discussion paper: traditional knowledge …sdw.enr.gov.nt.ca/nwtdp_upload/cimp_traditional...august...

Northwest Territories Cumulative Impact Monitoring Program

Discussion Paper:

Traditional Knowledge Framework

Prepared for: The CIMP Working Group

Prepared by: SENES Consultants Ltd.

August, 2007

DISCLAIMER This document is a DISCUSSION PAPER prepared for the Working Group of the NWT CIMP by SENES Consultants Limited (SENES). It does not constitute a formal recommendation from SENES, nor does it reflect the opinions of the Working Group or territorial aboriginal groups, particularly those that have developed their own TK policies. Instead, it is intended to serve as a starting point for discussions within the Working Group and among traditional knowledge practitioners. Since delivery of this report in August 2007, two traditional knowledge practitioners’ workshops were sponsored by the Yamózha Kúé Society with funding from NWT CIMP. Objectives were to review key messages from this discussion paper, share experiences across regions, and develop a greater understanding of the requirements for a traditional knowledge monitoring framework. Reports from these workshops are available online at www.nwtcimp.ca.

CIMP Traditional Knowledge Framework

Executive Summary This discussion paper synthesizes existing community-based traditional knowledge (TK) monitoring models and plans in order to outline a possible framework for an NWT CIMP TK monitoring program. Analysis of various experiences and perspectives is emphasized more than prescription of a single TK monitoring “Best Practice” to be replicated in all indigenous communities. This is because the report marks a very early phase in cross-regional northern dialogue about TK monitoring.

The report incorporates a major literature review related to four northern case studies, the Cumulative Effects and Assessment Framework (CEAMF) process, and CIMP projects since 1999. This is supplemented by consultation with Sahtu stakeholders, and participation in a TK conference sponsored by the Dene Cultural Institute. The case studies include the Arctic Borderlands Ecological Knowledge Coop (ABC), the West Kitikmeot Slave Study (WKSS – Åutsël K’e and Tåîchô TK programs), the Gwich’in Social and Cultural Institute (GSCI) program, and the Sahtu Renewable Resources Board Barren-Ground Caribou TK project. These are reviewed according to ten criteria, which serve to structure the framework. Details about case studies, guidelines and other resources are provided in Appendices to the report.

A framework is required that will be sustainable over time, providing for a combination of stability, adaptability with respect to diverse and changing community circumstances, and expandability. The program should be flexible enough to draw value from the diversity of approaches that will be taken by the various partnering organizations. The framework must ensure that TK information is rendered in a format that is meaningful from community and regional perspectives, and can also be centrally analyzed and combined with scientific information for the purpose of monitoring cumulative impacts. Achieving this will require leadership, focus and creativity.

Two distinct schools of thought about TK monitoring methods are revealed in the case studies. The approach exemplified in the ABC and Åutsël K’e case studies involves standard quantitative social science household survey methods involving measurable indicators. A second approach has been adopted by SRRB, GSCI and Tåîchô programs, building directly upon everyday indigenous ways of knowing through traditional land-based activities and informal dialogue among harvesters, between harvesters and elders, and more recently (and still relatively rarely) between harvesters, elders and scientists.

These two approaches each possess specific strengths and limits. The two methods may be complementary, although linkages remain to be explored in practice. Both approaches are likely to co-exist in the NWT for some time, and synthesizing monitoring results acquired through a variety of practices will be a challenge for CIMP.

The framework described here accommodates both approaches through a decentralized funding partnership system. At the same time, leadership is provided in focusing monitoring efforts on four key “indicator” themes (caribou, community health, aquatic health and climate change), stimulating cross-regional and interdisciplinary communication and synthesis, and providing capacity-building and training opportunities to community-based pilot projects and partners. It is proposed that two new practitioner bodies be created to provide this support: a TK Steering Committee composed of representatives from partnering organisations, and a TK “SWAT Team” of consultants

August, 2007 SENES Consultants Ltd. ii


offering capacity-building and training support to community-based programs. Annual workshops, a website, and a combination of community and academic communication tools will also provide forums for assessing and synthesizing local and regional monitoring results. A small pilot project program will encourage gradual expansion of the partnership network throughout the NWT.

The report provides criteria for screening partner and pilot project funding proposals, as well as a preliminary scoping of budgetary requirements for implementing the framework. A sustainable program during the initial phases is estimated to cost approximately $500,000. This budget should be projected to expand on an annual basis proportionally to expansion of the partnership network. The goal should be to achieve a stable, fully functioning monitoring network comprehending all regions of the NWT over a period of ten years.

Key Recommendations Criteria Key Recommendations 1. Goal 1. Establish a sustainable, expanding network of community-based TK

monitoring nodes related to the ranges of the Porcupine, Bluenose West, Bluenose East, Cape Bathurst and Bathurst barren-ground caribou herds.

2. Guiding Principles

1. A modest and gradual approach, based on currently available resources. 2. A long term partnership approach with indigenous communities and regional

organisations, affirming indigenous values, guidelines, priorities and methods.

3. Indigenous language, concepts, and modes of knowledge production are the starting point for research.

4. TK engages in a dialogue of equals with science, rather than being subsumed within scientific methods and objectives.

3. Institutional Framework

1. Long term CIMP partnerships with regional or community organisations mandated to engage in monitoring activities.

2. A CIMP TK Steering Committee consisting of leading TK research and monitoring practitioners representing partnering organisations (as distinct from the politically representative Working Group). This Steering Committee would be accountable to the CIMP Working Group, and would screen TK program proposals.

3. A CIMP TK “SWAT” team of staff mandated to provide capacity support for regional and community organisations in monitoring efforts, including training, facilitation, cross-cultural knowledge interpretation, reporting, and communication/education programs.

4. Indicators 1. A fourfold focus on caribou, aquatic health, community health, and climate change is proposed in order to achieve a manageable scope for community-based monitoring work.

2. However, it should be acknowledged that indigenous knowledge production is holistic, cumulative and contextual. Thus community priorities and interests will necessarily shift, evolve, and exceed the boundaries of the “Valued Component” model. A fixed formula for monitoring along scientific lines is not realistic.

5. Perspective on TK

1. The indigenous practice, communication and interpretation of human-environment relationships across generations.

2. A dynamic, pluralistic, and evolving process that incorporates oral history, spirituality, experience, and scientific data in varying proportions.

3. The collective aspect of TK knowledge production incorporates verification procedures and cross-scale analysis.

6. Methodology 1. A participatory methodology is recommended, ensuring that long term programs are community-owned and incorporate ongoing capacity-building

August, 2007 SENES Consultants Ltd. iii


August, 2007 SENES Consultants Ltd. iv

Criteria Key Recommendations and training aspects.

7. Process/Methods 1. Selection criteria for funding partnerships and pilot projects are consistent with goals, principles, methodology and priority themes of this TK Monitoring Framework.

2. In keeping with the participatory methodology, specific monitoring procedures are defined by partnering institutions and are not imposed through a centralized model.

3. Knowledge produced in local and regional scales should be discussed and synthesized across regions.

4. A spatialized (GIS) database should be used as a tool for this dialogic process, and not viewed as an end in itself.

8. Information Sharing Protocol

1. Raw data is owned by participating communities and/or institutions and governed by locally established confidentiality guidelines.

2. Information sharing agreements should ensure that professional archiving norms are followed so as to ensure that information is not destroyed or lost. This will likely mean that copies will be held in trust by the NWT CIMP office.

3. The obligation to provide quality reports to CIMP, reviewed both by community participants and academic specialists, should be understood as a condition of funding.

9. Communication 1. Both documented and oral communication modes are equally as important in TK monitoring processes.

2. Communication tools should be provided for community, government, industry and academic audiences in a variety of media.

3. Communication should not only be the responsibility of partnering institutions. CIMP should also be responsible for establishing forums for knowledge exchange through annual workshops, training sessions, and publications in various media and for various audiences.

10. Evaluation 1. Regular evaluation should take place through both community and academic review procedures, using regionally established criteria.

2. CIMP should synthesize community and regional evaluations on an annual basis according to criteria developed by the TK Steering Committee in order to measure progress and obstacles on an NWT-wide level


TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................. ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................................................. v

Figures ........................................................................................................................................................ vii

Tables.......................................................................................................................................................... vii

1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 CIMP Background ......................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Objectives........................................................................................................................................ 2

1.3 Approach......................................................................................................................................... 2

1.4 Concepts And Contemporary Applications Of Traditional Knowledge ................................... 3

1.5 Key Findings................................................................................................................................... 5

1.6 Key Recommendations .................................................................................................................. 7

2 TOWARDS A SUSTAINABLE TK MONITORING NETWORK................................................ 9

2.2 Goals/Mandate ............................................................................................................................. 10

2.3 Guiding principles........................................................................................................................ 11

2.4 Institutional Framework.............................................................................................................. 11

2.5 Indicators ...................................................................................................................................... 12

2.6 Perspective On Traditional Knowledge ..................................................................................... 13

2.7 Methodology ................................................................................................................................. 14

2.8 Process/Methods........................................................................................................................... 15

2.9 Information Sharing Protocol ..................................................................................................... 19

2.10 Communication ............................................................................................................................ 20

2.11 Evaluation ..................................................................................................................................... 21

3 CASE STUDIES: LESSONS LEARNED ....................................................................................... 22

3.1 Case Studies: Summary of Lessons Learned ............................................................................. 22

3.2 Case Studies: Comparative Summary........................................................................................ 29

August, 2007 SENES Consultants Ltd. v


August, 2007 SENES Consultants Ltd. vi

4 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS AND ASSESSMENT MONITORING FRAMEWORK (CEAMF): LESSONS LEARNED................................................................................................................................ 32

4.1 CEAMF TK Activities ................................................................................................................. 33

4.2 CEAMF Activities: Summary of Lessons Learned ................................................................... 35

5 CIMP TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE ACTIVITIES: LESSONS LEARNED ....................... 37

6 CIMP TK FRAMEWORK: CONSULTATION............................................................................ 39

7 CONCLUSIONS AND NEXT STEPS ............................................................................................ 40

WEBSITES ..................................................................................................................................................... 42

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................... 43

APPENDIX 1: Case Study: Arctic Borderlands Ecological Knowledge Co-op (ABC)................. 53

APPENDIX 2: Case Study: West Kitikmeot Slave Study (WKSS) ................................................ 59

APPENDIX 3: Case Study: Gwich’in Social and Cultural Institute .............................................. 70

APPENDIX 4: Case Study: Sahtu Barren-Ground Caribou TK Study......................................... 75

APPENDIX 5: Other Projects: Beluga Monitoring Program......................................................... 83

APPENDIX 6: Other Projects: Voices from the Bay....................................................................... 84

APPENDIX 7: Proposals: International Polar Year ....................................................................... 90

APPENDIX 8: Consultation Transcripts.......................................................................................... 95

APPENDIX 9: ABC Information Sharing Protocol....................................................................... 102

APPENDIX 10: West Kitikmeot Slave Study TK Research Guidelines ........................................ 106

APPENDIX 11: Gwich’in Tribal Council Traditional Knowledge Policy ..................................... 109

APPENDIX 12: CIMP Monitoring and Capacity-Building Projects, 1999-2006 .......................... 125

APPENDIX 13: Dene Cultural Institute Conference: ..................................................................... 128


Figures Figure 1: CIMP Projects by Type................................................................................................................. 37 Figure 2: CIMP Projects by Knowledge Base .............................................................................................. 37 Figure 3: CIMP Projects by Leading Organisation ...................................................................................... 38 Figure 4: CIMP Projects –Lead Organisations by Type............................................................................... 38 Figure 5: CIMP TK and Capacity Building Projects per Fiscal Year........................................................... 38

Tables Table 1: CIMP Working Group Members and Observers .............................................................................. 1 Table 2: Key Recommendations..................................................................................................................... 7 Table 3: CIMP TK Framework: Possible Partnering Institutions................................................................. 11 Table 4: Planning Workshop Budget............................................................................................................ 15 Table 5: Screening Criteria........................................................................................................................... 17 Table 6: "SWAT Team" Budget Year 1 ....................................................................................................... 18 Table 7: Steering Committee Meeting Budget Year 1 ................................................................................. 18 Table 8: Annual Workshop Budget (Year 2) Option 1: Bush Camp ............................................................ 19 Table 9: Annual Workshop Budget (Year 2) Option 2: Yellowknife........................................................... 19 Table 10: Website Development and Maintenance Budget.......................................................................... 20 Table 11: Publication Option 1: Booklet ...................................................................................................... 21 Table 12: Publication Option 2: Digital Storytelling.................................................................................... 21 Table 13: Case Studies: Comparative Summary .......................................................................................... 29 Table 14: CEAMF Activity Reports: Summary of Key Issues..................................................................... 36 Table 15: Consultation: Key Messages ........................................................................................................ 39

August, 2007 SENES Consultants Ltd. vii


1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 CIMP Background In combination with “Western” science, Aboriginal traditional knowledge (TK) is to play a central role in decisions made by institutions responsible for managing the environment and resources of the Northwest Territories. This is clearly stated throughout the various “parts” of the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act (MVRMA), including Part 6 which deals with cumulative effects. Section 146 states:

The responsible authority shall, subject to the regulations, analyze data collected by it, scientific data, traditional knowledge and other pertinent information for the purpose of monitoring the cumulative impact on the environment of concurrent and sequential uses of land and water and deposits of waste in the Mackenzie Valley [emphasis added].

The NWT CIMP was established to fulfill this requirement. At a basic level, the NWT CIMP is intended to consolidate existing information and to identify and fill knowledge gaps that may exist, including TK.

The NWT CIMP is a requirement of the Gwich'in, Sahtu, and Tåîchô land claim agreements, and of Part 6 of the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act (MVRMA). The NWT CIMP addresses the Mackenzie Valley (as defined in the MVRMA) and the entire NWT.

The NWT CIMP follows a community-based approach to monitoring the human and biophysical aspects of the environment. The monitoring program will:

• Encourage community-based monitoring and community capacity-building. • Provide resources to fill the gaps in current monitoring activities. • Report on the health of the environment, which includes biophysical, social and

economic components. • Help with better decision-making to protect the environment. • Include both scientific and traditional knowledge. • Help coordinate monitoring and reporting in the NWT.

Responsibility for the implementation of the CIMP has been delegated by the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) to a multi-party Working Group, which is a partnership among NWT Aboriginal governments, the Government of Canada, and the Government of the Northwest Territories. This project is a step toward full implementation of CIMP, which was planned for 2006.

Table 1: CIMP Working Group Members and Observers Members Observers Gwich’in Tribal Council Inuvialuit Game Council North Slave Métis Alliance Northwest Territory Métis Nation Tåîchô Government Government of Canada Government of NWT, Environment and Natural Resources

Akaitcho Territory Government Deh Cho First Nations Fisheries and Oceans Canada Sahtu Secretariat Incorporated Environment Canada Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board

August, 2007 SENES Consultants Ltd. 1

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/M-0.2/



Since its inception, the Working Group has placed a strong emphasis on the collection of TK and direct involvement of Aboriginal people in the implementation of the program. 1.2 Objectives As the CIMP continues to develop, there is a need for a comprehensive TK strategy. Towards this end, the overall objective of this project is to investigate systematic approaches that can be used to ensure TK is preserved, collected and readily available for future use in environmental decision-making. The present discussion paper aims to outline models for 1. the collection and archiving of TK; and 2. the integration of TK into cumulative effects decision-making. 1.3 Approach The major components of the project have included: 1. Case studies to evaluate existing approaches for the collection and use of TK. The

evaluation outlines the similarities and differences between initiatives, the pros and cons of the different approaches, and effectiveness and lessons learned from other jurisdictions (where applicable). In particular, the Coordinators have requested that the Arctic Borderlands Ecological Knowledge Co-Op (ABC) be evaluated in detail to determine the extent to which a similar approach could be integrated into the NWT CIMP. Evaluations of the West Kitikmeot Slave Study (WKSS), activities of the Gwich’in Social and Cultural Institute (GSCI), and the ongoing Sahtu Renewable Resources Board (SRRB) Barren-Ground Caribou Traditional Knowledge Project are also featured in this report.

2. A review and evaluation of lessons learned to date through CIMP projects related to TK.

3. A review of traditional knowledge reports related to the Cumulative Effects and Assessment Framework (CEAMF) process.

4. Literature review in traditional knowledge and community-based monitoring. 5. Consultation with a selection of TK practitioners working in the Sahtu Region. The

regional focus allowed for greater depth of results, and minimized costs. The geographical consultation focus also addressed an important gap in documented cumulative impact monitoring planning. The Sahtu did not participate in earlier CEAMF activities; the region was also underrepresented in the list of CIMP projects 1999-2006, with only one project sponsored by GNWT listed. The consultation served as a verification process in preparation for a SENES presentation of the draft framework (along with the Sahtu Renewable Resources Board case study) at the Dene Cultural Institute (DCI) Conference Integrating TK into Environmental Assessments and Regulatory Processes in the NWT, March 21-23, 2007. Consulted were the following individuals:

• Walter Bayha, Chair, Sahtu Renewable Resources Board (SRRB), and Déline First Nation member.



• Jane Modeste-Goulet, traditional knowledge researcher and linguist, Déline Self-Government Team.

• Ruthann Gal, Director, Aurora Research Institute-Fort Smith, collaborator in TK research involving GIS with the Déline First Nation.

• Chief Richard Kochon, Behdzi Ahda First Nation (Colville Lake). • A focus group of Sahtu Renewable Resources Council Representatives. • Ken Caine, PhD candidate in Rural Sociology, University of Alberta,

currently completing a thesis with the working title The construction of community-based natural resource management: Social perception and cognition in the development of new resource management institutions in Délįne, Northwest Territories.

• Susan Fleck, Wildlife Director, NWT Environment and Natural Resources; participant in the SRRB/Environment and Natural Resources Taking Care of the Land camp with Sahtu community representatives, August 6-10, 2007 (see forthcoming SENES report).

6. Review of presentations given at the three day DCI TK Workshop in March (see Appendix), which provided a comprehensive cross-regional overview of the “potential role [of agencies] in the provision of TK, existing sources of information, complementary programs, gaps, etc” in the NWT and beyond.

7. Meetings also took place with CIMP Coordinators and David Livingstone to ensure that the project fulfills the needs of the CIMP Secretariat.

1.4 Concepts And Contemporary Applications Of Traditional Knowledge Sources: WKSSS 2007; Simmons 2007; Legat 1991. “Long ago people lived close to the land and took care of it, respected it, because that’s what they depended on. It is the only resource they had. Caribou, moose, fish and all that stuff.” Charlie Snowshoe, Fort McPherson (from Gwich’in Renewable Resources Board and Gwich’in Tribal Council 2002) There are many definitions of traditional knowledge and other similar terms (Johnson, 1992; Legat, 1991; Stevenson, 1996; Ellis 2005). The NWT audit conducted by SENES in 2005 found that within the NWT there is no single institutional body responsible for the collection and use of TK. Thus, a situation has been created wherein the term “traditional knowledge” has been defined differently by Boards, cultural institutes, Aboriginal groups and government programs. Notwithstanding differences, TK definitions are generally consistent in incorporating the biophysical, cultural and spiritual dimensions of TK. The NWT audit found that most participants in NWT environmental management processes have a common understanding that TK includes the full range of knowledge, experience and values possessed by Aboriginal people. Specific concepts developed through the four case studies addressed in this report will be discussed in subsequent sections.

The role of traditional knowledge was first systematically explored at the territorial level by the Traditional Knowledge Working Group chaired by Allice Legat,



which had its roots in an informal group that began meeting in Yellowknife in 1986. The group was mandated as a Ministerial Committee in 1988, and was tasked to define traditional knowledge, assess its current institutional use in the Northwest Territories (NWT – which then included Nunavut), and develop policy recommendations toward increasing its use and application. Elders from across the NWT participated in the discussions, which led to the publication of a final report in 1991 (Legat, Ed. 1991). This report defined traditional knowledge as

…knowledge that derives from, or is rooted in the traditional way of life of aboriginal people. Traditional knowledge is the accumulated knowledge and understanding of the human place in relation to the universe. This encompasses spiritual relationships, relationships with the natural environment and the use of natural resources, relationships between people; and, is reflected in language, social organization, values, institutions and laws. (Legat, Ed. 1991, 1-2)

The government of the NWT subsequently established a TK Policy more succinctly defining the concept 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 (GNWT 2005, 2). The role of aboriginal knowledge was recognized in the first comprehensive land claims agreements in the Western Arctic (Inuvialuit, 1984; Gwich’in, 1992; Sahtu, 1993), in particular through the establishment of cooperative resource management regimes legislated through the MVRMA (Canada 1998).

Recently indigenous theorists such as Maori author Linda Tuhiwai Smith (1999) and Kanienkehaka author Taiaiake Alfred (2005) have insisted that while there may be commonalities experienced in the history and impacts of colonization, generalizations about indigenous knowledge are inappropriate given the wide diversity of indigenous peoples. This diversity has been recognized in definitions of indigenous knowledge and ways of knowing specific to each people. This does not negate the general definition above, but rather enhances it with a more nuanced understanding of regional and local cosmologies. For example, the Government of Nunavut has formally adopted a specific conception of Inuit knowledge drawn from Inuit perspectives and language, Qaujimajatuqangit (Wenzel 2004). This concept should be distinguished from definitions of TK developed by the Dene Cultural Institute and Dene Nation. The concept of Qaujimajatuqangit has been applied in studies related to the Qitirmiut people of the West Kitikmeot Region (Thorpe et al 2001, Collingnon 2006). In their study of Qitirmiut Knowledge about caribou, Thorpe et al define Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit (IQ) as “what has always been known …”what [Inuit] must or have to know” (2001, 4). Applications: Challenges The case studies reviewed in this report each advocate TK research and monitoring as a valuable resource for responsible decision-making. However, recent literature has also pointed to a number of challenges inherent in the documentation and use of TK. Paul Nadasdy (1999, 2003) has argued that efforts to integrate TK into resource management institutions have been largely unsuccessful. In his view, the problem is that TK is viewed by these institutions as merely another set of data to be subsumed within scientific datasets. “Integration” of knowledge systems is thereby reduced to a technical problem.



However, indigenous knowledge is grounded in a fundamentally distinct world view that cannot be so easily appropriated without fragmenting and distorting its essence.

According to Nadasdy, the very terminology used to refer to indigenous knowledge points to its inappropriateness. The idea of “tradition” tends to negate the adaptability and dynamism of indigenous culture (see also Stevenson 1996, who advocates using the term “indigenous knowledge”). The concepts of “environment” and the “ecological” that are often attached to TK (i.e. TEK) tend to reproduce the Western notion that human beings are separate and distinct from the rest of the world. This is the opposite of the indigenous understanding of humans as “part of the land, part of the water” (McClellan et al 1987, 1). The term “knowledge” is equally problematic; Nadasdy points to numerous instances in which indigenous people have described their way of knowing not as knowledge, but “a way of life” (Nadasdy 1999, 4) that exists only within the context of cultural practices.

In the process of integration with Western science, TK can be distorted by being compartmentalized, extracted from its original social and cultural context (“distilled”). In effect, procedures used to document TK quite often reinforce the very power imbalance between scientific and indigenous perspectives that it is intended to address. • Stephen Ellis, who has participated in a number of WKSS monitoring studies

discussed in this report, has observed that even “bottom-up” TK initiatives have tended to be only marginally beneficial to communities. Barriers include “communication barriers, arising from the different languages and styles of expression used by traditional knowledge holders; conceptual barriers, stemming from the organizations' difficulties in comprehending the values, practices, and context underlying traditional knowledge; and political barriers, resulting from an unwillingness to acknowledge traditional-knowledge messages that may conflict with the agendas of government or industry. Still other barriers emanate from the co-opting of traditional knowledge by non-aboriginal researchers and their institutions.” (Ellis 2005) According to this view, TK research can effectively help to maintain existing power imbalances. Thus the project to develop an appropriate TK framework for cumulative impacts monitoring represents a significant challenge.

1.5 Key Findings Fifteen years following establishment of an official TK policy for the NWT, and nine years since the MVRMA legislated incorporation of TK in environmental decision-making, it remains widely recognized that fulfillment of policy and legislative responsibilities with respect to TK is neither simple nor straightforward. Few successful models of TK monitoring exist in the north, and it remains uncertain whether these models are sustainable. Virtually no comparative work has been done on TK monitoring experiences in the north; neither have peer reviewed scholarly evaluations of monitoring results been published. Linkages with science and examples of TK use in decision-making remain tenuous. The majority of documentation on TK monitoring focused on individual projects or programs, and is published as “grey literature” – thus the task of synthesizing existing experience for the purpose of designing a CIMP TK framework has been more challenging than originally envisioned.



However, the present review of key models and planning processes arguably provides a solid foundation for a TK monitoring framework. The framework acknowledges the differing perspectives and experiences in working with TK in the various regions of the NWT, and the unfeasibility of establishing a homogenous cross-regional formula for TK monitoring. The prospect that CIMP might serve as a “clearing house” (in the sense of being a direct agent for collecting and distributing information) for TK monitoring data is similarly unlikely given community and regional concerns about intellectual property rights. It is more probable that CIMP would provide a secure archive for community-based research materials (as a back-up for community archives), and would provide forums for community and regional partners to compare and synthesize findings as a basis for environmental decision-making. The agents of TK monitoring processes and the owners of raw monitoring data will be partnering organisations and communities. Thus the organisational framework will be grafted onto existing local and regional processes and protocols through a gradually expanding network of long term funding partnerships. Such a decentralized approach requires a high level of administrative and procedural creativity. The complexity of dealing with an immense region and engaging with diverse cultures and monitoring methods demands a central body that plays much more than a merely administrative role. The multi-community experiences of the Arctic Borderlands Ecological Knowledge Coop and the Voices from the Bay project (see appendix) indicate that strong practitioner leadership is an important factor for nurturing local processes, building local capacity, and achieving quality results. Two CIMP bodies are proposed to fulfill this leadership requirement: a TK Steering Committee consisting of representatives of partnering projects, and a TK “SWAT Team” consisting of expert consultants. The TK Steering Committee will be tasked with ensuring appropriate focus in monitoring projects and accountability of program partners. The Committee will also support germination of new partnerships through pilot projects. The TK SWAT Team will assist with local and regional capacity-building and training efforts. The Steering Committee and SWAT Team will both be instrumental in generalizing local and regional experiences and findings to a cross-regional scale through annual meetings and workshops as well as training sessions and communication media. The two bodies will also facilitate TK-science linkages and dialogue through these forums. Current northern models in Canada embody two distinct schools of thought regarding TK monitoring process and methods. Over the near term, these two approaches will continue to co-exist, and will continue to provide valuable monitoring results. The approach exemplified in the ABC and Åutsël K’e case studies involves standard quantitative social science household survey methods involving measurable indicators. Practitioners engage community members in survey development in order to ensure that the process is adapted to local idioms and cultural protocols are respected (Parlee 1997). Statistical analysis of survey results is delegated to experts outside the community, and analytical results are eventually returned to the community for verification. This approach provides results that are more easily correlated with natural science monitoring processes.



However, the results are arguably of reduced richness and nuance relative to traditional indigenous modes of monitoring. TK is reformulated as a series of discrete quantitative data-objects rather than a process or “way of knowing.” Statistical analysis procedures mean that community participants lose control over an important step in the production of results. Thus although this method is promoted as an important mechanism for community participation in monitoring, key aspects of research design and analysis are externally determined. So there is a risk that community buy-in may decline over time. The second approach exemplified by the SRRB, Gwich’in and Tåîchô case studies as well as the Voices from the Bay project (appendix) is exceedingly difficult to legitimate in a field dominated by scientifically trained practitioners. This is partly because of its deceptive simplicity in building directly upon everyday indigenous ways of knowing through traditional land-based activities and informal dialogue among harvesters, between harvesters and elders, and more recently (and still relatively rarely) between harvesters, elders and scientists. Information collection, analysis at various scales, communication and evaluation are simultaneous within this dialogic process. Monitoring is cumulative (involving ongoing expansion of understanding) rather than repetitive (involving standardized questions repeated over time). Results are for the most part qualitative and contextual, emphasizing relationships and processes. Thus linkages with science require complex interpretive procedures that are not reducible to numbers. This approach emphasizes the need for TK practitioners to harness science to complement their perspectives, and not the reverse. Because community control is at the very foundation of this approach, community buy-in is likely to remain strong over the long term. The case studies have only recently begun to demonstrate the value of this approach as a complement to science. Providing evidence for the legitimacy of the approach in combination with science will remain an ongoing challenge within the CIMP monitoring framework. The proposed annual workshop and Steering Committee meeting will provide an opportunity for practitioners to discuss the relative merits of the two approaches. The two methods may be complementary, although linkages remain to be explored in practice. This dialogue may lead over the long term to a new consensus regarding monitoring best practices. In the meantime, it will be necessary for the TK Steering Committee to accommodate monitoring results acquired through a variety of practices. This too will require considerable creativity. 1.6 Key Recommendations This report reviews the case studies, the CEAMF and CIMP experiences, and consultation results according to ten criteria. Key recommendations are made related to these criteria. Section 2, “Towards a Sustainable TK Monitoring Network,” provides a detailed discussion of these criteria with preliminary budgets for proposed activities. Table 2: Key Recommendations Criteria Key Recommendations 1. Goal 1. Establish a sustainable, expanding network of community-based TK

monitoring nodes related to the ranges of the Porcupine, Bluenose West,




Criteria Key Recommendations Bluenose East, Cape Bathurst and Bathurst barren-ground caribou herds.


1. A modest and gradual approach, based on currently available resources. 2. A long term partnership approach with indigenous communities and regional

organisations, affirming indigenous values, guidelines, priorities and methods.

3. Indigenous language, concepts, and modes of knowledge production are the starting point for research.

4. TK engages in a dialogue of equals with science, rather than being subsumed within scientific methods and objectives.


1. Long term CIMP partnerships with regional or community organisations mandated to engage in monitoring activities.

2. A CIMP TK Steering Committee consisting of leading TK research and monitoring practitioners representing partnering organisations (as distinct from the politically representative Working Group). This Steering Committee would be accountable to the CIMP Working Group, and would screen TK program proposals.

3. A CIMP TK “SWAT” team of staff mandated to provide capacity support for regional and community organisations in monitoring efforts, including training, facilitation, cross-cultural knowledge interpretation, reporting, and communication/education programs.

4. Indicators 1. A fourfold focus on caribou, aquatic health, community health, and climate change is proposed in order to achieve a manageable scope for community-based monitoring work.

2. However, it should be acknowledged that indigenous knowledge production is holistic, cumulative and contextual. Thus community priorities and interests will necessarily shift, evolve, and exceed the boundaries of the “Valued Component” model. A fixed formula for monitoring along scientific lines is not realistic.


1. The indigenous practice, communication and interpretation of human-environment relationships across generations.

2. A dynamic, pluralistic, and evolving process that incorporates oral history, spirituality, experience, and scientific data in varying proportions.

3. The collective aspect of TK knowledge production incorporates verification procedures and cross-scale analysis.

6. Methodology 1. A participatory methodology is recommended, ensuring that long term programs are community-owned and incorporate ongoing capacity-building and training aspects.

7. Process/Methods 1. Selection criteria for funding partnerships and pilot projects are consistent with goals, principles, methodology and priority themes of this TK Monitoring Framework.




8. Information Sharing Protocol

1. Raw data is owned by participating communities and/or institutions and governed by locally established confidentiality guidelines.

2. Information sharing agreements should ensure that professional archiving norms are followed so as to ensure that information is not destroyed or lost. This will likely mean that copies will be held in trust by the NWT CIMP office.

3. The obligation to provide quality reports to CIMP, reviewed both by



Criteria Key Recommendations community participants and academic specialists, should be understood as a condition of funding.

9. Communication 1. Both documented and oral communication modes are equally as important in TK monitoring processes.

2. Communication tools should be provided for community, government, industry and academic audiences in a variety of media.

3. Communication should not only be the responsibility of partnering institutions. CIMP should also be responsible for establishing forums for knowledge exchange through annual workshops, training sessions, and publications in various media and for various audiences.

10. Evaluation 1. Regular evaluation should take place through both community and academic review procedures, using regionally established criteria.

2. CIMP should synthesize community and regional evaluations on an annual basis according to criteria developed by the TK Steering Committee in order to measure progress and obstacles on an NWT-wide level

2 TOWARDS A SUSTAINABLE TK MONITORING NETWORK

In developing a new TK monitoring system for the NWT, CIMP has an exciting and very challenging responsibility. The NWT CIMP context is unique in its scope and complexity. The program is responsible for monitoring in a region that comprehends thirty-two communities, seven indigenous language communities, and a complex array of institutional structures engaged in resource management at various scales. However, the new system can build upon the long term experience of institutions like the Arctic Borderlands Ecological Knowledge Co-op (ABC), the West Kitikmeot Slave Study (WKSS), and the Gwich’in Social and Cultural Institute (GSCI) in working with the knowledge of northern indigenous communities. It should also draw from the community and regional planning activities conducted through the CEAMF process, as well as the experience of the 45 community-based TK and capacity-building projects funded by CIMP since 1999. Review of the four case studies makes it clear that any CIMP framework will most effectively be founded on long term partnerships with regional or community institutions already bearing a strong track record in TK monitoring.

Developing a standardized monitoring format for the NWT is arguably not feasible over the near term: As indigenous communities move toward self-governance, they are increasingly asserting the right to determine local research processes and maintain ownership and control of TK; moreover, many communities are currently in a high state of flux, addressing new governance arrangements and new conditions for economic development on their traditional land base – their perspectives and capacity are thus likely to evolve over time. CIMP must also account for the recent critiques of TK “integration” by resource management institutions; as previously discussed in this report, a number of analysts have argued that TK is easily distorted when incorporated into scientific research processes (Nadasdy 1999, 2003; Ellis 2005). A final and critical factor is the reality of funding constraints; unless a major federal policy shift takes place, this is likely to remain a challenge.


A framework is required that will be sustainable over time, providing for a combination of stability, adaptability with respect to diverse and changing community circumstances, and expandability. The program should be flexible enough to draw value from the diversity of approaches that will be taken by the various partnering organizations. The framework must ensure that TK information is rendered in a format that is meaningful from community and regional perspectives, and can also be centrally analyzed and combined with scientific information for the purpose of monitoring cumulative impacts. Achieving this will require leadership, focus and creativity:

In terms of leadership, it is recommended that core CIMP staff take a proactive role in community capacity building and facilitating the cross-disciplinary and cross-scale information sharing and analytical processes necessary for an effective monitoring system. The recommendations of the SENES discussion paper for CIMP on Operational Plan Considerations for a three way focus on caribou, community health, and climate change should be considered; additionally, aquatic health has been identified as a priority by the CIMP Working Group.

The key indicator theme structuring regional monitoring programs should be barren-ground caribou, with a view to eventually encompassing mountain and woodland caribou habitat. Methodological creativity will definitely be necessary in order to address key weaknesses of existing models. In particular, achieving community ownership and at the same time establishing genuine linkages between TK and science is a major challenge. The proposed framework would address this by integrating scientific research into the context of an indigenous knowledge production process. This is a reversal of the normal procedure, which has been to engage in TK collection using scientifically structured surveys.

In order to develop the following framework outline, the key learnings from the case studies, CEAMF activity reports, CIMP program, and consultations with stakeholders from the Sahtu Region were coded by the ten criteria listed in Section 1.5, Key Recommendations. Section 2.7, Process/Methods, provides a preliminary proposal for specific program activities, budgets, and screening criteria for establishing long term funding partnerships and supporting pilot project initiatives. 2.2 Goals/Mandate Key Recommendation 1. Establish a sustainable, expanding network of community-based TK monitoring nodes

related to the ranges of the Porcupine, Bluenose West, Bluenose East, Cape Bathurst and Bathurst barren-ground caribou herds.

Supplementary The mandate of the CIMP TK monitoring network would be: 2. Engage elders, current harvesters and youth in a collective approach to developing

TK baseline information and monitoring change related to caribou, community health, aquatic health and climate.

3. Promote strong community relationships in harvesting activities, which are linked to monitoring and community involvement in resource management.



4. Build community institutional and research core capacity in facilitating and documenting TK monitoring.

5. Establish a strategy for cross-disciplinary and cross-scale information sharing and analysis, including linkages with scientific activities and results, for the purpose of cumulative impact monitoring.

6. Conduct a synthesis and assessment of data from TK monitoring efforts in the NWT to date.

2.3 Guiding principles Key Recommendations 1. A modest and gradual approach, based on currently available resources. 2. A long term partnership approach with indigenous communities and regional

organisations, affirming indigenous values, guidelines, priorities and methods. 3. Indigenous language, concepts, and modes of knowledge production are the starting

point for research. 4. TK engages in a dialogue of equals with science, rather than being subsumed within

scientific methods and objectives. Supplementary 5. TK monitoring is evolving, integrative, and “interdisciplinary,” involving social and

ecological aspects, and at times incorporating scientific methods. 2.4 Institutional Framework Key Recommendations 1. Long term CIMP partnerships with regional or community organisations mandated to

engage in monitoring activities. 2. A CIMP TK Steering Committee consisting of leading TK research and monitoring

practitioners representing partnering organisations (as distinct from the politically representative Working Group). This Steering Committee would be accountable to the CIMP Working Group, and would screen TK program proposals.

3. A CIMP TK “SWAT” team of staff mandated to provide capacity support for regional and community organisations in monitoring efforts, including training, facilitation, cross-cultural knowledge interpretation, reporting, cross-regional monitoring forums, and communication/education programs.

Supplementary 4. Partnering organisations would have a successful track record in community-based

TK research and/or monitoring in each of the five barren-ground caribou ranges. Discussion of eligibility may be found in 2.7, Process/Methods.

Table 3: CIMP TK Framework: Possible Partnering Institutions Caribou Range Institution(s) NWT Community(s) Track Record Bathurst Åutsël K'e Wildlife,

Lands and Environment Department

Åutsël K'e Ni hat'ni - Watching the Land program



Whaèhdôö Nàowoò Kö/Tåîchô Government

Behchokö, Gamètì, Wekweètì, Whatì

Placenames as Indicators of Bio-geographical Knowledge and caribou TK projects.

Bluenose East Déline Bluenose West

Sahtu Renewable Resources Board Colville Lake

Barren-Ground Caribou TK Study

Cape Bathurst Porcupine

Gwich’in Social and Cultural Institute/Arctic Borderlands Ecological Knowledge Co-op

Aklavik, Inuvik, Fort McPherson, Tsiigehtchic, Tuktoyaktuk

12 years of baseline TK research (GSCI); 10 years of local knowledge monitoring (ABC).

5. Providing sufficient funding to cover relatively self-sufficient programs including

equipment, staff, community participation, transcription/translation and communication of results will enhance participation, capacity building, quality of results and program longevity.

6. Following Year 1 of the TK Monitoring Program, two funding options would be available:

1. Long term partnership funding, renewable conditional upon receipt and Steering Committee approval of annual reports – this can be either regional or locally based.

2. Program development funding (seed money) for a limited number of aspiring partners (the “snowball” approach described by Gofman in Fleener, Gofman et al 2004, 7). Proposals can be either regional or locally based, and funding is not renewable.

7. Lead partnering institutions would be responsible for establishing partnerships with other institutions with overlapping jurisdictions and expertise in the relevant region.

8. Program screening is described in Section 2.7, Process/Methods. 2.5 Indicators Key Recommendations 1. A fourfold focus on caribou, community health, aquatic health, and climate change is proposed in order to achieve a manageable scope for community-based monitoring work. 2. However, it should be acknowledged that indigenous knowledge production is holistic, cumulative and contextual. Thus community priorities and interests will necessarily shift, evolve, and exceed the boundaries of the “Valued Component” model. A fixed formula for monitoring along scientific lines is not realistic. Supplemental 3. The communities listed in Table 3 have participated in exercises aimed at identifying

comprehensive indicator lists. The participatory monitoring approach allows for an evolving understanding of indicators in the four priority theme areas, as well as other themes seen to be locally significant (Hunsberger et al 2004). Rather than be imposed in a formulaic way, indicator lists will for the most part be issue based, derived from community based monitoring processes and priorities.



4. The qualitative methodology described below does not require a fixed, standardized or comprehensive indicator list. However, the case studies do point to a number of core TK indicators. The process/methods for developing a monitoring program are discussed in Section 2.7 below.

Caribou • Caribou health • Caribou-predator relationships • Caribou-human relationships (subsistence harvest/respect) • Caribou habitat Community Health • Indigenous language and cultural knowledge, including place names • Land-based programs and activities; respectful practices on the land • Cultural activities, programs and tools within the community • Food sources • Youth participation/knowledge Aquatic Health • Changes in water crossings • Water flow • Taste of water • Fish health and flavour • Fish-human relationships (subsistence harvest/respect) • Fish diversity Climate Change • Species population dynamics • Weather/seasons • Harvesting adaptations 2.6 Perspective On Traditional Knowledge Key Recommendations 1. The indigenous practice, communication and interpretation of human-environment

relationships across generations. 2. A dynamic, pluralistic, and evolving process (Leach et al 1999; Natcher and Hickey

2002) that incorporates oral history, spirituality, experience, and scientific data in varying proportions.

3. The collective aspect of TK knowledge production incorporates verification procedures and cross-scale analysis (Legat, Ed. 1991).

Supplementary



4. The definition of TK should be broad and flexible, incorporating contemporary perspectives and practices while recognizing living traces of ancient indigenous knowledge and relationships.

5. The unique role and contributions of TK in longitudinal and landscape level cumulative impact monitoring should be recognized.

6. Working with TK in a respectful way means building respectful dialogue with TK holders, respecting the integrative and holistic (or essentially ecological) nature of this knowledge, and situating it in appropriate cultural and linguistic/conceptual context.

2.7 Methodology Key Recommendation 1. A participatory methodology is recommended, ensuring that long term programs are

community-owned and incorporate ongoing capacity-building and training aspects. 2. Building on traditional indigenous knowledge production processes, inclusive forums

for dialogue should be structured into the approach including elders (holders of baseline knowledge), current harvesters (observing recent changes on the land), youth (future resource managers), women, scientists, and regions.

Supplementary 3. Participation has become a requirement of licensing for research affecting

communities in the NWT (Aurora Research Institute 2005). The participatory methodology is more broadly integrated into research and monitoring processes. It involves a system of partnership incorporating local governance of monitoring processes and involvement of research teams and participants in designing the program, guiding implementation, and analysis of results. Participatory methodology is flexible and adaptive to local governance structures, experience, priorities and conditions of the specific program. Thus imposition of a centrally defined participatory model or formula by CIMP would be inappropriate; this should be defined at the regional or community level.

4. Participatory methodology is the overarching research approach. This is distinct from the specific methods or tools that are used in research processes (discussed in Section 2.7).

5. This framework advocates a variant of participatory methodology that is derived from indigenous knowledge production procedures, recognizing the qualitative distinction between TK and scientific monitoring processes. At the same time, the value of any complementary scientific monitoring processes already in place in participating communities is recognized.

6. The emphasis is on collective interpretation and analysis of experiences of change, accommodating the holism of indigenous ways of knowing, and keeping TK in context throughout the interpretive process (Natcher and Hickey 2002; Huntington et al 2006). This means that the monitoring approach is primarily qualitative and cumulative, rather than quantitative and fixed.




7. Oral and documented narratives (Gofman, in Fleener, Gofman et al 2004, 8; Cruikshank 1998) and spatial mapping (Mayfield et al 2001; Kendrick and Manseau 2007) are the principle modes of communicating observations and analysis.

2.8 Process/Methods Key Recommendations 1. Selection criteria for funding partnerships and pilot projects are consistent with

goals, principles, methodology and priority themes of this TK Monitoring Framework.




Supplementary: CIMP Actions and Budgets 3. Finalize TK Monitoring Framework This phase would involve a three day workshop to review the current TK Monitoring Framework discussion document and achieve consensus on the ten criteria defining the framework. The workshop would be invitation-only in order to keep the number of participants to a scale that would allow for effective strategic planning. It would involve TK research specialists representing the four programs profiled in this report, as well as four scientists specializing in the priority monitoring theme areas (caribou, community health, aquatic health, climate change). The workshop report would serve as the basis for an initial call for proposals. Table 4: Planning Workshop Budget This budget assumes three participants from each monitoring program (including two WKSS monitoring programs) for a total of 15, a facilitator, CIMP staff, and four monitoring scientists. Cost of travel and accommodations is minimized by holding the event in Yellowknife. The amount is based on a maximum of 19 participants travelling to Yellowknife. It is assumed that an INAC meeting space will be used, and community participants will provide their own interpretation. Item Cost Units Amount Facilitation (including preparation and reporting) 900 15 13500Participant honoraria 450 15 6750Participant travel (average cost) 1000 19 19000Participant accommodations 130 19 2470Participant per diem (GNWT rate) 92.15 19 1750.85Catering 200 3 600Supplies 100 1 100Total 44170.85


4. Call for Proposals (adapted from CIMP 2007) The focus in Year 1 of the program will be on supporting ongoing monitoring programs with a focus on the four priority themes discussed below: caribou, community health, aquatic health, and climate change (Section 2.4 Indicators). It is recommended that a maximum of four partners be identified during Year 1 through a funding competition specifically focused on TK monitoring (thus recognizing the distinct methodology and focus required for TK-led monitoring activities; see Section 2.6 Methodology). Year 1 proposals should be solicited from the organisations listed in Table 3. Recipient Eligibility (Source: CIMP 2007) • Aboriginal organizations and communities within settled and unsettled claim areas of

the NWT. • Federal and Territorial Government departments and agencies. • Academia Project Eligibility Eligible Year 1 programs must occur in the NWT and support TK baseline data collection and/or monitoring activities related to one or more of the four CIMP TK focus areas: caribou, community health, aquatic health, and climate change. These activities may be structured as a pilot project. In Year 2 and thereafter, partnership funding will be based on five year monitoring plans and funding for pilot projects will be one year in duration. Lead Institution’s Track Record in TK Research/Monitoring This includes a demonstration of the capacity and experience of the institution related to the proposed project/program activities. Project Description/Research Plan In Year 2 and thereafter, partnership funding will be based on five year monitoring plans and funding for pilot projects will be one year in duration. The description/plan should include detailed Scope of Work including a description of the governance structure, research team, methodology, work plan (methods, tools, timeline), research protocols and data ownership, evaluation criteria, and annual project deliverables. For pilot projects a preliminary plan for follow-up work should be included. Applicants should be aware that funds may not be awarded in full, and therefore, proposed adjustments to the Scope of Work due to receipt of partial funding, must also be described. Every effort should be made by the TK Steering Committee to fund self-sufficient projects/programs, so the number of proposals awarded funding should be reduced proportionally to available funding. Criteria and weighting will vary slightly for partnership programs and pilot projects. Relevance and Justification Provide rationale for the work, and description of any other similar work completed, underway or anticipated. Community Involvement/Partnerships



Describe the role/involvement with communities/organizations (to maximize available resources and avoid duplications of effort and costs). Projects with plans to work with appropriate partners will receive preferred consideration. Preference will be given to proposals with potential to build capacity to support community-based monitoring. Capacity Building Describe how community capacity-building will be integrated into the project or program. TK-Science Linkages Describe how the TK monitoring will be linked with scientific monitoring processes in the study territory. Communication of Results The process or mechanism for communicating the results of the project to the affected communities and to the broader public. Literature Review (Partnership Program only) Provide a discussion of relevant publications and documentation as it informs the current program. Budget – Value for Money Suggested budget reasonable in keeping with the level of work proposed and with expected benefits. Include amount requested from the NWT CIMP, and identify any funding/support received/requested through other sources. This section must also indicate if the project can be completed if only partial funding is received • Optional: Supporting documents These may include a motion or letters of endorsement by memberships/organizations (not included in 6 page maximum). Table 5: Screening Criteria (Adapted from CIMP 2007) One Year Program Development Fund Weight Recipient eligibility Pass/Fail Project eligibility Pass/Fail Lead institution’s track record in TK research 5 Description of project and deliverables 20 Relevance and justification 20 Community involvement/partnerships 20 Capacity building 10 TK-science linkages 10 Communication of results 10 Budget – value for money 5 Total 100 Five Year Partnership Program Weight Recipient eligibility Pass/Fail Project eligibility Pass/Fail



Lead institution’s track record in TK research and monitoring 10 Five year monitoring plan and deliverables 20 Relevance and justification 20 Community involvement/partnerships 20 Capacity building 10 TK-science linkages 5 Communication of results 5 Literature review 5 Budget – value for money 5 Total 100 4. TK “SWAT Team” Tour The TK “SWAT Team” would consist of expert consultants contracted to provide capacity support to each of the partnering projects. Each program or project would receive three visits from a “SWAT Team” member per year in order to assist with training, participatory project design, implementation, reporting and evaluation. Table 6: "SWAT Team" Budget Year 1 The budget assumes three one-week visits per year to the four partnering projects. Item Cost Units Amount SWAT Team Contracts 900 60 54000 Travel (average cost) 1000 12 12000 Accommodations 130 48 6240 Per diem (GNWT rate) 92.15 48 4423.2 Total 76663.2

5. Steering Committee The Steering Committee meet over a period of one day per year. The Steering Committee includes one person per partnering institution – and CIMP Staff are ex-officio members of the Steering Committee. The purpose of the meeting is to review CIMP TK monitoring activities and TK-science linkages, plan for the annual conference, and screen program funding proposals. Table 7: Steering Committee Meeting Budget Year 1 This budget assumes four members of the initial Steering Committee, in conjunction with the Annual Workshop, to save on travel costs. It is assumed that Steering Committee members will provide their own interpretation. Item Cost Units Amount Honoraria 150 4 450 Accommodations 130 4 520 Per diem (GNWT rate) 92 4 369 Total 1339

6. Synthesis/Evaluation/Cross-Scale Linkages: Annual Workshop Starting in Year 2, this is an annual gathering of partnering monitoring institutions, scientists and other interested stakeholders to present, synthesize and analyse monitoring results on an NWT-wide scale, plan communication objectives, evaluate CIMP projects and programs, and review the CIMP TK Framework. Dependent on emergent regional priorities and experiences, the conference might be thematically based. Linkages with



jurisdictions and networks external to the NWT may also be incorporated into the annual conference. This would also be an important opportunity to raise public awareness of the CIMP program. Budget (Year 2) This budget assumes three participants including TK Steering Committee members from each of the four partnering monitoring programs, plus one pilot project, for a total of 15, a facilitator, CIMP staff, three special guests from other jurisdictions, and four monitoring scientists. The amount is based on a maximum of 19 participants travelling to Yellowknife. It is assumed that community participants will provide their own interpretation.

Ideally, the workshop will be held in on-the-land camps on a rotating basis in partnering regions in order to enhance the quality of knowledge exchange over the years. The benefits of on-the-land workshops was recently demonstrated at a workshop held at Kelly Lake, sponsored by SRRB and GNWT Environment and Natural Resources (August 6-10, 2007; see forthcoming SENES report). However, this is projected to be somewhat more costly than the alternative (Option 2) for a workshop in Yellowknife, assuming that CIMP staff live in Yellowknife and an INAC meeting space is used. Table 8: Annual Workshop Budget (Year 2) Option 1: Bush Camp Item Cost Units Amount Facilitation (including preparation and reporting) 900 15 13500 Participant honoraria 450 18 8100 Participant travel (average cost) 1500 25 37500 Participant accommodations and meals 900 25 22500 Supplies 100 1 100 Total 81700

Table 9: Annual Workshop Budget (Year 2) Option 2: Yellowknife Item Cost Units Amount Facilitation (including preparation and reporting) 900 15 13500 Participant honoraria 450 18 8100 Participant travel (average cost) 1000 23 23000 Participant accommodations 130 23 2990 Participant per diems 92 23 2119 Supplies 100 1 100 Total 49809

2.9 Information Sharing Protocol Key Recommendations 1. Raw data is owned by participating communities and/or institutions and governed by

locally established confidentiality guidelines. 2. Information sharing agreements should ensure that professional archiving norms are

followed so as to ensure that information is not destroyed or lost. This will likely mean that copies will be held in trust by the NWT CIMP office.

3. The obligation to provide quality reports to CIMP, reviewed both by community participants and academic specialists, should be understood as a condition of funding (Cf. Screening Criteria listed in Section 2.7.6 above).



Supplementary Please see appendices for information sharing and TK protocols and policies published by the ABC, WKSS, and Gwich’in Tribal Council. The SRRB Guidelines have not yet been made available to the public. 4. Information protocols established by CIMP should be brief and in plain language so

as to be equally accessible to community stakeholders and academic researchers. 5. The WKSS has established a review an information sharing protocol that appears to

have worked well over time. This should serve as the basis for the CIMP protocol. 2.10 Communication Key Recommendations 1. Both documented and oral communication modes are equally as important in TK

monitoring processes. 2. Communication tools should be provided for community, government, industry and

academic audiences in a variety of media. 3. Communication should not only be the responsibility of partnering institutions. CIMP

should also be responsible for establishing forums for knowledge exchange through annual workshops (see 2.7.9 Synthesis/Evaluation/Cross-Scale Linkages: Annual Workshop), training sessions (see 2.7.7 “SWAT Team” Tour), and publications in various media and for various audiences.

Supplementary 4. Website The CIMP website www.nwtcimp.ca/ provides a good initial model for web communication. However, this should be expanded to include password-protected “wikis” for community partners, with interactive mapping, language, and interview databases. This is now quite feasible given that all NWT communities will soon have access to broadband internet. Table 10: Website Development and Maintenance Budget This budget assumes that website development and maintenance will be conducted on a partnership basis with the South Slave Research Centre (Aurora Research Institute). The budget for Year 1 is greater to account for development and training with the four partnering communities. A training visit of one week per community is assumed. Item Cost Units AmountAurora Research Institute staff time - website development and training 800 40 32000Travel to 4 partnering communities (average cost) 1000 4 4000Accommodations (one week/community) 520 4 2080Participant per diems (one week/community) 369 4 1474Total 39554

5. Publications


http://www.nwtcimp.ca/


In addition to any publications produced by community partners, CIMP should aim to produce a minimum of one synthetic plain language publication per year, plus one peer reviewed academic publication. All publications should be made available on the CIMP website. The plain language publication should be thematically focussed, as determined by the TK Steering Committee in consultation with community partners, ideally during the annual workshop. Format options include booklets, digital storytelling (a cost-effective multi-media format including a strong mapping theme, Cf. http://www.storycenter.org/), and video. The two lower-cost options, booklet and digital story, are budgeted below. It is suggested that the digital storytelling option not be initiated until Year 2. Table 11: Publication Option 1: Booklet Item Cost Units AmountConsultant writing, editing and collaboration with partner communities 900 30 27000Travel 1000 4 4000Accommodations (one week/community) 520 4 2080Per diems (one week/community) 369 4 1474Layout and design 500 10 5000Printing (5000 copies) 3000 1 3000Total 42554

Table 12: Publication Option 2: Digital Storytelling Item Cost Units AmountConsultant cost 5000 5 25000Travel 1000 4 4000Accommodations (one week/community) 520 4 2080Per diems (one week/community) 369 4 1474DVD copies (1000) 2000 1 2000Total 34554

2.11 Evaluation Key Recommendations 1. Regular evaluation should take place through both community and academic review

procedures, using regionally established criteria. 2. CIMP should synthesize community and regional evaluations on an annual basis

according to criteria developed by the TK Steering Committee in order to measure progress and obstacles on an NWT-wide level

Supplementary Implementation of the CIMP TK framework should be subject to regular evaluation. It was not possible to provide detailed evaluation criteria within the scope of this project. However, these are implicit within the Framework criteria developed in detail in the above sections. A preliminary list of criteria would include:


http://www.storycenter.org/



• Successful completion of funded project objectives • Sustainability of partnerships and monitoring activities • Institutional and community capacity building • Community ownership and motivation • Expansion of funding and partnerships • Effectiveness of information sharing tools and forums • Linkages with scientific monitoring results

3 CASE STUDIES: LESSONS LEARNED Four case studies were selected for this project: the Arctic Borderlands Ecological Knowledge Co-op (ABC), the West Kitikmeot Slave Study (WKSS), the Gwich’in Social and Cultural Institute (GSCI), and the Sahtu Renewable Resources Board (SRRB) Barren-Ground Caribou TK Study. Baseline TK collection and/or monitoring are ongoing in each of these cases. They are all situated in distinct areas of northern Canada, and are oriented to research and/or monitoring in primarily indigenous communities. Caribou monitoring is a priority valued component in each case. ABC, WKSS and GSCI have all been operating for over ten years. The SRRB study is a two year project initiated in 2006 to collect baseline information and address management issues.

ABC covers the widest spread of jurisdictions, covering the range of the Porcupine caribou herd including areas of Alaska, the Yukon, and the NWT including least ten member communities; the GSCI provides for participation of the fifteen communities of the Gwich’in land claim territory; the SRRB study involves three communities; and the community of Åutsël K’e is the sole participant in the WKSS project. The programs each have somewhat different mandates and objectives; however comparison and evaluation of the four examples provides valuable insights that can be applied to a CIMP framework.

Each case is reviewed according to the following criteria, where applicable. Other relevant projects and proposals are summarized in Appendix 5. 1. Goals 2. Guiding principles 3. Institutional framework 4. Indicators 5. Perspective on TK

6. Methodology 7. Process/Methods 8. Information sharing protocol 9. Communication 10. Evaluation

3.1 Case Studies: Summary of Lessons Learned In 2000, Whaèdôò Nàowo Kö/Dogrib Treaty 11 Council prepared recommendations for indigenous involvement in the Cumulative Effects Assessment and Management Framework (CEAMF). Despite an extensive literature search, researchers found no initiatives “where governments with the jurisdiction, explicitly and formally use traditional knowledge in monitoring cumulative effects environmental impacts related to resource development projects.” The report did cite the examples of the Voices from the Bay project in the Hudson Bay region and the Arctic Borderlands Knowledge Cooperative, but emphasized, “There is no evidence that the results of this research are


being used by governments to monitor development effects or to inform decisions about future developments.” Alan Emery, the author of a global review of traditional knowledge initiatives for the World Bank, was also consulted for the report, and was unaware of any existing model (12-13).

The current literature review seven years later produced similar results. Nevertheless, community-based monitoring and research activities have provided an important body of experience that can be a good foundation for a CIMP traditional knowledge framework. A comparison of the four case studies highlighted in this report is summarized in the table below. The studies have been the basis for the four key recommendations in this report. The evaluation below summarizes key lessons from the case studies that are applicable to a CIMP framework.

3.1.1 Goals/Mandate Each of the projects combines community-based monitoring, capacity-building/training, and communication/education goals. The scope of the projects varies; the Arctic Borderlands Ecological Knowledge Coop (ABC) project is the most comprehensive, involving multiple communities within the Porcupine Caribou range. However, all but the ABC case emphasize the unique contributions of traditional knowledge as a baseline for understanding cumulative ecological and social impacts. The ABC project deliberately focuses on local knowledge based on direct observation rather than cross-generational traditional knowledge. In all cases, building linkages across cultures or between TK and science are viewed as significant aspects of the monitoring process. Only the ABC and Gwich’in Social and Cultural Institute (GSCI) have a long term mandate. No comparative assessment of monitoring outcomes has been done – this is not within the scope of the current project. Key Learnings 1. Northern communities are willing to engage in and take ownership of programs

which combine monitoring, capacity-building/training, and communication/education goals. Capacity needs include institutional and research core capacity to ensure program longevity.

2. There is strong support for TK inquiry bridging the knowledge of the elders with the experiential knowledge of current harvesters and the learning process of youth.

3. Bridging TK and science are valuable goals within a TK knowledge production framework.

4. Scope should be modest and gradually expanding to ensure long term program stability.

Gap/Recommended Research A comparative assessment of outcomes of existing TK monitoring projects.

3.1.2 Guiding Principles At the core of the principles guiding the case studies is community participation according to local modes of knowledge production, within the scope of community capacity, and consistent with community values and guidelines. The West Kitikmeot



Slave Study (WKSS) points to an “ecosystem approach,” echoing the holistic aspect of TK, and specifies that monitoring should be guided by principles of sustainability. Indigenous language is a key aspect of three out of the four cases. Key Learnings 1. The community context is the core basis for TK monitoring principles. TK is not a

discrete set of data to be extracted from indigenous people; rather it is a “way of life,” a combination of land-based practices, values and cultural modes of knowledge sharing. TK monitoring should evolve in response to evolving community knowledge and perspectives.

2. TK is based on a holistic perspective, and is essentially dynamic. TK monitoring should reflect the flexible and integrative nature of the knowledge rather than establishing fixed research formats. It should be “interdisciplinary,” involving social and ecological aspects.

3. The role of indigenous language and narrative forms as vehicles for TK is often underestimated. Though there is an important place for databases in TK work, these should not be a substitute for conveying the original linguistic and narrative context.

3.1.3 Institutional Framework Three of the four cases studies are established as non-profit societies; the Sahtu Renewable Resources Board (SRRB) is a co-management board, an Institution of Public Government established through the Sahtu Dene and Métis Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement. Membership in the ABC is informal and interest-based. The other institutions are constituted by formally appointed and representative boards only. The non-profit societies do not have core funding capacity and are dependent on annual funding competitions. This affects continuity of programs and staff. Lack of interest in TK programs is often rooted in long experience of their ephemeral nature, often too short in duration to achieve lasting benefits. Regional institutions (ie. all four cases) universally experience difficulties when required to work in multiple communities. The GSCI and the SRRB do however possess the distinct advantage of being formally recognized by aboriginal governments. Key Learnings 1. Core institutional and research funding is a critical factor for the long term success of

monitoring and research programs. This is particularly the case with TK monitoring in oral cultures, where embodied memory of processes rather than documented procedures is necessary for program continuity.

2. Partnerships with community-based institutions are required to achieve full community ownership and buy-in to programs that are regional in scope.

3. Formal recognition of the institution’s role by indigenous regional and community governments in policy or legislation is necessary as a basis for ensuring long term community support.



3.1.2 Indicators The ABC had by far the most comprehensive list of indicators, totalling 65. Other cases tended toward more modest lists with qualitative categories in which environmental and human health and impacts intersect. Strikingly, barren-ground caribou was a theme common to all four case studies. TK and traditional practices are in themselves seen to be indicators of social well-being. Key Learnings 1. The concept of indicators is based on a social science perspective that is based on

breaking knowledge and experience down into component parts, and quantitative measurement of change. This approach can be inappropriate within the context of TK monitoring, where qualitative understanding is paramount and experiential and narrative contexts are important aspects of meaning.

2. Focus on key elements of social and environmental systems does help to keep projects within a manageable scope, but these elements will not be understood in a narrowly bounded way. One priority element (such as caribou) will be seen as a nexus of complex and dynamic relationships and processes – and its significance will fluctuate over time and in different contexts.

3. The Tåîchô program demonstrates that place names are important indicators of bio-geographical knowledge, and documenting place names and their evolution should be a priority as part of any baseline research. Knowledge of place names is in itself an indicator of people’s relationship with the land.

4. The Tuktu Nogak project implies that youth knowledge of TK is an indicator of evolving relationships with the land.

Gap/Recommended Research More inquiry into the relationship between TK monitoring and scientific tools such as indicators and valued components.

3.1.3 Perspectives on TK Perspectives on the nature and relevance of TK varied among the case studies. The ABC views TK as irrelevant to monitoring. The WKSS program in Åutsël K’e suggests that TK and science involve similar research formats, whereas the Tåîchô WKSS program adopts an approach that builds on Tåîchô modes of knowledge production, including a strong Tåîchô language component. The GSCI and SRRB emphasize ongoing relationships and practices as aspects of TK. There is recognition that TK is particularly valuable as a tool for understanding long term change and for identifying change at various landscape scales. Key Learnings 1. The definition of TK should be broad and flexible, incorporating contemporary

perspectives and practices (including scientifically derived data) as they interact with the ancient knowledge of the ancestors. Indigenous communities do not make clear-cut distinctions between TK and other knowledges. The values embodied in social and ecological relationships and practices are at the heart of TK.



3.1.4 Methodology The four cases have all adopted a variant of participatory or collaborative research methodologies. Where the programs differ is in the extent to which quantitative social science is the determining framework for research and monitoring. The SRRB project has explicitly adopted a dialogic methodology drawing from indigenous modes of producing knowledge. In the GSCI case, experiential knowledge is emphasized. All cases incorporate collective discussions of study design and results, but the community role in analysis varies. Key Learnings 1. Participatory research has become the standard methodology required in Northern

community-based research and monitoring. Communities demand to play leading roles in research design and implementation, and require that activities have a strong component that will demonstrably benefit the community.

2. The dialogic approach bridging elders, current harvesters and scientists is more culturally appropriate and gives rise to richer knowledge being shared. This approach can encompass design, implementation, verification and analysis phases, with one-on-one interviews as a supplementary component.

3.1.5 Process/Methods The ABC program is highly centralized and standardized in structure. The other three cases are adapted to specific local contexts. Social science survey methods play a central role in the ABC and WKSS cases. Project and program reports produced through monitoring projects all describe collective processes with research participants including annual regional meetings and local focus group meetings. However, in several cases one-on-one interviews are viewed as the core of the program, while collective forums are reduced to review and approval processes. Training approaches range from training sessions lasting several days to integrated on-the-job training that spans the life of the project. Key Learnings 1. TK monitoring processes and methods will necessarily vary over time and across

communities and regions, depending on local experience, capacity, and priorities. Centralized capacity support for local programs can be invaluable in establishing sustainable long term programs and generalizing various monitoring experiences across participating communities – but specific processes and methods must be locally determined.

2. Social science survey methods involving standardized questionnaires and one-on-one interviews tend to be unsustainable over time. While interest in such surveys may be strong during an initial “honeymoon” phase, this interest tends to decline over time. Because such studies draw from culturally alien methodologies, community researchers and participants alike tend to perceive them as extractive rather than participatory and locally beneficial, and the quality of results tends to decline as a result.

3. Indigenous knowledge production is traditionally experiential, directly stimulated by land-based activities. Important knowledge is shared during these activities that may



never be spoken of in town. On-the-land programs, including elders, youth, women and scientists, are thus an important aspect of any monitoring program. The involvement of scientists provides an opportunity to develop a richer understanding of TK and its significance for science, and also to build the positive relationships that underpin successful collaboration.

4. Training and capacity-building in participatory research is understood to be an ongoing process from start to finish, rather than a discrete activity within a limited time frame. Such an approach is known to reduce researcher turnover and gradually leads to higher quality results.

3.1.6 Information Sharing The protocols for information sharing are a very sensitive issue in the North, where communities have taken steps to establish control over access to their TK. At the same time, there is an express will reflected in land claim agreements, NWT policy, and the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, that TK be harnessed for the benefit of the communities and the environment. The four programs have established research guidelines allowing publication of reports following review and approval by specific organisations. The principle concern is sharing of documented TK. The programs deal with this in a spectrum of ways. The ABC avoids the problem by limiting information to the less sensitive “local knowledge” subset of TK. The Tåîchô WKSS program uses TK, but avoids sensitive narratives related to spiritual relationships and practices. Participants in the SRRB and WKSS Tuktu Nogak project prioritized sharing stories about spiritual relationships with caribou.

Protocols for all programs except the ABC assert that ownership of raw data remains with the community. None of the protocols specifically address oral information sharing, which is an important form of knowledge dissemination and mobilization. Guidelines for three of the four case studies are appended to this report – the SRRB project guidelines are not included because these have not been formally approved for publication by participating communities. Key Learnings 1. CIMP will be required to adapt to regional, community and organisational

information sharing protocols, which vary throughout the NWT. CIMP will likely never be a “clearinghouse” for raw TK information. However, it is possible and desirable for it to become a central repository for reports on monitoring processes and results throughout the NWT.

2. CIMP also has a key role to play in facilitating oral exchange of knowledge across communities and regions as a forum for analysis and comparison of TK monitoring results at larger scales. This is a particular contribution to be made by TK, since quantitative scientific methods are not good at linking localized data to large scale or long term dynamics.

3.1.7 Communication Communication and education is a critical component of all TK monitoring programs, given community concerns that TK research benefit participants themselves. However, monitoring bodies have been limited in their capacity to develop effective




communication tools and processes. Often annual funding requirements mean that the focus is on producing technical reports and time and funding tend to run out for developing plain language products for community use. All cases have prioritized the internet as a medium for information sharing. There exists no central website where cross-regional TK research experiences and results can be shared. Key Learnings 1. Community interest and motivation in relation to TK research and monitoring

programs are dependent on the ability of these programs to produce results in formats that can be used as community tools. Thus communication and education are not optional extras in a CIMP TK framework.

2. A variety of media should be harnessed for communication, including oral forums for community participations to discuss and analyse monitoring results at various scales (community, region, NWT).

3. The internet is an important tool for regional dissemination and for centralizing experiences and results across regions. As the only organisation with an NWT-wide mandate related to TK monitoring, CIMP should provide an internet forum linking various monitoring programs and reflecting cross-regional analysis and comparisons.

3.1.8 Evaluation All cases integrate some form of evaluation processes. The ABC has the strongest record in evaluation, having involved a number of academics and graduate students in projects to review monitoring processes and results. Collective community-based or regional forums for discussing results incorporate a peer review process among TK holders and community researchers. WKSS has established an academic peer review procedure for all project reports. University partnerships have been used by all organisations in ensuring that research and monitoring processes achieve high standards. Key Learnings 1. Evaluation is an important component of TK monitoring. Evaluation processes should

take place locally and regionally among community researchers and participants. Academic review is also important to ensure that monitoring bodies have opportunities to situate their work theoretically and at scales beyond the NWT.

2. The funding-based reporting process is limited in that reports tend to celebrate achievements in order to legitimate future funding applications, and these are not necessarily subject to review by “experts.” Reporting should not be limited to “grey literature,” but rather should be tested in conferences and peer reviewed public forums.

3. Partnerships with universities are extremely valuable in providing capacity support, review processes, and inputs on new methods and perspectives.


3.2 Case Studies: Comparative Summary Table 13: Case Studies: Comparative Summary

Arctic Borderlands Co-op West Kitikmeot Slave Study Gwich’in Social and Cultural Institute

SRRB Barren-Ground Caribou TK Study

1996-present 1996-present (initially a 5 year program)

1993-present 2006-2008

Goa

ls/M

anda

te Monitoring in Porcupine Caribou

range and adjacent areas; science and “local knowledge studies; communication; capacity building/ training.

Develop interim approaches to regional cumulative effects monitoring, pending establishment of other initiatives; science/TK role and linkages; training.

Review permits and licences; monitor Gwich’in TK projects, studies and other initiatives; information exchange; advise on incorporation of TK; communication/education.

Explore Dene ways of monitoring; capacity-building/training; communication/education.

Gui

ding

Pr

inci

ples

• Go slow • Keep it simple • Be relevant • Economize • Think long term

• Contribute to sustainable development

• Ecosystem approach • Community participation

• Role of Elders • Preservation and respect for the

land • Linkages between family

history and identity. • Importance of cross-cultural

understanding.

• Protect, preserve and manage wildlife and habitat

• Promote local involvement • Research is according to local

Dene values and guidelines • Dene language is a starting

point for research

Inst

itutio

nal

Fram

ewor

k Non-profit society; annual gatherings; board of directors (annual election); 9 participating communities; informal membership.

Registered society; 9 organisational partners; representatives formally appointed to Management Board; TK Steering Committee; community participation proposal-based (Åutsël K'e program featured here).

Established by Gwich’in land claim agreement; an arm of the Gwich’in Tribal Council; non-profit charitable society; formally appointed Board of Directors.

Partnership between SRRB, University of Manitoba, and participating First Nations Councils and Renewable Resources Councils. Guided by local First Nation, Elders and Renewable Resources Councils.

Indi

cato

rs 65 indicators in 17 categories. • Åutsël K'e: 6 categories of

harvesting species; 20 community health indicators.

• Tåîchô: Focus on placenames as indicators of bio-geographical knowledge, and caribou.

• Language • Placenames knowledge • Traditional practices • TK about animals

• Barren-ground caribou-human relationship/ practices

• Language/placenames






Pers

pect

ive

on

TK

Focus on local knowledge, not TK; knowledge co-production or double-understanding (TK and science).

“The future combined with the past;” format of research is the same as science research; TK-science linkages.

Language, knowledge, values, beliefs and practices; “a system of self-management that governs the use of resources and defines the relationship of living beings with one another and with their environment.”

Language, narratives and practices adapted to present conditions; maps the cultural/ecological landscape; interpretive process; draws from new information; TK-sciences linkages.

Met

hodo

logy

Participatory • Åutsël K'e: Action Research; “meaningful participation” – community members direct and control all stages of research projects.

• Tåîchô: Participatory Action Research, adapted for each project.

• Tuktu Nogak (Inuvialuit): Includes activities with youth.

Collaborative research; experiential learning.

Adaptation of Participatory Action Research; qualitative; grounded in Dene modes of knowledge production; dialogic; product oriented.

Proc

ess/

Met

hods

1. Meta-database of existing information sources

2. Indicator selection 3. Pilot project 4. Monitoring database/ coding 5. Standardized semi-structured

42 page questionnaire

1. WKSSS research framework. 2. Local and regional pilot

projects (eg. Åutsël K'e, Tåîchô)

3. Åutsël K'e: Environment/ Community Health projects

4. Tåîchô: Place names, caribou projects

5. Indicator selection: TK 6. Monitoring database 7. Merging monitoring projects to

form a holistic perspective

Research, education, publishing, on-the-land program.

1. Pilot projects 2. Multi-year funding 3. Evaluation 4. Team approach (experienced

researcher/trainee pairings) 5. Thematic focus 6. Focus group meetings and

follow-up interviews 7. Archiving 8. Dene language/narrative

analysis





Info

rmat

ion

Shar

ing Avoids sensitive TK information;

participant identity is confidential; reports are public following review.

Informed consent; acknowledgement of community contributions; research agreements; data confidential for 18 months; reports are public following review.

Negotiated with GSCI; acknowledgement of community contributions; reports are public following 30-day review period.

Participants are not anonymous; informed consent; reports are public following review; follows community protocols.

Com

mun

icat

ion • Annual gathering

• Website • Reports/posters • Academic dissertations and

publications

• Website • Partner meetings • Community-based “knowledge

cycle” • Poster/brochure/press releases • Academic dissertations and

publications

• Pamphlets, books, reports, slide presentations, videos

• Experiential education program • Cultural curriculum tools • Collaborations with outside

researchers and graduate students

• Workshops

• Through research cycle • Community researcher

presentations in Dene language • Posters, newsletters, reports,

booklets • Academic dissertations,

publications, conferences. • Maps (where relevant)

Eva

luat

ion • Annual gathering

• Academic theses/ publications

• Consultant reports

• Community interpretatio workshops

n

• Peer review • Final Report (2001) • Consultant report • Project reports

• Strategic planning Criteria: • Ownership • Capacity/training • Scope • Research design • Documentation • Archiving • Communication • Product • Continuity/sustainability


4 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS AND ASSESSMENT MONITORING FRAMEWORK (CEAMF): LESSONS LEARNED

(Source: NWT CIMP 2003; http://www.ceamf.ca/03_reference/Reference_Traditional_Knowledge.htm) The CEAMF process was initiated in December 1999 by a Ministerial commitment from DIAND and Environment Canada following environmental assessment of the Diavik Diamonds Project. CEAMF provides “refusable advice” to decision-makers to improve environmental management and stewardship in the NWT. It makes recommendations to facilitate: • the protection of ecological integrity • the building of sustainable communities, including social and cultural dimensions,

and • responsible economic development within a sound environmental management

framework. The recommendations were developed after identifying the components of an “ideal” framework for managing cumulative effects and comparing this framework with the NWT situation. The components include land use planning, baseline studies and monitoring, information management, and several others. The recommendations are set out in a territorial level “Implementation Blueprint for the CEAM in the NWT and its Regions” and in “CEAM Regional Plans of Action” for areas with high development pressures. The CEAM Steering Committee includes DIAND, Environment Canada, GNWT-RWED, Regional Aboriginal Organizations (without prejudice to land claims and self-government), MVEIRB, ENGOs, Mining Industry, Oil and Gas Industry. Several Nunavut organizations are observers. The CEAM Steering Committee supported a variety of TK projects during the development of the CEAM Strategy and Framework. These activities contributed to a better understanding of the CEAM Framework components and assisted the Steering Committee in developing the Blueprint recommendations. These are of direct relevance to a CIMP TK framework. TK projects listed on the CEAMF website include: • Developing a Plan to Include Indigenous Knowledge in the NWT CEAMF. Final

Report. Prepared by Whaedoo Naowo Ko, Dogrib Treaty 11 Council. March 19, 2001.

• Akaitcho Treaty #8 Cumulative Effects Workshop, Lutsel K'e. April 19, 2001.


http://www.ceamf.ca/03_reference/Reference_Traditional_Knowledge.htm


• Nñ hat'nî - Cumulative Effects Assessment and Management in the Denesoline Territory – Final Report. Lutsel K'e Wildlife, Lands and Environment Committee, August 2001.

• Community - Land Relationship Project Final Report: CEAM and MVCIMP Task 9/6, Role of TK, Elders, and the Communities. Prepared by Peter Clarkson and Donald Andre for the Gwich’in Renewable Resource Board and the Gwich’in Tribal Council. March 2002.

• Traditional Knowledge and the Cumulative Effects Assessment and Management Strategy and Framework: Summary of Findings and Recommendations. Prepared by the SCI-TEK Partnership (Joanne Barnaby and Alan Emery) for presentation at the January 29-30, 2002 Workshop to Review the ‘Working Draft’ NWT Cumulative Effects Assessment and Management Strategy and Framework.

4.1 CEAMF TK Activities

3.1.9 Whaèdôò Nàowo Kö/Dogrib Treaty 11 Council (2000) The Whaèdôò Nàowo program, the TK and heritage program of the Treaty 11 Council, conducted a five day workshop as well as a literature search toward providing community input into CEAMF. Representatives from the four Tåîchô communities participated in the workshop. The workshop discussion focused on designing a cumulative effects monitoring and management program for the Tåîchô region. Select Recommendations • Who: Elders and harvesters are the core of TK monitoring programs and resource

management. However, they cannot accomplish their objectives alone, and require research and information management capacity.

• How: Baseline TK from “older elders” should be combined with observations of current harvesters. It should include a capacity-building element.

• What: The Treat 8 CEAMF should incorporate recognition of Tåîchô stewardship responsibilities in their traditional territories; both TK and science; and traditional Tåîchô rules and laws designed to maintain respect for the environment.

3.1.10 Akaitcho Treaty 8 Workshop (2001) This one day workshop involved representatives of three Akaitcho Treaty 8 First Nations, including Deninu Kue, Åutsël K'e, and Yellowknives Dene. Recommendations: Consensus 1. With regards to environmental decision-making, the T8 communities should share

information. 2. A regional information management system based upon Dene ways should be

established. Each community should make policies and Terms of Reference for their Lands and Environment Committees regarding information sharing.

3. Should have a follow-up meeting to design protocols for information-sharing at the regional level, perhaps on-the-land at Fort Reliance.


http://www.ceamf.ca/ceam_documents/Ni_hat_ni_-_Final_Report_on_Local_CEAM_Lutsel_Ke_Aug_2001.pdf


http://www.ceamf.ca/ceam_documents/GRRB-GTC_TK_March_2002_no_photos.pdf

http://www.ceamf.ca/ceam_documents/GRRB-GTC_TK_March_2002_no_photos.pdf


4. A T8 level board should be established. 5. A TK Dene advisory committee to the T8 board should be established, perhaps with 2

Elders and a technical person from each community. 6. Identify thresholds and carrying capacities for each community. Incorporate these

into the regional policies for the T8 level board. No consensus Fort Resolution recommends that final decision-making power should be at the T8 level, whereas Åutsël K'e wants decision-making power at the community level.

3.1.11 Nñ hat'nî: Åutsël K’e Local CEAM The Åutsël K'e Wildlife, Lands and Environment Committee conducted a random survey of 62 individuals (30% of the community) in four age groups. A working group that functioned as a “pool of experts” was established to guide the project. Based on interview results, group brainstorms and focus discussions were used to identify an appropriate strategy for monitoring. The strategy was tested through a local monitoring pilot project. Monitoring Plan Elements • Establishing thresholds of tolerance is not appropriate within a TK framework. • The basis for a healthy community-environment relationship is respect, defined as a

spiritual connection and deep understanding of the land. • Community control of the monitoring program, and involvement in design,

verification and interpretation of information should be required. • Stable funding and stable staff are necessary for yearly monitoring activities. • Elders must be involved in monitoring. If the elders can’t travel on the land, pictures

and video would be useful tools. • Monitoring should not be rushed. The area of land should be limited in order to

ensure more careful observation. • Oral presentation of observations on the land is an important step to assist in

documenting and analyzing the observations.

3.1.12 Gwich’in Community-Land Relationship Project This project involved a literature review; a survey to departments, boards, companies and organizations; and community “traditional management” workshops. The literature review and survey revealed that there is policy aimed at use of TK, but a lack of understanding about how this can be applied. Three day “traditional management” workshops were held in the four Gwich’in communities. A total of 47 community members attended. Principles and Recommendations • The principles of respect and sharing. • The role of elders as holders and transmitters of TK. • Communication among community members as a key vehicle for monitoring. “In the

past, people freely shared information among each other because it helped each other



survive. There was a greater dependence on other community members to learn where moose or caribou might be and people often hunted together and shared what they got.” (Gwich’in Renewable Resources Board and Gwich’in Tribal Council 2002).

• Elder and youth teams should work together in monitoring to ensure that youth are given the training needed to understand changes on the land.

• Training in monitoring and research as a support for community involvement in TK monitoring.

3.1.13 Workshop to Review the ‘Working Draft’ NWT CEAMF (January 29-30, 2002)

SCI-TEK Partnership (Joanne Barnaby and Alan Emery) prepared a pre-workshop issues paper and presentation summarizing findings based on discussions with the CEAMF TK Sub-Committee, and review of reports on CEAMF TK activities. Capacity building was seen to be critical need, and a “TK SWOT team” was suggested to address this need at the community level. Participatory Select Conclusions/Recommendations • TK research and monitoring is highly specialized. Trained “knowledge interpreters”

can ensure that information is appropriately understood across cultures. • Traditional knowledge is especially useful in dealing with cumulative effects, because

in a very real sense, traditional knowledge with its holistic and integrative approach has one entire aspect of its knowledge system based on information collected at the cumulative level, rather than at the data level.

• Capacity-building is a critical need. • Participatory Action Research is the most appropriate approach to TK monitoring. • TK infrastructure needs to be rebuilt as a support for research and transmission of

TK. • Capacity building is a critical need, and regional “TK SWAT teams” should be

formed address this need at the community level. • The framework of resource management organisations is science-based, and not well

set up to work with TK. Steps need to be taken to build the capacity of organisations and individuals in understanding and harnessing TK.

• Policy and guidelines are important tools in ensuring accountability for TK processes. 4.2 CEAMF Activities: Summary of Lessons Learned CEAMF activities during 2000-2002 are an important series of local, regional and cross-regional TK planning exercises. Regional activities encompassed Tåîchô, Akaitcho Treaty 8, and Gwich’in communities. Åutsël K’e was the only community that independently undertook a CEAMF planning study, tested through a pilot project. This is because the need for cumulative impact monitoring was more immediately apparent than elsewhere because of new diamond mining development in the area. Regional plans were preliminary only, and have not been tested in practice. However, they serve as a strong



starting point for developing the CIMP framework beyond the scope of the case studies discussed in this report. Review of CEAMF reports clarifies points of consensus as well as areas where further discussion is required to achieve common perspectives. It should be noted that since the Dene Nation land use mapping project of the 1980s there has been no cross-regional TK program in place in the NWT. The CEAMF process is a reminder that current TK initiatives must account for differences in history, culture and experience in each region, even in each community. Table 14: CEAMF Activity Reports: Summary of Key Issues Criteria Consensus Unresolved Issues 1. Goal • How can community/regional

goals and NWT CIMP goals be negotiated or balanced?


• Monitoring should be based on indigenous principles of respect.

• Monitoring should be community controlled.


• Stable funding and stable staff are necessary for yearly monitoring activities.

• Should TK monitoring be proposal based or supported by a stable core funding base?

• How should CIMP and regional/community organisations coordinate with respect to TK monitoring programs?

• What is CIMP’s role in the TK monitoring framework?

4. Indicators • Should monitoring by structured by specific valued components?


• TK is holistic, and is a useful tool in cumulative impact monitoring.

6. Methodology • Community control means that the methodology should be participatory.

7. Process/Methods • Elders and harvesters are the core of TK monitoring programs; the ability of indigenous people to monitor the land is dependent on maintenance of traditional harvesting practices.

• Youth should be involved in monitoring programs to ensure that TK is maintained within the communities.

• Research capacity, including the support of technical specialists, is required for documentation, “knowledge translation” and training.

• Geographic Information system is an important tool for TK monitoring.

• Are tolerance thresholds for the land consistent with indigenous values?

• How can community capacity building best be supported?

• How can resource management organisations gain capacity to understand and harness TK?

• What is the role of science in TK monitoring?

8. Information • Information sharing is a necessary • Should policy and protocols be




Criteria Consensus Unresolved Issues Sharing Protocol aspect of monitoring. established at NWT, regional or

community level? • Should information be managed at

NWT, regional or community level?

9. Communication • Monitoring requires good communication practices within the community.

10. Evaluation • What are the criteria for a successful monitoring program?

5 CIMP TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE ACTIVITIES: LESSONS LEARNED

Since 1999, the CIMP Working Group and staff have been operating on a year-to-year basis due to lack of core funding. Funds have been dispersed through a proposal competition. A number of TK and capacity-building projects have been funded – these have been categorized through review of the list of “Monitoring and Capacity-Building Projects Supported by the NWT Cumulative Impact Monitoring Program (CIMP), 1999-2006” (CIMP 2006).

Figure 1: CIMP Projects by Type Figure 2: CIMP Projects by Knowledge Base

Analysis of the 45 TK and capacity-building projects funded by CIMP since 1999 shows that the majority of projects (69%) have incorporated capacity building as a leading element, and only one-third have been defined as solely research-based. The majority of the projects appear to have included both TK and science knowledge bases. Only three specifically TK projects have been funded.

Project Type(Total 45)

Capacit y Building58%

Capacit y Building/ Research

11%

Research31%

Knowledge Base (Total 45)

Science11%

Technical11%

TK9%

TK/ Science69%


Figure 3: CIMP Projects by Leading Organisation

Figure 4: CIMP Projects –Lead Organisations by Type


Figure 5: CIMP TK and Capacity Building Projects per Fiscal Year

Project Lead

2468

1012

DCFN

Dogrib T

reaty

11 C...

EC/NWRI

GNWT-ENR

GTC/GRRB/G

SCI

North Slav

e Métis

Al...

NWT M

étis N

aiton

Taiga La

b

Fisheri

es and

Oce

a..

Other (

once

only)

# P

roje

cts

0

Continuity/Representation More than half the projects were led by First Nation organizations. However, many of these accessed the program only once or twice. Six agencies obtained funding three or more times. In particular, GNWT-ENR (11) and Gwich’in Tribal Council and associated organizations (7) were strongly represented over the seven year period.

Project Lead Type

Federal Govt18%

First Nation56%

GNWT-RWED24%

University2%

Projects Per Fiscal Year(Total 45:79)

TK/Capacity Building

Science-Based

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006

The total number of TK and capacity-building projects is just over half the total projects funded. However, this number has not risen in proportion to science-based projects over the years.


6 CIMP TK FRAMEWORK: CONSULTATION The consultation focus for this project was to learn from discussions with community-based aboriginal stakeholders in Cumulative Impact Monitoring. Travel funding was not available for extensive community consultations, and it was considered inappropriate to conduct consultations by phone or written correspondence. However, the following opportunities were taken to develop an understanding of Dene perspectives on monitoring. Transcripts and notes from these are in Appendixes to this report. • Interview with Walter Bayha, Chair of the Sahtu Renewable Resources Board,

member of the Déline First Nation. Fort Good Hope (January 31). • Interview with Chief Richard Kochon, Behdzi Ahda First Nation. Norman Wells

(February 16). • Focus Group meeting with representatives of the Renewable Resources Councils of

the Sahtu Region. Norman Wells (February 16). • Attendance at (and presentation of preliminary framework concepts to) the Dene

Cultural Institute conference on Integrating Traditional Knowledge into Environmental Assessments and Regulatory Processes in the NWT. Hay River (March 21-23). This conference included presentations by co-management boards and community-based organizations from the NWT and beyond. Representatives of government and industry stakeholders also participated – the total participation was about sixty. For a full list of presentations, see Appendix.

Table 15: Consultation: Key Messages Criteria Key Messages 1. Goal • Indigenous people need to maintain strong relationships with each other

and with the land. This goal encompasses both community and environmental well-being.


• Indigenous people need to control the methods and protocols by which TK monitoring takes place.


• Centralized coordination needs to be balanced with community control.

4. Indicators • Caribou, fish and community well-being should be a core monitoring focus.

• People are also concerned about climate change. 5. Perspective on

TK • Traditional knowledge is a way of life, including cultural practices,

spirituality, language and place names. 6. Methodology • Community control means a participatory approach is needed. 7. Process/Methods • The most important traditional monitoring technique is subsistence

harvesting; certain special people, bebati and those with îk’ô (power in relation to a certain animal) are considered the monitors and caretakers of certain animals.

• Collective discussion is the method of knowledge production by which harvesters interpret their individual experiences on the land at a larger landscape, ecosystem scale, and over long time periods, with respect to general trends.

• We all need to work together (TK holders and scientists). 8. Information

Sharing Protocol • Community control means communities maintain ownership and control

over raw data collected through TK monitoring processes. • Communities define their own information sharing protocols.




Criteria Key Messages 9. Communication • Collective discussion is also a mode of information exchange among

communities (geographical scale), between generations (time scale), and between different kinds of knowledge holders (TK/science linkages). Regional and territorial forums are an important vehicle for and verification.

10. Evaluation • People evaluate what is working and what isn’t working through collective discussion.

7 CONCLUSIONS AND NEXT STEPS This discussion paper emphasizes analysis of various experiences and perspectives more than prescription of a single TK monitoring “Best Practice” to be replicated in all indigenous communities. This is because the report marks a very early phase in cross-regional northern dialogue about TK monitoring.

The present study reflects upon indigenous modes of monitoring in the north that have evolved over countless generations, and demonstrates the strengths of current formalized TK monitoring experiences, and. These now incorporate two “schools of thought” about TK monitoring method: the scientific method of transmuting TK into measurable data, and the traditional “way of knowing” that is primarily qualitative and relational, produced through a combination of on-the-land experience and dialogue with others, including other harvesters, elders, and others.

The framework described here accommodates both approaches through a decentralized partnership system. At the same time, leadership is provided in focusing monitoring efforts on four key “indicator” themes, stimulating cross-regional and interdisciplinary communication and synthesis, and providing capacity-building and training opportunities to community-based pilot projects and partners.

Successful development and implementation of this framework will require a phased approach. The starting point will be a cross-regional workshop of key TK practitioners to discuss the findings and recommendations of this study. Consensus recommendations from the workshop will serve as the basis for the first call for regional or community TK monitoring proposals.

This report argues that the core value and sustainability of the CIMP TK program will be dependent on the ability to maintain and support long term cross-regional projects involving funding support so that local or regional activities are relatively self-sufficient, combined with practitioner leadership, capacity/training support and a strong communication program including annual workshops and publications. The scope of partnerships must be defined by two factors: 1. The organisation’s track record in TK and monitoring, including TK baseline

research; 2. The amount of funding available for the CIMP TK program.

Given the demonstrated strengths of the four cases discussed in this report, it is clear that a pilot project to test the framework would be unnecessary. Rather, a priority should be placed on providing ongoing funding and capacity support for the four programs over the long term. Funding has been cited in all four cases as a key challenge affecting program quality. As well, it is strongly recommended that funding be found to support at least one gathering of key practitioners from partnering programs per year,


including a selection of scientists expert involved in monitoring related to the established focus areas. Once CIMP has achieved full funding, the program should support a small number of pilot projects with the objective of gradually expanding the partnership network.

According to the 2007 CIMP Call for Proposals, the current level of funding support for CIMP TK projects is $225,000. It is assumed that at least half of this funding will be allocated to science-based activities. NWT CIMP is working toward achieving full funding support to fulfill MVRMA requirements. However, if funding remains at the same level in the next fiscal year, this will mean that approximately $113,000 can be allocated to the CIMP TK program. This would mean that approximately $25,000 could be allocated to each of four partnering programs in Year 1. This is significantly lower than the actual cost of running such programs, even for a single community. However, it may support maintenance of minimal monitoring activities until full funding is achieved.

It is assumed that funding for supplementary CIMP activities related to the TK Program would be available through a separate budget. At minimum, $44,000 should be initially allocated to support a workshop involving key practitioners from partnering organisations.

This study concludes that a strong will exists in indigenous communities to participate in TK monitoring activities. The value of TK monitoring has been demonstrated in several regions of the NWT and elsewhere in Canada (notably in the Hudson Bay region). The legal obligation to account for TK monitoring is established in the MVRMA. However, current funding levels are not sufficient for a meaningful program along the lines described in this report, even though the project budgets have deliberately been kept at a modest level. A starting point for proposing a sustainable CIMP TK program in the initial phases (including four partners and a pilot project program) would be as follows, roughly based on budgets outlined in Section 2.7 above: Item Cost Annual meeting/workshop 50,000Capacity building (SWAT Team) 100,000Communication 100,000Partner program funding 200,000Pilot project(s) 50,000Total 500,000

This budget should be projected to expand on an annual basis proportionally to expansion of the partnership network. The goal should be to achieve a stable, fully functioning monitoring network comprehending all regions of the NWT over a period of ten years.



ACRONYMS

ABC Arctic Borderlands Ecological Knowledge Co-op CEAMF Cumulative Effects Assessment and Management Framework DCI Dene Cultural Institute EMAN Ecological Monitoring and Assessment Network GNWT Government of the Northwest Territories GRRB Gwich’in Renewable Resources Board GTC Gwich’in Tribal Council IK Indigenous Knowledge NWT CIMP NWT Cumulative Impacts Monitoring Program PAR Participatory Action Research SRRB Sahtu Renewable Resources Board TEKMS Traditional Knowledge and Management Systems WKSSS West Kitikmeot Slave Study Society WLEC Wildlife, Lands and Environment Committee (Åutsël K’e) YT Yukon Territory

WEBSITES • Arctic Borderlands Ecological Knowledge Co-op: www.taiga.net/coop • Centre for Community-Based Resource Management

http://www.umanitoba.ca/institutes/natural_resources/nri_cbrm.html • NWT Cumulative Effects Assessment and Management Strategy and Framework • http://www.ceamf.ca/04_links/04_links.htm • Gwich’in Social and Cultural Institute: www.gwichin.ca. • NWT Cumulative Impacts Monitoring Program: www.nwtcimp.ca • Sahtu Renewable Resources Board: www.srrb.nt.ca


http://www.taiga.net/coop

http://www.umanitoba.ca/institutes/natural_resources/nri_cbrm.html

http://www.ceamf.ca/04_links/04_links.htm

http://www.gwichin.ca/

http://www.nwtcimp.ca/

http://www.srrb.nt.ca/


REFERENCES ABC (Arctic Borderlands Ecological Knowledge Society). 2006. Proceedings of the

Arctic Borderlands Ecological Knowledge Co-op’s 10th Annual Gathering, Old Crow, YT, March 18-19, 2006. Whitehorse, YT: Arctic Borderlands Ecological Knowledge Society. http://www.taiga.net/coop/business/2006/10th_gathering_proceedings.pdf. Accessed March 26, 2007.

ABC (Johnston, Brian). 2005. Arctic Borderlands Ecological Knowledge Co-op: Making the data relevant to policy and decision-makers. Environmental Conservation Branch.

ABC (Madsen, Kirsten). 2002. Arctic Borderlands Ecological Knowledge Co-op Communications Strategy. Whitehorse, YT: Arctic Borderlands Ecological Knowledge Society. http://www.taiga.net/coop/business/CommunicationsStrategy.pdf. Accessed March 26, 2007.

Aleut International Association (Victoria Gofman). 2004. Bering Sea Sub-Network of Community-Based Environmental Monitoring, Observation and Information Stations. International Polar Year Full Proposal, Activity 247. http://classic.ipy.org/development/eoi/proposal-details.php?id=247. Accessed March 31, 2007.

Aleut International Association. 2004. International Network of Arctic Indigenous Community-Based Environmental Monitoring & Information Stations (AICEMI stations). Proposed as a Part of Global Integrated Arctic Information and Research System for The International Polar Year 2007-2008, Idea 262. Anchorage, Aleut International Association. http://www.arctic-council.org/Meetings/SAO/2004%20Se/IndigenousMonitoringNetwork-programconcept.pdf. Accessed March 31, 2007.

Alfred, Taiaiake. 2005. Wasáse: Indigenous Pathways of Action and Freedom. Toronto: Broadview Press.

Aurora Research Institute. 2005 (June). Doing Research in the Northwest Territories: A Guide for Researchers. Inuvik: Aurora Research Institute.

Barnaby, Joanne and Alan Emery. 2002a (January 2). Traditional Knowledge and the CEAM Framework Strategy. Draft CEAMF report.

Barnaby, Joanne and Alan Emery. 2002b (January 28). Traditional Knowledge and the Cumulative Effects Assessment Management Strategy and Framework: Summary of Findings and Recommendations. Draft CEAMF report.


http://www.taiga.net/coop/business/2006/10th_gathering_proceedings.pdf

http://www.taiga.net/coop/business/CommunicationsStrategy.pdf

http://classic.ipy.org/development/eoi/proposal-details.php?id=247

http://www.arctic-council.org/Meetings/SAO/2004%20Se/IndigenousMonitoringNetwork-programconcept.pdf

http://www.arctic-council.org/Meetings/SAO/2004%20Se/IndigenousMonitoringNetwork-programconcept.pdf


Blondin, George. 1990. When the World was New: Stories of the Sahtú Dene. Yellowknife, NWT: Outcrop, The Northern Publishers.

Caine, Ken, Michael Salomons and Deborah Simmons. 2007. “Partnerships for Social Change in the North: Revisiting the Insider-Outsider Dialectic.” Development and Change 38, 3 (May): 449-473.

Canada, Department of Justice. 1998. Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act. Ottawa: Department of Justice Canada website, http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/M-0.2/. Accessed August 8, 2005.

CEAMF. 2001 (April 19). Proceedings of the Akaitcho Treaty #8 Cumulative Effects Workshop Defining Goals for Management and Monitoring. CEAMF report. http://www.ceamf.ca/ceam_documents/Akaitcho_Cumulative_Effects_Workshop_Proceedings_April_19.pdf. Accessed August 2, 2007.

Collingnon, Béatrice, 2006, 1996. Knowing Places: The Inuinnait, Landscapes, and the Environment, Linda Weber Müller-Wille, Trans. Edmonton, AB: Canadian Circumpolar Institute.

Cruikshank, Julie. 1998. The Social Life of Stories: Narrative and Knowledge in the Yukon Territory. Vancouver: UBC Press.

Déline First Nation, 2005. Dene Ways of Respecting the Land and Animals, researched and compiled by Jane Goulet. Report and community pamphlet. Tulita, NT: Sahtu Renewable Resources Board.

Déline Research Guidelines Committee. 2004. Guidelines for Research. Déline, NT: Déline Uranium Team.

Dogrib Divisional Board of Education. 1996. Tåîchô Yatiì Enîhtå’e: A Dogrib Dictionary. Rae-Edzo: Dogrib Divisional Board of Education.

Eamer, Joan. 2004. Keep it Simple and Be Relevant: the First Nine Years of the Arctic Borderlands Ecological Knowledge Co-op, Draft (February 29). Whitehorse, YT: Environment Canada. http://www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/bridging/papers/eamer.joan.pdf. Accessed March 26, 2007.

Ellis, S.C., 2005. Meaningful Consideration? A Review of Traditional Knowledge in Environmental Decision-Making. Arctic, 58, 1: 66-77.

EMAN (Wieler, Carissa). 2007. Delivery of Ecological Monitoring Information to Decision – Makers. Ottawa: International Institute for Sustainable Development. http://www.csin-rcid.ca/downloads/delivering_onitoring_info.pdf. Accessed March 30, 2007.



http://www.ceamf.ca/ceam_documents/Akaitcho_Cumulative_Effects_Workshop_Proceedings_April_19.pdf

http://www.ceamf.ca/ceam_documents/Akaitcho_Cumulative_Effects_Workshop_Proceedings_April_19.pdf

http://www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/bridging/papers/eamer.joan.pdf

http://www.csin-rcid.ca/downloads/delivering_onitoring_info.pdf


Fletcher, Christopher. 2003. Community-based participatory research in northern Canadian aboriginal communities: An overview of context and process. Pimatziwin: An International Journal on Aboriginal and Indigenous Health, 1, 1, 27-61.

Folliott, Jadah Elizabeth. 2005. Evaluation of Approaches to Depicting First Nations, Inupiat and Inuvialuit Environmental Information in GIS Format: Options for the Handling of Spatial Information in the Arctic Borderlands Ecological Knowledge Co-op Database. Masters of Spatial Analysis Research Paper. Toronto: University of Toronto and Ryerson University. http://www.taiga.net/coop/reference/database_report.pdf. Accessed March 26, 2007.

Gearheard, Shari. 2005. Exchange for Local Observations and Knowledge of the Arctic (formerly Arctic Peoples Observations Center – APOC). International Polar Year Full Proposal, Activity 187. http://classic.ipy.org/development/eoi/proposal-details.php?id=187. Accessed March 31, 2007.

GNWT. 2005. “Traditional Knowledge,” Policy 52.06. Yellowknife: Government of the NWT. http://www.gov.nt.ca/publications/policies/ENR/53.03_Traditional_Knowledge.pdf. Accessed March 31, 2007.

Gwich’in Renewable Resources Board and Gwich’in Tribal Council (Peter Clarkson and Donald Andre. 2002. Communities, Their Knowledge and Participation: Cumulative Effects Assessment Management Framework and Mackenzie Valley Cumulative Impacts Monitoring Program. Inuvik, NT: Gwich’in Renewable Resources Board. http://www.grrb.nt.ca/pdf/tradknow_youth/0203Comm_know-and_part.pdf. Accessed March 30, 2007.

Gwich’in Tribal Council. 2004. Working with Gwich’in Traditional Knowledge in the Gwich’in Settlement Region. http://www.gwichin.ca/TheGwichin/traditional.html. Accessed March 29, 2007.

Harwood, L.A., and T.G. Smith. 2002. “Whales of the Inuvialuit Settlement Region in Canada’s Western Arctic: An overview and outlook.” Arctic 55: 77–93.

Harwood, L.A., P. Norton, B. Day, and P. Hall. 2002. “The harvest of beluga whales in Canada’s Western Arctic: Hunter-based monitoring of the size and composition of the catch.” Arctic 55: 10–20.

Johnson, M. 1992. Lore: capturing traditional environmental knowledge. Ottawa: Dene Cultural Institute, International Development Resource Centre. http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-9324-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html. Accessed March 31, 2007.

Johnson, M., Robert A. Ruttan, and Dene Cultural Institute. 1993. Traditional Dene Environmental Knowledge: A Pilot Project Conducted in Ft. Good Hope and Colville Lake, N.W.T. 1989 - 1993. Hay River, N.W.T.: Dene Cultural Institute.


http://www.taiga.net/coop/reference/database_report.pdf



http://www.gov.nt.ca/publications/policies/ENR/53.03_Traditional_Knowledge.pdf

http://www.grrb.nt.ca/pdf/tradknow_youth/0203Comm_know-and_part.pdf

http://www.grrb.nt.ca/pdf/tradknow_youth/0203Comm_know-and_part.pdf

http://www.gwichin.ca/TheGwichin/traditional.html

http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-9324-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html


K’asho Got’ine Cultural Institute/Elders Council. 2006. Research planning meeting notes: Sahtu Renewable Resources Board Barren-Ground Caribou Traditional Knowledge Study. Fort Good Hope (July 20).

Kofinas, Gary, with Aklavik, Arctic Village, Old Crow, and Fort McPherson. 2002. “Community Contributions to Ecological Monitoring: Knowledge Co-Production in the U.S.-Canada Arctic Borderlands.” In The Earth is Faster Now: Indigenous Observations of Arctic Environmental Change. Fairbanks, Alaska: ARCUS. 54-91. http://www.taiga.net/coop/community/earthfaster_kofinas.pdf. Accessed March 26, 2007.

Legat, Allice (ed.) 1991. Report of the Traditional Knowledge Working Group. Yellowknife: Dept of Culture and Communications, Government of the NWT.

Legat, Allice. 2007. Walking the Land, Feeding the Fire: A Tåîchô Ethnography on Becoming Knowledgeable. PhD Dissertation. Aberdeen, Scotland: University of Aberdeen.

Åutsël K'e Wildlife, Lands and Environment Committee. 2001 (August). Nñ hat'nî - Cumulative Effects Assessment and Management in the Denesoline Territory – Final Report. http://www.ceamf.ca/ceam_documents/Ni_hat_ni_-_Final_Report_on_Local_CEAM_Lutsel_Ke_Aug_2001.pdf. Accessed August 2, 2007.

Åutsël K'e Dene First Nation (Brenda Parlee). 1997. Community-Based Monitoring in the Slave Geological Province. Rept. Yellowknife: WKSS. http://www.wkss.nt.ca/HTML/08_ProjectsReports/PDF/ComBasedMonSlaveGeol.pdf. Accessed August 14, 2007.

Åutsël K'e Dene First Nation (Brenda Parlee). 1999a. Traditional Knowledge Study on Community Health: Community-Based Monitoring (Cycle One). Rept. Yellowknife: WKSS. http://www.wkss.nt.ca/HTML/08_ProjectsReports/PDF/CommBasedMonitoring98-99.pdf. Accessed August 14, 2007.

Åutsël K'e Dene First Nation (Brenda Parlee). 1999b. Community-Based Monitoring 1998: Cycles Two, Three and Four. Rept. Yellowknife: WKSS. http://www.wkss.nt.ca/HTML/08_ProjectsReports/PDF/Com1BasedMonitoring99.pdf. Accessed August 14, 2007.

Åutsël K'e Dene First Nation (Brenda Parlee, Marcel Basil and Nancy Casaway). 2001. Traditional Ecological Knowledge in the Kache Kue Study Region. Rept. Yellowknife: WKSS. http://www.wkss.nt.ca/HTML/08_ProjectsReports/PDF/TradEcoKacheTueFinal.pdf. Accessed August 14, 2007.


http://www.taiga.net/coop/community/earthfaster_kofinas.pdf






http://www.wkss.nt.ca/HTML/08_ProjectsReports/PDF/ComBasedMonSlaveGeol.pdf

http://www.wkss.nt.ca/HTML/08_ProjectsReports/PDF/ComBasedMonSlaveGeol.pdf

http://www.wkss.nt.ca/HTML/08_ProjectsReports/PDF/CommBasedMonitoring98-99.pdf

http://www.wkss.nt.ca/HTML/08_ProjectsReports/PDF/CommBasedMonitoring98-99.pdf

http://www.wkss.nt.ca/HTML/08_ProjectsReports/PDF/Com1BasedMonitoring99.pdf

http://www.wkss.nt.ca/HTML/08_ProjectsReports/PDF/Com1BasedMonitoring99.pdf

http://www.wkss.nt.ca/HTML/08_ProjectsReports/PDF/TradEcoKacheTueFinal.pdf

http://www.wkss.nt.ca/HTML/08_ProjectsReports/PDF/TradEcoKacheTueFinal.pdf


Åutsël K'e Dene First Nation (Stephen Ellis). 2001. Ni hat’ni – Watching the Land: Cumulative Effects Assessment and Management in Lutsel K’e. Rept. Yellowknife: NWT CEAM Steering Committee and the Canadian Arctic Resources Committee. http://www.wkss.nt.ca/HTML/08_ProjectsReports/PDF/Nihatni_Final_Report2002-2003_Feb2004.pdf. March 29, 2007.

Åutsël K'e Dene First Nation (Stephen Ellis). 2001. Towards protecting the Waters of Desnedhé Che. Rept. Yellowknife: NWT Protected Areas Strategy Secretariat / World Wildlife Fund.

Åutsël K'e Dene First Nation (Stephen Ellis). 2001. Traditional Knowledge in the Nâ Yaghe Kué region: An Assessment of the Snap Lake Project. Rept. De Beers Canada Mining Inc.

Åutsël K'e Dene First Nation (Stephen Ellis). 2002. Denesôåine Land-Use in the Æedacho and Desnedhé Che Region: Report #1: Traditional Practice – The Land of Legend. Rept. De Beers Canada Exploration Inc. and BHP Billiton Inc.

Åutsël K'e Dene First Nation (Stephen Ellis). 2002. Denesôåine Land-Use in the Æedacho and Desnedhé Che Region: Report #1: Present Practice – The Fall Hunt. Rept. De Beers Canada Exploration Inc. and BHP Billiton Inc.

Åutsël K'e Dene First Nation (Stephen Ellis). 2002. Traditional Knowledge in the Kache Tué Study Region: Phase Three - Towards a Comprehensive Environmental Monitoring Program in the Kakinëne Region (May 2002). Rept. Yellowknife: WKSS. http://www.wkss.nt.ca/HTML/08_ProjectsReports/PDF/TradEcoKacheTueFinal2002.pdf August 14, 2007.

Åutsël K'e Dene First Nation (Tracey Williams). 2002. Denesôåine Fishing Knowledge of the East Arm of Tu Nedhe (Great Slave Lake). Rept. Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

Åutsël K'e Dene First Nation, Wildlife, Lands and Environment Department (Evelyn Marlowe, Delphine Enzoe, Brenda Parlee and Stephen Ellis). 2002. Community Based Monitoring, June 2002. Rept. Yellowknife: WKSS. http://www.wkss.nt.ca/HTML/08_ProjectsReports/PDF/CBMFinal2002.pdf. Accessed December 20, 2006.

Åutsël K'e Dene First Nation, Wildlife, Lands and Environment Department. 2003. Ni hat’ni – Watching the Land: Results and Implications of Monitoring Activities in the Traditional Territory of the Lutsel K'e Denesoline (October 2003). Rept. Yellowknife: WKSS/Walter and Duncan Gordon Foundation. 133p. http://www.wkss.nt.ca/HTML/08_ProjectsReports/08_index.htm. Accessed December 20, 2006.


http://www.wkss.nt.ca/HTML/08_ProjectsReports/PDF/Nihatni_Final_Report2002-2003_Feb2004.pdf

http://www.wkss.nt.ca/HTML/08_ProjectsReports/PDF/Nihatni_Final_Report2002-2003_Feb2004.pdf

http://www.wkss.nt.ca/HTML/08_ProjectsReports/PDF/TradEcoKacheTueFinal2002.pdf

http://www.wkss.nt.ca/HTML/08_ProjectsReports/PDF/TradEcoKacheTueFinal2002.pdf

http://www.wkss.nt.ca/HTML/08_ProjectsReports/PDF/CBMFinal2002.pdf

http://www.wkss.nt.ca/HTML/08_ProjectsReports/08_index.htm


Åutsël K'e Dene First Nation, Wildlife, Lands and Environment Department. 2005. Ni hat’ni – Watching the Land: Results of 2003-2005 Monitoring Activities in the Traditional Territory of the Åutsël K’e Denesôåine (March 2005). Rept. Yellowknife: WKSS. http://www.wkss.nt.ca/HTML/08_ProjectsReports/PDF/FINAL_Nihatni_Report_2003-05_March05.pdf. Accessed December 20, 2006.

Manseau, Micheline, Brenda Parlee, and G. Burton Ayles. 2005. “A Place For Traditional Ecological Knowledge In Resource Management.” F. Berkes, R. Huebert, H. Fast, M. Manseau and A. Diduck, Eds., Breaking Ice: Renewable Resource and Ocean Management in the Canadian North. Calgary: University of Calgary Press. 141-164. http://www.umanitoba.ca/institutes/natural_resources/canadaresearchchair/Manseau,%20Parlee%20&%20Ayles%20Chap%207.pdf. March 31, 2007.

Masuzumi, Alfred. 2006. Interview with Deborah Simmons: Sahtu Renewable Resources Board Barren-Ground Caribou Traditional Knowledge Study. Fort Good Hope (July 20).

McClellan, Catherine et al. 1987. Part of the Land, Part of the Water: A History of the Yukon Indians. Toronto: Douglas and McIntyre.

McDonald, Miriam Anne, Lucassie Arragutainaq and Zack Novalinga. 1997. Voices from the Bay: The Traditional Ecological Knowledge of Inuit and Cree in the Hudson Bay Bioregion. Ottawa: CARC and the Environmental Committee of Sanikiluaq.

McDonald, Miriam. 2002. Voices from the Bay: Documenting and Communicating Indigenous Ecological Knowledge from the Hudson Bay Bioregion. In Karin Boven and Jun Morohashi, Eds. Best Practices Using Indigenous Knowledge. The Hague, Netherlands: Nuffic-OS/IK Unit, and Social and Human Sciences Management of Social Transformation (MOST) Programme. BP.21, 219-232. http://www.unesco.org/most/Bpikpub2.pdf. Accessed August 12, 2007.

McGhee, R. 1974. Beluga hunters: An archaeological reconstruction of the history and culture of the Mackenzie Delta Kittegarymiut. Toronto: Canadian Museum of Civilization and University of Toronto Press.

Modeste-Goulet, Jane. 2006. Personal communication. Dene Ways of Respecting the Land and Animals project.

Moller, H., F. Berkes, P. O. Lyver, and M. Kislalioglu. 2004. Combining science and traditional ecological knowledge: monitoring populations for co-management. Ecology and Society 9(3): 2. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss3/art2. Accessed

Nadasdy, Paul. 1999. “The Politics of TEK: Power and the Integration of Knowledge.” Arctic Anthropology 36, 1-2: 1-18.


http://www.wkss.nt.ca/HTML/08_ProjectsReports/PDF/FINAL_Nihatni_Report_2003-05_March05.pdf

http://www.wkss.nt.ca/HTML/08_ProjectsReports/PDF/FINAL_Nihatni_Report_2003-05_March05.pdf

http://www.umanitoba.ca/institutes/natural_resources/canadaresearchchair/Manseau,%20Parlee%20&%20Ayles%20Chap%207.pdf

http://www.umanitoba.ca/institutes/natural_resources/canadaresearchchair/Manseau,%20Parlee%20&%20Ayles%20Chap%207.pdf

http://www.unesco.org/most/Bpikpub2.pdf

http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss3/art2


Nadasdy, Paul. 2003. Hunters and Bureaucrats: Power, Knowledge and Aboriginal-State Relations in the Southwest Yukon. Vancouver: UBC Press.

Nadasdy, Paul. 2005. “The Anti-Politics of TEK: The Institutionalization of Co-Management Discourse and Practice.” Anthropologica 47: 215-232.

Norton, P., and L.A. Harwood. 1986. Distribution, abundance and behaviour of white whales in the Mackenzie Estuary. Environmental Studies Research Funds Report 035, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, Ottawa.

NWT CIMP. 2003 (March 10). What is the difference between CEAM and CIMP? NWT CIMP report. http://www.nwtcimp.ca/documents/cimp%20and%20ceam%20summary%20march%2010%2003.pdf. Accessed August 2, 2007.

NWT CIMP. 2006. “Monitoring and Capacity-Building Projects Supported by the NWT Cumulative Impact Monitoring Program (CIMP), 1999-2006.” Yellowknife, NWT: NWT CIMP. http://www.nwtcimp.ca/documents/cimpProjects/CIMPProjectList_1999_2006.pdf. Accessed March 31, 2007.

NWT CIMP. 2007 (July). Call For Proposals: Capacity Building and Monitoring Projects 2007-2008 - Proposal Submission Guidelines. Yellowknife: CIMP.

Parlee, B., M. Manseau and Lutsel K’e Dene First Nation 2005. Understanding and communicating about ecological change: Denesoline indicators of ecosystem health. In: Breaking Ice: Renewable Resource and Ocean Management in the Canadian North (F. Berkes, R. Huebert, H. Fast, M. Manseau and A. Diduck, eds.) University of Calgary Press, Calgary, pp. 165-182. http://www.springerlink.com/content/r3l146g21416l274/. Accessed March 31, 2007.

Parlee, Brenda, Fikret Berkes, and Teetl’it Gwich’in Renewable Resources Council. 2006. Indigenous Knowledge of Ecological Variability and Commons Management: A Case Study on Berry Harvesting from Northern Canada. Human Ecology 34: 515–528. http://www.springerlink.com/content/r3l146g21416l274/. Accessed March 31, 2007.

Parlee, Brenda, Micheline Manseau and Lutsel K’e Dene First Nation. 2005. Understanding and communicating about ecological change: Denesôåine indicators of ecosystem health. F. Berkes, R. Huebert, H. Fast, M. Manseau and A. Diduck, Eds., Breaking Ice: Renewable Resource and Ocean Management in the Canadian North. Calgary University of Calgary Press. 165-182. http://www.umanitoba.ca/institutes/natural_resources/canadaresearchchair/Parlee,%20Manseau%20&%20Lutsel%20Ke%20Dene%20First%20Nation%20Chap%208.pdf. Accessed March 31, 2007.


http://www.nwtcimp.ca/documents/cimp%20and%20ceam%20summary%20march%2010%2003.pdf

http://www.nwtcimp.ca/documents/cimp%20and%20ceam%20summary%20march%2010%2003.pdf

http://www.nwtcimp.ca/documents/cimpProjects/CIMPProjectList_1999_2006.pdf.%20Accessed%20March%2031

http://www.nwtcimp.ca/documents/cimpProjects/CIMPProjectList_1999_2006.pdf.%20Accessed%20March%2031

http://www.springerlink.com/content/r3l146g21416l274/

http://www.springerlink.com/content/r3l146g21416l274/

http://www.umanitoba.ca/institutes/natural_resources/canadaresearchchair/Parlee,%20Manseau%20&%20Lutsel%20Ke%20Dene%20First%20Nation%20Chap%208.pdf




Ryan, J. and M. P. Robinson. 1990. Implementing participatory action research in the Canadian North: A case study of the Gwich’in language and cultural project. Culture, 10, 2, 57-71.

Sahtu Renewable Resources Board (Simmons, Deborah). 2007. Research Project on Sahtu Dene Stewardship of Barren-Ground Caribou. Funding proposal to Pipeline Readiness Office. Yellowknife, NT: SENES Consultants Limited.

SENES Consultants. Forthcoming. Report on Sahtu Region Taking Care of the Land camp, Kelly Lake. Tulita and Norman Wells: Sahtu Renewable Resources Board and NWT Environment and Natural Resources.

SENES Consultants. 2006. Northwest Territories Cumulative Impact Monitoring Program Discussion Paper: Operational Plan Considerations. Yellowknife: NWT CIMP.

Simmons, Deborah, Martha Johnson, Robert Ruttan, and Micheline Manseau. 2006. Conference call: Sahtu Renewable Resources Board Barren-Ground Caribou Traditional Knowledge Study (October).

Simmons, Deborah. 2007 (Draft). “Mobilizing Traditional Knowledge: Ethical and Theoretical Considerations,” unpublished manuscript. Winnipeg: University of Manitoba.

Simmons, Deborah. 2007. Dene and Métis Ways of Respecting the Land: Research Framework, 2007-2010. Tulita, NT: Sahtu Renewable Resources Board/University of Manitoba.

Stern, G.A., and M.G. Ikonomou. 2001. Temporal trends of organohalogen compounds in Canadian Arctic beluga. Synopsis of Research Conducted under the 2000–2001 Northern Contaminants Program, Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Ottawa.

Stevenson, M. G., 1996. Indigenous knowledge in environmental assessment. Arctic, 49: 278-291.

Stevenson, Marc G. 1996. Indigenous Knowledge in Environmental Assessment. Arctic. 49, 3: 78–291.

T’seleie, Bella. 2007. Personal communication, conversation: Sahtu Renewable Resources Board Barren-Ground Caribou Traditional Knowledge Study. Fort Good Hope (February).

Taylor, David A. 2001. “Ancient Teachings, Modern Lessons,” in Environmental Health Perspectives, 109, 5 (May). http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0091-6765%28200105%29109%3A5%3CA208%3AATML%3E2.0.CO%3B2-B. Accessed March 27, 2007.


http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0091-6765%28200105%29109%3A5%3CA208%3AATML%3E2.0.CO%3B2-B

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0091-6765%28200105%29109%3A5%3CA208%3AATML%3E2.0.CO%3B2-B


Thorpe, N. 1997. The Tuktu and Nogak Project: Inuit knowledge about caribou and calving areas in the Bathurst Inlet Region. Arctic 50 (4): 381-4.

Thorpe, N. 2001. Climate and caribou: Inuit knowledge of the impacts of climate change on the Bathurst Caribou Herd in the Kitikmeot Region, Nunavut. Arctic Conservation Issues: Status and Trends of Arctic Flora, Fauna and Their Habitats. Edited by H. Huntington. Arctic Council, Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF). 50-52.

Thorpe, N. 2002. Factors affecting change in Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit and traditional caribou hunting practices in the Kitikmeot region of Nunavut. Cultivating Northern Landscapes. Edited by M. Nuttall and D. Anderson. Berghahn Publishing. Oxford, U.K.

Thorpe, N. and S. Eyegetok. 2000. Lessons on the land: The Tuktu and Nogak Project elder-youth camp. Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated Press. Ittuaqtuut 2 (2): 32-43. Thorpe, N. 1998. The Hiukitak School of Tuktu: Collecting Inuit ecological knowledge of caribou and calving areas through an elder youth camp. Arctic 51(4): 403-408.

Thorpe, N. and S. Eyegetok. 2000. The Tuktu and Nogak Project brings elders and youth together. Native Journal 9 (7): 9.

Thorpe, N., S. Eyegetok, N. Hakongak and the Kitikmeot Elders, 2001. Thunder on the tundra: Inuit ecological knowledge of caribou. Tuktu and Nogak Project and Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. Vancouver, BC.

Thorpe, N., S. Eyegetok, N. Hakongak and the Kitikmeot Elders. 2001. Thunder on the tundra: Inuit ecological knowledge of caribou. Tuktu and Nogak Project and Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. Vancouver, BC. 240 pps.

Tuhiwai Smith, L. 1999. Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous peoples. New York: Zed Books.

Weaver, P.A. 1991. The 1987 Beluga (Delphinapterus leucas) harvest in the Mackenzie River Estuary, NWT. Canadian Manuscript Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences No. 2097.

Wenzel, George W., 2004. Polar Bear as a Resource: An Overview. Position paper, 3rd NRF Open Meeting, Yellowknife and Rae Edzo (September 15-18). 10p. www.nrf.is/Publications/The%20Resilient%20North/Plenary%202/3rd%20NRF_Plenary%202_PP_Wenzel.pdf. Accessed December 20, 2006.

Whaèdôò Nàowoò Kö (Dogrib Treaty 11 Council). 2000. Developing a Plan to Include Indigenous Knowledge in the NWT Cumulative Effects Assessment and Management Framework. Rpt. Yellowknife: NWT CEAMF.


http://www.nrf.is/Publications/The%20Resilient%20North/Plenary%202/3rd%20NRF_Plenary%202_PP_Wenzel.pdf

http://www.nrf.is/Publications/The%20Resilient%20North/Plenary%202/3rd%20NRF_Plenary%202_PP_Wenzel.pdf


Whaèdôò Nàowoò Kö /Dogrib Treaty 11 Council (Leslie Saxon, Sally Anne Zoe, Georgina Chocolate, Allice Legat). 2002 (July). Dogrib Knowledge on Place Names, Caribou and Habitat. Yellowknife: WKSS. http://www.wkss.nt.ca/HTML/08_ProjectsReports/PDF/DogribPlaceCaribouHabitat2002.pdf. Accessed August 5, 2007.

Whaèdôò Nàowoò Kö/Dogrib Treaty 11 Council (Allice Legat, Georgina Chocolate, Madeline Chocolate, Sally Anne Zoe). 2001b (March). Habitat of Dogrib Traditional Territory: Place Names as Indicators of Bio-geographical Knowledge. Yellowknife: WKSS. http://www.wkss.nt.ca/HTML/08_ProjectsReports/PDF/placenamefinal.pdf. Accessed August 5, 2007.

Whaèdôò Nàowoò Kö/Dogrib Treaty 11 Council (Allice Legat. Georgina Chocolate, Bobby Gon, Sally Anne Zoe, Madeline Chocolate). 2001a (March). Caribou Migration and the State of their Habitat: Final Report. Yellowknife: WKSS. http://www.wkss.nt.ca/HTML/08_ProjectsReports/PDF/CaribouMigrationFinal.pdf. Accessed August 5, 2007.

WKSSS (GeoNorth Ltd./Axys Environmental Consulting Ltd.). 1997. Identifying Research Priorities to Refine the West Kitikmeot Slave Study Research Framework: Final Report. Yellowknife, NT: Yellowknife, NT: W. http://www.wkss.nt.ca/HTML/08_ProjectsReports/PDF/framework.pdf. Accessed March 26, 2007.

WKSSS (SENES Consultants). 2007 (Draft). Updated State of Knowledge Report of the West Kitikmeot and Slave Geological Province. Yellowknife, NT: West Kitikmeot Slave Study Society.

WKSSS. 2001. West Kitikmeot Slave Study Final Report. Yellowknife, NT: West Kitikmeot Slave Study Society. http://www.wkss.nt.ca/HTML/08_ProjectsReports/PDF/WKSSFinal.pdf. Accessed March 26, 2007.

Woo, Ming-ko, Paul Modeste, Lawrence Martz, Joe Blondin, Bob Kochtubajda, Dolphus Tutcho, John Gyakum, Alphonse Takazo, Chris Spence, Johnny Tutcho, Peter di Cenzo, George Kenny, John Stone, Israel Neyelle, George Baptiste, Morris Modeste, Bruce Kenny, Walter Modeste. 2007. “Science Meets Traditional Knowledge: Water and Climate in the Sahtu (Great Bear Lake) Region, Northwest Territories, Canada.” Arctic 60, 1: 37-46.


http://www.wkss.nt.ca/HTML/08_ProjectsReports/PDF/DogribPlaceCaribouHabitat2002.pdf

http://www.wkss.nt.ca/HTML/08_ProjectsReports/PDF/DogribPlaceCaribouHabitat2002.pdf

http://www.wkss.nt.ca/HTML/08_ProjectsReports/PDF/placenamefinal.pdf

http://www.wkss.nt.ca/HTML/08_ProjectsReports/PDF/CaribouMigrationFinal.pdf

http://www.wkss.nt.ca/HTML/08_ProjectsReports/PDF/framework.pdf

http://www.wkss.nt.ca/HTML/08_ProjectsReports/PDF/WKSSFinal.pdf


APPENDIX 1: Case Study: Arctic Borderlands Ecological Knowledge Co-op (ABC)

(Sources: http://www.taiga.net/coop/; Kofinas 2002; Arctic Borderlands Ecological Knowledge Society 2006; Folliott 2005; ABC 2002; ABC 2004; Eamer 2004) A meeting in Dawson City in the fall of 1994 brought together interested parties to start an ecological monitoring program for the Northern Yukon. Participants identified the three main issues that should be the focus of ecological monitoring: climate change, contaminants and regional development. Participants also decided that an important part of the program should be to bring together science and local and traditional knowledge. Communities and scientists committed to working on this together. The Arctic Borderlands Ecological Knowledge Co-op grew from that meeting. Goals

a. To monitor and assess ecosystem changes in the range of the Porcupine Caribou Herd and adjacent coastal and marine areas;

b. To encourage use of both science-based studies and studies based on local and traditional knowledge in ecological monitoring and ecosystem management;

c. To improve communications and understanding among governments, aboriginal and non-aboriginal communities and scientists with regard to ecosystem knowledge and management; and

d. To foster capacity-building and training opportunities in northern communities in the context of the above-listed goals.

Guiding Principles Five guiding principles were established at the founding meeting in 1994:

• Go slow • Economize • Keep it simple • Think long term • Be relevant

Indicator Themes Institutional Framework Bears and wolves The Borderlands Co-op is run by a non-profit society. Decisions on Co-op programs are made by participants at annual gatherings. A board of directors is elected annually. Funding and support come from Canadian, territorial and U.S. government agencies, co-management boards, and Inuvialuit and First Nation councils. Additional project funding is currently from Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, and the University of Alaska. Environment Canada provides in-kind support for overall program coordination. According to Kofinas, the Co-op is notable for its “informal interorganisational collaborative approach (2002, 58).

Berries Birds Caribou Community observations Fish Ground squirrels Human activity Moose Muskoxen Muskrats and beavers Other observations Rabbits Trapping

Unusual sightings Weather Indicators Wolverine and lynx



The founding group decided to focus on monitoring indicators that would provide information about the effects of climate change, industrial development and contaminants. As of 2006, about 65 indicators in seventeen categories had been developed and were being tracked. Indicator analysis and updating takes place at Yukon College. The goal is to accumulate long term sets of data, and establish mechanisms for linking indicators, and linking scientific and community-based information. Perspective on Traditional Knowledge: Knowledge Co-Production Although the official goals of ABC mention traditional knowledge, the Co-op has determined that the focus is on “local knowledge.” The concept of TK was considered to be too limiting in emphasizing knowledge that doesn’t change; and it was thought to exclude non-aboriginal people from participation.

Eamer describes a key challenge inherent in participatory processes as it was manifested at the founding meeting of ABC:

Although the working relationships among the organizations represented at the meeting were fairly well established, it was clear that there was a rift between many scientists and community representatives in terms of the value and credibility of different types of information. All too often the results of such a meeting are to respectfully acknowledge these differences and proceed with strengthening the science-based program, perhaps increasing communications efforts, leaving the communities frustrated and sidelined. (Eamer 2004, 3)

According to Eamer, ABC was formed to “tackle this issue head-on.” In his presentation to the 10th Annual Gathering of ABC (2006), Kofinas noted that local knowledge is including in the Co-op’s monitoring program because residents of the communities: • Spend time on the land • Have a history with the land and animals • Are aware of the changes • Can tell us why things are changing • Can tell us what the implications of change are to people’s ways of life and

ecosystems. Kofinas observes that local knowledge embodies a “distinct mode of learning and

thought” (2002, 60). He notes (ABC 2006, 17) that local knowledge is particularly useful for recording and understanding: • Unusual observations • Long-term trends • New patterns that are occurring



• Implications of change

• Human responses and adaptation

Double Understanding Kofinas (2006, 60) quotes Randall Tetlichi, 2001-2002 ABC Old Crow monitoring associate and former Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation Chief, who explains the need for bringing together traditional knowledge and science: The indigenous way is to sue what we have – the natural resources and the environment we’re given is to look after. It’s our responsibility.

When the white people first came here, the native people said, “How” and the white people said, “Why?” I spent 90% of my time growing up with my grandparents. They taught me about a lot. I notice in the traditional world, it’s all based on how am I going to do this. We never asked, why? People of my age are the last ones to say how. Traditional knowledge is passed on through generations – experiences from elders that they’re passing down to me and to other people. I didn’t ask why I use snowshoes to get a moose, it’s by the knowledge that was passed down. Traditional knowledge is using the knowledge that we have. Traditional knowledge is all connected with the universe. Science wants to know why it works.

A good thing today is that people have to come together. We have to know why and how. We have to double understand. I have to train my mind to remember, but I also have to train my mind to understand science. Now I have to double understand and pass the knowledge on. The young people have to double understand, use that knowledge – how and why.

I have to engage myself both in what science and elders are saying. I have to engage in both. What about scientists? They have to also. That’s one of the new rules.

• Rules of thumb, e.g. "When we see the horseflies, we know the king salmon will be running soon."

• New concerns While emphasizing the importance of local knowledge, Kofinas (2002) defines

the ABC approach as one of “knowledge co-production, combining local knowledge and science. Methodology: Local Knowledge and Participatory Research Eamer describes the very common challenge of community participation as it was manifested at the founding meeting of ABC:

Although the working relationships among the organizations represented at the meeting were fairly well established, it was clear that there was a rift between many scientists and community representatives in terms of the value and credibility of different types of information. All too often the results of such a meeting are to respectfully acknowledge these differences and proceed with strengthening the science-based program, perhaps increasing communications efforts, leaving the communities frustrated and sidelined. (Eamer 2004, 3)

According to Eamer, ABC was formed to “tackle this issue head-on.” In his reflections on ABC, Kofinas (2006) suggests that a key benefit of incorporating local knowledge is that it provides a mechanism for community participation in regional monitoring. The participatory approach is viewed by Kofinas to have number of advantages in a time of climate change, industrial development and rapid cultural change: • Addressing complex problems • Providing a unique perspective (not available from many scientific studies) • Broadening the co-management process • Acknowledging legitimacy and value of traditional practice



• Building organizational capacity • Capturing community peoples’ perceptions for future generations • Sharing observations between communities and with scientists; cultivating mutual

respect and trust • Promoting awareness and stewardship Process/Methods The starting point for the ABC was selection of indicators, and identification of information sources, including which indicators are being monitored by various agencies. Indicators were selected at a workshop, the first annual gathering of ABC. A meta-database was subsequently created for information sources of the region.

A pilot project was launched in 1996 to test a semi-structured questionnaire designed by Kofinas including both closed and open-ended questions. To save time and money, interviews are not tape recorded except for one general question about change; with the exception of this question, responses are documented during interviews, and statements are not recorded as quotes. Spatial information is recorded on maps. The questionnaire has increased from 30 minutes to complete in 1996-97 to one and a half to two hours for the most recent questionnaire, which is 42 pages in length. Confidentiality is maintained with respect to the identity of interview participants for reporting purposes. (Kofinas 2002, 65; Folliot 2005, 34-40)

Local monitoring associates are selected by local organisations and participate in a three day training/orientation program. Training also provides an opportunity for local monitors to review and make changes to the questionnaire.

Data is inputted into an Access database and coded by analytical categories, including:

• Long-term changes • recent patterns • Unusual observations • Explanations • Rules of thumb

Interview methods … must be tailored to some extent to each community to reflect the differences in traditional areas and use patterns. The end product is always a compromise among several often-conflicting goals: • keep the questions simple and keep the interview interesting and not too long • be comprehensive • document information in a way that can be compared across areas and years • ask questions in ways that are relevant to the people interviewed and draw out observations and

interpretations that reflect their traditional knowledge • cover topics that will elicit observations from male and female experts of a range of ages • adapt to needs for specific information for understanding issues that arise • be consistent from year to year. From Eamer (2004, 8)



Information Sharing Protocol ABC’s Information Sharing Protocol is a brief (five page) document produced in 2004. The Protocol outlines kinds of information that ABC has decided it will not be responsible for collecting:

• Numbers and locations of animals harvested (except in relation to observations of sick animals).

• Traditional medicines • Places of spiritual importance and traditional use • Elders’ stories or life histories • Traditional practices (such as hunting methods or food preparation)

The following protocols are followed for the three kinds of information that is gathered by the Co-op: 1. Information about past studies and current research and monitoring This information is in the public domain, and is available on the internet in database form. Summaries and discussions of this information for ABC are attributed first to the author, then to ABC. 2. Indicators of ecological change This information is unrestricted. In general, indicators are reviewed and approved by the data holders before they are made available to the public. 3. Results from the community-based monitoring program This information requires the most detailed protocol. Interviewees signs an “informed consent form,” ensuring that they understand the program and how the information will be used. Raw results are stored in a way that protects the confidentiality of the interviewee. Raw data is owned and archived by ABC. Requests for access to the data must be approved on a case by case basis by the participating community according to local policy and procedures. Results summaries are displayed in a way that protects interviewee confidentiality. A period of at least one month (or less if agreed to by all parties) is allowed for review by participating communities and others. Comments and suggested revisions are incorporated wherever possible; where it is necessary to omit information, an explanatory note is inserted. Following review, there is no restriction on communication of results summaries. Communications Communications has been a strong point of ABC (EMAN 2007). The communications strategy was developed in 2002, and set out to answer the following questions:

• Who needs to know about the Arctic Borderlands Co-op and its programs? • What do people need to know? • How would they like to learn it?



ABC Communications – Target Audiences The information gathered by the Co-op through its programs, once analyzed, must be communicated. Internally, it should be communicated to Co-op members, the board of directors and the people who participated in the surveys. Externally, this information should be used in several ways. It should be distributed to the communities where the information was gathered and for whom the information is most relevant. It should also be distributed to the academic and research community, in the interests of sharing knowledge and spurring further research. It should be available to a wider audience, in the Yukon and elsewhere, through the Co-op’s website, and through public information campaigns. Finally, the information gathered by the Co-op should be shared with governments, co-management organizations, and other policy and decision-makers, so as to influence policy and improve management decisions.

From Madsen 2002, 1.

The program has used a wide variety of methods to share results, including reports and posters; the ABC website; face-to-face meetings, including the annual gathering. Monitoring reports and Gathering proceedings are presented in plain language for a community audience. There have also been opportunities for evaluations of the ABC methods and results to be academically reviewed through the involvement of university-based researchers, including graduate students. Participants at the 10th Annual Gathering made a number of suggestions about new communications initiatives, including:

• A book documenting local knowledge collected through the program and its linkages with science-based indicators.

• A film documentary. • Expansion of communications to the international monitoring community. • Involvement of youth in monitoring activities and gatherings.

Evaluation Kofinas (2002) points to a number of challenges faced in maintaining and developing the community-based monitoring program, including:

• Time pressures faced by agency managers and community leaders, who are tasked with a number of competing priorities.

• “Flavour-of-the-day” funding that tends to neglect established long term programs.

• Community capacity and competing priorities, including land claims implementation, devolution, and self-government.

• The methodological limitations of using a structured interview format, most appropriate for researchers with a minimum of training, where local monitoring experts are providing narrative reports.

• The challenge of knowledge co-production: “achieving relationships that are respectful of indigenous cultures and sensitive to the dominant and hegemonic forces of western science” (2002, 86). Folliott (2005) has evaluated the ABC monitoring process with a particular focus

on spatial data, incorporating consultations with community and agency participants as well as her own observations. The following weaknesses are identified:

• Questionnaire length: The length of questionnaires has expanded over the years following the expressed interests of ABC members. Participants have observed



exhaustion in various communities due to the quantity of questionnaire research being conducted.

• Difficulties in translating interview results into database format due to changes in questions that are asked over the years.

• Spatial documentation: With respect to spatial data, precise point locations provide more meaningful information for GIS purposes than polygon data.

• Interview process: “Less of a question format, but more conversation” (Folliott 2005, 55). Suggestions were made to conduct the interviews in a format drawing from indigenous modes of communication, using the local indigenous language (especially for elders).

• Accuracy of recall: interviews take place on an annual basis, and it is difficult to remember events. It was suggested that interviewees be provided with a calendar with map and encouraged to document observations and activities.

• Validity of results: The “…sample size is so small that it is difficult to make conclusions” (Folliott 2005, 68, citing Johnston 2005). Qualitative information is considered to be one of the principle strengths of the community data.

• Analysis and application: Significant resources and time are expended on data collection, but there is insufficient analysis to render the data usable for specific applications and needs.

• Communication: community participants felt that there needs to be more effort devoted to communication in accessible formats.

APPENDIX 2: Case Study: West Kitikmeot Slave Study (WKSS)

(Sources: http://www.wkss.nt.ca) Beginning in the early 1990’s, the high level of diamond exploration activity, coupled with the strong mineral potential for gold and other metals, raised questions about possible effects on the region's environment and peoples. These questions brought attention to the lack of information on the region's development potential, environmental quality, wildlife populations, critical habitats and socio-economic situation. Governments, aboriginal organizations, environmental groups and industry recognized that more data was needed, especially relating to possible regional cumulative effects of the many mining projects and related infrastructure developing in the region.

To address these needs, a partnership called the West Kitikmeot/Slave Study (WKSS) Society was formed including membership from aboriginal and environmental organizations, government and industry. The overall objective of the WKSS was to ensure that the effects of development on the environment, wildlife and people are minimal and that northern people get the maximum benefits. To achieve this objective, the WKSS designed and implemented a five year research program to provide an information base necessary to examine the long and short term effects of development in the WKSS area. The 11 communities of the study area include Kugluktuk, Gamètì, Wha Ti, Behchokö (Rae Edzo), Wekweètì, Yellowknife, Dettah, Åutsël K’e, Bathurst Inlet, Umingmaktok, and Cambridge Bay. The study area crosses the border between NWT and


http://www.wkss.nt.ca/


Nunavut, and encompasses the Tåîchô (NWT), Akaitcho (NWT), and West Kitikmeot (Nunavut) treaty/land claim regions.

The monitoring activities profiled in this report have been led by: • The Åutsël K’e Dene Band in conjunction with the Åutsël K’e Wildlife

Lands and Environment Department. • Whaèdôò Nàowoò Kö, the Traditional Knowledge and Heritage Program

of the Dogrib Treaty 11 Council (now the Tåîchô Government). The Tuktu Nogak project in Inuvialuit (Qitirmiut) territory took a distinct

approach to research specifically focused on barren-ground caribou TK. Research focused on traditional ecological knowledge about caribou, human-caribou relationships, and climate change. A particular strength of the project was the involvement of youth in research programs, including on-the-land and artistic components. Unfortunately, it was not possible to discuss Tuktu Nogak project in detail within the scope of this study. For more information, see publications by Thorpe, and Thorpe et al, published 1997-2002. Goals Rather than broad calls for proposals to conduct projects, the WKSS has been mandated to consider specific project proposals brought forward for consideration due to their merit and relevance. The goal of the Study is to collect and provide information for the WKS area to ensure that decision making by the Partners can give full consideration to potential cumulative effects and changes in the environment resulting from human activity, and to facilitate responsible economic development within a sound environmental management framework.

The objectives of the West Kitikmeot / Slave Study are to: 1. develop and maintain an information base necessary to make improved, sound

resource management decisions 2. establish and maintain a basis for the identification and assessment of cumulative

effects for planning and development purposes 3. provide a forum to continue to develop approaches to regional cumulative effects

monitoring until such time as the NWT Cumulative Impact Monitoring Program, the Nunavut General Monitoring Program and other initiatives can fully address this need.

4. provide a forum in which to share information on issues, while respecting the diversity of interests: aboriginal, industry, environmental organizations, governments, and the public

5. provide the information necessary to enhance the understanding of potential impacts of human activity on ecological processes and communities.

6. support a central role for both traditional knowledge and scientific knowledge, and facilitate the linkage of research carried out in these systems.

7. ensure the accessibility of Study research results and information to all Partners and the public, while respecting the confidentiality of certain information.

8. maximize community research training opportunities and the use of community resources in all Study research.

Guiding principles



The following principles were used in guiding the screening of research undertaken within the Study:

• the Study is a collection of baseline information and impact studies to measure and predict future changes.

• the Study will include a broad range of both environmental and socio-economic information. Projects should cover a large spatial area or be applied at a regional level.

• the Study should contribute to ecologically sustainable development. • the Study should contribute to protecting land, preserving culture and encouraging

community self-sufficiency and self-reliance. Traditional knowledge should be fully and effectively incorporated and provide direction in all aspects and phases of the Study.

• the Study will support parallel research projects which interlink traditional and scientific knowledge of a specific research topic where possible.

• the Study will encourage interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary projects. An ecosystem approach should be adopted for projects undertaken in the Study.

• All projects required formal community consultation and regional aboriginal government approval.

• Researchers were required to demonstrate community support for projects and to encourage community participation in all aspects of the research: data collection, verification and analysis.

Institutional framework/Governance The West Kitikmeot Slave Study Society (WKSSS) is made up of nine founding Partners representing organizations and agencies with a legitimate vested interest in the WKSS area. The Partners formed a registered Society in 1996, and developed an initial five-year research program to provide an information base necessary to examine the long and short term effects of development in the WKSS area. The initial WKSS research program ended March 31, 2001. Since that time, WKSS has continued to fund several key projects during the interim period until regional monitoring systems are in place – this will include the NWT Cumulative Impacts Monitoring Program (CIMP).

Each Partner has a seat on the Society's Management Board. The independent chairperson is chosen by the aboriginal members. Decision-making is consensus-based. In three cases, single Partner seats are shared by related groups: Inuit Organizations make up one Partner together, Nunavut Co Management Organizations and Métis organizations of the study area form a second, and four Environmental Organizations work together as a third Partner. The Federal, NWT and Nunavut governments are also represented on the Management Board. Industry is represented by the NWT and Nunavut Chamber of Mines. Participating aboriginal organisations are Dogrib Treaty 11 Council; Lutsel K'e Dene First Nation; Kitikmeot Hunters and Trappers Association; Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated; and Kitikmeot Inuit Association.

In addition to the Management Board there are two main working committees: the Traditional Knowledge Steering Committee and the Project Steering Committee. The Study office has had three staff responsible for administering projects and communicating results to Partner organizations, local communities and other interested individuals and organizations. According to the TK Research Guidelines, each traditional



knowledge project must be screened and guided by the Traditional Knowledge Steering Committee; and research projects drawing on both traditional knowledge and western science must be screened and guided by the Project Steering Committee made up of western scientists and traditional knowledge holders with the majority being aboriginal.

The Partners worked out a three-way matching funding agreement where contributions from industry, aboriginal organizations and environmental organizations were matched by both the Federal Government and the Territorial Government. This formula was modified after division of the NWT in 1999 to include Government of Nunavut participation.

The environmental and socio-economic monitoring programs established by the Åutsël K'e Dene First Nation, and the Dogrib Treaty 11 Council (now the Tåîchô Government), featured in this report. The Åutsël K'e program funded by WKSS was sponsored by the First Nation, and directed by the Åutsël K'e Wildlife, Lands and Environment Department. The Tåîchô program was led by Whaèdôò Nàowoò Kö, the Traditional Knowledge and Heritage Program of the Dogrib Treaty 11 Council.

Indicators: Åutsël K’e The Åutsël K'e monitoring program Ni hat'ni - Watching the Land program evolved and was designed over the course of approximately seven years. The program arises from the amalgamation of two previously distinct projects: the Traditional Knowledge in the Kache Tué Study Region (KK) environmental monitoring project, and the Community-Based Monitoring (CBM) socio-economic monitoring project. The Ni hat’ni program recognizes the interconnections between environmental and social indicators. Environmental Health Indicators Environmental indicators were established in 2001-2002 based on harvesting practices of community of Åutsël K’e community members. Indicator species identified were caribou, fish, ducks and geese, small fur-bearing animals (mink, marten, weasel, squirrel, lynx, beaver, muskrat, otter, wolverine), chicken and ptarmigan, and berries. Health indicators for each of these species were developed through traditional knowledge baseline studies. Indicator themes are specific to each species, and include: respect (caribou), abundance, distribution (including migration), physical condition, predator-prey relationships, diversity (ducks and geese). An annual seasonal cycle for information gathering was devised by elders and land-users, as follows: Spring Spring Freezer Caribou Hunt Cycle (caribou indicators) Ducks and Geese Cycle (duck and goose indicators) Ptarmigan Cycle (chicken and ptarmigan indicators) Beaver, Muskrat and Otter Cycle (small fur-bearing animal indicators) Summer Summer Hunt Caribou Cycle (caribou indicators)



Summer Angling Cycle (fish indicators) Fall Fall Hunt Caribou Cycle (caribou indicators) Berry Cycle (berry indicators) Fall Fishnet Cycle (fish indicators) Chicken Cycle (chicken and ptarmigan indicators) Rabbit Cycle (small fur-bearing animal indicators) Winter Winter Caribou Cycle (caribou indicators) Marten, Mink, Weasel, Lynx, Fox and Wolverine Cycle (small fur-bearing animal indicators) Community Health Indicators Indicators were developed through two phases. Phase one involved gathering ideas and Chipewyan terminology for concepts like monitoring, indicators and community health. During phase two, themes and indicators of community health were developed through open-ended home-visits with one hundred households in the community. Twenty indicators were identified that describe fundamental aspects of the community’s way of life and how it is changing as a result of mining.

Community Health Indicator Themes • Traditional food consumption • Capacity of healing services to meet the needs of the

community • Community employment (in the mining sector) • Students’ goals for education and employment • Spiritual values associated with the site – “old lady of

the falls” • Quality and availability of housing • Community concerns about the water • Cultural programs • Drumming • TK and skills required for harvesting caribou • Family Values as a result of employment in the mining

sector • Traditional land use activities • Spiritual values associated with the site called “betsi

ghie” • Rates of cancer and tuberculosis • TK and skills required for teaching youth on the land • Family values of respect for and among youth • Working together (volunteerism) • Capacity of organizations to work together • Effectiveness of the leadership • Quality of local services

Indicators: Whaèdôò Nàowoò Kö (Tåîchô) The Tåîchô program focused specifically on two intersecting themes: Tåîchô placenames as indicators of bio-geographical knowledge, and caribou habitat and relationships with people. “Throughout the project the information suggested that Dogrib traditional place names indicate essential information about the water flow, landscape and biodiversity of the sites, which provides people with information about the land, waterways and resources which allow them to survive while participating in the main task of hunting caribou” (Whaèdôò Nàowoò Kö 2001b, viii). Still in progress is a project to document traditional Tåîchô laws and rules associated with caribou.

The three reports related to this program share an in-depth understanding of the Tåîchô concept of dè. The closest English language concepts for this are habitat or ecosystem. Dè includes everything that is associated with “land, ground, dirt, earth” (Dogrib Divisional Board of Education 1996, 18). According to Legat, “It is also a living entity – Tåîchô have a relationship that is responsive to their attention, action and behaviour (2007, vi). The WKSS reports also indicate that water is a key component of dè: “Many of the placenames for waterways indicate water flow, water conditions,



watersheds and the relationship between land, water, wildlife, and people” (Whaèdôò Nàowoò Kö 2002, vi). The following were key conclusions (2001b):

• The placenames that indicate topography or water flow seem to have the primary purpose of making travel easier.

• Place-names that contain the names of plants or animals seem to indicate biodiversified sites.

• All named places were associated with caribou, whether to hunt, to travel through, or to leave families at while the men traveled further onto the barrenlands.

Place Names as Bio-Geographical Indicators Whaèdôò Nàowoò Kö 2001b Crucial Lakes/Rivers Landforms Locations of Mammals Vegetation Fish and Fishing Locations Name very old, meaning difficult

to determine Human Habitat Political and Spiritual Sites

Bird Sites

Perspective on traditional knowledge WKSS distinguishes between traditional knowledge research and research guided by traditional knowledge. The former is defined in the WKSS TK Research Guidelines as a comprehensive and holistic collection of information held by traditional knowledge holders. The latter is western science guided by a traditional knowledge holder. The working definition of traditional knowledge used by the WKSS was put forth by the Traditional Knowledge Committee:

Traditional knowledge is knowledge that Elders hold from experience and is passed down to them through the generations. It is continuous and grows. Interpretation of knowledge is important. Traditional knowledge is not just the past, but the future combined with the past.

(http://www.wkss.nt.ca/HTML/06_Research/06_tkResearchGuide.htm) The format required for traditional knowledge research projects is the same as that for western science research, although the content of each segment may vary. WKSS determined that it would focus equally on traditional and scientific knowledge. The research done through WKSS formed a unique body of information on the West Kitikmeot/Slave Study area because it included knowledge collected through two different, yet complementary, forms of observation. The Partners recognize that a forum is required for communities to identify traditional knowledge (TK) research needs. Traditional knowledge, while continuing to be the intellectual property of the Métis, Dene and Inuit communities, is a valued component of the Study. The value of scientific knowledge is also recognized. The Study Office helped researchers contact community representatives, and research protocols developed by communities create opportunities to link traditional knowledge with western science to produce the best quality of information possible.

The requirement that scientific and traditional knowledge studies cooperate and compare information has provided a deeper and more holistic understanding of certain research questions. For instance, the Tuktu and Nogak project used information from Inuit elders to examine Bathurst caribou and their calving. In parallel, the Bathurst Caribou Calving Grounds study used scientific methods to research factors affecting where caribou calve, and the Bathurst Caribou Seasonal Movement study provided


http://www.wkss.nt.ca/HTML/06_Research/06_tkResearchGuide.htm


information on the core calving area from year to year. These studies produced complementary information on shifts in the core calving area over time: scientists and elders agreed that climate change is becoming a factor in these shifts. Methodology: Åutsël K'e WKSS developed an adaptation of the Action Research approach to monitoring. Åutsël K'e researchers distinguish this from Participatory Action Research in allowing for “greater openness and flexibility in how it is used” (Åutsël K'e/Parlee/Marlowe 1998, 8). This methodology addressed the community interest in ensuring that research would be applied in action, and aims for a balance between process and product. As the WKSS TK Research Guidelines stipulate:

• To be effective, research projects must obtain the support of the appropriate aboriginal political body and of the affected aboriginal communities before they can be approved by the WKSS society.

• For traditional knowledge research to be effective, aboriginal community members must direct and control all stages of research projects, including personnel, project planning and design, budget development, fundraising, data collection, analysis, data and report verification, and report writing.

• Traditional knowledge should be fully and effectively incorporated and provide direction in all aspects and phases of the study.

• Research must include a training component in projects in order to develop research skills for those affected communities.

According to one of the early Community-Based Monitoring reports (Åutsël K'e/Parlee 1997, 2) the Action Research methodology promotes community participation in the form of:

• training and employment of a community member(s) • strong communication and working relationship between the researcher and

the Band leadership / committees • communication with and meaningful involvement of the broader Band

membership Recognizing the constraints of participation in a small community such as Åutsël K'e, the Action Research approach emphasizes “meaningful” rather than full scale participation by the community as a whole in all phases of the process. The 1997 report equates “meaningful participation” with the Dene concept of respect: “The respect of people as well as the land, the wildlife and water, is one of the most common values held by people in Åutsël K'e and one which they value in research as well as in government and industry’s approach to development” (Åutsël K'e and Parlee 1997, 2). Methodology: Whaèdôò Nàowoò Kö (Tåîchô) In contrast to Åutsël K'e, the Tåîchô research team adopted an explicitly Participatory Action Research (PAR) methodology. However, it is acknowledged that PAR practices must adapt to circumstances. Thus each of the three Whaèdôò Nàowoò Kö reports details the PAR adaptation adopted for the specific project. For example, the most recent report (2002) lists the following “use of PAR”::



• the Dogrib Regional Elders' Committee oversaw the project; • the Community Elders' Committee of Behtsokö, where the project has its

main offices, supervised the project on an on-going basis; • the Community Elders' Committees of Whatì, Gamètì, and Behtsokö selected

those to be interviewed ; • the researchers consulted the Community Elders' Committees and discussed

the work with them as the project was under way; • the researchers collaborated and shared tasks among themselves and made

sure that the work progressed smoothly for the interviewees; • the interview team interviewed knowledgeable elders in Whatì, Gamètì, and

Behtsokö. They recorded the interviews on videotape and documented what was discussed on paper;

• all members of the research team reviewed drafts of the report. Process/Methods: Åutsël K'e Early in its mandate WKSS went through a thorough and systematic process to develop its approach to research. This involved identification of each Partner's concerns and priorities, review of existing information and gaps, consultation with key players in the WKSS area, analysis of expected development activities and potential regional level effects. In the end this resulted in 10 Priority Research Themes that set out the areas of research WKSS would support. At the same time, a local approach to monitoring was being piloted in Åutsël K'e. Two distinct programs were established for monitoring community and environmental health: the Traditional Knowledge in the Kache Tué Study Region (KK) environmental monitoring project, and the Community-Based Monitoring (CBM) socio-economic monitoring project. These were merged as the Ni Hat’ni project in 2002. Surveys are entered into databases, and are structured in order to maintain statistical validity of results. Traditional Ecological Knowledge This monitoring project evolved through three phases: 1. Identifying local harvesting patterns and monitoring procedures, from which

preliminary indicators of environmental change were derived (1999-2000). 2. Documenting oral history and legends about the land, providing contextual

information for interpreting indicators (2000-2001). 3. TK synthesis and development and testing of monitoring framework (2001-2002). Information was gathered through a combination of structured questionnaires, on-the-land observations during activities sponsored by the Wildlife Lands and Environment Committee, and gathering of observations after each harvesting season. Community-Based Monitoring The socio-economic monitoring project was established in three phases: 1. gathering ideas and Dene Sûåiné terminology for concepts like monitoring (1996-

1997). 2. developing themes and indicators of community health through open-ended home-

visits with one hundred households in the community.


http://www.wkss.nt.ca/HTML/06_Research/06_questions.htm


3. designing a four-part system of monitoring. The Community Health Survey used to monitor 20 key indicators was developed with Dr. John O’Neil from the University of Manitoba. Ni Hat’ni – Watching the Land The merged traditional ecological knowledge and community-based monitoring program is the outcome of seven years of evolution and design through the two projects described above. Interpretation workshops are held at the end of each monitoring cycle. These workshops also serve to communicate new environmental information and incorporate it into the collective oral narrative of the Dene Sûåiné people, maintaining the dynamism and contemporary relevance of TK. Information is analyzed according to whether changes are natural or unnatural. Knowledge Integration workshops allow for evaluation of the combined ecological and socio-economic monitoring data. Process/Methods: Whaèdôò Nàowoò Kö (Tåîchô) While there was overlap in the participatory methods used by the Tåîchô and Åutsël K'e research teams, there were also important differences. The Åutsël K'e survey approach closely approximated classic quantitative social science techniques involving structured interviews. In contrast, the Whaèdôò Nàowoò Kö team worked with a relatively small number of “older elders,” using semi-structured interview guides with a specific thematic focus (in contrast to the broader “community health” and “environmental health” categories used in Åutsël K'e). Interviews were video-taped, transcribed and subjected to qualitative and quantitative analysis in varying proportions depending on the research theme. Tåîchô language concepts were the foundation of the research, which included a strong linguistics component. Information sharing protocol The WKSS information sharing protocol is outlined briefly in the TK Research Guidelines (http://www.wkss.nt.ca/HTML/06_Research/06_tkResearchGuide.htm): • Informed consent must be obtained from all people interviewed as part of the research

project, and where requested, the confidentiality of the information which they provide must be strictly respected and adhered to in writing.

• Copies of raw data held, including video, audio, written etc., are the property of the community. Raw data held outside and in the community will be subject to conditions of copyright and confidentiality agreements on storage, use, access and release approved by the appropriate political body and by participating communities.

• Contributions of community people to research projects must be fully acknowledged in all reports and public statements.

• Research will be suspended if the guidelines written in to the contract are not met. • Protocols/contract research agreements will be established between the researcher and

participating partners. Further protocols and procedures established by WKSSS are outlined in the Research Program (http://www.wkss.nt.ca/HTML/06_Research/06_index.htm), as follows: • Each project s required to submit activity reports, an annual progress report and a

final report. The Board established a review protocol for all annual and final reports


http://www.wkss.nt.ca/HTML/06_Research/06_tkResearchGuide.htm

http://www.wkss.nt.ca/HTML/06_Research/06_index.htm


to make sure they were sound before releasing them to the public. First each report was reviewed by the Study Office, then it was sent out to two independent experts on the subject and finally it was signed off by the Chair. Reports that did not receive approval at any point in the review process were sent back for revision. Once the report completed the review protocol it was released to the public and placed on the WKSS website.

• Data from all WKSS research is publicly available. The data is held confidential for 18 months after completion of each research project to allow for publication. Researchers and others wishing to access the data before this can request a Data Release Form from the researcher and the WKSS office.

Communications The primary modes of communication for WKSS studies have been the website, WKSSS meetings, as well as informal contact among Partners between meetings (WKSSS 2001, 54). Subject to the protocols and procedures outlined above, researchers and partnering communities have been responsible for developing their own communications strategy for research and monitoring projects. For Åutsël K'e, community communication objectives were imbedded in the participatory research methodology – what is termed in the Ni Hat’ni – Watching the Land Final Report (2003) the “knowledge cycle.” The knowledge cycle is completed when interpreted monitoring results are communicated to the Wildlife, Lands and Environment Committee. Presentations and reports prioritize information representing unnatural change or adverse impacts that require action by community leadership.

A promotional poster in all languages of the study region, and a brochure were produced to raise awareness of the Study. A number of Press Releases were issued. Project summaries and detailed reports are posted on the WKSS website. The Åutsël K'e community has also placed an emphasis on collaborating with academic researchers including graduate students, and a number of peer reviewed dissertations and journal articles have been produced based on WKSS-funded research and monitoring projects. Evaluations In addition to the peer review process for academic publications by WKSS researchers, WKSS reports are also subject to a standard peer review process. The WKSS Final Report of 2001 includes an extensive list of reviewers (xxi). Other assessments relevant to the TK aspects of the Study include the Final Report (2001), which reviews all projects in relation to Study objectives; a study to determine how the information collected had been used by the various Partners as part of the process of assessing our work; the report is entitled Benefits of the West Kitikmeot / Slave Study: Usage Report (not available on the website); and the Ni Hat’ni – Watching the Land Final Report (2005). The conclusions of the Usage Report are summarized in the Final Report. WKSS Final Report 2001

The WKSS Final Report states that the Study’s objectives had largely been met, within the constraints of available time and resources:



1. A start had been made on developing an information base for decision-making, though more work was required; a State of Knowledge Report for the region had been completed, including sections related to TK.

2. Baseline data had been largely collected for so that regional changes due to cumulative effects could be detected; Valued Environmental and Socioeconomic Components had been identified.

3. A forum for information sharing among stakeholders had been established. 4. Information had been gathered and made available to the extent possible in a

variety of areas. 5. A central role was supported in each area of TK and science; however, the linkage

between the two remained weak. In the State of Knowledge report, documented TK was identified as the largest information gap.

6. Study results had been made accessible to all Partners and the public, within the limits of the information sharing protocol.

7. Training and use of community resources had been accomplished. The Final Report also assessed the degree to which Study research questions had

been answered. Research questions had been refined and focused so as to be more achievable; caribou and caribou habitat had been a central focus of Study research projects. TK-related activities included: traditional economy baseline; socio-economic monitoring; mapping of cultural, heritage and sacred sites; effects of human activities on key species; and assessment of methods to deflect caribou away from mine sites. The Final Report recommends that research collected and initial research questions be assessed, and new questions be recommended. This assessment is distinct from the State of Knowledge report, which is currently undergoing a second update.

The Final Report concludes that more research is needed to accomplish Study objectives; and capacity to effectively use research requires improvement – industry and government are unsure of how to use TK, and Aboriginal organizations have not fully utilized scientific information.

Ni Hat’ni – Watching the Land 2005 Report The 2005 monitoring report issued by Åutsël K'e and the Wildlife, Lands and Environment Department includes a new section entitled “Unique Circumstances in 2003-2005.” A number of setbacks compromised the quality of the research during that period, including the absence of the original project manager; time pressures on remaining staff; funding problems; turnover of community researcher staff and time required for training/orientation of new staff; errors in data collection and misplacing of data; problems completing data inputting and analysis; lack of time for concluding Interpretive Workshops. Despite the title indicating that this situation is “unique,” the concluding paragraph of this section indicates that these problems may not be exceptional:

We hope this illuminates the realities faced by small communities in designing and implementing projects such as this. High staff turnover rates, lack of sufficient human resources to effectively complete all expected tasks (in the face of immense pressure from industrial development and the desire to complete other research projects deemed important to the community), and financial difficulties



all present huge obstacles to effective implementation of projects, despite the best intentions and hard work of all involved. (WKSS 2005, 22).

APPENDIX 3: Case Study: Gwich’in Social and Cultural Institute

(Source: www.gwichin.ca; Gwich’in Tribal Council, 2004) Following the signing of the Gwich'in Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement in 1992, the Gwich'in Tribal Council established a number of organizations to deal with new responsibilities created by the agreement. The Gwich'in Social and Cultural Institute (GSCI) was established in response to concerns about the decline of Gwich'in culture and language and the need to implement heritage resource issues identified in the land claim. In the fall of 1993, the Institute began operation with the mandate to 'document, preserve and promote the practice of Gwich'in culture, language, traditional knowledge and values.'

At the March 21-23 2007 conference sponsored by the Dene Cultural Institute on Integrating TK into Environmental Assessments and Regulatory Processes in the NWT, presenters representing the Gwich’in Renewable Resources Board acknowledged that GSCI plays an important role in providing TK input into decision-making about resource management. For example, the Institute reviews land use permits for possible impacts on heritage resources, provides input on policies and legislation that concern Gwich'in heritage resources, identifies culturally significant sites, records Gwich'in place names and provides information for the development of Gwich'in Land Use Plans.

GSCI works with the four communities of Aklavik, Fort McPherson, Inuvik, and Tsiigehtchic which all fall within the Gwich'in Settlement Area (GSA), established by the land claim agreement. The Institute also carries out heritage research in the Yukon in traditionally used areas described as the Primary and Secondary Use Areas in the claim.

The GSCI has its main office in Tsiigehtchic, a research office in Yellowknife, and a language office in Fort McPherson. A new office has also been established recently in Inuvik to carry out a major traditional knowledge research project related to the Mackenzie Gas Project. Goal/Responsibilities The goal of the Institute is to conduct research in the areas of culture, language and traditional knowledge so that programs appropriate for Gwich'in needs can be developed in order to build new awareness of, and pride in, Gwich'in culture. The Gwich’in Tribal Council TK policy outlines responsibilities of GSCI in detail:

a. Review all research permits and licenses issued pursuant to the Scientists Act, (R.S.N.W.T. 1988), Wildlife Act, (R.S.N.W.T. 1988), the NWT Act Archaeological Site Regulations (NWT Act, Chapter 1237, 1978), Fisheries Act, (R.S.C. 1985), the Yukon Scientists and Explorer’s Act, (R.S.Y. 1986) or the Yukon Act Archaeological Sites Regulations (C.R.C. c.112, 1978) for compliance with the policy guidelines prior to providing advice to the authority issuing the permit or license.


http://www.gwichin.ca/


b. Ensure that research has gone through an ethical review process before research begins.

c. Reserves the right to enter into research agreements to collaborate with researchers for proposed Gwich’in Traditional Knowledge research or other socio-cultural research in the Gwich’in Settlement Region (see Schedule A). The Gwich’in Social and Cultural Institute shall ensure that a plain language description of the project is provided to the community in which the research is proposed, and that informed consent has been gained before the research proceeds.

d. Monitor Gwich’in Traditional Knowledge projects, studies and other initiatives inside and outside the Gwich’in Settlement Region to improve general understanding of the methodology of incorporating Gwich’in Traditional Knowledge into education, environmental assessment, heritage management and land, water and resource management and planning.

e. Participate in the on-going exchange of information about Gwich’in Traditional Knowledge research and development and its incorporation into decision-making.

f. Identify areas where Gwich’in Traditional Knowledge can be successfully incorporated into the design or delivery of Gwich’in Tribal Council governance and Board decision-making.

g. Develop guidelines for researchers seeking to conduct research on Gwich’in Traditional Knowledge in the Gwich’in Settlement Region that reflect the values and traditions of the Gwich’in as expressed through this policy.

h. Encourage the use of collaborative research methods in Gwich’in Traditional Knowledge and Scientific research.

i. Communicate the objectives of this policy and its guidelines to all Gwich’in organizations, government departments, researchers, and institutions of public government identified within the Gwich’in Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement and the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act,

j. Provide the Gwich’in Tribal Council with advice on all matters which fall within the scope of this policy.

k. Work with Designated Gwich’in Organizations and Renewable Resource Councils to identify Gwich’in individuals who are qualified Gwich’in Traditional Knowledge holders in specific topic areas and interested in working with researchers.

l. Educate elders and other beneficiaries about their individual rights with respect to their participation in all research, including Gwich’in Traditional Knowledge research.

m. Recover costs related to the provision of information to researchers, wherever possible. The Gwich’in Social and Cultural Institute will provide the most current Rate Schedule upon request.

Guiding Principles

• Our Elders play a crucial role as teachers. They are the source of traditional knowledge, history, language and culture

• The preservation and respect for the land are essential to the well-being of our people and our culture.



• Our family history is important to our identity as Gwich'in. • All Gwich'in have a role to play in keeping the culture alive. • Cross cultural understanding and awareness between Gwich'in and non-Gwich'in

is essential in building a new respect and understanding in today's global community.

Institutional Framework The GSCI is the cultural and heritage arm of the Gwich'in Tribal Council. It is a non-profit society with registered charitable organization status and is governed by a seven member Board of Directors composed of representatives from all four communities and the Gwich'in Tribal Council. Indicators The GSCI has conducted important baseline research related to Gwich’in language and traditional placenames, cultural places/ethnoarchaeology, traditional practices (including traditional clothing), ethnobotany, and TK about animals. Although these projects are not explicitly related to monitoring, they are invaluable in providing an understanding of valued components from a Gwich’in perspective, as well as information that can be used to identify changes in the ecosystem and communities of the region. Language has been identified as a key indicator of cultural vitality, and the GSCI website includes monitoring information about the state of the language. Perspective on Traditional Knowledge The GSCI is guided by the Gwich’in Tribal Council traditional knowledge policy, Working with Gwich’in Traditional Knowledge in the Gwich’in Settlement Region (2004), which was drafted by GSCI. This document is the most extensive and detailed of the examples discussed in this report, thirteen pages in length, including sections related to Guiding Principles, Authority and Accountability, . The preamble reads as follows:

The Gwich’in recognize and value the fact that living on the land for many millennia has provided them with an extensive body of knowledge, values, beliefs and practices that many people today refer to as traditional knowledge. This knowledge, which has been passed down orally and through personal experience and spiritual teachings, is the foundation of Gwich’in identity and survival. It continues to have relevance today and draws its’ strength from being used, revised and continuously updated to take into consideration new knowledge. The Gwich’in hold this knowledge in trust for future generations in the belief that this knowledge is of benefit to themselves and all humanity. The Gwich’in believe the best way to ensure its survival is to continue to use it and share it in a matter that respects this knowledge.

The following definitions are included in the TK Policy: Gwich’in Traditional Knowledge Gwich’in Traditional Knowledge is that body of knowledge, values, beliefs and practices passed from one generation to another by oral means or through learned experience, observation and spiritual teachings, and pertains to the identity, culture and heritage of the Gwich’in. This body of knowledge reflects many millennia of living on the land. It is



a system of classification, a set of empirical observations about the local environment and a system of self-management that governs the use of resources and defines the relationship of living beings with one another and with their environment.

3..1.1.1 Gwich’in Traditional Knowledge Holder Gwich’in Traditional Knowledge holders are Gwich’in persons who are known, or come to be known, by the Gwich’in Social and Cultural Institute, a Designated Gwich’in Organization or by the Gwich’in Tribal Council to possess Gwich’in Traditional Knowledge. Holders of Gwich’in Traditional Knowledge should be clearly acknowledged for any traditional knowledge they have shared with researchers. Gwich’in Traditional Knowledge User Anyone using any part, parts or whole of Gwich’in Traditional Knowledge. The TK policy also makes specific mention of the significance of Gwich’in language as a vehicle for TK. In particular, the role of the two dialects spoken must be respected:

Researchers should ensure that they use and apply the appropriate Gwich’in dialect when working in the Gwich’in language. For research of a regional nature, both Gwichya Gwich’in and Teetl’it Gwich’in dialects should be properly represented in research reports or products of research in order to ensure both respect and effective communication. (Gwich’in Tribal Council 2004, 13)

Methodology The Gwich’in Tribal Council TK policy (2004) states that the Council “supports and encourages” the use of collaborative research methodologies. Such methodologies enable TK to be used appropriately throughout the research process, and support community capacity building, including education, training and employment, as an aspect of research. The GSCI describes the collaborative research process as a form of “experiential learning” An existing body such as an Elders Council or Renewable Resources Council is to be designated as the advisory body throughout each phase of research. Process/Methods Since it was formally established through the Gwich’in land claim agreement, the GSCI has had a high level of institutional stability. Alestine Andre (now Heritage Researcher) and Ingrid Kritsch (now Research Director) have played leading roles as staff for many years; Kritsch was founding Executive Director, and Andre has been involved since 1994. Like other institutions of the Gwich’in Tribal Council, GSCI has its own office in Tsiigehtchic, as well as important responsibilities as an advisory body in resource management decision-making. GSCI has been highly productive since its inception – the 1994-1995 Annual Report alone mentions four major projects and five contracts employing a total of 118 Gwich’in beneficiaries. Activities have included research, education, publishing, and an on-the-land program (the science camp). Research projects have been reflected in numerous publications on Gwich’in language and traditional placenames, cultural places/ethnoarchaeology, and traditional practices (including traditional clothing), ethnobotany, and TK about animals.



Information sharing protocol Policy on information sharing is outlined in the Gwich’in Tribal Council TK policy (2004), as follows. All projects are subject to licensing and research agreements.

Confidentiality 8. Designated Gwich’in Organizations and beneficiaries must be informed about

the degree of confidentiality that will apply to the information they provide before the research process starts.

9. Methods of ensuring confidentiality must be approved prior to any research. Ownership and Use of Gwich’in Traditional Knowledge Information 10. Ownership and use of information must be negotiated between the researcher

and GSCI prior to the commencement of the research process and contained in the research agreement.

11. Copies of research materials and final products including relevant field notes, photographs or slides, audio tapes, video tapes, maps, archival materials, reports, journal articles, manuscripts, or books resulting from Gwich’in Traditional Knowledge research must be sent to the Gwich’in Social and Cultural Institute. 12. Quotations and other oral, written and pictorial contributions of those people or group of people who provide Gwich’in Traditional Knowledge information must be acknowledged in any report or publication that may arise out of the research project. Direct references must be cited for Gwich’in Traditional Knowledge holders, persons or groups who provide information that is recorded and then used in a report, providing consent to do so has been obtained.

13. The product of the research containing or derived from Gwich'in Traditional Knowledge must be reviewed by the Gwich’in Social and Cultural Institute and affected Designated Gwich’in Organization before distribution to a third party. The product will be reviewed within 30 days of receipt. If verification of information is required, this time frame must be negotiated. The review and/or verification process is meant to provide the Gwich’in Social and Cultural Institute and community with an opportunity to comment on the findings, identify gaps and make corrections before the research is made public.

Communications GSCI places a high priority on communication of TK research results to Gwich’in communities and the broader public, and has produced numerous pamphlets, books, reports, slide presentations and videos. As well, the Institute maintains a strong community-based “experiential education” program, including opportunities for research collaboration, science camps, language immersion camps, and a language mentoring program. A variety of cultural curriculum tools have also been produced. Program participants have opportunities to work with Gwich'in Elders, and professionals or graduate students from such disciplines as anthropology, biology, and geography. GSCI delivers workshops to schools, community groups and corporations on subjects ranging



from archaeology and management of heritage resources, to ethnobotany, place names and oral history. Evaluations The GSCI has gone through two strategic planning processes resulting in two five year plans. The current plan is still in draft form. Annual reports have described Institute activities, but do not include evaluations.

APPENDIX 4: Case Study: Sahtu Barren-Ground Caribou TK Study

(Sources: www.srrb.nt.ca; Simmons 2007; Déline Research Guidelines Committee 2004) Recently, NWT Environment and Natural Resources (ENR) issued a five year barren-ground caribou management strategy (2006-2010). The strategy recognizes the immense social, cultural and economic value of barren-ground caribou to residents of the NWT, and aboriginal peoples in particular, and defines actions needed to address declines of 40 to 86 percent in herd populations over the past ten years. Management principles include recognition of aboriginal harvesting rights, and the role of traditional ecological knowledge and values in conservation practices.

The Sahtu Region forms a significant portion of the ranges for both the Bluenose West and Bluenose East herds, both of which overlap the proposed pipeline route, and both of which are in a declining trend. According to the 2005 census, the Bluenose West herd declined from 98,900 in 1987 to 20,800. The Bluenose East herd declined from 104,000 in 2000 to 66,600. According to the Sahtu Renewable Resources Board harvesting survey, current harvest is at around recommended levels. However, ENR biologists are recommending a reduction in harvesting of cows (now at about 70%), and culling of predators (presentation by Alasdair Veitch, Supervisor, Wildlife Management, Déline, November 1, 2006). It is in this context that stake NWT residents and stakeholders are considering the potential impacts of pipeline development through the region.

The Barren-Ground Caribou TK Study is an extension of the recently inaugurated TK research program sponsored by the Sahtu Renewable Resources Board. Since 2003, the Sahtu Renewable Resources Board has recognized the importance of proactively supporting traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) research in the Sahtu Region. The Board has since funded a successful research project with the Déline First Nation entitled Dene Ways of Respecting the Land and Animals (June 2005). That project was strongly supported within the community, and provided an important foundation for TEK policy development. However, it is recognized that each district of the Sahtu Region possesses distinct knowledge and perspectives in relation to their traditional land base.

The current two year study (2006-2008) provides for participation by Déline, Fort Good Hope and Colville Lake, documenting the knowledge of key elders and current harvesters about how Dene people have monitored the barren-ground caribou herds, and how a sustainable relationship with the herds has been maintained. The hypothesis is that K’asho Got’ine ways of understanding or monitoring change are an important basis for their traditions in taking care of the land.


http://www.srrb.nt.ca/


Goals 1. To explore Dene ways of identifying and addressing change in caribou populations. 2. To build community skills and capacity for research and decision-making in caribou

management. 3. To provide tools and venues for transfer and mobilization of Dene knowledge within

the communities and in resource management processes. Guiding Principles The SRRB is guided by its Mission “to assist communities with the management of wildlife and habitat for the benefit of the people of the Sahtu Settlement Area; it is the responsibility of the SRRB and all other affected parties to unite to protect, conserve, and manage, in a cooperative spirit, all renewable resources within the Sahtu Settlement Area in a sustainable manner to meet or exceed the needs of the public today and in the future for generations to come.” The SRRB is required to consult with Renewable Resources Councils, which are mandated by the Sahtu Dene and Métis Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement “to promote local involvement in conservation, harvesting studies, research and wildlife management in the community.” The Barren-Ground Caribou TK study aims to address the interconnected mandates of the SRRB and Renewable Resources Councils, and to respect research principles established in participating communities.

The only participating community with formally established Research Guidelines is the Déline First Nation (2004); this document is currently in the process of revision. Principles are defined as the values that guide our work together. The following six principles underpin the community vision for research: Déline First Nation Research Principles

• Dene people participate in all aspects of research. • Research is conducted according to Dene values and guidelines. • People are made aware of how research will benefit them. • Volunteer participation is encouraged. • Dene knowledge is used as a resource in all research. • Dene language is used as a starting point for research.

Subject to review by Fort Good Hope and Colville Lake partners, the Déline principles are being used to guide the study in those communities as well. Institutional Framework This research project is a partnership between the SRRB, the University of Manitoba (Native Studies and Natural Resources Institute), and participating First Nation Councils and Renewable Resources Councils. The Principle Investigator and project coordinator is Deborah Simmons. The project is guided by the First Nation Councils, the K’asho Got’ine Elders Council and Cultural Institute, and Renewable Resources Councils. Local governance ensures that the research meets agreed-upon objectives benefiting the community; that community, Northwest Territories and university research guidelines are respected; and that the intellectual property rights of local participants are protected. Funding contributions include contributions from the SRRB, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, and the Pipeline Readiness Office (INAC).



Indicators Following a broadly defined scope of the initial TK pilot project in Déline, it was determined that given time, budget and capacity constraints, achieving greater depth would at least initially require thematic focus on a priority Valued Component. Caribou-human relationships have always been of considerable concern in the Sahtu Region as an indicator of both ecological and community health. This includes the human responsibilities to be stewards of caribou habitat, and to maintain traditional practices for being respectful to caribou. Baseline information about caribou-human relationships is embodied in old time stories, and Dene people have been working out ways to understand social and environmental change against this benchmark. In the words of Déline First Nation author George Blondin, “Many younger Dene no longer live the traditional life, but they know it and understand its values. They try to use this heritage in their work, and to maintain control over the changes that affect our land and people. They are creating Dene lives in new ways” (1990). Oral histories also provide information about the caribou herds dating back long before scientific research was initiated in the region, providing another benchmark for understanding changes in the herd. Dene terminology, grammar, narrative structures, and placenames are analysed as indicators of socio-ecological relationships.

Although Dene people and scientists may agree on research data, they have differed in their interpretation of the data. In particular, declining caribou numbers may not be seen as significant if the herd remains generally fat and healthy. Perspective on Traditional Knowledge For the purpose of this study, TK is considered to be an ensemble of Dene language, narratives, and ancient practices adapted to present conditions. This knowledge is spatial, in that it maps the historical, cultural and ecological dimensions of the landscape. Inherent to TK is a dynamic interpretive process that applies past teachings to generate meaning within emergent new contexts (Cruikshank, 1998). Though it is firmly rooted in heritage, TK is open to drawing from new data, concepts and interpretations (including scientific perspectives). Thus elders have welcomed the opportunity to work collaboratively with scientists in the research process; linkages with science are not a secondary add-on. This perspective is consistent with Mohawk scholar Taiaiake Alfred’s conception of “critical traditionalism.” It is the basis for the title of the larger research program in Déline, Denecho Godígháré Hîdó K’£lu K’œ Híd£ / The Words Of Our Ancestors Are Our Path To The Future. Methodology The research is designed according to a particular adaptation of the Participatory Action Research methodology (Déline Ethics Committee 2003; Caine, Salomons and Simmons 2005, Fletcher 2003, Ryan and Robinson 1990, 1992; Johnson and Ruttan 1993), with a process that draws from traditional Dene modes of knowledge production, and balances academic research objectives with capacity building and practical community objectives in a post-land claim era. Research Guidelines are reviewed and expanded through the research and learning cycle. Program design is streamlined and is coordinated with ongoing community activities where possible to keep research burden to a minimum; this



is essential in a small community. Recognizing the busy schedule imposed by the demands of local governance and participation in resource management, advisory responsibilities are allocated to existing First Nation, Elders and Renewable Resources Councils.

The research is qualitative, oriented to identification and assessment of indicators; thus sample size is kept relatively small in keeping with community research capacity and objectives. Existing oral history recordings and documentation are used wherever possible. Participation of women and youth is sought for each survey, recognizing their specific knowledge and contributions. Traditional Dene modes of collectively assessing, analysing and verifying observations and experience from all sources (including scientific information and interpretations) form the main basis of the research process, with interviews providing supplementary detail as needed. Thus research is inherently dialogic; dialogue is promoted among genders and age groups, and between TK holders and scientists.

Dene is the language of research, and Dene terminology, grammar, and narrative structure are analysed as components of research data. While TK is the starting point for identifying research questions and process, linkages between TK and science are an aspect of research design. Survey scope is limited to ensure rich results. A routine cycle of training, research activities, planning and evaluation meetings and public presentations ensures that expectations are clear and stress on the community minimized. Training includes both TK (Dene culture, economy, social organization, language, concepts), and academic components. The project is product-oriented, aiming to provide community educational tools as an outcome of research within the research period. Clear evaluation criteria are established and utilized annually to ensure learning and adaptation through the research process. Process/Methods This project builds upon the Fort Good Hope/Colville Lake Traditional Environmental Knowledge Pilot Project sponsored by the Dene Cultural Institute (DCI) during 1989-1993 (Johnson and Ruttan 1993), and the more recently the SRRB-Déline First Nation pilot project Dene Ways of Respecting the Land and Animals (2004). These two projects were reviewed and evaluated as part of research design for the current study, including interviews with lead researchers and discussions at community research design meetings: Project Design: Review and Evaluation of Previous Studies Dene Cultural Institute Fort Good Hope/Colville Lake TEK Pilot Project, 1989-1993 Strengths Weaknesses • The community research training

process. • Dialogue with scientists

(anthropologist Martha Johnson and ecologist Robert Ruttan).

• Collaborative process of the research team.

• Opportunity for broader dialogue (including an international conference held on the land near Fort Good Hope). (B. T’seleie 2007; A. Masuzumi 2006)

• Lack of community ownership (Johnson and Ruttan 1993).

• Capacity/training: Research coordinators were not resident in the community, and availability to spend time in the community providing training and research support was limited (Johnson and Ruttan 1993).

• Scope: time and resources did not permit full reporting on each of the four selected indicator species.

• Research design: The length and structured components of the interview guide were not fully adapted to Dene modes of knowledge production (Masuzumi 2006).




Dene Cultural Institute Fort Good Hope/Colville Lake TEK Pilot Project, 1989-1993 Strengths Weaknesses

• Documentation: Interview transcriptions were English only, and summary (Johnson 2006).

• Archiving: Original transcripts and audio recordings are currently not traceable in any community or regional archive (K’asho Got’ine Community Council, Dene Cultural Institute, and NWT Archives consultations, 2006-2007).

• Product: No plain language community educational tools produced by which the community could benefit from the research over the longer term, leaving a sense that knowledge had been “stolen” (K’asho Got’ine Cultural Institute/Elders Council 2006).

• Continuity/sustainability: Although the project report included an extensive list of recommendations, no plans were made to for future studies (no follow-up occurred until 2004-2005).

Sahtu Renewable Resources Board-Déline TK Project, 2004-2005 Strengths Weaknesses • Transcription of existing oral history

materials in Dene language and English, with supplementary interviews.

• Bilingual pamphlet for community use. (Déline 2005)

• Continuity/sustainability: the SRRB maintained commitment to supporting TK studies in each community of the Sahtu Region; this commitment was renewed with the commissioning of a three year TK research framework, 2007-2010 (Simmons 2007).

• Capacity/training: No scientific research support for community researcher; no training provided; only one community researcher participating – no team approach.

• Research design: lack of time and resources for collective community discussion, analysis, and verification.

• Funding/time constraints: Delays due to lack of external support led to last minute time pressures (the project had to be completed in 2 months).

(Jane Modeste-Goulet 2006)

SRRB Project Design: Solutions • Community ownership: In place of creating a separate Advisory Committee for the

project, partnerships are established with existing community institutions (First Nation Councils, Elders Councils, Renewable Resources Councils, Cultural Institutes). These bodies are provided with opportunities to participate in project design, verification and analysis.

• Capacity/training: A model project approach was adopted. The program was initiated in communities with the highest capacity level (including community researcher capacity and workspace). The catalyst for the Déline and Fort Good Hope projects was the level of initiative already taken to establish research institutions, the Déline Knowledge Centre and the K’asho Got’ine Cultural Institute. Colville Lake had already taken initiative in organising its own caribou survey, so was considered the priority candidate for participation during Year 2 of the project. Successes are presented annually at regional meetings as a model for research in other communities.

More than one researcher is hired in each community, and experienced researchers are paired with younger new researchers to allow for a team approach.


Research support is provided by a social scientist, five professional linguists (academic and community-based, in Déline and K’asho Got’ine dialects), and two natural scientists. In each community, efforts are made to ensure that at least one individual living in the community over a long term period was available to provide ongoing support and leadership. Training was adapted to specific objectives of community researchers.

• Scope: In order to achieve depth and ensure completion of quality products within the project timeline and budget, the two year project was focused on a single indicator species (barren-ground caribou). Rather than the multi-indicator approach, knowledge about human relationships with barren-ground caribou are being analysed to monitor ecological, social and cultural health.

• Research design: Dene methods of knowledge production were adapted for the study, including semi-structured procedures of collective information sharing and analysis in focus groups as the starting and end points. Existing documented TK and scientific information is presented in developing research questions. Individual (or household) interviews are (semi)structured to supplement focus group discussions. Qualitative methods of interview analysis are used, and results are verified in focus groups.

• Documentation: Focus groups and interviews are limited in number proportional to time and resources available for full transcription of audio recordings, including terminology.

• Archiving: This was identified as a critical issue. The Principle Investigator coordinated training at the NWT Archives for Déline and Fort Good Hope community researchers. Equipment has been purchased for digitizing old cassette recordings, and a customized archive database has been provided to the community research centres. Subject to information sharing protocols controlled by the partnering First Nation Councils, transcripts and audio recordings will be archived in the community and at the NWT Archives.

• Funding/time constraints: A multi-year funding framework was sought from the SRRB and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. The project budget ensures that there are resources available for collaborating scientists to stay for extended periods in the communities, and to employ at least two community researchers for the duration of the project. The timeline also accounted for the prospect that community researchers are juggling this project with other committee work, jobs, or contract responsibilities, so must often work flexible hours.

• Products: These are adapted to community interests, capacity and objectives, as well as funding constraints. The minimum objective is production of a community booklet, as well as a larger book project over the long term. In Fort Good Hope, initiative has already been taken to acquire professional video equipment, and training in videography has been provided by the National Film Board. The project trainee aims to enter film school, and there was a strong interest in video-taping elders as part of the project.

• Continuity/sustainability: efforts are being made to provide for follow-up projects at local and/or regional scales, and to develop TK research frameworks toward integrated outcomes at both scales. The study aims for long term sustainability in adopting a qualitative approach based on small scale projects that gradually expand in relation to community objectives, capacity and funding.



Information Sharing Protocol As this research involves face-to-face semi-structured focus groups and interviews among community members, research participants are not anonymous. The community researcher explain to participants in Dene language that sessions are being audio recorded (and where relevant, mapped), and will potentially form part of communication products for the community and for the broader public, since the purpose of the research is to document Dene knowledge for use in decision-making at local, regional and territorial levels. The terms of participation outlined in locally developed consent procedures specify that only information that the participant has approved for sharing will be documented and included in published materials. The researchers and anyone contracted to transcribe or edit the interviews are asked to sign a confidentiality form to ensure that the participant has an opportunity to approve all the interview materials before they are shared in the community or the broader public. The participant’s name will be attached to any published information that they have consented to share. This will allow community members and other researchers to follow up with the participants in subsequent phases of research (with appropriate community approvals and participant consent). Communications Plain language oral and written communication of research process and results are now a required condition of community based research. Community researchers are primarily responsible for oral communications in the local Dene language dialect, with support from scientists. Written communications include posters, newsletters, and for longer term use, booklets. Where relevant, results are spatially represented on maps.

Conferences, workshops and peer reviewed academic publications are also prioritized as a way of obtaining feedback and building awareness of the research within a wider context. Where possible, community researchers and/or representatives of partnering community organisations are invited to collaborate in oral and written presentations outside as well as within the community. Evaluations Evaluation processes are facilitated by the Principle Investigator on a regular basis in meetings with community and science researchers, in focus group meetings, in meetings with community partners, and in community public meetings. Criteria by which process and results are measured are: • Ownership: Level of community support, initiative in participation, in-kind

contributions to the project, leadership in guiding the project, and planning for follow-up projects.

• Capacity/training: Extent to which self-identified training objectives (including academic objectives) by both experienced and trainee community researchers are met; level of community researcher’s ability to work independently; enhancement of literacy in Dene and English languages; community researcher employability post-project; expansion of community partner(s)’ capacity to administer and lead the project.

• Scope: Scope of research is proportional to capacity of both community researchers and community participants, and gains in momentum or leads toward gradual



expansion (rather narrowing or fizzling out). Results are detailed enough to provide a rich resource for analysis.

• Research design: Compatibility of research design with Dene culture enhances confidence and interest levels of community researchers and research participants. Research is structured to provide for communities to eventually become relatively independent in determining research priorities, identifying the need for and obtaining any necessary scientific support, and conducting analysis of research results.

• Documentation: Transcriptions and verification of all interview and focus group recordings, including Dene language terminology are complete by the end of the research cycle.

• Archiving: Audio recordings, maps and transcripts are archived in digital format, and incorporated in a searchable database; copies are safely stored in trust by the First Nation Council and NWT Archives.

• Communications: Community members are aware of the project and have had opportunities to provide input and feedback; opportunities for dialogue are provided including elders, active harvesters and youth of both genders, and between community members and scientists. At least one opportunity has been provided for community researcher collaboration in a conference presentation and in an academic publication.

• Product: At least one plain language community education tool is produced including Dene language terminology and concepts by the end of the research cycle. Research results are made available to the broader public.

• Continuity/sustainability: efforts are being made to provide for follow-up projects at local and/or regional scales, and to develop TK research frameworks toward integrated outcomes at both scales. The study aims for long term sustainability in adopting a qualitative approach based on small scale projects that gradually expand in relation to community objectives, capacity and funding.

Information Sharing Protocol As this research involves face-to-face semi-structured focus groups and interviews among community members, research participants are not anonymous. The community researcher explain to participants in Dene language that sessions are being audio recorded (and where relevant, mapped), and will potentially form part of communication products for the community and for the broader public, since the purpose of the research is to document Dene knowledge for use in decision-making at local, regional and territorial levels. The terms of participation outlined in locally developed consent procedures specify that only information that the participant has approved for sharing will be documented and included in published materials. The researchers and anyone contracted to transcribe or edit the interviews are asked to sign a confidentiality form to ensure that the participant has an opportunity to approve all the interview materials before they are shared in the community or the broader public. The participant’s name will be attached to any published information that they have consented to share. This will allow community members and other researchers to follow up with the participants in subsequent phases of research (with appropriate community approvals and participant consent). Communications



Plain language oral and written communication of research process and results are now a required condition of community based research. Community researchers are primarily responsible for oral communications in the local Dene language dialect, with support from scientists. Written communications include posters, newsletters, and for longer term use, booklets. Where relevant, results are spatially represented on maps.

Conferences, workshops and peer reviewed academic publications are also prioritized as a way of obtaining feedback and building awareness of the research within a wider context. Where possible, community researchers and/or representatives of partnering community organisations are invited to collaborate in oral and written presentations outside as well as within the community. Evaluations Evaluation processes are facilitated by the Principle Investigator on a regular basis in meetings with community and science researchers, in focus group meetings, in meetings with community partners, and in community public meetings. Criteria by which process and results are measured are: • Ownership: Level of community support, initiative in participation, in-kind

contributions to the project, leadership in guiding the project, and planning for follow-up projects.

• Capacity/training: Extent to which self-identified training objectives (including academic objectives) by both experienced and trainee community researchers are met; level of community researcher’s ability to work independently; enhancement of literacy in Dene and English languages; community researcher employability post-project; expansion of community partner(s)’ capacity to administer and lead the project.

• Scope: Scope of research is proportional to capacity of both community researchers and community participants, and gains in momentum or leads toward gradual expansion (rather narrowing or fizzling out). Results are detailed enough to provide a rich resource for analysis.

APPENDIX 5: Other Projects: Beluga Monitoring Program

Excerpted from Manseau, Parlee, Ayles 2005, 145-146. The beluga monitoring program is an important activity under the umbrella of the [Beaufort Sea Beluga Management Plan]. It is based on the traditional knowledge of generations, but incorporates the evolving local knowledge of current conditions. The purpose of the program is to document the size and trend of harvesting activities and to obtain the data necessary to assess the health of the beluga population and the impact of the harvest on the stock. The present beluga monitoring program is a result of three decades of evolution and development, but it is based on at least five hundred years of Inuvialuit harvests of beluga in the Beaufort Sea (McGhee 974). Current monitoring takes place at seven locations along the Beaufort Sea coast and includes all traditional hunting areas and involves four communities. DFO and the FJMC provide the results back to the Hunters and Trappers Committees, schools, and community members through



meetings, workshops, and posters. The results are also published in scientific papers (e.g., Stern and Ikonomou 2000, Harwood et al. 2002) and exchanged with Alaskan hunters.

Despite the close co-operation between scientists, managers, and hunters and fishers, and despite legislation and mechanisms to facilitate the input of TEK into resource management decision making, conflicts do arise. Initial aerial surveys of beluga whales in the Canadian Beaufort Sea resulted in published estimates of only about seven thousand animals. Based on their personal observations over the years, the hunters were convinced that the population was much larger. The authors of the original report agreed that the number was an underestimate. They had been very careful to point out that their study results represented the number of whales in the onshore waters of the Mackenzie River estuary and had not been corrected for submerged whales that were not visible and that there were whales beyond those waters (Norton and Harwood 986). Nevertheless, despite the hunters’ concerns, the population estimate of seven thousand animals was published and repeatedly used in other forums. The estimate of 7000 animals ultimately became the focus of discussions on the health of the population (Weaver 99). Based on these estimates, hunting quotas were proposed, opting for a close to harvest. It is probable that only the reality of the rights assigned within the Inuvialuit Final Agreement prevented the establishment of what would have been arbitrary quotas. The latest aerial survey was conducted in 992. It gave an index of stock abundance of 9,629 animals, but again, this number did not account for whales under the water during the aerial counts or for whales outside the survey area (Harwood et al. 996). Subsequent analysis has resulted in a population estimate of over 39,000 animals (Harwood and Smith 2002). In retrospect, the hunters’ traditional knowledge was correct: there were many more whales than the original survey revealed.

APPENDIX 6: Other Projects: Voices from the Bay Excerpted from: McDonald, Miriam, 2002. This program, which took place during 1992-1995, is one of two cases from Canada described in the UNESCO Management of Social Transformations (MOST) Indigenous Knowledge Best Practices report (2002). The Hudson Bay Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Management Systems (TEKMS) study involved 15 Inuit and 13 Cree communities from the Hudson Bay bioregion. Three Inuktitut dialects and five Cree dialects are spoken in the region. In the early 1990s, concern was expressed in both southern and northern Canada about the cumulative impact that several proposed hydroelectric projects would have on the natural environment and the indigenous inhabitants of Hudson and James Bays. The TEKMS study was initiated in response to these concerns during the winter of 1991 as part of a three-year initiative undertaken by two non-governmental organizations and the community government of Sanikiluaq. A community-based work plan was developed and grant proposal was drafted. The aim was to inform public policy and environmental decision-making.



The community of Sanikiluaq on the Belcher Islands in south-eastern Hudson Bay hosted an initial regional meeting of nine coastal and island communities in October 1992. At this meeting, the indigenous delegates discussed their environmental concerns, selected communities for involvement in the study, and identified the discussion topics for a series of regionally based meetings. Six regional, community-based meetings were held in 1992 and 1993. Seventy-eight Elders, hunters and women participated in these meetings and shared their knowledge concerning rivers, currents, sea ice, weather, animals, human health, traditional management, and the effects of development in the coastal, marine and some inland areas of the Hudson Bay bioregion. IK recorded on map overlays, audio tapes and paper was translated and transcribed into English in the host communities and sent to the study office in Sanikiluaq. There it was organized into general topics and synthesized for review and verification by the same IK holders during a second series of meetings in the fall of 1993, and a second regional workshop in January 1994. In May 1994, 12 IK holders from the study presented and discussed their findings on climatic changes, changing current and ice regimes, long term effects of flow diversions, habitat change and loss, animal population and migration changes, contamination of the Hudson Bay food web, and changing land use patterns. This was done in a joint workshop with an equal number of scientists familiar with or working in the Hudson Bay area. The implications of the environmental changes for social, cultural and physical systems were also discussed. Contractual obligations were met in 1995 with the preparation of a report and production of GIS-generated maps on environmental changes in the Hudson Bay bioregion. Also in 1995, the community of Sanikiluaq was selected for international recognition by the Friends of the United Nations. The community received one of 50 awards in honour of the United Nations’ 50th anniversary. The award was for promoting cultural integrity and positive multicultural relations among Cree and Inuit of Hudson and James Bays. Editing of the report resulted in publication of Voices from the Bay: The Traditional Ecological Knowledge of Inuit and Cree in the Hudson Bay Bioregion, which was compiled by Miriam McDonald, Lucassie Arragutainaq and Zack Novalinga and published in 1997 by the Environmental Committee of the Municipality of Sanikiluaq and the Canadian Arctic Resource Committee. A relatively quiet time followed publication of the book. The issue of development and its cumulative effects disappeared with the ‘shelving’ of the Great Whale Hydroelectric Complex project. Members of the Sanikiluaq study team participated in workshops; symposiums and conferences upon invitation, but neither the study nor the book generated much interest or concern either inside or outside the community. In the year 2000, the Environmental Committee of the Municipality of Sanikiluaq became aware of a resurging interest in industrial development of the mineral, oil and gas and hydroelectric potential in the Hudson Bay bioregion. Interest in Voices from the Bay is increasing as a result. This has presented new opportunities to express indigenous ecological knowledge, communicate study findings and participate in integrated management planning activity for the Hudson Bay region. In May 2002, a joint



Municipal Council-Environmental Committee meeting with the Premier of the Government of Nunavut and Deputy Minister of Executive and Inter-Governmental Affairs affirmed the value and validity of the practice, in recognition of the fact that a healthy Hudson Bay is essential for the success and well-being of Sanikiluaq and the other coastal and island communities in the Hudson Bay bioregion. Young student-teachers use the Voices from the Bay publication as a resource and incorporate it into their course activities and teaching. Youth learn of IK through stories and the sharing of food with Elders on the land and in the communities’ primary and secondary schools. Voices from the Bay as an IK practice is at the early stage of entering into a new phase of activity. Its messages are starting to be communicated within the Canadian political world and could well be heeded as agreements regarding hydroelectric development and regional economic development in various jurisdictions are negotiated and implemented over the next 25 years. The IK holders continue to have a role in the affairs of the Sanikiluaq Environmental Committee, and the multi-jurisdictional Hudson Bay Oceans Working Group encourages expression of their views and communication of their knowledge. Parties involved in the practice Many parties were involved in the study: • The Environmental Committee of the Municipality of Sanikiluaq. • The Honourable Peter Kattuk, Member of the Nunavut Legislative Assembly for Hudson Bay. • Elder and academic advisors. • Regional coordinators. • Community leadership. • Indigenous-knowledge holders. • Linguistic translators. • Community researchers. The Environmental Committee of the Municipality of Sanikiluaq was responsible for the practice. The beneficiaries of the practice are the Hudson Bay Programme, the indigenous participants and peoples of the Hudson Bay bioregion, and environmental decision-makers, policy-makers and educators. In the study, an average of two or three TEKMS holders participated from each of 28 communities. Most were either Elders or active hunters, and the average age was 56 years. The youngest contributor was 26 years old and the eldest was born in 1909. More men (72) than women (6) participated in the study because of its focus on understanding the dynamics and changes occurring in the Hudson Bay ecosystem, which is generally but not exclusively gender-based knowledge. Indigenous knowledge is used in both the planning and the execution of the practice. A community-based, participatory research approach was used for developing the initial study. Indigenous peoples from two different cultures became involved in the design, development, implementation and research aspects of the study as well as being the only



contributors of information to it. The Study Coordinator was an indigenous resident of Sanikiluaq, and the Research Coordinator a non-indigenous resident. It has been beyond the scope of the practice to document in detail the sociocultural values and spirituality of the two cultures with respect to the natural environment. Some IK contributors have suggested that this should be done. The transformation of knowledge The IK of this practice is transmitted between the members of communities primarily through participation in land-based activities, conversations, meetings and gatherings. The Hudson Bay TEKMS study produced a volume of information that only scratches the surface of the great depth of knowledge held by the IK contributors. The IK was recorded on audio tapes that were translated and transcribed for the production of written documents and a hypertext database, which searches and links keywords in the original transcripts. It was also documented on a series of multi-layer map overlays for the generation of regional maps and a GIS system and database. The environmental concerns, observations and perspectives of several indigenous contributors were documented on videotape as well. Achievements and results Voices from the Bay demonstrates what small, isolated communities can achieve when they are given the opportunity to contribute to identifying and understanding the ecological processes and dynamics of the Hudson Bay ecosystem. This is a necessary prerequisite for pursuing and practising sustainable development. From Voices from the Bay, scientists and other interested persons have become aware of how weaker currents are changing sea-ice regimes, of the departure of belugas whales from river mouths that have become too shallow for moulting, of the sensitivity of sturgeon to changing water quality and river diversions, and of the type of damage caused by freshwater diversions. They have also learned that many environmental indicators used by IK holders can no longer be relied upon for predicting the weather and forecasting seasonal events, and they have read about how much the Inuit and Cree peoples value and revere the natural world. Although it is taking at least ten years for Voices from the Bay to reach its intended audiences, the initial work is withstanding the test of time and proving itself a credible study. It shows how traditional knowledge can complement scientific data for better understanding of the environment and the effects of development. As a result, the book is establishing a basis for indigenous leaders, government regulators, public policy-makers, industrial decision-makers and scientists to seriously consider the importance of 1) managing the effects of industrial development, 2) protecting the Hudson and James Bay marine ecosystems, and 3) developing a unified approach amongst the stakeholders for addressing the problems that will arise from further increases in development activity over the next 25 years. Voices from the Bay has been sustainable, cost-effective and locally manageable for the past ten years, resulting in the protection and safeguarding of proprietary knowledge. Local peoples benefited from being employed for the study and from playing key roles in



its development and evolution. The younger Inuit and Cree involved in the community meetings benefited from being exposed to and becoming aware of the rich and detailed traditional ecological knowledge held by their elders. They found a new pride and value in their culture, their elders, and the traditional ways of life. The IK contributors benefit from knowing that their knowledge is now considered important, and from having the opportunity to meet with their peers to discuss matters of importance to them. The activity surrounding the initial study created some potential opportunities for local individuals. This potential is not being realized, however. The situation would benefit from capacity-building within the community, from adoption of a unified approach to sustainable development of the bioregion, and from creation of new institutional arrangements for monitoring and managing human activity in the bioregion. Development of the two databases, creation of a network for monitoring indigenous ecological knowledge, and the training of local persons in how to access the databases, and compile, synthesize and disseminate the information they contain, are four more areas where the investment of capital and human resources in sustainable, cost-effective initiatives could produce useful results. These possibilities have not been properly explored yet for several reasons, however: the isolation of the host community, the lack of genuine interest in the Hudson Bay on the part of provincial and federal governments, and the lack of communication amongst the stakeholders. The study’s methodology is the strength of the practice. It has been replicated and improved upon since 1995. The semi-directed workshop/meeting format has the following advantages: • Small groups of people can hold focused discussions on topical areas of interest. These

generate considerable information and take into account a range of geographical, climatic, historical and cultural factors that an interviewer may not be aware of.

• Participants have the opportunity both to contribute and to learn from each other, thereby augmenting their own practical knowledge.

• The methodology can be used to document indigenous knowledge in cross-cultural settings and over large geographical areas. Contributors will question, verify and build upon the information provided by other contributors.

• IK holders find meetings more interesting than interviews because of the interaction and exchange of information that take place within the group.

Another strength of the study is its demonstration that traditional ecological knowledge can complement scientific data. A potential advantage of this strength in the present case is that indicators could be developed and baseline information collected for monitoring changes in the Hudson Bay ecosystem which are not yet being measured by western science. Room for improvement The practice has not been effectively communicated within the local communities so that community awareness and support are lacking. The practice could be developed further if its purpose and aims were reaffirmed, if resources were allocated to developing a



database for disseminating information to targeted audiences, and if its tangible benefits were demonstrated to the participating communities. Source of inspiration It is imperative that the ecological knowledge of indigenous peoples be demonstrated and incorporated into environmental decision-making and sustainable development initiatives throughout the world. The practice would be rather easy to transfer because it is flexible and adaptive and based on listening, working together, and learning by doing. Some adaptations might be necessary depending on the subjects of inquiry, and the communication modes and availability of computer hardware and software. Features of the study’s methodology have been replicated and refined in other parts of Nunavut by the South Baffin Bowhead Whale Committee, the Government of Nunavut, Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated, and in Alaska for the Barrow Symposium of Sea Ice. If you think that this case could be useful in a different context than the one described here, please get in touch first with the contact person listed below (Administrative data). Intellectual property rights could be an issue. Additional remarks and information Students enrolled in the three-year Nunavut Teachers Education Programme in Sanikiluaq have incorporated information from the ‘Voices from the Bay’ publication into their learning and planning activities. The Curriculum Division of the Government of Nunavut’s Department of Education is examining the publication’s usefulness for the design of senior secondary science curricula on terrestrial systems, marine systems, climate systems and conservation. There are many structural barriers in place that impede development of the practice. The Environmental Committee is limited in what it can achieve without more community support and new partnerships, for example. It is not an explicit objective of the IK practice to have a sustainable effect on poverty eradication and social exclusion. However, it is recognized and communicated when appropriate that the traditional ecological knowledge of the indigenous peoples of the Hudson Bay bioregion can contribute to eradicating poverty and creating a more promising future for young people if it is incorporated into the development of new political and economic systems that support and encourage its transmission. An excellent example of this would be the development of a community-based marine environmental quality monitoring system for the Hudson Bay. Administrative data Organization involved Environmental Committee of the Municipality of Sanikiluaq General Delivery Sanikiluaq, Nunavut, Canada X0A 0W0 Tel.: +1 867 266 8929 Fax: +1867 266 8837



E-mail: [email protected] Contact person Mr Lucassie Arragutainaq Sanikiluaq Hunters and Trappers Association General Delivery Sanikiluaq, Nunavut Canada X0A 0W0 Tel.: +1 867 2668709 Fax: +1 867 2668131 E-mail: [email protected] Other partner(s) involved in the practice •Mr Brian Fleming and Mr Zach Novalinga Municipality of Sanikiluaq General Delivery Sanikiluaq, Nunavut Canada X0A 0W0 Tel.: +1 867 2668874 Fax: +1 867 2668903 E-mail: [email protected] • The Honourable Peter Kattuk Member of the Legislative Assembly for Hudson Bay Government of Nunavut Iqaluit, Nunavut Canada X0A 0H0 Tel.: +1 867 9755038 Fax: +1 867 9755095 Funding Total budget (in US dollars): USD 545,000 Period to which the budget applies: 1992-95 Sources of funding: Private foundations, Government of Canada Government of Nunavut, Regional Aboriginal Organizations, Public Utilities. Person(s) who have described this Best Practice Miriam McDonald Environmental Committee, Municipality of Sanikiluaq, Canada Tel.: +1 867 2668929, E-mail: [email protected]

APPENDIX 7: Proposals: International Polar Year 1. International Network of Arctic Indigenous Community-Based Environmental

Monitoring & Information Station (AICEMI stations) Source: Aleut International Association, 2004.



This project is proposed as a Part of Global Integrated Arctic Information and Research System for International Polar Year (IPY) 2007-2008. UNEP-GRID Polar program and Aleut International Association propose a program to address the need for such monitoring. Potential partners are Permanent Participants of the Arctic Council, and national and international agencies and organizations involved in the scientific research in the Arctic. The program will reflect on the latest results of the projects conducted by Permanent Participants and the Arctic Council, such as ACIA, AHDR, AMAP reports, Snowchange, etc. Program will consist of four phases. The concept is based on development of a regional network, a pilot project, as an initial step and then using the model for circumpolar application. The Bering Sea region is proposed for the pilot project. Phase 1 – Development of a communication network synthesizing current research and monitoring efforts by scientists and indigenous organizations in the Aleutian, Pribilof, Commander Islands and the Bering Straights regions (2004-2005) Phase 2 – Assessment of particular monitoring needs and development of an AICEMI station model (2005) Phase 3 – Creation of 3-4 AICEMI stations and integrating them into the circumpolar research network (2006) Phase 4 – Creation of circumpolar network of AICEMI stations (2007) Goal Increase capacity and effectiveness of the circumpolar monitoring through involvement of the indigenous peoples communities and utilization of traditional ecological knowledge aimed at: 1. Better understanding of the social, economic, and environmental impacts of climate

change and human activities in the Arctic; 2. Assessment of vulnerability and adaptation to changes; 3. Facilitation of circumpolar information exchange among indigenous communities; 4. Increase in indigenous peoples’ organizations participation as stakeholders in

international cooperation. Process/Methods Program will consist of four phases. The concept is based on development of a regional network, a pilot project, as an initial step and then using the model for circumpolar application. The Bering Sea region is proposed for the pilot project. Phase 1 – Development of a communication network synthesizing current research and monitoring efforts by scientists and indigenous organizations in the Aleutian, Pribilof, Commander Islands and the Bering Straights regions (2004-2005) Phase 2 – Assessment of particular monitoring needs and development of an AICEMI station model (2005) Phase 3 – Creation of 3-4 AICEMI stations and integrating them into the circumpolar research network (2006) Phase 4 – Creation of circumpolar network of AICEMI stations (2007)



2. Bering Sea Sub-Network of Community-Based Environmental Monitoring Observation and Information Stations (BSSN)

Source: Aleut International Association, 2005. This project will create an infrastructure for monitoring and observation by the indigenous and other Arctic residents’ organizations based in the coastal communities of the Bering Sea region (BSR) including Bering Strait and adjacent Chukchi Sea. It will increase capacity and effectiveness of the circum-Arctic monitoring through responding to the need of the long-term collection of data in remote Arctic locations, in particularly, in BSR that was identified as a priority monitoring area by many scientists, e.g. by the Circumpolar Biodiversity Monitoring Programme of the Arctic Council. The project will use IPY as an impetus to consolidate current research and jump-start new cooperative activities between scientists, indigenous and other citizens groups from the North East Russia and Alaska, U.S. Whereas, the region is known for an international cooperative research in specific species management, e.g. Gray whales and Polar bear, efforts on creation of circum-Bering Sea research interface have not been successful due to political and logistical reasons. The research activities that are currently undertaken in cooperation with scientists will continue in BSSN. This project will advance this work by scaling it up to the international level. It will create a system for sharing of the best practices of individual projects/organizations in the region and in the Arctic, will enable scientists to reach key areas in the region for collection of specific data and will improve standardized data management. Principles • ecosystem approach– BSSN has ecosystem boundaries and the collected data will

help better understand relationships between various elements of ecosystem; • openness and transparency based on defined structure and management; use of the

best available knowledge - western science and expertise derived from traditional and indigenous knowledge will be utilized.

Institutional Framework The network will consist of organizations, not projects, to ensure sustainability and continuity. BSSN will consist of community-based and/or international regional organizations, primarily indigenous. In 2006, BSSN will conduct a series of workshops to devise the Network management structure, logistics, memberships and means for sustainability. Work plans for activities assuring BSSN input to major IPY projects (CBMP, AHHI, and ESSAS via BEST and SEARCH, etc.) and output from independent thematic projects, e.g. ALISON, will be developed. A data management process will be established for the network. Alaska Native Science Commission and the University of Alaska will lead this work. The process will go through rigorous reviews by BSSN members and will conform to the standards/matrix developed by IPY data management services. In addition to the international organization (AIA, ICC, CAFF, UNEP), the list of initial partners will include five Alaska Natives regional non-profit organizations, eight regional organizations in Chukotka and Kamchatka in Russia, Alaska Native Science Commission



and University of Alaska. The Network will cooperate with other organizations, projects and scientists from the cluster projects. Methodology BSSN will work specifically with community-based/place based research and will attempt to integrate these efforts with broader scientific activities in the region and globally. Local and indigenous experts, recognized as such in their respective communities, will be offered an opportunity to work side-by-side with scientists contributing to generate hypotheses, analyze empirical data, develop and perform research activities where appropriate. Process/Methods The initial program activities will be based on the existing and emerging research and monitoring projects implemented by its partners. Examples of potential monitoring targets related to climate change, biodiversity and human health: shift of southern species north, changes in distribution and abundance of fish and other temperature-sensitive species, change in ice patterns, weather observations, contaminants presence in environment and traditional foods, weather related accidents, occurrence of infectious diseases. Initial research activities may begin in 2006 with thematic observation systems based on current projects and will continue in 2007-08 with inclusion of new monitoring projects, e.g. invasive species or distribution of particular species. Such thematic networks could be developed for CBMP and other interested programs. The list of current projects includes: 1. Oil spill monitoring, lead partner (LP) – Aleutian Pribilof Island Association (APIA),

funded; 2. Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning, LP – Aleut International Association, funding pending; 3. Shark distribution changes, LP – APIA, funding pending; 4. Traditional food safety, LP – APIA; 5. Polar bear and whale hunting projects of the Alaska Chukotka development Program 3. Exchange for Local Observations and Knowledge of the Arctic Source: Gearheard 2005. ELOKA (the Exchange for Local Observations and Knowledge of the Arctic) is envisioned as a data management service and circumpolar network for IPY 2007-2008 and beyond; its main purpose is to support and connect local and traditional knowledge projects and community-based research and monitoring programs around the North. ELOKA will be a central data portal, data management service, networking service, and resource center related to the knowledge and observations of Arctic residents. In setting up these pioneer goals, ELOKA will make a major contribution to one of the IPY 2007-2008 missions, namely, to bridge scientific studies of polar environments with the observations and ecological knowledge of polar residents. ELOKA will be an important tool in facilitating contributions from, and access by, Arctic communities to IPY research and future Arctic research.



Goal One of the challenges of local and traditional knowledge (LTK) research and community-based monitoring to date has been effective and appropriate means of recording, storing, and managing data and information. It has been a challenge to find effective means of making community-based data and information available to Arctic residents and researchers, as well as other interested groups such as teachers, students and decision makers. ELOKA seeks to fill this gap. ELOKA will have a strong emphasis on serving Arctic community-based organizations and research through support for local and traditional knowledge projects and community-based monitoring projects by developing new management systems for data in non-numerical formats such as video, audio, maps, artwork, and photographs, and context-specific data such as interview transcripts and recorded oral histories. Institutional Framework The World Data Center for Glaciology (WDC) and the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) in the U.S. propose to coordinate ELOKA. Drawing from and building upon existing data management resources and experienced staff that already handle diverse sources and forms of information, WDC/NSIDC will provide the technical backbone needed for ELOKA. With the technical component available to build on, ELOKA then proposes to collaborate with projects and organizations such as the Arctic Residents Network (ARN), Arctic Community-Based Environmental Monitoring Observation and Information Stations, and CAFF’s (Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna) CBMP (Circumpolar Biodiversity Monitoring Program), to work on issues of best practices and cross-community collaboration. ELOKA will work closely with the proposed IPY Data and Information Service (DIS) and with indigenous organizations at all levels, such as RAIPON (Russian Association of Indigenous Peoples of the North) and ICC-Greenland (Inuit Circumpolar Conference-Greenland). ELOKA would be part of broader consortiums for Arctic observation and monitoring by providing an LTK focus for such as programs as COMAAR (Consortium for Coordination of Observation and Monitoring of the Arctic for Assessment and Research), the above-mentioned CBMP, and CEON (Circumarctic Environmental Observatories Network). We have partnered with a number of LTK and community-based projects (see 4.2) to initiate the development of ELOKA and will continue to build partnerships with community-based programs, organizations and networks during IPY and beyond. Feedback from the individual projects and organizations contributing and using information at ELOKA will be a key part to the development process. Many community-based projects not submitting proposals to IPY are also interested in ELOKA some of these are listed in 4.2. Information Sharing Protocol In ELOKA, data management does not mean data control. ELOKA will be a collaboratively designed tool that various organizations, communities, and projects can use under their own terms to help them store, search and share information. ELOKA will help LTK and community-based projects store and manage their data if that is their need, or simply provide links to those projects that are managing their own information. At the same time, ELOKA will help to negotiate and establish protocols so information is



comparable across projects and regions (e.g. work to develop common approaches to metadata). ELOKA will take up the challenge to design systems of data stewardship that will respect the unique sensitivities and protections needed in community-based projects, while still allowing for broad searches for information.

APPENDIX 8: Consultation Transcripts 8.1.1 Interview: Walter Bayha January 31, 2007 Transcript edited and approved by Walter Bayha February 19, 2007 In addition to his role as Chair of the SRRB, Walter Bayha is also a member of both the Sahtu Land and Water Board and the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board. He is uniquely positioned as an advisor on TK monitoring, possessing a rare combination of TK and formal training in resource management.

As a child, Walter Bayha began working on the land as a hunter and trapper with his grandfather in the traditional family area of the Johnny Hoe River. Over four years, his grandfather taught him Dene land based subsistence skills. During this time, he began to apply these skills as a sport fishing guide, and was introduced to the land management field as a fire suppression crew member and manager. He then pursued his interest in this field through courses in forest technology and natural resource management at Frontier College (Edmonton, AB), Selkirk College (Castlegar, BC), and Thebacha College (Fort Smith, NT). For many years he served as the Wildlife Officer in Déline. Since the mid 1970s, he has been a leader in community capacity building in the field of resource management, demonstrating in practice the complementary aspects of Dene and scientific knowledge.

As former Manager of the Deline Uranium Team, Bayha assisted in the development of the Canada Deline Uranium Table's three year Action Plan, an innovative multidisciplinary research program combining traditional knowledge and scientific methods to investigate the impacts of uranium mining at Port Radium on the land and the Dene people of Deline.

After two years as a Déline First Nation Councillor, Bayha served time as Chief in 2005. He has been a champion of the Déline Knowledge Centre and related research agenda as a foundation for revitalizing the role of Dene knowledge and values in guiding community programs and decisions; he has been an active member of the Déline Knowledge Centre Action Group. He is also active in the Learning Communities Network.

Deb: What do you consider to be the significance of the Barren-Ground Caribou Traditional Knowledge Study for developing a good approach to TK monitoring? Walter: The real traditional monitoring was everybody’s responsibility. Sometimes there were very special people that would be much better in protecting certain animals. For example, George Blondin talked about caribou people, people who spent a lot of time



with caribou. People sought them out when caribou were scarce. People were always looking for new food sources. They never stopped moving from one place to another. So this is the reason why they’re probably the most nomadic people in the North American continent because the environment can’t handle great numbers of people in one place for very long. So they had to keep moving. The more people, the more difficult it was to feed them. Dene åõ nide bewile (lots of people hence no food), unless there are very special people that travel with them – bebati. Children and widows tended to flock to bebati, because these people would provide for them. Ehtseo Yehdza was one of those people. He raised thirteen orphans. George Kodakin, Jimmy Mackeinzo, my grandfather Bezha (Ehtseo Tahti’s son), Rosie Sewi … Ehtseo Yehdza died after he shot two moose. Most young people today don’t even know that. That’s not long ago, 1962. Once he shot seven moose in one day. Johnny Neyelle was one of the greatest providers in Déline as well. Only another bebati can name another of his kind.

These are the people that would be the natural leaders. They provide protection, food, and out of necessity they would lead the people because otherwise people wouldn’t survive. They would know a lot of indicators to evaluate how the animals are doing. Nowadays people are using the Band Council as a bebati, only it’s about money not subsistence harvesting.

There wasn’t anything unless you harvest food from the land. Some elders and fathers went to great lengths to make sure their children survived. For example, Johnny Neyelle’s father believed that they would be better off not marrying and not living in log homes. This is the reason that Paul Neyelle never married and never lived in a log house. So that family learned how to do every thing that women did. They were Shita Got’ine.

Traditionally, because people moved around so much, every year various places were used on a seasonal basis, so you would constantly have all those people out there and you kept tabs on how the wildlife was doing because you needed it to survive. Places that had a lot of fish became very important, because that was where people could go when resources were scarce.

Paul Wright was telling me that people used to carry the old people to places where there were a lot of resources like fish, since elders are no longer able to go after ungulates for food. Then they can fish for themselves.

You have to be a very good harvester, otherwise how can you be a monitor? The government and industry love that the training program for environmental monitors involves scientific approaches only, sitting in a classroom. How can someone learn how to be a good monitor in three weeks? We have to help the RRCs come up with what they would monitor on each program.

Younger monitors need to have ways of documenting impacts, and reporting back to the elders and other community members so that they can evaluate whether follow-up is needed. If there was a seismic company going through Turîli, my father would be very interested in what’s going on since he grew up around this area and has



some of the best information on TEK. He would also be a good source of advice for the program. They should decide how much more work or assessment needs to happen.

We have to establish our own standards for monitors, and we have to train our people to become good monitors. Deb – How do you see the new phenomena of development coming together with traditional knowledge? Walter – Traditional knowledge is all we have as baseline data. For most areas that are going through some kind of development there isn’t other sources of information available. That’s where you start. That information would give you something to make decisions on as to what you would do about an oil spill, for example. Deb - Wilfred Jackson was a trained monitor, using his traditional knowledge to observe the change in water level of a lake (ie. noting the relationship of water level to a beaver lodge). Walter – TK is a tool for remembering trends. They make reference to certain land features, the history of trends written on the cultural landscape. They can make sense of their own history through their ongoing relationship with the land. That’s why the place names are so important. As Charlie Barnaby has said, the monitors need to learn the place names. Traditional place names give you the information you need to make decisions, it gives you the history and how a place fits in with all the rest of the area. Does it have any significance to the animals or land itself?

Here is a good example: Certain natural harbours have a name (Kwetiritia). It doesn’t mean a location, it’s describing a natural harbour – it’s a geographical feature. Someone that doesn’t know this would assume they are talking about a place name, this is not so with this name. Because it’s on the map, people think it’s a place name, but it’s not. We need to learn Dene geography. We should disregard the names on the current topography maps, because they’re too confusing. Maybe we could re-introduce them later on once all the Dene placenames are in place and rationale for each one has been documented properly to the satisfaction of the community.

Weather is a major factor in the lives of our people historically, and today even moreso. The weather behaves in a certain way, and you can relate it to scientific knowledge today. Weather plays an important role in terms of how certain animals do in certain years. Snow, ice, temperature play important roles in the lives of ungulates. Some years there’d be a lot of snow and the ice wouldn’t freeze, so that would make access to those fisheries resources to be more and more difficult. One year there was a natural ice dam on Great Bear River that dropped the water level by ten feet on the Tulita side.

Health of fish resources are a key indicator. Dene people have always known when fish are diseased, or something not normal was going on. People were always



talking about where they can get better fish at certain times of year. The animals that feed on the fish - otters, foxes, mink, bears – are indicators that there are healthy populations of fish in that area.

Bebati had that knowledge. George Blondin talks about a lot of knowledge that was passed on spiritually. I remember my grandfather doing that. He would tell us we’re stopping for a few days, and we would set up camp and he would hunt and harvest moose or woodland caribou, or fish. We were doing this because he knew that certain animals would be there at certain times of year.

Imagine my grandfather going to a certain area where he expected there to be moose, if that normal pattern was disrupted because the animals weren’t there, then he’d start talking to people to try to find out why, or where the animals are. That’s what we’re doing now with these focus group discussions about caribou. Right now we don’t have people all over the place. But there are still a lot of people that would have knowledge of past history and this is all we have at this time. There are also some people that still do a lot travel on the land.

TK can never be reduced to a database. Because databases tend to be quantitative. TK is designed to give key information for survival and of means of co-existence with the environment.

Baseline data can be collected through a major geographical study, including a GIS database with placenames connected to narrative documents/audio recordings. I think once we have that, then we have something that we can use to find mitigation measures. We can’t go out there and do trial and error stuff. But the best data we have is TK. You can’t get better conservation than what they’ve done. What and how our people have lived with our mother earth in the pass the ultimate in conservation. Their whole lives are based on conservation. It’s so important that George says, if you have to take the last caribou, do it only if you’re starving. They know how many animals they can take before they start to have negative impacts. We have to be very careful that we don’t document stuff that is brought in from somewhere else.

The Dene people don’t believe in commercialism. We’re supposed to take only what we need. This is the reason people really get upset when people are always after resources. It’s a conservation way of thinking. That is something that’s going to be very important. For example, maybe we have to ask ourselves do we really need caribou? It is a question that needs to be asked individually for each Dene then they could see how important this animal is to them and they could decide for themselves. It’s not the first time that caribou have declined significantly.

Once we’ve gathered the baseline information, we have to do the monitoring through a seasonal harvesting cycle, using the baseline narratives and geographical information as a point of reference. This would replicate the oral history method of analysis, but using new technologies. So using traditional knowledge as a monitoring tool becomes at the same time a method of knowledge exchange between generations. When I travelled with my grandfather, I never felt more safe. If you’re breaking trail say in Tuweta, you have to use your wits all the time, there are so many hazards.



That would be so beautiful. It almost feels like we’re back in the 70s. We’re giving the RRCs something to do. It ties into health, it ties into so many things. We’d make sure that the resources are counted and evaluated in writing. When we bring it back, people can eat it and tell us how the meat is, whether it tastes right.

We used to be natural conservationists. Then the priests came and the Hudson Bay and taught us that nature was there to harvest, and that we harvest the resources until they were totally depleted. For example, all along the Mackenzie, people depleted the resources in the service of the hospitals, mining companies, Hudson Bay Company so that at a certain point there was nothing left.

This is why the treaty became very important in 1921, because in that period there were a lot of people starving. This is why there were quotas on beaver and martin – they had to take drastic action to limit and recover what was left.

This is the reason we need to go back to Dene conservation, our people are much more comfortable with it.

8.1.2 Interview: Chief Richard Kochon February 16, 2007 In conjunction with Sahtu Renewable Resources Board Meeting Deb: What have people been seeing on the land with all that development happening in the Colville Lake? If they leave things the way it is, it’s pretty hard for us to tell a person to regulate their hunting. That’s God’s creation, and us we’re only people. They’re trying to regulate caribou. The caribou can take care of themselves.

I work for everybody, industry people, game wardens, biologists, government people. I wish they really feel like us, to protect the land. Not for money. We stay on the land, and we survive on the land. I wish they all care for the land, everybody. I liked what that outfitter said, they love to stay out on the land. We like it when people go out on the land, even white people. Sometime young university students go out on the land, and the elders take them out on their trapline. Man they like that. It’s good that people continue going out on the land, they really respect the land. I was born in Good Hope, but I grew up on the land ever since I was a young kid. If government or biologists work on something, after they’re done their studies it’s like they’re going against us.

With all that development in our area, the caribou are moving far away from the noise. There are 18-wheelers day and night. The elders are saying that they don’t like the bulldozers tearing off the top of the land. All the plants are holding the land. Deb: What should people be looking for related to changes happening on the land? The developers should try not to pollute the land. And they should listen to the people in the communities close to where they’re working, because we were born there. We’re really humble people, and they have to respect that. We don’t want that development to



happen, but it seems to just keep happening. If they want to work there, they have to involve the community, the elders. What are you noticing about the caribou? Even it’s skinny, it’s fat, it’s all the same to me. It’s still good to meat. It’s healthy food. I feel stronger if I eat fresh meat, even if it’s skinny. They put things in the store-bought meat to make it fat fast. We always share our meat with others.

Sometimes the caribou are skinny, but sometimes there’s lots of snow that’s why. Sometimes they stay long in one place, so they’re fat. Do you think it’s important for people to go to Horton Lake to see how the caribou are doing? Yes – sometimes we have to walk a long way to find the caribou, and we haul it back with the four-wheeler. When we get close to the caribou, we get off our skidoos and walk close to the caribou. I want those young people to get snowshoes and do it the proper way. For me we’re visiting the caribou every year on their land, and if there’s something wrong we’re going to know. We’re going to work on our community way to make sure we don’t overkill. We’re going to do that ourselves. I think the people and caribou are really close. They only go around places where people really respect them. Marten changes? There’s lots of marten now. There’s quite a bit of young people trapping now. We’re hoping that young people go out on the land. Just like you, you went out to Horton Lake, that’s really good.

8.1.3 Focus Group Meeting: Sahtu Renewable Resources Council Representatives

February 16, 2007 In conjunction with Sahtu Renewable Resources Board Meeting Participants Alfred Taniton and Jimmy Dillon (Déline) Boniface Ayah, George Campbell (Tulita) Richard Kochon and Alexis Blanchot (Colville Lake) Michel Lafferty and Roger Boniface (Fort Good Hope) Richard: They shouldn’t bother the caribou too much. They put collars on the caribou. They think it’s okay but they just scare the caribou. They want to work on caribou around Colville, but I don’t really agree with them. Those animals mind their own business, they’re free to do what they want. You mustn’t touch the caribou. Those biologists have to think like that.



Jimmy: People on the land know what’s happening on the land. Richard: If other people they want to do something, it’s good if they go by what the nearest community says. Even the biologists, they have to have the community people involved. Some people do research and we don’t agree with it, but they still do it. Like collaring caribou. They could use other ways to monitor it. They could walk and use people out on the land to do better work. They’re just flying around and they go too fast. Our people have been out on the land all their lives, so they know a lot about the land. They camp on the land. Michel: Sometimes people report to the RRC, and the RRC reports to someone else, and it disappears. Nobody listens, there’s no action taken on it. We want a report back on action right away. Roger: That Indian Affairs inspector, there should be an aboriginal person working with him. And developers should have a separate agreement with RRCs to monitor activity. They sign the Access and Benefits agreement with Land Corporations, but they’re too political. Richard: They give out licences to work with industry, it should be the community people who decide on those licences. Those government people they don’t go out on the land, they don’t care what happens on the land. Us we really care for the land. Giving out the licences we should be handling that. It’s our rightful place. Here there’s somebody whose people never touch our land giving out licences. That’s our rightful place.

They should hire an elder to work with the young monitors. Richard/Michel: Sahtu RRCs should have time to meet together twice a year to discuss changes on the land, along with elders. Richard: our RRC is busy. We help our people to get out on the land. We sell sleds at the same price you can buy it in Edmonton. We’re not trying to be big shots or anything like that. Michel: Even some of the older guys, they notice all the changes already. The weather, wind. Stuff like that. The changes are so gradual that they’re hard to notice. There are things that are changing, and not that many people know.

Not only the RRC, the trappers that go out on the land are noticing changes.

Richard: If you go to the people you find out lots. Like at Aubrey Lake, they saw a big chunk of land slide down. We’ve got to take care of our roots. If there are no roots, we’re going to have big landslides. When it rains, the plants grow. If there’s no rain, the land might get spoiled. Richard/Michel: The land is getting drier. Some lakes are getting lower.



Richard: We have to educate one another. Some people don’t know about our land. Some people are well educated, but they don’t know how to do out on our land. They need to know about overflow, how to survive in the cold. There’s got to be lots done.

Industry and oil companies, they need to see the people and learn about the land before they go out on the land. It’s just money driven. They’ve got to learn the hard way, not the easy way. They’ve got to learn about the land by walking out on the land, spending time out there before they start working there. When they just start working like that, it’s not respecting the people, and it’s not respecting the land.

The other time that one white man spent a white man with me out in the bush, oh he liked that. We shot moose, we ate moose meat, we really enjoyed ourselves. And those university students went out in the bush too, and they really enjoyed it.

APPENDIX 9: ABC Information Sharing Protocol Source: http://www.taiga.net/coop/business/information_protocol_march2004.pdf Preamble This protocol should be viewed within the context of the Borderlands Coop’s goals as stated in its constitution. Coop Goals: a) To monitor and assess ecosystem changes in the range of the Porcupine Caribou Herd and adjacent coastal and marine areas; b) To encourage use of both science-based studies and studies based on local and traditional knowledge in ecological monitoring and ecosystem management; c) To improve communications and understanding among governments, aboriginal and non-aboriginal communities and scientists with regard to ecosystem knowledge and management; and, d) To foster capacity-building and training opportunities in northern communities in the context of the above listed goals. The Borderlands Coop’s Communications Strategy also provides context for this protocol. (The Strategy was developed at the 7th Annual Gathering and finalized in 2002, and is available in full at: www.taiga.net/coop/business/CommunicationsStrategy.pdf.) The Strategy describes the importance of communication of results from the Borderlands Coop’s programs: The information gathered by the Coop through its programs, once analyzed, must be communicated. Internally, it should be communicated to Coop members, the board of directors and the people who participated in the surveys. Externally, this information should be used in several ways. It should be distributed to the communities where the information was gathered and for whom the information is most relevant. It should also be distributed to the academic and research community, in the interests of sharing knowledge and spurring further research. It should be available to a wider audience through the Coop’s website, and through public information campaigns. Finally, the


http://www.taiga.net/coop/business/information_protocol_march2004.pdf


information gathered by the Coop should be shared with governments, co-management organizations, and other policy and decision-makers, so as to influence policy and improve management decisions. The Borderlands Coop has no mandate in legislation or land claims agreements, and no direct management or decision-making role with respect to any matters pertaining to the conservation of wildlife. It documents, manages, examines and communicates a range of information related to ecosystems and sustainability. The Borderlands Coop operates through the voluntary cooperation of individuals, agencies, boards, councils, academic institutions in northwestern Canada and Alaska. Its primary contacts at the community and regional level are Renewable Resource 2 Councils, Hunters and Trappers Committees and co-management boards and committees. These organizations provide in-kind and/or financial support, as do several government agencies and academic institutions. The majority of the funding is from government agencies, especially Environment Canada, supplemented with project funding. The Borderlands Coop’s programs are guided by a Board of Directors (established through a nonprofit society) and through direction given at the Annual Gatherings. In general, the Borderlands Coop is an informal organization that operates, with no fulltime staff and limited resources, but with a strong commitment from the participating organizations. Its strength is in its ability to adapt and to be responsive to needs and opportunities that arise in the study of environmental change. In keeping with the goals and the organizational nature of the Borderlands Coop, this protocol is intended to: ·

• Encourage the dissemination and use of the Borderlands Coop’s information and of the results of other monitoring and research programs ·

• Respect the right to confidentiality of individuals who are interviewed through the Community-based Monitoring Program ·

• Ensure that the participating community organizations retain control over the release of information from the Community-based Monitoring Program.

The Borderlands Coop’s Information 1. Information about past studies and current research and monitoring This includes contact information, summaries, compilations and discussions of information available. 2. Indicators of ecological change Records and interpretations of monitoring data (not collected by the Borderlands Coop). The Borderlands Coop works with the data holders to produce indicators in a format that includes a presentation of the data (usually a graph) and a short description of the significance of the data. 3. Results from the Community-based Monitoring Program



Documentation of observations, and associated interpretations and knowledge, of people who spend time on the land. This is mainly through annual interviews conducted by local contractors in each community. In each community a local organization (Renewable Resource Council or Hunters and Trappers Committee in Canada) assists with the selection of the contractor and develops or approves the list of people to be interviewed. Interviewees are people who have been out on the land over the preceding year; they range in age from youth to Elders. The information documented in these interviews is entered into a database. Information recorded on the accompanying maps is also put into a computerized system. The observations and interpretations are about:

• weather, changes in climate and the environment (such as water levels and permafrost), how observed conditions and changes affect plants and animals and how they affect people’s ability to get out on the land to hunt, fish , trap and pick berries. ·

• levels of human activities (such as ATV use, air traffic, oil and gas exploration and development) and the effects of these ·

• berries, fish, caribou, other animals: observations about such aspects as quality, health and abundance, and whether people met their subsistence needs ·

• general observations about changes in the environment and in the communities – this includes observations about cultural changes and impacts of changing economies.

It is equally important to note what information is outside of the scope of this monitoring program. The Borderlands Coop does not ask for or document information on: ·

• numbers or locations of animals harvested (except in relation to observations of sick animals) ·

• traditional medicines · • places of spiritual importance and traditional use · • Elders’ stories or life histories · • Traditional practices (such as hunting methods or food preparation)

(Note: The Borderlands Coop operates in predominantly aboriginal communities and an important component of the Borderlands Coop is the treatment of traditional ecological knowledge. The people interviewed annually are aboriginal people. However, there has been discussion and recognition at Gatherings that observations of non-aboriginal local people could also be included in this program. This may be a consideration especially for development of the program in Inuvik, which has a significant non-aboriginal population.)

Procedures for Review, Approval, Management and Communication of Information



1. Information about past studies and current research and monitoring This information is in the public domain. The main format that the Borderlands Coop uses for this information is the “Arctic Borderlands Database of Information Sources” found at: www.yukon.taiga.net/borderlands which contains (in February 2004) 789 records of research and monitoring projects, programs and other related information for the Arctic Borderlands region. This database is jointly developed and maintained by the Borderlands Coop and the Wildlife Management Advisory Council (North Slope). When summaries and discussions are prepared on this type of information, they are presented under the author’s name: “Prepared by (name of author) for the Arctic Borderlands Ecological Knowledge Coop, (date)”. 4 There are no restrictions on the communication of this information. 2. Indicators of ecological change People working on behalf of the Borderlands Coop will work with data holders to develop and update indicators. In general indicators are reviewed and approved by the data holders before they are made available to the public. The data holder or published data source are referenced for each indicator. In some cases the datasets are already published and require little interpretation (for example, Canada census figures); in these cases acknowledgement of the source is the only requirement. There are no restrictions on the communication of this information. 3. Results from the community-based monitoring program Informed Consent Interviewers ensure that people being interviewed understand the purpose of the program, the protection of confidentiality, where the information is stored, and how the information is used. Before the interview starts, the interviewee signs an ‘informed consent form’ that contains this information. One copy of this form is retained by the interviewee, and one copy is retained with the Borderlands Coop’s records. For the purposes of this protocol, we distinguish two forms of information that results from this program: A. Raw Results This is the information compiled directly from interview forms, tapes, notes or maps, either in its original form or in electronic format, or printed format. 1. Raw results are stored and displayed in a manner that protects the confidentiality of the interviewee 2. Raw results are owned by the Borderlands Coop, and the primary information holders are the participating community organizations. The full dataset for each community is kept (in one or both of electronic and printed formats) in the office of that organization, for use in the community. The Borderlands Coop office maintains a complete archive of the raw results. Original papers and maps will continue to be kept in the Borderlands Coop’s office or in an archive facility, unless the participating community organization requests to have them returned to the community.



3. Requests for copies of the raw results may be directed to the Borderlands Coop office or to the participating community organization. Approval from the community organization is required for the release of the raw results. This approval could be on a case-by-case basis or through a general policy. The decision is up to the community organization. B. Results Summaries This is information that has been summarized on the basis of a community and a year, and possibly combined or compared across communities and years. It may 5 contain sample comments or quotes from interviews or meetings. It may be just summarized, and it may be discussed in relation to other types of information that are related (for example, observations on when whitefish are mushy might be discussed in relation to air or water temperatures.) These summaries are prepared by staff of participating organizations, or by Borderlands Coop staff or contractors (including the interviewers), and they could be in any format (including reports, posters, web pages, school curriculum materials; oral, slide or video presentations.) 1. Summarized results are displayed in a manner that protects the confidentiality of the people interviewed. 2. When results summaries are prepared, revised or updated, they are first labeled “DRAFT (date)” and freely circulated for review (and presented and discussed at meetings). 3. Periodically, draft results summaries are forwarded from the Borderlands Coop office to the participating community organizations for review. A period of at least one month (or less if this is mutually agreed upon) is allowed for review. The letter accompanying the draft materials must state the review period and indicate that the material will be widely distributed following the review period. Comments and suggested revisions are incorporated into the final materials wherever possible. If specific material is considered not appropriate for general distribution, then it will be omitted, and an explanatory note may be inserted. 4. Following this review, there are no restrictions on the communication of the results summaries.

APPENDIX 10: West Kitikmeot Slave Study TK Research Guidelines

When defining traditional knowledge research, it is important to distinguish between traditional knowledge research and research guided by traditional knowledge. The former is a comprehensive and holistic collection of information held by traditional knowledge holders. The latter is western science guided by a traditional knowledge holder. There is concern that the term traditional knowledge has multiple meanings. The



working definition of traditional knowledge used by the WKSS was put forth by the Traditional Knowledge Committee: Traditional knowledge is knowledge that Elders hold from experience and is passed down to them through the generations. It is continuous and grows. Interpretation of knowledge is important. Traditional knowledge is not just the past, but the future combined with the past. The format required for traditional knowledge research projects is the same as that for western science research, although the content of each segment may vary. The following guidelines have been drafted by the Traditional Knowledge Committee for those wishing to research traditional knowledge: 1. To be effective, research projects must obtain the support of the appropriate aboriginal political body and of the affected aboriginal communities before they can be approved by the WKSS society. 2. For traditional knowledge research to be effective, aboriginal community members must direct and control all stages of research projects, including personnel, project planning and design, budget development, fundraising, data collection, analysis, data and report verification, and report writing. 3. a) Each traditional knowledge project will be screened and guided by the

Traditional Knowledge Steering Committee.

b) Research projects drawing on both traditional knowledge and western science will be screened and guided by the Project Steering Committee made up of western scientists and traditional knowledge holders with the majority being aboriginal.

4. Informed consent must be obtained from all people interviewed as part of the research project, and where requested, the confidentiality of the information which they provide must be strictly respected and adhered to in writing. 5. Research must include a training component in projects in order to develop research skill for those affected communities. 6. Copies of raw data held, including video, audio, written etc., are the property of the community. Raw data held outside and in the community will be subject to conditions of copyright and confidentiality agreements on storage, use, access and release approved by the appropriate political body and by participating communities. 7. Contributions of community people to research projects must be fully acknowledged in all reports and public statements.



8. Traditional knowledge should be fully and effectively incorporated and provide direction in all aspects and phases of the study. 9. Research will be suspended if the guidelines written in to the contract are not met. 10. Protocols/contract research agreements will be established between the researcher and participating partners. 11. The WKSS society will establish agreements with partners on:

access to information confidentiality copyright reporting/publishing

12. Research proposals must contain:

i. title ii. background iii. study area iv. objectives v. methodology vi. workplan and timeframe vii. partners viii. evidence of community support ix. training plan x. budget and justification of budget xi. deliverables xii. licenses required xiii. project team qualifications and responsibilities

13. Traditional knowledge information that is used must be guided by the Elders and community involved in the original study.


Gwich’in Tribal Council

Traditional Knowledge Policy

Approved by: Gwich’in Tribal Council Board of Directors June 22, 2004

Document prepared by: Gwich’in Social & Cultural Institute

G

scl114

Text Box

APPENDIX 11

Approved June 22, 2004

1

WORKING WITH GWICH’IN TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE IN THE GWICH’IN SETTLEMENT REGION

PREAMBLE The Gwich’in recognize and value the fact that living on the land for many millennia has provided them with an extensive body of knowledge, values, beliefs and practices that many people today refer to as traditional knowledge. This knowledge, which has been passed down orally and through personal experience and spiritual teachings, is the foundation of Gwich’in identity and survival. It continues to have relevance today and draws its’ strength from being used, revised and continuously updated to take into consideration new knowledge. The Gwich’in hold this knowledge in trust for future generations in the belief that this knowledge is of benefit to themselves and all humanity. The Gwich’in believe the best way to ensure its survival is to continue to use it and share it in a matter that respects this knowledge. I: GWICH’IN TRIBAL COUNCIL’S POLICY COMMITMENT Whereas the Gwich’in, as represented by the Gwich’in Tribal Council, are the holders of Gwich’in Traditional Knowledge in and around the Gwich’in Settlement Region; and, Whereas the Gwich’in Tribal Council’s role is to represent its membership on all matters that will impact the rights of the Gwich’in people, including the issue of protecting and promoting Gwich’in Traditional Knowledge; and, Whereas the Gwich’in Tribal Council is responsible for ensuring that the cultural and economic relationships between the Gwich’in and government recognize the Gwich’in way of life; Whereas the Gwich’in Tribal Council is responsible for negotiating self-government arrangements on matters including culture, heritage and language; and, Whereas the 1998 Gwich’in Annual Assembly passed a motion authorizing the Gwich’in Tribal Council to develop a policy on Gwich’in Traditional Knowledge research that would bring clarity to Gwich’in ownership and control of Gwich’in Traditional Knowledge; Therefore the Gwich’in Tribal Council hereby commits to take a lead role in the management of Gwich’in Traditional Knowledge issues in the Gwich’in Settlement Region by monitoring and guiding the collection, use and distribution of Gwich’in Traditional Knowledge. In taking on this role, the Gwich’in Tribal Council will work to ensure that Gwich’in Traditional Knowledge is used ethically and safeguarded for future generations of Gwich’in beneficiaries. II: GUIDING PRINCIPLES The Gwich’in Tribal Council will manage Gwich’in Traditional Knowledge issues in the Gwich’in Settlement Region in a manner that:


2

1. Allows future generations to benefit and learn from Gwich’in Traditional Knowledge; 2. Ensures that informed consent occurs between the Gwich’in and researchers in the

process of research;

3. Assists the Gwich’in to restore and maintain control over the use of Gwich’in Traditional Knowledge, and cultural and heritage resources recognizing that they are the stewards of these resources;

4. Encourages appropriate sharing of Gwich’in Traditional Knowledge with others;

5. Ensures the participation of Gwich’in communities in Gwich’in Traditional Knowledge

research activities including reporting back to the communities the results of research activities in an appropriate manner and format;

6. Ensures respect for Gwich’in Traditional Knowledge holders and ethical use of

Gwich’in Traditional Knowledge in research, giving it an equal standing with western scientific knowledge;

7. Ensures that research dealing with Gwich’in Traditional Knowledge, culture and

heritage conducted in the Gwich’in Settlement Region gives equal weight to Gwich’in Traditional Knowledge;

8. Supports the use and preservation of the Gwich’in language; and,

9. Supports the ethical use and application of Gwich’in Traditional Knowledge in heritage,

renewable and non-renewable resource management in the Gwich’in Settlement Region. III: SCOPE OF THE POLICY • The policy applies to the following Gwich’in organizations in the Gwich’in Settlement Area:

• Gwich’in Tribal Council • Gwich’in Social and Cultural Institute; • Other Designated Gwich’in Organizations including but not limited to:

Ehdiitat Gwich’in Council Gwichya Gwich’in Council Nihtat Gwich’in Council Tetlit Gwich’in Council Gwich’in Land Corporation Gwich’in Settlement Corporation

IV: DEFINITIONS


3

Collaborative Research Methodologies Collaborative research methodologies are research approaches that recognize participant socio-cultural values and that invite the research participants and local community members to determine appropriate research areas and approaches. Collaborative research methodologies often involve direct community benefit in the way of training, education, capacity building, elder-youth interaction and employment. Gwich’in Settlement Area The Gwich’in Settlement Area is defined as those lands lying within the NWT as described in Appendix A of the Gwich’in Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement (1992). Gwich’in Settlement Region The Gwich’in Settlement Region includes the Gwich’in Settlement Area as described in Appendix A of the Gwich’in Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement (1992) and the lands within the Primary and Secondary Use Areas as described in Appendix C of the Yukon Transboundary Agreement within the GCLCA, and other traditional territory as outlined in the Interim Measures Agreement (Appendix C, 8.3.1) signed on April 28, 1999 between the Government of Canada and the Gwich’in Tribal Council (see Maps in Appendix A of this policy document). Gwich’in Traditional Knowledge Gwich’in Traditional Knowledge is that body of knowledge, values, beliefs and practices passed from one generation to another by oral means or through learned experience, observation and spiritual teachings, and pertains to the identity, culture and heritage of the Gwich’in. This body of knowledge reflects many millennia of living on the land. It is a system of classification, a set of empirical observations about the local environment and a system of self-management that governs the use of resources and defines the relationship of living beings with one another and with their environment.


4

Gwich’in Traditional Knowledge Holder Gwich’in Traditional Knowledge holders are Gwich’in persons who are known, or come to be known, by the Gwich’in Social and Cultural Institute, a Designated Gwich’in Organization or by the Gwich’in Tribal Council to possess Gwich’in Traditional Knowledge. Holders of Gwich’in Traditional Knowledge should be clearly acknowledged for any traditional knowledge they have shared with researchers. Gwich’in Traditional Knowledge User Anyone using any part, parts or whole of Gwich’in Traditional Knowledge. Informed Consent Informed Consent is a statement or oral agreement between the participant and a researcher (Principal Investigator) that outlines the nature of the research, and the manner in which the information the participant is providing can be used and accessed. Such consent must be given freely prior to research commencing. The essential elements contained in an Informed Consent Statement can be found in Schedule “B”. Research Research is an endeavour to study, diligently search for, and obtain knowledge through use of a systematic approach with the intent of clarification. This includes activities that attempt to discover new facts, information, or new applications to existing knowledge. It also includes activities to revise or substantiate existing theories. Research can include, but not be limited to, Basic Research, that is, a curiosity driving activity that has the purpose of discovery and the advancement or knowledge; or Applied Research, which aims to discover the best ways of using this knowledge in the process or a profession, policy development or a way of life. Research can be conducted using qualitative, that is, a belief that theory should be grounded in the day-to-day realities of the people being studied, or quantitative, that is, methods that use numerical or statistical methodology. Research methodology can include primary and secondary research. Primary research is information gathered by interacting with people through meetings, interviews, observation, focus groups or surveys. Secondary research is information gathered through literature reviews, publications, broadcast media and the use of other non-human sources. Research Agreement A research agreement is a contract entered into between the Gwich’in Tribal Council (or one of the Designated Gwich’in Organizations or the GSCI) and a researcher that outlines the conditions for the conduct of research in the Gwich’in Settlement Region.


5

Researcher A researcher is any person, agency, institution of public government, government body or a public or private organization proposing a research project in the Gwich’in Settlement Region for which a license or permit is required pursuant to the Scientists Act (R.S.N.W.T. 1988), Wildlife Act (R.S.N.W.T. 1988), NWT Act Archaeological Sites Regulations (NWT Act, Chapter 1237, 1978), Fisheries Act (R.S.C. 1985), the Yukon Scientists and Explorer’s Act (R.S.Y. 1986), or Yukon Act Archaeological Sites Regulations (C.R.C. c.1612, 1978) V: AUTHORITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY

1. Gwich’in Tribal Council: (a) Authorizes the Gwich’in Social and Cultural Institute to implement the policy on behalf

of the Gwich’in Tribal Council. (b) Represents the rights and interests of the Gwich’in beneficiaries on any matters arising

that will promote and protect their Gwich’in Traditional Knowledge. (c) Ensures that the Gwich’in Social and Cultural Institute and other Designated Gwich’in

Organizations have the resources required to manage and apply this policy. 2. Gwich’in Social and Cultural Institute will: (a) Review all research permits and licences issued pursuant to the Scientists Act,

(R.S.N.W.T. 1988), Wildlife Act, (R.S.N.W.T. 1988), the NWT Act Archaeological Site Regulations (NWT Act, Chapter 1237, 1978 ), Fisheries Act,(R.S.C. 1985), the Yukon Scientists and Explorer’s Act, (R.S.Y. 1986) or the Yukon Act Archaeological Sites Regulations (C.R.C. c.112, 1978) for compliance with the policy guidelines prior to providing advice to the authority issuing the permit or licence.

(b) Ensure that research has gone through an ethical review process before research begins. (c) Reserves the right to enter into research agreements to collaborate with researchers for

proposed Gwich’in Traditional Knowledge research or other socio-cultural research in the Gwich’in Settlement Region (see Schedule A). The Gwich’in Social and Cultural Institute shall ensure that a plain language description of the project is provided to the community in which the research is proposed, and that informed consent has been gained before the research proceeds.

(d) Monitor Gwich’in Traditional Knowledge projects, studies and other initiatives inside

and outside the Gwich’in Settlement Region to improve general understanding of the methodology of incorporating Gwich’in Traditional Knowledge into education, environmental assessment, heritage management and land, water and resource management and planning.


6

(e) Participate in the on-going exchange of information about Gwich’in Traditional Knowledge research and development and its incorporation into decision-making.

(f) Identify areas where Gwich’in Traditional Knowledge can be successfully incorporated

into the design or delivery of Gwich’in Tribal Council governance and Board decision-making.

(g) Develop guidelines for researchers seeking to conduct research on Gwich’in Traditional

Knowledge in the Gwich’in Settlement Region that reflect the values and traditions of the Gwich’in as expressed through this policy.

(h) Encourage the use of collaborative research methods in Gwich’in Traditional Knowledge

and Scientific research.

(i) Communicate the objectives of this policy and its guidelines to all Gwich’in organizations, government departments, researchers, and institutions of public government identified within the Gwich’in Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement and the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act,

(j) Provide the Gwich’in Tribal Council with advice on all matters which fall within the

scope of this policy. (k) Work with Designated Gwich’in Organizations and Renewable Resource Councils to

identify Gwich’in individuals who are qualified Gwich’in Traditional Knowledge holders in specific topic areas and interested in working with researchers.

(l) Educate elders and other beneficiaries about their individual rights with respect to their participation in all research, including Gwich’in Traditional Knowledge research.

(m) Recover costs related to the provision of information to researchers, wherever possible.

The Gwich’in Social and Cultural Institute will provide the most current Rate Schedule upon request.

3. Other Designated Gwich’in Organizations will: (a) Review research permits and licences that affect Gwich’in beneficiaries in their

communities and provide advice to the Gwich’in Social and Cultural Institute. 4. Gwich’in Tribal Council will: (a) Review research permits and licences with regard to Private and Crown lands. The

Gwich’in Social and Cultural Institute will provide advice to the Gwich’in Tribal Council concerning these permits and licences.

(b) Apply this policy within any Impact Benefit Agreements negotiated between the

government or industry and the Gwich’in Tribal Council.


7

VI: PERIODIC REVIEW The policy will be reviewed subsequent to any self-government agreements which might affect the management of cultural and heritage resources.

The Gwich’in Social and Cultural Institute will review the guidelines issued pursuant to

the policy as necessary and not less than once every three years.


8

SCHEDULE ‘A’

Gwich’in Social and Cultural Institute RESEARCH AGREEMENT FRAMEWORK

The terms of all Research Agreements are to be negotiated between the researcher and the Gwich’in Social and Cultural Institute in accordance with the Gwich’in Traditional Knowledge Research Policy and attached Guidelines on a project by project basis.

RESEARCH AGREEMENT WITH THE GWICH’IN SOCIAL AND CULTURAL INSTITUTE

Date of Agreement: Principal Investigator: Name: Address: Telephone: Fax: Email: Associated Institution: Name: Address: Telephone: Fax: Email: Gwich’in Organization: Name: Address: Telephone: Fax: Email: Project Title: Permit Types and Numbers: Ethical Review Conducted: Yes ___ No ___ If yes, provide written proof from University Committee, SSHRC, NSERC etc. If no, detail steps that will be taken to obtain Ethical Review: Copy of Informed Consent Statement using Schedule “B” as a template is attached: Yes ___ No ___ List purpose, goals and objectives of this Research Project: List sources of funding obtained:


9

Duration of Research (number of field seasons/dates in Region): Identify Community Advisory Body (Gwich’in Social and Cultural Institute / Elders Council / Gwich’in Land and Resource Advisory Committee / Renewable Resource Council /other ) Detail benefits to community (education, training, employment, capacity building): Detail research methodology to be used: Detail any Ownership Agreements for Data Collected: Detail how data will be accessed in future and any storage agreements: Detail methods of consulting with and communicating results to community members during and after the project: Detail how you propose to incorporate Gwich’in Traditional Knowledge into the research: Detail how confidentiality will be maintained during and after this project if requested: Detail any Media Relations Agreement: Termination: Statements: The Principle Investigator agrees that any copies of future publications, reports or products of the research will be forwarded to the Gwich’in Social and Cultural Institute. The Principle Investigator acknowledges receipt of a copy of the document entitled “Working with Gwich’in Traditional Knowledge in the Gwich’in Settlement Region” and agrees to abide by all guidelines contained therein. The Principle Investigator indemnifies and saves harmless any of the Gwich’in organizations from any liability and hereby waives any legal claim against it for any event that might occur during the course of the project. Signature of Principle Investigator: Signature of Gwich’in Social and Cultural Institute:


10

Copies of this form must be submitted to both of the following GSCI offices: Gwich’in Social and Cultural Institute Gwich’in Social and Cultural Institute Executive Director Research Director P.O. Box 46 Suite 202B, 4912-49th Street Tsiigehtchic, NT Yellowknife, NT X0E 0B0 X1A 1P3 Phone: 867-953-3613 Phone: 867-669-9743 Fax: 867-953-3820 Fax: 867-669-7733 [email protected] [email protected]


11

SCHEDULE ‘B’ ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF AN INFORMED CONSENT STATEMENT

1. Identify interviewer (name, company/university they represent); 2. Date; 3. Identify interviewee (name and any affiliation they may have with community/

company/university); 4. Identify community of interviewee as well as community where interview is taking

place; 5. Brief statement about goals/rationale of project and specifically, what the interviewer

wants from the interviewee and why; 6. Identify what this information will be used for; 7. Identify who will benefit from this information; 8. Identify who will be using this information; 9. Identify who will have access to the information; 10. Identify how this information will later benefit the interviewee, their community and

future generations of that community; 11. Identify what the interviewer is gaining from this information (i.e. University degree,

Government contract, etc. – if payment for future sales of information in book form, where proceeds will go from the sale of this information, etc.)

12. Indicate if information is to be recorded, either by audio tape or video tape and if so, what is to be done with this tape, where will this information be stored, how many copies of the information will be made, who will have access to this recorded information now and in the future;

13. Does the interviewee want to be cited or credited for any information being given? If yes, cited in general (such as in a bibliography) or specifically (such as at the end of all quotes). If no, does the interviewee want a pseudonym created and used? If not cited, the interviewer must assure confidentiality of all information received. This point is crucial in traditional knowledge collection;

14. Crucial to informed consent is the clause that the interviewee understands that they do not have to answer any questions they do not want and that they can stop the interview at any time;

15. Assure that a draft of information collected will be presented again, either personally or in a community forum for verification and any suggestions at that time will be considered and incorporated into the final report;

16. Copy of the report will be forwarded to interviewee when available, or alternatively to the community when available;

17. Ensure that written consent is given to the above elements once it has been read and explained in English or in Gwich’in. Alternatively, if the interviewee does not read or write, the Consent Statement should be read to them in English, and/or in Gwich’in, any questions answered and a verbal consent recorded on tape. Any exceptions to the above should also be noted in the Consent Statement.


12

Gwich’in Traditional Knowledge Research Guidelines The Gwich’in Traditional Knowledge Research Guidelines fall under the Gwich’in Tribal Council Traditional Knowledge Research Policy. These guidelines may be reviewed and amended from time to time by the Gwich’in Social and Cultural Institute and must be approved by the Gwich’in Tribal Council. Current Guidelines will be posted to the Gwich’in Tribal Council and Gwich’in Social and Cultural Institute web sites. The Gwich’in Social and Cultural Institute will, in accordance with the policy, provide these guidelines to all researchers proposing to work on Gwich’in Traditional Knowledge research or working on other issues related to Gwich’in Traditional Knowledge in the Gwich’in Settlement Region. The Gwich’in Social and Cultural Institute will review all research permit applications for compliance with these policy guidelines prior to providing advise to the responsible permitting authority. Research Licensing 1. All persons proposing to do research on Gwich’in Traditional Knowledge in the Gwich’in

Settlement Area must obtain the appropriate authorizations pursuant to the Scientists Act, (R.S.N.W.T. 1988), Wildlife Act, (R.S.N.W.T. 1988), the NWT Act Archaeological Site Regulations (NWT ACT, Chapter 1237, 1978 ), Fisheries Act (R.S.C. 1985).

Researchers are advised to consult “Doing Research in the NWT: A Guide for Researchers” published by the Aurora Research Institute, available at www.nwtresearch.com Researchers are advised to consult and review the “Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans” available at http://www.ethics.ubc.ca/code

2. All persons proposing to do research on Gwich’in Traditional Knowledge in the Primary

Use Area, Secondary Use Area, or other traditional territory of the Teetl’it Gwich’in must obtain the appropriate authorizations pursuant to the Yukon Scientists or Explorer’s Act (R.S.Y. 1958), or the Yukon Act Archaeological Sites Regulations (C.R.C. c.1612, 1956). Researchers are advised to consult with the Heritage Branch, Department of Tourism of the Yukon Government to obtain a copy of “Guidebook on Scientific Research in the Yukon”.

Collaborative Research Methodologies

3. The Gwich’in Social and Cultural Institute supports and encourages the use of

collaborative research methodologies in all research activities conducted in the Gwich’in Settlement Region.


13

4. Collaborative research methodologies enable the researcher and research participants to use Gwich’in Traditional Knowledge appropriately throughout the research process and ensure that the project is completed to the satisfaction of all the parties.

5. Collaborative research methodologies imply that wherever possible, the research project

supports community capacity building, including education, research training and employment opportunities for local residents.

6. To encourage collaborative research methodologies, the Gwich’in Social and Cultural

Institute will ensure that, when appropriate, an existing community advisory body (for example, Elders Councils, Renewable Resource Councils) is identified for the researcher. The advisory body will establish an appropriate framework with the researcher for consultation and advisory support throughout all stages of the project.

Research Agreements 7. Except as otherwise agreed, a researcher must have concluded a valid research agreement

with the Gwich’in Social and Cultural Institute setting out the rights and obligations of the parties for which the Designated Gwich’in Organizations’ and beneficiaries’ collaboration is being sought. Without limiting their generality, the terms and conditions in the agreement must include those matters set out in Schedule ‘A.’

Confidentiality 8. Designated Gwich’in Organizations and beneficiaries must be informed about the degree of

confidentiality that will apply to the information they provide before the research process starts.

9. Methods of ensuring confidentiality must be approved prior to any research.

Ownership and Use of Gwich’in Traditional Knowledge Information 10. Ownership and use of information must be negotiated between the researcher and GSCI

prior to the commencement of the research process and contained in the research agreement.

11. Copies of research materials and final products including relevant field notes, photographs

or slides, audio tapes, video tapes, maps, archival materials, reports, journal articles, manuscripts, or books resulting from Gwich’in Traditional Knowledge research must be sent to the Gwich’in Social and Cultural Institute.

12. Quotations and other oral, written and pictorial contributions of those people or group of

people who provide Gwich’in Traditional Knowledge information must be acknowledged in any report or publication that may arise out of the research project. Direct references must be cited for Gwich’in Traditional Knowledge holders, persons or groups who provide


14

information that is recorded and then used in a report, providing consent to do so has been obtained.

13. The product of the research containing or derived from Gwich'in Traditional Knowledge

must be reviewed by the Gwich’in Social and Cultural Institute and affected Designated Gwich’in Organization before distribution to a third party. The product will be reviewed within 30 days of receipt. If verification of information is required, this time frame must be negotiated. The review and/or verification process is meant to provide the Gwich’in Social and Cultural Institute and community with an opportunity to comment on the findings, identify gaps and make corrections before the research is made public.

Gwich’in Language 14. Researchers should ensure that they use and apply the appropriate Gwich’in dialect when

working in the Gwich’in language. For research of a regional nature, both Gwichya Gwich’in and Teetl’it Gwich’in dialects should be properly represented in research reports or products of research in order to ensure both respect and effective communication.

Compensation 15. All holders of Gwich’in Traditional Knowledge should be compensated, if they wish, for

their time working with researchers. Compensation can be in the form of a cash payment, an in-kind contribution or a fair exchange (gas, food, etc.). Compensation will be determined between the researcher and the holder of Gwich’in Traditional Knowledge. Researchers should inform the Gwich’in Social and Cultural Institute how they plan to compensate Gwich’in Traditional Knowledge holders. The Gwich’in Social and Cultural Institute will provide the most current Rate Schedule upon request.

Reporting Back to the Community 16. As part of the follow-up process, all researchers working with Gwich’in Traditional

Knowledge should return to the community to present the findings of their research. Research results should be presented or displayed in the Gwich’in communities in culturally relevant and creative ways. An example of the latter would be poster or audio-visual formats.


APPENDIX 12: CIMP Monitoring and Capacity-Building Projects, 1999-2006 Source: “Monitoring and Capacity-Building Projects Supported by the NWT Cumulative Impact Monitoring Program (CIMP), 1999-2006” (CIMP 2006).

# Yrs

Fiscal Year Project Lead Description Knowledge Base

Type Lead Type

1 2001-2002 DCFN (Deh Cho First Nation)

Development of work plan concerning the presence of contaminants and the general health of moose, woodland caribou, and fish in the Deh Cho

TK/Science Capacity FN

3 2002-2005 DCFN/RWED Deh Cho youth ecology camp TK/Science Capacity FN 1 2002-2003 Deline Uranium Team

& Great Bear Lake Working Group

Deline Research & Monitoring – draft community-based research and monitoring plan for Great Bear Lake area, working with a community trainee

TK/Science Capacity/Research FN

1 2002-2003 Dogrib Treaty 11 Council

Training opportunities for Dogrib Lands Protection department TK/Science Capacity FN

1 2003-2004 Dogrib Treaty 11 Council

Preparation for Implementation of the Tlicho Agreement and CIMP TK/Science Capacity FN

2 2003-2005 EC (NWRI) Community Training in the Preparation of Reports on Contaminated Studies in Deh Cho Lakes; Community Training in the Winter Water Quality Surveys: a continuing Deh Cho First Nations and National Water Research Institute partnership

TK/Science Capacity Fed

1 2004-2005 Fisheries and Oceans Canada

Training of Tariuq community-based monitors for physical/chemical environmental sampling in support of ongoing fisheries monitoring

Science Capacity Fed

1 2002-2003 Fisheries and Oceans Canada

Tariuq (Oceans) Program: community-based monitoring of marine and anadromous fish of the lower Mackenzie River and near-shore areas of Beaufort

TK/Science Research Fed

1 2005-2006 Fort Resolution Metis Council

Monitoring at the Pine Point Mine Site TK/Science Research FN

1 2005-2006 GNWT-ENR Boreal woodland caribou workshops in North Slave communities TK/Science Capacity/Research GNWT 1 2003-2004 GNWT-RWED Building Community Capacity for monitoring cumulative impacts for the

Bathurst Caribou herd in the NWT TK/Science Capacity GNWT

2 2004-2006 GNWT-RWED Trapper Training and Fire Ecology Program 2005; 2005/2006 Trapper/Hunter Training

TK/Science Capacity GNWT

1 2004-2005 GNWT-RWED Enhancing the Small Mammal and Snowshoe Hare Surveys in the NWT’s communities: Web portal and Video of standard protocols

Science Capacity GNWT




# Yrs


Type Lead Type

4 2002-2006 GNWT-RWED Wildlife health in the Sahtu: Developing community expertise; Community-Based Monitoring of Wildlife Populations and Health in the Sahtu; Community-based monitoring of wildlife populations and wildlife health through direct training and establishment of Wildlife Health Monitors in Colville Lake, Deline, and Fort Good Hope

TK/Science Capacity/Research GNWT

1 2002-2003 GNWT-RWED Spatial distribution of trapper activity and observations in the South Slave region

TK Research GNWT

1 2003-2004 GNWT-RWED and DCFN and EC

Boreal Caribou Population Trend Monitoring in the Cameron Hills Area of the Deh Cho – Community Involvement

TK/Science Capacity/Research GNWT

1 2003-2004 GTC Implementation, Resources Management and Land Administration – Capacity Building


1 2005-2006 GTC Developing a monitoring program for moose, woodland caribou, grizzly bear populations in the Gwich’in Settlement Area

TK/Science Research FN

2 2004-2006 GTC Environmental Monitor Training TK/Science Capacity FN 1 1999-2000 GTC (Gwichin Tribal

Council) Community based involvement in the Mackenzie Valley Cumulative Impact Monitoring Program in the Gwich’in Settlement Area [separate from 1999 community consultations]


1 2000-2001 GTC and Gwich’in Renewable Resource Board (GRRB)

Community - Land Relationship Project re: Traditional Knowledge TK Research FN

1 2005-2006 Gwich’in Social & Cultural Institute

Repatriating Gwich’in Traditional Knowledge from the Dene Mapping Project

TK Research FN

1 2005-2006 Hay River Metis Council

Monitoring of Paramount Resources TK/Science Research FN

1 2002-2003 Inuvialuit Game Council and Joint Secretariat

Wildlife monitoring course – background on monitoring, expectations and reporting, firearms and first aid certifications


1 2004-2005 North Slave Métis Alliance

NSMA Harvester’s and Monitor’s Resource Guide and Traditional Foods Cookbook



Geographic Information System environmental assessment and traditional knowledge study of the winter road



Community Based Monitoring of Non-Permitted Cabins and Dwellings in the North Slave Region




# Yrs


Type Lead Type


NSMA Capacity Building: Global Positioning System and Geographical Information Systems Training

Technical Capacity FN

1 2005-2006 NT Metis Nation Coordination of NT Metis Nation three monitoring projects TK/Science Research FN 1 2004-2005 NWT Metis Nation Capacity building: ARCGIS training 2004-05 Technical Capacity FN 1 2003-2004 NWT Métis Nation ArcView Training Technical Capacity FN 4 2002-2006 Taiga Lab (DIAND) Community capacity building – sampling, analysis & interpretation

course; Environmental technician-mentoring program providing hands-on experience and training at the Taiga Lab

Science Capacity Fed

1 2004-2005 University of Saskatchewan

Using Hunter Observations and Ecological Knowledge Together With Science to Understand Past and Current Occurrence of Wildlife Diseases in the North

TK/Science Research University

1 2005-2006 West Point First Nation GIS Training Courses Technical Capacity FN


APPENDIX 13: Dene Cultural Institute Conference: Integrating Traditional Knowledge into Environmental Assessments and Regulatory Processes in the NWT Hay River: Dene Cultural Institute (March 21-23, 2007)

13.1.1 Conference Agenda



13.1.2 Conference Presentation: “Monitoring Cumulative Impacts: Toward a Traditional Knowledge Framework”

Integrating Traditional Knowledge into Environmental Assessments and Regulatory Processes in the NWT Hay River: Dene Cultural Institute (March 22, 2007)

The following presentation was added to the conference program upon request; ten minutes were allocated for the presentation at the end of Day 2. Responses were primarily given indirectly during the plenary session the following morning when elders and community leaders were given an opportunity to speak. Notes on plenary session notes are included with conference notes below.

1.

Monitoring Cumulative ImpactsTOWARD A TRADITIONAL

KNOWLEDGE FRAMEWORKCumulative Impacts Monitoring Program (CIMP)

Study by Dr. Deborah SimmonsSENES Consultants Ltd.

2.

What is monitoring?

• Observing changes in what is happening on the land

• Traditional knowledge• Western science

3. 4.

How do indigenous people monitor?

5.

What areCumulative Impacts?

• Impacts: how individual human activities affect the land, water and animals

• Cumulative: how all activities together over the years affect the land, water and animals

BIG PICTURE

6.

What is monitored?

• Land, water, animals, air• Community health• Cultural practices



7.

NWT Cumulative Impacts Monitoring Program

Mackenzie Valley Resource Mgt ActSection 146 states: The responsible authority shall …, analyze data collected by it, scientific data, traditional knowledge and other pertinent information for the purpose of monitoring the cumulative impact on the environment of concurrent and sequential uses of land and water and deposits of waste in the Mackenzie Valley.

8.

Arctic Borderlands Ecological Knowledge Co-op

• Multi-agency• Voluntary community membership• “Local” not traditional knowledge• 42-page survey• Annual meetings• Since 1994• Challenge: funding

9.

West Kitikmeot Slave StudyÅutsel K’e

• Ni hat’ni – environment and community• Annual survey• Traditional knowledge baseline• On-the-land activities• Social science approach: statistics• Interpretive workshops• Integrative Interpretation workshops

10.

Challenges

• Funding/staff support• Time• Capacity• Partnership commitment• Community interest/response burden

11.

Proposed CIMP FrameworkSTRUCTURE

• Rooted in/guided community institutions• Supported by staff with expertise in TK &

WScience• Training for community researchers - regional• Founded on TK baseline studies (old time

stories, history, place names, language)• Products for community use/decision-making

12.

Method

• Derived from traditional modes of knowledge production/peer review

• Qualitative analysis, not statistics• Start small, simple, focused• Issue based, strategic: community

priorities• TK interpretation of scientific results

13.

What do you think?



13.1.3 Plenary Discussion Notes, March 23 These are summary notes only, selected for relevance to CIMP; any errors or omissions are the responsibility of the SENES note-taker. François Paulette, Keynote Address: Dene Relationship to the Land • Dene cha nié (the path we walk) this is my culture and language, my codes of living,

my way of life; it is who I am. It is a beautiful way to live. • We drive modern vehicles, and we use computers. But it all comes from the earth. So

we’re always thankful. That’s the relationship that we have with the land, and we can’t change that.

• TK is about respecting each other. • Our ceremonies are TK; we can get back things that we’ve lost through ceremony. • TK is an ancient way of learning, knowing, praying. • Language is the keeper of TK; if we lose the language, we lose the knowledge. • For the most part, it is not possible to incorporate TK with science; insofar as it is

possible, Dene people need to determine how it will be done. • Story about how François’ father used a tree root to fix a broken skidoo handlebar; he

knew nothing about machinery, but he could use his traditional knowledge to figure out how to fix it.

Discussion • What have been the effects of residential schools on TK transmission?

FP: There has been an immense loss as a result of residential schools. We know that we’ve lost a lot, but we still have a specific family knowledge. We need to ask who the knowledge holders are and go to them. Sometimes the children are born with the knowledge.

Patrick Simon, Deninu Køç First Nation (for Joanne Barnaby) Similarities and Differences between Traditional Knowledge and Western Science Similarities “The land is our flesh. When you

start tearing up the land, I feel as if you’re cutting up my flesh.”

• Hypotheses are constantly tested, refined, updated.

• Peer review contributes to maintaining standards.

Georgina Tobac, Fort Good Hope From slide presentation by Joanne Barnaby

Differences • For TK, there is an emphasis on spiritual relationships. • TK is a strong tool for understanding the big picture. Objectives: Achieving Balance • Increase cross-knowledge system understanding. • Draw upon data, analysis and conclusions from both systems. • Rebuild TK infrastructure.



Sean Gargon • TK is a way of life. • “You don’t own the land, the land owns you.” • Roy Fabian • Language revitalization is an important objective in our communities. We need

institutions to promote the language, and educational tools in our language. PLENARY SESSION Phillip Husky We have lost the right to spank our children. Edward Jumbo • We have always helped each other on our land. We have to speak as one people. • We have to earn money, but we also have to watch the land for the people that are

coming after us. • Our land is just like our mother. Margaret Leishman • We are stewards of the land. • Our ceremonies, such as feeding the fire, are an important aspect of our relationship

with the land. • We have to respect those who are educated in Western science. We need to work

together, teach each other. • We need to take a hands-on approach with TK. • Our regions are operating in isolation; we need more opportunities to gather like this. • We should not sell our culture; we need to protect our knowledge. • There is a need for terminology workshops. Jim Thomas • I have witness the destruction of our waters, and the land getting drier. Because of the

dams, water levels are going down and the water quality is affected. • We need to work well together for the people that are coming behind us. Pat Buggins • How are we benefiting from oil and gas development? They’ve been in our territory

for some time now, and I have a little bit of money but not that much. • In the past, we were pitiful people. Everybody used firewood. A lot of elders grew up

in hardship, even the Chief. Daniel Sunshine • All the people have to work together as one.




Mary Heron • You have to shake another person’s hand even if you don’t know them. If you grab

somebody’s hand, it’s like you touch their heart. How else are you going to get to know them?

• Respect is very important. If we don’t respect each other, we don’t respect the land. • We are a sharing people. Food is only good when it’s in our mouths. • Traditionally the parents were providers, and the grandparents were teachers. • You don’t learn everything from doing something just once (story about learning how

to pleat moccasins from her grandmother; she had to redo the same job four times. • You have to look at the big picture before you say yes to development. Money isn’t

everything. Money is what’s killing us in this day and age. • The food that we’re brought up on is carried on from generation to generation. It’s in

our bloodstream. • There’s an easier way to do things, but it takes longer. • You leaders, watch the land, save it, respect it. Once it’s damaged, we’re never going

to get it back. Joseph Judas • Safety and survival skills are critical. • We need to work on TK in an orderly way. It’s our people that have to do this. • Our young people should be here. They’re watching TV, or talking on the telephone

all day. • In the old days, things used to be hard and now everything’s too easy. Violet ??? • Now our land is like a checkerboard, because industry wants our land. • If we document TK, it’s just like it’s still alive, even though the elders have passed

away. We can’t afford to coast. Roy Fabian • Are we aiming to translate our knowledge into another culture and language? This

seems to be the case. We need to focus on revitalizing our own culture and language. Writing in Dene language is in itself a way to protect the knowledge.

discussion paper: traditional knowledge …sdw.enr.gov.nt.ca/nwtdp_upload/cimp_traditional...august...

Documents