Community-Based Monitoring (CBM) and Traditional Knowledge (TK) in the Sustaining Arctic

Community-based Monitoring (CBM) and Traditional Knowledge (TK) in the Sustaining Arctic Observing Networks (SAON)

White paper. SAON Board meeting, 29 April 2013, Vancouver, Canada

Authors and contributors: Eva Kruemmel, Noor Johnson, Peter Pulsifer, Scot Nickels, Carolina Behe, Douglas Nakashima, Jim Gamble, and Tom Barry

Background

Community-based monitoring (CBM) has many advantages: since communities are situated in or close to the remote locations where the research is conducted, they are best suited to take samples at basically any time of the year (especially when access from the south is difficult due to unsuitable weather conditions), and they constantly monitor and report on environmental conditions in the area for their own interest and use. Additionally, local, particularly Indigenous, residents possess intimate traditional knowledge about the environment, which is passed on from generation to generation and has enabled them to adapt to and survive in the harsh conditions in the Arctic. This knowledge is more easily integrated in monitoring activities if the observing is conducted by communities and traditional knowledge holders, themselves. However, the terms ‘community-based monitoring’ and ‘traditional knowledge’ are not necessarily clearly defined and are often not used in the same way (also see appended white papers for more information on those topics).

It is widely and increasingly accepted in Arctic research and monitoring programs (such as the Canadian Northern Contaminants Program (NCP) and ArcticNet), as well as in governmental and intergovernmental organizations (such as Arctic Council and its Working Groups), that community-based monitoring and research (CBM/R) and the inclusion of traditional knowledge (TK) is extremely valuable. Throughout the development of the Sustaining Arctic Observing Networks (SAON) the value of community-based monitoring (CBM) and traditional knowledge (TK) to Arctic science and monitoring was recognized, and it was decided that their utilization should be facilitated and promoted.

This strategic white paper on CBM and TK for SAON aims to provide a short summary about previous recommendations and findings from SAON meetings. It should assist in developing an overarching strategy that will provide some direction for how SAON activities on CBM and TK can be aligned to reach common goals based on the different needs, and to avoid duplication.

The main points that came up in the SAON development process can be summarized as follows:

Possible users that could benefit from SAON include:

·  Indigenous organizations, communities and Northern residents (particularly those engaged in research and/or monitoring, or who are interested to be engaged in it)

·  Academia

·  Governments

·  Intergovernmental organizations

·  Industries

Advantages SAON could bring to those users are:

·  better access to data

·  an easier overview of ongoing observing activities in the circumpolar Arctic, which allows for

o  easier recognition of what and where the gaps are

o  enhanced networking

o  avoiding duplication of efforts

o  economical advantages through enhanced cost sharing

·  promotion of data standards and definitions that could result in

o  improvements to the quality of research

o  better comparability of data

Expectations for SAON from possible users as voiced in the SAON development phases included:

·  direction for definitions and standards that should be used

·  examples of best practices

·  better coordination of efforts

·  ensuring data compatibility

·  better access to funding

In relation to these expected roles for SAON, there are specific considerations that need to be taken into account with regards to CBM and TK, such as issues with data sharing arising from confidentiality requirements connected with sensitive data, data ownership, and the nature of CBM and TK-data, in which the context of the knowledge or observation is particularly important.

Currently, three SAON tasks related to CBM and/or TK are underway or have been proposed to tackle questions and/or challenges that have been identified during the SAON process, in particular:

Task 9: An International Review of Community-Based Monitoring in the Context of Sustaining Arctic Observing Networks Process, lead by the Inuit Circumpolar Council (ICC)

Task 10: Development of Community-Based Monitoring Classification to Improve Standardization of Vocabularies, led by the Collaborative Research and Consulting

Task 16: CBM Inventory, led by the Conservation of the Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF)

Other SAON tasks also have interests or contents that are relevant to CBM and TK.

As outlined during breakout group discussions at the last SAON Board meeting (2012 in Potsdam), there is an immediate need to better define CBM and to document best practices of current projects, including methods, data format and deliverables, and how to best involve traditional knowledge holders in the design and Implementation of monitoring; including data interpretation and analysis.

It is expected that the following points will be addressed by the tasks already in progress:

·  Definitions around CBM and TK: tasks 9; 10

·  Best practices, determination of methods: task 9

·  Data format and data compatibility: tasks 9; 16

·  Identification of projects, mapping of existing projects: tasks 9; 16

Additionally, so far the three SAON tasks highlighted above concentrate on CBM, and it is likely that additional work will need to focus on TK, particularly since not all CBM studies utilize TK. It is possible that a distinction needs to be made between CBM studies which utilize TK and those that do not, and it would be interesting to identify monitoring methodologies that are used within the realm of TK. Also, advantages of CBM need to be clearly communicated to different stakeholders, particularly within SAON. This could be done in a two-tiered approach, where the benefits of CBM and TK utilization are clearly articulated and the proper and consistent integration into SAON processes is being ensured.

These considerations have to be assessed in more detail and it is proposed that they are being dealt with in technical discussions around solutions for CBM and TK related challenges.

Moving ahead

There are many areas that will still need to be addressed by SAON. While some of these may not necessarily be specific just to CBM, implementing these areas will make it easier to support and develop community-based approaches to monitoring, both within SAON and externally. Some of the areas in need of further development include:

·  Work on outreach and communication: communicate advantages of SAON, as well as benefits of CBM and TK, to organizations, local communities, decision-makers, and scientists – both inside and outside of SAON.

·  Develop and strengthen connections to other projects both inside and outside SAON that are relevant to CBM

·  Improve integration of CBM with the Arctic observing community as a whole, with the larger goal being to fill in gaps and improve the state of the Arctic reporting

·  The promotion of research, data standards and definitions once they have been developed

·  The establishment and promotion of research ethics guidelines, as discussed during earlier phases of SAON development, particularly during the workshop in Miami in 2009;

·  Ensure openness of tasks to networking and avoiding of duplication, and to strengthen the connections between different activities;

·  Bridging gaps and building synergies between bio-physical and social sciences, as well as between scientific and traditional knowledge;

·  The horizontal integration of the different SAON pillars and ensuring compatibility within SAON;

·  The facilitation of funding opportunities.

The following activities could be prioritized to further SAON goals and implement some of the earlier recommendations:

·  SAON could develop (or assist in the development of) guidelines which task leaders would have to sign on to. The SAON guidelines would state that tasks will adhere to principles of SAON such as: sharing of data, collaboration with others, adherence to data standards and research ethics/protocols etc.

·  Collaboration and coordination between SAON tasks is particularly important and the SAON Board should assess whether a strategy to ensure coordination and collaboration between tasks needs to be developed.

·  Funding agencies can then be approached and asked to support SAON principles by giving preference to study proposals that pledge adherence to SAON supported guidelines.

·  To provide guidance and input on the main SAON pillars, a focus/technical group on CBM and TK utilization should be established, consisting of Board members and task leads, possible also invited experts. The establishment of the group will be particular important as tasks move forward and results are being produced that provide further insight into the current state of knowledge around CBM and TK utilization. The group would specifically work on the technical aspects of CBM and TK utilization within SAON, as well as determine open issues that still need to be worked on. Specific points addressed by the group would include:

o  taking stock of progress achieved within the tasks;

o  point out gaps;

o  address technical questions and issues, also in cooperation with other SAON technical groups;

o  make recommendations to the Board on further work needed and directions.

Appendix: Background material

1.  Application of Traditional Knowledge in the Arctic Council, ICC paper………………………………..page 6

2.  Strengthening community-based monitoring in the Arctic: Key challenges and opportunities– A Community White Paper Prepared for the Arctic Observing Summit 2013……………………...... page 8

3.  1st IPY workshop on Sustaining Arctic Observing Networks: Report from the Human Dimension Breakout Group…………………………………………………………………………………………...... page 24

4.  Edmonton workshop (2008): Human Health and Community Observation Networks…...... page 27

5.  Funding Agency Officials workshop (Miami, 2009)

a.  Section 2: Debrief on meeting with ELOKA on community based monitoring…...... page 29

b.  Health & well-being breakout group………………………………………………………………...... page 29

6.  SAON Implementation Plan (2011)……………………………………………………………………………….....page 32

7.  Minutes from the SAON Board Meeting in Potsdam (2012)………………………………………….....page 33

Application of Traditional Knowledge in the Arctic Council

By the Inuit Circumpolar Council (ICC)

There is an increasing need to better understand changes occurring within the Arctic and a growing

appreciation of how Traditional Knowledge (TK) may illuminate understanding of these changes. This

knowledge source will add to the quality of research/reports being conducted/created under the auspice of the Arctic council (AC), when utilized effectively.

Various challenges are faced on how to include TK in a meaningful way within the AC working groups.

One such challenge is confusion of how to define and utilize TK, and how to employ both TK and science

together. This paper will attempt to articulate and address these concerns, while outlining a process to

ensure the application of TK within AC work.

Definition: With an understanding that there is a need to utilize both sources of knowledge, TK and

science, are complimentary in Arctic research, to better inform decision-making, it is important to first

come to a consensus on what TK is. To this extent, Inuit Circumpolar Council offers the following

definition:

Traditional knowledge 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.

Under this definition, TK goes beyond observations and ecological knowledge, offering a unique ‘way of

knowing’ to identify and apply to research needs which will ultimately inform decision makers.

Fundamental Concepts: The following concepts are offered to allow for meaningful use of TK and

science together. These concepts may be built upon as needed. It is suggested that Arctic Council working groups develop a mechanisms within their processes, which allow for these concepts to be incorporated.

The development of a TK expert group may aid in this process.

1.  Research needs and objectives to be identified by both Permanent Participants (PPs) and Arctic States. Under such an approach both will benefit equally from the project, respecting that each group may have differing views on value of outputs.

2.  Project funding is utilized to gather data from both sources of knowledge and to employ TK holders and scientific experts.

3.  PPs provide evaluation of which projects or work themes include the need to incorporate TK and to which extent.

4.  Culturally appropriate methodologies are utilized to gain information from TK holders such as, semi-directive interviews, three-dimensional modeling through the creation of maps, etc.

5.  Employment of a participatory approach, where appropriate. A participatory approach ensures that information is gathered from both sources of knowledge and the analysis of this information is done with both sources of knowledge, or ways of thinking. Under such an approach, a fish ecologist and TK holder with expertise in fish will work together from conception to analysis.

6.  TK methodologies and final products are peer reviewed and validated by TK holders. With a clear understanding that TK holds its own methodologies and objectives one can begin to appreciate the importance in not attempting to translate one source of knowledge into the other. Scientific information is analyzed with a perspective uniquely trained to scientists. The same is true of TK. While the two sources of knowledge may complement each other in many cases, they are not the same and should be appreciated for what each is able to bring to the table.

7.  Knowledge is exchanged mutually between scientists and TK holders in plain language (using translation where appropriate/required) with regards to the scientific aspect of the project.

Strengthening community-based monitoring in the Arctic: Key challenges and opportunities

A Community White Paper

Prepared for the Arctic Observing Summit 2013

Authors:

Noor Johnson,* Brown University, in collaboration with the Inuit Circumpolar Council-Canada

Lilian Alessa, The Resilience and Adaptive Management Group, University of Alaska

Shari Gearheard, National Snow and Ice Data Center, CU-Boulder

Victoria Gofman, Collaborative Research and Consulting

Andrew Kliskey, The Resilience and Adaptive Management Group, University of Alaska

Peter Pulsifer, Exchange for Local Observations and Knowledge of the Arctic, CU-Boulder

Michael Svoboda, Circumpolar Biodiversity Monitoring Program

* Corresponding author:

Executive Summary

Community-based monitoring (CBM) engages Arctic residents, including traditional knowledge holders, in ongoing observing and monitoring of Arctic change. While CBM offers fine-grained local scale data that is readily accessible to local scale decision-makers, it has not yet reached its potential. CBM initiatives are not well documented or networked, with the result that practitioners and supporters lack a clear sense of the field and how to best support its growth and development.