Recent attention to the role of Indigenous knowledge (IK) in environmental monitoring, research and decision‐making is likely to attract new people to this field of work. Advancing the bringing together of IK and science in a way that is desirable to IK holders can lead to successful and inclusive research and decision‐making. We used the Delphi technique with 18 expert participants who were IK holders or working closely with IK from across the Arctic to examine the drivers of progress and limitations to the use of IK along with science to inform decision‐making related to wildlife, reindeer herding and the environment. We also used this technique to identify participants' experiences of scientists' misconceptions concerning IK. Participants had a strong focus on transformative change relating to the structure of institutions, politics, rights, involvement, power and agency over technical issues advancing or limiting progress (e.g. new technologies and language barriers). Participants identified two modes of desirable research: coproducing knowledge with scientists and autonomous Indigenous‐led research. They highlighted the need for more collaborative and coproduction projects to allow further refinement of approaches and more funding to support autonomous, Indigenous‐led research. Most misconceptions held by scientists concerning IK that were identified by participants related to the spatial, temporal and conceptual scope of IK, and the perceived need to validate IK using Western science. Our research highlights some of the issues that need to be addressed by all participants in research and decision‐making involving IK and science. While exact approaches will need to be tailored to specific social‐ecological contexts, consideration of these broader concerns revealed by our analysis are likely to be central to effective partnerships. A free Plain Language Summary can be found within the Supporting Information of this article.

Indigenous communities at the front lines of climate change and biodiversity loss are increasingly shaping the conservation of lands, waters, and species. The Arctic is a hotbed for emerging local, national, and international conservation efforts, and researchers, managers, and communities alike will benefit from a framework that improves approaches to Indigenous partnerships. Co‐productive conservation is a framework that encompasses both the co‐production of knowledge and the co‐production of public services to pursue ethically conscious, culturally relevant, and fully knowledge‐based approaches to biodiversity concerns. Co‐productive conservation recognizes that conservation can be practiced in a way that embodies Indigenous perspectives, knowledge, rights, priorities, and livelihoods. Six iterative and reflexive co‐production processes (i.e., co‐planning, co‐prioritizing, co‐learning, co‐managing, co‐delivering, and co‐assessing) focus on the human dimensions that allow research, management, and conservation to affect change. By opening discussions on how to structure conservation efforts in partnership with Indigenous communities, the conservation community can move away from narratives that perceive Indigenous participation as an obligation or part of an ethical narrative and instead embrace a process that broadens the evidence base and situates conservation within Indigenous contexts.

Climate change is strongly impacting Arctic marine ecosystems, and the Arctic coastal communities whose identities, traditions and livelihoods are closely interconnected with the marine environment. The Ecosystem Approach (EA) is a promising approach for understanding and managing the occurring shifts in the Arctic marine ecosystems. Based on our analysis, we find that assessments conducted by international and regional instruments and institutions, most notably the Arctic Council, as well as the wealth of Indigenous knowledge present in the region, provide valuable starting points for the implementation of EA in the Arctic. Yet, mechanisms for translating knowledge into joint coordinated and integrated action in accordance with EA are currently lacking. Our analysis suggests that incremental steps can be taken now to promote the implementation of EA, while working to establish a more comprehensive governance framework. In our view, bottom-up initiatives may provide the most promising avenue for promoting the application of EA in the region under the current geopolitical circumstances. Support by civil society, Indigenous and conservation organizations, as well as global momentum will be necessary to coordinate, finance and elevate community-driven initiatives. Other opportunities we identify for advancing EA is to engage with sectoral management bodies and to advance EA through climate change adaptation measures.