The incorporation of Traditional Ecological Knowledge in the Arctic Council: Lip service?

Sidorova, Evgeniia

doi:10.1017/s0032247420000273

Cited by 13 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Broadly speaking, wildfires are driven by climate and weather conditions influencing flammability, fuels, and fuel conditions (Silva and Harrison, 2010;. Ignition from lightning strikes, fire weather (i.e.…”

Section: Drivers Of Arctic Fire Regimesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reviews and syntheses: Arctic fire regimes and emissions in the 21st century

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. In recent years, the pan-Arctic region has experienced increasingly extreme fire seasons. Fires in the northern high latitudes are driven by current and future climate change, lightning, fuel conditions, and human activity. In this context, conceptualizing and parameterizing current and future Arctic fire regimes will be important for fire and land management as well as understanding current and predicting future fire emissions. The objectives of this review were driven by policy questions identified by the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP) Working Group and posed to its Expert Group on Short-Lived Climate Forcers. This review synthesizes current understanding of the changing Arctic and boreal fire regimes, particularly as fire activity and its response to future climate change in the pan-Arctic have consequences for Arctic Council states aiming to mitigate and adapt to climate change in the north. The conclusions from our synthesis are the following. (1) Current and future Arctic fires, and the adjacent boreal region, are driven by natural (i.e. lightning) and human-caused ignition sources, including fires caused by timber and energy extraction, prescribed burning for landscape management, and tourism activities. Little is published in the scientific literature about cultural burning by Indigenous populations across the pan-Arctic, and questions remain on the source of ignitions above 70∘ N in Arctic Russia. (2) Climate change is expected to make Arctic fires more likely by increasing the likelihood of extreme fire weather, increased lightning activity, and drier vegetative and ground fuel conditions. (3) To some extent, shifting agricultural land use and forest transitions from forest–steppe to steppe, tundra to taiga, and coniferous to deciduous in a warmer climate may increase and decrease open biomass burning, depending on land use in addition to climate-driven biome shifts. However, at the country and landscape scales, these relationships are not well established. (4) Current black carbon and PM2.5 emissions from wildfires above 50 and 65∘ N are larger than emissions from the anthropogenic sectors of residential combustion, transportation, and flaring. Wildfire emissions have increased from 2010 to 2020, particularly above 60∘ N, with 56 % of black carbon emissions above 65∘ N in 2020 attributed to open biomass burning – indicating how extreme the 2020 wildfire season was and how severe future Arctic wildfire seasons can potentially be. (5) What works in the boreal zones to prevent and fight wildfires may not work in the Arctic. Fire management will need to adapt to a changing climate, economic development, the Indigenous and local communities, and fragile northern ecosystems, including permafrost and peatlands. (6) Factors contributing to the uncertainty of predicting and quantifying future Arctic fire regimes include underestimation of Arctic fires by satellite systems, lack of agreement between Earth observations and official statistics, and still needed refinements of location, conditions, and previous fire return intervals on peat and permafrost landscapes. This review highlights that much research is needed in order to understand the local and regional impacts of the changing Arctic fire regime on emissions and the global climate, ecosystems, and pan-Arctic communities.

show abstract

Section: Drivers Of Arctic Fire Regimesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reviews and syntheses: Arctic fire regimes and emissions in the 21st century

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Given the goals of the Sustainable Nunatsiavut Futures project, in particular the coproduction of science, planning and adaptive management strategies, it will be essential to pay keen attention to roles (e.g., who is involved in leadership of the knowledge coproduction), mechanisms for collaboration (e.g., engagement processes), and where power exists within the knowledge coproduction system-i.e., how substantive decision-making regarding knowledge co-production processes take place and how knowledge is eventually synthesised and shared (Zurba 2009). Understanding roles, mechanisms, and loci of power helps co-producers confront contextually varied, potentially unpredictable, or even imperceptible barriers, including epistemological clashes (Díaz-Reviriego et al 2019), power asymmetries (Schick et al 2018), competing modes of transmission and communication (König et al 2013), funder's influence on research (Arnott et al 2020), uncertainties in knowledge validation (Uliscni et al 2019), and tokenism (Sidorova 2020). As stated by Mach and colleagues (2020: 32), "the practice of co-production is a means of changing how decisions are made by changing who is present in the knowledge-production processes."…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Moreover, their differences also draw attention to power dynamics associated with current western science research structures and norms (Montana 2019). For example, practices dominated by WSK such as policymaking have led to ILK holders being viewed as mere sources of knowledge to be incorporated into these practices leading to their inequitable inclusion throughout the knowledge co-production process (Montana 2019;Sidorova 2020;Vincent et al 2020;Zurba 2009). Therefore, even the most well-intentioned efforts to engage with complementary knowledge systems must be aware that they may unintentionally magnify power imbalances.…”

Section: What Is Knowledge Co-production and Why Co-produce Knowledge?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Learning from knowledge co-production research and practice in the twenty-first century: global lessons and what they mean for collaborative research in Nunatsiavut

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An increasing need for novel approaches to knowledge co-production that effectively and equitably address sustainability challenges has arisen in the twenty-first century. Calls for more representative and contextual co-production strategies have come from indigenous communities, scientific research forums, and global environmental governance networks. Despite calls to action, there are no systematic reviews that derive lessons from knowledge co-production scholarship to interpret their significance through the lens of a specific sociopolitical and cultural context. We conducted a systematic review of peer-reviewed and grey literature on knowledge co-production published from 2000 to 2020. Using a hybrid inductive and deductive thematic analysis, we identified two conceptual themes—guiding principles and approaches—to structure the synthesis and interpretation of 102 studies. We found that knowledge co-production studies often converged on four interrelated principles: recognition of contextual diversity bounding knowledge co-production, preemptive and intentional engagement with indigenous knowledge holders, formation of shared understanding of the purpose of knowledge co-production, and empowerment of knowledge holders throughout the co-production cycle. These principles manifested in multiple approaches for interpreting, bridging, applying, and distributing power amongst diverse knowledge systems rooted in different epistemologies. We filter these findings through the social–ecological context that frames an ongoing knowledge co-production project with Inuit communities in Nunatsiavut, Canada: the Sustainable Nunatsiavut Futures Project. Our review suggests that emerging forms of knowledge co-production principles and approaches yield immense potential in diverse contexts. Yet in many regions, including Nunatsiavut, principles alone may not be enough to account for systemic and contextualized issues (e.g., colonization and data sovereignty) that can present roadblocks to equitable sustainability science in the twenty-first century if left unaddressed.

show abstract

“…One other area of Arctic freshwater monitoring and assessment that is currently lacking in most countries is engagement with Indigenous communities and consideration of Indigenous Knowledge and methodologies (Sidorova, 2020; Wong et al., 2020). Indigenous Peoples of the Arctic perceive strong bonds with the natural environment in which they live, a world view that integrates their way of life with the ecosystem and the benefits that they derive from it (Inuit Circumpolar Council Alaska, 2020).…”

Section: An Improved Framework For Assessment Of Freshwater Ecologica...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Such management decisions to specifically protect vulnerable species can, however, only be successful if we also manage to reduce global CO 2 -emissions in line with international agreements and put a halt to continued warming. One other area of Arctic freshwater monitoring and assessment that is currently lacking in most countries is engagement with Indigenous communities and consideration of Indigenous Knowledge and methodologies (Sidorova, 2020;Wong et al, 2020). Indigenous…”

Section: An Improved Fr Ame Work For a Ss E Ss Ment Of Fre S Hwater E...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Improving the framework for assessment of ecological change in the Arctic: A circumpolar synthesis of freshwater biodiversity

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

1. Climate warming and subsequent landscape transformations result in rapid ecological change in Arctic freshwaters. Here we provide a synthesis of the diversity of benthic diatoms, plankton, macrophytes, macroinvertebrates, and fish in Arctic freshwaters.2. We developed a multi-organism measure of α diversity to characterise circumpolar spatial patterns and their environmental correlates, and we assessed ecoregion-level β diversity for all organism groups across the Arctic.3. Alpha diversity was lowest at high latitudes and elevations and where dispersal barriers exist. Diversity was positively related to temperature, and both temperature and connectivity limited diversity on high latitude islands. Beta diversity was highly variable among ecoregions for most organism groups, ranging from 0 (complete similarity) to 1 (complete dissimilarity). The high degree of dissimilarity within many ecoregions illustrates the uniqueness of many Arctic freshwater communities. Northward range expansion of freshwater taxa into Arctic regions may lead toincreased competition for cold-stenothermic and cold-adapted species, and ultimately lead to the extinction of unique Arctic species. Societal responses to predicted impacts include: (1) actions to improve detection of changes (e.g., harmonised monitoring, remote sensing) and engagement with Arctic residents and Indigenous Peoples; and (2) actions to reduce the impact of unwanted changes (e.g., reductions of CO 2 emissions, action against the spread of invasive species).5. Current Arctic freshwater monitoring shows large gaps in spatial coverage, while time series data are scarce. Arctic countries should develop an intensified, longterm monitoring programme with routine reporting. Such an approach will allow detection of long-term changes in water quality, biodiversity, and ecosystem services of Arctic freshwaters.

show abstract

The incorporation of Traditional Ecological Knowledge in the Arctic Council: Lip service?

Cited by 13 publications

References 11 publications

Reviews and syntheses: Arctic fire regimes and emissions in the 21st century

Reviews and syntheses: Arctic fire regimes and emissions in the 21st century

Learning from knowledge co-production research and practice in the twenty-first century: global lessons and what they mean for collaborative research in Nunatsiavut

Improving the framework for assessment of ecological change in the Arctic: A circumpolar synthesis of freshwater biodiversity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About