The Experts below are selected from a list of 303 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Gilles Cuny - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Response to “A United States shark fin ban would undermine sustainable shark fisheries” D.S. Shiffman & R.E. Hueter, Marine Policy 85 (2017) 138–140
Marine Policy, 2019Co-Authors: Brian W. Darvell, Gilles CunyAbstract:Abstract The paper entitled “A United States shark fin ban would undermine sustainable shark fisheries” (D.S. Shiffman & R.E. Hueter, Marine Policy 85 (2017) 138–140) argues that The Shark Fin Trade Elimination Act of 2017 (HR 1456) and its companion bill in the Senate (S 793), now before Congress in the United States of America, would be counterproductive. We demonstrate that the figures used in support of this claim are inappropriately selected, misinterpreted or incorrect, and that therefore the argument cannot stand. In the face of the extreme depletion of shark numbers globally, the paper fails to give an accurate or objective assessment of the situation.
-
response to a united states shark fin ban would undermine sustainable shark fisheries d s shiffman r e hueter Marine Policy 85 2017 138 140
Marine Policy, 2019Co-Authors: Brian W. Darvell, Gilles CunyAbstract:Abstract The paper entitled “A United States shark fin ban would undermine sustainable shark fisheries” (D.S. Shiffman & R.E. Hueter, Marine Policy 85 (2017) 138–140) argues that The Shark Fin Trade Elimination Act of 2017 (HR 1456) and its companion bill in the Senate (S 793), now before Congress in the United States of America, would be counterproductive. We demonstrate that the figures used in support of this claim are inappropriately selected, misinterpreted or incorrect, and that therefore the argument cannot stand. In the face of the extreme depletion of shark numbers globally, the paper fails to give an accurate or objective assessment of the situation.
Brian W. Darvell - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Response to “A United States shark fin ban would undermine sustainable shark fisheries” D.S. Shiffman & R.E. Hueter, Marine Policy 85 (2017) 138–140
Marine Policy, 2019Co-Authors: Brian W. Darvell, Gilles CunyAbstract:Abstract The paper entitled “A United States shark fin ban would undermine sustainable shark fisheries” (D.S. Shiffman & R.E. Hueter, Marine Policy 85 (2017) 138–140) argues that The Shark Fin Trade Elimination Act of 2017 (HR 1456) and its companion bill in the Senate (S 793), now before Congress in the United States of America, would be counterproductive. We demonstrate that the figures used in support of this claim are inappropriately selected, misinterpreted or incorrect, and that therefore the argument cannot stand. In the face of the extreme depletion of shark numbers globally, the paper fails to give an accurate or objective assessment of the situation.
-
response to a united states shark fin ban would undermine sustainable shark fisheries d s shiffman r e hueter Marine Policy 85 2017 138 140
Marine Policy, 2019Co-Authors: Brian W. Darvell, Gilles CunyAbstract:Abstract The paper entitled “A United States shark fin ban would undermine sustainable shark fisheries” (D.S. Shiffman & R.E. Hueter, Marine Policy 85 (2017) 138–140) argues that The Shark Fin Trade Elimination Act of 2017 (HR 1456) and its companion bill in the Senate (S 793), now before Congress in the United States of America, would be counterproductive. We demonstrate that the figures used in support of this claim are inappropriately selected, misinterpreted or incorrect, and that therefore the argument cannot stand. In the face of the extreme depletion of shark numbers globally, the paper fails to give an accurate or objective assessment of the situation.
Meriwether Wilson - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Marine Policy special issue sdg synergies for sustainable fisheries and poverty alleviation
Marine Policy, 2017Co-Authors: Elisa Morgera, Meriwether WilsonAbstract:Abstract This special issue contributes to ongoing discussions of SDG 14 with a special focus on its relationship with other SDGs and broader international Policy and legal instruments towards a more holistic and effective interpretation and implementation of this ocean-focused Goal. The emphasis in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development on the role of oceans and coasts for sustainable development, including with respect to poverty reduction, food security, nutrition, well-being and traditional livelihoods, thus offers an ideal opportunity to push the boundaries of scientific, Policy and legal reflection forward towards an integrated implementation of the SDGs and the achievement of the three pillars of sustainable development.
Gerald Schernewski - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
implementation of european Marine Policy new water quality targets for german baltic waters
Marine Policy, 2015Co-Authors: Gerald Schernewski, Rene Friedland, Marina Carstens, Ulrike Hirt, Wera Leujak, Gunther Nausch, Thomas Neumann, Thorkild PetenatiAbstract:A full re-calculation of Water Framework Directive reference and target concentrations for German coastal waters and the western Baltic Sea is presented, which includes a harmonization with HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP) targets. Further, maximum allowable nutrient inputs (MAI) and target concentrations in rivers for the German Baltic catchments are suggested. For this purpose a spatially coupled, large scale and integrative modeling approach is used, which links the river basin flux model MONERIS to ERGOM-MOM, a three-dimensional ecosystem model of the Baltic Sea. The years around 1880 are considered as reference conditions reflecting a high ecological status and are reconstructed and simulated with the model system. Alternative approaches are briefly described, as well. For every WFD water body and the open sea, target concentrations for nitrogen and phosphorus compounds as well as chlorophyll a are provided by adding 50% to the reference concentrations. In general, the targets are less strict for coastal waters and slightly stricter for the sea (e.g. 1.2mg/m³ chl.a summer average for the Bay of Mecklenburg), compared to current values. By taking into account the specifics of every water body, this approach overcomes the inconsistencies of earlier approaches. Our targets are well in agreement with the BSAP targets, but provide spatially refined and extended results. The full data are presented in Appendix A1 and A2.
Meredith Cowart - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Case Analyses Creating Stable Agreements in Marine Policy: Learning from the California South Coast Marine Life Protection Act Initiative
2020Co-Authors: Scott Mccreary, Phyllis Grifman, Meredith CowartAbstract:In this article, we examine the California South Coast Marine Life Protection Act Initiative stakeholder process, evaluate its shortcomings, and consider what could have been done differently. Our objective is to make recommendations to improve future multi-stakeholder Marine Policy processes. In our view, while the South Coast stakeholder process had many positive outcomes, it failed to reach what we call here a“stable agreement.” Our analysis is based on two of the authors’ involvement (one as a facilitator and the other as a stakeholder representative) in the process and a post-hoc survey of participants. We find that several ill-advised process design and management choices significantly destabilized the negotiations, leading to an ultimately unstable agreement. We highlight four major problematic process design and management decisions, including the following: representation on the multistakeholder group was imbalanced, the pre-meeting caucuses were not paired with training in interest-based negotiation, adequate incentives to negotiate toward a consensus agreement were not provided, and the use of straw voting at one point in the process was unclear and inconsistent. As a result of these and other process design and management flaws, many stakeholders believed that the process was biased and that their ends would be better achieved by anchoring
-
Creating Stable Agreements in Marine Policy: Learning from the California South Coast Marine Life Protection Act Initiative
Negotiation Journal, 2016Co-Authors: Scott Mccreary, Phyllis Grifman, Meredith CowartAbstract:In this article, we examine the California South Coast Marine Life Protection Act Initiative stakeholder process, evaluate its shortcomings, and consider what could have been done differently. Our objective is to make recommendations to improve future multi-stakeholder Marine Policy processes. In our view, while the South Coast stakeholder process had many positive outcomes, it failed to reach what we call here a “stable agreement.” Our analysis is based on two of the authors’ involvement (one as a facilitator and the other as a stakeholder representative) in the process and a post-hoc survey of participants. We find that several ill-advised process design and management choices significantly destabilized the negotiations, leading to an ultimately unstable agreement. We highlight four major problematic process design and management decisions, including the following: representation on the multi-stakeholder group was imbalanced, the pre-meeting caucuses were not paired with training in interest-based negotiation, adequate incentives to negotiate toward a consensus agreement were not provided, and the use of straw voting at one point in the process was unclear and inconsistent. As a result of these and other process design and management flaws, many stakeholders believed that the process was biased and that their ends would be better achieved by anchoring negotiations and engaging in positional bargaining. Ultimately, this meant that near-consensus on a single cross-interest Marine protected area proposal was not reached, the scientific guidelines put forth were not fully met, the process was not and is not viewed as fair by the stakeholders directly or indirectly involved, and the Marine protected area regulations lack broad-scale support. These pitfalls of the South Coast stakeholder process could have been avoided had the management and facilitation team consistently followed best practices in dispute resolution. We recommend that future Marine planning processes learn from this example, particularly those occurring in highly complex, urban ocean environments.