ABSTRACT
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.
Acknowledgements
This work is supported by the National Science Foundation, Office of Polar Programs, under Grant #1338850: Arctic FRontiers Of SusTainability: Resources, Societies, Environments and Development in the Changing North. We thank Dr. Robards, Dr. Boylan, and Dr. Lovecraft for their contributions to the research design. We also thank Dr. Kerttula for reviewing this paper, and Dr. Ehrlander for reviewing the Master's thesis, Transboundary Agreement: Case Studies Of Marine Mammal Management In The Bering Strait, from which this paper is derived.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).