The ecosystem approach to marine management in the Arctic: Opportunities and challenges for integration

Introduction

Global climate change is transforming the Arctic. Melting sea ice, ocean warming, sea-level rise, and rapidly acidifying waters are altering the Arctic marine environment at an unprecedented rate and directly impact the Arctic coastal communities whose identities, traditions and livelihoods are closely interconnected with the marine environment (Meredith et al., 2019; AMAP, 2021). In addition, the loss of sea ice is allowing for the expansion of economic activities such as shipping, offshore oil and gas, and access to mining, affecting both the marine environment and the people living in the Arctic (Young, 2019; Balton and Zagorski, 2020). Against this background, there is an urgent need to understand and holistically manage the transformations in the Arctic marine environment.

The Ecosystem Approach (EA) is a promising approach in this regard as it provides a systematic method for assessing and managing the effects of multiple stressors affecting Arctic marine ecosystems. Through its inclusive, flexible and adaptive nature, EA is well-suited to take into account ecological, but also social and economic goals and address the rapid changes in the Arctic (Arctic Council, 2013a).

This article aims to provide an overview of the relevant EA instruments and frameworks at work, and the obstacles and opportunities for EA application in the Arctic marine environment. Based on the findings, recommendations on how to promote EA application in the Arctic are provided.

In the 2013 Kiruna Declaration, ministers of the Arctic States agreed to adopt the definition of EA as “Comprehensive, integrated management of human activities based on best available scientific and traditional knowledge about the ecosystem and its dynamics, in order to identify and take action on influences that are critical to the health of ecosystems, thereby achieving sustainable use of ecosystem goods and services and maintenance of ecosystem integrity” (Arctic Council, 2013b). As there is no universally accepted definition of EA, the above definition will be used as a starting point for guiding the discussions of this paper. EA and Ecosystem-based Management (EBM) are often used interchangeably (Long et al., 2015). As they do not substantially differ (see Agardy et al., 2011; Delacámara et al., 2020), this paper will use the term EA for consistency, even when referring to papers that use the term EBM.

The aspect of integration is often stressed as one key aspect of EA (Long et al., 2015; Delacámara et al., 2020) and Lieberknecht (2020) proposed the following five categories of integration for Ecosystem-Based Integrated Ocean Management: integration of governance, integration of knowledge, integration of stakeholders, transboundary integration, and integration of system dynamics. Considering these integration categories, we address the following four categories in this analysis: ‘vertical’ integration across geographic scales from international to local, transboundary integration across administrative boundaries, ‘horizontal’ integration across sectors, and integration of scientific disciplines and knowledge systems.

We adhere to the delineation of the Arctic established by the Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna Working Group of the Arctic Council (CAFF). The CAFF boundary includes waters of the Russian Federation, Norway, Iceland, the Faroe Islands, Greenland, Canada, and the United States, as well as areas beyond national jurisdiction, including the Central Arctic Ocean (Figure 1).

FIGURE 1

Figure 1 Map of the Arctic region depicting the CAFF Arctic boundary as well as Large Marine Ecosystems (LME) identified by the Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment (PAME) Working Group of the Arctic Council for circumpolar EA application. Inuit Nanungat, major population centers and states’ Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) boundaries are shown for context. IASS/Oceans North visualization based on PAME (2014); CAFF (2017); Flanders Marine Institute (2019); GRID-Arendal (2019); Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada (2019); GEBCO Compilation Group (2020); Copernicus Climate Change Service/ECMWF (2021a); Copernicus Climate Change Service/ECMWF (2021b).

‘Vertical’ integration across geographic scales from international to local

EA should be applied at the appropriate level and scale to the activities or threats being managed (Long et al., 2015). Depending on the ecosystem boundaries, this may require global or regional cooperation or might imply management by local communities (Delacámara et al., 2020). In the Arctic, a number of global, regional, national and local regimes apply with respect to the protection of Arctic marine ecosystems and the services they provide for Arctic communities.

On the international level, two key legal instruments of relevance to EA are the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). UNCLOS provides the overall legal framework for marine and maritime activities and includes some broad provisions on protecting the marine environment, although it does not explicitly include the EA concept. The CBD covers terrestrial as well as marine biodiversity and was the first international treaty to adopt EA as the primary framework for action under the Convention (CBD. 1995. COP 2 Decision II/8).

At the regional level, EA can first and foremost be advanced by creating context-specific platforms through which states, stakeholders and regional and global management organizations can communicate, coordinate, and collaborate in their efforts. The Arctic Council is the leading body for the cooperation and coordination among the Arctic states, Arctic Indigenous Peoples, and other actors on issues related to sustainable development and environmental protection in the Arctic. The Arctic Council has done extensive circumpolar work regarding EA. Main achievements include establishing an expert group on EA (2007), as well as elaborating on the principles of EBM (2013), the status of implementation of EA to management in the Arctic (2015), and guidelines for implementing EA to management in the Arctic (2017). Another regional instrument with relevance to EA in the Arctic is the OSPAR Convention, which has EA as a guideline, but is geographically limited to the North-East Atlantic (O’Hagan, 2020).

While the Arctic Council has provided a good knowledge base on EA, it is the national governments which are mostly responsible for the application of EA (Zagorski and Todorov, 2018). Except for Norway, no Arctic coastal state has so far developed an explicit national approach regarding the implementation of EA (Rudd et al., 2018). Several Arctic states have, however, established co-management programs to share responsibilities regarding marine management among Indigenous communities and governments. These programs are mainly present in the United States, Canada, and Greenland, whereas there are relatively few examples in Norway and the Russian Federation (Johnson et al., 2016). While not all co-management arrangements adopt EA as a framework, many of them reflect key principles of EA and offer opportunities to work towards EA. An example for this is provided by the Northern Bering Sea Climate Resilience Area. The designation of the area provides a mechanism for the more than 70 Tribes in the region to exercise self-determination and contribute to policy decisions facing the Northern Bering Sea. An U.S. Presidential Executive Order halts oil and gas development and allows commercial fishing only if agreed to by local indigenous communities (The White House, 2016; Steffen et al., 2021).

Transboundary integration across administrative boundaries

The transboundary nature of marine ecosystems calls for international cooperation and information exchange between the Arctic states as well as with regimes applying to areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ).

Several transboundary assessments of the Arctic marine environment have been conducted. The CBD has been assigned the role of identifying and describing Ecologically or Biologically Significant Marine Areas (EBSAs) and conducted an Arctic regional workshop to identify EBSAs in Arctic waters within and beyond national jurisdiction. The working group on Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment (PAME) under the Arctic Council identified 18 large marine ecosystems (LMEs) which are meant to form the basis of EA implementation in the Arctic (Figure 1). The International Council for the Exploration of the Seas (ICES), and the North Pacific Marine Science Organization (PICES) have been instrumental in supporting the development of integrated ecosystem assessments for different marine regions in the Arctic.

Yet, while assessments have been conducted across administrative boundaries, coordination between the Arctic states in the form of legally binding agreements remains challenging. These are currently restricted to the Agreement to prevent Unregulated High Seas Fisheries in the central Arctic Ocean (between the 5 Arctic coastal states and Iceland, Japan, China and the Republic of Korea), the Polar Bear Agreement (between the 5 Arctic Ocean coastal states) and the agreements on Arctic Search and Rescue and Cooperation on Marine Oil Pollution Preparedness and Response (between the 7 Arctic Council states, but not formally under the Arctic Council).

An example of species-related co-management across boundaries is the InuvialuitInupiat agreement which provides for cooperation by Indigenous institutions in Canada and the United States in the research and management of shared populations of polar bears in the southern Beaufort Sea (Joint Secretariat, 2017). In the Barents Sea, Norway and Russia cooperate on fisheries management within the Joint Norwegian-Russian Fisheries Commission (JNRFC). In the Bering Sea, Russia and the United States cooperate regarding matters relating to fisheries, maritime safety and environmental stewardship. Since 2014, there has been little contact between the United States and Russian governments in response to Russian actions in Ukraine (Pincus, 2020). Cooperation between Norway and Russia in the Barents Sea has also been challenged by the 2022 invasion of Ukraine by Russia. The latter event also caused the pausing of cooperation within the Arctic Council (Jonassen, 2022), indicating that political circumstances pose a major challenge for transboundary integration in the Arctic.

Ongoing efforts to manage and conserve Pikialasorsuaq,a large polynya (an area of open water in sea ice) located between Nunavut and Greenland is an example of ongoing efforts towards transboundary integration. The Inuit Circumpolar Council (ICC) initiated the Pikialasorsuaq Commission to conduct consultations and give Inuit communities in Canada and Greenland a voice for their vision for the area. As a result of the consultations, the Pikialasorsuaq Commission recommended establishing an Inuit-led management regime for the area which would include a protected area comprised of Pikialasorsuaq itself, a larger management zone, and the creation of a free travel zone for Inuit across the region (Pikialasorsuaq Commission, 2017). Negotiations between national and regional bodies have been ongoing since 2017, yet little progress has been made on formalizing a management regime for Pikialasorsuaq, showing the difficulty of bringing together different governance frameworks and regulations in a coherent manner.

With regards to ABNJ, negotiations are currently underway under the umbrella of UNCLOS on the establishment of an international legally binding instrument on biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction (referred to as BBNJ), which foresees EA as guidance. At the time of writing, the modalities on identification, designation, and management of area-based management tools, including marine protected areas, are still under negotiation, but the new instrument is expected to fill current governance gaps by providing a legal framework for a future protective regime for ABNJs, including the Central Arctic Ocean (De Lucia, 2019).

‘Horizontal’ integration across sectors

EA requires coordination efforts and collective action among different rights holders, stakeholders and policy domains (Rudd et al., 2018). In the Arctic, many sector-based organizations and agreements have been established to provide advice and coordinate the management of certain species or activities. Species-focused organizations and agreements include regional fisheries management organizations, as well as the International Whaling Commission (IWC), the North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission (NAMMCO), the Convention of Migratory Species (CMS), and the Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears. Activity-based organizations and agreements include the International Maritime Organization (IMO), as well as conventions dealing with pollutants, waste, seabed mining, safety at sea, oil spill preparedness, conducting science in the Arctic, etc.

As mentioned previously, the Arctic Council supports the synthesis of information regarding the marine ecosystem through assessments. However, it does not have a management mandate and thus cannot implement EA. In addition, some issues central to EA, such as fisheries management, are not currently being dealt with by the Arctic Council.

At the national level, Norway provides an example for an overall approach to EA across sectors (Olsen et al., 2016; Rudd et al., 2018; Lieberknecht, 2020). The system is based on the development of integrated regional management plans for the Norwegian Seas. These plans are developed under the direction of an Interministerial Steering Committee which is led by the Ministry of the Environment and includes representatives of other relevant ministries. Implementation of the plans is carried out by representatives from relevant government agencies and research institutions in the so-called Management Forum and three permanent working groups (Lieberknecht, 2020).

In Canada and the United States, routine horizontal integration techniques, such as inter-departmental committees, regional associations of governors, etc. exist, but these may not always be sufficient to support the integration necessary for EA (Rudd et al., 2018). There are however efforts to provide for cross sectoral integration in specific areas. In Canada for instance, the ongoing establishment and management planning processes for Talluruptiup Imanga and Tuvaijuittuq protected areas is expected to result in the prohibition of oil and gas, mining, dumping and bottom trawling, pending agreement among Inuit governance agencies and the Canadian government. Management planning processes for the protected areas is also expected to enable better cross-sectoral management of shipping, marine mammal protection, and community-based fisheries (Government of Canada, 2022a; Government of Canada, 2022b).

Integration of scientific disciplines and knowledge systems

As described in the Malawi Principle 11 developed under the CBD, EA should consider all forms of relevant information, including scientific, local, and Indigenous knowledge, innovations, and practices.

In the Arctic, Indigenous communities have long established knowledge systems that provide both a holistic world view and detailed knowledge of the environment. These knowledge systems, referred to as Indigenous Knowledge, or traditional ecological knowledge, shape daily life including traditional and subsistence practices (Heeringa et al., 2019). In response to increasing change across their homelands, many Arctic communities are initiating or participating in community-based monitoring (CBM) programs. CBM efforts often draw on both Indigenous and scientific knowledge, approaches, and methodologies and may support local or national decision making. An online atlas has been created to provide an overview of many CBM projects (Danielsen et al., 2020). The atlas forms part of the broader Sustaining Arctic Observing Networks (SAON) initiative which promotes, coordinates and supports observations in the Arctic.

Efforts towards knowledge partnerships can be observed among many institutions, including the Arctic Council working groups, ICES, PICES, as well as among sectoral institutions. The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC) in the United States, for instance, has begun managing the Bering Sea LME based on EA through the Bering Sea Fisheries Ecosystem Plan. This plan recently has applied a module to incorporate local and Indigenous knowledge and food security perspectives (NPFMC, 2019).

Despite these efforts, the wealth of Indigenous Knowledge and co-production of knowledge efforts present in the Arctic is not always considered in decision making (Yua et al., 2022). The prioritization of Indigenous perspectives, values, and ways of life have been historically hampered by researchers’, managers’, and policy makers’ complicity in perpetuating historical injustices such as the displacement and exclusion of Indigenous Peoples and their practices within protected areas and the misuse of Indigenous Knowledge in ways that have limited sovereignty and self-determination, and in some cases, have even led to the criminalization of Indigenous Peoples in their own homelands (Burnett et al., 2016; Bruno, 2017; Moola and Roth, 2018). In addition, scientific research has often played a role in justifying management decisions which were imposed on communities without their participation or consent, especially regarding wildlife management (Johnson et al., 2016; ICC Alaska, 2020).

In an attempt to provide guidance for researchers, decision-makers and others on how to consult and cooperate with of Inuit, the ICC has developed Circumpolar Inuit Protocols on Equitable and Ethical Engagement (or EEE Protocols) which involved Inuit from across Alaska, Canada, Greenland, and Chukotka (ICC, 2021; ICC, 2022b). In Canada the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami has developed a National Inuit Strategy for Research, aiming inter alia to advance Inuit governance in research, enhance the ethical conduct of research, align funding with Inuit research priorities, ensure Inuit access, ownership, and control over data and information; and build capacity (ITK, 2018).

Discussion

International and regional instruments and institutions play an important role in providing transboundary assessments for the management of the Arctic marine environment. The knowledge base provided by the Arctic Council working groups, the assessments from science organizations such as ICES and PICES, as well as the wealth of Indigenous Knowledge present in the region are valuable starting points for the implementation of EA in the Arctic.

Strengthening Arctic regional cooperation on management of protected areas, science and restoration, such as the development of ecologically connected networks of protected areas can help build regional partnerships to implement EA.

However, mechanisms for translating the knowledge into joint action are currently lacking. The overall governance framework for Arctic marine areas provides a fragmented picture with international and regional instruments that are restricted in their capacity to support implementation of EA in the Arctic due to their limited geographical and/or substantial scope. A strengthened mechanism for marine governance in the Arctic in the form of a regional seas program has been proposed but failed to garner political support among the Arctic Council member states (Prip, 2019). At the national level, a lack of political will appears to be the key factor which prevents the more comprehensive application of EA (see Rudd et al., 2018).

Furthermore, changes in the geopolitical environment, such as those created by the Russian invasion of Ukraine followed by the suspension of work of the Arctic Council, pose obstacles to the progress of EA in the region which will make it more challenging to overcome the presented barriers to achieving horizontal, vertical, and transboundary integration, as well as integration of scientific disciplines and knowledge systems.

Against this background of lack of political will at the national level, regional mechanisms not in place, and, most recently, geopolitical unrest, community-based, bottom-up initiatives may currently provide one of the most promising avenues for promoting EA application in the region. Establishing and supporting Indigenous-led and co-management arrangements for specific areas provides a mechanism to engage in co-production and bring Indigenous Knowledge into decision making. With support from civil society, Indigenous and conservation organizations may be able to coordinate and elevate community-driven initiatives that reflect an EA approach (ICC Alaska, 2016). Another opportunity for advancing EA is to engage with sectoral management bodies, such as those responsible for fisheries.

At the same time, global momentum brought about by the CBD Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework, the BBNJ negotiations, the ongoing UN Decades (2021-2030) on “Ocean Science for Sustainable Development” and “Ecosystem Restoration”, and several ocean as well as climate change related conferences are opportunities to raise awareness about the need for EA and secure financial support for co-management initiatives.

As another avenue, climate change adaptation planning, which addresses current and expected impacts experienced across multiple sectors and scales, provides opportunities for advancing EA in the Arctic.

All the identified opportunities are incremental steps that can be taken to promote EA implementation while working to establish a more comprehensive governance framework capable of achieving integration across disciplines and knowledge systems as well as horizontal, vertical and transboundary integration.

Data availability statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Author contributions

The production of the manuscript was coordinated by NW. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

Funding

NWs work on this paper was funded by an R&D project on marine conservation in the Arctic, funded by the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Nuclear Safety and Consumer Protection (BMUV) through the German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN) (grant agreement no. 351983100A).

Acknowledgments

We appreciate eight reviewers for their helpful and constructive comments and would also like to thank Olga Lukyanova and Olivia Mussells for providing the visualization for this paper.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

References

Agardy T., Davis J., Sherwood K., Vestergaard O. (2011). “Taking steps toward marine and coastal ecosystem-based management - an introductory guide,” in UNEP regional seas reports and studies, vol. 189. (Nairobi, Kenya: United Nations Environment Programme).

Google Scholar

AMAP (2021). Arctic Climate change update 2021: Key trends and impacts - summary for policy-makers (Tromsø, Norway: Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme).

Google Scholar

Arctic Council (2013a). Ecosystem-based management in the arctic. expert group on ecosystem-based management. (Tromsø, Norway: Arctic Council).

Google Scholar

Arctic Council (2013b) Kiruna declaration. the eighth ministerial meeting of the Arctic council (Kiruna, Sweden). Available at: https://oaarchive.arcticcouncil.org/handle/11374/93 (Accessed August 2, 2022).

Google Scholar

Balton D., Zagorski A. (2020). Implementing marine management in the Arctic ocean (Moscow, Russian Federation: Russian International Affairs Council).

Google Scholar

Bruno A. (2017). A tale of two reindeer: pastoralism and preservation in the soviet arctic. region Vol. 6 (Eastern Europe, and Central Asia: Regional Studies of Russia).

Google Scholar

Burnett K., Hay T., Chambers L. (2016). Settler colonialism, indigenous peoples and food: Federal Indian policies and nutrition programs in the Canadian north since 1945. J. Colonial. Colonial. History 17 (2). doi: 10.1353/cch.2016.0030

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

CAFF (2017) Boundary for conservation of Arctic flora and fauna (CAFF) working group of the Arctic council. Available at: http://geo.abds.is/geonetwork/srv/eng/catalog.search#/metadata/2ad7a7cb-2ad7-4517-a26e-7878ef134239 (Accessed August 5, 2022).

Google Scholar

Copernicus Climate Change Service/ECMWF (2021a) Average Arctic sea ice concentration for September 2021. the thick orange line denotes the climatological sea ice edge for September for the period 1991-2020. data source: ERA5. Available at: https://climate.copernicus.eu/sea-ice-cover-september-2021 (Accessed August 5, 2022).

Google Scholar

Copernicus Climate Change Service/ECMWF (2021b) Average Arctic sea ice concentration for march 2021. the thick orange line denotes the climatological sea ice edge for march for the period 1991-2020. data source: ERA5. Available at: https://climate.copernicus.eu/sea-ice-cover-march-2021 (Accessed August 5, 2022).

Google Scholar

Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada (2019) Inuit Regions (Inuit nunangat). Available at: https://open.canada.ca/data/en/dataset/f242b881-75e3-40bba148-63410b4ce2af (Accessed August 24, 2022).

Google Scholar

Danielsen F., Johnson N., Lee O., Fidel M., Iversen L., Poulsen M. K., et al. (2020). Community-based monitoring in the Arctic (Fairbanks, AK, United States: University of Alaska Press).

Google Scholar

Delacámara G., O’Higgins T. G., Lago M., Langhans S. (2020). Ecosystembased management: moving from concept to practice, in ecosystem-based management, ecosystem services and aquatic biodiversity: theory, tools and applications. Eds. O’Higgins T. G., Lago M., DeWitt T. H. (Cham, Switzerland: Springer), 39–60.

Google Scholar

De Lucia V. (2019). The BBNJ negotiations and ecosystem governance in the Arctic. Mar. Policy 142:1–10. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2019.103756

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Flanders Marine Institute (2019) Maritime boundaries geodatabase: Maritime boundaries and exclusive economic zones (200NM). Available at: https://www.marineregions.org/ (Accessed August 5, 2022).

Google Scholar

GEBCO Compilation Group (2020) The GEBCO_2020 grid - a continuous terrain model of the global oceans and land. Available at: https://www.gebco.net/data_and_products/gridded_bathymetry_data/ (Accessed August 5, 2022).

Google Scholar

Government of Canada (2022a) Tallurutiup imanga national marine conservation area Inuit impact and benefit agreement. Available at: https://www.pc.gc.ca/en/amncnmca/cnamnc-cnnmca/tallurutiup-imanga/entente-agreement (Accessed August 17, 2022).

Google Scholar

Government of Canada (2022b) Report on the designation of the tuvaijuittuq marine protected area. Available at: https://www.dfompo.gc.ca/oceans/publications/tuvaijuittuq/designation/index-eng.html#minister (Accessed August 17, 2022).

Google Scholar

GRID-Arendal (2019) Global linkages – a graphic look at the changing Arctic. Available at: https://www.grida.no/resources/13337 (Accessed August 5, 2022).

Google Scholar

Heeringa K. M., Huntington O., Woods B., Chapin F. S., Hum R. E., Brinkman T. J., et al. (2019). A holistic definition of healthy traditional harvest practices for rural indigenous communities in interior Alaska. J. Agricult. Food Syst. Community Dev. 9, 115–129. doi: 10.5304/jafscd.2019.09B.009

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Inuit Circumpolar Council (ICC) (2021). Ethical and equitable engagement synthesis report: a collection of Inuit rules, guidelines, protocols, and values for the engagement of Inuit communities and indigenous knowledge from across Inuit nunaat (Anchorage, AK, United States: Inuit Circumpolar Council Alaska).

Google Scholar

Inuit Circumpolar Council (ICC) (2022a) Indigenous knowledge. Available at: https://www.inuitcircumpolar.com/icc-activities/environment-sustainabledevelopment/indigenous-knowledge/ (Accessed August 15, 2022).

Google Scholar

Inuit Circumpolar Council (ICC) (2022b). Circumpolar Inuit protocols for equitable and ethical engagement (Anchorage, AK, United States: Inuit Circumpolar Council Alaska).

Google Scholar

Inuit Circumpolar Council (ICC), Brown University, ELOKA, and Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami's Inuit Qaujisarvingat: Inuit Knowledge Centre (2022) Atlas of communitybased monitoring and indigenous knowledge in a changing Arctic. Available at: www.arcticcbm.org (Accessed August 15, 2022).

Google Scholar

Inuit Circumpolar Council Alaska (ICC Alaska) (2016). Coastal monitoring indigenous knowledge holders meeting report (Ottawa, ON, Canada: Inuit Circumpolar Council Alaska).

Google Scholar

Inuit Circumpolar Council Alaska (ICC Alaska) (2020). Food sovereignty and SelfGovernance: Inuit role in managing Arctic marine resources (Anchorage, AK, United States: Inuit Circumpolar Council Alaska).

Google Scholar

Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami (ITK) (2018). Inuit Strategy for research (Ottawa, ON, Canada: Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami).

Google Scholar

Johnson N., Behe C., Danielsen F., Krümmel E. M., Nickels S., Pulsifer P. L. (2016). Community-based monitoring and indigenous knowledge in a changing Arctic: A review for the sustaining Arctic observing networks. final report to sustaining Arctic observing networks (Ottawa, ON, Canada: Inuit Circumpolar Council).

Google Scholar

Joint Secretariat (2017). Inuvialuit settlement region polar bear joint management plan (Inuvik, NWT, Canada: Joint Secretariat).

Google Scholar

Jonassen T. (2022) The Arctic council: the Arctic 7 resume limited work without Russia (High North News). Available at: https://www.highnorthnews.com/en/arctic-councilarctic-7-resume-limited-work-without-russia (Accessed July 26, 2022).

Google Scholar

Lieberknecht L. (2020). Ecosystem-based integrated ocean management: A framework for sustainable ocean economy development (Arendal, Norway: GRIDArendal).

Google Scholar

Long R. D., Charles A., Stephenson R. L. (2015). Key principles of marine ecosystem-based management. Mar. Policy 57, 53–60. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2015.01.013

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Meredith M., Sommerkorn M., Cassotta S., Derksen C., Ekaykin A., Hollowed A., et al. (2019). “Polar regions,” in IPCC special report on the ocean and cryosphere in a changing climate. Eds. Pörtner H. O., Roberts D. C., Masson-Delmotte V., Zhai P., Tignor M., Poloczanska E., Mintenbeck K., Alegría A., Nicolai M., Okem A., Petzold J., Rama B., Weyer N. M. (Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press), 203–320.

Google Scholar

Moola F., Roth R. (2018). Moving beyond colonial conservation models: Indigenous protected and conserved areas offer hope for biodiversity and advancing reconciliation in the Canadian boreal forest. Environ. Rev. 27, 200–201. doi: 10.1139/er-2018-0091

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

NPFMC (2019) Bering Sea Fishery ecosystem plan. Available at: https://www.npfmc.org/beringsea-fishery-ecosystem-plan/ (Accessed July 6, 2022).

Google Scholar

O’Hagan A. M. (2020). “Ecosystem-based management (EBM) and ecosystem services in EU law, policy and governance,” in Ecosystem-based management, ecosystem services and aquatic biodiversity: theory, tools and applications. Eds. O’Higgins T. G., Lago M., DeWitt T. H. (Cham, Switzerland: Springer), 353–372.

Google Scholar

Olsen E., Holen S., Hoel A. H., Buhl-Mortensen L., Røttingen I. (2016). How integrated ocean governance in the barents Sea was created by a drive for increased oil production. Mar. Policy 71, 293–300. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2015.12.005

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

PAME (2014) Large Marine ecosystems. Available at: https://www.pame.is/documentlibrary/ecosystem-approach-to-management-documents/large-marineecosystems/384-lme-shapefile-zip/file (Accessed August 9, 2022).

Google Scholar

Pikialasorsuaq Commission (2017). People of the ice bridge: The future of the pikialasorsuaq (Ottawa, ON, Canada: Inuit Circumpolar Council Canada).

Google Scholar

Pincus R. (2020). “The history of USA-Russia relations in the Bering strait,” in The palgrave handbook of Arctic policy and politics. Eds. Coates K., Holroyd C. (Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan), 333–349.

Google Scholar

Prip C. (2019). Arctic Ocean governance in light of an of an international legally binding instrument on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction. Mar. Policy 142. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2019.103768

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Rudd M. A., Dickey-Collas M., Ferretti J., Johannesen E., Macdonald N. M., McLaughlin R., et al. (2018). Ocean ecosystem-based management mandates and implementation in the north Atlantic. Front. Mar. Sci. 5. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2018.00485

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Steffen A., Greenlaw S. A., Biermann M., Lovecraft A. L. (2021). Alaska’s climate change policy development (Fairbanks, AK, United States: Center for Arctic Policy Studies).

Google Scholar

The White House (2016) Executive order - northern Bering Sea climate resilience. Available at: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-pressoffice/2016/12/09/executive-order-northern-bering-sea-climate-resilience (Accessed August 5, 2022).

Google Scholar

Young O. R. (2019). Is it time for a reset in Arctic governance? Sustainability 11, 6. doi: 10.3390/su11164497

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Yua E., Raymond-Yakoubian J., Daniel R. A., Behe C. (2022). A framework for co-production of knowledge in the context of Arctic research. Ecol. Soc. 27. doi: 10.5751/ES-12960-270134

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Zagorski A., Todorov A. (2018). Integrated marine management in the Arctic Vol. 14 (Moscow, Russian Federation: Russian International Affairs Council (RIAC).

Google Scholar