Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Indigenous arctic communities access terrestrial and marine wildlife. This access contributes to their food sovereignty. Ineffective management of wildlife that migrate internationally jeopardizes local and regional access to these species and subsequently hunting practices and human health. Despite general recognition of the role of effective transboundary management in food security, the issue remains under-studied. One puzzle is why some food sources (i.e. marine mammals) with transboundary policies have been sustainably managed, while others have not. Guided by Mitchell’s ‘four factors’ framework, this research compares the effectiveness of the transboundary management of the Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort bowhead whale population and the Chukchi Sea polar bear population in the Northern Bering-Chukchi Sea Large Marine Ecosystem. We find that the cases diverged in terms of governance and transparency. Regarding the management of the Chukchi Sea polar bear population, information and incentives were only sometimes present and capacities were rarely present. Based on the effective aspects of the evaluated transboundary agreements, we recommend the following for transboundary marine mammal management in the Arctic: 1) that local and regional financial, administrative, and technical capacities are included at the decision-making table, and 2) that western science is used in conjunction with Indigenous Knowledge or to co-produce knowledge.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Aho et al. (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: