1. Introduction
Arctic community-based monitoring (CBM) programs—or formalized processes where parties “collaborate to monitor, track and respond to issues of common community concern” (
Whitelaw et al. 2003, p. 410)—have proliferated in recent decades (
Johnson et al. 2015;
Kouril et al. 2016;
Danielsen et al. 2020). Many authors identify the desire to influence decision-making as a motivation for Arctic CBM (e.g.,
Fidel et al. 2014;
Kouril et al. 2016;
Gagnon et al. 2020), but the relationship between CBM and environmental decision-making and governance has received relatively less attention. In a recent survey of Arctic CBM practitioners,
Danielsen et al. (2020, p. 13) found that 60% of respondents stated that CBM had improved “participation in natural resource decision-making, leadership development, and increased local governance over natural resources”. However, more empirical evidence is needed to examine whether and how Arctic CBM programs are achieving the desired outcomes in decision-making (
Johnson et al. 2015;
Danielsen et al. 2020).
Research globally suggests that CBM increases the extent and immediacy of data uptake in decision-making (
Danielsen et al. 2007;
Brook et al. 2009;
Conrad and Hilchey 2011), although interventions tend to be limited to local rather than regional or national decision-making processes (
Danielsen et al. 2010). At the same time, CBM data use is limited by factors including the scale and type of data collected, how extensively they are shared, what format they are shared in, their perceived accuracy and trustworthiness, and their relevance to critical environmental issues and decision contexts (
Sheil 2001;
Danielsen et al. 2009;
Johnson et al. 2015;
Buckland-Nicks et al. 2016;
Herman-Mercer et al. 2018). For instance, where community-centered approaches drive the selection of data collection methods (e.g., interviews or mapping exercises), the sensitivity of Indigenous Knowledge (IK),
1 and the need to respect Indigenous data sovereignty can mean that CBM data are not always easily shared across contexts. Adding to the above, an emerging body of scholarship situates CBM within the broader environmental governance system.
2 Staddon et al. (2014, p. 13) write that it is necessary to understand “how issues of power and control may constrain [CBM's] contribution to sustainable environmental management”. These issues are particularly notable in relation to Indigenous peoples who are navigating unequal governance systems shaped by settler-colonialism.
3 Indeed, while Indigenous peoples are frequently characterized simply as “stakeholders” within CBM programs (
Wilson et al. 2018), recent research has examined the potential for Indigenous rightsholders to use CBM to assert their self-determination within or to “decolonize” settler-colonial governance systems (
Kotaska 2013;
Wilson et al. 2018;
Reed et al. 2020). Despite these efforts, there is a need to attend to the ways that settler-colonialism also constrains Indigenous self-determination and governance (
Cohen et al. 2021;
Reed et al. 2021). Thus, examining the effects of equity and justice in environmental governance in CBM requires widening the scope beyond individual decision-making contexts to also examine the influence of the broader system.
The Arctic environmental governance system is complex and involves many state and non-state actors, whose roles and relationships are rapidly shifting within a changing environmental, social, and political landscape (
Dodds and Nuttall 2015;
Shadian 2017). Indigenous peoples are primary actors in Arctic CBM (
Johnson et al. 2015). As such, understanding the role of Indigenous peoples in environmental governance is critical. While Arctic Indigenous peoples have always governed their territories, their inherent rights and authorities are not evenly recognized across colonial contexts (
Coulthard 2014;
Nadasdy 2017;
Shadian 2017;
Nuttall 2018). Governance approaches in Arctic states vary in many regards, including the distinct histories of settler-colonialism, resource extraction, infrastructure, capacity, and more; all of which influence the extent to which Indigenous rights and authorities are acknowledged and respected. Along with national and sub-national policies, laws, and regulations, Arctic environmental governance is shaped to a significant degree by agreements between Indigenous peoples and colonial states including the
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (1971), the Greenlandic Inuit state (
Naalakkersuisut) created by self-rule in 1979 (
Nuttall 2008;
Kuokkanen 2017), and several comprehensive land claim agreements in the Canadian North negotiated after 1973 (
Loukacheva 2007;
Bernauer 2015;
Nadasdy 2017;
Kuokkanen 2020;
Wilson 2020). Such agreements strive toward more equitable and inclusive forms of governance to redress colonial inequalities. For instance, comprehensive land claim agreements in Canada create significant legal infrastructure that increase the potential for Inuit and First Nations to direct research activities and participate in decision-making. Such legal infrastructure includes, but is not limited to, co-management boards (e.g., Nunavut Wildlife Management Board established by the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement is the main instrument of wildlife management and policy in Nunavut) and research permitting bodies (e.g., Yukon Scientists and Explorers Act Licence requires researchers from outside the territory to consult with Yukon First Nation governments prior to obtaining a research license). However, as much as these agreements may have shifted Indigenous-state relationships for the better, they are not without critique. In particular, comprehensive land claim agreements have been noted to represent a limited form of shared decision-making (i.e., they generally involve an advisory role) (
Wilson 2020). Adding to this, these governance arrangements have been criticized for imposing colonial European governance systems and processes that bear little resemblance to Indigenous legal and governance traditions (
Natcher et al. 2005;
Nadasdy 2017;
Wilson 2019).
The dearth of literature examining the relationship between CBM and environmental decision-making and governance in the Arctic motivate the development of this systematic scoping review of the peer-reviewed literature. It has two overlapping research objectives: (1) to explore how Arctic environmental governance systems shape the development, implementation, and mobilization of CBM data in decision-making and (2) to evaluate what elements of CBM facilitate or constrain the use of CBM data in decision-making processes. While primary research is needed to explore the nuanced relationships between CBM, Arctic decision-making, and governance, our systematic scoping review identifies some key trends and specifies some potential future directions for research on the topic.
4. Discussion
This systematic scoping review of the peer-reviewed literature reveals an increasing consideration of the potential for CBM to connect to environmental decision-making and governance in the Arctic. Indeed, the number of articles published annually in the years under consideration (1991–2021) that explicitly linked Arctic CBM and environmental decision-making and governance increased over time. Over half of the articles were published since 2018, suggesting that such connections will only intensify in the Arctic CBM literature.
Our review identified several factors as important to the potential for CBM to influence decision-making. These include having (a) addressed a data gap, (b) produced data of high quality and accuracy, (c) levels of trust among parties and perceived legitimacy, (d) data management practices, (e) data translation techniques, (f) the relevance of data to the decision context, and (g) other factors primarily focused on capacity. Many of these factors have been identified in the CBM literature outside the Arctic (
Sheil 2001;
Danielsen et al. 2005,
2009;
Buckland-Nicks, Castleden and Conrad 2016;
Herman-Mercer et al. 2018). However, there were unique qualities of Arctic environmental decision-making and governance considered within this literature.
While Arctic environmental governance is complex, we identify several important elements that are important when considering how to increase the uptake of CBM data in decision-making. A large majority of the included articles discussed CBM programs in the Canadian north (
n = 21; 78%); thus, the features we identified in our review are rooted in this context. As noted previously, the presence of so many CBM programs in the Canadian north is likely influenced by the existence of comprehensive land claim agreements and related policy requirements. Such agreements strive toward more equitable and inclusive forms of governance to redress colonial inequalities. Three key features of the governance landscape likely influence the creation of CBM programs and their connection to decision-making. First, Canadian federal and territorial legal and policy requirements to consult and engage with Indigenous peoples and IK systems in decision-making were discussed by several authors (
Russell et al. 2013;
Ostertag et al. 2018;
Ndeloh Etiendem et al. 2020;
Peacock et al. 2020). It is not clear to what extent these requirements are increasing the uptake of CBM data in decision-making. Consultation and engagement are very limited forms of participation in governance as they fall short of acknowledging Indigenous jurisdiction or decision-making authority. Nonetheless, they do represent a shift in the broader governance context to include rightsholders and can be considered a facilitative factor.
Second, the presence of research permitting requirements in the Canadian territories (e.g., Yukon Scientists and Explorers Act Licence) requires researchers from outside the territory to consult with Indigenous rightsholders prior to obtaining a research license. As such, it is likely these permitting processes increase the number of CBM programs by motivating researchers to involve communities more fully in monitoring. However, we view permitting processes as limited in their ability to address systemic inequalities within the Arctic environmental governance system. In agreement with
Perrin et al. (2021), we argue that these research permitting processes might better facilitate the connection between CBM and decision-making by improving guidance to applicants on how to address the policy priorities in a particular region. However, further research is needed to examine the potential effect research permits have on decision-making.
Third, co-management institutions were among the most common decision contexts discussed. While co-management was discussed outside of the Canadian context (e.g., in Alaska See
Fidel et al. 2014), these institutions most often flow from comprehensive land claim agreements in Arctic Canada. For instance, many of the included articles conducted with Inuit in Nunavut discussed co-management arrangements that stem from the
Nunavut Land Claims Agreement Act (1993) (
Tomaselli et al. 2018;
Ndeloh Etiendem et al. 2020;
Peacock et al. 2020). Co-designing research with the decision-making processes of co-management boards and their strategic priorities in mind was a common theme (
Hovel et al. 2020;
Peacock et al. 2020). However, even in instances where CBM was co-designed with the goal of influencing co-management decisions, the same co-management bodies did not always have a mechanism for taking the data into account once collected (
Ndeloh Etiendem et al. 2020). Co-management boards have been subject to criticisms regarding how their role in the Arctic governance context might facilitate or constrain CBM from influencing change. For instance, based on ethnographic research conducted in Yukon, Canada,
Nadasdy (2017) argues, to implement the powers contained within comprehensive land claim agreements, Arctic Indigenous peoples have had to dramatically alter their ways of life and engage in forms of governance that bear little likeness to traditional forms of governance. In wildlife co-management processes, for instance, Indigenous peoples have had to accept a range of “Euro-Canadian assumptions about the nature of power and governance that are implicit in the notion of a treaty between sovereign (or semi-sovereign) entities” (p. 6).
Tester and Irniq (2008) note that some of these co-management boards (e.g., Nunavut Wildlife Management Board) have had more success than others at incorporating IK and perspectives, “[m]ost likely this success has a great deal to do with the power and control that indigenous
[sic] people have over the process in question” (p. 51). While co-management bodies flow from comprehensive land claim agreements, which acknowledge Inuit and First Nations as “rightsholders”, it is important to attend to the potential limitations they may present in terms of what they conceptualize as “governance” or “data”, and the power each party has available to exercise decision-making authority.
Taken together, many of the included articles add valuable empirics needed to understand the relationship between CBM and decision-making. They provide specific examples of CBM influencing or potentially influencing decision-making, which are often lacking in the broader literature. The included articles also frequently discuss aspects of the environmental governance context, including demonstrating awareness of the complexities of policy and legal context in which Indigenous peoples, their knowledge, and governance roles are situated. While we do not wish to minimize these contributions, in agreement with the emerging body of literature that situates CBM within the broader context of unequal politics and governance (e.g.,
Staddon et al. 2014; Wilson et al. 2018; Reed et al. 2020; Cohen et al. 2021;
Reed et al. 2021), we find that more emphasis on the influence of the broader Arctic environmental governance system is needed. More specifically, we find that the impact of ongoing settler-colonial politics and Indigenous peoples’ desire to assert their self-determination require further discussion. Indeed, while Indigenous peoples played a significant role within the literature under consideration and most included articles also discussed IK, less than half of the articles incorporated Indigenous governance concepts to a major extent. Instead, about one quarter partially incorporated these concepts, while others did not incorporate Indigenous governance to any extent. Paying greater attention to the influence—the often-unequal politics in Arctic environmental systems—would facilitate movement beyond the understandings of CBM and decision-making as a “technical” process to account for the nuances of these systems that may facilitate or constrain CBM data from being taken up. Even more fundamentally, it requires us to ask: Who has the power to make decisions in this context? Whose legal or governance traditions shape the governance process? Whose knowledge is considered valuable and in what format?
Based on the above findings, we discuss potential future directions for research and practice related to CBM in the Arctic. First, this review suggests that greater attention to the complexities of Arctic environmental governance is needed in the CBM literature. Environmental governance is a malleable term. As such, it can be used to gloss over issues of unequal power and politics in ways that are counter to the goal of justice (
Perreault 2014) that motivate many communities to participate in CBM. This tendency is perhaps most obviously represented in the limited understandings of Indigenous governance within the included articles. Settler colonial politics continue to shape governance in the Arctic (
Bernauer 2019;
Wilson 2020). Less than half of the included articles explicitly referred to Indigenous peoples as rightsholders with their own legal and governance systems (
n = 11; 41%). While two thirds of the included articles included at least one Indigenous governance concept (
n = 17; 63), less than half of the articles incorporated Indigenous governance concepts to a major extent
(n = 11, 41%). The continued view of Indigenous peoples as “stakeholders” in Arctic governance within the CBM literature points to the colonial underpinnings of many CBM programs. Indeed, as
Hovel et al. (2020, pp. 155–156) note, many of the challenges experienced in CBM are “rooted in the colonial history of research in northern regions; although CBM is intended to be a collaborative endeavor, it has also been criticized as another form of colonialism and co-optation (
de Leeuw et al. 2012)”. We argue that this reflects a need for external researchers who are party to CBM programs to educate themselves about the broader political landscapes of Arctic governance systems, including the existence of pre-colonial Indigenous governance systems, the effect of historical and ongoing settler-colonialism, the limited acknowledgment of Indigenous rights and authorities, and the systemic challenges and ethical responsibilities that these create.
Not only is it important for external parties to understand and recognize the governance roles of Arctic Indigenous peoples, but it is also important for external parties to critically assess the potential for CBM programs to reinforce existing political inequalities within Arctic systems. Writing in the context of CBM of water in Canada,
Cohen et al. (2021, p. 13) argue that despite the inclusion of Indigenous peoples, CBM programs tend to “reinforce existing hierarchies of knowledge, economics, and power. […] As a result, CBM programs might not only have limited influence on the decisions of authorities, they might also contribute to sustaining unequal and exploitative governance systems”. While CBM programs might have colonial underpinnings, especially given that many are designed to gain recognition by colonial governments (
Reed et al. 2020;
Cohen et al. 2021), the agency of Indigenous peoples to participate in and increasingly lead such programs must also be respected (
Wilson et al. 2018). To enhance the potential for Arctic CBM programs to contribute to positive environmental governance outcomes, researchers and other external parties should focus on supporting Indigenous-led programs and their strategic priorities. Such a focus is needed to avoid what
Noble and Birk (2011) call “comfort monitoring” or CBM that, despite expectations, does little to support changes in decision-making.
Second, connected to the above, the politics of knowledge within CBM programs requires further attention. It was evident in the included articles that IK is a valued component of CBM programs in a large majority of articles (
n = 21; 78%). This suggests a major shift in the value placed on IK systems as well as legal requirements for its inclusion in decision-making processes in many Arctic jurisdictions. Yet, more attention needs to be paid to the uneasy tension between IK and governance processes shaped by colonial scientific management approaches (
Latulippe and Klenk 2020;
Wilson 2020). Indeed, there is a strong potential for CBM programs to replicate colonial research paradigms including extractive research practices and a focus on the “integration” of IK systems into the WS knowledge and within colonial governance processes. These tensions are especially evident in discussions related to the development of IK indicators to incorporate IK into CBM through repeated observations over time. While there are benefits associated with this approach, such as the ability to represent IK in a manner that might be more easily understood within colonial scientific management systems (
Danielsen et al. 2014), it also runs the risk of applying this knowledge in contexts and at scales that distort its meaning (
Tester and Irniq 2008;
Latulippe and Klenk 2020). Concerns about the appropriate use of IK and IK indicators were noted in several of the included articles (e.g., IK indicators cannot capture the holistic nature of IK systems) (
Parlee et al. 2005;
Bennett and Lantz 2014). Thus, Indigenous peoples must lead the development of IK indicators and make decisions about their use. Indigenous leadership is fundamental to achieving this goal, including involvement in all phases of CBM from design to data governance. Taking this a step further, we should also be examining the colonial pressures within the broader environmental governance system that motivates Indigenous peoples to develop such approaches to representing IK. In such a view, we might ask ourselves how to address the unequal Arctic economic and political landscape in ways that would (a) be better able to understand IK (e.g., in oral narrative format) and (b) reduce the burden placed on Indigenous peoples to engage in monitoring. Still, Indigenous peoples are in many cases driving the documentation of IK through CBM programs to assert their self-determination. Future research related to IK and CBM should therefore focus on best practices that can be implemented to minimize the potential negative implications of such approaches.
Third, we recommend future research attend to the role of digital technologies in collecting, managing, and mobilizing CBM data in environmental decision-making. There is a trend toward employing digital data management and collection platforms in CBM (
Johnson et al. 2021). The included articles provide several examples of this shift, including GIS technologies (
Bennett and Lantz 2014;
Herrmann et al. 2014;
McGetrick et al. 2015). In a global review,
Brammer et al. (2016) found that CBM programs that used digital devices had a higher likelihood of reporting management actions. However, digital platforms can increase the difficulty of managing sensitive data including spatially explicit data and IK. Indigenous-developed data management protocols are needed to protect Indigenous data sovereignty through managing data access (
Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami 2018).
Johnson et al. (2021) advise that the desire to use CBM data in decision-making across scales is accompanied by a growing emphasis on data interoperability and standardization. However, they note, “[t]here is a potential for conflict between the drive for interoperability and standardization and the importance placed on data sovereignty and prioritization of local information needs by community partners” (p. 463). Indeed, even as Indigenous peoples build capacity for data management and curation using these digital platforms, it is also critical to continue to center Indigenous data sovereignty and needs. We argue that it is particularly important for external partners to CBM programs (e.g., from government, academia, or industry) to build their capacity for respecting issues of Indigenous governance and data sovereignty that arise through the collection, management, and use of digital data.