“We monitor by living here”: community-driven actualization of a social-ecological monitoring program based in the knowledge of Indigenous harvesters

Communities and ecosystems worldwide are experiencing the effects of climatic and other environmental changes, such as unseasonal temperatures, sea level rise, species’ range shifts, and unpredictable weather (IPCC 2014). The ability to respond and adapt to change is a key component of resilient social-ecological systems (Berkes and Turner 2004; Folke et al. 2010) and relies on effective monitoring systems. A monitoring system includes routine observation of ecological and (or) social phenomena, analysis of these observations, and communication of patterns and abnormalities to inform adaptation and mitigation decisions (Pulsifer et al. 2012; Alessa et al. 2016). Community-based monitoring, which has been described as “monitoring of natural systems by local stakeholders, using their resources and in relation to aims and objectives that make sense to them” (Danielsen et al. 2014, p. 5), has been recognized as a useful component of natural resource management and can help build local compliance to management and adaptation decisions (Danielsen et al. 2009). Thanks to longstanding relationships with their ancestral territories, Indigenous peoples have developed knowledge that has guided the monitoring, management, and adaptation to environmental changes in their territories over millennia (Hebda and Mathewes 1984; Turner and Berkes 2006; Lepofsky and Caldwell 2013).

Natural and social scientists within academia and government have taken interest in leveraging Indigenous knowledge to create more complete understandings of ecological and social-ecological systems (United Nations Division for Sustainable Development 1992; Berkes et al. 2000; Fisheries and Oceans Canada 2019). It is now well established that scientific and Indigenous ways of knowing provide different yet complementary information that can lead to enriched understandings of ecological health (Moller et al. 2004; Bohensky and Maru 2011; Eckert et al. 2018). Much academic work has been done to explore how to combine or “integrate” knowledge generated by a scientific method premised on objectivity and positivism with information generated by Indigenous ways of knowing, which are explicitly rooted in longstanding relationships with the land and in many cases provide a time depth otherwise unavailable (Bohensky and Maru 2011; Frid et al. 2016; Eckert et al. 2018). There are many motivations for combining Indigenous and scientific knowledge, including better understanding ecological systems and encouraging Indigenous sovereignty and self-determination (Bohensky and Maru 2011). However, in many regions that have been subjected to European colonialism, Indigenous knowledge is still often validated according to western scientific paradigms, which perpetuates colonial power imbalances (Nadasdy 1999). For true integration of knowledge systems to occur, Indigenous knowledge holders must have the same power as scientists in the process of validating and combining knowledge borne of two different systems (Simpson 2004; Irlbacher-Fox 2014).

Over the last two decades a growing number of environmental monitoring programs have also sought to involve Indigenous knowledge (Thompson et al., submitted). These efforts have ranged from local Indigenous technicians administering scientific methods (e.g., Bellfield et al. 2015) to Indigenous subsistence and cultural activities providing monitoring indicators (e.g., Heaslip 2008; Lyver et al. 2008). Many monitoring programs have included partnerships between Indigenous peoples and non-Indigenous external agencies, sometimes leading to challenges in matching local and external objectives, retaining community involvement, and appropriately interpreting and applying Indigenous knowledge in decision-making (Thompson et al., submitted). A recent review (Thompson et al. In review) indicates that programs that were able to overcome these challenges featured Indigenous leadership during project design and administration, trust and respect of multiple knowledge systems, the use of multiple methods for documenting knowledge such as trips on the land and semi-structured interviews (e.g., Gill and Lantz 2014), and directly informed institutions tasked with management actions (e.g., Berkes et al. 2007; Harmsworth et al. 2011).

Studies of Indigenous subsistence harvests are another area of research that has engaged Indigenous knowledge for monitoring purposes. Long-term harvest studies have predominantly been conducted to inform fisheries and wildlife monitoring and are often a part of co-management agreements (e.g., Inuvialuit Final Agreement) to ensure that enough catch is set aside for Indigenous harvesters’ livelihoods. Harvest studies have been conducted since the 1970s following the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement (Usher and Wenzel 1987), which typically ask harvesters to recall their harvests on a regular basis and focus on the size, timing, and composition of hunter harvests (The Joint Secretariat 2003; Priest and Usher 2004). Through collaborative field work the harvested animals have also been leveraged for fisheries and wildlife monitoring purposes by providing an opportunity for the collection of biological samples and data (Bell and Harwood 2012). Huntington (1998, 2000) detailed several methods including semi-structured interviews, questionnaires, and analytic workshops that can be applied to elicit and document Indigenous knowledge to inform ecological management and research.

The inclusion of Indigenous harvesters’ knowledge and catch data in fisheries and wildlife management can be interpreted as a method of empowering Indigenous peoples (Fernandez-Gimenez et al. 2006) or as a form of further exercise of colonial power over Indigenous peoples. This is especially true when the outcomes of monitoring result in management actions that negatively impact Indigenous people’s ability to use and access their traditional resources (Ellis 2005), thus hindering the place-based and culturally informed processes necessary to form and transmit Indigenous knowledge to begin with (Wilson 2001; Berkes 2009; Simpson 2014). Further, Indigenous knowledge is still often validated according to western scientific paradigms, which perpetuates colonial power imbalances (Nadasdy 1999). For true integration of knowledge systems to occur, Indigenous knowledge holders must have the same power as scientists in the process of documenting, validating, and combining knowledge borne of different systems (Simpson 2004; Irlbacher-Fox 2014).

In this paper, we move beyond harvest studies to describe and reflect on the design and actualization of a monitoring program meant to inform local ecological, social, and political objectives based in harvesters’ knowledge jointly designed by Gitga’at harvesters, community researchers, and researchers from the University of Victoria. The intention of this research was to center the vision and voices of Gitga’at harvesters in setting the objectives and designing data collection and reporting methods of a monitoring program based in their knowledge. The design process and resulting monitoring program provides a detailed case study that can be used by other Indigenous groups looking to pursue similar initiatives suited to their own political, social, and ecological contexts. The collaborative process of initiating and designing the program is central to ensuring that the monitoring objectives and methods are locally appropriate and relevant (e.g., Eamer 2006). However, these processes are rarely documented in detail. We describe the chronological steps of our research to enable other Indigenous peoples to adapt and build upon them.

Although there is a growing number of monitoring programs that involve Indigenous peoples and their knowledge (Thompson et al. In review), few studies have focused on the steps taken to actualize these programs (e.g., Parlee and Lutsel K’e Dene First Nation 1998; Eamer 2006). Documenting and reflecting on this design process are especially important in the case of monitoring programs that involve a collaboration between Indigenous and non-Indigenous partners. This study details the steps taken to initiate, design, and test a monitoring program based in the knowledge and observations of Gitga’at land and sea users, designed collaboratively with Gitga’at resource users and researchers from the University of Victoria. Our reflections aim to lend insight into the practice of collaboratively designing monitoring programs that are led by Indigenous people and their knowledge. Lessons learned and the resulting monitoring methods can also act as a template to be used or adapted by other groups considering similar initiatives.

We designed and tested two data collection tools: a harvest logbook and an interview guide, each with advantages and disadvantages (Table 6). Completing and entering data from logbooks is relatively quick for harvesters and researchers, respectively, but low logbook returns suggest that relational methods of information collection (i.e., interviews) are important for monitoring for multiple interrelated community objectives. Yet organizing, conducting, and analyzing interviews is more time consuming for researchers and program staff, and more demanding of harvesters’ time, than logbooks. Still, the conversational nature of semi-structured interviews records the nuanced ways in which change is occurring and experienced, and it makes room for oral histories and narratives. This approach also fosters opportunities for the interviewer to learn directly from the participant, thus creating additional space for potential intergenerational knowledge transfer. Community-based environmental monitoring initiatives in the Arctic have also prioritized intergenerational knowledge transfer within their data-collection processes by pairing Indigenous youth with knowledge holders to document observations of change during regular trips out on the land (Bennett and Lantz 2014; Gill and Lantz 2014). Early in the planning process of our project, some participants suggested building digital platforms for self-reporting, such as an app that could be installed onto their smart phones, which might increase participation as many harvesters of younger generations carry their phones with them while travelling and harvesting. The success of digital self-reporting tools in other communities (e.g., Gearheard et al. 2011), alongside our own participants’ initial recommendation to make self-reporting tools available, are further motivation for our team to design an app as an option to use instead of paper logbooks in the future. However, digital apps are considerably more expensive to develop and maintain. We strongly recommend retaining opportunities for direct knowledge transfer alongside any future self-reporting tools.

The monitoring program resulting from the design process we describe here differs in some important ways from harvest studies that have been conducted in other regions. The objectives differ due to the community-informed nature of the program design. While most harvest studies focus primarily on fisheries and wildlife management, the objectives for this program set by Gitga’at harvesters also explicitly included social and political components (i.e., asserting Rights and Title, intergenerational knowledge transfer, and health and wellness). Given the social-ecological nature of Gitga’at objectives, the information documented goes beyond amounts harvested, body condition, or location of harvest, which are often the focus of harvest studies (e.g., The Joint Secretariat 2003; Priest and Usher 2004). Rather, the information we have begun documenting on a seasonal basis includes how foods are shared, who is engaged in learning and teaching harvesting and preparation techniques, harvesting narratives, and perceived changes of social and ecological change. Regular community meetings and assessments conducted by Gitga’at harvesters, knowledge holders, and departments were intentionally worked into its design to ensure that the program is able to meet community objectives while remaining flexible to needs and priorities that will surely shift over time. The program and the information collected will inform multiple forms of decision-making in a setting undergoing rapid and complex social-ecological changes. We contend that including these components emphasizes the link between social and cultural processes of acquiring and transmitting Indigenous knowledge rather than its content alone and that this program contains these elements given its design led by and for Gitga’at harvesters and institutions.

By explicitly including the observations of Indigenous harvesters in ongoing social-ecological monitoring, the program we describe builds on the efforts of other Indigenous communities that have developed long-term monitoring programs to suit their needs and assert governance over their territories—one of the key objectives that emerged from our study—using various monitoring approaches (Kotaska 2013; Wilson et al. 2018). For example, the Coastal Stewardship Network, which employs Guardian Watchmen from seven First Nations communities in coastal British Columbia, has been in operation since 2010. The Lsetsul K’e Dene First Nation have run a similar program called Ni Hat’ni Dene (Dene Watchers of the Land) since 2008 (Lutsel K’e Dene First Nation n.d.). Both of these programs employ monitors (Guardians) who regularly survey their lands and waters to collect scientific indicators, protect cultural sites, and inform visitors about their territory. The Gitga’at First Nation is part of the Coastal Stewardship Network and has a team of Guardian Watchmen who conduct regular patrols of Gitga’at territory, but to date they have not explicitly noted harvesters’ observations. Meanwhile, the Arctic Borderlands Ecological Knowledge Co-op, has been in operation since 1996 and includes eight Gwich’in and Inuvialuit communities with local monitors who conduct annual interviews with harvesters, similar to the ones we have tested here (Eamer 2006). The observations and knowledge documented by monitors serve alongside scientific research to inform resource comanagement decisions (Russell et al. 2013). By integrating the Gitga’at harvesters’ knowledge monitoring program with the Gitga’at Guardian program within the Gitga’at Oceans and Lands Department, as suggested by department leaders, the Gitga’at First Nation can enhance its monitoring with the observations of land and sea users. This is an opportunity that exists for other First Nations and Indigenous groups with pre-existing monitoring programs.

As Gitga’at department leaders emphasized, a key way to enhance the monitoring program we piloted would be to increase the number of participants. We estimate that approximately 58% and 68% of harvesters shared their observations from the spring and fall/winter harvest seasons, respectively. Uneven ability or willingness to participate are challenges within participatory and community-based work in general (Natcher and Hickey 2002). While we were generally happy about our response rates and representation of different groups (men, women, and a range of age and family groups), some opinions and observations were still likely missed. We are encouraged by the positive feedback received following the spring harvest pilot season that the number of interview participants was higher in the fall/winter season. Higher levels of participation will increase the ability for diverse contributions while also increasing the power of shared observations. Heterogeneity of communities in terms of participation, status, and family groups also means that it is essential that participating harvesters be able to establish how widely they want their knowledge shared, since some pieces of knowledge are strictly confidential to family groups or clans, whereas others are openly shared within and outside of the community (Pulsifer et al. 2012; Chambers et al. 2017). Setting clear protocols about which observations and pieces of knowledge may be shared and with whom is crucial, and more work is warranted to design appropriate data management systems.

Initiating and designing a Gitga’at knowledge-based monitoring program highlighted the importance of building capacity to ensure the continuation of the program. Department leaders emphasized that to create a self-sustaining program, university researchers should invest the necessary time into transferring data collection and management skills to Gitga’at people. We echo Coombes et al. (2014) in saying that collaborative research should not be judged by its primary outputs but rather by its capacity to transition skills to host communities so that they become bases for continued independent research. We have obtained funding for a transition period to further train Gitga’at researchers so that the monitoring program can be fully self-sufficient. We encourage academic and funding institutions to recognize the time it takes to establish good relationships and for bidirectional transfer of research skills in participatory and (or) community-based research settings.

The iterative and participatory design process we have detailed here and the resulting tools for documenting Indigenous harvesters’ observations and knowledge can serve as templates for other Indigenous groups that wish to create similar initiatives. The iterative and community-informed process we used allowed us to design a monitoring approach with tools tailored to Gitga’at objectives and harvesting practices. This process is an adaptable approach that other Indigenous groups may find useful for designing their own monitoring programs. Further, we invite other interested Indigenous groups to modify the logbook and interview guides we tested to suit their own social-ecological context and generate information that would be useful to their own specific needs and objectives.

Our heartfelt thanks to the Sm’oogyits and Gitga’at elected leadership for supporting and encouraging this work in your community and on your territories. We would like to thank the multiple harvesters and knowledge holders who guided this work and generously shared their time and insights with us as well as the representatives of Gitga’at departments who helped us stay on track. A special thanks to Cameron and Eva Hill for inviting us to stay with them in Ky’el. Thanks also to Olivia Robinson and Joshua Bolton for their transcription work. We would like to thank Trevor Lantz for his guidance while this work was in its form as a graduate-level thesis. We also thank two anonymous reviewers for their suggestions, which greatly improved this manuscript. We are grateful for the financial support of the Social Science and Humanities Research Council, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, the Vancouver Foundation, the Elizabeth Henry Scholarship for Communities and Environmental Health, the University of Victoria, Patagonia Environmental Research Funds, the Marine Environmental Observation Prediction and Response Network, BC Parks Living Labs, and the Jacobs Research Funds. Research activities were carried out with the approval of the University of Victoria Human Research Ethics Board (protocol number 16-379).