Arctic Yearbook 2015 - Page 184

184 Arctic Yearbook 2015 loophole for SC fishing (Hoel 2015; Hansen 2015). Meanwhile, it is clear that there are significant hopes that the crab will bring new economic opportunities to the Barents Sea (Hvingel 2015). Interest in the question of whether the SC is a sedentary species is particularly poignant in the Barents Sea because at the moment there is no authorization on fisheries on the outer continental shelf. The northwest spread of the species, in particular toward Svalbard, has created concerns that would recommend harvesting above sustainable fishery levels to reduce the spread and potential damages of a large and expanding SC population into more clearly valued marine habitat (Hop et al. 2002; Jørgensen & Spiridonov 2013; Sætra 2011), evidenced not least by the scientific effort put in to determining the ecosystem functioning, and will require concerted efforts to address its management in the Barents Sea between Russia and Norway. The borders between nations provide both opportunity and risk pertaining to invasive species. While international trade requirements may facilitate inspections, quarantines, and other preventative measures, borders also determine the extent of a nation’s direct control over monitoring and enforcement and over incentives to reduce being a source of invasive species to a neighbor. Again, the RKC experience in the Barents presents an example of the gaps that come at borders if research and information are not properly shared. When the Norwegians agreed not to harvest RKC in the 1970s, they had little information on the Russian’s actions to transplant the crab to the Barents and the potential for the species to become a significant presence in their waters. This led to unanticipated costs to Norwegian cod and capelin fishermen in the early 1990s and inefficient policy over containment of the RKC in Norwegian waters, in addition to the current conflicting Norwegian internal policy. Synthetic analysis of existing research Misplaced emphasis? Dearth of data and existing knowledge gaps Before deepening the discussion of abatement costs/investments and assigning burdens, we first need to acquire an adequate understanding of why the above mentioned impacts are of such great importance. Invasions, together with the various disease vectors and pathogens, can have critical interactions with other drivers of ecosystem change thus causing a series of cascading effects both on human health and economic well-being, besides changing ecosystem dynamics. Nevertheless species under-representations (usually microorganisms such as invasive microbes) (Amalfitano, Coci, Corno & Luna 2015; Thomaz, Kovalenko, Havel & Kats 2015) and other bioeconomic biases such as funding uncertainties (Kaiser & Burnett 2010), and policy gaps between stages of invasions (Burnett, D’Evelyn, Kaiser, Nantamanasikarn & Roumasset 2008; Burnett, Kaiser, Pitafi & Roumasset 2006; Kaiser 2006) frequently present themselves in invasion-related research. The lower level of difficulty in detecting and fighting invasive macroorganisms compared to microorganisms is indisputable, but lately there has been