The utilization of Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) in wildlife management has been a prominent topic for several decades. Since its establishment, Arctic Council (AC) has emphasized the importance of TEK and its utilization in its work. Yet, the process of knowledge coproduction in the AC has never been assessed. To what extent has TEK been meaningfully incorporated into the AC? The research uses qualitative content analysis to analyze the AC working groups’ meeting minutes, reports, scientific reports and assessments as well as reports released by Permanent Participants in order to investigate how the TEK has been incorporated into the AC. The study investigates that the process of knowledge coproduction in the AC turned into lip service, and suggests the set of recommendations that could potentially guide the TEK projects in the process of knowledge co-production. These recommendations, including the use of participatory methodology, the use of Indigenous methods, a recognition that TEK is local, application to policy, and better cross-cultural communication, could result in the more meaningful integration of TEK into scientific projects as well as wildlife management policies.

This article investigates differences in circumpolar indigeneities in three major Arctic nations: Russia, Canada, and the United States (Alaska). Russia has different ways of recognizing indigeneity in law, and that definition of indigeneity excludes larger Indigenous groups of the Far North (Sakha, Komi), rather than seeing them as ethnic (titular) minorities. This study reveals that: 1) not all Indigenous peoples are represented in the Arctic Council; 2) there are historical explanations for this underrepresentation; 3) the Arctic Council should include more Indigenous groups as Permanent Participants. The equal representation of Indigenous organizations as Permanent Participants in the Arctic Council is important because all Indigenous groups in the Arctic should be heard.

SUMMARY Through (auto)ethnographic research in the Amga and Megino‐Khangalas uluses (districts) in the Sakha Republic (Yakutia), in this article, we discuss the intrinsic importance of paying close attention to Indigenous languages when exploring Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK). Here, language refers not only to vocabulary but also to the kinds of communicative practices or speech acts used to transmit or talk about TEK, especially those that reveal the indivisibility of the physical and spiritual elements in many Indigenous ontologies. Through the presentation of narratives of two researchers—one ethnically Sakha, one not—we highlight the centrality of language to maintaining the integrity of TEK and other Indigenous knowledge. We argue that not only must language be centered and documented to reflect the importance of language choice, but terminology should be situated within stories or narratives to best reveal connections of language to ontology, highlighting the interconnectedness of language and knowledge. [Sakha Republic (Yakutia), autoethnography, Traditional Ecological Knowledge, Sakha language, language usage]

How and why is Indigeneity expressed differently in different contexts? This article examines the articulation and expression of Indigenous Rights in one of the most challenging contexts—that of Siberia in the Soviet Union era. Based on primary, archival research carried out in the Republic of Sakha, Russia, the review finds that re-claiming and re-defining Indigeneity can serve as the first step in crafting an effective challenge to the domination and control exercised by states over Indigenous populations. The study of Indigeneity in unlikely places has important ramifications for Indigenous Peoples worldwide who are struggling against colonial-minded governments that have not only deprived Indigenous Peoples of their lands and resources, but also suppressed their right to self-identification through imposed administrative definitions of Indigeneity.

No abstract