“…Execution of CBM programs in the Arctic has also proven to be labour intensive and difficult to sustain, requiring long-term financial support, agreements specifying data ownership, sufficient human capital, and in some cases, the involvement of boundary organisations that provide technical support (Pulsifer et al, 2012;Eicken et al, 2014) and link CBM with governance (CAFF, 2015b;Robards et al, 2018). As is the case in all knowledge production, power relationships (i.e., who decides what is a legitimate observation, who has access to resources for involvement and who benefits) have been challenging where the legitimacy of local knowledge and indigenous knowledge is questioned (e.g., Pristupa et al, 2018). There is high agreement and limited evidence that CBM facilitates knowledge co-production and resilience building.…”