{"title":"Oppositions and alliances between ICCAT contracting parties through an analysis of co-sponsorship of management recommendations","authors":"Daniel Gaertner , Nastassia Reyes","doi":"10.1016/j.marpol.2025.106831","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>We conducted a social network analysis (SNA) of the co-sponsorship of management measures at annual ICCAT Commission meetings from 2016 to 2022 with the aim of understanding the alliances between contracting parties. Our findings revealed that European Union, the USA and, to a lesser extent, Japan, Canada or the United Kingdom appear as key players in terms of cohesion and fragmentation centrality indicators, while the most central proposals in terms of management measures concern those on sharks (mainly focused on banning shark finning) and those on mitigating the effects of fishing on turtles. Based on the evolution over time of centrality measures of the SNA, the decrease in nestedness indicates that \"specialist\" CPCs (those who submit few proposals each year) are less and less associated with “generalist” CPCs (those who submit several management proposals each year). Although ICCAT's social network does not show a fragmented structure with small groups of CPCs isolated from each other, 2 co-sponsoring communities have nevertheless emerged: the COMHAFAT and OPESCA groups. both structured around a regional homophily. This paper also discusses the socio-economic and political factors external to ICCAT meetings that can influence partnerships in the management of large pelagic fishes in the Atlantic Ocean. These influential factors illustrate the complexity of asymmetric relationships between countries operating with long-distance fleets and developing coastal countries.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48427,"journal":{"name":"Marine Policy","volume":"181 ","pages":"Article 106831"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Marine Policy","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308597X25002465","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
We conducted a social network analysis (SNA) of the co-sponsorship of management measures at annual ICCAT Commission meetings from 2016 to 2022 with the aim of understanding the alliances between contracting parties. Our findings revealed that European Union, the USA and, to a lesser extent, Japan, Canada or the United Kingdom appear as key players in terms of cohesion and fragmentation centrality indicators, while the most central proposals in terms of management measures concern those on sharks (mainly focused on banning shark finning) and those on mitigating the effects of fishing on turtles. Based on the evolution over time of centrality measures of the SNA, the decrease in nestedness indicates that "specialist" CPCs (those who submit few proposals each year) are less and less associated with “generalist” CPCs (those who submit several management proposals each year). Although ICCAT's social network does not show a fragmented structure with small groups of CPCs isolated from each other, 2 co-sponsoring communities have nevertheless emerged: the COMHAFAT and OPESCA groups. both structured around a regional homophily. This paper also discusses the socio-economic and political factors external to ICCAT meetings that can influence partnerships in the management of large pelagic fishes in the Atlantic Ocean. These influential factors illustrate the complexity of asymmetric relationships between countries operating with long-distance fleets and developing coastal countries.
期刊介绍:
Marine Policy is the leading journal of ocean policy studies. It offers researchers, analysts and policy makers a unique combination of analyses in the principal social science disciplines relevant to the formulation of marine policy. Major articles are contributed by specialists in marine affairs, including marine economists and marine resource managers, political scientists, marine scientists, international lawyers, geographers and anthropologists. Drawing on their expertise and research, the journal covers: international, regional and national marine policies; institutional arrangements for the management and regulation of marine activities, including fisheries and shipping; conflict resolution; marine pollution and environment; conservation and use of marine resources. Regular features of Marine Policy include research reports, conference reports and reports on current developments to keep readers up-to-date with the latest developments and research in ocean affairs.