indigenous knowledge in environmental...

ARCTIC

VOL. 49, NO. 3 (SEPTEMBER 1996) P. 278– 291

Indigenous Knowledge in Environmental AssessmentMARC G. STEVENSON1

(Received 24 October 1995; accepted in revised form 30 April 1996)

ABSTRACT. Increasingly, federal environmental guidelines require developers to consider the “traditional knowledge” ofaboriginal people in assessing the impact of proposed projects on northern environments, economies, and societies. However,several factors have limited the contributions of traditional knowledge to environmental impact assessment (EIA) in the North,including confusion over the meaning of this term, who “owns” this knowledge, and its role in EIA. The term “indigenousknowledge,” which comprises traditional and nontraditional, ecological and nonecological knowledge, is proposed as analternative that should allow aboriginal people, and the full scope of their knowledge, to assume integral roles in EIA.

Experience gained in attempting to give aboriginal people a voice and an assessment role in the diamond mine proposed byBHP Diamonds Inc. at Lac de Gras in the Northwest Territories has led to the development of a multiphased, holistic approachto involving aboriginal people and their knowledge in EIA. Because of their in-depth knowledge of the land, aboriginal peoplehave a particularly important role to play in environmental monitoring and distinguishing project-related changes from naturalchanges in the environment. However, the strengths of traditional and Western scientific knowledge in EIA will not be realizeduntil both are recognized as parts of a larger worldview that influences how people perceive and define reality.

Key words: aboriginal people, indigenous knowledge, environmental impact assessment, traditional knowledge, traditionalecological knowledge, valued ecosystem components, Western scientific knowledge, participatory action research

RÉSUMÉ. De plus en plus, les lignes directrices environnementales du gouvernement fédéral exigent des responsables de projetsde développement qu’ils tiennent compte du «savoir traditionnel» des peuples autochtones en évaluant les incidences des projetsà l’étude sur les milieux, les économies et les sociétés nordiques. Toutefois, plusieurs facteurs ont limité la contribution du savoirtraditionnel à l’évaluation des incidences environnementales (EIE) dans le Grand Nord, y compris l’ambiguïté entourant le sensde cette expression, la personne qui «détient» ce savoir, et son rôle dans l’EIE. On propose l’emploi de l’expression «savoirautochtone», qui englobe savoir traditionnel et non traditionnel, savoir écologique et non écologique, comme une solution quipermettrait aux peuples autochtones, ainsi qu’à toute la dimension de leur savoir, d’assumer un rôle intégral dans l’EIE.

L’expérience acquise lors des efforts en vue de donner une voix et un rôle d’évaluateurs aux autochtones dans le projetd’exploitation de la mine diamantifère de BHP Diamonds Inc. à Lac de Gras (Territoires du Nord-Ouest) a conduit à une approcheholistique, à facettes multiples, qui vise à faire participer les autochtones et leur savoir à l’EIE. En raison de leur connaissanceapprofondie de la terre, les autochtones ont un rôle particulièrement important à jouer dans le contrôle de l’environnement et ladistinction entre les changements environnementaux dus aux projets et ceux dus à la nature. Toute la force du savoir traditionnelet des connaissances scientifiques occidentales ne se manifestera toutefois que lorsqu’on admettra que les deux parties participentà une vision du monde élargie qui influence la façon dont les individus définissent la réalité.

Mots clés: peuples autochtones, savoir autochtone, évaluation des incidences environnementales (EIE), savoir traditionnel, savoirécologique traditionnel, composants valorisés d’un écosystème, connaissances scientifiques occidentales, recherche-actionparticipative

Traduit pour la revue Arctic par Nésida Loyer.

1 Canadian Circumpolar Institute, University of Alberta, 8820 – 112th Street, Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2E2, Canada© The Arctic Institute of North America

INTRODUCTION

Those who live on the land and harvest its resources havean intimate knowledge of the distribution of resources, thefunctioning of ecosystems, and the relationship betweenthe environment and their culture. For many questionsthat are raised in the Guidelines, traditional knowledgewill have as important a contribution to make as scientificand engineering knowledge. The proponent should fullyconsider local traditional knowledge and expertise in

preparing the Environmental Impact Statement. (BHPDiamond Mine Environmental Assessment Panel, 1995)

For many centuries, the socioeconomies of Canada’s abo-riginal peoples have been based on an intimate understandingof and relationship with the natural world. However, onlyrecently has their knowledge been considered a necessarycomponent of environmental assessment (e.g., Johannes,1993). Part of this acknowledgement stems from the pursuitof political and property rights by aboriginal groups around

the world and the recognition of these rights by nation states.The rights of aboriginal people to fully participate indecisions concerning developments that affect their lands,cultures, and lifestyles have also been recognized in interna-tional agreements (e.g., Agenda 21, United Nations Confer-ence on Environment and Development, 1992). At the sametime, growing recognition of the limits of conventional sci-ence in solving ecological problems of increasing complexityand magnitude has also resulted in calls for the incorporationof traditional ecological knowledge and practices into re-source management and development (Wolfe et al., 1992).The industrialized world may, in fact, have much to learnfrom indigenous peoples about the sustainable use of naturalresources:

[Lifestyles of tribal and indigenous peoples] can offermodern societies many lessons in the management ofresources in complex…ecosystems. (World Commissionon Environment and Development [WCED], 1987:12)

Their disappearance is a loss for the larger society, whichcould learn a great deal from their traditional skills insustainably managing very complex ecological systems.(WCED, 1987:114 –115)

A number of international arctic agreements, including theArctic Environmental Protection Strategy (Inuit CircumpolarConference [ICC], 1993), have recognized that over manygenerations northern aboriginal people have developed holis-tic knowledge of their lands and natural resources, which cancontribute significantly to environmentally sound and sus-tainable development practices.

In an effort to assess the environmental, social, and eco-nomic impacts of large-scale developments on northern landsand communities, federal environmental guidelines havebegun to require that developers incorporate the “traditionalknowledge” of aboriginal people into environmental impactassessment (EIA). Such guidelines are an important steptowards ensuring that the concerns of Canada’s northernaboriginal people will be fully and meaningfully considered.This can only lead to improved decision making in theassessment and management of environmental impacts, andto increased benefits for northern communities.

Yet, the role of traditional knowledge in EIA in the Northis often not adequately understood or appreciated by govern-ment and industry, partly because this requirement is rela-tively new, and few examples exist to serve as models, butalso because many non-aboriginal people do not appreciatehow their knowledge system differs from that of aboriginalpeople. Thus, there appears to be a general misunderstandingof what traditional knowledge is, how it is constructed andwhat role it has in EIA.

Dene, Inuit, and Metis often raise concerns in environmen-tal hearings about the impacts of development on their landsand communities. Aboriginal peoples’ concerns derive prin-cipally from three sources: 1) traditional ecological knowl-edge (TEK), most notably, knowledge of ecosystem

relationships and appropriate behaviours governing the useof resources; 2) past experience with northern industrialdevelopments (e.g., hydro, oil and gas, and mining); and 3) alack of specific knowledge about proposed developments andhow these may affect aboriginal lands and lifestyles, espe-cially valued ecosystem components and relationships. It isthe documentation of such concerns, not the construction oftraditional knowledge baselines, that must be viewed as thefirst step in an ongoing process of involving aboriginal peopleand incorporating their knowledge into environmental as-sessment and management in Canada’s North. An exclusivefocus on the documentation of TEK for the construction ofbaseline data in EIA may create a potentially exploitivesituation; this knowledge may be taken out of context ormisinterpreted by current and subsequent developers. Thisrisk is even greater when aboriginal people have little controlover how their knowledge is documented, interpreted, andused. Thus, the possibility for industry to use the knowledgeof northern aboriginal people in ways that do not serve theirinterests is great, particularly in regions where land claimsand treaty entitlements are still being negotiated.

On the other hand, aboriginal people may derive consider-able benefit from documenting their knowledge and applyingit in the context of EIA. Aside from the specific contributionsthat traditional knowledge can make to EIA, many aboriginalgroups in Canada’s North recognize that by recording thisknowledge and passing it on to younger generations, they canslow down and even reverse the erosion of their culturalidentities, values, and customs. In addition, this documenta-tion creates opportunities for aboriginal participation indevelopment and environmental policies. Nonetheless, the useof such knowledge in EIA may also promote goals incompat-ible with aboriginal needs and lifestyles. This realization hasprompted some aboriginal groups and organizations to estab-lish explicit guidelines for the use of their traditional knowl-edge (e.g., Yellowknives Dene First Nation, 1995a).

This paper explicitly advances a process for meaningfullyinvolving aboriginal people and incorporating their knowl-edge into EIA that will benefit both aboriginal people andindustry. Industry need not be incompatible with aboriginallifestyles, and industrial capitalism does not have to destroyaboriginal economies. Mines have the potential to strengthenaboriginal lifestyles by providing aboriginal people withmuch-needed cash income and time off to pursue their tradi-tional land-based activities (e.g., a two weeks on/two weeksoff shift rotation has been adopted by Echo Bay Mines Ltd.Lupin mine at Contwoyto Lake and has been proposed forBHP’s diamond mine at Lac de Gras). In the NorthwestTerritories today, hunting and other traditional forms ofsubsistence require large amounts of money for equipmentand supplies, and aboriginal people need jobs to maintainthese lifestyles. By providing aboriginal people with themoney and opportunity to carry on their traditional land-based activities, mines can support the skills required to liveoff the land and help ensure the transfer of aboriginal knowl-edge, customs, values, and traditions to future generations.Aboriginal elders recognize that mining can contribute

INDIGENOUS KNOWLEDGE IN EIA • 279

280 • M.G. STEVENSON

significantly to sustainable development in northern regions:

I’ve only been to the Lupin mine and the effects of that yousee in the community. You see all the people that work forthe mines…they have snowmobiles now and four-wheelers, boats, and motors, something to go out and havefun with out on the land. Before working for the mine,some of these people were on social assistance, and nowthey’re being more independent; they have machines togo out hunting and for their kids to go out hunting with.(Miyok, 1995:7)

[Work] encourages young people to buy skidoos andboats and motors with the wages. That helps their parents[and] maintains their connection with the land. Thatstrengthens the family too. Elders are encouraging youthto get training and education before the mine goes in.…(Migwi, 1995)

Given the potential benefits of mining to Northerners, bothdevelopers and aboriginal people would benefit greatly byagreeing on an approach to meaningfully involving the latterand their knowledge in environmental assessment and man-agement. To help develop such a process, this paper begins bydiscussing the structural components of the knowledge ofaboriginal people and the interrelationships among thosecomponents.

TRADITIONAL OR CONTEMPORARY?THE STRUCTURE OF INDIGENOUS KNOWLEDGE

If the words ‘traditional Inuit knowledge’ are supposed toinclude everything we know about everything, it looks tome as though we probably don’t know too much.… (J.N.Kangirsuk; ICC, 1993:35)

Traditional knowledge? Never heard of it. I didn’t evenknow I had it. What’s the world thinking of it for?(Adamie; in Gombay, 1995:81)

Dene, Inuit, and Metis in Canada’s North possess knowl-edge that is not just “traditional,” but contemporary. In fact,it can be argued that all knowledge is contemporary, for it isgiven meaning and value from a frame of reference that iscontinually being updated and revised. Many aboriginalpeople feel that requests to access their traditional knowledgerepresent just another form of exploitation (YellowknivesDene First Nation, 1995a), because this knowledge can beeasily taken out of context and misrepresented. Moreover,viewing the knowledge that aboriginal people possess asessentially traditional invites denial of the relevance andefficacy of applying their knowledge to present-day issuesand problems. Thus, aboriginal people sometimes feel thatthe term “traditional” imposes a way of life on them that isshackled to the past and does not allow them to change(Gombay, 1995:22). Such a view can only perpetuate the

muted status of aboriginal people both in EIA and inrestructuring their present social, economic, and politicalconditions.

Indigenous Knowledge

A more appropriate term for the knowledge, experiences,wisdom, and philosophies that aboriginal people can bring tobear on environmental assessment and management is “in-digenous knowledge.” This term, which is beginning to findfavour with aboriginal organizations (e.g., ICC, 1993) andacademics alike (e.g., Wolfe et al., 1992; Gombay, 1995), isless contentious, more inclusive, and thus more empoweringthan “traditional knowledge.” Further, it does not invitemisappropriation in the way that “traditional knowledge”does. Nonetheless, “indigenous knowledge” still does notcapture the full content or context of the knowledge that mostaboriginal people possess. For purposes of environmentalassessment, as well as for harvest assessment and co-manage-ment, which also try to incorporate aboriginal ecologicalknowledge into decision making, indigenous knowledge canbe viewed as having two sources: traditional knowledge andnontraditional knowledge. This perspective acknowledgestwo facts: 1) that aboriginal people also possess knowledgeand experiences not grounded in traditional lifestyles, spiritu-ality, philosophy, social relations, and cultural values; and 2)that indigenous knowledge is the articulation, and frequentlythe dialectic, of traditional and nontraditional knowledge(Fig. 1).

FIG. 1. Structural components of indigenous knowledge, with varying levelsof incorporation into environmental assessment and management.

While different, these sources of knowledge share somefeatures in common. For example, rules and knowledge forliving in a social context may be similar. Yet, crucial


TraditionalKnowledge

NontraditionalKnowledge

TraditionalEcologicalKnowledge

OtherTraditional

Knowledge(social, cultural, spiritual)

SpecificKnowledge

of Environment

Knowledgeof Ecosystem

Relations

Code ofEthics

governingEcosystemRelations

Leve

l 1

Leve

l 4

Leve

l 2

Leve

l 3


distinctions reflect different philosophical traditions andperceived realities. For example, traditional aboriginal phi-losophies emphasize extensive knowledge of and codes forliving in harmony with nature. Western philosophical tradi-tion lacks such considerations. Indeed, such aboriginal phi-losophies may contribute significantly to the sustainableutilization of the earth’s resources, and thus to human sur-vival on this planet. Perhaps as a consequence, Westernscientific tradition has become more accepting of holisticviewpoints over the past decade.

Nontraditional Knowledge: Most aboriginal people pos-sess an extensive base of nontraditional knowledge derivedfrom their interaction with non-aboriginal people and institu-tions; television and other modern media; formal schooling innumeracy and literacy; the adoption of Western scientificthinking; and exposure to foreign values, attitudes, and phi-losophies. In contrast, traditional knowledge systems arebased on the shared experiences, customs, values, traditions,subsistence lifestyles, social interactions, ideologicalorientations, and spiritual beliefs unique to aboriginal com-munities. Together, these two foundations of knowledgearticulate to form a worldview, a frame of reference, under-standing, and validation, that provides meaning and value tothe lives of contemporary aboriginal peoples (Fig. 1).

For government and industry to concentrate on traditionalknowledge in EIA, to the exclusion of indigenous knowl-edge, serves neither their interests nor those of aboriginalpeople. Often, aboriginal people whose understandings areconstructed from both systems of knowledge can offer in-valuable insights into assessing the full impact of northerndevelopment on the ecosystem components and relationsthey consider important, or “valued ecosystem components”(VECs). Not only have many aboriginal people experiencedboth traditional and nontraditional realities and lifestyles, andfelt directly the impact of industrial development, but theyhave already worked out many of the conflicts between thetwo systems of knowledge in their own minds. Thus, theirresolution of the two knowledge systems for any given issuecan provide insights into EIA that neither system alone couldoffer. This can only lead to more refined explanations andbetter understandings of environmental impacts.

Traditional Knowledge: Traditional knowledge may beviewed as being composed of “traditional ecological knowl-edge” (TEK) and other kinds of traditional knowledge notimmediately related to or dependent upon the environmentfor reference or validation. Even though environment andsociety are intimately related, if not inseparable, in the mindsof many aboriginal people whose lifestyles and identities stillderive from their connection to the land, TEK and other kindsof traditional knowledge are distinguished here for purposesof discussion.

Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK): TEK may beviewed as being composed of three interrelated components:1) specific environmental knowledge, 2) knowledge of eco-system relationships, and 3) a code of ethics governingappropriate human–environmental relationships (Fig. 1). TEKis frequently the base of knowledge that many non-aboriginal

people interpret as traditional knowledge. While the DeneCultural Institute (DCI) defines TEK as “traditional environ-mental knowledge,” such knowledge is constructed of muchmore than just knowledge pertaining to the environment:

Traditional environmental knowledge is a body ofknowledge and beliefs transmitted through oral traditionand first-hand observation. It includes a system ofclassification, a set of empirical observations about thelocal environment and a system of self-management thatgoverns resource use. Ecological aspects are closely tiedto social and spiritual aspects of the knowledge system.The quantity and quality of TEK varies among communitymembers, depending upon gender, age, social status,intellectual capability and profession (hunter, spiritualleader, healer, etc.). With its roots firmly in the past, TEKis both cumulative and dynamic, building upon theexperience of earlier generations and adapting to the newtechnological and socioeconomic changes of the present.(DCI, 1995a:2)

While this definition may be so broad as to confound ratherthan clarify, its value derives from showing how TEK accom-modates change and innovation, and how it is embedded in asystem of knowledge that has broader social, economic, andspiritual dimensions. Thus, TEK cannot be properly under-stood or applied without reference to these dimensions.

For present purposes, knowledge related to various spe-cies of wildlife, plants, land-use patterns, seasons, climate,hydrology, and geomorphology are included under specificenvironmental knowledge. This is the knowledge that is mostattractive to, and sought after by, non-aboriginal people foruse in EIA, harvest assessment, and environmental co-man-agement, as it is the most accessible and comprehensible interms of our Western system of knowledge.

Knowledge of the interactions and relationships betweenand among environmental components constitutes a secondcomponent of traditional ecological knowledge. The rela-tionship between specific environmental knowledge andecological knowledge is not unlike the differences betweenthe “species approach” and “ecosystems approach” of biolo-gists. The focus of the latter is on the relationships amongcomponents and the operation of the ecosystem, rather thanthe specific components themselves.

A code of ethics governing appropriate use of the environ-ment and the maintenance of appropriate ecosystem relation-ships constitutes a third category of knowledge subsumedunder TEK. Indeed, in the minds of many aboriginal elders,humans play a significant role in maintaining key ecosystemrelationships. This code includes rules and conventions prom-oting both desirable human–nature relationships and appro-priate human–human relationships, since aboriginal socialrelations and cultural identity were and continue, in part, to beestablished, reaffirmed, and validated primarily through pro-ductive activity on the land. It is this code of ethics componentof TEK which is easily blurred with knowledge subsumedunder the category “other traditional knowledge.”


Other Traditional Knowledge: Many aboriginal peoplehave acquired a rich and extensive base of traditional knowl-edge that, although not independent of ecological knowledge,does not require continual reference to or validation by it.Such knowledge includes that which traditionally informedemotional and physical well-being, customary social values,cultural practices, and spiritual beliefs (Fig. 1). Again, whileall aspects of indigenous knowledge are interconnected, andthus related to the natural environment, it is also important tounderstand the different contexts that give such knowledgemeaning and value.

The above discussion demonstrates that attempts to analyzeand dissect the knowledge systems of aboriginal people,however well intended, fail to capture the true richness,complexity, and contextuality of such systems. Efforts topigeonhole the various components of indigenous knowl-edge may be doomed from the start, simply because aborigi-nal people have traditionally held a holistic (or cosmocentric)view of the world. In this worldview, humans perceivethemselves as being one link—albeit an integral one—inmaintaining the balance of nature. Differences between tradi-tional aboriginal and Western scientific philosophies andknowledge systems are discussed below.

INDIGENOUS KNOWLEDGE INENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

How might indigenous knowledge and its various compo-nents, including TEK, be best incorporated into EIA in orderto satisfy both the needs of developers and the interests ofaboriginal people? This is the challenge faced by both parties.Unfortunately, many government agencies and nongovern-ment organizations view references to traditional knowledgein federal environmental guidelines as an opportunity to con-struct comprehensive regional databases of TEK for purposesof EIA. These knowledge bases would be used not only toassess the environmental impacts of the proposed project, butto fill in knowledge gaps identified by government and industry,and to evaluate the effects of subsequent developments.

However, this view is inadequate for two reasons. First, itfails to acknowledge that the ecological knowledge of abo-riginal people is contextual, dynamic, and forever beingrevised. Second, in this view, traditional ecological knowl-edge is given no role whatsoever in identifying VECs, im-pacts on these VECs, or knowledge gaps relevant to theseVECs. The ecological knowledge of aboriginal people shouldnot be a “handmaiden” to the needs and interests of thedominant culture; rather, it should play a predominant role inidentifying impacts and devising strategies to mitigate them.How this knowledge is collected, interpreted, and applied,and by whom, should remain under the exclusive control ofaboriginal groups who are in the best position to documentthis knowledge and to share it with outside interest groups, ifthey so choose.

TEK will undoubtedly contribute significantly to an overallunderstanding of environmental phenomena and ecological

relationships in areas of proposed northern developmentthroughout the circumpolar world. However, “full and equalconsideration” of both traditional knowledge and indigenousknowledge in EIA is difficult to achieve under current abo-riginal–nation state arrangements. This fact is well known tovarious co-management boards composed of aboriginal peo-ple and non-aboriginal managers: inevitably, the latter domost of the managing and the former most of the cooperating(ICC, 1994:17). With few exceptions, researchers and man-agers with little understanding of aboriginal cultures, reali-ties, or knowledge systems have taken the knowledge ofaboriginal people out of context. Forced to communicatetheir concepts and understandings of the environment andtheir place in it in the language of the dominant ideology (e.g.,wildlife management), aboriginal people are often placed ina subordinate position. Subsequently, it is easy for suchinformation to be reinterpreted or given a meaning differentfrom that which gave value and significance to such knowl-edge in the first place. Many aboriginal people view thisextraction of their knowledge from its original socioculturalcontext as a form of theft and, understandably, have beenreluctant to share the depth and breadth of their knowledgewith outsiders. Thus, attempts to document TEK by non-aboriginals have tended to result in either inventories ofelements or simple descriptions of natural processes couchedin scientific terms.

The incorporation of indigenous knowledge into environ-mental assessment and management has yet to progress to alevel that adequately realizes its potential value and contribu-tions to such activities. Often, only the “facts” or elements ofTEK, as they are perceived by managers, are incorporatedinto management decisions. At this level (Level 1 in Fig. 1),no consideration is given to the broader meaning or value ofthese facts in the context of a coherent, organized system ofecological thought and understanding. As interpretations ofthese facts are usually based on the dominant scientific mode,a significant power imbalance exists at this level.

Level 2 incorporates and uses for decision making theentire system of TEK, including both knowledge ofecosystemic relationships and the code of ethics and beliefsgoverning these relations (Fig. 1). Regrettably, very fewcooperative management plans and actions have progressedto this level. A notable exception is the co-management planthat was recently accepted by the Department of Fisheries andOceans (DFO) and the Nunavut Wildlife Management Boardto resolve fundamental disagreements between Inuit huntersand government biologists about the status of beluga whalesin the southeast Baffin area (DFO, 1994). In this plan, bothparties adopted new concepts and terms that facilitated mu-tual respect for each other’s perspectives and interpretations,and thus recognition of the role of Inuit ecological knowledgein resolving the issue.

Level 3 incorporates not just the system of TEK, but otheraspects of traditional knowledge (e.g., social rules, spirituality,health, etc.), and thus the entire system of holistic traditionalknowledge, including aboriginal wisdom and philosophy.Insofar as the latter constitutes a distinctive, complexly


articulated understanding of life and the world, piecemealextraction of knowledge from this context may alienateaboriginal people from their cultural roots, thus contributingto the erosion of cultural values and identities.

Finally, level 4 incorporates and uses as a basis for deci-sion making not just traditional knowledge, but alsonontraditional knowledge and the articulation of the two: inother words, all sources of indigenous knowledge. At thislevel, definitions and the validation of indigenous knowledgeby government and industry become irrelevant, for here theknowledge of aboriginal people is given full and equalconsideration, alongside scientific and engineering knowl-edge, in environmental assessment and management. As allother levels invite the misappropriation and decontext-ualization of indigenous knowledge from its cultural context,it is at this fourth level that the incorporation of the knowledgeof aboriginal people into EIA must take place.

The misrepresentation of TEK is the concern that liesbehind many aboriginal peoples’ reluctance to share theirknowledge in the context of EIA:

Since [we] indigenous peoples have our ownworldview…we feel that no industrial developer shouldbe expected to collect, interpret and present the views andconcerns, the knowledge, or the understanding ofindigenous peoples. Instead, indigenous peoples shouldbe given the opportunity to document and present ourcircumstances and our own evaluation of potential impactsfrom major developments on our people, culture, andlands.…When Western scientists include the knowledgeof selected local people in their studies, our people arepassive contributors, and our knowledge, removed fromour people’s worldview, is subjected to interpretationthrough the Western worldview. (Yellowknives DeneFirst Nation, 1995b:7, 8)

The potential to take the knowledge of aboriginal peopleout of context is also the reason that the Dene CulturalInstitute has advanced such a broad definition of TEK (DCI,1995a). However, not all indigenous knowledge is tradi-tional, and to say it is so places undue burden on developers,while shackling aboriginal people to their past. This canonly undermine the potential contributions of aboriginalpeople and their knowledge to environmental assessment andmanagement.

Realizing the Contributions of Aboriginal People andTheir Knowledge to EIA

Although TEK may contribute to an overall understandingof the environmental impacts of a proposed project, itsdocumentation in a careless and insensitive manner may alsocontribute to the alienation of aboriginal people from thevery systems of knowledge, social practices, and culturalframeworks they seek to preserve. On the other hand, fullercontributions of aboriginal people and their knowledge toenvironmental assessment and management can be realized

by 1) having aboriginal people document their concerns,including the reasons for such concerns, about the anticipatedenvironmental, social, and economic impacts of a proposedproject; 2) mitigating these concerns to the satisfaction ofboth the aboriginal people of the region and federal regula-tions; and 3) designing specific programs to fully involveaboriginal people and incorporate their knowledge into sub-sequent monitoring of VECs and managing of impacts overthe long term (Fig. 2).

FIG. 2. The phases and roles of various components of indigenous knowledgein environmental assessment and management.

Phase One: The involvement of aboriginal people andincorporation of their knowledge into EIA in the North beginswhen those aboriginal communities most directly affected byproposed development identify what is important to them andwhy. In other words, it starts with the identification of valuedecosystem components (VECs) from an aboriginal perspec-tive. The process of determining these VECs begins withcommunity consultations and continues through to a directexchange of information between developers and with targetgroups and individuals selected by the community membersthemselves.

This process allows the range of concerns expressed byaboriginal communities about these VECs to be properlydocumented. By documenting their concerns, aboriginal peo-ple participate directly and effectively in impact predictionand assessment. Concerns, as noted above, are based on whatpeople know, what they have experienced, or what they fearmight happen in the future. Moreover, this process does notarbitrarily limit the contributions of aboriginal people in EIA


TraditionalKnowledge

NontraditionalKnowledge

TraditionalEcologicalKnowledge

OtherTraditional

Knowledge(social, cultural, spiritual)

SpecificKnowledge

of Environment

Knowledgeof Ecosystem

Relations

Code ofEthics

governingEcosystemRelations

Use indigenous knowledge in long-term environmentalmonitoring and management of VECs, and to distinguish

project-related changes from natural environmental changes

Address concerns and mitigate environmentaland socioeconomic impacts on VECs

Identify environmental and socioeconomic VECs and assessimpacts on these by documenting aboriginal concerns

Phase 3

Phase 2

Phase 1


to “traditional knowledge,” as current regulations do. Rather,it enables them, if they so choose, to share all relevantindigenous knowledge. Aboriginal people also remain incontrol of this knowledge and share only that which informstheir concerns and possible impacts, considerably reducingthe potential for a developer to misrepresent or misappropri-ate indigenous knowledge. Finally, this process affords thedeveloper an excellent opportunity to grasp and understandthe reasons for these concerns, especially those based onTEK, and the impacts proposed development activities willhave on aboriginal lands and lifestyles.

Often, the priorities of industry, government, and aborigi-nal communities will be the same. Sometimes, however, theymay differ. For example, maintaining a wilderness experi-ence is important to many conservation groups, but it isfrequently of less concern to aboriginal people who stillderive an income and living from their lands. Where conflictexists, it is aboriginal people who should prevail. While theneeds and interests of government and industry should carrysome weight, the ranking of VECs and mitigation prioritiesshould be determined by those most directly affected bydevelopment.

Phase Two: After those most directly affected by northerndevelopment have identified what is important to them andwhy, the developer should design measures to mitigate anypotential negative effects on these VECs. This phase repre-sents a concerted effort by the developer to address theenvironmental and socioeconomic concerns of aboriginalpeople identified in Phase One. Again, aboriginal people andtheir knowledge will play significant roles in designing suchmeasures:

Because we look at the land differently from people whowant to take resources out of it, our values reflect ourresponsibility to protect the land for ourselves and futuregenerations. We feel that our values will be useful foridentifying biophysical impacts. We also know that, amongour traditional ways of working on the land, we can findways to reduce some of these impacts. (YellowknivesDene First Nation, 1995b:8)

Although, many concerns may be addressed as they aredocumented, some problems will undoubtedly require moretime to solve satisfactorily, especially when there are knowl-edge gaps, or indigenous knowledge disagrees with Westernscientific knowledge, or the experiences and informed opin-ions of aboriginal people differ. To obtain enough knowl-edge, either indigenous or scientific or both, to adequatelyaddress aboriginal concerns about proposed development,developers will require the understanding and cooperation ofthe aboriginal people of the region. This can be achieved byforming partnerships with aboriginal communities that willensure a true balance of power in decision making andcontribution of knowledge, especially in regard to identifyingimpacts and devising solutions for their mitigation.

Phase Three: The final stage in this process concentrateson indigenous knowledge relevant to monitoring and

managing impacts on these VECs. Incorporating indigenousknowledge into the process of environmental assessment andmanagement does not end with documenting that knowledgeor with resolving the concerns of aboriginal people. Rather,these steps should initiate a program that involves aboriginalpeople, knowledge, and expertise fully and meaningfully incompleting the environmental assessment process, monitor-ing VECs, and managing the long-term environmental andsocioeconomic impacts of a project. Aboriginal representa-tives, not government or industry, should determine theextent of their own participation and the inclusion of theirknowledge and expertise in this phase.

As proposed, these tasks constitute a multiphased ap-proach designed to realize the full contributions of aboriginalpeople and their knowledge to EIA. The focus is not ontraditional knowledge, as this emphasis creates a potentiallyexploitive situation that restricts the contributions of aborigi-nal people and their knowledge to environmental assessmentand management. Rather, by identifying VECs, assessingimpacts on these VECs, designing strategies for their mitiga-tion, and participating in the long-term monitoring of impactson these VECs, aboriginal people and their knowledge willassume full and integral roles in all stages of EIA.

Aboriginal People and Indigenous Knowledge inEnvironmental Monitoring and Management

Aboriginal people feel that their participation in environ-mental monitoring and management is warranted becausethey have a vested interest in and an in-depth knowledge oftheir lands and communities:

I think it’s a good idea to have people involved …becausethey’re the ones that have the most to gain and the most tolose.… (McWilliam, 1995:9)

They understand the conditions and the environmentbetter than somebody from down south. They have a betteridea of the environmental conditions and the weather ingeneral. (Metis elder; BHP Diamonds Inc. 1995: AppendixI-A7, p. 11)

The knowledge and insights of aboriginal people whohave already experienced the impacts of mining and otherindustrial activities may be especially useful in predicting,assessing, and managing specific and cumulative impacts.Aboriginal people often possess a richer and more detailedunderstanding of the environment than outsiders, as theyhave had more extensive contact with the land. TEK may beespecially valuable in distinguishing project-related impactsfrom natural changes in the environment. Because of theirdirect experiences on the land and their oral traditions,aboriginal elders often possess TEK that has been handeddown through many generations. Thus, they may be in anespecially favourable position to assess whether systemicchanges in local environments are project-related or simplynatural variation. Aboriginal elders with extensive local


ecological knowledge may be especially cognizant of subtle,but significant, changes to ecosystem relationships. Theymay also know when environmental change may be moreapparent rather than real.

An example from Tuktoyaktuk illustrates the last point.Under the auspices of the Arctic Environmental StrategyContaminants Program, the Inuit Tapirisat of Canada con-ducted a study on local perceptions of contaminants in coun-try food in three Inuit communities, including Tuktoyaktuk(Usher et al., 1995). Numerous community residents attrib-uted recent changes perceived in the quality, abundance, anddistribution of fish, caribou, ptarmigan, and berries to pollu-tion by the petroleum industry. However, most elders, whoseknowledge and experiences had the greatest time-depth, feltthat these environmental changes were just part of the naturalorder of things.

Aboriginal elders and resource users may also know thelocation and timing of a host of significant biological events.Seasons are often defined precisely and locally by a complexseries of predictable changes in weather, tides, breedingcycles, and migrations. For example, in some areas of theeastern Canadian Arctic, their knowledge of tides and lunarcycles allows the Inuit to forecast biological and behaviouralchanges in animal populations (M. Kilabuk, pers. comm.,1994). Another example of the temporal component of TEKcomes from the Keewatin region of the Northwest Territo-ries, where biologists in the 1970s claimed that the Kaminuriakherd had decreased to such an extent that it could no longersupport existing levels of hunting by aboriginal people.Although aboriginal people disagreed, claiming that therewere far more caribou in this herd than the number counted,strict hunting regulations were being considered when biolo-gists discovered, in their next count, that this herd hadincreased by several orders of magnitude (Usher, 1993).

Monitoring of specific and cumulative impacts on VECsmeans establishing plans designed to maintain the integrityof these components. Often the richest and most detailed TEKis documented when aboriginal people can share this knowl-edge while engaged in the land-based activity in question.Because aboriginal people know this, they generally prefer toshare their knowledge in the context of “doing” rather than“retelling.” The contribution of aboriginal people to monitor-ing will be further enhanced when elders and resource usersnot directly involved in monitoring are consulted and theirknowledge is brought to bear on the current status of environ-mental VECs. A developer’s monitoring efforts must there-fore include plans aimed at refining knowledge of VECs andtheir linkages through the use of TEK, and documentingbaseline TEK on natural cyclical changes and variation inthese ecosystem components and their relationships over abroad time scale.

An Example of the Way Things Could Be: ManagingCaribou and Human Relationships in the Lac de Gras Area:Indigenous knowledge of the distributions, characteristics,and relationships of various aquatic features, terrestrial habi-tats, plants, and animals in a particular region can also provideeffective strategies and shortcuts for developers wishing to

maintain VECs and critical ecosystem relationships (Johannes,1993). In regard to the Bathurst caribou, one of the key VECsidentified in the context of BHP Diamonds Inc.’s environ-mental impact assessment, many aboriginal people wereconcerned not just about the individual effects on caribou ofnew roads, increased air and road traffic, oil or fuel spills,noise and air pollution, increased hunting pressure, and watercontamination, but also about the cumulative effects of theseimpacts. The value of this caribou herd to the Dene of theregion is evident in the following statement to the FederalEnvironmental Assessment Panel for the BHP Diamondsproject:

We have one of the largest caribou herds in the world whohave always been here. Are we destined to experience thedevastation that First Nations in the South have livedthrough with the decimation of their buffalo? When thecaribou disappear, it is only a matter of time before wealso disappear. (Erasmus, 1995:2)

Given the value of the Bathurst caribou herd to contempo-rary aboriginal society and economy in the region, it isparticularly important to monitor the effects of mining activ-ity on caribou during the spring and fall migrations, whenthey are travelling through the Lac de Gras area. Extensivemonitoring will be needed to assess the full effects of miningon the broader patterns of caribou movement and behaviourin the region, especially with respect to grazing areas andmigration routes. However, some of this work may be obviatedby the use of indigenous knowledge and the fact that aborigi-nal resource users are particularly cognizant of the reproduc-tive success of caribou as an indicator of cumulative stress:

My concern is that we’re going to end up with lessenedcaribou and their reproduction will probably decrease asthe result of being stressed and being moved and whatever...And, like I said again, I’m not an expert on any of this, soI’m only guessing on what I have seen in the past.(McWilliam, 1995:5)

Indigenous people who depend upon caribou have exten-sive knowledge of the health of this animal and can deter-mine, by examining the condition of caribou and observingtheir movements and behaviours, whether they are understress. Seasonal observations and harvest assessments, in-cluding visual assessments of the internal organs of Bathurstcaribou by the aboriginal people of the region could thus helpdetermine the levels of stress to which this herd is subjected.

TEK research undertaken in the context of the BHP Dia-monds Inc. Environmental Impact Statement (1995) hasestablished that 1) the migratory patterns and behavior of theBathurst caribou are locally unpredictable and highly vari-able from year to year; 2) two major migration corridors crossthe Lac de Gras region, along the north and south sides of thelake; and 3) the area between the southeast end of Lac de Grasand the north end of MacKay Lake, known to the Dene asEk’ati, is attractive to both caribou and humans.


Aboriginal people and their knowledge could contribute tomanaging the effects of mining activities on caribou byhelping to 1) determine the importance of the Lac de Gras areato the Bathurst caribou herd over a broad time scale; 2)identify important migratory corridors and critical habitatswithin the project area; 3) determine the range of variabilityin the size and composition of caribou aggregations at spe-cific times and locations; 4) identify specific spatial andtemporal grazing patterns and the importance of various plantspecies to caribou in the area; 5) determine the effects ofsmoke and other man-made emissions on caribou behaviour(DCI, 1995b); and 6) enlist traditional methods to divertcaribou from potentially threatening sites and situations. Inregard to the last point, aboriginal people have been engagedto evaluate a number of diversionary tactics, both modern andtraditional (BHP Diamonds Inc., 1995).

Monitoring and Managing Social and Economic Impacts

Environmental management for sustainable developmentin the North requires special attention to social, cultural, andeconomic VECs. The ways in which aboriginal people per-ceive, use, and allocate natural resources bear directly uponhow they traditionally maintained or may wish to maintaintheir society and cultural identity. As hunting, fishing, trap-ping, and other land-based activities continue to secure andvalidate social relationships crucial to aboriginal survival,any environmental impact may also adversely affect socialrelationships (cf. Freeman et al., 1992). For example, socialrelations may be seriously strained if the Bathurst caribouherd is significantly reduced. The hunting and sharing ofcaribou remains one of the few traditional activities thataboriginal people continue to employ to “put food in thefreezer,” establish and renew social relationships, fulfillsocial obligations, and reaffirm their cultural identity andspiritual and physical connections to the land. The loss of thisherd might prove devastating to aboriginal people who de-pend heavily upon it.

The environmental effects of proposed mines in the Northwill have social, cultural and economic repercussions in andamong aboriginal communities. This would undoubtedly beso if aboriginal people were deprived of the opportunity toform productive social relationships within the context ofland-based activities. However, the effects of increased per-sonal income and family separation, the loss of youth andother productive people to the mines, and increased cross-cultural interaction may have more immediate impacts thatwill require mitigation. In regard to the proposed BHP Dia-monds mine, aboriginal people have suggested that commu-nity counsellors be hired to alleviate the social problems thatcould result from increased employment:

You are never gonna prevent them [social problems].What you can do is help minimize them. I think if [BHP]are really serious about helping in the community andincreasing productivity of their employees, [they should]hire a full-time family guidance counsellor. Somebody

who’s gonna go door to door and talk to all these people,when their husbands are out, to make sure everything’so.k. And go by their place twice a week or something andvisit around people and say how’s it going, you needanything or is there anything we can do to help you?…That’s what they’re gonna need…a full-time guidancecounsellor because also this guidance counsellor couldhelp with how to spend their money, help to deal withnegative effects. (Adamache, 1995:8)

But, in aboriginal communities where employment oppor-tunities are few, increased income may also have significantpositive impacts, providing people with not only the incomeand opportunity to maintain their traditional land-based life-styles, but a sense of purpose and self-esteem:

This [BHP] mine is going to help us socially. It will giveus money to travel south and see the world. I have boughta house now. The mine has helped me to set higher socialstandards. I am going back to school. My self-esteem ishigher.…I like the feeling of independence. (BHPDiamonds Inc., 1995:Appendix IV-C2, p. 11)

In recognition of the effects, both positive and negative,that the NWT Diamonds Project may have on aboriginalcommunities, BHP has hired a family life educator to assistlocal efforts to deal effectively and productively with theseeffects (BHP Diamonds Inc., 1995). Eventually this workshould allow aboriginal communities to identify the mostappropriate and effective strategies to maximize benefits forfamily and community, while minimizing negative effects.

Controlling the Research Agenda

Federal environmental guidelines have placed northerndevelopers in a difficult position by requiring that efforts toinclude traditional knowledge into EIA must satisfy aborigi-nal interests. Increasingly, research on aboriginal lands in theNorth is being controlled by aboriginal groups. And this is asit should be. For too long, outsiders have set the researchagenda to satisfy their own needs and interests, rather thanthose of the people and communities that make this researchpossible. As noted above, the proprietary rights to the knowl-edge of aboriginal people and how it is collected, interpreted,and used rests in aboriginal hands alone. Participatory actionresearch (PAR) has developed as a process to ensure thataboriginal communities control the local research agenda.PAR can also provide an excellent opportunity for youngpeople to gain an understanding and appreciation of theirculture, as well as the science and culture of researchers(Legat, 1994).

PAR is an important step in empowering aboriginal com-munities, for it can play a critical role in documenting andapplying TEK. However, exclusive control by either party ofthe traditional knowledge research agenda in the context ofEIA serves no one’s interests. If the agenda is set by thedeveloper, many of the fears expressed by aboriginal groups


about the decontextualization and misuse of their knowledgewill undoubtedly come to pass. On the other hand, if theaboriginal community maintains exclusive control over theTEK research agenda, dictating to developers what knowl-edge they may have, the latter may not be able to meet federalrequirements or access that knowledge most useful for EIA.For instance, in the documenting of traditional knowledge,some community voices with much to contribute may bemuted; the knowledge of elders may be favoured over that ofother aboriginal people who have more direct experiencewith the possible effects of activities proposed by the devel-oper, or men’s knowledge may be favoured over women’s.Just as developers cannot demand access to the knowledgethey require from aboriginal people, the latter should notdictate exclusively to developers the research agenda. Thus,as long as the requirement of traditional knowledge remainsin federal guidelines, an uneasy relationship and powerstruggle will prevail between those who have the knowledgeand those who need it.

One way to resolve this dilemma is to abandon the conceptof traditional knowledge in EIA in favour of that of indig-enous knowledge, while letting aboriginal people assumeresponsibility for identifying, assessing, and monitoring ef-fects on their lands and lifestyles. Mitigation, contingent onaboriginal approval, should be the developers’ responsibility.In this way, all the knowledge that aboriginal people possess,not just traditional knowledge, can potentially be brought tobear on environmental assessment and management. Moreo-ver, a productive partnership, with a true balance of powerbetween developers and aboriginal people, will be forged,fostered, and maintained.

TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE AND WESTERNSCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE SYSTEMS

Viewing traditional knowledge as one component, albeitan integral one, of indigenous knowledge was not intended todevalue its potential contributions to EIA. Rather, it was toelucidate a process for maximizing the full contributions ofaboriginal people and their entire knowledge base to allstages of environmental assessment and management. Tradi-tional knowledge is the intellectual product of countlessgenerations of direct observation and intuitive experiencehanded down through oral tradition. As such, it has a vital roleto play in EIA, but only in the broader context of theapplication of indigenous knowledge, which is the articula-tion and frequently the synthesis of traditional andnontraditional knowledge.

Many definitions have been advanced for traditionalknowledge. However, for northern aboriginal people whosecultures and identities are still constructed from their physicaland spiritual connection to the land, definitions are lessimportant than either the right to practise what they know andhold to be true, or the ability to participate in decisions thataffect their future. Unfortunately, these are being compro-mised by many factors, including the imposition of Western

science on aboriginal people (Gamble, 1986; Cashman, 1991).Although traditional knowledge and Western scientific knowl-edge are products of a similar intellectual process of creatingorder out of disorder (Berkes, 1993), both are culturallyscripted and biased. For example, a growing body of litera-ture describes the ways in which gender-based dominancerelationships and Western values have been programmedinto the production, scope, and structure of scientific knowl-edge (see Cashman, 1991 for sources). In other words,Western scientific knowledge is generated largely by and formales cultured in the scientific tradition. As a result, thevoices of women and aboriginal peoples are often muted, andtheir knowledge systems subsequently pre-empted by scien-tific knowledge. This is unfortunate, as alternative realitiescan provide unique perspectives and insights on environmen-tal assessment and management. Realizing that differentcultures have different ways of understanding, perceiving,experiencing, and, in sum, defining reality (Cashman, 1991:49)is fundamental to understanding the strengths of traditionalknowledge and Western scientific knowledge, and thus theirpotential contributions to environmental management.

Just as it is difficult to separate traditional knowledge fromits cultural context, Western scientific knowledge cannot bedivorced from the broader context in which it operates. Thus,clarification of the differences between traditional and West-ern scientific knowledge must be preceded by a discussion ofthe broader contexts of each. The philosophical, cultural,social, and other dimensions that distinguish these contextsand give meaning and value to each system of knowledge arepresented in Table 1.

These are generalizations to be sure, and not all peoplewith each worldview possess the same combinations offeatures that make up their frames of reference. Yet, many ofthese features are inseparable and only derive meaning andvalue from within their respective contexts. Thus, theseworldviews are internally coherent, and their features form asystem. One can appreciate how, for example, materialismand wealth accumulation go hand in hand with saving andconcern for the future, but not with sharing, wealth distribu-tion, and an emphasis on the present. While these differencesare perhaps relevant to understanding other worldviews, it isobvious that traditional and scientific knowledge are con-structed from different contextual frameworks.

The importance of context for understanding and commu-nicating knowledge in northern aboriginal society cannot beoverstated. As meaning for many aboriginal people is derivedas much from the context of communication itself as from theinformation communicated, it is important to understand thedifferences between what is being communicated and thesituation in which the communication takes place. For manyaboriginal people, experience is knowledge and knowledge isexperience. Thus, knowledge has to be constructed for eachindividual, and is not easily shared among individuals unlessthere is a mutual understanding and appreciation of thatexperience. This is why, for example, it is difficult fornorthern aboriginal people to communicate to outsiders whattraditional knowledge is, and why it is equally as hard for


TABLE 1. A sample of features that distinguish the worldviews in which traditional knowledge and Western scientific knowledge areembedded. Adapted and expanded from Lalonde (1993), Tanner (1979), and Wolfe et al. (1992), among others.

Traditional Aboriginal Values and Orientations Western Values and Orientations

individual, extended family, and group concern individual and immediate family concernsmall group size large group sizecooperation competitionholistic view of nature homocentric view of naturepartnership with nature exploitation of naturerenewable resource economy nonrenewable resource economysharing by all of land and resources private ownership of land and resourcessharing and wealth distribution saving and wealth accumulationfocus on the present focus on the futurenonmaterialistic orientation materialistic orientationtime measurement in natural cycles, e.g., seasons time measurement in small, arbitrary unitspractical, intuitive thinking theoretical thinking, prone to abstractionface-to-face government and politics representative democracyegalitarian organization hierarchical organizationage and wisdom valued youth and beauty valuedhigh group esteem, lower self-esteem high self-esteem, lower group esteemmodesty and reserve confidence and noisinesspatience: problems will be resolved in time impatience: problems resolved quickly

non-aboriginals to understand and appreciate how that knowl-edge can be used in environmental assessment and manage-ment. This is also perhaps why aboriginal people have beenreluctant generally to share their experiential observations withoutsiders.

Northern aboriginal societies can be categorized as pos-sessing “high-context” communication systems as they relymore on context for meaning (Hall, 1977). Conversely,Western society has been described as being “low-context,”because it is more reliant on information to provide meaningand understanding. Anthropologists sometimes experiencethis dilemma while interviewing an aboriginal elder, when aninterpreter translates a lengthy response to a question in a fewwords. What is frequently translated in such situations is onlythe information content within the communication, which theinterpreter feels answers the question of the non-aboriginal,but not the context which gives meaning and value to suchinformation from the perspective of the speaker. This isanother reason why the potential to misrepresent or misusetraditional knowledge by those who do not understand orappreciate the context in which it is embedded is great.

Traditional knowledge differs from Western scientificknowledge in a number of substantive ways. Many anthro-pologists (e.g., Wolfe et al., 1992; Berkes, 1993; Lalonde,1993) have concluded that traditional knowledge, in com-parison with scientific knowledge, is:

• intuitive and holistic, as opposed to analytical,reductionistic and law-seeking

• qualitative, as opposed to quantitative• moral, as opposed to supposedly value-free• subjective and experiential, as opposed to objective and

positivist• inclusive, as opposed to decisive• inconclusive and internally differentiating, as opposed

to conclusive and externally differentiating• slow to create, as opposed to fast and selective

• broad in time and narrow in geographic focus, as opposedto narrow in time and broad in geographic focus

• open to spiritual explanation, as opposed to mechanisticexplanation.

There are exceptions to these generalizations. For ex-ample, ecological sciences often use holistic approaches,and occasionally produce diachronic data relevant to un-derstanding natural variation (Berkes, 1993). However,most aboriginal hunters do not commit “hard” numbers tomemory, since knowing the precise number of animalspresent has not been considered necessary for the successof the hunters or their groups (Usher and Wenzel, 1987).Very precise observations about the condition, health, andindividual and group behaviours of animals, on the otherhand, are more important knowledge for hunters to obtain.Those qualitative factors that affect success or failure ofhunting, rather than quantitative measurements of animalsthemselves, have traditionally been considered important(Usher and Wenzel, 1987). Thus, hunters often acquireextensive knowledge about specific species and all thevariables that influence their availability, behaviours,movements, and interrelationships within the surroundingenvironment. It is no longer true, if it ever was true inenvironmental assessment, that the only things that countare those things that can be counted. Numerical and other“hard” data represent only a small portion of the total bodyof knowledge that aboriginal resource-users can observe,commit to memory, and contribute to sound environmen-tal management strategies.

That said, many aboriginal peoples are reluctant to gener-alize readily about the natural world of which they are a part.Their experience with the complexity of animals and knowl-edge of the dynamics of ecosystems tells them that suchexercises are futile indeed. While TEK is markedly slowerthan science in terms of the speed at which knowledge isconstructed, any environmental facts which aboriginal people


hold to be true, or “truths,” are generally regarded to be justthat. “Rules of thumb” and general principles for livingdeveloped from these truths and enforced by social andcultural means are in many ways just as good as scientificprescriptions (Gadgil and Berkes, 1991).

On the basis of their accumulated knowledge andexperiences, aboriginal people have developed an extensivebody of informal or intuitive knowledge that can be broughtto bear on environmental assessment and management. Thestrengths of indigenous knowledge systems in EIA lie in thefact that they are designed to incorporate complexity, expanddetail, and include, rather than eliminate, phenomena thatcannot be explained (Wolfe et al., 1992). Rather than reduc-ing information into condensing or summarizing categories,indigenous knowledge sees inclusive groupings with internaldifferentiation (Wolfe et al., 1992). The perceptive documen-tation and use of TEK can thus provide new insights into keyVECs and ecosystem relationships, streamlining researchefforts and saving money in the long run. Finally, aboriginalpeople are often able to assess the true costs and benefits ofdevelopment better than outsiders because of their extensive,time-tested, in-depth knowledge of the natural environment(Berkes, 1993).

However, indigenous knowledge and Western science arecomplementary, not replacements for each other (Berkes,1993), a fact recognized by many aboriginal people:

Today the world is different than it was when the Elderswere young. Aboriginal people need to create a newbalance that incorporates significant scientific knowledge.Southern scientists cannot simply impose their views.They must be interlinked. Water chemistry is an areawhere scientists know more than we do. How dry is dry?How wet is wet? Scientific knowledge is good atquantifying impacts. It depends on the question what theappropriate blend of traditional and scientific knowledgeshould be at any given time. (BHP Diamonds Inc., 1995:Appendix IV-C2, p. 25)

The analytical capabilities of Western science are in-valuable for assessing and managing environmental im-pacts. The ability of scientists to reduce the number ofvariables involved (even though such reduction may con-flict with aboriginal perceptions), quickly identify im-pacts and isolate their causes, and measure and managechange are some of the greatest strengths science can bringto EIA. Nonetheless, the practical difficulties of applyingscience in a rigorous manner are numerous. Some of themore obvious are 1) the integrated nature of environmentalissues versus the artificial fragmentation of areas of re-sponsibility, knowledge, and action; 2) the tendency tosubstitute observation and data for understanding andwisdom; and 3) the reluctance to deal with the difficultproblem of relating natural processes over a range of timeand space scales (Roots, 1994).

At the same time, since indigenous knowledge generationdoes not use the same methods of data collection, storage,

analysis, and interpretation as scientific knowledge, scien-tists often have great difficulty in acknowledging the validityof knowledge generated in other ways and rethinking group-ings so as to uncover basic organizing principles which areunfamiliar (Wolfe et al., 1992).

The Acceptance of Scientific Knowledge by AboriginalPeople

At this point, the role of Western scientific knowledge inaddressing and mitigating the concerns that aboriginal peoplemight have about proposed developments should be clarified.Western scientific knowledge is not inimical to aboriginalworldviews, but the potential for incongruence is consider-able. Nonetheless, traditional knowledge can inform scien-tific knowledge, and vice versa. In regard to the possiblearticulation of TEK and environmental science, when abo-riginal hunters say that animals will continually be replen-ished if hunted, they speak to facts that are well-establishedin the biological sciences. For example, Inuit believe thatbeluga belonging to hunted populations will grow faster,have more blubber, and have less disease than those associ-ated with nonhunted populations (DFO, 1994). Aboriginalpeople may feel comfortable with scientific explanation if itdoes not conflict with or undermine their knowledge.

The potential for aboriginal people to accept or rejectsocial scientific explanation of their social problems andconcerns is just as great. However, this depends upon thescientific paradigm being proposed. Traditional approacheshave failed largely because they focused on the individual asthe source of his or her self-defeating behaviours, rather thanon the oppressive social, economic, and political conditionsin which many aboriginal people often have to live (Morgaine,1992). Social science approaches that view aboriginal peopleas capable of selecting and controlling any social changes tobe made, i.e, of becoming architects in reconstructing theseconditions, are more likely to gain acceptance (Morgaine, 1992).

CONCLUSION

The intention of this paper was not to debase traditionalknowledge. Rather, it was to advance a process by which tomaximize its full contributions, and those of aboriginal peo-ple and all their knowledge, to EIA. The potential to misrep-resent and misuse traditional knowledge is great when thatknowledge is separated from the broader system of knowl-edge and the cultural context that give it meaning and value.Thus, the concept of traditional knowledge in EIA makes itimpossible to avoid problems for people who possess thisknowledge and for developers who are required to consider itwhen assessing the impacts of their activities on aboriginallands, economies, and societies. As long as this requirementremains in federal guidelines, an uneasy relationship willprevail between those who have the knowledge and thosewho need it. One way of resolving this conundrum is not tofocus on traditional knowledge per se, but to incorporate the


entire knowledge system of aboriginal people into all stagesof EIA, while accepting them as integral players in theidentification, assessment, mitigation, and monitoring ofenvironmental and socioeconomic impacts.

Increasingly, the value of traditional knowledge in north-ern environmental assessment is being recognized. However,realization of its role in EIA will remain elusive if it continuesto be taken out of context and aboriginal people continue tobe regarded as just another “stakeholder.” This is why it isincumbent upon government and industry to abandon oldconcepts and explore new ways to involve aboriginal peopleand incorporate their knowledge into EIA. Only through theformation of true power-sharing relationships, in which bothparties provide equal contributions of knowledge and exper-tise to apply this knowledge, will aboriginal people andindustry mutually benefit from northern development.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I wish to thank Dr. Milton Freeman for his continuing supportand encouragement during the formative stages of this paper.Recognition is also due to Clem Pelletier, Bruce Turner, and otherBHP and Rescan employees and staff for their assistance in carryingout the traditional knowledge component of BHP Diamonds Inc.’sEnvironmental Impact Statement. For their help in facilitating thedocumentation of the concerns that various aboriginal people andgroups had about the proposed NWT Diamonds Project, I wouldlike to thank Angel Kuliktana, Chris Hanks, and Gordon Lennie. Aspecial thanks is extended to Dene National Chief Bill Erasmus forallowing me to access the traditional land-use information containedwithin the Dene Mapping Project database. The comments of Drs.F. Berkes, Milton Freeman, and Karen McCullough, and of MarthaJohnson and two anonymous reviewers on an earlier draft of thispaper have helped to sharpen the final product. Finally, I would liketo thank those Dene, Inuit, and Metis who voiced their concerns andshared their knowledge in the context of BHP’s traditional know-ledge research for its Environmental Impact Statement.

REFERENCES

ADAMACHE, B. 1995. Transcribed interview for BHP DiamondsInc. traditional knowledge project. Available from KitikmeotInuit Association, Coppermine, Northwest Territories X0E 0E0,Canada.

BERKES, F. 1993. Traditional ecological knowledge in perspective.In: Inglis, J.T., ed., Traditional ecological knowledge: Conceptsand cases. Ottawa: Canadian Museum of Nature. 1 –9.

BHP DIAMOND MINE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTPANEL. 1995. Final guidelines for the preparation of anenvironmental impact assessment. Available from BHP DiamondMine Environmental Assessment Panel, Information Office,2nd floor, 5-5120 49th St., Yellowknife, Northwest TerritoriesX1A 1P8, Canada.

(BHP) BHP DIAMONDS INC. 1995. NWT Diamonds project:Environmental impact statement. Vancouver: BHP Diamonds

Inc. and Dia Met Minerals. 4 volumes and 4 appendices. Availablefrom BHP Diamonds Inc., 1050 West Pender St., Suite 1600,Vancouver, British Columbia V6E 3S7, Canada.

CASHMAN, S. 1991. Systems of knowledge as systems ofdomination: The limitations of established meaning. Agricultureand Human Values (Winter-Spring) 1991:49 –58.

(DCI) DENE CULTURAL INSTITUTE. 1995a. Writtensubmission to the BHP Diamond Mine EnvironmentalAssessment Panel, 6 April 1995. Available from BHPDiamond Mine Environmental Assessment Panel, InformationOffice, 2nd floor, 5-5120 49th St., Yellowknife, NorthwestTerritories X1A 1P8, Canada.

———. 1995b. Tlicho Nde: The importance of knowing. Reportprepared for the Dogrib Treaty 11 Council and BHP DiamondsInc., June 1995. In: BHP Diamonds Inc. 1995: Appendix I-A7.

(DFO) DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES AND OCEANS. 1994.Co-management plan for southeast Baffin beluga. Winnipeg:Freshwater Institute, Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

ERASMUS, B. 1995. Written presentation to the BHP DiamondMine Environmental Assessment Panel, Yellowknife, N.W.T.Available from BHP Diamond Mine Environmental AssessmentPanel, Information Office, 2nd floor, 5-5120 49th St.,Yellowknife, Northwest Territories X1A 1P8, Canada.

FREEMAN, M.M.R., WEIN, E.E., and KEITH, D.E. 1992.Recovering rights: Bowhead whales and Inuvialuit subsistencein the western Canadian Arctic. Edmonton: CanadianCircumpolar Institute and Fisheries Joint ManagementCommittee.

GADGIL, M., and BERKES, F. 1991. Traditional resourcemanagement systems. Resource Management and Optimization18:127 –141.

GAMBLE, D. 1986. Crushing of cultures: Western applied sciencein northern societies. Arctic 39:20 –23.

GOMBAY, N. 1995. Bowheads and bureaucrats: Indigenousknowledge and natural resource management in Nunavut.Unpubl. Master’s thesis, Environmental and Resource Studies,University of Waterloo.

HALL, E.T. 1977. Beyond culture. Garden City, New York: AnchorPress and Doubleday.

(ICC) INUIT CIRCUMPOLAR CONFERENCE. 1993. Theparticipation of indigenous people and the application of theirenvironmental and ecological knowledge in the ArcticEnvironmental Protection Strategy: A report on findings. Ottawa:Inuit Circumpolar Conference, Canada.

———. 1994. Circumpolar sustainable development. Ottawa: InuitCircumpolar Conference, Canada.

JOHANNES, R.E. 1993. Integrating traditional ecologicalknowledge and management with environmental impact assess-ment. In: Inglis, J.T., ed. Traditional ecological knowledge: Con-cepts and cases. Ottawa: Canadian Museum of Nature. 33 –39.

LALONDE, A., 1993. African indigenous knowledge and itsrelevance to sustainable development. In: Inglis, J.T., ed. Trad-itional ecological knowledge: Concepts and cases. Ottawa:Canadian Museum of Nature. 55 –62.

LEGAT, A. 1994. Participatory action research in Rae Lakes,N.W.T.: The traditional government project. Information North20(2):1 –4.


McWILLIAM, I. 1995. Transcribed interview for BHP DiamondsInc. traditional knowledge project. Available from KitikmeotInuit Association, Coppermine, Northwest Territories X0E 0E0,Canada.

MIGWI, J. 1995. Verbal presentation to the BHP Diamond MineEnvironmental Assessment Panel, Rae-Edzo, N.W.T. Availablefrom BHP Diamond Mine Environmental Assessment Panel,Information Office, 2nd floor, 5-5120 49th St., Yellowknife,Northwest Territories X1A 1P8, Canada.

MIYOK, J.R. 1995. Transcribed interview for BHP Diamonds Inc.traditional knowledge project. Available from Kitikmeot InuitAssociation, Coppermine, Northwest Territories X0E 0E0,Canada.

MORGAINE, C.A. 1992. Helping people change themselves: Acritical approach to family life education. In: Riewe, R., andOakes, J., eds. Human ecology. Edmonton: CanadianCircumpolar Institute. 69 –79.

ROOTS, F. 1994. Some concepts and issues surrounding the placeof science in assessment of impacts on the environment. In:Higgs, E., Richardson, M., and Riewe, R., eds. The role ofscience in environmental impact assessment. Edmonton:Workshop proceedings published by Athabasca University andthe Canadian Circumpolar Institute. 1– 10.

TANNER, A. 1979. Bringing home animals: Religious ideologyand mode of production of the Mistassini Cree hunters. St.John’s, Newfoundland: Memorial University Press.

UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON ENVIRONMENT ANDDEVELOPMENT, 1992. Agenda 21. New York: The UnitedNations Conference on Environment and Development.

USHER, P.J. 1993. The Beverly-Kaminuriak caribou managementboard: An experience in co-management. In: Inglis, J.T., ed.Traditional ecological knowledge: Concepts and cases. Ottawa:Canadian Museum of Nature. 111 –120.

USHER, P.J., and WENZEL, G. 1987. Native harvest surveys andstatistics: A critique of their construction and use. Arctic 40:145 –160.

USHER, P.J., BAIKIE, M., DEMMER, M., NAKASHIMA, D.,STEVENSON, M.G., and STILES, M. 1995. Communicatingabout contaminants in country food: The experience in aboriginalcommunities. Available from Inuit Tapirisat of Canada, 170Laurier St. West, Suite 510, Ottawa, Ontario K1P 5V5, Canada.

WOLFE, J., BECHARD, C., CIZEK, P., and COLE, D. 1992.Indigenous and Western knowledge and resource managementsystems. Guelph, Ontario: University School of Rural Planningand Development, University of Guelph.

(WCED) WORLD COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENT ANDDEVELOPMENT. 1987. Our common future. New York: WorldCommission on Environment and Development.

YELLOWKNIVES DENE FIRST NATION. 1995a. Saving ourcommunity cultural heritage resources: Policy guidelines forYellowknives Dene traditional knowledge. Yellowknife, N.W.T.:Yellowknives Dene First Nation.

———. 1995b. Evaluation of environmental impact statement forBHP-Dia Met proposed diamond mines project on YellowknivesDene traditional lands near Lac de Gras, 23 October 1995.Yellowknife, N.W.T.: BHP Diamond Mine EnvironmentalAssessment Panel, Information Office.

indigenous knowledge in environmental...

Documents