Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-jr42d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T23:10:28.040Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cooperative action between fishermen and inspectors in the Svalbard Zone

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 October 2009

Geir Hønneland
Geir Hønneland
Affiliation:
The Fridtjof Nansen Institute, P.O. Box 326, N-1324 Lysaker, Norway
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article demonstrates that, similar to the many cases of self-regulation of local commons, it is in certain conditions also possible to manage an international ocean-fishery without the use of direct coercion. The case study from the Svalbard Zone supports the argument of cooperative action theory: that a limited number of participants, rules at least partly designed by the users themselves, and a system of graduated punishment contribute to compliance with established rules. Based on observational data as well as in-depth interviews with Norwegian and Russian fishermen in the area, it seems particularly fruitful to conceive of the Norwegian Coast Guard not only as a state enforcement body in the Svalbard Zone, but its representatives also as constituent parts of a social system, a ‘seafaring community,’ in the area. When, due to jurisdictional dispute, it has been impossible to rely fully on external regulation in the area, the Coast Guard has taken upon itself the role of the mediator, admittedly representing state interests, but nevertheless aimed at achieving consensus with the fishing fleet on important regulation issues. Hence, the internal authority of this Arctic Ocean fisheries lies above all in the interface between fishermen's and inspector's arguments, and in the social relations accompanying the exchange of professional opinions.

Type
Articles
Information
Polar Record , Volume 35 , Issue 194 , July 1999 , pp. 207 - 214
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Baland, J.M., and Platteau, J.P.. 1996. Halting degradation of natural resources: is there a role for rural communities? Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Berkes, F. (editor). 1989. Common property resources: ecology and community-based sustainable development. London: Belhaven Press.Google Scholar
Bromley, D.W. (editor). 1992. Making the commons work: theory, practice, and policy. San Francisco: Institute for Contemporary Studies Press.Google Scholar
Burgess, R. (editor). 1980. Field research: a sourcebook and field manual. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Charles, A.T. 1988. Fishery socioeconomics: a survey. Land Economics 64: 276–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Churchill, R., and Ulfstein, G.. 1992. Marine management in disputed areas: the case of the Barents Sea. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Cordell, J., and McKean, M.A.. 1992. Sea tenure in Bahia, Brazil. In: Bromley, D.W. (editor). Making the commons work: theory, practice, and policy. San Francisco: Institute for Contemporary Studies Press: 183–205.Google Scholar
Giddens, A. 1994. The consequences of modernity. Stanford: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Hardin, G. 1968. The tragedy of the commons. Science 162: 1243–1248.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hoel, A.H. 1994. The Barents Sea: fisheries resources for Europe and Russia. In: Stokke, O.S., and Tunander, O. (editors). The Barents region: cooperation in Arctic Europe. London: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
Hønneland, G. 1997. Methodological considerations: the case for cautious variants of a positivist and an interpretivist approach. Lysaker: The Fridtjof Nansen Institute.Google Scholar
Hønneland, G. 1998a. Compliance in the fishery protection zone around Svalbard. Ocean Development and International Law 29 (4): 339–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hønneland, G. 1998b. Autonomy and regionalisation in the fisheries management of northwestern Russia. Marine Policy 22 (1): 57–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hønneland, G. In press a. The interaction of research programmes in social science studies of the commons. Acta Sociologica.Google Scholar
Hønneland, G. In press b. Compliance in the Barents Sea fisheries: how fishermen account for conformity with rules. Marine Policy.Google Scholar
Kirk, J., and Miller, M.. 1986. Reliability and validity in qualitative research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications (Qualitative Research Series 1).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCay, B., and Acheson, J.M. (editors). 1987. The question of the commons: the culture and ecology of communal resources. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.Google Scholar
McCay, B., and Jentoft, S.. 1998. Market or community failure? Critical perspectives on common property research. Human Organization 57: 21–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ostrom, E., Gardner, R., and Walker, J.. 1994. Rules, games, and common-pool resources. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinkerton, E. (editor). 1989. Co-operative management of local fisheries: new directions for improved management and community development. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.Google Scholar
Polyani, K. 1957. The great transformation. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
Reason, P., and Rowan, J.. 1981. Human inquiry: a sourcebook of new paradigm research. Chichester: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Rubin, H., and Rubin, I.S.. 1995. Qualitative interviewing. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Spradley, J.P. 1979. The ethnographic interview. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Stokke, O.S. 1995. Fisheries management under pressure: a changing Russia and the effectiveness of the Barents Sea regime. Lysaker: The Fridtjof Nansen Institute.Google Scholar
Ulfstein, G. 1995. The Svalbard Treaty: from terra nullius to Norwegian sovereignty. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press.Google Scholar