Indigenous Knowledge and Arctic Council’s Scientific Assessments

Almost from its inception, the Arctic cooperation embraced traditional ecological knowledge (TEK). This is partly because the Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy (AEPS) coincided with the 1992 Rio Declaration, where traditional knowledge was embraced as a part of environmental decision-making (Keskitalo 2004). Furthermore, the Arctic Council – intergovernmental forum established on the basis of the AEPS – embraced the involvement of Arctic indigenous peoples in its work by awarding several indigenous organizations a status of permanent participants. Strong indigenous engagement made the emphasis on TEK even more pronounced. Over time, the central feature of Arctic Council has become the production of various environmental and social scientific assessments and guidelines (Koivurova et al. 2016). The inclusion and application of indigenous TEK into these activities has emerged as one of signature features of Council activities. Clearly, actors in the Arctic Council – both policy-makers and scientists – put effort into making TEK an integral part of the institution’s work. However, the inclusion of TEK in Arctic research and assessment work is often criticized (Cameron 2012; Shadian 2013). TEK is usually visible in reports or sections dealing with traditional livelihoods and with the indigenous perception of changes that the region undergoes. The scientific and indigenous knowledges are often presented next to one another rather than integrated into a common assessment. TEK is often used as illustration, manifestation or as a supporting argument in the presentation of scientific findings. Moreover, while it is unclear how Arctic Council work translates to policy-making (Śmieszek et al. 2017), it is even less obvious whether incorporation of TEK makes any difference for decisions taken based on the knowledge contained in assessments. There appear to be two main reasons for this lack of integration. First, TEK is part of indigenous issues and these in global politics tend to be confined to the “local and traditional” (Cameron 2012; Appandurai 1988; Lindroth 2015). Second, the integration of TEK and scientific knowledge is methodologically problematic and both scientists and indigenous knowledge-holders are often concerned about their respective knowledge systems being skewed or abused.