183
Arctic Yearbook 2015
effectiveness of policies and economic incentives between countries with and without marine invasive
species policies extending into the Arctic from international maritime trade, aquaculture and aquarium
trade pathways of invasion. Besides policies regarding ballast water that were previously described, the
U.S. has also prioritized management and further exploration of invasive species in the Arctic, within
the National Strategy for the Arctic Region Implementation Plan (NSAR IP). The recent U.S.
chairmanship of the Arctic Council is also expected to address the issue, with its working groups such
as CAFF (2013) and PAME (2013) already partly working and having committed to work further
towards that direction.
Iceland has significant experience from at least 14 marine species identified as non-native within the
last 58 years, with nine of these approximately in the last decade (Thorarinsdottir, Gunnarsson &
Gíslason 2014). The natio nal policy indicates precaution rather than eradication which is interpreted
practically in regulations for ballast water in force since 2010 for the prevention of discharge within
the Icelandic 200 mile EEZ jurisdiction (Thorarinsdottir et al. 2014), as agreed through the OSPAR
and Helsinki Commissions. Though these commissions provide some assistance for monitoring and
enforcement (OSPAR 2015), it must be expected that such measures may at times be violated with
relative impunity.
Denmark’s policy (representing Greenland’s interest in the Arctic) lies in the recognition of the
significant threat and thus the implementation and ratification of the Ballast Water Convention.
However Denmark’s ratification of BWC does not apply for Faroe Islands and Greenland (IMO
2015). Note that all Arctic states that are sovereign members of the IMO, and the Faroe Islands as an
Association Member of IMO, did sign the Antifouling Convention that is in force. In Greenland, all
vessels and drilling units involved in hydrocarbon activities need to follow IMO guidelines or the
relevant Canadian regulations with respect to ballast water discharge (Frederiksen, Boertmann, Ugarte
& Mosbech 2012).
Russia and Norway have confirmed marine invasions in their waters (at a minimum, RKC and SC),
and have been working hard towards identifying, with as much accuracy as possible, impacts on the
ecosystems and justifying rational and effective management strategies, despite the fact that the aims
seem to differ. While both counties have policies to address marine invasive species (Sundet 2014b;
Sustretova, Zakharov & Etin 2012), the RKC is not being treated as an invasive species by the
Russians, while the Norwegians act uncertain about their classification.
As for the much newer SC invasion, management plans and intentions have not been finalized in
either the Norwegian or in the Russian zone, since there is still ongoing research on the species itself
as well as discussions on the desired results. The process of resolution of the scientific uncertainty is
a case where research outcomes directly influence international policy, and where long-standing
international policy intended for very different shared natural resources will impact incentives over
governance of the species. This is due to the debate about whether the crab is a ‘sedentary species’,
and therefore not regulated under the UN Fish Stocks Agreement1 but rather under international
regulation that would give Russia decision-making power over what is now the “Loophole” of Barents’
international waters, where most SC fishing is currently occurring. This debate appears close to
resolution, in favor of the SC being designated a sedentary species and closing the international
Kourantidou, Kaiser & Fernandez