• Logged in as Unregistered User
  • Sign in

Social-Ecological Systems Meta-Analysis Database: Case

Svalbard Nature Reserves

SummarySvalbard is a polar archipelago located north of Norway from 74-81oN. The islands were discovered in 1596, and became an important whaling location over the next 300 years. Svalbard was a ‘terra nullius’ (a no man’s land) until 1920, when the Svalbard Treaty granted Norway sovereignty over the archipelago. The contiguous Nordaust and Soraust Nature Reserves (known collectively as East Svalbard Nature Reserves) were established in 1973, and now protect 25,063 km2 on land and 52,387 km2 in the water. Recognizing the increasing environmental impacts, the Svalbard Environmental Protection Act of 2001 (which came into effect in 2002) outlines a goal for Svalbard to be ‘one of the best managed wilderness areas in the world’.
Statuspublic
TeamIndonesia MPA team
Start Date2015-06-08
Coding Complete?No
SectorMarine protected areas, Fisheries (Stock-specific), Tourism, Scientific Research and Conservation
ProjectSESMAD
Data Source(s)Secondary data
CountryNorway
External BiophysicalThe marine ecosystem around Svalbard is often considered a part of the larger Barents Sea, which is one of the most productive fisheries in the world. The Barents Sea capelin stock has collapsed three times since the establishment of the nature reserves – in 1984, 1994, and 2002/2003 (Johannessen et al 2012), likely as a result of both fishing pressure and predation from cod & herring (Hjermann et al 2004). As a key species (Hop & Gjøsæter 2013), changes in the abundance of capelin may have effects throughout the ecosystem. Often corresponding with these collapses of the capelin stock, Johannessen et al (2012) suggest that regime shifts in the Barents Sea occurred in 1984, 1994, and 2006/2008. For many mammals (e.g. polar bears, walrus, seals, whales), the seasonal distribution of sea-ice affects foraging and movements between sites. The sea ice distribution correlates with the Artic Oscillation Index, and may vary considerably from year to year (Derocher 2005).
External SocialIn 1973, the same year that the Nature Reserves were established, the Norwegian government instituted a ban on polar bear hunting. Although polar bear numbers are on the rise, it is difficult to attribute this increase to the newly established protected areas or the ban on hunting (likely both have a positive influence). Although the Svalbard Treaty of 1920 grants Norway sovereignty over Svalbard, it also grants other countries economic access to the region and equal rights (i.e. non-discriminatory treatment between Norwegian citizens and foreign citizens of certain countries). Therefore, although Norway is allowed to make the laws, citizens of other nations are allowed to commercially fish in the fisheries protection zone around Svalbard. From the early 1970s, to 2010 tourism on/around Svalbard has increased fourfold. Although the literature mainly considers tourism impacts to cultural heritage sites on land, the increasing number of tourist vessels may have important (but not well documented) impacts on marine life. Although these large nature reserves appear to have a positive marine impact, these regions may have some protection ‘de facto’. These areas are a long distance from the main town of Longyearbyen, and the polar climate/seasonal sea-ice makes travel to these regions difficult for much of the year.
SnapshotsThe snapshot in this case is: 2004 – 2012; from when the Nature Reserve boundaries were extended from 4 nm to 12 nm (1/1/2004), until a new management plan was launched in 2013, (including modification to the original 1973 regulations).
Timeline1973 Nature Reserves established, and regulations created. 1980s Tourism increases and gradually becomes a formal industry. 1995 Tourism Management Plan created. 2002 Svalbard Environmental Protection Act comes into effect. 2004 Parks boundaries enlarged from 4-12 nautical miles offshore. 2013 First management plan created for the East Svalbard Nature Reserves. 2014 New Regulations (including a zoning strategy) to replace the initial 1973 regulations.
Modeling IssuesThe Norwegian language barrier made this case challenging. Many of the documents & reports are available in English, but others had to be translated to English with the assistance of Google Translate. Another snapshot of interest in the future would be from 2013 onwards (when the management plans were implemented).
Surveys
Theories

Visualization

Show Render

Hide Render

Attached Components

Actors

Name:
Svalbard Tourism
details
Past collaboration:
High (3)
Before AECO was formally established, there is evidence of past collaboration. Since the Svalbard community is very small (2000 people in the largest town), companies likely all knew one another and had a least some coordination of itineraries. In recognition of the growing numbers of tourists (although perhaps also partly due to the government desire to create a management plan) the tourism industry worked together to create their own management plan in 1994 outlining how they wish to see the industry operate.
Costs of exit:
Yes
For each organization, the boats used for cruises in northern environments cost millions of dollars. This infrastructure investment may present considerable cost to leaving the industry. In addition, in the tourism industry where reputation matters, it may be difficult to ‘jump-ship’, because it would take a while to establish a new operation in a new location.
Proportionality (of costs and benefits):
Yes
As a growing industry, the number of tourists visiting Svalbard increased throughout the time period coded (2004-2012) (Sysselmannen på Svalbard 2012 ). As the second largest industry in Svalbard, in 2007 tourism directly employed 211 people and contributed NOK 317 million (about $41 million US) to the economy (Report No.22 2008-2009).
Interest heterogeneity:
Low (1)
In general, all tourism operators have an interest in providing a wilderness experience for the clients. There may be small distinctions between the ‘expedition cruises’ (which start & end in the main town of Longyearbyen and which are operated from within Svalbard) and the ‘overseas cruises’ (which visit Svalbard as part of a longer voyage and have less contact with the local villages) (Report No.22 2008-2009). Although there are different types of recreation (e.g. kayaking, cruise ship), all tourism companies recognize that the tourism business depends on maintaining wildlife populations and a pristine environment.
Leadership:
 
AECO has formal leadership structure. There is an Executive Director, along with several elected committees.
Leadership authority:
Medium (2)
The Executive Director appears to have authority on day-to-day matters and considerable personal influence during meetings with stakeholders such as local communities, government agencies, shipping companies, etc. However, the big decisions (such as the Organizational Guidelines) are subject to vote by the AECO membership.
Actor group trust:
High (3)
Although group trust is difficult to judge, the evidence of past collaboration and continued operation of AECO suggests that group trust is likely to be high. Literature searches so far have not indicated substantial distrust among members of the group.
Personal communication:
More than once a year (5)
Members are all invited to participate in the Annual General Meeting (AGM). Members who are part of committees also have an AGM, and may meet more frequently.
Remote communication:
More than once a year (5)
The AECO Guidelines (2014-2015) require operators to communicate in the pre-tourist season in order to coordinate schedules and itineraries. In addition, vessels are required to communicate with one another at sea to avoid too many boats in one area.
Leadership accountability:
High (3)
At each annual general meeting, there are elections held for the positions on each committee of AECO. Since AECO members pay an annual fee, (likely which helps to pay for salaried positions) we would expect the Executive Director to have high accountability to the member organizations.
Actor group coordination:
Both formal and informal
AECO has a well-defined organizational structure with a Secretariat, an Executive Committee, and several other thematic committees. Their operational guidelines ask companies to coordinate itineraries before the tourist season commences, and to maintain radio contact while at sea to ensure that too many boats are not using the same area at the same time (AECO 2013). In a small town where everyone knows everyone, Evers et al (2013) found that companies recognize the need to respect the formal agreements (the written contracts) and the informal agreements (the ‘cognac deals’).
Name:
Svalbard Shrimp Fishers
details
Past collaboration:
Missing
Unknown
Costs of exit:
No
With large infrastructure costs for fishing vessels, one might assume that the costs for leaving the industry may be high. However, from the mid-1990s to 2010, there was a trend from many, smaller vessels to fewer, larger vessels (NAFO 2006 ). This likely means that the number of fishers has decreased, and thus costs must not have been too high to leave the industry.
Proportionality (of costs and benefits):
 
The overall value of the Norwegian shrimp fishery (not just Svalbard area) is about 500 million NOK per year ($65 million US) (Statistics Norway [Online ]). Fishing statistics for indicate that for groundfishing as a whole (including shrimp) that revenues have exceeded costs, making it profitable (Fiskeridirektoratet 2015 ).
Interest heterogeneity:
Medium (2)
In general, all fishermen have an interest in making a profit from commercial fishing and having sustainable fish stocks. In the case of Svalbard, there is some heterogeneity due to the conditions in the Svalbard Treaty – that other nations are permitted to fish within Svalbard’s waters. Although the majority of shrimp fishing is by Norwegian vessels, some vessels from others countries also participate, and may be less likely to comply with Norwegian regulations.
Leadership:
No leader
Leadership authority:
Not Applicable
Actor group trust:
High (3)
From a study not specifically about shrimp fishing, but about fishing more generally in the Barents Sea, Honneland (2000) found that fisherman believed that others would not exceed their quota limits. Since Coast Guard inspections occurred regularly (and violators were punished fairly and without bias), many fishermen held the view that others could cheat without being detected, but “only in small quantities and not over time”.
Personal communication:
Missing
Unknown
Remote communication:
Missing
Unknown
Leadership accountability:
Not Applicable
Actor group coordination:
Missing
Unknown
Name:
Svalbard Resource Managers
details
Past collaboration:
High (3)
The actors within this group have been around for several decades (Governor since 1920, Polar Institute since 1986, Coast Guard since 1977).
Costs of exit:
 
Not Applicable.
Proportionality (of costs and benefits):
 
As a group of government organizations, this group does not function as a profit driven business. The Svalbard Treaty of 1920 states that any tax levied in Svalbard must be spent Svalbard, and that taxes/fees should not exceed the costs of administration. Since 2007, there has been an Environmental Protection Fund which provides money for environmental projects. Each tourist visiting Svalbard pays a fee (NOK 150, about $20US) to the environmental protection fund (Report No.22 2008-2009 ).
Interest heterogeneity:
Low (1)
The Managers all have an interest in ensuring the regulations are being followed.
Leadership:
 
The Governor of Svalbard has the ultimate authority (Svalbard Environmental Protection Act 2001), and is assisted by the Coast Guard for monitoring fisheries & travel compliance, and the Polar Institute for monitoring environmental components.
Leadership authority:
High (3)
The Governor of Svalbard is ultimately in charge of monitoring and compliance of environmental regulations. As the chief of police on Svalbard, the Governor also has the authority to prosecute environmental violations.
Actor group trust:
High (3)
Although difficult to determine, these actors likely have a high degree of trust.
Personal communication:
More than once a year (5)
Although precise figures are unknown, coordinating monitoring efforts for tourism and environment would require considerable communication.
Remote communication:
More than once a year (5)
Although precise figures are unknown, coordinating monitoring efforts for tourism and environment would require considerable communication.
Leadership accountability:
High (3)
All members are working towards the same/similar goals.
Actor group coordination:
Formal

Governance Systems

Name:
Svalbard Environmental Protection Act
details
Type of formal governance:
System of laws
The first laws were established with the parks creation in 1973. The Svalbard Environmental Protection Act in 2001 further elaborates on these initial regulations.
End Date:
2012
The Svalbard Environmental Protection Act is ongoing and has not been superseded. The specific regulations, however, have been modified. The first management plan for these reserves was created in 2013, which provides a more detailed outline of how the Nature Reserves should be managed, and new regulations were implemented in 2014. These regulations must be in accordance with the Environmental Protection Act.
Begin date:
2002
The Act of 2001 came into effect on July 1, 2002.
Governance trigger:
Not Applicable
Governance system description:
{"System of Laws"=>"Nature Reserves regulations (1973) and the Svalbard Environmental Act (2002)"}
the Svalbard Environmental Protection Act of 2001 (which came into effect in 2002) outlines a goal for Svalbard to be ‘one of the best managed wilderness areas in the world’. The Governance System has regulations specifically pertaining to the main actors on Svalbard and to the species of conservation interest.
Governance scale:
State-based policy
State-based policy
Centralization:
Highly centralized (4)
Regulations were instituted from the central government, and local people/users did not have direct input into the regulations.
Metric diversity:
High: Many metrics for success (3)
The Environmental Protection Act and the Regulations of 1973 specify what is and is not allowed within the Nature Reserves. Therefore, there are no formal “goals for management” for which to gauge success. The ongoing monitoring program does keep track of a few metrics for each of several species (e.g. number of dens, litter size, cub survival for polar bears). The Governor also collects information of many social indicators on Svalbard. Despite the lack of formal management goals, there are many metrics of success (including various species of marine fauna, pollution levels, hunting, fishing, cruise traffic, etc.).
MPA primary goal (in practice):
[""]
The Reserves are designed to protect a large, continuous, and mainly undisturbed wilderness area with intact biotypes, ecosystems, and species (Sysselmannen på Svalbard 2013b ). They also aim to protect nesting sites for seabirds, walrus haul-outs, and polar bear habitat.
MPA motivation:
[""]
These parks were created by the recognition of large intact habitat in the polar environment.
MPA protection:
["", "Encompassing entire habitat"]
The Nature Reserves protect a large range of intact habitat. They also limit threats from disturbance by people, and for sea-birds, they reduce threats from hunting/harvesting.
MPA internal natural boundaries:
Low (1)
The Nature Reserves, which protect both land and sea regions, are based more around terrestrial geography (the islands) than on oceanic ecology. Boundaries in the marine zone merely follow 12nm around the islands which are protected.
Distance to markets:
Between 100km-1000km (3)
The closest mainland town to Svalbard is Tromso (about 33,000 people), which is 900km away. The distance from Svalbard to Oslo (the capital and largest city of Norway) is about 2000km.
MPA budget:
Missing
Unknown
PA IUCN strict zones:
0 %
Although these Nature Reserves are listed as a Ib on websites such as the WDPA, this may reflect a difference between terrestrial and marine landscapes. Commercial fishing is permitted within the nature reserves (although in practice it occurs in very small amounts), along with tourism. Based on the IUCN Guidelines for applying categories to MPAs, these reserves seem to be more in line with Category VI.
MPA connectivity:
No (1)
No information found which addresses connectivity considerations.
PA CAR principles:
No (1)
These reserves were created in 1973, before these principles had become commonplace.
MPA migratory benefit:
Yes
There is good protection of important breeding grounds - about 215 kittiwake colonies are known in Svalbard. All traffic is forbidden in bird sanctuaries between 15 May and 15 August. Environmental protection has priority over natural resource extraction, and tourism is managed and monitored. However, there is limited monitoring/baseline data for many of the migratory species known to be found in Svalbard. Out of four species of migratory seabirds, two populations are considered stable, while two populations are declining (MOSJ 2013 b) - the declines in some of the bird populations are unknown, but are thought to be linked to pollutants (e.g., glaucous gull) Full list of monitored indicators: http://www.mosj.no/en/indicators/
MPA migratory life history:
Breeding
In Svalbard the kittiwake is a common breeding species in all parts of the archipelago. It can be observed in all coastal areas as well as at sea, even in ice-filled waters. The largest colonies are found on Bjørnøya and Hopen. About 215 colonies are known in Svalbard. The coastal regions near freshwater inputs and glaciers are important for foraging for Beluga (Lyderson et al 2001)
MPA threats to migratory sp:
[""]
In Svalbard (+ other polar regions) the main threats are from pollution and climate change. Due to global circulation patterns, polar regions have a disproportionately high pollution load - although difficult to quantify, pollution burdens are thought to reduce fitness – and have been attributed to the declines in some seabirds. Since the polar regions are likely to experience the greatest warming from climate change, shifting locations of fish species (prey) may be problematic. Historically, whaling was presented considerable threat, but it was banned in 1961. Tourism can be a threat at a variety of scales- this is managed and monitored on Svalbard, but more site-specific data is needed (Hagan et al 2012).
MPA migratory threats and redux:
Habitat Protection Harvesting/Hunting Protection
There is good protection of important breeding grounds - about 215 kittiwake colonies are known in Svalbard. All traffic is forbidden in bird sanctuaries between 15 May and 15 August. Environmental protection has priority over natural resource extraction, and tourism is managed and monitored. There is limited monitoring/baseline data for many of the migratory species known to be found in Svalbard. The Nature Reserves offer large, relative intact areas with habitat protection for numerous migratory species. Within the Nature Reserves, migratory bird species are also protected against disturbance and harvesting of any kind (including eggs). For whale species, Norwegian regulations prohibit hunting anywhere within Norwegian waters, and therefore any benefits from the Reserves may be limited to habitat protection. However, the regions within the Nature Reserves may receive considerable ‘de facto’ habitat protection since these areas are far from the main town of Longyearbyen and sea-ice sometimes makes travel difficult.
Social-ecological fit:
Low (1)
The Governance System has regulations specifically pertaining to the main actors on Svalbard and to the species of conservation interest. Consultations for the first management plan highlighted a few differences of opinion – namely that the scientific/education community advocated for special areas for research, while the tourism community protested against any stricter regulations or no-go zones. The new management plan introduced a few Zones into the Nature Reserves, but did not fundamentally alter the management, suggesting that the Governance System is a good socio-ecological fit. We should note however, that this Governance System does not address impacts from climate change and pollution, which are considered high threats to the system, but which largely originate beyond the borders of the Nature Reserves.
Governance knowledge use:
["", "Scientific knowledge"]
The Nature Reserves relies on scientific knowledge, and has a formal monitoring system (MOSJ). Note: Svalbard does not have an indigenous population. A variety of indicators are monitored: http://www.mosj.no/en/indicators/
MPA IUCN somewhat strict zones:
%
MPA IUCN sustainable zones :
%
MPA threats:
Climate change; pollution; tourism disturbance
In polar regions such as Svalbard, the main current threats are due from pollution and climate change. Historically, whaling was presented considerable threat to belugas, but it has been banned in Svalbard since 1961. Due to global circulation patterns, polar regions have a disproportionately high pollution load. Although difficult to quantify, pollution burdens are thought to reduce fitness. Tourism can be a threat at a variety of scales- this is managed and monitored on Svalbard, but more site-specific data is needed (Hagan et al 2012).
Governance system spatial extent:
36268
Combined area of North and South Nature Reserves (North: 14,443km2; South: 21,825km2)
Horizontal coordination:
Formal

Environmental Commons

Name:
Svalbard Shrimp
details
Productivity:
Moderately Productive (2)
Shrimp take about 6 years to reach maturity. I have not been able to find specific information thus far about population growth rates.
Commons aggregation:
Population
The shrimp at Svalbard are considered part of the larger Barents Sea / Svalbard population, and are managed as one stock, because there are no genetic differences between these two regions (Bjordal et al 2004).
Biotic:
Yes
Commons unit size:
Small (2)
Commons mobility:
Medium (2)
Compared to species of mammals and fish, shrimp mobility is quite low.
Commons spatial extent:
2000000
2,000,000 km2 is roughly the size of the Barents Sea and the region around Svalbard.
Environmental medium:
Oceanic
Commons heterogeneity:
Moderate (2)
The distribution density of shrimp is moderately patchy (NAFO 2011). Ares in the southern region of the Nature Reserves have quite low densities of shrimp, while regions in the north and northwest of the Nature Reserves have high densities.
Intra annual predictability:
High (3)
Inter annual predictability:
High (3)
Despite modest population fluctuations and geographic movements, shrimp are quite predictable from year to year.
Technical substitute:
Yes
To substitute for the wild shrimp harvest, shrimp aquaculture has become popular and produces a large amount of the global shrimp consumption.
Commons boundaries:
Somewhat unclear boundaries (2)
Although the general locations of high density shrimp stocks remain similar across years, the specific locations of high density are slightly variable from year to year (NAFO 2012). Data also suggests that the shrimp population has been moving slightly eastward in recent years towards due to warming waters (Eriksen 2012 ).
Commons renewability:
Renewable (1)
Commons accessibility:
Very accessible (3)
Current technology makes shrimp fishing relatively easy. From the mid-1990s to 2010, NAFO (2006) notes that there has been a restructuring of the fishing fleet from numerous smaller vessels to only a few large vessels, and from using one trawl to two trawls..
Commons indicator:
["Status of species targeted by fisheries"]
Shrimp represents ‘fisheries’, because it is the only species that is fished commercially within the nature reserves. Fish stocks in the greater Barents Sea region may show similar or different trends, depending on the specific species (FAO Catch Statistics 2015 [Online]).
Name:
Svalbard Polar Bear
details
Productivity:
 
The growth of the polar bear populations is relatively slow. On average, female bears in Svalbard do not usually have their first litter until at least 6 years of age, have 1.72 cubs/litter (Derocher 2005), and stay with their cubs for at least a full year (Lono 1970). Cub mortality is estimated at 0.48, which is higher than other polar bear populations (Larsen 1985). There are no reliable population estimates, but Derocher (2005) suggests that changes in age structure, reproductive rates, and body length may be indicators that the population is still recovering from polar bear hunting prior to 1973.
Commons aggregation:
 
The polar bears in the Nature Reserves in Svalbard represent a sub-set of the larger polar bear community across the Arctic.
Biotic:
Yes
Commons unit size:
Large (4)
Adult polar bears are typically 400-700kg and 2-3m long.
Commons mobility:
Medium (2)
The home range of individual polar bears can vary widely from 200km2 to upwards of 400,000km2. The ranges can overlap with other bears, and as a whole, the general population is found in reasonably consistent regions throughout the year. Female bears show fidelity to den areas, but necessarily to specific den sites (Zeyl et al 2010).
Commons spatial extent:
15000000
Polar bears are found throughout the Arctic in regions with seasonal sea-ice.
Environmental medium:
Oceanic
The polar bear uses both terrestrial and marine environments. It primarily uses sea ice to hunt ringed and bearded seals (Derocher et al 2002). Svalbard bears use land ice/snow for hibernating and rearing young, and sometimes prey on foxes and reindeer (Derocher et al 2011).
Commons heterogeneity:
Moderate (2)
Moderate Polar bears are found throughout the polar regions near land with seasonal sea-ice (Mauritzen et al 2002), but are found on some islands in much higher density (e.g. Kong Karls Land).
Intra annual predictability:
High (3)
The seasonal patterns of the polar bear are reasonably predictable, although may vary according to the weather and sea-ice conditions. Bears hibernate during the polar winter and emerge in the spring. Lønø (1970) observes that females generally enter their dens in November/December, and emerge in April.
Inter annual predictability:
High (3)
There are several regions within the East Svalbard Nature Reserves which are known to be important for polar bears (e.g. Kong Karls land), however polar bear density by region may vary slightly from year to year depending on sea-ice extent. As a relatively long-lived species with slow reproduction, polar bear populations do not fluctuate extensively from year to year (as compared with a species such as capelin).
Technical substitute:
No
Polar bear viewing is often a highlight for tourists. There is no technical substitute for that kind of interaction.
Commons boundaries:
Somewhat unclear boundaries (2)
The spatial extent of polar bears on & around Svalbard varies seasonally and between years depending on sea-ice extent. Female bears commonly show fidelity to den areas, but not to specific den sites (Garner et al 2004, Zeyl et al 2010). The bears of Svalbard are considered reasonably distinct, but part of a larger community of bears across northern Russia. By studying the movements of bears using telemetry, Mauritzen et al (2002) conclude that somewhat discrete populations exist, but that there is spatial overlap between bears within these subpopulations. Paetkai et al (1999) found that there was no substantial genetic difference between bears on Svalbard and north of Russia (and very little difference with East Greenland) suggesting the interbreeding of bears within this range. In the future, decreasing sea ice may restrict polar bear movement, and decrease the movement between regions.
Commons renewability:
Renewable (1)
Commons accessibility:
Somewhat accessible (2)
When venturing outside settlements of Svalbard, persons are required to carry a rifle in case they encounter a bear, thus indicating that encounters with polar bears are reasonably common. However, navigating from the settlements to view bears specifically within the East Svalbard Nature Reserves presents challenges, and accessibility depends on sea-ice extent.
Commons indicator:
["Ecosystem health and/or biodiversity"]
At the top of the food chain, the polar bear depends on a healthy seal population, which in turn relies on the abundance of various fish species. Therefore, monitoring body condition in polar bears is likely to be a good reflection of prey availability (Polar Institute 2014). Although not directly related to the Nature Reserves, the polar bear is often used as a flagship species for climate change, since it is sensitive to the changing sea-ice conditions.
Name:
Svalbard Kittiwake
details
Productivity:
Moderately Productive (2)
Generation length: 12.9 years
Commons aggregation:
Population
Rissa tridactyla
Biotic:
Yes
Commons unit size:
Small (2)
The adult is 37–41 cm in length with a wingspan of 91–105 cm and a body mass of 305–525g
Commons mobility:
High (3)
Migratory species
Commons spatial extent:
52365
52,365km2 is the spatial extent of the Svalbard MPAs. It's distribution size is: 1,080,000km2 (http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/speciesfactsheet.php?id=3255)
Environmental medium:
Oceanic
Breeds on land, but forages at sea - it is a highly pelagic species, usually remaining on the wing out of sight of land
Commons heterogeneity:
Moderate (2)
Ranges widely across open sea but returns to the same breeding colonies
Intra annual predictability:
High (3)
Little variation within years http://www.mosj.no/en/fauna/marine/black-legged-kittiwake.html
Inter annual predictability:
Moderate (2)
Kittiwakes return to the same colonies each year to breed - mixed trend across all colonies http://www.mosj.no/en/fauna/marine/black-legged-kittiwake.html
Technical substitute:
No
Commons boundaries:
 
Commons renewability:
Renewable (1)
Generation length: 12.9 years (http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/22694497/0)
Commons accessibility:
Somewhat accessible (2)
The black-legged kittiwake is not currently targeted by human harvesting efforts on Svalbard (but is hunted on Greenland). Does not appear to be amajor by-catch species. In Svalbard, there are dense colonies on steep rock cliffs in all parts of the archipelago.
Commons indicator:
["Status of highly migratory species"]
The Black-legged Kittiwake nests along coastlines in much of the north Pacific and Atlantic oceans, and also breeds on inlands off the northern coast of Russia and on the northern coast of Norway. It winters at sea, ranging across much of the north Atlantic and Pacific oceans

Component Interactions

Governance Interaction

Svalbard Interaction-Shrimp

Governs:
Svalbard Environmental Protection Act (Governance System)
Primary:
Svalbard Shrimp (Environmental Common)
Commons User:
Svalbard Shrimp Fishers (Actor)
Governing Organization:
Svalbard Resource Managers (Actor)

Governance Interaction

Svalbard Interaction-Polar Bear

Primary:
Svalbard Polar Bear (Environmental Common)
Governs:
Svalbard Environmental Protection Act (Governance System)
Commons User:
Svalbard Tourism (Actor)
Governing Organization:
Svalbard Resource Managers (Actor)

Governance Interaction

Svalbard Interaction-Kittiwake

Primary:
Svalbard Kittiwake (Environmental Common)
Governing Organization:
Svalbard Resource Managers (Actor)
Commons User:
Svalbard Tourism (Actor)
Governs:
Svalbard Environmental Protection Act (Governance System)

Studies

Bjordal, A., Gjøsæter, H., & Mehl, S. (Eds.) (2004) Management Strategies for Commercial Marine Species in Northern Ecosystems. Proceedings of the 10th Norwegian-Russian Symposium 27-29 August 2003. IMR/PINRO Joint Report Series, No.1/2004. ISSN 1502-8828, 171pp.


Fiskeridirektoratet. (2015) Economic and Biological Figures from Norwegian Fisheries 2014. ISBN 82-92075-07-0. 38pp.


Jenssen B.M. (2006) Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals and Climate Change: A Worst-Case Combination for Arctic Marine Mammals and Seabirds? Environmental Health Perspectives, 114, 76–80.


Kaltenborn, B.P. and R. Hindrum, (1996). Opportunities and problems associated with the development of arctic tourism - a case study from Svalbard. DN-notat 1996-1. 44pp.


AECO. (2013) AECO’s Guidelines for Expedition Cruise Operations in the Arctic.  October 2013. 8pp.  Available from: http://www.aeco.no/guidelines/operational-guidelines/. Accessed 5-Jun-2015.


Andersen M., Derocher A.E., Wiig Ø., & Aars J. (2012) Polar bear (Ursus maritimus) maternity den distribution in Svalbard, Norway. Polar Biology, 35, 499–508.


Derocher A.E. (2005) Population ecology of polar bears at Svalbard, Norway. Population Ecology, 47, 267–275.


Eriksen, E. (Ed.). (2012) Survey report from the joint Norwegian/Russian ecosystem survey in the Barents Sea August-October 2012. IMR/PINRO Joint Report Series, No. 2/2012. ISSN 1502-8828, 139 pp.

 


Evers, Y., Curran, M.M., Lawrence, R., Kelman, I., Luthe, T., & Tornbald, S.H. (2013) Assessing Cooperation in Arctic Tourism on Svalbard. IAIA13 Conference Proceedings, 33rd Annual Meeting of the International Association for Impact Assessment. 6pp.


FAO Catch Statistics. (2015) [Online] Official Nominal Catches 2006-2013.  Available from: http://ices.dk/marine-data/dataset-collections/Pages/Fish-catch-and-stock-assessment.aspx. Accessed 12-Jun-2015


Hobbs, R.C., Laidre, K.L., Vos, D.J., Mahoney, B.A., & Eagleton, M. (2005) Movements and Area Use of Belugas, Delphinapterus lencas, in a Subarctic Alaskan Estuary. Arctic, 331-340.


ICES. (2012) Report of the Arctic Fisheries Working Group 2012 (AFWG), 20 - 26 April 2012, ICES Headquarters, Copenhagen. ICES CM 2012/ACOM:05. 682 pp.


ICES. (2013) Report of the Arctic Fisheries Working Group (AFWG), 18 - 24 April 2013, ICES Headquarters, Copenhagen. ICES CM 2013/ACOM:05. 726 pp.


Kovacs K.M., Lydersen C., Overland J.E., & Moore S.E. (2011) Impacts of changing sea-ice conditions on Arctic marine mammals. Marine Biodiversity, 41, 181–194.


Derocher, A. E., Wiig, Ø., & Andersen, M. (2002) Diet composition of polar bears in Svalbard and the western Barents Sea. Polar Biology, 25(6), 448-452.


Derocher A.E. (2004) Polar Bears in a Warming Climate. Integrative and Comparative Biology, 44, 163–176.


Hjermann, D.Ø., Ottersen, G., & Stenseth, N.C. (2004) Competition among fishermen and fish causes the collapse of Barents Sea capelin. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences of the United States of America, 101(32), 11679-11684.


Hunter C.M., Caswell H., Runge M.C., Regehr E.V., Amstrup S.C., & Stirling I. (2010) Climate change threatens polar bear populations: a stochastic demographic analysis. Ecology, 91, 2883–2897.


Johannesen E., Ingvaldsen R.B., Bogstad B., Dalpadado P., Eriksen E., Gjosaeter H., Knutsen T., Skern-Mauritzen M., & Stiansen J.E. (2012) Changes in Barents Sea ecosystem state, 1970-2009: climate fluctuations, human impact, and trophic interactions. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 69, 880–88


Aars J., Marques T.A., Buckland S.T., Andersen M., Belikov S., Boltunov A., & Wiig  ø. (2009) Estimating the Barents Sea polar bear subpopulation size. Marine Mammal Science, 25, 35–52.


Boltunov, A.N., & Belikov, S.E. (2002) Belugas (Delphinapterus leucas) of the Barents, Kara and Laptev seas. NAMMCO Scientific Publications, 4, 149-168.


Derocher A., Andersen M., Wiig  ø, Aars J., Hansen E., & Biuw M. (2011) Sea ice and polar bear den ecology at Hopen Island, Svalbard. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 441, 273–279.


 Evenset, A., & Christensen, G.N. (2011) Environmental impacts of expedition cruise traffic around Svalbard. Akvaplan-niva AS Report: 4823 – 1. 103pp.


Fauchald, P., Arneberg, P., Berge, J., Gerland, S., Kovacs, K.M., Reigstad, M., & Sundet, J.H. (2014) An Assessment of MOSJ – The state of the marine environment around Svalbard and Jan Mayen. Norsk Polarninstitutt, Rapportserie 145.  43pp.


Hønneland, G. (2000) Compliance in the Barents Sea fisheries. How fishermen account for conformity with rules. Marine policy, 24(1), 11-19.


Hop H. & Gjøsæter H. (2013) Polar cod (Boreogadus saida) and capelin (Mallotus villosus) as key species in marine food webs of the Arctic and the Barents Sea. Marine Biology Research, 9, 878–894.


Kingsley, M. (1998). Population index estimates for the St. Lawrence belugas, 1973–1995. Marine Mammal Science, 14(3), 508-529.


Larsen T. (1985) Polar Bear Denning and Cub Production in Svalbard, Norway. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 49, 320.