The Development of Scientific Cooperation under the Norway?Russia Fisheries Regime in the Barents Sea

• Author: Maria Hammer, Alf Ha?kon Hoel
• Pages: 96-126

244

[start kap]

The Development of

Scientific Cooperation under

the Norway–Russia Fisheries Regime

in the Barents Sea

Maria Hammer and Alf Håkon Hoel

Maria Hammer is Ph .D. candidate, Department of Political Science, University of

Tromsø. E-mail: maria.hammer@uit.no.

Alf Håkon Hoel is Regional Director, Institute of Marine Research, Tromsø. E-mail: alf.

haakon.hoel@imr.no.

Received February 2012, accepted March 2012

Abstract: Cooperation between Norwegian a nd Russian scientists on ma rine

science in the Barents Sea dates back to the 1950s. Science, as well as the re-

source management it serves, has evolved dramatically since then. In terms of its

substance, scientic foci and methods have increased substantial ly. Previously,

research eorts targeted a few commercial sh species, whereas entire ecosys -

tems and non–commercial as well as commercial species are addressed today.

A furt her dimension of change is t hat of organiz ation of science: W hile coop-

eration was initially sporadic, it has gradual ly become embedded in a wider

framework of scientic collaboration and become more organized. is frame-

work is included in the bilateral management of the living mari ne resources in

the Barents Sea. e Norwegian–Russian Joint Fisheries Commission (JNRFC)

and the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) work as the

peer reviewers of science and providers of scientic advice to the authorities

in Norway and the Russian Federation. is ar ticle discusses these issues with

regard to developments in science, in international regimes and the role of sci-

ence in policy-making.

Arctic Revie w on Law and Politics, vol. 3 , 2/2012 pp. 244–274. ISSN 1891-6252

the dev of sci coo p under the no rw–r ussia fish re gime in the ba r sea

245

Keywords: Scientic cooperation Norway–Russian Federation, sheries manage-

ment, Barents Sea

1. Introduction

In a world of fully utilized sh resources,1 the management regime for the sher-

ies in t he Barents Sea stands out as successful in having ensured the sustainable

development of the most important commercial sh stocks.2 A central reason for

this state of aairs is the long-standing scientic cooperation between Norwegian

and Russian/Soviet scientists. Dating back to the 1950s, this scientic collaboration

has evolved to provide the scientic knowledge on which the management system

operates.3 is is a long-standing cooperative venture in marine science, and as

such an interesting case in the study of international scientic cooperation. It is also

notable in terms of the results delivered, and can oer insights to the science policy

literature4 on the factors that explain successful translations of science into policy.

is article accounts for developments in the Barents Sea cooperation. How has

this scientic cooperation developed since the mid-1950s? Further: To what extent

has the scientic cooperation been inuenced by scientic developments and its

role in providing the scientic knowledge for policy-making?

We examine the gradual expansion of the scope of cooperation – from eorts

involving a few, commercial species of living marine resources to entire ecosystems,

including non-commercial species. ere has also been a major evolution in the sci-

entic methods used. We will also look at the role of science in the bilateral sheries

management regime and its development with regard to activities, as well as external

cooperation through the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES).

Studies on international scientic cooperation have dealt with various ma-

rine science organizations, among them the ICES5 and the scientic cooperation

under Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources

(CCAMLR).

6

Analytical issues emerging from these studies include the role of de-

velopments in science itself as a factor in explaining change. Another issue is how

scientic work is embedded in a broader institutional framework.7 Increasingly,

1. FAO 2010: 8: in 2008 only 15% of the stocks monitored by FAO were underexploited; 53% fully

exploited; and 32% overexploited.

2. See the ICES website for the development and status for cod, haddock, capelin and herring. ese

are currently all at healthy levels. http://www.ices.dk/advice/icesadvice.asp, accessed 10 March 2012.

3. Haug et al., 2007:7.

4. Andresen et al., 2000, and Pielke 2007.

5. Wilson 2009, Andresen and Østreng 1989.

6. CCAMLR also has a regulatory mandate.

7. Knol 2009, Østerblom and Sumaila 2011.