IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/jenvss/v3y2013i2p217-231.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

International regime analyses in the northeast Atlantic

Author

Listed:
  • Rachel Tiller
  • Susanne Hansen

Abstract

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. Copyright AESS 2013

Suggested Citation

  • Rachel Tiller & Susanne Hansen, 2013. "International regime analyses in the northeast Atlantic," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 3(2), pages 217-231, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:jenvss:v:3:y:2013:i:2:p:217-231
    DOI: 10.1007/s13412-013-0113-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s13412-013-0113-4
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s13412-013-0113-4?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hoel, Alf Håkon & Kvalvik, Ingrid, 2006. "The allocation of scarce natural resources: The case of fisheries," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 347-356, July.
    2. Grafton, R. Quentin & Hilborn, Ray & Squires, Dale & Tait, Maree & Williams, Meryl (ed.), 2010. "Handbook of Marine Fisheries Conservation and Management," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195370287, Decembrie.
    3. Tiller, Rachel Gjelsvik, 2008. "The Norwegian system and the distribution of claims to redfeed," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 928-940, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lan Ho, 2015. "My boat my identity: Investment in tuna fishing in Viet Nam," Australian Journal of Management, Australian School of Business, vol. 40(3), pages 562-583, August.
    2. Sturla F. Kvamsdal, 2022. "Optimal Management of a Renewable Resource Under Multiple Regimes," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 81(3), pages 481-499, March.
    3. Wallace, Scott & Turris, Bruce & Driscoll, John & Bodtker, Karin & Mose, Brian & Munro, Gordon, 2015. "Canada's Pacific groundfish trawl habitat agreement: A global first in an ecosystem approach to bottom trawl impacts," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 240-248.
    4. Baptiste Parent & Lauriane Mouysset & Antoine Missemer & Harold Levrel, 2023. "Building Integrated Models In Environmental And Natural Resource Economics: The Case Of Gordon’S 1954 Fishery Model," Post-Print hal-04250105, HAL.
    5. Nichols, Rachel & Yamazaki, Satoshi & Jennings, Sarah, 2018. "The Role of Precaution in Stock Recovery Plans in a Fishery with Habitat Effect," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 359-369.
    6. Anderson, James L. & Asche, Frank & Garlock, Taryn, 2018. "Globalization and commoditization: The transformation of the seafood market," Journal of Commodity Markets, Elsevier, vol. 12(C), pages 2-8.
    7. Jules Selles, 2018. "Fisheries management: what uncertainties matter?," Working Papers hal-01824238, HAL.
    8. Pinkerton, Evelyn, 2015. "The role of moral economy in two British Columbia fisheries: Confronting neoliberal policies," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 410-419.
    9. Yamazaki, Satoshi & Jennings, Sarah & Quentin Grafton, R. & Kompas, Tom, 2015. "Are marine reserves and harvest control rules substitutes or complements for rebuilding fisheries?," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 1-18.
    10. Santis, Oscar & Chávez, Carlos, 2015. "Quota compliance in TURFs: An experimental analysis on complementarities of formal and informal enforcement with changes in abundance," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 440-450.
    11. Gary D. Libecap, 2010. "Water Rights and Markets in the U.S. Semi Arid West: Efficiency and Equity Issues," ICER Working Papers 30-2010, ICER - International Centre for Economic Research.
    12. Asche, Frank & Bellemare, Marc F. & Roheim, Cathy & Smith, Martin D. & Tveteras, Sigbjørn, 2015. "Fair Enough? Food Security and the International Trade of Seafood," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 151-160.
    13. Gary D. Libecap, 2010. "Institutional Path Dependence in Climate Adaptation: Coman's "Some Unsettled Problems of Irrigation"," NBER Working Papers 16324, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    14. Chin-Hwa Jenny Sun & Fu-Sung Chiang & Patrice Guillotreau & Dale Squires, 2015. "Fewer Fish for Higher Profits? Price Response and Economic Incentives in Global Tuna Fisheries Management," Working Papers hal-01110771, HAL.
    15. Msomphora, Mbachi Ruth & Aanesen, Margrethe, 2015. "Is the catch quota management (CQM) mechanism attractive to fishers? A preliminary analysis of the Danish 2011 CQM trial project," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 78-87.
    16. Kahui, Viktoria & Richards, Amanda C., 2014. "Lessons from resource management by indigenous Maori in New Zealand: Governing the ecosystems as a commons," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 1-7.
    17. Andrea Nightingale, 2013. "Fishing for Nature: The Politics of Subjectivity and Emotion in Scottish Inshore Fisheries Management," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 45(10), pages 2362-2378, October.
    18. Dupont, Diane P., 2014. "Rights-based management in Canada: Lessons from two coasts and a centre," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 60-64.
    19. Aranda, Martin & Murillas, Arantza, 2015. "Allocation of fishing possibilities, incentives and outcomes: Insights from Basque fishermen's organisations in Spain," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 171-178.
    20. Ouréns, Rosana & Naya, Inés & Freire, Juan, 2015. "Mismatch between biological, exploitation, and governance scales and ineffective management of sea urchin (Paracentrotus lividus) fisheries in Galicia," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 13-20.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:jenvss:v:3:y:2013:i:2:p:217-231. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.