The role of <scp>CITES</scp> in the conservation of marine fishes subject to international trade
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract All possible tools need to be marshalled for marine fish conservation. Yet controversy has swirled around what role, if any, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) should play for marine fishes. This paper analyses the relevance and applicability of CITES as a complementary tool for fisheries management. CITES currently regulates the international trade of very few marine fish species, by listing them in its Appendices. After the first meeting of the Parties (member countries) in 1976, no new marine fish taxa were added to the CITES Appendices until 2002, when Parties agreed to act to ensure sustainable and legal international trade in seahorses ( Hippocampus spp.) and two species of sharks. Progress has continued haltingly, adding only one more shark, humphead wrasse ( Cheilinus undulatus ) and sawfishes by 2012. Parties voice concerns that may include inadequate data, applicability of CITES listing criteria, roles of national fisheries agencies, enforcement challenges, CITES ' lack of experience with marine fishes, and/or identification and by‐catch problems. A common query is the relationship between CITES and other international agreements. Yet all these arguments can be countered, revealing CITES to be a relevant and appropriate instrument for promoting sound marine fisheries management. In reality, Parties that cannot implement CITES effectively for marine fishes will also need help to manage their fisheries sustainably. CITES action complements and supports other international fisheries management measures. As CITES engages with more marine fish listings, there will be greater scope to analyse its effectiveness in supporting different taxa in different contexts.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.032 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".