Transboundary marine mammal management in the northern Bering-Chukchi sea large marine area
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
From 1992 Chukotka scientists also collaborated with the North Slope Borough Wildlife Department on bowhead population estimates; later Russian Indigenous hunters provided additional shore-based observations.
“Corresponding with the period of Perestroika and a thawing of the “ice curtain”, from 1992 Chukotka scientists also collaborated with the North Slope Borough Wildlife Department on bowhead population estimates; later Russian Indigenous hunters provided additional shore-based observations (Aho and Meek, 2020).”
From Institutional navigation of oceans governance: Lessons from Russia and the United States Indigenous multi-level whaling governance in the Arctic (2022) · cites this paper as Aho and Meek, 2020
Early active parties to the co-management arrangement were the US, NOAA, the AEWC, the Russian Federation, Chukotka Regional Government, and a newly formed Indigenous organization in Chukotka.
“Early active parties to the co-management arrangement were the US, NOAA (Lefevre, 2013), the AEWC, the Russian Federation, Chukotka Regional Government, and a newly formed Indigenous organization in Chukotka (Aho and Meek, 2020).”
From Institutional navigation of oceans governance: Lessons from Russia and the United States Indigenous multi-level whaling governance in the Arctic (2022) · cites this paper as Aho and Meek, 2020
Cited by
Sorted by citations
York, A. M., Zdor, E., BurnSilver, S., Degai, T., Monakhova, M., Isakova, S., Petrov, A. N., & Kempf, M. (2022) · Earth System Governance · doi:10.1016/j.esg.2022.100154 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
- Authors
- Aho, K. B., & Meek, C. L.
- Affiliations
- University of Alaska Fairbanks (US)
- Corresponding author
- Aho, Kelsey B.
- Venue
- Polar Geography
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2020-08-04
- Volume
- 43
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 313-332
- ISSN
- 0148-7671 (ISSN-L)
- 1088-937X
- 1939-0513
- OpenAlex
- W3047134097
- Cited by
- 4
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2
- FWCI
- 0.89
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Polar Geography (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Office of Polar Programs (1338850: Arctic FRontiers Of SusTainability)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law › Coastal and Marine Management
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Indigenous Studies and Ecology
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Arctic and Russian Policy Studies
- Keywords
- bowhead whale, Indigenous food sovereignty, indigenous knowledge, knowledge co-production, large marine ecosystems, hunting access, governance transparency, capacity building
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review