Document(s) 8 of 23

Deborah McGregor is an Anishnabeg and member of the Whitefish River First Nation. She is Assistant Professor at the University of Toronto in the Aboriginal Studies Program and the Department of Geography. Her research focuses on First Nations and environmental issues.

Uncritical belief in Western science and technology as the only valid approach to resolving environmental problems has fallen by the wayside. In fact, science and technology are believed to be the cause of many of the problems that we now face (Mander 1991). Realizing the faults in its own system and recognizing the value of other knowledge in addressing global environmental concerns is a significant step for dominant Western society. Science and technology, at least on their own, cannot get us out of the situation that we are in now. Other approaches are required, especially ones with long, successful track records like Traditional Environmental Knowledge (TEK). TEK is increasingly viewed as a viable alternative to the status quo that caused the problems in the first place. Thus, TEK has received increased attention over the last couple of decades, particularly in the area of sustainable development (Williams and Baines 1993; WCED 1987).

Although there are protocols (the Convention on Biodiversity, for example) that promote and encourage the recognition and utilization of TEK as an integral part of moving towards sustainability, there has been little evaluation of the methods being implemented to achieve this sustainable future. Nor has there been much in the way of monitoring the level of achievement of its desired outcome: sustainability. In this chapter I will argue that the way in which TEK is understood and implemented within a Western perspective means that the insights into the nature of the environmental crisis and approaches to its resolution that TEK offers get lost.

What Does ‘Sustainable Development’ Mean?

From a Western perspective

Sustainable development is a concept derived from conventional Western ideology. It is the product of a particular world-view and its interpretation and implementation reflect Western culture and values. Though it is touted as a framework for addressing challenges faced the world over, these challenges and their solutions are defined through Western eyes.

The sustainable development concept emerged out of the recognition that there are ‘strong links between economic development and environmental protection’ (Courrier 1994: 508). Our Common Future (WCED 1987) popularized the term and brought it to the attention of the world. The WCED described the concept as ‘development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability to future generations to meet their own needs’ (WCED in Courrier 1994). Others have described it as ‘economic development with due care for the environment’ (Ramphal 1994: 680).

Whatever the specifics of its definition, sustainable development presents a major challenge to society. It requires us to ‘re-examine our current practices and procedures’ (Dearden and Mitchell 1998: 22). It requires a shift in world-view. Despite initial enthusiasm for the concept and the stir created by the WCED Report (also known as the Brundtland Report, after the commission’s chairperson), the debates around sustainable development remain (see Dearden and Mitchell 1998 for more on such debates). There has been no uncritical acceptance of the term and there is no consensus on what it means, although the definition provided in Our Common Future is the one most often cited.

The term ‘sustainability’ is often used interchangeably with ‘sustainable development’. Sustainability is seen as less confusing. Sustainability ‘refers to the capacity to persist and to be robust and resilient’ (Dearden and Mitchell 1998: 26). Draper (1998: 13) describes sustainability as the ‘ability of an ecosystem to maintain ecological processes and functions, biodiversity, and productivity over time’. The term ‘sustainability’ is fraught with many of the same shortcomings as ‘sustainable development’. Proponents of both concepts, however, are faced with the challenge of encouraging a shift in societal world-views in order to achieve the goals they promote. People must ‘learn how to sustain environmental resources so they continue to provide benefits to us, other living things, and the larger environment of which we are a part’ (Draper 1998: 13). The dominant Western definitions of sustainability and sustainable development do not, despite some claims, actually propose to replace the status quo; it is simply the slowing down of the same old agenda. The purpose of sustainable development is to enable future generations to continue indefinitely with the same exploitive practices that have caused the problems we face in the first place. It is based on the notion of economic growth or development and a particular world order. In recent times, this growth has been threatened because environmental resources are running out.

Sustainable development does not challenge the power imbalances between Indigenous and Western nations in a meaningful way. It does not empower Indigenous nations. Although the Brundtland Report did recognize the value of Indigenous knowledge as a source of knowledge for moving towards sustainable development, such recognition was still framed within the dominant Western agenda. The conventional concept of sustainable development also tends to perpetuate tension between environmental and economic aspects. While recognizing that something is ‘wrong’, it concludes that changes must be made in order to survive as Western, economically ‘developed’ nations. Moreover, the so-called ‘underdeveloped’ nations are expected to ‘catch up’ with the rest of the world. Surviving the way Indigenous people have for thousands of years is not given serious consideration.

While interest in TEK as part of the solution to environmental crises is growing, using TEK to achieve the goals of Western society may not be what many Indigenous people have in mind. In fact, TEK research and implementation in support of sustainable development is arguably another form of colonialism. ‘Development’, in its various forms, has seldom benefited Indigenous people. Throughout the history of colonialism, Indigenous people have been dispossessed of their lands and subjected to policies aimed at ‘developing’ them, often with devastating effects. Sustaining this kind of development may indeed be counterproductive so far as Indigenous people are concerned. The way sustainable development is currently conceptualized, Indigenous knowledge is required to fit into the existing framework designed to fulfil the needs of Western ideals. We have been down that road before! What, then, might be an Indigenous view of sustainable development?

From an Indigenous perspective

There are superficial similarities between Indigenous views of sustainable development and those of Western society. Primary among these are the recognition that the path of progress upon which the current world order relies is not sustainable, and that fundamental changes are required. Despite such similarities, the two views remain fundamentally different. This should not be surprising as the two are products of very different world-views.

In the spring of 1997, I had the honour of working with Mahgee Binehns (Robin Greene) of Iskutewizaagegan No. 39 Independent First Nation¹ in northwestern Ontario. He is an Anishnabe (the name of the group of Indigenous people to which both he and I belong) speaker who was raised traditionally in his own culture, and for whom English is an acquired language. I worked with Mahgee Binehns on a ‘Nationhood and Sustainability’ submission for the Chiefs of Ontario Office (the ‘Chiefs of Ontario’, as it is generally referred to, is the primary political voice of the First Nations Chiefs in this province). This initiative was part of a larger undertaking initiated by the federal government to understand what sustainable development would mean at a practical level. The Chiefs of Ontario, in recognition of the fact that Aboriginal views would be very different from their Western counterparts, wanted to prepare a separate submission rather than integrate their views into a larger perspective. Before this time, I found myself always reacting and feeling uncomfortable with the dominant views of sustainability being imposed upon me. It was during my time with this group of First Nations people working in the environmental arena that an understanding of First Nations views of sustainability finally crystallized.

In the Nationhood and Sustainability working group, we began talking about the concept of sustainable development but did not really get anywhere. It was not until we started to discuss our world-view and the things that mattered to us that we realized that we have the Creation stories to tell us who we are and how we are supposed to live sustainably. Creation stories provide the fundamental understanding of our place in the world. They present us with teachings and lessons explaining how we are to relate to the rest of Creation. Once the discussion turned to our world-view, rather than trying to figure out how our understanding was supposed to fit into someone else’s understanding (or agenda), we finally made some progress. Then came the ‘insight’.

Before I convey the ‘insight’, I’ll tell you about a rule of thumb I live by in my work with Indigenous knowledge. This is what I call the ‘language rule’, which I created for myself to enhance my own understanding. I apply it whenever I encounter a concept or construct (such as ‘environment’, or ‘traditional ecological knowledge’ or ‘sustainable development’) for which Aboriginal people are assumed to have an automatic affinity. In these cases I conduct the language test, which is simply this: I ask someone who was raised within a First Nations world-view and who learned their mother tongue before learning English or another colonizing language about the concept. These people are usually highly knowledgeable about their cultural traditions, values, and so on. I ask them to think about the concept I am interested in to see if there is a corresponding concept in their own language. Not surprisingly, often there is not. In many cases, expressing even a similar meaning takes a significant amount of time and involves constructing Indigenous knowledge in a variety of different ways. Coercive processes that force Native people to think and operate in non-Native terms frequently result in loss of meaning.

While talking with Mahgee Binehns, I asked whether there was any notion that corresponded with ‘sustainable development’ in his language. He had been listening intently to the other conversations and knew what the mainstream view was. He said there was no corresponding idea in the Ojibway language. The closest he could come was to explain that Aboriginal people concern themselves with (and have based their whole world-view on) the idea of learning how to give back to Creation, rather than taking away.

Using this as a starting point, it becomes apparent that Indigenous views of development are based not on taking but on giving. Indigenous people ask themselves what they can give to the environment and their relationship with it. The idea of sustaining, maintaining and enhancing relations with all of Creation is of utmost importance from an Indigenous point of view. Indigenous ways of life focus on this type of relationship with Creation. Indigenous people understand that with this special personal relationship with Creation comes tremendous responsibility; it is not something to be taken lightly.

Creation is regarded as a gift. To be sustainable means to take responsibility and be spiritually connected to all of Creation, all of the time. Everyone and everything carries this responsibility and has duties to perform. All things contribute to the sustainability of Creation. It is not a responsibility carried only by people. All of Creation contributes, and this includes everything from the tiniest animals to the powerful sun. It includes the land, the weather, the spirits–all of it. An important principle that emerges from the Creation stories is that we cannot interfere with the ability of these elements or beings of Creation to perform their duties. When we interfere, then the sustainability of Creation is threatened (as we now see).

Over many years Indigenous people developed ways of living that sustained this relationship with all of Creation. This relationship was based on giving. From an Indigenous point of view, all of Creation matters. Sustainable development therefore means the survival, not just of people, but of all Creation.

Since colonization, the ability of Indigenous people to live up to the responsibility of caring for all of Creation has been seriously inhibited. The sustainability of Indigenous peoples’ lives has been compromised in every aspect of everyday life, resulting in destroyed lands, infant mortality, high suicide rates, and so on. Colonization and the accompanying oppression have been so pervasive that even Indigenous people themselves are sometimes disrespectful and harmful to Creation.

However, the strength and perseverance of Indigenous views of sustain ability should not be underestimated; they remain in fact very powerful. Despite a concerted effort to eliminate Indigenous peoples as a recognizable group in Canada, First Nations have persisted and continue to pass on their knowledge. Many Elders remind us to be thankful to our ancestors, and that because of their courage we are still alive today. Every time you hear a prayer in the Indigenous language, it is a powerful reminder of how clever and strong our ancestors were.

Through our long history of oppression, our survival depended upon and still depends upon our traditions. This understanding permeates every aspect of our lives and efforts at nation-building (Mercredi and Turpel 1993). We have learned to resist and thus have survived. Understanding colonialism and its devastating impacts upon us, as well as learning how to resist various forms of colonialism (including internalized forms), constitute an important part of the our traditional teachings today (Fitznor 1998).

In summary, Indigenous views of sustainable development are concerned with giving rather than taking, and with what it is that we can contribute to creation. Indigenous views also include active resistance (sometimes to sustainable development itself) and the process of reclaiming our traditions. Resisting and reclaiming form an integral part of our concept of sustainable development.

What Does ‘TEK’ Mean?

The knowledge that Indigenous peoples have in relation to the environment has come to be referred to as ‘Traditional Environmental Knowledge’ (TEK). At national and international levels, TEK is currently a recognized term in the move towards increased environmental sustainability. However, its precise meaning, role and application remain elusive at both policy and operational levels. The last decade has seen quite an interest in TEK and it has now emerged as a field of study, complete with theory, research approaches, models and potential applications.

Despite the interest in TEK by environmental managers, policymakers, academics, consultants, environmentalists and Aboriginal communities themselves, the meaning of TEK remains both elusive and controversial. There is no commonly accepted view of the term. This matter is examined in more detail in recent texts (e.g. Battiste and Henderson 2000; McGregor 2000, 1994; Procter 1999). For the purposes of this chapter only some of the basic issues in defining TEK need be presented below.

Following are a few brief definitions. The most commonly heard views of TEK from a dominant or mainstream perspective tend to be variations of Martha Johnson’s description, in which TEK is defined as:

a body of knowledge built up by a group of people through generations of living in close contact with nature. It includes a system of classification, a set of empirical observations about the local environment, and a system of self-management that governs resource use. The quantity and quality of traditional environmental knowledge varies among community members, depending upon gender, age, social status, intellectual capability, and profession (hunter, spiritual leader, healer, etc.). With its roots firmly in the past, traditional environmental knowledge is both cumulative and dynamic, building upon the experience of earlier generations and adapting to the new technological and socioeconomic changes of the present. (Johnson 1992: 4; see also Berkes 1999: 8; Doubleday 1993: 41; Nakashima 1993: 99)

In summary, while many of the non-Native definitions incorporate valid aspects of TEK, they tend to consider TEK as a ‘body of knowledge’, something that can be considered as being separate from the people who hold it. As we shall see, this constitutes a fundamental difference between the Native and non-Native views.

Aboriginal perspectives vary by nation and cultural group, though there are common themes that run throughout. In some cases the language used to describe TEK is similar to that of Western academics, as Aboriginal people have increasingly had to use the dominant language and terminology in order to communicate (AFN 1995). At the same time, this practice is being challenged by some parties with the result that alternative Aboriginal descriptions are emerging. Following is a sampling of Aboriginal views of TEK.

Elder Annie Catholique (in Raffan 1993: 49) states that, ‘When the government people talk about land, I find it very funny, talking about all the things we use, all the things we survive on, like animals and caribou and those things. When I think about land, I think about the Great Spirit.’

Knowledge is regarded as inseparable from the land. According to Gleb Raygorodetsky (in Gwich’in Elders 1997: 14):

The term ‘Land’ . . . is not restricted to the physical environment only. It has a much broader meaning, used by indigenous people to refer to the physical, biological and spiritual environments fused together. The closest scientific equivalent of the ‘Land’, taken without its spiritual component, is ‘ecosystem’.

Raygorodetsky also observes (in Gwich’in Elders 1997: 14) that ‘Spiritual and ethical values have been woven into this knowledge, creating a system that has guided the people and helped them survive.’

Taiake Alfred (1999: 9) states: ‘The Indigenous belief, reflecting a spiritual connection with the land established by the Creator, gives human beings special responsibilities within the area they occupy as Indigenous peoples, linking them in a “natural” way to their territories.’

Aboriginal participants in the ‘Circumpolar Aboriginal People and Co-Management Practice’ workshop (Roberts 1996) explain that Traditional knowledge is an accumulated body of knowledge that is rooted in the spiritual health, culture, and language of the people and handed down from generation to generation. It is based on intimate knowledge of the land, water, snow and ice, weather and wildlife, and the relationships between all aspects of the environment. It is the way people travel and hunt. It is a way of life and survival.

Traditional knowledge is practical common sense, good reasoning, and logic built on experience. It is an authority system (a standard of conduct), setting out rules governing the use and respect of resources, and an obligation to share. For example, it tells people that they do not have the right to hunt all animals of a species, as in wolf kill programmes. The wisdom comes in using the knowledge and ensuring that it is used in a good way. It involves using the head and heart together. Traditional knowledge is dynamic, yet stable, and is usually shared in stories, songs, dance and myths. (Roberts 1996: 114)

In summary, Aboriginal people define TEK as much more than just a body of knowledge. While this is a part of it, TEK also encompasses such aspects as spiritual experience and relationships with the land. It is also noted that TEK is a ‘way of life’; rather than being just the knowledge of how to live, it is the actual living of that life. One way of looking at the differences between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal views of TEK is to state that Aboriginal views of TEK are ‘verb-based’–that is, action-oriented. TEK is not limited, in the Aboriginal view, to a ‘body of knowledge’. It is expressed as a ‘way of life’; it is conceived as being something that you do. Non-Aboriginal views of TEK are ‘noun-’ or ‘product-based’. That is, they tend to focus on physical characteristics. TEK is viewed as a thing rather than something that you do. Aboriginal views of TEK are inclusive of non-Aboriginal views, but tend to be broader in scope and holistic. The focus is not solely on the physical aspects, such as the natural environment. TEK is also viewed by Aboriginal people to be inherently sustainable and spiritual. Non-Aboriginal scholars and researchers see TEK as ‘contributing’ to sustainability, and that spirituality is merely an aspect of TEK.

One of the most significant differences between Native and non-Native views of TEK is the fact that Aboriginal people view the people, the knowledge and the land as a single, integrated whole. They are regarded as inseparable. As Roberts (1996: 115) points out:

Capturing a single aspect of traditional knowledge is difficult. Traditional knowledge is holistic and cannot be separated from the people. It cannot be compartmentalized like scientific knowledge, which often ignores aspects of life to make a point. However, traditional knowledge parallels scientific knowledge. (Stress added)

Aboriginal views of TEK are broad, and include spirituality, world-view and a way of life. Non-Native views tend to focus on ‘ecological’ aspects (similar to Lewis 1993; Nakashima 1993; and Richardson 1993). Such differences can be attributed to world-view. Aboriginal peoples’ way of life is based on spirituality. A lifetime is spent enhancing and maintaining appropriate and sustainable relationships with the Creator and all of Creation. This is the essence of Indigenous science. Aboriginal people are reluctant to reduce TEK to simply ‘ecological’ aspects. Aboriginal views tend to move in the opposite direction to Western-trained researchers, scientists and scholars; that is, towards wholeness (pulling it together rather than taking it apart to understand it).

Barriers to the Use of TEK in Sustainable Development

In addition to the difficulty in defining TEK are the complications involved in applying it in various environmental and resource management applications. Barriers to the incorporation of TEK in environmental and resource management in Canada have been explored by a number of researchers and scholars. Many of the barriers are long-standing and have not been adequately addressed. Many are systemic and will require substantive restructuring of existing relations between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal society in Canada in order to be resolved. Naskashima’s research perhaps best summarizes the main barriers when he discusses the difficulties experienced in utilizing TEK in Environmental Impact Assessment, or EIA:

Herein, however, lies the environmental scientist’s dilemma. Traditional knowledge, in spite of its evident strengths, corresponds poorly with Western intellectual ideals of ‘truth.’ In our society, the acceptable norms of intellectual development have been rigidly institutionalized. University degrees, journal publications, conference presentations are the milestones which mark our narrow ‘path to knowledge.’ Guided by these inflexible norms, environmental scientists reject the traditional knowledge of Native hunters as anecdotal, non-quantitative and amethodical. Unable to overcome a deeply engrained and ethnocentric prejudice against other ways of ‘knowing’, they turn their backs on a source of data of exceptional utility to EIA. (Nakashima 1990: 23)

Environmental Impact Assessment is arguably the area where most of the TEK work in Canada is being applied. Nakashima’s analysis holds true, however, for other resource management arenas, including forestry, as described in the literature and as found in my research. Nakashima’s words were written a decade ago. Unfortunately, the attitudes that underlie the unsuccessful application of TEK in environmental and resource management still exist. In some cases there has even been a ‘backlash’ against attempts to use TEK (e.g. Howard and Widdowson 1997, 1996).

Barriers to TEK use include the cultural disruption that has occurred in Aboriginal communities as a result of colonization. Some TEK has been lost, at least for the time being, and there is a need to revitalize Native communities in order to maintain and develop what still exists and to begin to regain what has been lost. Kemp and Brooke (1995: 27) summarize this issue as follows:

The most important lesson learned . . . is that indigenous peoples must first and foremost control their own information. It has also become clear over the years that the knowledge base of indigenous peoples is vital, dynamic and evolving. Merely ‘collecting’ and ‘documenting’ indigenous environmental knowledge is in fact counter-productive. These knowledge systems have been under serious attack for centuries, and the social systems that support them have been seriously undermined. However, indigenous peoples must not just support ‘salvage’ operations of what now is often referred to as ‘a rapidly disappearing knowledge base.’ It is not just a question of recovery and recording indigenous knowledge; it is one of respect and revitalization. This information has to remain current and not be considered a relic of the past. Indigenous peoples must also insist that their knowledge not be reduced to an interesting research topic for western science to explore.

The literature reveals many similarities between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal views of barriers to the incorporation of TEK in resource management. Some concerns are unique to Aboriginal people because they are the people from whom TEK is sought. This situation is complicated by the unequal distribution of power that characterizes Aboriginal/non-Aboriginal relations in Canada. Brubacher and McGregor (1998: 14) discuss this power imbalance in relation to forest management in Canada, noting that:

Further compounding the distance between these understandings is the fact that dialogue around TEK takes place on the basis of a largely dis-empowered Aboriginal minority talking to the dominant culture, in the language of the dominant culture and within the existing institutional frameworks that govern forest management.

Healey (1993: 21) adds to this, suggesting that:

It is difficult to separate political aspects of the relationship between the custodians of traditional ecological knowledge and those who wish to have access to that knowledge from legal, ethical and economic dimensions. . . . A consequence of this situation is that the relationship between traditional communities on the one hand and researchers, sponsors of research and development, and consumers of insights gained from traditional ecological knowledge on the other is generally a very unequal one. Power is concentrated on the side of researchers, sponsors and consumers, whether the power is political, economic or even military. . . . More often, at least in the contemporary world, the power relation is muted, masked, and benign; but not less unequal for all that.

This unequal power relationship and its impact on the utilization of TEK in environmental and resource management is also recognized by others such as Chapeskie (1995), Johnson (1992), Lukey (1995), and Stevenson (1997). The continued existence of such an imbalance means that the knowledge and the people who hold it remain vulnerable to exploitation.

The ‘State of the Art’ of TEK Application

The state of the art of TEK application in mainstream environmental and resource management framework remains weak. Most work in the field of TEK comprises collecting and documenting information. There is little in the way of meaningful application. This results from the fact that Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people are coming from different world-views and their perceptions and experiences of the very same concepts, such as TEK and Sustainable Development, are quite different.

These differences are not fully appreciated. Non-Native scholars and resource managers may object and claim that indeed they understand and appreciate the differences. If this is the case, then one can justifiably ask, ‘Why, then, do decision-makers continue to attempt to integrate TEK into environmental and resource management regimes created and designed by dominant society?’ Most of the literature on TEK still suggests that ‘integration’ is desirable. Much of the effort expended in the field has been used in attempting to achieve this goal, but with relatively little success. This has given rise to severe criticism of TEK itself as well as of Aboriginal people (see Howard and Widdowson 1996), and has raised cynicism levels in many Aboriginal communities.

These disappointing results are in no way indicative of the importance of TEK and the potential contribution of Aboriginal people. ‘Traditional Ecological knowledge is absolutely essential. Crafting a relationship between us is absolutely essential’ (LaDuke 1997: 36). Cajete (1994: 192) adds that ‘intellectual, social, and spiritual learning unfolds in a definite context of relationships’ (stress added). From an Aboriginal perspective, positive relationships hold the key to a move toward sustainability and the fair use of TEK in environmental and resource management.

TEK and sustainable development are about relationships. Meaningful integration is difficult if not impossible to achieve in this larger social/cultural/ political framework. Because of the existing power structure, integration has translated into ‘assimilation’ of Aboriginal TEK into dominant regimes. Chapeskie (1995: 27) observes that

the discourse of resource management employed by the dominant non-aboriginal society which invariably forms the context of co-management discussions between aboriginal groups and state agencies is plagued with ambiguity. The state largely controls the conceptual framework in which co-management negotiations take place.

This issue has been examined by a number of scholars and researchers (AFN 1995; Berneshawi 1997; Brubacher and McGregor 1998; Chapeski 1995; Feit 1998; Stevenson 1999; Wolfe et al. 1992). Assimilation has never been a desirable policy option for Aboriginal people in Canada, and the field of TEK is a microcosm of this larger social/political situation.

Significant changes to state environmental and resource management paradigms are called for. Merely wishing to include Aboriginal people and their knowledge is not enough. The dominant paradigms and the professionals (managers, planners, scientists, policymakers, decision-makers) who adhere to them are ill-equipped to deal with Aboriginal people and their concerns. Aboriginal people are expected to conform or acquiesce to the dominant paradigm in order to be ‘involved’ or ‘consulted’ (Stevenson 1999: 164). The knowledge of Aboriginal people is forced to fit into dominant frameworks that often render irrelevant the intellectual, social, cultural and spiritual contribution that Aboriginal people have made or can potentially make. Fully appreciating and utilizing Aboriginal knowledge must occur in the context of positive, equal and healthy relationships.

Aboriginal Interest in TEK

Despite the issues and challenges outlined above, Aboriginal people continue to find themselves in a position of sharing their knowledge and are frequently willing to do so to advance their goals and interests. In fact, Aboriginal people have been doing this for some time in Canada in an effort to protect their land and traditional life. Although not formally recognized as TEK, Indigenous environmental/ecological information was being collected and documented for various reasons in Canada prior to the explosion of the field in 1980s. The main reason for Aboriginal people sharing their knowledge was to protect their interests, including their land and the assertion of their rights via land claims (AFN 1995; Poole 1998; Roberts 1996). To a large extent, the reasons for sharing this knowledge with external interests remain the same.

TEK is being expressed in various environmental assessment and resource management areas, including issues relating to wildlife, forestry, fisheries and endangered species. Despite this, the meaning, theory and practice of TEK advanced little in its first two decades. It has only been in roughly the last five years that significant challenges to the mainstream concept of TEK have come forth, influenced by the increasing dissatisfaction among Aboriginal people of the misuse of their knowledge by external interests (see AFN 1995; McGregor 1999; Roberts 1996; Stevenson 1999). There has also been a backlash against TEK, particularly since in some mainstream processes, such as environmental assessment in the North, it has gained a secure foothold (see, for example, the position offered by Howard and Widdowson 1997 and 1996; and responses by Berkes and Henly 1997, and Stevenson 1997). The debate on the utilization of TEK continues (see Abele 1997; Wenzel 1999; Usher 2000).

In theory, the recognition of Aboriginal contributions to sustainability is generally well-intentioned. It is the practice and application (or lack thereof in some cases) that have come under scrutiny. Despite the interest in TEK, there is little to show for it on the ground. Aboriginal people throughout Canada are becoming increasingly dissatisfied with this state of affairs.

Further Thoughts on What TEK is About

So, what is TEK really about? Because of the past and continued colonial onslaught on Aboriginal people, the expression of TEK can be boiled down to our continued survival, which in turn is inherently intertwined with the survival of Creation. Before the term ‘TEK’ was ever coined, Frank T’Seleie, Dene from Fort Good Hope, stated during the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline Inquiry (arguably the first major TEK study in Canada) that:

It seems to me that the whole point in living is to become as human as possible; to learn to understand the world and to live in it; to be part of it; to learn to understand the animals, for they are our brothers and they have much to teach us. We are part of this world.

We are like the river that flows and changes, yet is always the same. . . . It is a river and it will always be a river, for that is what it was meant to be. We are like the river, but we are not the river. We are human. That is what we were meant to be. . . . We were meant to be ourselves, to be what it is our nature to be. (T’Seleie 1977: 16)

Water, in the form of a river, provides some of the greatest understandings of what TEK means to the people. T’Seleie (1977: 16–17) continues:

Our Dene Nation is like this great river. It has been flowing before any of us can remember. We take our strength and our wisdom and our ways from the flow and direction that has been established for us by our ancestors we never knew, ancestors of a thousand years ago. Their wisdom flows through us to our children and our grandchildren to generations we will never know. We will live out our lives as we must and we will die in peace because we will know that our people and this river will flow on after us.

The river inspires connections, continuity and the feeling that the generations yet to come can ‘rest and look over the river and feel that [they] too [have] a place in the universe’ (T’Seleie 1977: 17).

The river itself is a source of the knowledge that people require in order to survive. This survival has a physical basis (we need water for our bodies), but it also has spiritual (defining the role of humans in the world), emotional (providing strength and vision), and intellectual (developing the minds of the knowledge holders) aspects. The river provides a holistic metaphor for the relationship between people and the rest of Creation, the essential core of what TEK is, in my view.

According to Elders of the Grand Council, Treaty Number Three (in Ross 1996: 254–5):

Respect for each other and a universal appreciation for the power of the creator kept everyone walking down a path that encompassed honesty, truths, respect for everything in their immediate life or ecosystem, whether it was your fellow man or beast or plant life. It was a holistic respect for everything that the Anishinaabeg could see, smell, hear, taste and feel.

The relationship between people and Creation from an Aboriginal perspective can be aptly described as sustainable. The people made sure that relationships were sustained through duty, responsibility and reciprocity. It was not and is not automatic. The people care for each other and their surroundings. TEK, then, is practised by someone who takes care of his or her relations (including Creation and the life it supports, and all the associated spiritual aspects).

Coexistence: Re-creating an Old Relationship

TEK is about relationships: not just about understanding the relationships in Creation, but about participating in those relationships. TEK is about sustaining a creative reciprocal relationship with all of Creation, and about fulfilling our lives as human beings in relation to Creation, as T’Seleie (1977) so eloquently points out. This includes the spiritual core of Creation, not just the physical environment that is noted by the five senses.

From a Western perspective, TEK and sustainable development (and sustainability) are discrete concepts. From an Aboriginal point of view, they are intimately related and are in fact part of the same continuum (or circle). They are both about relationships. They are both about relating to Creation in a certain way. If people do not take care of their relations, then they are not fulfilling their duties and responsibilities; they are denying their relationship with Creation, and dysfunction will result. In a reciprocal fashion, non-human elements are expected to fulfil their responsibilities to Creation. Traditional teachings offer profound guidance about how to work with Creation and not to interfere with the other beings’ ability to fulfil their duties and responsibilities.

Since the time of contact, a consistent message from Aboriginal people has been that they regard their relationship with the newcomers as one of nations interacting. The call for a nation-to-nation relationship between Aboriginal peoples and Canadians is thus not new or unknown among federal and provincial governments. In fact, this type of relationship has existed in the past and for a period of time was a key characteristic of the relationship between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal peoples in North America. The knowledge and technology that Aboriginal people possessed enabled the newcomers to survive in these lands when the newcomers themselves lacked the capacity to do so.

The broader picture in terms of global sustainability is changing, internationally and nationally, and specifically includes calls for the meaningful participation of Aboriginal people. Can this be interpreted to mean that Aboriginal people and their knowledge and resources are now needed again? Many people seem to think so (LaDuke 1997; Low 1992). On what terms will Aboriginal people flourish in a climate of renewal and renegotiation? New relationships based on mutual reconciliation and peaceful coexistence are required. According to the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (RCAP, a Canadian federal government-funded five-year study completed in 1996), this renewed relationship must recognize that ‘land is not a just a commodity; it is an inextricable part of Aboriginal identity, deeply rooted in moral and spiritual values’ (RCAP 1996: 430). The new relationship must also recognize Aboriginal and treaty rights in a meaningful fashion–to embrace them as an expression of Aboriginal relationships to the land.

This new or renewed relationship RCAP calls for is based on the ancient Indigenous philosophical view that sought ‘coexistence’ among nations. It is founded on the belief that having separate world-views is not necessarily an undesirable thing, and that developing a framework that would respect different world-views would be an appropriate approach to take. This approach is based on the idea behind the Two-Row Wampum. A beaded belt describing part of a treaty of friendship between the Dutch and the Haudenosaunee (often referred to as ‘Iroquois’) peoples, the Two-Row Wampum consists of two rows of purple beads separated by rows of white beads. The purple rows represent the different vessels of the Dutch (a ship) and the Haudenosaunee (a canoe) travelling side-by-side down the ‘river’ of existence (the white beads). While the two vessels remain separate (i.e. the cultures remain distinct), the people from each vessel are meant to interact and assist each other as need be (see Ransom 1999 for a fuller description).

The Two-Row Wampum serves as a model for renewing and reconciling a damaged relationship between two peoples. It is a model that can apply to any interaction between two nations. In the current situation involving sustainable use of resources in Canada (and throughout the world), in which the participation of Aboriginal people and their knowledge is sought, the Two-Row Wampum and the principles it symbolizes can be appropriately applied. The principles of sharing and respect can apply to the intellectual tradition in the form of sharing knowledge. In the times when treaties were made based on the Two-Row Wampum, it involved the sharing of knowledge. Indigenous knowledge was used almost exclusively in the early years in order for the Europeans to survive. Aboriginal people shared their knowledge readily and it was also readily accepted. An important element to consider as well was the principle that both nations would come to the mutual aid of one another; again this applies to sharing knowledge.

At this point in the history of humanity, Aboriginal knowledge is needed to offer insights into sustainability and the contexts in which it finds meaning (e.g. spirituality). What has not been achieved in recent years are the conditions that make the principles of coexistence meaningful: equitable power relationships. Nation-to-nation relationships have as much relevance today as they did centuries ago. Only through a shift in power relationships can Aboriginal people and their knowledge be effectively involved in moving toward sustainability.

The model of coexistence is viewed as holding promise for environmental and resource management (Brubacher and McGregor 1998; Chapeskie 1995; McGregor 2000; Ransom 1999). Coexistence may serve as a potentially promising bridge between two world-views. Brubacher and McGregor (1998: 18–19) anticipate that the coexistence approach can function as a starting point for renegotiating an old relationship in a contemporary context:

a co-existence approach would promote a focus on formally acknowledging Aboriginal people as legitimate partners in resource management. It would ensure their rightful place in the development and implementation of management policies and decision-making. . . . By drawing upon principles which express the values and perspectives of both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal cultures, there is potential for developing an effective co-existence model, one that bridges distinctions by building upon shared values.

The coexistence approach does not devalue Western or Indigenous resource management practices and the knowledge that informs them. Coexistence does not allow for the domination of one over the other. Both systems are valued, and, most importantly for Aboriginal people, their cultural survival is assured. The Aboriginal world-view and all it has to offer will no longer be threatened, dominated or distorted. Relationships based on coexistence, if established on a broad scale, would greatly facilitate a global move towards sustainability.

Note

1. ‘First Nation’ is defined by the Canadian government (DIAND 1997: 406) as: ‘A term that came into common usage in the 1970s to replace the word “Indian”, which many people found offensive. Although the term First Nation is widely used, no legal definition of it exists. Among its uses, the term “First Nations peoples” refers to the Indian people in Canada. . . . Many Indian people have also adopted the term “First Nation” to replace the word “band” in the name of their community.’ As an example of this latter usage, the ‘Whitefish River Indian Band’ is now the ‘Whitefish River First Nation’.

References

Abele, F. (1997) ‘Traditional knowledge in practice’, Arctic, vol. 50, no. 4, pp. iii–iv.

Alfred, T. (1999) ‘The people’, in Words That Come Before All Else: Environmental Philosophies of the Haudenosaunee, Cornwall Island, ON: Haudenosaunee Environmental Task Force, Native North American Travelling College, pp. 8–14.

AFN (Assembly of First Nations) (1995) ‘The feasibility of representing traditional Indigenous knowledge in cartographic, pictorial or textual forms’, Ottawa, ON: National Aboriginal Forestry Association and National Atlas Information Service.

Battiste, M. and J. Henderson (2000) Protecting Indigenous Knowledge and Heritage: A Global Challenge, Saskatoon, SK: Purich.

Berkes, F. (1999) Sacred Ecology: Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Resource Management, Philadelphia, PA: Taylor & Francis.

——— and T. Henley (1997) ‘Co-management and traditional knowledge: threat or opportunity’, Options Politiques (Policy Options), March, pp. 29–31.

Berneshawi, S. (1997) ‘Resource management and the Mi’kmaq Nation’, Canadian Journal of Native Studies 1, pp. 115–48.

Brubacher, D. and D. McGregor (1998) ‘Aboriginal forest-related traditional ecological knowledge in Canada’, contribution to the 19th Session of the North American Forest Commission, Villahermosa, Mexico, 16–20 November 1998. Ottawa, ON: National Aboriginal Forestry Association for the Canadian Forest Service.

Cajete, G. (1994) Look to the Mountain: An Ecology of Indigenous Education, Durango, CO: Kivaki Press.

Chapeskie, A. (1995) ‘Land, landscape, culturescape: Aboriginal relationships to land and the co-management of natural resources’, report for the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. Land, Resource and Environmental Regimes Project, Ottawa.

Courrier, K. (1994) ‘Our common future’, in R. and W. Eblen (eds), The Encyclopedia of the Environment, New York: Houghton Mifflin, pp. 508–9.

Dearden, P. and B. Mitchell (1998) Environmental Change and Challenge: A Canadian Perspective, Toronto, ON: Oxford University Press.

DIAND (Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) (1997) ‘Information: Definitions’, in D. McGregor and E. Doolittle (compilers) (2000) Introduction to Native Studies, ABS 201, course readings manual, Toronto, ON: Canadian Scholars’ Press, pp. 405–8.

Doubleday, N. (1993) ‘Finding common ground: natural law and collective wisdom’, in J. Inglis (ed.), Traditional Ecological Knowledge: Concepts and Cases, Ottawa, ON: International Program on Traditional Ecological Knowledge and International Development Research Centre, pp. 41–53.

Draper, D. (1998) Our Environment: A Canadian Perspective, Scarborough, ON: International Thomson.

Feit, H. (1998) ‘Self-management and government management of wildlife: prospects for coordination in James Bay and Canada’, in R. Hoage and K. Moran (eds), Culture: The Missing Element in Conservation and Development, Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt, pp. 95–111.

Fitznor, L. (1998) ‘The circle of life: affirming Aboriginal philosophies in everyday living’, in D. McCance (ed.), Life Ethics in World Religions, Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, pp. 22–40.

Gwich’in Elders (1997) Nanh’Kak Geenjit Gwich’in Ginjik: Gwich’in Words about the Land, Inuvik, NT: Gwich’in Renewable Resource Board.

Healey, C. (1993) ‘The significance and application of TEK’, in N. Williams and G. Baines (eds), Traditional Ecological Knowledge: Wisdom for Sustainable Development, Canberra, ACT: Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies, Australian National University, pp. 21–6.

Howard, A. and F. Widdowson (1996) ‘Traditional ecological knowledge threatens environmental assessment’, Options Politiques, November, pp. 34–6.

——— (1997) ‘Traditional knowledge advocates weave a tangled web’, Options Politiques, April, pp. 46–8.

Johnson, M. (ed.) (1992) Lore: Capturing Traditional Environmental Knowledge, Ottawa, ON: Dene Cultural Institute and the International Development Research Centre.

Kemp, W. and L. Brooke (1995) ‘Towards information self-sufficiency: Nunavik Inuit gather information on ecology and land use’, Cultural Survival Quarterly, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 25–8.

LaDuke, W. (1997) ‘Voices from White Earth: Gaa-waabaabiganikaag’, in H. Hannum (ed.), People, Land and Community: Collected E.F. Schumacher Society Lectures, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, pp. 22–37.

Lewis, H. (1993) ‘Traditional ecological knowledge: some definitions’, in N. Williams and G. Baines (eds), Traditional Ecological Knowledge: Wisdom for Sustainable Development, Canberra, ACT: Australian National University, pp. 8–12.

Low, P. (1992) ‘Indigenous knowledge systems: the key to worldwide sustainable development’, unpublished draft, Plenty Canada and Indigenous Network of Indigenous NGOs and Practitioners Involved in Development.

Lukey, J. (1995) ‘Native and non-Native perspectives on Aboriginal traditional environmental knowledge’, unpublished major paper, Faculty of Environmental Studies, York University, Toronto.

McGregor, D. (1994) ‘Evaluating the use of traditional environmental knowledge in current resource management systems’, Ph.D. thesis, Faculty of Forestry, University of Toronto.

——— (1999) ‘Indigenous knowledge in Canada: shifting paradigms and the influence of First Nations advocates’, in T. Veeman, D. Smith, B. Purdy, F. Salkie and G. Larkin (eds), Science and Practice: Sustaining the Boreal Forest. Proceedings of the 1999 Sustainable Forest Management Network Conference, Edmonton, AB: Sustainable Forest Management Network, pp. 192–7.

——— (2000) ‘The state of traditional ecological knowledge research in Canada: a critique of current theory and practice’, in R. Laliberte, P. Settee, J. Waldram, R. Innes, B. Macdougall, L. McBain, and F. Barron (eds), Expressions in Canadian Native Studies, Saskatoon, SK: University of Saskatchewan Extension Press, pp. 436–58.

Mander, J. (1991) In the Absence of the Sacred: The Failure of Technology and the Survival of the Indian Nations, San Francisco, CA: Sierra Club Books.

Mercredi, O. and M. Turpel (1993) In the Rapids: Navigating the Future of First Nations, Toronto, ON: Penguin Books.

Nakashima, D. (1990) ‘Application of Native knowledge in EIA: Inuit, Eiders and Hudson’s Bay Oil’, Hull, PQ: Canadian Environmental Assessment Research Council.

——— (1993) ‘Astute observers on the sea ice edge: Inuit knowledge as a basis for Arctic co-management’, in J. Inglis (ed.), Traditional Ecological Knowledge: Concepts and Cases, Ottawa, ON: International Program on Traditional Ecological Knowledge and International Development Research Centre, pp. 99–110.

Poole, P. (1998) ‘Indigenous lands and power mapping in the Americas: merging technologies’, Native Americas, Akwe:kon’s Journal of Indigenous Issues, vol. 15, no. 6, pp. 34–43.

Procter, A. (1999) ‘Definitions and the defining process: “Traditional ecological knowledge” in the Keewatin Region, Nunavut’, M.A. thesis, Natural Resources Institute, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg.

Raffan, J. (1993) ‘Where God began’, Equinox 71, September/October 1993, pp. 44–57.

Ramphal, S. (1994) ‘Sustainable development’, in R. and W. Eblen (eds), The Encyclopedia of the Environment, New York: Houghton Mifflin, pp. 680–83.

Ransom, J. (1999) ‘The waters’, in Haudenosaunee Environmental Task Force, Words that Come Before All Else: Environmental Philosophies of the Haudenosaunee, Cornwall Island, ON: Native North American Travelling College, pp. 25–43.

Richardson, B. (1993) People of Terra Nullius: Betrayal and Rebirth in Aboriginal Canada, Vancouver, BC: Douglas & McIntyre.

Roberts, K. (1996) ‘Circumpolar Aboriginal people and co-management practice: current issues in co-management and environmental assessment’, conference proceedings, Arctic Institute of North America and Joint Secretariat–Inuvialuit Renewable Resources Committees. Arctic Institute of North America, University of Calgary.

Ross, R. (1996) Returning to the Teachings: Exploring Aboriginal Justice, Toronto, ON: Penguin Books.

Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (RCAP) (1996) People to People, Nation to Nation: Highlights from the Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, Ottawa: Ministry of Supply and Services.

Stevenson, M. (1997) ‘Inuit and co-management: principles, practices and challenges for the new millennium’, prepared for Inuit Circumpolar Conference, President’s Office, Nuuk, Greenland. NAMMCO International Conference, ‘Sealing the Future’, St John’s, Newfoundland, 25–27 November.

——— (1999) ‘What are we managing? Traditional systems of management and knowledge in cooperative and joint management’, in T. Veeman, D. Smith, B. Purdy, F. Salkie and G. Larkin (eds), Science and Practice: Sustaining the Boreal Forest. Proceedings of the 1999 Sustainable Forest Management Network Conference, Edmonton, AB: Sustainable Forest Management Network, pp. 161–9.

T’Seleie, F. (1977) ‘Statement to the Mackenzie Valley pipeline inquiry’, in M. Watkins (ed.), Dene Nation–The Colony Within, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, pp. 12–17.

Usher, P. (2000) ‘Traditional ecological knowledge in environmental assessment and management’, Arctic, vol. 53, no. 2, pp. 183–93.

Wenzel, G. (1999) ‘Traditional ecological knowledge and Inuit: reflections on TEK research and ethics’, Arctic, vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 113–24.

Williams, N. and G. Baines (eds) (1993) Traditional Ecological Knowledge: Wisdom for Sustainable Development, Canberra, ACT: Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies, Australian National University.

Wolfe, J., C. Bechard, P. Cizek, and D. Cole (1992) ‘Indigenous and western knowledge and resource management systems’, University School of Rural Planning and Development, University of Guelph, Ontario.

WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development) (1987) Our Common Future, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Document(s) 8 of 23