First trend: Initial excitement about early projects on the incorporation of TEK (predominantly the CAFF group)

As the CAFF meeting minutes indicated (CAFF, 1993), in the early 1990s, the CAFF working group started working on four projects that included TEK. The Canadian and American scholars set the task of finding methods for working with Indigenous knowledge through three projects: Project on Ethical Principles for Arctic research (lead – the United States), Indigenous Knowledge Database Assessment (the United States and Canada), a Review of comanagement systems (the United States and Canada), and the Pilot Beluga Whale study project in Chukotka and Alaska (leads: the United States and Canada) (CAFF, 1994).

The Project on Ethical Principles for Arctic research was presented by the United States. Nine statements were received from universities, governments, and Indigenous peoples’ organizations in response to a request to CAFF countries (CAFF, 1994). These responses were divided on common themes, which included the notion of informed consent based on full information regarding the purposes, methods, and funding of research projects (CAFF, 1994). Other themes involved local participation in project design and implementation, including the training and employment of local assistants and respect for cultural traditions, language, and local knowledge as a component in scientific research. Respect for the dignity, privacy, and confidentiality of participants; acknowledgement of the community, participation, and contribution in the final report; and a return of all final reports to participating communities were also recognized as project themes (CAFF, 1994, p.30). According to the presentation, there were two completely new approaches in research. One of these new approaches was a proposal for a model of participatory research in which researchers and Indigenous communities work closely in selecting research topics and methodology and cooperate in data collection and analysis (CAFF, 1994). Another approach suggested a negotiated research agreement between the researcher and Indigenous community which would provide clear and binding provisions on the roles and responsibilities of all parties (CAFF, 1994, p.30). The Senior Arctic Officials asked the International Arctic Science Committee (IASC) to assist with this project. IASC considered draft guidelines of ethical principles for Arctic research at a meeting in Bremerhaven in April 1996, but was unable to reach consensus.

The IASC prepared a statement which said, “a circumarctic set of ethical principles appears not to be only elusive… but perhaps undesirable and unnecessary.” The report suggests that this results from the tremendous social and political diversity in the Arctic countries and from the fact that other universally accepted ethical principles and national codes of ethics continue to operate (CAFF, 1996). Therefore, IASC refused to adopt proposed research ethics standards, calling the proposed ethical standards “undesirable and unnecessary.” Meanwhile, the adoption of a new set of ethical standards at the international level would have sufficiently increased the quality of collecting TEK data, as the new rules proposed a participatory approach in research and respect to language, culture, and traditions.

The Indigenous Knowledge Data Directory project was supposed to develop the data directory, exploring formats that provide the flexibility and accessibility to reflect the dynamic nature of Indigenous knowledge and the extent of Indigenous and other data available in electronic media (CAFF, 1995). Inuit Circumpolar Council and Canada decided to build a framework data directory and upload it to the Internet. The new catalogue was supposed to contain information on an individual, community, and organizational experts who possessed TEK and would allow anyone to contact the information required for their individual needs (CAFF, 1995). Yet, the original aim of the project was to prepare a summary report on Indigenous knowledge databases, and an assessment of them proved to be impractical because of an insufficient number of databases to give such an assessment (CAFF, 1995). Therefore, the idea of creating a database of TEK failed.

In 1994, the United States and Canada started preparing a report on a review of comanagement systems that described the structure, strengths, and weaknesses of comanagement systems in the United States, Canada, and all over the Arctic (CAFF, 1994, p.15). The review of the comanagement system project revealed that there was no universal definition of comanagement. The CAFF project also showed that comanagement as a model for effective participation of Indigenous communities in resource management needed to be further explored (Tennberg, Reference Tennberg2000). However, common elements of comanagement were also identified. The common components of comanagement included the sharing of responsibility, cooperation and balancing of power between agencies and users, communicating and networking, recognizing and overcoming cultural and linguistic barriers, a consensus style of decision-making, and the use of both TEK and scientific knowledge in resource management (CAFF, 1996). There were several significant differences in the way how the term “traditional knowledge” was used (CAFF, 1996). The conference identified many advantages of comanagement, most of which emerged in better communication and consensus-building. Among the disadvantages recognized were lack of political goodwill, overlapping jurisdictions, ambiguous authority, and cultural differences. It was emphasized that comanagement committees only succeed to the extent that they retain effective communication with local hunters (CAFF, 1996). Hence, according to the report, the success of comanagement regime mostly relied on the establishment of effective communication with TEK holders. Therefore, the project identified differences in the use of definitions and concepts of TEK and comanagement in the North American Arctic. More importantly, it was not possible to come up with one universal model of comanagement, and additional studies were required.

The timeline of the Beluga Whale Pilot Project was from May 15, 1995 until October 31, 1998 (North Slope Science Initiative website, 2020). The US National Science Foundation funded the research, and the principal investigator was Dr. Henry Huntington (North Slope Science Initiative website, 2020). This work complemented a Pilot Project on TEK on Beluga Whales (CAFF, 1994, p.112).

The pilot project was divided into two parts: a fieldwork and a seminar (CAFF, 1994, p.110). According to the report, TEK was recognized as a valuable source of natural history data, which, nevertheless, must compete with other sources of data (CAFF, 1994, p.111). In the report, TEK was viewed as (a) coherent worldview, and (b) embodying a holistic view of ecology (CAFF, 1994, p.112). Overall, the Beluga Whale project was going to establish a future framework for incorporating TEK into scientific knowledge. This is one of the early projects that recognized equality between Western science and Indigenous knowledge. The US National Science Foundation funded this project, so TEK was taken seriously on high-level decision-making process. Yet, it was reported that although the necessary data were collected, the project coordinators were uncertain about the use and application of TEK in wildlife management (CAFF, 1996).

Overall, early CAFF attempts to run the projects specifically designed to utilize TEK (1993–1996) were unsuccessful. The results of these projects did not meet the expectations to develop a mechanism of incorporation of TEK into Western science. There was no guidance on how to incorporate TEK, the lack of explanation of how the process of incorporating TEK works and should be organized. As a result of these three projects, TEK appeared as a dynamic concept that is hard to capture and digitalization (CAFF, 1996). It was impossible to investigate how to apply TEK in conservation and environmental protection (CAFF, 1996). Some of these early CAFF projects were either rejected by the AC (Project on Ethical Principles for Arctic research) or not finished (Indigenous Knowledge Database Assessment, Review of comanagement systems). The workshop on comanagement systems resulted in the conclusion that there was a lack of the universal definition of comanagement in the Arctic countries. The lack of common terminology led to confusion about the structure and roles of comanagement units (CAFF, 1996).

Most of the data on comanagement came from the North American Arctic (CAFF, 1996), and it was reported that it is impossible to transform comanagement regime into the universal model (CAFF, 1996). The epistemology of TEK did not allow the researchers to transfer this knowledge in a computer database (CAFF, 1996). Despite the long-term work with Inuit communities in Russia and the United States, Indigenous Knowledge Mapping Project on Beluga Whale also produced unsatisfactory results. It was reported that although the necessary data were collected, the project coordinators were uncertain about the use and application of TEK in wildlife management (CAFF, 1996). The Beluga Whale Pilot project resulted in two scientific articles, published in the journal the Arctic in 1999 (Mymrin, Communities of Novoe Chaplino, Sireniki, Uelen, and Yanrakinnot, & Huntington, Reference Mymrin and Huntington1999). After the failure of the pioneer projects, the discussion of introducing traditional knowledge into Arctic politics faded for a short time.

Second trend: Lip service

Lip service in the process of knowledge coproduction has started when the AC scientific projects only mentioned the definition of TEK and referred to its utility and value instead of collecting, documenting, and incorporating TEK into scientific data. The study and collection of traditional environmental knowledge are acknowledged to be useful and valuable; yet, many scientific reports and assessments did not include TEK data into their contents. As Chapman and Schott (Reference Chapman and Schott2020) note, integrating TEK can often result in tokenism, when the incorporation of TEK has “the sole objective of benefitting the researchers by appeasing formal requirements or to look good” among other scholars.

For example, AMAP project Snow, Water, Ice, Permafrost in the Arctic (SWIPA): it included TEK into the list of policy recommendations but did not specify how exactly TEK should be applied to science and resource management. According to the SWIPA summary for policymakers (AMAP, 2017), this report is based on observations, methods, and studies that include contributions from traditional and local knowledge. Yet, the actual report only acknowledged the utility of TEK (“TEK can help to detect the change and adapt to it”) (AMAP, 2017), but did not integrate TEK into the scientific study (AMAP, 2017). At the AMAP 30th Meeting in 2016, the SWIPA Chair Morten Skovgaard Olsen noted that the SWIPA group was having difficulties with taking into account Indigenous and local knowledge (AMAP, 2017). Therefore, due to the lack of guidelines, the SWIPA report only mentioned the importance of TEK, but did not incorporate it into its data. Similar to the SWIPA, projects that claimed that they incorporated TEK, mostly emphasized the definition of traditional knowledge as well as the description of the benefits of its practical application.

Other examples of lip service include the Field Guide for Oil Spill Response in Arctic Waters (1998) released by EPPR, which only recommended to incorporate local knowledge and input from local inhabitants into the decision-making process (EPPR, 1998). TEK data were not collected and not documented, and the process of collection and documentation of TEK was not described. The SDWG report Vulnerability and Adaptation to Climate Change in the Arctic (VACCA) (SDWG, 2009b) stated that knowledge sharing is needed, especially incorporating traditional and local knowledge, but it is not described how the process of incorporating TEK should go. It was also stated that traditional knowledge should be collected, shared, and used in teaching, but the process of collection and utilization was not described (SDWG, 2009b). In the Arctic Offshore Oil and Gas Guidelines released by PAME in 2009, the use of TEK was only recommended for various purposes (impact assessments, training, consultations). The detailed guidelines, instructions, and approaches that could specify the procedures of integration of TEK in Western science are lacking. TEK was not documented, and recommendations are not based on TEK (PAME, 2009). This study investigated that each AC working group had at least one report that tuned the incorporation of TEK into lip service.

The WG reports and projects that claimed to incorporate TEK commonly referred to the arctic Indigenous communities as one group of people who belong to the same ethnicity and culture (Indigenous). The reports mentioned above, including SWIPA, VACCA, and the Field Guide for Oil Spill Response, all referred to Indigenous communities in the Arctic as one general group of people, without making specific distinctions between these communities (e.g. the Inuit, the Inupiaq, the Evenki, or the Saami) (AMAP, 2017; EPPR, 1998; PAME, 2009; SDWG, 2009). Meanwhile, as it was discussed in the literature review, TEK has a local nature, so it belongs only to a specific local community and cannot be considered as a universal type of knowledge applicable to any Indigenous groups in the Arctic region.

The main reason why the reports still mention TEK is that the inclusion of TEK into scientific studies has been pushed by the Senior Arctic Officials (especially Canada) and PPs. In 1999, Norway developed a project named an “Arctic Council Action Plan (ACAP) to Eliminate Pollution in the Arctic” (Arctic Council, 1999). Canada stated that it had some language on how to use “traditional knowledge” in the plan and would bring specific projects to the February meeting (Arctic Council, 1999). In 2002, Canada initiated the development of the AC capacity-building strategy, which subsequently involved the utilization of TEK as one of its recommendations (Arctic Council, 2002). SDWG meeting minutes indicate that at Task Force on Scientific Cooperation VII Meeting, Reykjavik, Iceland in 2015, Canada noted the importance of work on traditional knowledge and its inclusion in the tracking plan. The traditional and local knowledge recommendations were approved (Arctic Council, 2015). At SAO Plenary meeting in 2016, Canada expressed its wish to see in the future a CAFF presentation to SAO’s on “Arctic Traditional Knowledge and Wisdom” (Arctic Council, 2016). At the SAO Plenary meeting in Fairbanks in 2016, Canada suggested developing a lexicon for AC use when speaking or writing about TEK (Arctic Council, 2016). Thus, Canada has been pushing the agenda with the incorporation of TEK during the SAO meetings.

PPs also actively encouraged the AC working groups to incorporate TEK. In 1996, the chair of the Inuit Circumpolar Council, Mary Simon said: “Indigenous peoples’ knowledge gets ‘a lot of lip service.’” (Simon, cited in Tennberg, Reference Tennberg2000, p.69). At SAO meeting in Narvik, Norway, on November 28–29, 2007, during the discussion of the Arctic Biodiversity Assessment, the Arctic Athabaskan Council offered to be a lead author to incorporate TEK (Arctic Council, 2007).

At SAO meeting in Kautokeino, Norway, on November 19–20, 2008, SAOs and PPs asked for better participation of PPs and inclusion of TEK in the SWIPA process (Arctic Council, 2008). In 2014, the PP representatives developed the project ‘Fundamental Traditional Knowledge Principles,” and it included a working definition of TK as well as 13 fundamental principles to strengthen the use of TK (Arctic Council, 2014). Thus, both SAOs and PPs encouraged WGs to incorporate TEK, but they did not suggest any instructions or the universal model of knowledge coproduction.

As a result, the ongoing political pressure to incorporate TEK into the AC work combined with the lack of guidelines on this process resulted in lip service. Lip service in the AC projects was expressed through mentioning TEK benefits and value, as well as with an expression of respect for the Indigenous peoples of the Arctic. Lip service has become a quite common in the AC scientific reports and assessments. The application of traditional knowledge turned into a common rule in the AC because it is believed that TEK is supposed to provide greater empowerment and engagement of Indigenous peoples in the Arctic. Indigenous knowledge was viewed as common knowledge of the Arctic, and all Arctic Indigenous peoples were perceived as the same group. As meeting minutes and reports indicated, the SAOs and PPs encouraged participating countries and working groups to start traditional knowledge projects. So, the concept of TEK has become politicized. The politicization of TEK by turning this type of knowledge into “indigenized” concept results in the promotion of the value of TEK.

Because the early projects on TEK were led by Canada and the United States, the concept of TEK has become strongly politicized. In North America, traditional knowledge is a “political crowbar,” which has become politicized more than anywhere else in the Arctic (Butler, Reference Butler2006; Sejersen, Reference Sejersen2004). In a colonial context, TEK is a claim on indigeneity, on the rights of lands and resources, which symbolizes a need for self-management of natural resources (Butler, Reference Butler2006; Sejersen, Reference Sejersen2004). The politicization of the TEK concept resulted in the pressure to incorporate TEK in the AC. The lip service trend occurred because of the lack of instructions on how to organize the process of knowledge coproduction.

Table 1. The AC working groups projects on TEK.

Third trend: Large AC projects that claimed to incorporate TEK: ACIA, AHDR, and ABA

Finally, in 2004, the ice started moving slowly with the release of the large project Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (CAFF and AMAP). The project was available in two versions: as a scientific report, and as a summary for policymakers (Arctic Council, 2020), the collaboration with Indigenous communities was recognized as an essential partner for the project (U.S. State Department, 1999). Policy recommendations were supposed to incorporate traditional knowledge of the Arctic peoples into Western scientific findings of climate change. But, as it resulted, the scientists collected and documented TEK, but they only utilized TEK to justify their scientific observations of climate change (U.S. State Department, 1999). Arctic Climate Impact Assessment did include quotes from Indigenous observations into the report. For example, the scientific observations of climate change impacts, such as thawing permafrost and melting ice, are followed by Indigenous observations: “There used to be different levels of snow back then. The wind would not blow hard, not make the snow as hard as it is now. It’s really hard to make shelters with that kind of snow because it’s usually way to hard right now to the ground” (AC, 2004, p.96). Thus, some quotes from TEK served as a supplementary evidence for scientific discoveries; yet, the actual incorporation of TEK in Western science was not implemented. The ACIA report distillated the TEK data into separate quotes that supported already existing scientific evidence of climate change.

No methodology and recommendations for combining traditional knowledge with scientific discoveries were given. Indigenous observations were reflected on the maps, and then included into policy recommendations. However, policy recommendations in the report did not specifically refer to Indigenous communities and their advice regarding resource management regulations. Despite the use of maps and tables that reflected TEK, policy recommendations of the report do not refer to Indigenous peoples’ knowledge and their expertise (e.g. based on TEK, Indigenous communities noted). Furthermore, no specific participatory method, such as interviews or workshops, was identified in the report. Therefore, there might be a chance that policy recommendations were mostly based on scientific observations, and TEK observations were used to justify scientific discoveries. Thus, TEK was not translated into policy recommendations.

The project “Arctic Biodiversity Assessment” (CAFF and AMAP) implemented a similar strategy: most of the policy recommendations were based on scientific findings, and only several quotes from interviews with Indigenous communities were used in a scientific report and a report for policymakers. The introduction states that it draws on a vast number of scientific publications, supplemented by “eye witness” observations from Indigenous peoples in the context of TEK (CAFF, 2013, p.23). However, the report did not indicate that maps and figures documented TEK. There are many scientific maps in the report, but there is no sign that these maps were at least partly based on TEK observations. Policy recommendations did not include Indigenous perspectives. Therefore, TEK was collected but not utilized.

The Arctic Human Development Report released by SDWG in 2004 provided an overview on the utilization of TEK in the Arctic states in Chapter Resource Governance. There were examples of how TEK can be applied to resource use (e.g. cultural practices of hunting in Russia, Canada, the United States, and Alaska), but there was no primary TEK data (AHDR, 2004). The report did not provide examples of how TEK could be documented in maps and graphs. Thus, despite the fact AHDR offered excellent examples of knowledge coproduction, it did not utilize the primary data and only analyzed already existing cases, particularly in northern Canada.

Unlike previous TEK projects, these large studies were generously funded. Furthermore, in comparison with lip service projects, the large studies included knowledge gathering stage, which lip service studies missed. Knowledge gathering includes data collection through participant workshops and follow-up surveys (Chapman & Schott, Reference Chapman and Schott2020).

Overall, ACIA, ABA, and AHDR experiences with knowledge coproduction lead to the conclusion that obstacles with TEK utilization are complex, and not necessarily related to remoteness of northern Indigenous communities or the lack of funding for these projects. The challenges of knowledge coproduction will be further discussed below.

Fourth trend: Indigenous projects on TEK

Finally, Indigenous organizations (PPs) have become engaged in TEK projects (see Table 2). In the AC, TEK has always been perceived as Indigenous knowledge, not just local or traditional (Ottawa Declaration, 1996). That being said, the conception of TEK is strongly connected to Indigenous communities and their political empowerment in the AC. Since the beginning of the development of the AC, TEK has been promoted as an important question for Indigenous actors. The PPs were expected to provide their expertise on TEK in the AC.

Table 2. PPs reports that included TEK and community-based monitoring.

The first TEK project released by the Inuit Circumpolar Conference under the Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy was the Participation of Indigenous Peoples and the Application of their Environmental and Ecological Knowledge in the Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy (AEPS) in 1993. The ICC hired the expert, Lorraine Brooke, to write this report about the application of TEK to AEPS (Brooke, Reference Brooke1993). This report gives some information about the roots of the discussion on TEK in the AEPS. The report has some background information on issues that gave Indigenous peoples the opportunity to participate in the AEPS. (Brooke, Reference Brooke1993). The use of TEK in the Arctic was considered as an approach to include Indigenous peoples in the process of implementation of the AEPS (Brooke, Reference Brooke1993).

The collaborative initiatives between CAFF and PPs at CAFF 2003–2004 meetings were a positive tendency within CAFF Working Group. This means that CAFF welcomed PPs expertise and knowledge on TEK (CAFF, 2004). As a result of these initiatives, in 2017, a few PPs, including GCI, AIA, and AAC, published a report “Arctic Traditional Knowledge and Wisdom: Changes in the North American Arctic.”

In 2009 and 2011, the Saami Council organized two projects called EALAT to study the life of reindeer herders in Scandinavia and Russia. The AIA, GCI, and AAC prepared a report on the traditional knowledge of the peoples of North America, and the ICC prepared a study called Sea Ice Never Stops. The collection and documentation of TEK in all projects were a success. Several reports used Indigenous methodologies combined with Western scientific methods. EALAT (Magga, Mathesen, Corell & Oskal, Reference Magga, Mathiesen, Corell and Oskal2011, 2009a) introduced a novel method that was developed for Siida-based monitoring of snow change and grazing conditions. The researchers also used the Sami language and terminology.

Anthropologists and linguists, political scientists and sociologists, were involved. TEK data were collected and documented; each Indigenous community was referred to and approached independently. Yet, TEK observations were not translated into policy recommendations. The recommendations were mostly related to support of Indigenous communities (e.g. “it is important to support capacity building for Indigenous societies facing climate change”) (SDWG, 2009, p.15). The message about socioeconomic conditions could include examples such as “degradation of pasture lands combined with the consequences of a changing climate present substantial challenges to the future of reindeer husbandry” (SDWG, 2009, p.2). The examples of key messages for actions included: “Increase financial and other support for Indigenous peoples and organizations to engage in research and science initiatives actively and to address their concerns effectively” (CAFF, 2017, p.66), “determine the status of reindeer pastures within each of the Arctic states and facilitate the process of surveying and registration of reindeer pastures with in-state” (SDWG, 2009, p.65).

In 2017, ICC organized the study The Sea Ice Never Stops. Circumpolar Inuit Reflections on Sea Ice Use and Shipping in Inuit Nunaat. The report was published with the SDWG working group. The report investigates the Inuit use of sea ice. According to the document, Inuit Traditional Knowledge has provided a tremendous amount of data for researchers and decision-makers regarding climate change and its impact on the environment and communities (SDWG, 2017). The conclusions mostly referred to Inuit perspectives (e.g. Inuit are adaptable and strong), but they did not apply Inuit TEK to policy-making process. TEK observations were not documented, and report conclusions were not based on TEK. Similar to EALAT and ATK &W, this report provided Indigenous perspectives on the development of the Arctic region, but these recommendations/insights were not based on TEK.

Successful examples of the application of TEK to the policy-making process can be found in Brooke’s report (Reference Brooke1993). “There exists ample evidence that the European ban on sealskin products and pressures to reduce or eliminate whaling, for example, have had serious economic impacts on many Indigenous peoples and local communities in the circumpolar region” (Brooke, Reference Brooke1993, p.78). Another example is related to documentation of TEK:

Knowledge application was missing in the PPs’ reports. During the knowledge interpretation and application process, TEK must be applied to policy outcomes through the review of the study results and group discussion of the validity of the results and potential application (Chapman & Schott, Reference Chapman and Schott2020). For example, the potential application to policy could be related to the cost of hunting compared to the offered compensation through community food distribution programs (Chapman & Schott, Reference Chapman and Schott2020).

Instead of providing policy recommendations based on TEK, almost each of the PPs’ project on TEK included the call for socioeconomic action such as “Increase financial and other support for Indigenous peoples and organizations to engage in research and science initiatives actively and to address their concerns effectively (CAFF, 2017). “It is important to support capacity building for Indigenous societies facing climate change and loss of grazing land, both in terms of supporting the recruitment of young scientists from reindeer herding communities, and in terms of supporting institution building in local reindeer herding communities for local competence building” (SDWG, 2009). Therefore, PPs’ reports did not translate TEK into policy recommendations but, instead, they suggested the policies for socioeconomic action that could improve the lives of Indigenous communities. While scientists used individual quotes from interviews to support their scientific discoveries and facts, Indigenous organizations used TEK projects to attract more attention to the socioeconomic problems of northern Indigenous communities. Both of them utilized the concept of traditional knowledge to pursue political goals.

Confusion with terms and definitions

Almost each AC declaration mentions traditional knowledge. Yet, these declarations use inconsistent terminology. The analysis of the AC declarations indicated that they use different terms for TEK: traditional and Indigenous knowledge (Iqaluit Declaration (1996); traditional knowledge (Ottawa Declaration, 1998); traditional knowledge (Inari Declaration (2000); Indigenous and traditional knowledge (Reykjavik Declaration, 2004); Indigenous and traditional knowledge (Salekhard Declaration (2006); traditional knowledge (Tromso Declaration (2009); Arctic Indigenous Peoples’ traditional knowledge (Nuuk Declaration (2011); traditional and local knowledge (Kiruna Declaration, 2013); traditional and local knowledge (Iqaluit Declaration, 2015); and traditional and local knowledge (Fairbanks Declaration, 2017). So, many terms were used regarding TEK in the AC work.

At the SAO Plenary meeting in Fairbanks in 2016, Canada suggested developing a lexicon for AC use when speaking or writing about TEK (Arctic Council, 2016). Several PPs expressed concern about investing additional time to develop a lexicon when past efforts were not successful; those voicing concerns emphasized the need for the process to be conducted with respect for PP culture and that any lexicon would need to be acceptable to the PPs (Arctic Council, 2016).

Hence, the reason why the discussion on TEK, despite many challenges, is still prevalent in the AC is because connection of TEK to indigeneity turns this conversation into a very political discussion related to decolonization and Indigenous empowerment. According to Berkes, (Reference Berkes1999), the use of TEK is political because it threatens to change the balance of power between Indigenous groups on the one hand versus governments, developers, and conventional resource management scientists on the other (p.173). The politicization of TEK resulted in lip service due to the lack of instructions combined with ongoing political pressure.

Lack of guidance on how to apply TEK

Since the beginning of the TEK discussion, the process of knowledge coproduction was not specified. In 2015 and 2019, CAFF and SDWG working groups released the reports that suggested recommendations on the integration of TEK into the AC work.

Recommendations for the Integration of Traditional and Local Knowledge into the Work of the Arctic Council (2015) released by SDWG suggested that TEK should be included in the AC work, but the process of incorporation of TEK was not explained. The document only described how the AC projects mentioned how the working groups claimed to include TEK into their projects, but neither evaluated nor provided the analysis of the process of TEK incorporation. The main focus of this document was on recommending WGs to integrate TEK into the AC work.

Similarly, the reports released by CAFF: Traditional Knowledge and Community-Based Monitoring Progress Report (2015) and Traditional Knowledge Progress Report 2017–2019 (2019) only tracked the emergence of the TEK projects in the AC, but did not assess the actual progress in knowledge coproduction.

Thus, the process of the incorporation of TEK has not been guided by the AC. The SDWG and CAFF reports indicated that the AC has been forcing the WGs and PPs to incorporate TEK under the conditions of the lack of guidance.

Lack of engagement between scientific knowledge and TEK

Western science and TEK have quite distinct epistemologies and methodologies. TEK is holistic; Western science is compartmentalized; TEK is qualitative and nonwritten and based on inductive reasoning; Western science is written and mostly quantitative (Thomas & Schaefer, Reference Thomas and Schaefer1991). It was noted that there was a need in sufficient funding for the collection, compilation, and integration of traditional knowledge as well as the need to create a database on TEK (Arctic Council, 1999). Furthermore, the studies of climate change have shown that scientific and Indigenous observations have difference in scale: scientists look at regional scale; local observers tend to capture observations on the local scale (Arctic Council, 2004).

Besides this, TEK is often viewed by scientific communities as data that can be separated from its local context, which makes its utilization challenging (AHDR, 2004, 2014). Unlike scientific knowledge, TEK is strongly tied to the local area. Due to the fast changes in climate variability, it was noted that TEK might no longer be reliable as it comes with a high degree of uncertainty (AMAP, 2017). Therefore, the differences between Western science and TEK make the translation of TEK into science and policy quite challenging. The process of TEK incorporation needs additional studies.

The Western scholars mostly do not understand the importance of the Indigenous engagement into the projects and the crucial role of the content. The “lip service” reports and assessments do not use Indigenous participation as a method at all (e.g. SWIPA, 2017). They also tend to refer to Indigenous communities as one group of people (e.g. Indigenous communities in the Arctic). The scientific reports do not attempt to use Indigenous methodologies (e.g. Siida method), and do not apply TEK to policy recommendations except a few quotes from the in-person interviews. Many of these reports include recommendations to utilize TEK without any instruction or guidance on how to organize the process of collecting and utilizing TEK. For instance, EPPR Field Guide for Oil Spill Response in Arctic Waters (1998) states “Local knowledge (the Arctic Council uses terms such as local knowledge, TEK, and Indigenous knowledge interchangeably) also is used in the assessment of environmental concerns or issues, as there frequently exists a strong connection between the environment and subsistence or economic activities” (EPPR, 1998). All these reports nominally include TEK, and some of them did even conduct the fieldwork studies with Indigenous communities.

The scientific resistance toward the inclusion of TEK and the lack of understanding of TEK as a concept might be obstacles on the way of meaningful incorporation of TEK. The other challenge in this process could be the extreme politicization of TEK as a political crowbar of Indigenous engagement. The politicization of TEK resulted in the lack of translation of TEK data into the language of policymakers.

The politicization of TEK is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, the politicization of TEK turns the process of TEK incorporation into a difficult enterprise, as researchers and policymakers have become extremely responsible when it comes to the meaningful integration of TEK. The knowledge coproduction has to involve respect, reciprocity, trust, and other important values to recognize. On the other hand, the politicization of TEK provides the chance to Indigenous communities to empower themselves, and keeps this conversation about knowledge coproduction still ongoing.

The politicization of TEK as a political crowbar resulted in the shift of attention toward the call for socioeconomic action. Because TEK is a politicized concept, there is a tendency among PP studies to put an emphasis on socioeconomic issues of Indigenous peoples. The study recommendations in EALAT (Magga, Mathesen, Corell & Oskal, Reference Magga, Mathiesen, Corell and Oskal2011, 2009a), The Sea Ice Never Stops (SDWG, 2017), and Arctic Traditional Knowledge and Wisdom (CAFF, 2017) reflect general information about Indigenous peoples of a case study (e.g. “Inuit are adaptable and strong”) (SDWG, 2017), report about socioeconomic conditions of Indigenous peoples, and provide key messages for action regarding Indigenous knowledge. Yet, despite having a large amount of TEK data, these reports did not translate TEK into policy solutions.