PCRC WORKING PAPER SERIES

17th PCRC International Law Seminar“Arctic Commons, Arctic Council, and Indigenous Peoples”
March 05, 2020

PCRC Working Paper No. 12 (March, 2020)“Discussing the Blue Arctic Economy
A Case Study of Fisheries in Alaska and North Norway”

Andreas Raspotnik, Andreas Østhagen & Charles Colgan© Andreas Raspotnik, Andreas Østhagen, Charles Colgan 2020
Polar Cooperation Research Centre (PCRC)
Graduate School of International Cooperation Studies (GSICS)
Kobe University, Japan
http://www.research.kobe-u.ac.jp/gsics-pcrc/index.html

PCRC Working Paper No. 12 (March, 2020)

Discussing the Blue Arctic Economy
A Case Study of Fisheries in Alaska and North Norway
Andreas Raspotnik a, Andreas Østhagen b & Charles Colgan caNord University, b Fridtjof Nansen Institute, c Middlebury Institute of International
StudiesAndreas Raspotnik is a Senior Researcher at the High North Center for
Business and Governance, Nord University in Bodø. He is also a Senior Fellow
and Leadership Group member at The Arctic Institute, Washington, DC, a
Senior Research Fellow at the Fridtjof Nansen Institute in Oslo and a Senior
Fellow at the Institute of European Studies at University of California,
Berkeley.
Andreas Østhagen is a Senior Research Fellow at the Fridtjof Nansen Institutein Oslo, Norway. He is also a Senior Fellow and Leadership Group member at
The Arctic Institute, Washington D.C., a Senior Fellow at the High North
Center at Nord University Business School and teaches the course ‘Geopolitics
of the Arctic’ at Bjørknes University College.
Charles Colgan is Director of Research in the Center for the Blue Economy at
the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey, in Monterey,
California USA. He is Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Ocean and Coastal
Economics. He is also Professor Emeritus of Public Policy and Planning at the
University of Southern Maine.1

As maritime issues have already been climbing the political agendas of the Arctic statessince the early 2000s, another global catchphrase has also entered the Arctic scenery: blue
economy. Retreating sea ice, changing distribution of marine natural resources, anddemand for the same resources have combined to create a ‘perfect storm’ for increased
economic interests in the region. With the rapid changes underway across the Arctic,questions are being asked about the profitability and sustainability of northern economic

1

The authors would like to thank Alf Håkon Hoel, Professor of Ocean Law and Policy, College of Fisheries

Science, University of Tromsø, for valuable contributions to earlier versions of this working paper.

1

PCRC Working Paper No. 12 (March, 2020)

ventures, together with conditions for local and regional development (Nymand Larsen,
2016).
However, the boom/bust cycles of regional activity are both a blessing and a curse.
Designing a new economic model for the Arctic sub-regions is becoming a matter ofurgency as older economic systems approach their limits, even before COVID-19 times.
This is partly the case with natural resources like fisheries, but also with those who have
exploited the resources, economic tipping points are involved, such as significant age
imbalances in the local populations (Christiansen et al., 2014; Lam et al., 2016).
In comes an allegedly new macro economy concept, involving every aspect of nationaland global governance, economic development, environmental protection andsustainability and international communication: the blue economy (Wenhai et al., 2019,p. 3). In the following, we briefly discuss the term/concept ‘blue economy’ as an emerging
idea of how to sustainably – from both an ecological and economic understanding –manage and use the world’s oceans and its resources. Essentially, we aim to give somefood for thought of how the blue economy could help to change the way we think about
fisheries in Alaska and North Norway by discussing a four-level transition phase,
focusing on these two regional Arctic domains.2
1. The Blue Economy: A New Sustainablue Catchphrase?
The global oceans are not only vital for human wellbeing as climate-regulator and oxygen
producer (through the plants such as phytoplankton, kelp, and algal plankton that live init), they also provide invaluable ecosystem services, contribute to global food security,and offer opportunities for economic growth and development (OECD, 2019). Valued at
1.5 trillion USD in 2010 – about 2.5 percent of the world’s gross economic value – theeconomic value of the ocean outputs could be doubled by 2030, reaching over 3 trillion
USD and approximately employing 40 million full-time jobs (OECD, 2016, pp. 13–14).
Thus, also the interest of investing in a sustainable blue economy is growing – globally(Credit Suisse, 2020).
Over the past two decades, the ‘blue economy’ has slowly but steadily emerged as both aterm and a concept to embrace the manifold economic opportunities associated with the2

For the purpose of this short working paper, we are only discussing the aspect of commercial fishing,which is the harvest of wild fish, and have not included, albeit relevant, considerations on aqua- andmariculture.

2

PCRC Working Paper No. 12 (March, 2020)

ocean, while at the same recognising, accounting and – in some cases – addressing related
threats of climate change, overfishing, pollution or habitat destruction (Voyer et al.,2018). Most often, the 2012 UN Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio +20) andits explicit focus on ocean-related challenges is considered the catalyst for a broader useof this relatively new term in the global environmental governance arena (Silver et al.,2015, p. 136).
The term blue economy emerged before and during Rio +20 in four prominent discourses
on human-ocean relations, all representing different ways of approaching the ocean andits economic use: the ocean as natural capital; the ocean as good business; the ocean as
integral to Pacific small island developing states; and the ocean as small scale fisheries
livelihoods (Silver et al., 2015, pp. 143–149). Essentially, the ‘specification of ‘blue’
makes explicit the focus on oceans, as opposed to land-based resources’ (Keen et al.,2018, p. 334). As such, the term blue economy emphasis the multifaceted economic andsocial importance of the ocean (and inland waters) (Eikeset et al., 2018, p. 178).
Today, the blue economy – as a macro economy concept – basically constitutes an
evolution of ideas about sustainable economies used to denote an expansion of economic
wealth derived from the oceans and coasts in such a way as to maintain or improve thenatural systems upon which economic systems depend. As such, the very essence of ablue economy internalises the common understanding of sustainable development to meetthe needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meettheir own needs. Essentially, it shares the idea that economic activities/growth are notantithetical to ecological conservation and sustainability but are rather complementary,or even reinforcing (Boonstra et al., 2018, p. 341).
Although increasingly understood in these multidimensional sustainable terms andaccordingly invoked by governments, international organisations and relevant
stakeholders to tackle both ocean-related opportunities and challenges, the clarity of theterm/concept, as well as the implementation steps to achieve an ecologic-economic
balance of sustainable exploitation remain vague (Keen et al., 2018, p. 333).
Moreover, while some focus a potential definition predominantly on the economic pillarof the term, e.g. with regard to the development of an innovative (marine) economy(Pauli, 2010), others tackle the management aspect and broadly focus on the sustainable3

PCRC Working Paper No. 12 (March, 2020)

development perspective and related blue growth considerations (Häyhä & Franzese,
2014; Keen et al., 2018; Lillebø et al., 2017; Mulazzani et al., 2016; Sarker et al., 2018).
Generally, most definitions today emphasize environmental sustainability, economic
growth and social equity, driven by an integrated oceans governance approach andtechnological innovation (Voyer et al., 2018). This ‘all-in-approach’ has led to the blue
economy being considered a socially constructed concept – employed differently in
different contexts and by different actors, depending on the respective need and economic
activity;3 (too) often used to discursively support certain economic sectors, development
initiatives, or conservation programs (Silver et al., 2015, p. 153). Although the term
closely interacts with other ocean governance tools such as marine spatial planning,
ecosystem based management and integrated coastal management, the blue economy
essentially lacks established frameworks, guidelines or toolkits through which objectives
can be developed, action plans implemented and assessment and monitoring programs
devised (Voyer et al., 2018).
The very absence of both a clear definition, as well as related implementation
frameworks, has led to many international actors progressing with a broad range ofactions all subsumed under a blue economy umbrella, e.g. the European Union’s blue
growth strategy and related blue innovation plans (Wenhai et al., 2019, p. 3; Winder &Le Heron, 2017, p. 5). Particularly, in terms of management, data access, monitoring, andproduct development, these stakeholders are making decisions according to their own
needs and less based on a global consensus definition of what blue economy actually isand entails (Wenhai et al., 2019, p. 1). Because of this lack of a (broad) single definition,
the precise nature of the ‘blue economy’ will only emerge from the way in which the term
is conceived and implemented in specific locations and situations. This brings us to3

Prior to the attention on the blue economy, or as part of it, is the question of what is the ‘ocean
economy’. That is, what parts of national or regional economies are related in some way to the ocean?
This definition varies widely with as many as 50 different sectors/industries defined as part of the ocean
economy by two dozen nations and international organizations. There are some, such as fisheries, marinetransportation, minerals, and tourism which are common, but some are unique to only one or two
countries or are themselves general categories with varying definitions such as ‘blue technology’.
Basically, ocean economic activities can be distinguished between established and emerging marine
industries. While established sectors include, for instance marine living resources, marine extraction of
non-living resources, maritime transport, port activities, shipbuilding and repair and coastal tourism,
emerging and innovative sectors refer to activities within the blue energy segment, i.e. offshore windenergy, ocean energy (wave and tidal), blue bio economy and biotechnology, marine minerals,
desalination and maritime defence. However, no real boundary exists between what is often called blue (=ocean) economy and land-based economy as the latter is often highly dependent and interlinked with anocean economy (Atkisson et al., 2018, pp. 6–7).

4

PCRC Working Paper No. 12 (March, 2020)

fisheries in the Circumpolar North – another region where discussions on the blue
economy has found its way into broader public debate over the past few years.

2. Blue Arctic Fisheries?
Currently, three global developments increasingly affect the Arctic and related economic
considerations: climate change, technological development and global economic demand.
However, these changes have varying impacts on the region’s blue economy due to thesimple fact that the Arctic is not simply the Arctic but consists of many Arctics.4 Thus,also the manifold blue economies of the Arctic vary with culture, bathymetry, politics,
geology, currents and several other variables. These variables create different levels ofimportance of economic activities, for example with regard to fisheries.5
Although the global relevance of Arctic fish captures is rather low, underscored by a
4 percent share of global fisheries (3.5 million tons per year) between 1975 and 2006,6
Arctic fish is an important export commodity for the Arctic states and also subsistence
activity for regions and indigenous communities in Alaska, Greenland and Russia(Rudloff, 2010, p. 11). 7 Generally, these states have well-developed management
regimes, score high in global assessments of related management performance with mostfisheries being certified by international eco-labelling schemes (Hoel, 2018, p. 393).
However, the fishing industry in the broader Arctic region is currently undergoing a4

Despite often being publicly considered a homogeneous region, the Arctic entails many different
regions: Arctic sub-zones that vary greatly in their physical geography, accessibility, climate andpopulation (Raspotnik, 2018, p. 36).
5
Arctic/northern fisheries are difficult to delineate (Hoel, 2018, p. 394) with often four major areas ofrelevance to be distinguished: 1) the North East Atlantic (Barents Sea, the east and south of theNorwegian Sea, waters around Iceland and East Greenland, FAO Area 27), 2) the Northwest Atlantic(Northeast Canada Sea around Newfoundland and Labrador area, FAO Area 21), 3) the Northwest Pacific(southwest-line along mainland coast of Russia to Alaska, Canada and the United States, FAO Area 61)
and 4) the Northeast Pacific (Bering Sea, FAO Area 68) (Rudloff, 2010, p. 8). In comes also FAO’s major
fishing area 18, the Arctic Sea – an area of potential future importance for fishing purposes. The main
species of current (economic) importance are capelin, Greenland halibut, northern shrimp, polar, Atlantic
and Pacific cod, haddock, Alaska pollock, snow crab, and others.
6
Referring to the difficulty of exactly delineating Arctic/northern fisheries and which areas/species toinclude into the calculation, Hoel proposes slightly higher numbers and argues for fish catches andlandings to be around 6-7 million tons (5.4 to 6.3 million metric tons) (2018, p. 397).
7
In addition, aquaculture has become a key regional economic factor in North Norway, Iceland, theFaroes, Northwest Russia and Eastern Canada (Hoel, 2018, p. 394).

5

PCRC Working Paper No. 12 (March, 2020)

process of transformation driven by climate change8 or the global market’s continuously
increasing demand for fish.
In recent years, Arctic industrial fisheries production has remained relatively stable atabout 5 million tons (4.5 million metric tons) per year. By comparison, the global annual
total has consistently averaged about 80 million tons (72 million metric tons) since 2003
(FAO, 2018, p. 8). However, the economic value of Arctic fish on the global market has
been declining steadily. As the types of fish caught in the Arctic change, due to previously
Arctic-unknown species moving northwards, their value also changes. However, also
other economic factors, such as local prices, exchange rates or differences in catch species
may be playing a role (Atkisson et al., 2018, p. 26).
In Alaska and North Norway, the fisheries and aquaculture industries are among the bestmanaged and most sustainable in the world, counting for a substantial number of landings
and production in the United States and Norway. 9 Generally, the United States andNorway are two of the world’s leading fishing nations, with annual catches of wild fishof some 4.5 million tons (4.3 million metric tons) and 2.5 million tons (2.2 million metrictons) respectively (FAO, 2018; National Marine Fisheries Service, 2020). Between one
half and two thirds of this catch are taken in the cold but highly productive waters off
Alaska and Northern Norway – the Bering Sea, the Gulf of Alaska, the Norwegian Sea
and the Barents Sea. Today, most of the stocks in these areas are in good condition, largely
thanks to prudent management in recent years.
Alaska produces more than half the fish caught off the coast of the United States, with anaverage wholesale value of nearly 4.5 billion USD a year. Alaska is the leading US statein volume and value of US fish landings and would be the sixth-largest fishing nation in
the world if being its own country. The seafood industry contributes more than 250
million USD in taxes and fees to the State, municipalities and a wide spectrum of stateand federal agencies, providing numerous opportunities for the State’s population(Resource Development Council for Alaska, n.d.).
8

Climate change will, however, not affect all Arctic fish species in the same way. (Water) temperature,
currents, and salinity changes are likely to lead to both positive and negative changes in species’
availability.
9
The following paragraphs are part of a summary report on the blue fishing economy potential in Alaska
and North Norway, compiled for the High North Dialogue 2020 in Bodø, Norway and supposed to bepresented on 18 March 2020. The conference was, however, cancelled due to the global COVID19outbreak. More information on the blue economy in Alaska and North Norway and the related AlaskaNor
project can be found here: www.alaskanor.com.

6

PCRC Working Paper No. 12 (March, 2020)

In 2017 both Alaskan and total US fish catch were close to their historical maximum. US
commercial landings reached nearly 4.5 million tons (4.3 million metric tons), with
Alaska accounting for 61 percent (2.7 million tons; 2.4 million metric tons). In value
terms, Alaska’s share was 33 percent (1.8 billion USD) (National Marine FisheriesService, 2020).
The largest commercial fisheries in Alaska are those for groundfish (pollock and others),
salmon (chinook, chum, Coho, pink, sockeye), crabs (mainly king and snow) and halibut.
Sports and recreational fisheries, and subsistence fisheries by Alaskan indigenous
peoples, also contribute significant economic value, as well as being socially andculturally important.
In total, the seafood industry of Alaska adds yearly 5.2 billion USD to the state’s
economy. Most of this revenue can be attributed to the abundance of wild salmon in its
waters. Among all species in the Alaska seafood industry, salmon has the greatest
economic impact (jobs, income, and total value), mainly thanks to the recent developmentof hatcheries and the sustainable management of salmon stocks.
In Norway, Northern Norway accounts for a substantial amount of fishery landings andits industry contributes significantly to both the nation’s economy and regional wealth.
With less than 10 percent of the total population, North Norway (and its two northernmost
counties, Nordland, and Troms & Finnmark)10 is home to nearly 50 percent of Norway’s
full-time fishers and more than 50 percent of all fishing vessels.
In 2018, about 990 000 tons (900 000 metric tons) of wild fish was landed in North
Norway, with an estimated landed value of 12.9 billion NOK (about 1 billion USD) andrepresenting around 40 percent of the total amount landed in Norway. Annual catch
volume is fairly evenly distributed between the then three counties, with Finnmark
country accounting for 27 percent, Troms representing 35 percent and Nordland
constituting 38 percent.
Importantly, this represents 45 percent of all wild capture fish landed on a national level,
while 55 percent of it was carried out by vessels registered in one of the two northernmost
10

Finnmark was its own county until the end of 2019. It was dissolved on 1 January 2020 and mergedwith the county of Troms to the new Troms & Finnmark county.

7

PCRC Working Paper No. 12 (March, 2020)

counties. In addition, it is estimated, that a substantial part of the fish caught in theadjacent waters of North Norway is also landed in North Norway, creating further
employment and value in related industries. Additional value creation from fisheries inNorth Norway during 2016 was estimated to be 5.9 billion NOK (500 million USD),
equivalent to 42 percent of the national total.
As briefly outlined, fisheries is a significant export commodity (and to some extent
subsistence activity) in both Alaska and North Norway. Generally, and historically, theArctic region has almost only been a purely extractive economy – both with regard tofisheries and other sectors – with a very narrow economic base. As regional climatechange might positively contribute to total fisheries revenue in the Arctic region (Lam etal., 2016) with certain fish stocks moving northwards, one wonders about whether/how
the region’s resources and related economic opportunities, further available from climatechange, can be realised without making mistakes of the past, e.g. with regard to over
exploitation, bad management, etc. In comes the blue economy.

3. What then for an Arctic Blue Fishing Economy?
The blue economy is obviously a complex concept that a) lacks a consensus definition
and b) requires multifaceted understanding of interacting ecological and socioeconomic
systems. Because there is no single definition, the precise nature of the ‘blue economy’will emerge from the way in which the term is conceived and implemented in specificlocations and situations. Thus, any blue economy is essentially a very regionalised one.
However, one thread that is likely to be consistent across all the places where thedefinition evolves is that the blue economy represents a new and different way of using
the ocean. The key to any blue economy is thus found in changing the way in which we
use the ocean. Change, particularly at so large a scale as human-ocean interactions, isextraordinarily difficult. Therefore, the blue economy needs to be thought of as much asa process as an outcome. That process towards a regionalised blue economy relevant to
Alaska and North Norway and other areas of the world, can be described in very generalterms as having four phases:

1) Attention

8

PCRC Working Paper No. 12 (March, 2020)

The first phase is already underway: attention by policy makers and stakeholders to thepossibilities of ocean-related economic growth and to the need to do so in ways that
remediate the damages already done to natural ocean systems and prevent future damages.
In Norway, for example, the current government recognises the blue economy as having
been essential for the country’s economic well-being for centuries, making Norway today
a leading ocean economy with an important competitive edge globally (Norwegian
Ministries, 2019, pp. 7–9). In the United States, the Department of State recently
announced 1.2 billion USD to support the blue economy, essentially to promotesustainable fisheries (U.S. Department of State, 2019). Similarly, but from an energy
perspective, also the Department of Energy discusses the opportunities for marine
renewable energy in blue economy related terms (LiVecchi et al., 2019). As neither
Norway nor the United States have a direct national/federal program specifically targetedat promoting the concept of the blue economy, however defined, high-level attention
might be a necessary first step but eventually not sufficient for creating the changes thatwill be needed.

2) Planning
Basically, a general commitment to the blue economy must be narrowed to the specificeconomic sectors ecosystems where attention will be focused. This planning stage
identifies sectors such as fisheries, minerals, transportation, tourism, energy, and the very
specific context of coastal regions. Such a planning process will focus on identifying theways in which economic activity and ecosystems interact with one another both positively
and negatively and which actions are likely to expand the former and reduce the latter.
Planning can take many forms, but usually includes some assessment of local factors suchas strengths upon which to build and weaknesses to be addressed and overcome. It may
also include non-local factors such as opportunities emerging because of newtechnologies and national or global markets and threats such as climate change and theextent to which ocean systems have already been degraded in quantity or quality. The
planning stage should identify goals for blue economic development – short term or longterm – that are, to maximum extent practicable, measurable so that progress towards oraway from blue economy objectives. What are the key indicators that would trackprogress towards or away from the desired outcomes? In that regard, a broad ocean
accounting effort is of particular relevance. What are the contributions of the oceans to
the market transaction based national income accounts? What is the value of ocean

9PCRC Working Paper No. 12 (March, 2020)

environmental and natural resource assets on which contributions to national income
depend? What are the services to the economy and populations provided by marine andcoastal ecosystems? (Colgan, 2016, p. 2)
If looking at fisheries in Alaska and North Norway, it becomes obvious that both are set
in very different legal contexts. Alaskan fisheries management is divided between thefederal and state governments, with federal government having responsibility for 3
nautical miles out from shore and state governments within 3 nautical miles. The joint
responsibility is coordinated through the North Pacific Fishery Management Council
which includes representatives of federal and state governments as well as industry. In
contrast, Norway does not operate a management level below the national one. While thefederation/state interface is the pivot of US fisheries management, thenational/international junction point has the same function in the Norwegian system, e.g.
in the Barents Sea and the related Joint Norwegian-Russian Fisheries Commission.11 Yet,
regardless the approach and the reasoning behind it, both fisheries are well-managed andhave been so for decades.
Thus, a key planning task would be a careful assessment of current policies and programs
addressing fisheries sustainability and ask how those lessons can be best applied to otherfisheries or regions. It should not be assumed that what works in one aspect will also workin other ones, even though subsumed under the same national/federal level. Accordingly,
the planning phase should further involve a broad assessment of which fisheries support
programs such as direct or subsidized loans, education and training, and infrastructure in
Alaska and North Norway contribute to (broadly) defined blue economy goals or adhere
to blue economy principles.
The planning process should also identify and determine how to take advantage of thenumber of similarities between the US and Norwegian systems for fisheries management.
The precautionary approach has become the main device in both systems, and bothmanage according to harvest control rules based on biological reference points for stock
size and fish mortality. While focus has traditionally been on single-stock management,
both systems increasingly apply a broader ecosystem approach and give more attention
to the impacts of fishing on e.g. bottom habitats. Both systems also allow for a high degree
11

For the Norwegian case, this is essentially due to the fact that most fisheries are on transboundarystocks, thus necessitating cooperation between neighbouring countries. Also, the United States and Russia
have a bilateral cooperation in the Bering Sea but do not engage in the actual management of its
resources.

10

PCRC Working Paper No. 12 (March, 2020)of user-group involvement, at regional/state, national and international level. And bothhave had a considerable amount of success in maintaining fish stocks at sustainable levels.

3) Focused Implementation
Naturally, any planning effort must be transformed into actions at some point, whichshould involve all necessary stakeholders – from the public, private, andnongovernmental sphere. Some actions may be at the policy level (involving legislation,
regulation, finance and investment), but many will be made at the project level. Specificdevelopment opportunities must be evaluated for their possible gains in both ecologicaland economic terms. This requires a process that integrates the economic andenvironmental aspects rather than treating as separate processes which intersect only inthe form of regulatory review. Such an integrated process is one of the most importantinnovations needed to create a blue economy. It is likely to be a difficult innovation sinceorganizations tend to be highly specialized.
Actions to implement the blue economy plans are likely to require starting at rather small
scales, addressing very specific economic development or a specific ecologicalmanagement issue. This phase of the blue economy transformation should be both anopportunity to learn what policy levers (incentives, regulation, finance, design) and thestakeholder involvement processes most likely to be effective in shaping the larger blue
economy of certain regions, such as Alaska or North Norway. Moreover, focused
implementation could also include the incorporation of blue economy ideas into
education and related training programs.

4) Broad Implementation
Based on the experiences learned in phase 3, the procedures, policies, and investments
needed to fully implement the plans developed in phase 2 can be adopted more broadly
to encompass the full range of economic sectors and ecological systems identified in theplans.
The Arctic Ocean touches the shores of the fewest nations but spans the world. It is
inhospitable to all but those who have lived from its resources for centuries, but it isincreasingly the focus of attention for the construction of 21st century economies. The
attention it is receiving in places like Alaska and North Norway is occurring as part of a11

PCRC Working Paper No. 12 (March, 2020)

global quest to expand the creation of wealth from the oceans but to do so in ways thatboth repair and avoid the mistakes that have damaged the resources and ecosystems uponwhich the wealth depends. The ‘blue economy’ has become the term that expresses thisquest, but the blue economy has no specific rules or guideposts. It is created in each placethrough the sum of actions by governments, industries, indigenous peoples,
nongovernmental organizations, academics, and others. Looking at fisheries in Alaska
and North Norway, we are only at the beginning to even define on what we mean by blue
economy strategies and where we want to go with it
The creation of an Arctic blue economy, either with regard to fisheries or other economic
sectors, is at the early stages. The opportunities, particularly in fisheries, are significant
particularly given the degraded condition of so many other fisheries around the world. A
concerted effort to broaden awareness, to plan rigorously, to take specific actions, and tolearn from those actions over the next several years will determine whether theopportunities to establish a blue economy in the Arctic can be seized or whether, as has
too often happened elsewhere, the Arctic’s economy will continue the historical patternof boom and bust with little lasting benefit.
Five years down the line the term/concept might itself have been replaced by anotherbuzzword, or it might have taken root and become an integral part of the regional
discourse. In that way, the term can be compared with ‘sustainable economy’. Taking
lessons from that catchphrase, it is fair to say that proponents of the ‘blue’ would be wellserved by a clear definition and further guidelines for operationalisation. The oceans andthe related resources at sea are not becoming any less relevant, especially in the Arctic.
Figuring out what the blue economy actually includes, and why that matters, is aworthwhile next step.

References
Atkisson, A., Arnbom, T., Tesar, C., & Christensen, A. (2018). Getting it right in a new
ocean: Bringing Sustainable Blue Economy Principles to the Arctic. World Wide
Fund for Nature (WWF).
https://arcticwwf.org/site/assets/files/2050/report_arctic_blue_economy_web.pdf
Boonstra, W. J., Valman, M., & Björkvik, E. (2018). A sea of many colours – Howrelevant is Blue Growth for capture fisheries in the Global North, and vice versa?
Marine Policy, 87, 340–349.
Christiansen, J. S., Mecklenburg, C. W., & Karamushko, O. V. (2014). Arctic marine
12PCRC Working Paper No. 12 (March, 2020)

fishes and their fisheries in light of global change. Global Change Biology, 20(2),352–359.
Colgan, C. S. (2016). Measurement of the Ocean Economy From National Income
Accounts to the Sustainable Blue Economy. Journal of Ocean and Coastal
Economics, 2(2), 1–43.
Credit Suisse. (2020). Investors and the Blue Economy. https://www.esg-data.com/blueeconomy
Eikeset, A. M., Mazzarella, A. B., Davíðsdóttir, B., Klinger, D. H., Levin, S. A.,
Rovenskaya, E., & Stenseth, N. C. (2018). What is blue growth? The semantics of“Sustainable Development” of marine environments. Marine Policy, 87, 177–179.
FAO. (2018). The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2018 - Meeting thesustainable development goals. http://www.fao.org/3/i9540en/i9540en.pdf
Häyhä, T., & Franzese, P. P. (2014). Ecosystem services assessment: A review under an
ecological-economic and systems perspective. Ecological Modelling, 289, 124–132.
Hoel, A. H. (2018). Northern fisheries. In M. Nuttall, T. R. Christensen, & M. J. Siegert(Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of the Polar Regions (pp. 393–404). Routledge.
Keen, M. R., Schwarz, A. M., & Wini-Simeon, L. (2018). Towards defining the Blue
Economy: Practical lessons from pacific ocean governance. Marine Policy, 88, 333–
341.
Lam, V. W. Y., Cheung, W. W. L., & Sumaila, U. R. (2016). Marine capture fisheries in
the Arctic: Winners or losers under climate change and ocean acidification? Fishand Fisheries, 17(2), 335–357.
Lillebø, A. I., Pita, C., Garcia Rodrigues, J., Ramos, S., & Villasante, S. (2017). How canmarine ecosystem services support the Blue Growth agenda? Marine Policy, 81,
132–142.
LiVecchi, A., Copping, A., Jenne, D., Gorton, A., Preus, A., Gill, G., Robichaud, R.,
Green, R., Geerlofs, S., Gore, S., Hume, D., McShane, W., Schmaus, C., & Spence,
H. (2019). Powering the Blue Economy: Exploring Opportunities for Marine
Renewable Energy in Maritime Markets. U.S. Department of Energy, Office ofEnergy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/03/f61/73355.pdf
Mulazzani, L., Trevisi, R., Manrique, R., & Malorgio, G. (2016). Blue Growth and therelationship between ecosystem services and human activities: The Salento artisanal
fisheries case study. Ocean and Coastal Management, 134, 120–128.
National Marine Fisheries Service. (2020). Fisheries of the United States 2018 (NOAA
Current Fishery Statistics No. 2018). U.S. Department of Commerce.

13

PCRC Working Paper No. 12 (March, 2020)

https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/commercial-fishing/fisheries-unitedstates-2018
Norwegian Ministries. (2019). Blue Opportunities: The Norwegian Government’s
Updated Ocean Strategy.
https://www.regjeringen.no/en/dokumenter/the-norwegian-governments-updatedocean-strategy/id2653026/
Nymand Larsen, J. (2016). Polar economics: expectations and real economic futures.
Polar Journal, 6(1), 1–10.
OECD. (2016). The Ocean Economy in 2030. OECD Publishing.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264251724-enOECD. (2019). OECD work in support of a sustainable ocean.
https://www.oecd.org/ocean/OECD-work-in-support-of-a-sustainable-ocean.pdf
Pauli, G. A. (2010). The Blue Economy: 10 Years, 100 Innovations, 100 Million Jobs.
Paradigm Publications.
Raspotnik, A. (2018). The European Union and the Geopolitics of the Arctic. Edward
Elgar.
Resource Development Council for Alaska. (n.d.). Alaska’s Fishing Industry. Retrieved
January 1, 2020, from https://www.akrdc.org/fisheries
Rudloff, B. (2010). The EU as fishing actor in the Arctic: Stocktaking of institutional
involvement and existing conflicts (SWP Working Paper FG 2, 2010/02). Stiftung
Wissenschaft und Politik (SWP).
http://www.swp-berlin.org/fileadmin/contents/products/arbeitspapiere/Rff_WP_20
10_02_ks.pdf
Sarker, S., Bhuyan, M. A. H., Rahman, M. M., Islam, M. A., Hossain, M. S., Basak, S.
C., & Islam, M. M. (2018). From science to action: Exploring the potentials of Blue
Economy for enhancing economic sustainability in Bangladesh. Ocean and Coastal
Management, 157, 180–192.
Silver, J. J., Gray, N. J., Campbell, L. M., Fairbanks, L. W., & Gruby, R. L. (2015). Blue
Economy and Competing Discourses in International Oceans Governance. Journalof Environment and Development, 24(2), 135–160.
U.S. Department of State. (2019, October 23). U.S. Announces $1.21 Billion To Support
Blue Economy: Commitment Strengthens Sustainability of Ocean Economy,
Enhances Health of Planet, and Advances Global Economic Security. Media Note.
https://www.state.gov/u-s-announces-1-21-billion-to-support-blue-economycommitment-strengthens-sustainability-of-ocean-economy-enhances-health-ofplanet-and-advances-global-economic-security/

14

PCRC Working Paper No. 12 (March, 2020)

Voyer, M., Quirk, G., McIlgorm, A., & Azmi, K. (2018). Shades of blue: what docompeting interpretations of the Blue Economy mean for oceans governance?
Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 20(5), 595–616.
Wenhai, L., Cusack, C., Baker, M., Tao, W., Mingbao, C., Paige, K., Xiaofan, Z., Levin,L., Escobar, E., Amon, D., Yue, Y., Reitz, A., Neves, A. A. S., O’Rourke, E.,
Mannarini, G., Pearlman, J., Tinker, J., Horsburgh, K. J., Lehodey, P., … Yufeng,
Y. (2019). Successful blue economy examples with an emphasis on international
perspectives. Frontiers in Marine Science, 6(261), 1–14.
Winder, G. M., & Le Heron, R. (2017). Assembling a Blue Economy moment?
Geographic engagement with globalizing biological-economic relations in multi-use
marine environments. Dialogues in Human Geography, 7(1), 3–26.

15