Drivers and impacts of fisheries scarcity, competition, and conflict on maritime security

Pomeroy, Robert S.; Parks, John; Mrakovcich, Karina Lorenz; LaMonica, Christopher

doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2016.01.005

Cited by 92 publications

(59 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Current conceptual typologies of fishery conflict (Bennett et al., ; Charles, ; Pomeroy et al., ) could be enhanced by adding several components that would facilitate comparability in the identification and characterization of fishery conflict. These include (i) a precise definition of what constitutes a fishery conflict; (ii) a gradient or categorization of conflict intensity; (iii) a specification of which actions and behaviours indicate different levels or types of conflict intensity.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Yet, it is an a priori assumption underpinning much of the work on fisheries conflict, including the “fish wars cycle” described by Pomeroy et al. (). Other scholars have also remarked that “conflicts within fisheries can be oversimplified by resource scarcity narratives” (Penney et al., , pp.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Current conceptual typologies of fishery conflict (Bennett et al, 2001;Charles, 1992;Pomeroy et al, 2016) Cooperation" in Brochmann, 2012;Bernauer & Bohmelt, 2014). Drawing on reviewed case-studies of fisheries conflicts, we linked five different intensities to observable behaviours and actions within international fishery conflicts.…”

Section: Clarity In Definitions and Applications Of Key Termsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Little empirical evidence currently exists within the fisheries conflict literature to support claims of eco-scarcity as the driver for conflict (Penney et al, 2017). Yet, it is an a priori assumption underpinning much of the work on fisheries conflict, including the "fish wars cycle" described by Pomeroy et al (2016). Other scholars have also remarked that "conflicts within fisheries can be oversimplified by resource scarcity narratives" (Penney et al, 2017, pp.…”

Section: Consideration Of Feedbacks Thresholds and Nonlinearitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Efforts to describe such linkages in the case of fishery resources have been criticized as overly simplistic (Penney, Wilson, & Rodwell, 2017). This growing criticism stems from the increased understanding that marine social-ecological systems (SESs) are complex adaptive systems (CAS), characterized by nonlinear dynamics and multiple possible outcomes (Hughes, Bellwood, Folke, Steneck, & Wilson, 2005;Morrison, 2017;Österblom et al, 2013), and that conflict over marine resources can itself be an outcome as well as a driver within those systems (Pomeroy, Parks, Mrakovcich, & LaMonica, 2016). In this review, we test the validity of the claim of simplicity (Penney et al, 2017) by assessing the degree to which the fisheries conflict literature, encompassing both subnational and international conflict, has incorporated ideas from complexity theory and SESs theory and identifying areas within this literature that would benefit from further development.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Marine fisheries and future ocean conflict

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Conflict over marine fishery resources is a growing security concern. Experts expect that global changes in our climate, food systems and oceans may spark or exacerbate resource conflicts. An initial scan of 803 relevant papers and subsequent intensive review of 31 fisheries conflict studies, focused on subnational and international conflicts, suggests that four substantial scientific gaps need addressing to improve our understanding of the nature and drivers of fisheries conflict. First, fisheries conflict and levels of conflict intensity are not precisely defined. Second, complex adaptive systems thinking is underutilized but has the potential to produce more realistic causal models of fishery conflict. Third, comparative large‐scale data and suitably integrative methodologies are lacking, underscoring the need for a standardized and comparable database of fisheries conflict cases to aid extrapolation beyond single case‐studies. Fourth, there is room for a more widespread application of higher order concepts and associated terminology. Importantly, the four gaps highlight the homogenized nature of current methodological and theoretical approaches to understanding fishery conflict, which potentially presents us with an oversimplified understanding of these conflicts. A more nuanced understanding of the complex and dynamic nature of fishery conflict and its causes is not only scientifically critical, but increasingly relevant for policymakers and practitioners in this turbulent world.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%