Highlighting this article for a couple of reasons. First, I really enjoyed the inclusion of a graphical abstract and the translation of both the written abstract and visual representation of it into multiple languages. We spoke a lot in MARA5012 about presenting information in varying ways and I really like this method. Second, this paper provides an interesting framework for the inclusion of multiple knowledge systems into monitoring frameworks by utilizing hunter knowledge through biological sampling and interviews.

These four factors are incredibly influential barriers to the establishment of co-management systems. Through conversations in MARA5012 and reading the work of Dr. Jamie Snook, I would argue that two key pieces that influence both the establishment of co-management systems and the ability for those systems to be successful are: honouring existing legislation, treaties and land claim agreements, and Ministerial discretion. For the former, you can read "A Half Century in the Making: Governing Commercial Fisheries Through Indigenous Marine Co-management and the Torngat Joint Fisheries Board" by Snook, Cunsolo, and Morris (2018), on honouring the "spirit and intent" of these agreements, over solely legislative interpretation. For the latter, Ministerial discretion is a structurally entrenched concept where the Minister can vary or alter decisions in the name of the Crown. The use of discretion can be used to override the work of co-management boards based on what the Minister, or their staff, see as the best option. For Indigenous sovereignty and self-determination, the Minister would have to trust co-management decisions and data, and give up some of their power to these groups in order to empower them and improve equity in resource management. It would seem that this would occur based on who the Minister is, but the question remains: how can co-management boards establish their rights, as laid out in their land claim agreement or other form of agreement? Both Haida Nation and the Makivik Group have seen success in the court systems with this, but how can change occur such that the court system isn't the only path?

I am highlighting this article as it is a really interesting example of international implementation of co-management with integrating Indigenous worldviews into management plan creation. I find this sentence particularly interesting in that we should be attempting to create ecosystem-based systems with Indigenous knowledge, rather than attempting to bring Indigenous knowledge into current management systems. I think in Canada, the government is currently attempting to do the latter rather than putting investment into the former. That being said, Canada does have some some examples of through a similar concept in Mi'kma'ki called Etuaptmumk or "Two-Eyed Seeing". In this we develop co-management systems using the strengths of both Indigenous knowledge systems and Western scientific approaches.

In both of these examples, the Government of Canada advocated for the ability of its Indigenous communities to export polar bear, or Nanuk. While hide sales have been on a decline, they still have an economic impact on Inuit communities. With Canada containing the majority of the world's polar bears, and being the only country with legal export it requires me to question: Why can the world's countries tell Canada how to manage their natural resources when the majority of them have little to no polar bear experience? Does CITES as an organization create opportunities for more powerful countries to mandate the management efforts of countries lacking the necessary alliances/resources? How can this be mitigated so that the populations/communities/practices that would be most affected by CITES ruling are protected?

While it is extremely important that we implement co-management boards in the fight for Indigenous sovereignty and self-determination in Canada, it is imperative that we recognize that at the present co-management work can still be threatened and undermined by the Canadian government through Ministerial discretion. In instances when the Canadian government does not favour decisions of co-management boards, there are other avenues that these boards may pursue in recognizing their rights, as discussed in this article.