International regime analyses in the northeast Atlantic



The zooplankton redfeed may need an international management regime in the future. An optimal resource regime from Norway’s point of view has already been hypothesized Tiller (J Environ Dev 19 (2):191–214, 2010). We expand on this hypothesis and analyze the regime preferences of other interested states: Russia, Iceland and the EU. These states will all react and respond differently to the advent of a new resource in the Northeast Atlantic and have different policy interests to bring to the negotiation table than the initiator Norway. One cannot analyze international regimes without fully comprehending the perspectives of other actors involved. It is therefore critical to look at the issues and concerns that are likely to arise on the international arena during regime negotiations and develop scenarios that account for the possible events that could materialize at that stage. This could potentially produce a more predictable end scenario in the case of the future redfeed regime, especially for Norway. In explaining this, we sketch four possible future scenarios, and proceed with discussing them in light of the potential preferences of the key actors involved. Given the enticing nature of studying a regime that has not yet materialized, the case of redfeed in the Northeast Atlantic is explored and discussed from the vantage point of actors whose cooperation with Norway is critical for the successful future operationalization of the international management regime for redfeed, namely Russia, Iceland, and the EU. Using regime formation theory and scenario analysis, mapping out the future negotiation stage of the regime formation process is undertaken. The article argues that Norway’s role as a driver for the development of this regime will steer the negotiation process and ensure the outcome that is most beneficial for Norway, with Russia acquiescent rather than aggressive.


International regimes Redfeed Scenarios Northeast Atlantic Svalbard Regime formation 


  1. Anderson DH (2009) The status under International Law of the Maritime Areas around Svalbard. Ocean Dev Int Law 40(4):373–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Antunes Zappes C, da Silva CV, et al. (2012) “The conflict between the southern right whale and coastal fisheries on the southern coast of Brazil.” Marine Policy(0)Google Scholar
  3. Archer C, Scrivener D (1983) Frozen frontiers and resource wrangles: conflict and cooperation in northern waters. Int Aff 59(1):59–76Google Scholar
  4. Ardura A, Horreo JL et al (2012) Forensic DNA analysis reveals use of high trophic level marine fish in commercial aquaculture fish meals. Fish Res 115-116(0):115–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Årnes CB (2007). Distribution and life cycle of Calanus species in relation to the seasonal phytoplankton development and predator–prey interactions with Norwegian spring spawning herring in the physical setting of the Norwegian Sea ecosystem. Biology. Oslo, University of Oslo. Ph.dGoogle Scholar
  6. Åtland K, Ven Bruusgaard K (2009) When security speech acts misfire: Russia and the Elektron Incident. Secur Dialogue 40(3):333–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bantle M, Eikevik TM et al (2010) A novel method for simultaneous and continuous determination of thermal properties during phase transition applied to Calanus finmarchicus. J Food Sci 75(6):E315–E322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bendiksen EÖ, Johnsen CA et al (2011) Sustainable aquafeeds: progress towards reduced reliance upon marine ingredients in diets for farmed Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.). Aquaculture 314(1-4):132–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bergmann E (2009) Sense of sovereignty: how national sentiments have influenced Iceland’s European policy. Stjórnmál og stjórnsýsla 2(5):203Google Scholar
  10. Calanus Project Description (2001) Exploitation of zooplankton as bio-resource for fish feed and industrial raw material—a complete value chain evaluation (NFR project no.: 1431184/140). Trondheim, NTNUGoogle Scholar
  11. Connor WE, Connor SL (2007) The importance of fish and docosahexaenoic acid in Alzheimer disease. Am J Clin Nutr 85(4):929–930Google Scholar
  12. Dragland Å (2005) Norsk laks - en snylter. Gemini. Juni: 30–37Google Scholar
  13. Editorial (2010) Makrellstrid truer EU-medlemskap FiskeribladetFiskarenGoogle Scholar
  14. Editorial (2011) FiskeribladetFiskarenGoogle Scholar
  15. Einar Lindbæk (2011) EU i to makrellkriger FiskeribladetFiskarenGoogle Scholar
  16. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department (2010) State of world aquaculture 2010. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nation. Rome. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper. No. 500: 134Google Scholar
  17. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department (2010b) The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2010.The State of World: Fisheries and Aquaculture. Food and agriculture organization of the United Nations, RomeGoogle Scholar
  18. Fiskeri- og kystdepartementet (1994) FOR 1994-09-21 nr 880: Forskrift om regulering av fiske i fiskevernsonen ved Svalbard. R.-o. havavdelingen,
  19. Fiskeridirektøren (2006) J-68-2006: Forskrift om forbud mot å fiske raudåte, krill og andre dyreplankton. Gyldig fra 22.03.2006. FiskeridirektoratetGoogle Scholar
  20. Forberg B (2006) Staten vant mot spanske "Olazar" og "Olaberri" i Høyesterett. FiskarenGoogle Scholar
  21. Grafton RQ (2010) Handbook of marine fisheries conservation and management. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  22. Grimaldo E, Leifer I et al (2011) Field demonstration of a novel towed, area bubble-plume zooplankton (Calanus sp.) harvester. Fish Res 107(1-3):147–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Haug R (2007). På tokt med KV Svalbard, 7–16. mai 2007Google Scholar
  24. Hoel AHK, Kvalvik I (2006) The allocation of scarce natural resources: the case of fisheries. Mar Policy 30(4):347–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hong N (2012) The energy factor in the Arctic dispute: a pathway to conflict or cooperation? J World Energy Law Bus 5(1):13–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (1978) The biology, distribution and state of exploitation of shared stocks in the North Sea area, International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, Liaison CommitteeGoogle Scholar
  27. Jóhannesson GT (2004) How ‘cod war’ came: the origins of the Anglo-Icelandic fisheries dispute, 1958–61*. Hist Res 77(198):543–574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jørgensen J H (2003) FNI Report 13/2003: Svalbard and the Fisheries Protection Zone: Russian Perceptions After the Cold War. FNI Report The Fridtjof Nansen Institute: 79Google Scholar
  29. Knutsen T and Dalpadado P (2009) 1.3.4 Sekundærproduksjon (dyreplankton). Havets ressurser og miljø 2009: Fisken og havet særnummer 1–2009. Gjøsæter H, Dommasnes A, Falkenhaug T, et al, Havforskningsinstituttet: 32–36Google Scholar
  30. Kris-Etherton PM, Harris WS et al (2003) Fish consumption, fish oil, omega-3 fatty acids, and cardiovascular disease. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 23(2):e20–e30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Fiskeri- og Kystdepartementet (1998) Om dei fiskeriavtalene Noreg har inngått med andre land for 1999 og fisket etter avtalene i 1997 og 1998. St.meld. nr. 49 (1998–99)Google Scholar
  32. Fiskeri- og Kystdepartementet (2009) "'St.Mld. Nr. 45: Om Dei Fiskeriavtalane Noreg Har Inngått Med Andre Land for 2009 Og Fisket Etter Avtalane I 2007 Og 2008'"Google Scholar
  33. Fiskeri- og Kystdepartementet (2010). Fiskeriavtalane Noreg har inngått med andre land for 2010 og fisket etter avtalane i 2008 og 2009Google Scholar
  34. Lisbeth Berg-Hansen (2011) Havbrukspolitisk redegjørelse i Stortinget 17. februar 2011. Fiskeri- og Kystdepartementet
  35. Matthíasson T (2003) Closing the open sea: development of fishery management in four Icelandic fisheries. Nat Res Forum 27(1):1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Melle W, Ellertsen B, et al (2004) Zooplankton: The link to higher trophic levels. The Norwegian Sea Ecosystem. In: Skjoldal HR (ed). Tapir Academic Press, TrondheimGoogle Scholar
  37. Ministry of Fisheries and Coastal Affairs (2011) 3 Dei ulike fiskeriavtalane for 2011. Fiskeriavtalane Noreg har inngått med andre land for 2011 og fisket etter avtalane i 2009 og 2010, Regjeringa Stoltenberg IIGoogle Scholar
  38. Ministry of Foreign Affairs (2011) Treaty between the Kingdom of Norway and the Russian Federation concerning Maritime Delimitation and Cooperation i the Barents Sea and the Arctic Ocean,
  39. Møller EF, Maar M et al (2012) The effect of changes in temperature and food on the development of Calanus finmarchicus and Calanus helgolandicus populations. Limnol Oceanogr 57(1):211–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Nicol S, Foster J et al (2012) The fishery for Antarctic krill—recent developments. Fish Fish 13(1):30–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC) (2012) from
  42. Norwegian Coast Guard (2006) Coast Guard inspection data, 1989–2005Google Scholar
  43. Olsen Y (ed) (2002) MARICULT Research Programme: background, status and main conclusions. Developments in Hydrobiology—Sustainable Increase of Marine Harvesting: Fundamental Mechanisms and New Concepts. Kluwer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  44. Olsen RE, Moren M, et al (2006) 3.1 Kan plankton brukes som fiskefôr? Kyst og havbruk 2006. Fisken og havet, særnr.2 - 2006. In: Svåsand T, Boxaspen K, Dahl E and Jørgensen LL (ed). HavforskingsinstituttetGoogle Scholar
  45. Overrein I (2005) "Calanus finmarchicus - fremtidig ressurs!" SINTEF FaktaarkGoogle Scholar
  46. Pauly D, Froese R (2012) Comments on FAO’s State of Fisheries and Aquaculture, or‚ ÄòSOFIA 2010‚Äô. Mar Policy 36(3):746–752CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Pedersen T (2006) The Svalbard continental shelf controversy: legal disputes and political rivalries. Ocean Dev Int Law 37(3–4):339–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Pedersen T (2008) Conflict and Order in Svalbard Waters. Political Science. Tromsø, University of Tromsø. PhD: 211Google Scholar
  49. Pedersen T (2008b) The constrained politics of the Svalbard offshore area. MarPolicy 32(6):913–919Google Scholar
  50. Pedersen T (2009) Denmark’s policies toward the Svalbard area. Ocean Dev Int Law 40(4):319–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Petersen N (2009) The Arctic as a New Arena for Danish Foreign Policy: The Ilulisat Initiative and its Implications. Danish foreign policy yearbook 2009. In: Hvidt N and Mouritzen H (eds) Copenhagen, Danish Institute for International StudiesGoogle Scholar
  52. Postma TJBM, Liebl F (2005) How to improve scenario analysis as a strategic management tool? Technol Forecast Soc Chang 72(2):161–173Google Scholar
  53. Regjeringen Stoltenberg II (2005) "Plattform for regjeringssamarbeidet mellom Arbeiderpartiet, Sosialistisk Venstreparti og Senterpartiet 2005–09." Retrieved 12.03., 2007, from
  54. (2010 ) Norge og EU enige om en bilateral fiskeriavtale for 2011. Pressemelding Nr.: 88/2010Google Scholar
  55. Reygondeau G, Beaugrand G (2011) Future climate-driven shifts in distribution of Calanus finmarchicus. Glob Chang Biol 17(2):756–766CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rønning A (2007). Røkkes krill på børs. FiskarenGoogle Scholar
  57. Sargent JR, Tocher DR, et. al (eds) (2002) The lipids. Fish Nutrition. Elsevier Science, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  58. Slagstad D (2005) Computer simulations of Calanus' locations at different seasons and stages. Haug, TrondheimGoogle Scholar
  59. Slagstad D, Tande KS (2007) Structure and resilience of overwintering habitats of Calanus finmarchicus in the Eastern Norwegian Sea. Deep-Sea Res II Top Stud Oceanogr 54(23-26):2702–2715CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Stokke OS (ed) (2007) Examining the Consequences of Arctic Institutions. International Cooperation and Arctic Governance: regime effectiveness and Northern region building. London, RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  61. Strategic Programme Description (2001) Exploitation of zooplankton as bio-resource ("Calanus"). NFR Project no.: 143184/140, NFRGoogle Scholar
  62. Svalbard Treaty (1920) Treaty between Norway, The United States of America, Denmark, France, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Great Britain and Ireland and the British overseas Dominions and Sweden concerning Spitsbergen signed in Paris 9th February 1920. United Nations,
  63. Tacon AGJ, Hasan MR, et al (2006) Use of Fishery Resources as Feed Inputs to Aquaculture Development: Trends and Policy Implications FAO Fisheries Department. FAO Fisheries Circular No. 1018, FIRI/C1018 (En): 114Google Scholar
  64. TDN Finans (20.03.2007) "Aker investerer 500 mill. i krillfartøy." Retrieved 20.03., 2007, from
  65. The Ministry of Fisheries and Coastal Affairs (2011) Fiskeriavtalane Noreg har inngått med andre land for 2012 og fisket etter avtalane i 2010 og 2011. Meld. St. 25 (2011–2012): Melding til StortingetGoogle Scholar
  66. The Norwegian Coast Guard (2011) Inspections and Arrests 1986–2010Google Scholar
  67. The Norwegian Mapping Authority (NMA) (2011) Kart til Prodspek, linjer. Kartverket., Statens Kartverk
  68. Tiller R (2007) Interviews with KV Svalbard officials and crew of three inspected vessels from Spain (1) and Russia (2) about the possibility of incorporating redfeed into the managment regime in the Svalbard Fisheries Protection ZoneGoogle Scholar
  69. Tiller RG (2008) The Norwegian system and the distribution of claims to redfeed. Mar Policy 32(6):928–940CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Tiller RG (2009) New resources and old regimes: will the harvest of zooplankton bring critical changes to the Svalbard Fisheries Protection Zone? Ocean Dev Int Law 40(4):309–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Tiller RG (2010) Regime management at the bottom of the food web. J Environ Dev 19(2):191–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Tiller R (2011) Institutionalizing the High North: will the harvest of redfeed be a critical juncture for the solidification of the Svalbard Fisheries Protection Zone? Ocean Coast Manag 54(5):374–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Tiller R (2012) "Regime formation at the agenda formation stage analyzed from a Futuristic plankton perspective." Ocean and Coastal ManagementGoogle Scholar
  74. Tokle NE (2006) Are the ubiquitous marine copepods limited by food or predation? Experimental and field-based studies with main focus on Calanus finmarchicus. Biology. Trondheim, NTNU. DoctoralGoogle Scholar
  75. UNCLOS (1982) Part V: Exclusive Economic Zones. United NationsGoogle Scholar
  76. Unclos EEZ Section V (1982) United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982. Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea, United NationsGoogle Scholar
  77. Vassvik I (2006) "Slaget om Svalbardsonen." Retrieved 20.11, 2006, from
  78. Young O (1998a) Creating regimes: arctic accords and international governance. Cornell University Press, IthakaGoogle Scholar
  79. Young OR (1998b) Creating regimes: arctic accords and international governance. Cornell University Press, Ithaka and LondonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© AESS 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Sociology and Political ScienceNTNU, Norwegian University of Science and TechnologyTrondheimNorway

Personalised recommendations