Is Canada fulfilling its obligations to sustain marine biodiversity? A summary review, conclusions, and recommendations<sup>1</sup>This manuscript is a companion paper to Hutchings et al. (doi:10.1139/a2012-011) and VanderZwaag et al. (doi:10.1139/a2012-013) also appearing in this issue. These three papers comprise an edited version of a February 2012 Royal Society of Canada Expert Panel Report.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canada has made numerous national and international commitments to sustain marine biodiversity. Given current and potential threats to biodiversity from climate change, fisheries, and aquaculture, we provide a summary review of Canada’s progress in fulfilling its obligations to protect, conserve, recover, and responsibly exploit marine biodiversity. We conclude that Canada has made little substantive progress, when compared to most developed nations, in meeting its biodiversity commitments. Much of Canada’s policy and rhetoric has not been operationalised, leaving many of the country’s national and international obligations unfulfilled in some key areas, such as the establishment of marine protected areas and incorporation of the precautionary approach to fisheries management. We conclude that regulatory conflict within Canada’s Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) and the absolute discretion exercised by the national Minister of Fisheries and Oceans contribute significantly to an unduly slow rate of policy and statute implementation. We recommend new approaches and measures to sustain Canadian marine biodiversity and new research initiatives to support scientific advice to decision-makers. Many recommendations focus on management actions required to meet existing commitments to biodiversity conservation. Overall, we conclude that the most effective strategy is to protect existing biological diversity and to rebuild depleted populations and species to restore natural diversity. By improving and protecting the biodiversity in Canada’s oceans, such a strategy will restore the natural resilience of Canada’s ocean ecosystems to adapt to the challenges posed by climate change and other anthropogenic activities with consequent long-term benefits for food security and social and economic well-being.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.048 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".