Cruikshank, 2001; Huntington, 2000; Huntington et al., 2004; Krupnik and Ray, 2007; Moller et al., 2004). For the sake of comparison, the corresponding characteristics of WS are also shown in Table 1.[2]

Table 1 - Characteristics of TEK and WS

Empirical and systematic basis – TEK is based an empirical understanding of ecological systems and its gathering is undertaken systematically. / Empirical and systematic basis – WS is based an empirical understanding of ecological systems and its gathering is undertaken systematically.
Spiritual and cultural basis – TEK is sometimes (though less than in the past) based on a spiritual or cultural understanding of ecological systems, with anthropomorphic explanations for observed natural events (e.g.,explaining a poor caribou harvest by the death of hunter renowned for his ability to communicate with the animals). / Theoretical basis – WS is based on a theoretical understanding of ecological systems from which any spiritual or cultural influence is intentionally absent. Explanations for cause-effect relationships are sought in biophysical mechanisms.
Relatively little written documentation– TEK is not often documented in writing. Rather, it is recorded in the memories of those who gather it and shared with others orally. / Emphasis on written documentation – WS is communicated almost exclusively through written documentation.
Validation by community – The credibility of TEK is a function of the credibility of the individual who gathers/stores/transmits it. This credibility is largely determined by peers in the community to which the individual belongs. / Validation by expert peers –WS is validated through a process of anonymous review by peers who are experts in the field in question. Its documentation in the peer-reviewed literature is generally sufficient grounds to establish its credibility.
Collective gathering – TEK is gathered to some extent by all Indigenous people; for example, all members of a hunting party. Observations are shared and collective decisions are made as to the meaning of what has been observed. / Gathering by experts – WS is generally undertaken by a limited number of highly specialized experts. Observations are shared only with other experts (often anonymously) during the vetting process.
A focus on highly detailed local knowledge – TEK tends to be spatially limited, largely because it is gathered through the process of resource harvesting (fishing, hunting, trapping, gathering). Though Indigenous hunters are very interested in the state of the resources they harvest, they have less interest in the state of other resources (because they do not rely upon them) and have less opportunity to observe other resources (because they do not typically range beyond their traditional lands to harvest resources). TEK regarding a given area will cover a wide range of variables (e.g., species abundance, weather conditions, water conditions, soil conditions). / A focus on larger geographic areas and fewer variables – WS focuses on gathering data for larger areaswith an emphasis on variables more closely related to the resource in question.
Long time series based on continuous observation – TEK can result in very long time series of knowledge for specific locations, sometimes stretching back generations through oral histories. TEK gathering is essentially a continuous process (since the gatherers live in and depend directly upon the ecological systems they are observing), meaning that variations around normals are well understood. / Relatively short time series based on discrete observation – WS, even in instances of prolonged studies, collects data over relatively short time periods and often (though not always) observes phenomena in discrete intervals.
A focus on extremes rather than averages – Gatherers of TEK tend to be interested in deviations from normals rather than the normals themselves. Extreme events (storms, droughts, wildlife population collapses) will receive greater attention in the documentation of TEK than will the average state of ecological systems. / A focus on trends in normals – WS focuses on observing average behaviour of ecological systems and detecting long-terms changes in behaviour.

2.1.2Why integrate TEK and WS?

Though TEK has, for a variety of reasons, not been used as widely as it might be in natural resource management (Huntington, 2000), the comparison of TEK and WS in Table 1 above points to obvious ways in which the two might complement one another. These are discussed shortly.

The increased use of TEK is desirable. In particular, more projects are needed that bring WS and TEK together directly in research, from conceptualization through analysis to reporting(Gearheard et al., 2010). At the same time, it is worth noting that “there is no ‘silver bullet’ in bridging these two very different types of knowledge” (Krupik and Ray, 2007; p. 2952). Overly simplistic approaches are likely not to work. The goal should not be a combination of the two into “hybrid” knowledge or simply comparison of their findings with the intent to validate one or the other. Rather, it should be to integrate TEK and WS in a way that permits different perspectives, assessments and lines of evidence to be examined and discrepancies investigated (Gearheard et al., 2010). To be successful, such a process requires reciprocity and humility. Any view that WS is the “gold standard” against which TEK must be judged must be avoided if the holders of TEK are to willingly engage in the process. Avoiding this view is all the more desirable given the growing recognition that conventional WS approaches may be insufficient to deal with complex adaptive systems that involve human uses and impacts (Moller et al., 2004). TEK, which better reflects human agency, human choice, human responsibility and the consequences of human behavior than WS, brings an important perspective to the understanding of such systems (Cruikshank, 2001).

Some of the ways in which TEK and WS potentially complement one another in ecological research and management are listed below (Gearheard et al., 2010; Huntington et al., 2004; Moller et al., 2004)

• Interplay between quantitative and qualitative information–WS demands quantitative data on parts of the system; TEK strives for a qualitative understanding of the whole. Given that the understanding of complex systems requires both, the two perspectives each offer essential pathways to understanding.
• Forming hypothesesversus testing of mechanisms–TEKcan provide insight into hypotheses regarding observed changes but does not usually address mechanisms of the change. WS has powerful tools for testing the mechanisms but may waste time and effort on trivial hypotheses. The use of the two approaches together takes advantage of their relative strengths.
• Complementing objectivity with subjectivity–WS strives to be objective, in part by excluding people and feelings. TEK explicitly includes people, feelings, relationships and spirituality. WS is good at monitoring populations from a distance, but the incorporation of TEK allows for a stronger link between observation and community.
• Calibration of methods– TEK, with its detailed knowledge of local conditions, can be used to calibrate (or “groundtruth”) methods (e.g., remote sensing) used by WSin particular settings. Likewise, WS can provide additional data with which to extrapolate findings based on TEK to larger areas (e.g., the use of aerial surveys of relatively unstudied wildlife populations adjacent to those about which much TEK exists).
• Mutually supportive observational strengths –TEK offers the potential for observation in areas (e.g., remote hunting grounds) and at times (e.g., winter) that pose difficulties for WS. WS, on the other hand, offers the potential for measurement of variables that are impossible to measure using TEK (e.g., mercury concentrations in fish flesh).
• Corroboration/refutation of findings –TEK and WS both offer the potential to corroborate/refute the findings of the other (for cases studies seeText Box 1). In cases where findings agree, confidence in conclusions is obviously increased. In cases where there are discrepancies, further evaluation will be required to discover if one or the other is in need of adjustment or whether the comparison may be invalid simply because the observations are, in fact, of different phenomena.
• Filling gaps – In some cases, TEK may be a source of information to fill gaps in WS (and vice versa). In cases where filling gaps in one using information from the other is not appropriate, the mere fact that one offers information on phenomena the other does not is a useful guide to areas where additional research is required.

2.1.3Best practices for integrating TEK and WS

To be successful, integration of TEK and WS requires giving both their due. In practice, there is much more to be done to ensure that TEK is given appropriate treatment in this process than WS. Best practices in this regard are outlined below.

• TEK should not be separated from its cultural context –The cultural and spiritual context in which TEK is developedplays an important role in the meaning of the information; some elements of TEK may lose all meaning when removed from their context. When codified in WS reports, TEK tends to be used in ways that reinforce the Western dualism of “culture” versus “nature”, a dualism that Indigenous spirituality and culture reject (Cruikshank, 2001). However, legitimate efforts to make complex knowledge understandable sometimes requirethe separation of TEK from its cultural and spiritual context. In such cases, TEK holders and the Indigenous governments that represent them should have the opportunity to participate in the interpretation and application of TEK to ensure its meaning is fully conveyed and understood. (Mackenzie Valley Review Board, 2005; Government of the Northwest Territories, no date).
• Provide for Indigenous review of the use of TEK – A more general version of the proceeding point is to provide for review by the holders of TEK and/or their governments in any case when TEK is used in a documented study (Government of the Northwest Territories, no date).
• Avoid intentionally or unintentionally portraying TEK as subservient or inferior to WS–Western scientists sometimes view other knowledge systems as “anecdotal” and, therefore, inferior to WS. This may lead them, whether intentionally or unintentionally, to portray TEK in ways that undermine its credibility. Yet, WS contains many assumptions and approaches that are rooted in Western culture and values that are not always acknowledged by scientists and are sometimes rejected by Indigenous peoples. It is important to acknowledge that no one system or worldview has a monopoly on the truth. Rather, multiple approaches are needed in order to address the ecological challenges at hand (Stevenson, 2012). This is goal best served by presenting TEK in ways that ensures it is given its due vis à vis WS. For example, in presenting TEK in reports and publications, the temptation to translate it into language that is consistent with Western “resource management” terminology and concepts should be avoided. This means, for example, not referring to Indigenous peoples as being involved in the uniquely Western activity of “resource conservation” (Stevenson, 2012).
• At the same time, it is appropriate to caution against the “overselling” of TEK. Like other forms of knowledge (including WS), TEK is sometimes wrong. Such errors may be attributable to the Indigenous peoples who are the creators/holders of TEK or to those (often practitioners of WS) who gather TEK from Indigenous peoples. Documenting TEK can be a long process and the effort is not always justifiable in terms of the utility of the information gathered. Insistence on applying TEK in every research or management activity risks its reduction to a token, included superficially in reports and then ignored. Unquestioning use of TEK is as unhelpful as its unquestioning rejection. TEK should be promoted on its merits, subject to scrutiny just as as other information is and applied where it makes a difference in the quality of research or the effectiveness of management (Huntington, 2000; Huntington et al., 2004).
• Keep an open mind when TEK and WS do not agree – In instances when TEK and WS lead to different conclusions on the same issue, it is essential to avoid the “knee-jerk” conclusion that TEK is wrong and WS is right. All possible explanations for the disagreement should be considered, starting with the possibility that the phenomenon being considered from the two perspective is not, in fact, the same; for example, data on wind speed/direction from a weather station may differ from Indigenous knowledge of wind speed/direction because the weather station’s location is not reflective of the locales where Indigenous observation is occurring (Cruikshank, 2001). If the phenomenon can be confirmed to be the same, then all the following possibilities must be considered in seeking explanations for discrepancies: both TEK and WS are wrong; WS is wrong; TEK is wrong.Determining which of these is the case will generally require additional research.
• Do not assume that TEK is static – Like WS, TEK is dynamic, though the features of it that change over time may not be the same as those that change in WS. The basic approach to gathering TEK (observations of ecological systems and processes made during direct interaction with resources through hunting, fishing, trapping and gathering) remains much as it has for generations. So too does the process of sharing and recording TEK through oral transmission, as written documentation remains relatively rare (Huntington, 2000). In other ways, however, TEK is highly dynamic. Importantly, it is constantly updated through the more-or-less continuous observation of nature that results from relying directly on the land for one’s livelihood.This stands in stark contrast to much of WS, which may generate data very intensively for a short period of time and then update it only irregularly if ever. TEK is also changing in regard to the degree to which anthropomorphic spiritual/cultural beliefs are used as explanations for observed changes or events in the natural world. Where earlier generations would have turned to the breaking of taboos or disrespect for spirits as explanations for what they saw, modern TEK is more apt to explain changes in terms of, for example, the impacts of climate change (Krupnik and Ray, 2007).
• Acknowledge the importance of language in understanding and interpreting TEK – TEK is still collected, assessed and transmitted in a variety of Indigenous languages, many of which exceed English several-fold in the richness of their ecological lexicons. Alaskan walrus hunters, for example, use more than 100 terms to describe walruses, walrus products and related phenomena. The most knowledgeable of their elders use similarly expansive vocabularies just to describe sea ice (Krupnik and Ray, 2007). Given this, it is clear that the third-party gathering of of TEK and its translation into English must be carefully considered. Rules of engagement with Indigenous peoples in these processes(i.e., the language that is used, the concepts that are employed, the organization of the resulting translated knowledge, etc.) must be agreed upon mutually by both parties (Stevenson, 2012).

2.1.4Integrating TEK in the SOAER

Building upon the discussion above, a number of recommendations are offered below regarding the integration of TEK into the SOAER. We consider four aspects of the report’s preparation: