The Need for a Global Ocean Vision Within Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction: A Key Role for Strategic Environmental Assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An ecosystem-based forward-looking vision for the global ocean, encompassing ocean health and productivity, ecosystem integrity and resilience, incorporating area beyond national jurisdiction, is fundamental. A vision which is holistic and universally acceptable to guide future sustainable ocean policies, plans and programmes (PPPs). We argue that Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) is the best available framework to develop such a vision and its suitability for this purpose should be recognised within the on-going process to negotiate an International Legally Binding Instrument (ILBI) for the conservation and sustainable use of Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ Agreement). This perspective paper justifies why such an ecosystem-based Global Ocean Vision is essential. It then describes the key characteristics it must integrate and how it can be elaborated in the framework of a collective SEA within the BBNJ process. We advocate expanding text in Part I General Provisions of the draft BBNJ Agreement to include development of such a global ocean vision. We conclude by highlighting the opportunity and timeliness of this proposal, with the fifth session of the IGC of BBNJ tentatively scheduled for August 2022.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".