Are High Seas and International Marine Fisheries the Ultimate Sustainable Management Challenge
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Fishing on the high seas was a feature of societies long before large areas of the world's seas were claimed by nation states. The Basques fished for Atlantic cod off Newfoundland; tuna was fished first by the Japanese and later by many other longline, pole-and-line and purse seine fleets; whaling, which began in the Atlantic in the 15th century, has taken place in all oceans, including the Southern Ocean. (1) Throughout history, fishery developments have been driven by new technologies, enterprising practitioners and economic incentives. Over the millennia, improved boats, fishing gear and navigational knowledge have enabled humans to explore and exploit greater ranges of marine stocks in more distant waters and at increasing depths. (2) However, inshore and offshore fisheries have always developed faster than the institutions that govern them. This combination of technology, enterprise and market dynamics raises the question: Are high seas fishery resources economically and environmentally sustainable? This paper explores the sustainability of international and high seas fisheries. It attempts to address whether the problems of maintaining these fisheries are tractable or if they indeed represent an ultimately futile sustainability challenge. Among the solutions examined are international legal arrangements, fishery institutions, economic and trade instruments, scientific and public knowledge, and aquaculture. All solutions are feasible, but even the best amalgamation of strategies will only succeed if political governance pays much more attention to the problem. HIGH SEAS FISHERIES AND THE PATH TO INTERNATIONAL REGULATION While inland transboundary waterways, such as Lake Victoria, the Mekong River and the Caspian Sea, present significant difficulties, far greater complexity arises with international and high seas fisheries: Their physical distance from land and direct oversight make them difficult and costly to monitor, assess and regulate. The worldwide excess of fishing vessels that are capable of exploiting the high seas compounds this situation. However, international conventions, treaties and commissions did not begin to regulate fishing of even the most prominent species until soon after World War II. The first of these was the International Convention on the Regulation of Whaling and the International Whaling Commission (IWC) of 1946, followed later by such bodies as the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission in 1950 and the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna in 1968. (3) On the high properly rights and territorial limits are very difficult to define, regulate and enforce. (4) In 1949, the United Nations International Law Commission began codifying existing coastal laws and working toward a convention on the seas. The UN Law of the Sea Conferences in 1958, 1960 and from 1973 to 1982 eventually led to an agreement on the more comprehensive United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which came into force in 1994 when it was ratified by 60 countries. This convention remains the chief international instrument of ocean governance. It specifically reaffirms the principles of freedom of the high seas, and freedom of fishing, albeit within certain limits. (5) Since UNCLOS was established, both sovereign nations and multilateral institutions have sought to bring greater order to high seas fisheries by (1) applying international frameworks to marine conservation and the fluctuations of fish stocks, (2) creating and strengthening international fishery institutions, (3) improving scientific and public knowledge of fisheries, and (4) turning to aquaculture as a possible source of additional fish. Each of these solutions have merit, but a close examination of each option and its potential permutations nonetheless reveals major challenges to resource sustainability, as the following analysis demonstrates. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».