Harmonizing Indigenous wisdom with Arctic futures: Unveiling challenges and embracing opportunities

Beginning in the 1990s, there has been a noticeable resurgence of interest by decision-makers in the knowledge systems of Arctic indigenous peoples concerning their ancestral territories and natural resources. These systems are critical in shaping the communities’ economic, political, and cultural futures. Foresight has emerged as a vital tool for envisioning and navigating the future. Strategic foresight involves a structured and systematic approach to using future-oriented ideas that anticipate opportunities and challenges. Ultimately, it enables better preparation for change through scenario assessment and planning.

In 2023, French researchers Simon Maraud and Samuel Roturier explored the engagement of Indigenous People and Local Communities (IPLCs) in policy decision-making. The researchers sought to understand how these communities leverage their Indigenous and Local Knowledge (ILK). ILK encompasses direct observations of ecological systems and deep connections to territorial management practices, social institutions, and cultural beliefs passed down over generations. Maraud and Roturier identified three distinct foresight arenas—global reviewing, foresight forums, and local participatory—varying in their IPLC’s involvement and influence levels.

International governing and advisory bodies, such as various United Nations (UN) agencies or the Arctic Council, craft scenarios and policies to guide future actions in the global reviewing foresight arena. While IPLCs are recognized as stakeholders, their influence remains limited within this bureaucratic framework. Foresight forums, like the Polar Week 2020 or the EU Industry Week 2021, provide platforms for diverse stakeholder engagement, yet IPLCs often find themselves underrepresented in these discussions. 

Conversely, the local participatory foresight arena offers IPLCs a more inclusive space for dialogue, enabling them to actively participate in shaping governance alongside other stakeholders ranging from local policymakers to extractive multinational corporations. Hence, this arena serves as a platform for fostering dialogue among parties that are often challenging to bring together and provides a more nuanced, context-specific understanding of Arctic matters and potential solutions.

Despite efforts to integrate ILK into foresight processes, significant challenges persist. Historically, IPLCs’ involvement in conservation efforts has often been tokenistic. ILK is frequently treated as supplementary narrative-based material rather than a knowledge foundation, limiting its potential impact. Given that existing policies and business decisions precondition narratives and frameworks, IPLCs are often required to conform to these modes of communication, which further marginalizes their voices and perspectives.

Arctic foresight discussions often prioritize geopolitics or climate change, sidelining other critical issues. Geopolitical discussions tend to exclude IPLCs, while the focus on global warming oversimplifies the diverse adaptive strategies and knowledge systems IPLCs employ in responding to environmental threats and shifting climate patterns. Additionally, excessive emphasis on climate change overlooks individual Arctic territories’ unique characteristics and dynamics. Such conversations neglect the environmental and social diversity of the Arctic. Ecosystems range from ice shelves to lowland tundra, and indigenous populations include Aleut, Saami, Chukchi, Iñupiat, and multiple others. Ultimately, this oversimplification leaves out regional economic and policy specificities, rendering these areas’ futures even more uncertain.

To illustrate the risk these communities bear, the Gwich’in people of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge face a complex dilemma regarding oil and gas drilling. On one hand, hydrocarbon exploration in the Arctic could contribute to Alaska’s economic growth, benefiting residents. On the other, Gwich’in people’s traditional subsistence living relies heavily on the health of the land and its resources. For example, Caribou herds, vital for both sustenance and cultural practices, are at risk of displacement and decline due to the disruption of tundra ecosystems caused by seismic testing, drilling activities, transportation, and consequent noise, light, and waste pollution.

Maraud and Roturier argue that, to shape inclusive Arctic futures, it is critical to challenge existing representations and recognize the influence of political and corporate legacies on foresight processes. This approach requires embracing nondiscriminatory methodologies that prioritize diverse perspectives and knowledge systems. By questioning underlying assumptions and power dynamics, new foresight narratives can emerge, reflecting the plurality of Arctic IPLCs’ experiences and aspirations and acknowledging them as active agents in shaping equitable futures.

In conclusion, integrating indigenous knowledge into Arctic foresight processes presents challenges and opportunities. While IPLCs are increasingly recognized as stakeholders, their influence remains limited within existing frameworks and conventional narratives. Developing inclusive foresight requires dismantling entrenched power structures and embracing diverse perspectives to create futures that honor the rich tapestry of Indigenous knowledge and experiences in the Arctic.