Russian and Canadian Legal Frameworks on the Protection of the Arctic Biodiversity from Invasive Alien Species
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effects of climate change are becoming critical as rising temperatures threaten the resilience of vulnerable communities and the environment.No more can this be seen than in the case of the Arctic.Although climate change can open new opportunities for economic development, it also risks making ecosystems and communities more vulnerable.As temperatures continue to rise, ecosystems are beginning to change and there is a prediction of rise in the amount of invasive alien species (IAS) entering the Arctic.Such invasive migrations pose biodiversity threats and interferences with traditional community activities.Thus, this master's thesis compares the legislation of both Russia and Canada in order to assess the adequacy of biodiversity protection in the Arctic from IAS.Article 8 (h) of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), to which both Canada and Russia are parties, acts as an umbrella norm for international biodiversity commitments against IAS, while other international instruments, both hard law and soft law, general and Arctic-specific contain provisions relevant to the issue.Biodiversity protection from IAS enhances the resilience of ecosystems, which is a non-climate mean for the climate change adaptation of ecosystems.This master's thesis seeks to highlight that Russia and Canada do not yet have comprehensive legal frameworks for biodiversity protection from IAS either in their general or in their Arctic-specific legislation.Nevertheless, the IAS problem is, to some extent, framed within the legislation of each country.These countries use a diverse range of legal and policy documents towards the issue, combining different instruments including sectoral regulation (aquatic, quarantine, border control, and other sectors), establishing of lists of IAS, and others.Both countries have the capacity to use sources of general regulation to protect the Arctic's biodiversity from threats of IAS.Some sub-national entities of comparing countries established their own unique regulation on IAS which could be used as a model for regulation in Arctic regions.The constitutional arrangements are crucial, both for implementation of international commitments of the countries, and establishing their legal frameworks.However, establishing federal environmental policy in Canada has proven problematic given each province has such strong legislative powers.For example, provinces like Ontario have comprehensive IAS law with concrete mechanisms and strict sanctions, while other Canadian provinces such as Quebec provide an example of interjurisdictional regulation towards the IAS problem in cooperation with the states in the United States like Vermont and New York.In Russia, the federal level is authorized to establish federal environmental policy , while the environmental law is in a joint jurisdiction of the federation and the regions (subjects).Current federal law and policy documents in Russia concern IAS problem.Subjects of the Russian Federation launch their own regulation, on the one hand, implementing federal policy and, one the other hand, reflecting regional specificity.Thus, the Sakhalin Region concerns the problem of ballast water.Another Russian subject -the Ulyanovsk Region uses incentives instead of command and control methods towards the problem.According to the regulation in the region, an absence of IAS on the territory of a settlement is a requirement for participation in the regional competition for the best settlement.This thesis seeks to offer several recommendations for the future development of legal and policy frameworks on IAS.
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 | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".