Organizações Regionais para o Ordenamento Pesqueiro: O poder ouve a ciência?

Leandra Regina Gonçalves

Resumo


Um dos desafios à governança global é garantir a eficácia dos regimes internacionais que buscam reduzir ou solucionar problemas. O manejo dos estoques de peixes, como os atuns, é um bom exemplo da magnitude desse desafio. Nesse sentido, foram criadas as organizações regionais para o ordenamento pesqueiro, para resolver a crise internacional de pesca. O papel das comunidades epistêmicas e a forma como se dá sua influência nas decisões políticas são dois dos fatores considerados cruciais para a eficácia dos regimes internacionais. Então, através de uma avaliação do desenho institucional dos painéis científicos da Convenção sobre a Conservação dos Recursos Vivos Marinhos Antárticos, Convenção Internacional para a Conservação dos Atuns e a Convenção para a Conservação do Atum do Sul, essa pesquisa buscou responder se o poder ouviu a ciência e se isso trouxe mais eficácia para o manejo pesqueiro. Concluiu-se que os tomadores de decisão podem
ouvir a ciência e isso pode resultar em maior eficácia para o acordo, porém, é necessário que o desenho dos painéis científicos possa propiciar que conhecimentos e reivindicações científicas sejam desenvolvidos de forma isolada da política. Na prática, isso ainda não se
concretizou plenamente.


Palavras-chave


Organizações Internacionais; OROPs; Comunidades Epistêmicas; Construtivismo.

Texto completo:

PDF

Referências


Referências bibliográficas

ADLER, Emanuel (1999). "O construtivismo no estudo das relações internacionais." Lua Nova 47 (1999): 201-246.

ADLER, E., & HAAS, P. M. 1992. Conclusion: epistemic communities, world order, and the creation of a reflective research program.International organization, 46 (1), 367-390.

ANDRESEN, S. (2000). Science and Politics in International Environmental Regimes: Between Integrity and Involvement. Issues in Environmental Politics. New York: Manchester University Press.

ARANDA, M., DE BRUYN, P., & MURUA, H. (2010). A report review of the tuna RFMOs: CCSBT, IATTC, IOTC, ICCAT and WCPFC. EU FP7 Project, (212188), 171.

BROOKS, C. M. (2013). Competing values on the Antarctic high seas: CCAMLR and the challenge of marine-protected areas. The Polar Journal, 3(2), 277-300.

BROOKS, C. M., WELLER, A. J. B., GJERDE, B. K., SUMAILA, C. U. R., ARDRON, D. J., BAN, E. N. C., ... & HALPIN, J. P. (2014). Challenging the" Right to Fish'in a Fast-Changing Ocean. Stan. Envtl. LJ, 33, 289-457.

CONSTABLE, A. J. (2011). Lessons from CCAMLR on the implementation of the ecosystem approach to managing fisheries. Fish and Fisheries, 12(2), 138-151.

CONTINI, P. & P. H. SAND (1972). "Methods to Expedite Environmental Protection: International Econstandards." American Journal of International Law 66(1): 37-59.

CROSS, MAI'A K. DAVIS (2013). Rethinking epistemic communities twenty years later. Review of International Studies, 39, pp 137-160.

CROSS, MAI'A, K. (2015). The Limits of Epistemic Communities: EU Security Agencies. Politics and Governance, 3(1), 90-100.

CULLIS-SUZUKI, S., & PAULY, D. (2010). Failing the high seas: A global evaluation of regional fisheries management organizations. Marine Policy, 34:5, 1036-1042.

DESOMBRE, E. R. (2007). The global environment and world politics. Bloomsbury Publishing USA.

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organisation). (2014). “The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture” (2014), Available online: http://www.fao.org/fishery/sofia/en

FEARON, James; WENDT, Alexander. Rationalism v. constructivism: a skeptical view. Handbook of international relations, p. 52-72, 2002.

FINNEMORE, M., & SIKKINK, K. (2001). Taking stock: the constructivist research program in international relations and comparative politics. Annual review of political science, 4(1), 391-416.

GUZZINI, Stefano (2000). A reconstruction of constructivism in international relations. European Journal of International Relations, v. 6, n. 2, p. 147-182, 2000.

HAAS, E. B. (1983). Regime decay: conflict management and international organizations, 1945–1981. International Organization, v. 37, n. 02, p. 189- 256, 1983.

HAAS, P. M. (1989). Do Regimes Matter? Epistemic Communities and Mediterranean Pollution. International Organization 43. No. 3.

HAAS, P. M. (1990). Saving the Mediterranean: The Politics of International Environmental Cooperation, the Political Economy of International Change. New York: Columbia University Press.

HAAS, P. M. (1992). Introduction: Epistemic communities and international-policy coordination-introduction. International Organization 46(1). Special Edition. 1-35pp.

HAAS, P. M. (2001). Epistemic Communities and Policy Knowledge. In International Encyclopedia of Social and Behavioral Sciences, ed. N. J. Smelser, James Wright, and P. B. Baltes, 11578–11586 . New York: Elsevier. 158

HAAS, P. M. (2004). When Does Power Listen to Truth? A Constructivist Approach to the Policy Process. Journal of European Public Policy 11 (4): 569–592.

HAAS, P.M. (2006). Evaluating the Effectiveness of Marine Governance. Prepared for the Nippon Foundation Task Force on the Dynamics of Regional Cooperation on Oceans and Coasts. 34pp.

HAAS, P.M. (2012). Epistemic Communities. IN: The Oxford Companion of Comparative Politics. Vol 1 Oxford: Oxford University Press pp 351-359. Edited by Joel Krieger. DOI: 10.1093/acref/9780199738595.001.0001

HAAS, P. M. (2014). Reconstructing Epistemic Communities. Prepared for delivery at the 2014 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, August 28-31, 2014.

HAAS, P. M. (2015). Epistemic communities, constructivism, and international environmental politics. Routledge.

HAAS, P.M. (2017). Coupling science to governance: straddling the science- policy interface. In: LITTOZ-MONNET, Annabelle (Ed.). The Politics of Expertise in International Organizations: How International Bureaucracies Produce and Mobilize Knowledge. Taylor & Francis, 2017.

HAAS, P., & STEVENS, C. (2011). Organized science, usable knowledge and multilateral environmental governance. IN: Governing the Air: The Dynamics of Science, Policy, and Citizen Interaction, 125.

HAAS, P.M.; KEOHANE, R.O. AND LEVY, M.A. (1995). The effectiveness of International Environmental Institutions”. IN: Institutions for the Earth: sources of effective international environmental protection, edited by Haas, Keohane and Levy. 3-24. Cambridge, MIT Press.

HERZ, M. (1997). Teoria das relações internacionais no pós-Guerra Fria. Dados, 40(2).

INOUE, Cristina Yumie Aoki. (2003). Regime global de biodiversidade. Comunidades epistêmicas e experiências locais de conservação e desenvolvimento sustentável: o caso Mamirauá. Brasília. Tese (Doutorado em Desenvolvimento Sustentável)–Centro de Desenvolvimento Sustentável, Universidade de Brasília, v. 348, p. 30-49, 2003.

KVIST, S. Institutional fragmentation in fisheries management. (no date). Disponível em: https://goo.gl/YyfTvw

LIDSKOG, R., & SUNDQVIST, G. (2014). When Does Science Matter? International Relations Meets Science and Technology Studies. Global Environmental Politics.

MILES, EDWARD L, ARILD UNDERDAL, STEINAR ANDRESEN, JØRGEN WETTESTAD, JON BIRGER SKJAERSETH, AND ELAINE M. CARLIN. (2002). Environmental Regime Effectiveness: Confronting Theory with Evidence. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

MITCHELL, R. B. (2003). International environmental agreements: a survey of their features, formation, and effects. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 28(1), 429-461.

MORA, C., MYERS, R. A., COLL, M., LIBRALATO, S., PITCHER, T. J., SUMAILA, R. U., ... & WORM, B. (2009). Management effectiveness of the world's marine fisheries. PLoS Biology, 7(6), e1000131.

PETERSON, M. J. (1992). Whalers, cetologists, environmentalists, and the international management of whaling. International Organization, 46(01), 147-186.

PIELKE JR, R. A. (2004). When scientists politicize science: making sense of controversy over< i> The Skeptical Environmentalist. Environmental Science & Policy, 7(5), 405-417.

POLACHECK, T. (2012). Politics and independent scientific advice in RFMO processes: A case study of crossing boundaries. Marine Policy, 36(1), 132-141.

RIDGEWAY, L. (2014). Global level institutions and processes: Frameworks for understanding critical roles and foundations of cooperation and integration. In: Garcia, S. M., Rice, J., & Charles, A. (Eds.). (2014). Governance of Marine Fisheries and Biodiversity Conservation: Interaction and Co-evolution. John Wiley & Sons.

RUGGIE, J. G. (1975). International responses to technology: concepts and trends. International organization, v. 29, n. 03, p. 557-583, 1975.

YOUNG, O. R. (1999). The Effectiveness of International Environmental Regimes: Causal Connections and Behavioral Mechanisms. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

WEBSTER, D. G. (2011). The irony and the exclusivity of Atlantic bluefin tuna management. Marine Policy, 35(2), 249-251.

WILLIAM C., AND GIANDOMENICO MAJONE. (1985). The Critical Appraisal of Scientific Inquiries with Policy Implications. Science, Technology, & Human Values 10 (3): 6–19.

WILLOCK, A. AND LACK, M. (2006) Follow the Leader: Learning from Experience and Best Practice in Regional Fisheries Management Organizations. Disponível em: http://encurtador.com.br/fwNT5 (acessado em Dez 2014).




DOI: https://doi.org/10.21530/ci.v13n1.2018.689

Métricas do artigo

Carregando Métricas ...

Metrics powered by PLOS ALM

Apontamentos

  • Não há apontamentos.


Desenvolvido por:

Logomarca da Lepidus Tecnologia