In the case of Arctic Fisheries, our research team interviewed 45 participants from 12 countries. Interviewees were asked about: (1) new risks to various Arctic fisheries posed by retreating sea ice; (2) strategies for protecting fish stocks; (3) gaps in scientific knowledge; (4) the possible need for new monitoring systems; (5) concerns of indigenous communities; (6) ways of reducing the impact of oil spills that might occur; and (7) the possible need for new treaties or new institutional arrangements. We have grouped interviewee responses into seven stakeholders categories: national governments; fishing industry; oil and gas industry; indigenous peoples and human rights advocates; multilateral institutions; environmental interests; and independent scientists. The national governments stakeholder category is discussed in terms of Arctic five countries (Russia, U.S., Canada, Norway and Denmark, through Greenland and the Faroe Islands) and non-Arctic five countries (Iceland, Finland, and Sweden), as interviewees often referred to states according to these distinctions. Although some of our respondents were women, we have used the pronoun “he” for all interviewees in an effort to maintain anonymity. To avoid confusion, we have used the terms “central Arctic” and “peripheral Arctic” throughout the document to distinguish different regions of the Arctic, as compared to “high Arctic,” “low Arctic,” or other distinctions. We understand these terms mean different things to different people, and we hope our use of these terms accurately captures the intended meaning of our interviewees.