Page History

h3. +The Oceans+

The oceans are on the verge of complete collapse, a fact found by several reputable reports: the decrease in biodiversity due to overfishing and invasive species, the chemical threats of global warming and pollution, and destructive and increasingly efficient fishing technology - among other causes - have been found to fundamentally alter the state of the oceans in a decidedly negative manner.

The Pew Oceans Commission is a part of a highly respected U.S. based independent nonprofit trust that focuses on solving and educating the public on today's most challenging problems. The "Policy" page of the "Protecting Ocean Life" section clearly defines the current problem:
"Marine life is threatened by human activity and has become more endangered than ever before. A recent study in the journal Science found that over the centuries humans have caused the depletion of 90 percent of the ocean's large predators, the elimination of 65 percent of seagrass and wetland habitat, the degradation of water quality 10\- to 1,000-fold, and the acceleration of species invasions in 12 major estuaries and coastal seas around the world" (Pew).

Findings released more than a year ago in Science Magazine provide overwhelming evidence that loss in marine biodiversity, which is "directly caused by exploitation, pollution, and habitat destruction, or indirectly through climate change and related perturbations of ocean biochemistry" (Worm et al., 2006, p. 787), lead to significant overall decrease in productivity. This decrease in biodiversity and subsequent decrease in productivity, as well as the disruption of ocean currents from global pollution (Pew), directly impacts all of humanity, from those who eat and catch fish to the land-locked nations without any immediate connection to the fishing industry. Boris Worm, the scientist who introduced the idea of "no fish by 2050," quoted in an article as saying, "we're going to run out of viable fisheries, out of all seafood species by the year 2050" (ScienCentral, 2006), in conjunction with several other authors, issued the report in Science Magazine relating the devastating effect of the loss of biodiversity:
"Human-dominated marine ecosystems are experiencing accelerating loss of populations and species, with largely unknown consequences. We analyzed local experiments, long-term regional time series, and global fisheries data to test how biodiversity loss affects marine ecosystems services across temporal and spatial scales. Overall, rates of resource collapse increased and recovery potential, stability, and water quality decreased exponentially with declining diversity. Restoring of biodiversity, in contrast, increased productivity fourfold and decreased variability by 21%, on average. We conclude that marine biodiversity loss in increasingly impairing the ocean's capacity to provide food, maintain water quality, and recover from perturbations. Yet available data suggest that at this point, these trends are still reversible" (Worm et al., 2006, p. 787).

h3. +The World Fisheries+

"In 2000, the FAO stated that 72% of the world's marine fish resources are either fully exploited or in decline. This state of overexploitation has led to practices in cascade fishing, where smaller, immature individuals or different stocks of lesser value and quality replace the former stocks that existed in higher trophic levels. Thus, leading to the current declining trend in fish harvest from high-value demersal fish to lower-value pelagic fish" (Duke). According to Annual Commercial Landing Statistics from NOAA, the tonnage of fish caught in US fisheries from 1950 to 2006 has nearly doubled to more than 4.3 million tons per annum, with a peak in 1997 at nearly 4.8 million tons (NOAA, 2007), yet because of this increase in production, the fish stocks have decreased by 90% since 1950 (Big-Fish, 2003). "Only 10 percent of all large fish - both open ocean species including tuna, swordfish, marlin and the large groundfish such as cod, halibut, skates and flounder - are left in the sea, according to research published in today's issue of the scientific journal Nature" (Big-Fish, 2003). The fisheries are as susceptible to collapse as the ecosystems upon which they depend.

h5. Fish Consumption

One of the largest problems the oceans face today is the increasing demand for fish products. As stocks are continuously fished beyond sustainable levels and demand increases, fish populations world wide face the possibility of collapse.

"Global consumption of fish has doubled since 1973, and the developing world has been responsible for nearly all of this growth. Countries with rapid population growth, rapid income growth, and urbanization tend to have the greatest increases in consumption of animal products, including fish products, and the developing world has experienced all three trends. China, where income growth and urbanization have been major factors, dominates consumption of fish products. It accounted for about 36 percent of global consumption in 1997, compared with only 11 percent in 1973. India and Southeast Asia together accounted for another 17 percent in 1997, with total consumption doubling since 1973. Although total fish consumption declined somewhat in developed countries, this decline was dwarfed by increase in the developing world" (Ahmed et al., 2003). Without curbing the demand, it is these developing nations who will feel the full force of the ecosystem failure.

!fishstocks-cods-names.jpg|thumbnail!
Image from: ICES Stock Summary Database.

This graph clearly depicts the general decline in cod stocks over the last 50 years, in some cases resulting in half the overall biomass.

h5. Sport Fishing

Sport fishing presents a much larger problem for the world's fisheries than most people realize. It is true that recreational fishing accounts for only 4% of the total fish landed in the United States, but when large industrial fisheries, such has menhaden and pollock, are excluded, that figure rises to 10% (Coleman, Figueira, Ueland, Crowder, 2004). In certain regions, the numbers are even more frightening; recreational fishermen catch 38% of all fish landed in the South Atlantic, and a full 64% in the Gulf of Mexico (Coleman et al. 2004). These figures do not even include all of the fish thrown overboard dead by fishermen due to current sport fishing regulations, such as bag and size limits (Coleman, et al. 2004). Additionally, recreational fishing typically affects only top-level predators, such as marlin, red drum, and red snapper, as opposed to commercial fishing which affects lower-level fish as well. This causes "cascading trophic effects" that can drastically alter marine systems, affecting millions of other fish, and humans as well. To make matters worse, sport and recreational fishing are actually growing: 9% in the past five years (NOAA, 2006). Clearly, this is an area the world can no longer ignore.

h5. "Flag Hopping" and Fishing Under Flags of Convenience

A major problem facing the enforcement of international fishing regulations is the issue of flag hopping and fishing under flags of convenience.  The phenomenon is a direct result of many countries opening their fishing registries to fishing companies of other nationalities. By allowing this, countries can increase the revenue that they gain from fishing, and this has made the idea of open registry very popular in poorer countries such as Panama and Bolivia.  All of this sounds fine, when the country allowing open registry follows international protocol.  However, the reason flag hopping is so detrimental to international fishing regulations is that many countries where open registry is popular, do not abide by international fishing laws nor do they sign on to international treaties.  This means that fishing companies that register under the flag of these countries no longer have to abide by these laws either.  They can go into marine reserves and fish, they can fish as much as they want to and with no fear of repercussion, and if they country decides that they wish to comply with international regulations then the fishing company can simply switch flags in order to continue fishing outside of regulations, hence the term flag hopping.  Boats can switch flags without ever docking in the port of the country that they wish to switch to.  This phenomenon creates a tremendous loophole in the enforcement of international fishing regulations and negatively curbs the effects of fishing regulations (Desombre, 2005).

h3. +International Cooperation+

Currently, there are several international organizations working towards aspects of our goal to save the oceans. The UN has employed several research and management groups and set out governance of the oceans by the Law of the Sea and subsequent agreements and annexes. Other organizations for protection of the oceans fall under Regional Fishery Bodies (RFBs), also known as Regional Fishery Management Councils.

h5. Current International Legislation

*The Law of the Sea* is a complex and comprehensive document that, when put into action after the Convention on the Law of the Sea in 1982, formalized traditional maritime law, as well as outlined conduct of nations as it relates to boundaries, deep seabed mining, passage through territorial zones, settlement of international disputes, and marine research, among other topics. The Law of the Sea Treaty "marked the culmination of more than 14 years of work involving participation by more than 150 countries representing all regions of the world, all legal and political systems and the spectrum of socio/economic development" (Oceans and LOS, 2007).

Territorial sea is a region up to but not exceeding 12 nautical miles from a baseline. Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ) are areas not exceeding 200 nautical miles from the baseline in which the coastal State has exclusive mining rights to natural resources. While coastal States maintain sovereignty of territorial sea, foreign vessels are permitted "innocent passage" without prejudice.

*The International Seabed Authority*

The International Seabed Authority is a technically autonomous organization created to fulfill Part XI of the UN Law of the Sea treaty. The Authority controls the extraction of minerals and other natural resources from the seabed in the Area, defined in Part I, Article I of the Law of the Sea as the seabed beyond the "national jurisdiction," which we understand as outside EEZs. The Authority is comprised of five main governing bodies, including the Assembly, the Council, the Legal and Technical Commission, the Finance Commission, and the Secretariat.

_The Assembly_

"The Assembly of the Authority, its 'supreme organ' with the power to establish general policies, consists of all ISA members. This membership is composed of all parties to the Law of the Sea Convention, numbering 153 at the end of February 2007" (ISA, 2007).

_The Council_

"As 'the executive organ of the Authority', the Council establishes specific policies in conformity with the Convention and the general policies set by the Assembly. It supervises and coordinates implementation of the elaborate regime established by the Convention to promote and regulate exploration for and exploitation of deep-sea minerals by States, corporations and other entities. Under this system, no such activity may legally take place until contracts have been signed between each interested entity and the Authority. The Council's task is to draw up the terms of contracts, approve contract applications, oversee implementation of the contracts, and establish environmental and other standards" (ISA, 2007).

_The Secretariat_

The Secretary-General implements Authority policies, external relations, protocol matters, liaison and representation of the Authority.

h5. UN Organizations

The UN has several branches to conduct research, compose law, enforce treaties, and settle disputes regarding the Law of the Sea and subsequent treaties relating to the governance of the oceans, coasts, and marine life.

*UN-OCEANS* encompasses most UN operations relating to the oceans. After the UN Conference on Environment and Development in 1992, Agenda 21 - "an international programme of action for global sustainable development for the 21st century" - was adopted (UN-OCEANS, 2005). Chapter 17 of Agenda 21 calls for protection of the oceans, resulting in the formation of the Sub-committee on Oceans and Coastal Areas of the Administrative Committee on Coordination (ACC SOCA) in 1993. Due to the extensive number of agencies and committees already addressing the issue of the oceans and the need for a "new inter-agency coordinating mechanism," in September 2003, "the United Nations High-Level Committee on Programmes approved the creation of an Oceans and Coastal Areas Network (subsequently named 'UN-Oceans') to build on SOCA" (UN-OCEANS, 2005). As stated by their webpage, UN-OCEANS has been established to:
* Strengthen coordination and cooperation of United Nations activities \[and Secretariats of International Organizations and Bodies\] related to oceans and coastal areas;
* Review the relevant programmes and activities of the United Nations system, undertaken as part of its contribution to the implementation of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), Agenda 21 and the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation;
* Identify emerging issues, define joint actions and establish specific task teams to deal with these, as appropriate;
* Promote the integrated management of oceans at the international level...;
* Promote the coherence of United Nations system activities on oceans and coastal area....

The partners and/or potential partners of the UN-OCEANS program, which includes any agency expressing a will to be included, are the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN-DESA), UN Division of Ocean Affairs and Law of the Sea (UN-DOALOS), Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), UN Environmental Program (UNEP), World Bank (IBRD), International Maritime Organization (IMO), World Meteorological Organization (WMO), UN Development Program (UNDP), International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), International Seabed Authority (ISA), International Labor Organization (ILO), UN Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), World Trade Organization (WTO), World Health Organization (WHO), UN Human Settlements Program ("UN-HABITAT"), UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), UN University, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), and International Hydrographic Organization (IHO).

\*[*The Fisheries and Aquaculture Department*|http://www.fao.org/fi/website/FIRetrieveAction.do?dom=org&xml=FI_org.xml&xp_nav=1]\*of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN focuses on sustainable fisheries and aquaculture production to meet the needs of the world's population. The Department's goals include creating jobs to alleviate poverty, bolstering international trade and economies, and providing a sustainable fish supply. The Department has also created a Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries.

Within this Code of Conduct, several International Plans of Action (IPOAs), which would apply to "all States and entities and to all fishers," have been suggested. Specifically, for the management of fishing capacity, "States should take measures to prevent or eliminate excess fishing capacity and should ensure that levels of fishing effort are commensurate with sustainable use of fishery resources." Possible solutions in this case include well-defined property rights for international waters, "incentive blocking measures," such as fishing seasons and closed areas, and "incentive adjusting measures," which would include requiring a fishing license and quotas. The suggested action to be taken currently involves assessing and monitoring fishing capacity as well as preparing and implementing national plans. Immediate action would focus on major international fisheries requiring urgent attention. Considerations would include the needs of specific countries. International compliance is the main difficulty recognized with the actual implementation of these proposals. Unfortunately, no specific plans have been on proposed, hence the need for reform.

Another IPOA involves shark fisheries. Until recently, sharks have been fished sustainably. At present, however,  more effort is being input into the shark fishery, and the areas over which this occurs have been expanded, and thus there is cause for concern for some shark species in danger of being overfished. Sharks in particular have long recovery times after they have been over-fished. "Conservation and management of sharks is impaired by the lack of accurate data on catch, effort, discards, and trade data, as well as limited information on the biological parameters of many species and their identification." In this case, the UN has porposed no cooperative international plan, but rather, the organization suggests that each state be responsible for creating and managing their own plan for managing shark fisheries.

The IPOA for Seabirds aims to reduce the number of birds caught incidentally in commercial long line fisheries. In effect, these birds are a form of bycatch. Among the species most frequently caught throughout the world are albatrosses, fulmars, petrels and gulls. The UN recognizes that the situation could result in negative impacts of seabird populations. As with the IPOA-Sharks, there are no distinct international plans requiring collaboration, though national action within States is highly recommended after further assessment of the situation.

A final and essential IPOA supported by the fisheries and aquaculture department, the International Plan of Action  to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing. Fishing that occurs under any of these categories severely hinders any efforts to conserve fish species and promote sustainable fishing. "This situation leads to the loss of both short and long-term social and economic opportunities and to negative effects on food security and environmental protection."  In this case, international cooperation is imperative.

\*[*The UN Environmental Program*|http://www.unep.org/]\*focuses on the research and science of the issue. Though the UNEP is not currently heading any projects on the oceans, they are one of the UN organizations supporting GESAMP.

*The Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection*, or [GESAMP|http://gesamp.net/], is a research team that works on science of sustainable oceans. GESAMP is a joint initiative supported by several UN organizations, including UNEP, FAO, the International Maritime Organization ([IMO|http://www.imo.org/]), the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission ([UNESCO-IOC|http://ioc.unesco.org/iocweb/index.php]), the World Meteorological Organization ([WMO|http://www.wmo.ch/pages/index_en.html])), the International Atomic Energy Agency ([IAEA|http://www.iaea.org]), and the UN Industrial Development Organization ([UNIDO|http://www.unido.org/]).

h4. Regional Fishery Bodies (RFBs)


Regional Fishery Bodies are essential to the protection of marine resources and the management of the oceans.

The FAO includes six RFBs:
\| Fishery Committee for the Eastern Central Atlantic (CECAF)
l Western Central Atlantic Fishery Commission (WECAFC)
l Indian Ocean Fishery Commission (IOFC)
l Asia-Pacific Fishery Commission (APFIC)
l General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM)
l Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC)

And there are many additional RFBs which are not connected to the FAO.


 The 1982 convention on the law of the seas set the precedence that RFBs should have a set of "instruments" by which to protect and manage fisheries through international cooperations. Since then these instruments have been added to by several conventions:

1992 - Rio Declaration and Agenda 21 adopted by the United Nations Conference on the Environment and Development
1993 - Agreement to Promote Compliance with International Conservation and Management Measures by Fishing Vessels on the High Seas
1995 - Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries
1995 - Rome Consensus on World Fisheries
1995 - Kyoto Declaration and Plan of Action on the Sustainable Contribution of Fisheries to Food Security
1995 - Agreement for the Implementation of the Provision of the United Nations Convention of the Law

These comitees delt with several issues including: excess fleet capacity, by-catch and discards, monitoring, controll and surveillance (MCS). They also place more  emphasis on the importance of the RFBs and increase their allocated abilities to control fisheries. They also pass certain restrictions on the RFBs . Only members of RFBs can legally utilize resources under the control of a RFB. It requires RFBs' actions to be transparent and to use a precautionary approach to the management of fisheries. It also requires nations under RFBs to create a framework for carrying out MCS and enforcing international fishing agreements.

However, to this point RFBs have been largely ineffective for a number of reasons, foremost of which has been the fact that few of RFBs have actually utilized the instruments provided to the agreements. Many of the RFB charters contradict these new instruments, but few RFBs have moved towards changing their charters in order to allow the use of these instruments. Most RFB mandates only allow them to provide suggestions to their member nations. Also many RFBs have nations with conflicted interests, especially between developed and developing nations, which have bred inefficiency. In many cases member nations have even refused to abide by the decisions of their RFB.

 

h3. +Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated Fishing+

Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated (IUU) fishing is defined as fishing within the waters of a state without permission of and against the laws of that state, along with non-reported and misreported catches, and fishing stocks with no conservation measures (INTERNATIONAL PLAN OF ACTION TO PREVENT, DETER AND ELIMINATE ILLEGAL, UNREPORTED AND UNREGULATED FISHING, 2001).  IUU fishing is a major threat to the world's oceans.  For example, NEAFC estimates that nearly 20% of the 2001 trade in redfish was illegal, unreported, or unregulated, and the ICES Baltic Fisheries Assessment Working Group estimates that the actual value of Baltic Cod catches are 35% to 45% higher than the reported values (ICES, 2005).  Most strikingly, CCAMLR estimates that between 1997 and 2000 about 90 kilotonnes of toothfish were taken from the oceans in an illegal manner, more than two times the reported catch for the same period (ICES, 2005).
The UN responded to IUU fishing with the International Plan of Action to Prevent, Deter, and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated Fishing (IPOA-IUU).  While the bill strong title, it contains no binding resolutions and has not been show to control IUU fishing.  According to a Washington University document, the sanctions that the IPOA-IUU levies against violators are not enough to prevent them from participating in IUU fishing (Finding Nemo...and Eating Him: The Failure of the United Nations to Force Internalization of the Negative Social Costs that Result from Overfishing).

+Works Cited+
Finding Nemo...and Eating Him: The Failure of the United Nations to Force Internalization of the Negative Social Costs that Result from Overfishing. Washington University. Retrieved November 22, 2007, from [http://law.wustl.edu/wugslr/issues/volume5_2/p381Cantrell.pdf]

ICES. (2005). Joint Report of the Study Group on Unaccounted Fishing Mortality (SGUFM) and the Workshop on Unaccounted Fishing Mortality (WKUFM). Aberdeen, UK: International Council for the Exploration of the Sea. Retrieved November 22, 2007, from [http://www.ices.dk/reports/FTC/2005/SGUFM05.pdf]

INTERNATIONAL PLAN OF ACTION TO PREVENT, DETER AND ELIMINATE ILLEGAL, UNREPORTED AND UNREGULATED FISHING. (2001). Retrieved November 22, 2007, from [http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/003/y1224e/y1224e00.HTM]

h3. +International Council for the Exploration of the Seas+

The International Council for the Exploration of the Seas (ICES) is a scientific organization based in Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES "coordinates and promotes marine research in the North Atlantic"\[1\] with the help and expertise of more than 1600 scientists from its twenty member countries.\[2\] ICES uses its research to create cohesive marine management plans for its members.

h5. Vision and Goals

The ICES vision is to develop "an international scientific community that is relevant, responsive, sound, and credible concerning marine ecosystems and their relation to humanity." The organization hopes to achieve the vision by advancing "the scientific capacity to give advice on human activities affecting, and affected by, marine ecosystems." \[3\] Specifically, ICES has defined ten major goals in its Strategic Plan:\[4\]Understand the physical, chemical, and biological functioning of marine ecosystems;
Understand and quantify human impacts on marine ecosystems, including living marine resources;
Evaluate options for sustainable marine-related industries, particularly fishing and mariculture;
Advise on the sustainable use of living marine resources and protection of the marine environment;
Enhance collaboration with organizations, scientific programs, and stake-holders (including the fishing industry) that are relevant to the ICES goals;
Maintain and further develop a modern and effective infrastructure to support ICES programs;
Keep abreast of the needs and expectations of ICES Member Countries;
Broaden the diversity of the scientists who participate in ICES activities;
Match the budget of ICES to the needs and expectations for scientific information and advice;
Make the scientific products of ICES more accessible to the public.
ICES has defined three major steps to implement these goals: create specific action plans that "relate activities and costs to the Strategic Plan,"\[5\] monitor the success of its Strategic Plan and update the Plan as necessary.

h5. Organization

The three Advisory Committees oversee the work of all of ICES's scientific and working groups.\[6\] The Advisory Committees, on fishery management, marine environment, and ecosystem management, each work to support one of the three major components of ICES advice.

h5. Advice

The biggest benefit that ICES provides to the world of marine management is its advice service. ICES primarily gives advice in response to requests by member nations, but it may issue unsolicited advice if it feels the need.\[7\] ICES has historically given advice based on single or mixed stock population and mortality targets, but is now beginning to introduce a comprehensive, ecosystem based approach to its advice.\[8\]

An ICES advice report is given for a specific region of the ocean that has unique ecological and social characteristics. These regions are referred to as "ecoregions" by ICES.\[9\] Each ecoregion report contains an overview section, a report on human impacts on the region, and an assessment of ecological trends in the region and advice based upon those trends.

All ICES advice starts with analysis of single and mixed stock statistics (most notably fishing mortality and spawning stock biomass). The analysis combines publicly available catch data with ICES estimates for Unaccounted Fishing Mortality (UFM) to create estimates for the stocks fishing mortality rate. ICES uses historical records to develop critical limits on the spawning stock biomass; outside these limits the stock is considered to have "reduced reproductive capability."\[10\] The stock is then classified on its reproductive capacity and sustainability (which ICES uses to mean ability to withstand a population crash at status quo fishing intensity).\[11\] These stock parameters are also used to create boundaries on fishing mortality rates and spawning stock biomass values for use in management plans.

ICES continues by analyzing the effectiveness of different management plans for their ability to improve the health of the stock and their compliance with any international or national agreements to which the ecoregion may be subject. In general, plans are considered acceptable if they show that there is very little (less than 5%) chance that the plan will result in a spawning stock biomass less than the already defined critical level.\[12\]

After selecting a management plan for each stock, scientists examine the effects of stock interaction and adjust their models accordingly. In the final phase, the effects of the management plan on the ecosystem are examined. Because this portion of the review is new, concrete standards have not been defined, and ways to quantify impacts on the ecosystem are still being researched. If findings show that the health of the ecosystem warrants special restrictions, however, those restrictions are incorporated into the management plan.

+Works Cited+
\[1\] "About us - What do we do?," [http://www.ices.dk/aboutus/aboutus.asp] (accessed November 15, 2007)
\[2\] Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States of America are members of ICES. Australia, Chile, Greece, New Zealand, Peru, and South Africa are affiliate countries.
\[3\] The ICES Strategic Plan (Copenhagen, DK: International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, 2002), [http://www.ices.dk/iceswork/strategic%20plan-final.pdf] (accessed November 15, 2007).
\[4\] Ibid.
\[5\] Ibid.
\[6\] "About us - ICES Structure," [http://www.ices.dk/aboutus/structure.asp] (accessed November 15, 2007).
\[7\] Report of the ICES Advisory Committee on Fishery Management, Advisory Committee on the Marine Environment and Advisory Committee on Ecosystems, 2006.
\[8\] Ibid.
\[9\] Ibid.
\[10\] Ibid.
\[11\] Ibid.
\[12\] Ibid.

h3. +Whaling+

*Trading Regulations*

The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) of Wild Fauna and Flora regulates the export and import of endangered plants and animals between countries. All species under this regulation fit under three categories: Appendix I, Appendix II, and Appendix III (CITES, 2007a). Appendix I includes species threatened by extinction; export and import permits (distributed by the Management Authority of the State) are required. Appendix II includes species in which trade must be controlled against utilization which threaten survival; only export permits are required in this group. Appendix III includes species that are protected by at least one country which has asked for assistance regarding trade; export permits and certificates of origin are required for such species. Cetacean species under Appendix I include the bowhead whale, right whale, humpback whale, roqual whale, grey whale, pygmy right whale, sperm whale, beaked whales, bottle-nosed whales, dolphins, river dolphins, and porpoises (CITES, 2007b). All other species of whales are listed under Appendix II.

*Problems with the Whaling Situation*

_Commercial Whaling_

Objections to any decision made by the IWC can be raised, provided that it be done within ninety days of notification of the decision, in which case other countries will have further time to object (IWC, 2007b). Both Norway and Iceland currently continue with their commercial whaling industry under claims that the decision to set zero catch limits adversely affect respective national interests and thus do not apply. However, such objections were not made until years after the decision was made by the IWC; therefore, legal issues exist regarding this disregard of the moratorium.

However, studies commissioned by the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) and the Iceland Nature Conservation Association (INCA) have shown that demand for whale meat is very minimal in Iceland and Norway (IFAW, 2007). In addition, regulations set by CITES should prevent the export of whale meat to other countries - consumption of whale products should be limited to the country in which the whale was hunted; Japan, the country with the leading demand for whales, would not be allowed to import any whales. With this combination, Iceland and Norway should have no reason to continue with their commercial whaling endeavors.

_Scientific Whaling_

Despite the zero catch limit set by the IWC, individual nations can still issue scientific permits that allow the lethal hunting of whales for research purposes. The right to issue such licenses are under the control of each nation and override any other Commission regulation, including the moratorium and sanctuaries (IWC, 2007c). Currently, only Japan, Iceland, and Norway are utilizing this right to kill whales for scientific research. Accusations have been made by several third-party organizations, stating that these permits have been used as a loophole to the IWC moratorium and that the whales caught during such research are being killed for commercial use. Japan has denied such claims.

_Subsistence Whaling_

Several aboriginal communities that depend on whale meat for nutrition have been allowed to hunt whales, with catch limits set by the IWC (IWC, 2007a). An Aboriginal Whaling Scheme will be established and will comprise the scientific and logistical aspects of the management of all aboriginal fisheries.

h3.

+Works Cited+

Ahmed, M., Delgado, C.L., Meijer, S., Rosegrant, M.W., Wada, N. (2003). The Future of Fish: Issues and Trends to 2020. International Food Policy Research Insitute and WorldFish Center. Retrieved 18 November 2007, from the World Wide Web: [http://www.ifpri.org].

Duke University. Mining vs. Farming: The International State of the Fisheries. Retrieved 17 November 2007, from the World Wide Web: [http://www.biology.duke.edu/bio217/2002/fish/state.html].

(2007). International Seabed Authority. Retrieved 21 November 2007, from the World Wide Web: [http://www.isa.org.jm/en/about].

Desombre, E.R. (2005). Fishing Under Flags of Convenience: Using Market Power to Increase Compliance with International Regulations. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

National Geographic News. (15 May 2003). Big-Fish Stocks Fall 90 Percent Since 1950, Study Says. Retrieved 21 November 2007, from the World Wide Web: [http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/05/0515_030515_fishdecline.html].

NOAA Fisheries Service. (6 August 2007). Annual Commercial Landing Statistics. Retrieved 17 November 2007, from the World Wide Web: [http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st1/commercial/landings/annual_landings.html].

Coleman, F.C., Figueira, W.F., Ueland, J.S., & Crowder, L.B. (2004). The Impact of United States Recreational Fisheries on Marine Fish Populations. _Science_, _305_, 1958-1960.

National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration, Fisheries Statistics Division (2007). By the Numbers: Saltwater Fishing Facts for 2006. [http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/PartnershipsCommunications/recfish/BytheNumbers2006.pdf].

Oceans and Law of the Sea: Division for Ocean Affairs and Law of the Sea. (23 October 2007). United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982. Retrieved 12 November 2007, from the World Wide Web: [http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_overview_convention.htm].

The Pew Charitable Trust. Pew Oceans Commission. Retrieved 21 November 2007, from the World Wide Web: [http://www.pewtrusts.org/our_work.aspx?category=128].

ScienCentral News. (11 November 2006). No Fish by 2050. Retrieved 21 November 2007, from the World Wide Web: [http://www.sciencentral.com/articles/view.php3?type=article&article_id=218392867].

UN-OCEANS is a site that presents the history, mission, and partners of the UN-OCEANS program
[http://www.oceansatlas.org/www.un-oceans.org/About.htm#Participation].

Worm, B., Barbier, E.B., Beaumont, N., Duffy, J.E., Folke, C., Halpern, B.S., Jackson, J.B.C., Lotze, H.K., Micheli, F., Palumbi, S.R., Sala, E., Selkoe, K.A., Stachowicz, J.J., Watson, R. (3 November 2006). Impacts of Biodiversity Loss on Ocean Ecosystem Services. Science Magazine, 314, 787-790. Retrieved 19 October 2007, from the World Wide Web: [http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/314/5800/787?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=impacts+of+biodiversity+loss&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT]

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. (2007). The CITES Appendices. Retrieved November 19, 2007, from [http://www.cites.org/eng/app/index.shtml].

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. (2007). Appendices I, II, and III. Retrieved November 19, 2007, from [http://www.cites.org/eng/app/appendices.shtml].

International Fund for Animal Welfare. (2006). 82% of young people in Iceland never eat whale meat. Retrieved November 19, 2007, from [http://www.ifaw.org/ifaw/general/default.aspx?oid=178538].

International Whaling Commission. (2007). Catch Limits. Retrieved November 19, 2007, from [http://www.iwcoffice.org/conservation/catches.htm].

International Whaling Commission. (2007). Commission Information. Retrieved November 19, 2007, from [http://www.iwcoffice.org/commission/iwcmain.htm].

International Whaling Commission. (2007). Scientific Permits. Retrieved November 19, 2007, from [http://www.iwcoffice.org/conservation/permits.htm].

The European Commission. (14 March 2005). Fisheries and Maritime Affairs. Received 21 November 2007, from [http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/fisheries/missn_en.htm].

h2. World Fish Production

{center:class=myclass}
| !http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/Fish/FishTotal.gif! | !http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/Fish/FishSplit.gif! |
| Figure-1 | Figure-2 |
\\  !http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/Fish/Fish_China_Anchov.gif!
Figure-3
\\
|| Year || Fish Caught (million tons) || Aquaculture (million tons) || Total (million tons) || Fishing to Aquaculture Ratio ||
| 1950 | 18.7 | .6 | 19.3 | 31.17 |
| 1960 | 33.8 | 1.7 | 35.5 | 19.88 |
| 1970 | 62.7 | 2.6 | 65.2 | 24.12 |
| 1980 | 67.2 | 4.7 | 71.9 | 14.3 |
| 1990 | 84.8 | 13.1 | 97.9 | 6.47 |
| 2000 | 95.5 | 35.5 | 131.0 | 2.69 |
| 2001 | 92.8 | 37.8 | 130.6 | 2.46 |
| 2002 | 93.0 | 40.0 | 133.0 | 2.33 |
| 2003 | 90.2 | 42.3 | 132.5 | 2.13 |
Table-1
\\

h3. Current

As you can see from figures 1 and 2, the overall amount of fish being put out to market all over the world is increasing every year. The amount of fish pulled from our oceans is beginning to level off while the amount of fish provided by aquaculture is increasing. The problem is that our oceans can't currently support the amount of fish that we are pulling from it. This means that the amount of fish being pulled from the ocean currently (wild catch) must decrease for the ecosystem to stabilize.
Currently, there is about 132.5 millions tons of fish being produced worldwide. Of that, 90.2 million tons are fish that are pulled from the oceans and 42.3 million tons of fish are the result of aquaculture. It is at a point now where almost one-third of the world's fish production is provided by aquaculture.
| !http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/Fish/FishPerCap.gif! | !http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/Fish/FishPerCapSplit.gif! |
| Figure-4 | Figure-5 |
Figure-4 shows that rate at which the demand for fish has been met has slowed over the last 30 years due to the increase in the worlds population. The amount of fish per person has gone up, but the amount of that provide for by wild catch has remained constant over the years. The amount of fish per person has been allowed to increase due to the increased supply of fish provided by aquaculture. Because the population is still increasing, the world's demand for fish is increasing. If the amount of fish pulled from the ocean remains constant, as it has over the last 20 or so years, the amount of fish per person will begin to drop if which will cause people to starve, economies to collapse, and our fish stocks to be depleted.
\\
| !http://cache.eb.com/eb/image?id=73561&rendTypeId=4! | !http://cache.eb.com/eb/image?id=77058&rendTypeId=4! |
| Figure-6 | Figure-7 |
China is a major fish producer but is also a major consumer. Over the last few years, China has been putting more stock into aquaculture which has caused the amount of fish they produce to increase overall and the amount of wild catch to level off.
{center}