Difference between revisions of "Management of Fisheries in the High Seas of the Central Arctic Ocean"
| [unchecked revision] | [unchecked revision] |
m (Saved using "Save and continue" button in form) |
m (Saved using "Save and continue" button in form) |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
|Geolocation=65.248162, -60.462098 | |Geolocation=65.248162, -60.462098 | ||
|Issues={{Issue | |Issues={{Issue | ||
| + | |Issue=Commercial fishing in the Central Arctic Ocean (CAO) | ||
| + | |Issue Description=What are some of the fears of unregulated fishing in the CAO and what are some of the institutional and governance mechanisms in place to prevent exploitation of fish stocks in this region? What is being done to address the concerns? | ||
| + | |NSPD=Ecosystems; Governance; Assets | ||
| + | |Stakeholder Type=Sovereign state/national/federal government, Supranational union, Environmental interest, Industry/Corporate Interest | ||
| + | }}{{Issue | ||
|Issue=Commercial fishing in the Central Arctic Ocean (CAO) | |Issue=Commercial fishing in the Central Arctic Ocean (CAO) | ||
|Issue Description=What are some of the fears of unregulated fishing in the CAO and what are some of the institutional and governance mechanisms in place to prevent exploitation of fish stocks in this region? What is being done to address the concerns? | |Issue Description=What are some of the fears of unregulated fishing in the CAO and what are some of the institutional and governance mechanisms in place to prevent exploitation of fish stocks in this region? What is being done to address the concerns? | ||
| Line 15: | Line 20: | ||
}} | }} | ||
|Key Questions={{Key Question | |Key Questions={{Key Question | ||
| + | |Subject=Transboundary Water Issues | ||
| + | |Key Question - Transboundary=What kinds of water treaties or agreements between countries can provide sufficient structure and stability to ensure enforceability but also be flexible and adaptable given future uncertainties? | ||
| + | |Key Question Description=The case study is about creation of a legally binding treaty with joint fact finding built into it. This component can help in long term suitability for the agreement | ||
| + | }}{{Key Question | ||
| + | |Subject=Transboundary Water Issues | ||
| + | |Key Question - Transboundary=What considerations can be given to incorporating collaborative adaptive management (CAM)? What efforts have the parties made to review and adjust a solution or decision over time in light of changing conditions? | ||
| + | |Key Question Description=a. The stakeholders in the case study recognize the changing climatic conditions in the Arctic ecosystem. They are building in CAM in the agreement by conducting scenario analysis and identifying conditions needed that might trigger a decision such as in the case of conditions that can trigger creation of an RFMA/O | ||
| + | |||
| + | b. The stakeholders in the case recognize the lack of understanding of the importance of scientific information of the Arctic ecosystem and are using science experts to inform the diplomatic process | ||
| + | }}{{Key Question | ||
| + | |Subject=Power and Politics | ||
| + | |Key Question - Influence=How can government be dis/incentivized to offer an inclusive planning process? | ||
| + | |Key Question Description=The case study is an example of taking a precautionary approach in fish stock management as it learns from previous experiences (Bearing sea case in 1970s that resulted in over exploitation of fish stocks) | ||
| + | }}{{Key Question | ||
|Subject=Transboundary Water Issues | |Subject=Transboundary Water Issues | ||
|Key Question - Transboundary=What kinds of water treaties or agreements between countries can provide sufficient structure and stability to ensure enforceability but also be flexible and adaptable given future uncertainties? | |Key Question - Transboundary=What kinds of water treaties or agreements between countries can provide sufficient structure and stability to ensure enforceability but also be flexible and adaptable given future uncertainties? | ||
| Line 29: | Line 48: | ||
|Key Question Description=The case study is an example of taking a precautionary approach in fish stock management as it learns from previous experiences (Bearing sea case in 1970s that resulted in over exploitation of fish stocks) | |Key Question Description=The case study is an example of taking a precautionary approach in fish stock management as it learns from previous experiences (Bearing sea case in 1970s that resulted in over exploitation of fish stocks) | ||
}} | }} | ||
| − | |Water Feature= | + | |Water Feature={{Link Water Feature |
| + | |Water Feature=http://aquapedia.waterdiplomacy.org/wiki/index.php?title=Arctic_Ocean_Ice_Meltdown_-_Emerging_Issues_in_Energy,_Environment_and_Sustainability | ||
| + | }} | ||
|Riparian= | |Riparian= | ||
|Water Project= | |Water Project= | ||
| − | |Agreement= | + | |Agreement={{Link Agreement |
| + | |Agreement=http://aquapedia.waterdiplomacy.org/wiki/index.php?title=Agreement_Between_Norway_and_Denmark_Together_with_the_Home_Rule_Government_of_Greenland_Concerning_the_Delimitation_of_the_Continental_Shelf_and_the_Fisheries_Zones_in_the_Area_Between_Greenland_and_Svalbard,_20_February_2006 | ||
| + | }} | ||
|Topic Tags= | |Topic Tags= | ||
|External Links= | |External Links= | ||
Revision as of 09:51, 18 May 2017
Contents
Summary
Natural, Historic, Economic, Regional, and Political Framework
Issues and Stakeholders
Commercial fishing in the Central Arctic Ocean (CAO)
NSPD: Ecosystems, Governance, Assets
Stakeholder Types: Sovereign state/national/federal government, Supranational union, Environmental interest, Industry/Corporate Interest
Commercial fishing in the Central Arctic Ocean (CAO)
NSPD: Ecosystems, Governance, Assets
Stakeholder Types: Sovereign state/national/federal government, Supranational union, Environmental interest, Industry/Corporate Interest
Commercial fishing in the Central Arctic Ocean (CAO)
NSPD: Ecosystems, Governance, Assets
Stakeholder Types: Sovereign state/national/federal government, Supranational union, Environmental interest, Industry/Corporate Interest
Analysis, Synthesis, and Insight
Individuals may add their own Analysis, Synthesis, and Insight (ASI) to a case. ASI sub-articles are protected, so that each contributor retains authorship and control of their own content. Edit the case to add your own ASI.
Learn moreNo ASI articles have been added yet for this case
Key Questions
Transboundary Water Issues: What kinds of water treaties or agreements between countries can provide sufficient structure and stability to ensure enforceability but also be flexible and adaptable given future uncertainties?
The case study is about creation of a legally binding treaty with joint fact finding built into it. This component can help in long term suitability for the agreement
Transboundary Water Issues: What considerations can be given to incorporating collaborative adaptive management (CAM)? What efforts have the parties made to review and adjust a solution or decision over time in light of changing conditions?
a. The stakeholders in the case study recognize the changing climatic conditions in the Arctic ecosystem. They are building in CAM in the agreement by conducting scenario analysis and identifying conditions needed that might trigger a decision such as in the case of conditions that can trigger creation of an RFMA/O
b. The stakeholders in the case recognize the lack of understanding of the importance of scientific information of the Arctic ecosystem and are using science experts to inform the diplomatic process
Power and Politics: How can government be dis/incentivized to offer an inclusive planning process?
The case study is an example of taking a precautionary approach in fish stock management as it learns from previous experiences (Bearing sea case in 1970s that resulted in over exploitation of fish stocks)
Transboundary Water Issues: What kinds of water treaties or agreements between countries can provide sufficient structure and stability to ensure enforceability but also be flexible and adaptable given future uncertainties?
The case study is about creation of a legally binding treaty with joint fact finding built into it. This component can help in long term suitability for the agreement
Transboundary Water Issues: What considerations can be given to incorporating collaborative adaptive management (CAM)? What efforts have the parties made to review and adjust a solution or decision over time in light of changing conditions?
a. The stakeholders in the case study recognize the changing climatic conditions in the Arctic ecosystem. They are building in CAM in the agreement by conducting scenario analysis and identifying conditions needed that might trigger a decision such as in the case of conditions that can trigger creation of an RFMA/O
b. The stakeholders in the case recognize the lack of understanding of the importance of scientific information of the Arctic ecosystem and are using science experts to inform the diplomatic process
Power and Politics: How can government be dis/incentivized to offer an inclusive planning process?
The case study is an example of taking a precautionary approach in fish stock management as it learns from previous experiences (Bearing sea case in 1970s that resulted in over exploitation of fish stocks)
