Lost in Translation

The meaningful incorporation of Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) into large-scale northern infrastructure construction can improve sustainability practises and broaden our conceptual understanding of nature (Sidorova and Virla 2022). TEK refers to systems of collective knowledge production, established gradually by members of Indigenous and local communities and transferred through generations (Agrawala et al. 2010). While the ‘traditional’ part of the term TEK can be problematic, as the word may connote something old and static, we stress here that TEK is a dynamic, living tradition adaptable to new conditions and knowledge. Another key element in infrastructure projects is the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). EIAs are used to evaluate the likelihood of negative environmental impacts before deciding whether to move forward with a project. They also attempt to develop and implement strategies to avoid or reduce those negative impacts as conditions of approval for the project (Agrawala et al. 2010). This paper examines a particular tension that arises between TEK and EIA. On the one hand, TEK is often formulated in Indigenous languages, and on the other EIA are often produced in non-Indigenous languages. Our aim in this paper is to understand what is lost or omitted when Indigenous-originating TEK is translated into non-Indigenous EIAs. We show that the contrast between the two knowledge forms is not merely linguistic, but also epistemological, and we ask how the use of Indigenous languages might contribute to closing the epistemological gap between TEK and EIA and so improve the decision-making around large projects in northern communities. We illustrate how the use of non-Indigenous language in EIAs leads to (over)simplification and a loss of nuance that renders TEK less meaningful as it is translated. Specifically, we draw upon examples from Sakha culture and language (in the Sakha Republic, Russia) and Nehiyawewin (Plains Cree) culture and language (in Alberta, Canada). We performed a content analysis of ethnological assessments (EA) in the Sakha Republic and EIA in Alberta. We keep the terminological distinction between EA in Russia and EIA in Canada, as the term ‘ethnological’ is legally imposed by the Russian government (Sleptsov and Petrova 2019). There is also distinction between EIAs and EAs in the Russian context. In Russia, EIAs study the impact of the industrial project on nature, while EAs focus on the impact on Indigenous Peoples, who are engaged in traditional subsistence activities (Sleptsov and Petrova 2019). In Canada, EIAs can also include ethnographic (culturally relevant) data. We analyzed the ten most frequently occurring words in EIAs and EIA-like material, generated out of construction and infrastructure projects in the two regions. These reports were all publicly available on the regional governmental websites for both the Albertan and Sakha Republic jurisdictions. From these purposively sampled documents, we sought out Indigenous language translations for the frequently occurring non-Indigenous words, conducting a linguistic relativity analysis of the gaps that opened up between the EIA’s formulations and worldview, and the words and worldviews of the languages where TEK was developed.