Incorporation of Indigenous and Local Knowledge in Central Arctic Ocean Fisheries Management

Abstract

On October 3, 2018, the so-called “Arctic Five plus Five�1 concluded the Agreement to Prevent Unregulated High Seas Fisheries in the Central Arctic Ocean (CAOFA, CAOF Agreement or Ilulissat Agreement).2 The CAOFA establishes a precautionary framework for the regulation of fisheries in the high seas of the central Arctic Ocean (CAO), including a temporary moratorium on unregulated commercial fishing.3 The purpose of this debate article is not to discuss the CAOFA’s provisions on fisheries as such, but to take a look at a number of interesting and novel provisions concerning the interests of indigenous and local communities, particularly with respect to incorporation of indigenous and local knowledge into science-based fisheries management in the CAO.4

Promoting equity in the use of algorithms for high-seas conservation

“…International fisheries management in the Central Arctic Ocean (CAO) provides an instructive international governance example. 12 In the case of CAO fisheries management, Indigenous perspectives were not originally included in a sequence of multilateral declarations, leading to demands from the Inuit Circumpolar Council (ICC) for the inclusion of Indigenous knowledge in management of CAO fisheries. As a result, a subset of Arctic States included Indigenous representatives in their delegations for the negotiation of the Central Artic Ocean Fisheries Agreement (CAOFA).…”

“…Subsequent meetings on assessment of CAO fish stocks have made explicit reference to the value of Indigenous and local knowledge and have invited ICC input, yet precisely how (and to what degree) this input is used remains unclear. 12 This example highlights how attention to process might be of equal or greater importance in promoting equity as compared to any resulting products or policy recommendations. 10 Therefore, inclusion of diverse voices and values in objective setting is key to promoting equity in algorithmic approaches to BBNJ conservation.…”

Knowledge Integration and Good Marine Governance: A Multidisciplinary Analysis and Critical Synopsis

“…Nevertheless, the doctrine seems to be vague on effective ways to include ITK in the ocean governance regulatory framework, merely stating that there is a need for 'strengthening' the use of traditional knowledge and 'incorporating' traditional knowledge in the implementation of CBD measures at sea. Specific recognition of ITK in the context of environmental procedural rights and indigenous rights at the regional level is found in the Agreement to Prevent Unregulated High Seas Fisheries in the Central Arctic Ocean, which emphasizes how such recognition of indigenous knowledge, albeit specifically limited to the Arctic region, is a result of a participatory effort of Indigenous representatives in environmental decision-making and explicitly recalls UNDRIP (Schatz, 2019), although the dilemma of how to effectively implement such recognition remains outstanding.…”