...

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).

(CHILD PAGE 1 FOR PRESENT ENDS HERE)

(CHILD PAGE 2 FOR PRESENT STARTS HERE)

World Fish Production

Figure-1

Figure-2

Figure-3

...

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.

(CHILD PAGE 2 1 FOR PRESENT ENDS HERE)

(CHILD PAGE 3 2 FOR PRESENT STARTS HERE)

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.

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).

...

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

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.

...

The Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection, or GESAMP, 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), the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (UNESCO-IOC), the World Meteorological Organization (WMO)), the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and the UN Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO).

Regional Fishing Bodies (RFBs)

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

...

The use of RFBs to promote regional cooperation and implementation of international fishery agreements is still a promising idea. In order for their potential to be met, they must be made much more powerful and gain the ability to utilize the instruments given to them by international agreements (Role of Regional Fishing Bodies, 1999).

(CHILD PAGE 3 FOR PRESENT ENDS HERE)

(CHILD PAGE 4 FOR PRESENT STARTS HERE)

Subsidies

Many countries subsidize their fishing industries because of the important role it plays in their job economy and food supply. Annual subsidies for fishing amount to about $26 billion world wide, only $7 billion of which goes towards fisheries management and the support of conservation. On the other hand, $16 billion--more than 25 percent of the annual $56 billion trade in fish--is going towards the sponsorship of fishing fleets, thus encouraging the global fishing effort and increasing fishing capacity. This has lead to a 250% increase in the global fishing fleet (Sumaila & Pauly, 2006).

Fishing subsidies come in many forms. Direct government payments to the industry reduce operating costs of fishing vessels in order to encourage fishing. Such assistance include a grants made for the purchase of new fishing vessels, vessel decommissioning payments (buybacks), fishermen's unemployment insurance, compensation for closed seasons, equity infusions, and price support programs (Schrank, 2003). When implemented by developed countries for their Distant Water Fleets (DWF), it gives the vessels an advantage over the fishing boats of developing countries. Indirect financial assistance comes in the form of subsidizing shipbuilders and fish processors, credit and loan assistance, and tax reductions. Governments can also help their fishermen by imposing trade restrictions such as import tariffs, which ensures that foreign prices are not lower than domestic prices, and import quotas, which restricts the number of fish that can be imported.

Almost half of the subsidies issued in the world are from 38 different developed nations. The other half is accounted for by 103 different developing nations. This disparity only increases the advantages fishing fleets of developed nations have over their developing counterparts.

In France, construction subsidies are directed at DWFs catching tuna in the Indian ocean with purse seine. Furthermore, the government sponsors the deflagging of their own ships so that their vessels can be recommissioned under the flag of another country. Spain, too, offers up to a 55 percent construction subsidy, and subsidize joint ventures with Angola, Algeria, Argentina, Falkland Islands, Morocco, Mauritania, Senegal, Namibia, and other countries in Africa and South America, mainly to catch shrimp. A one third reduction in the Spanish fishing fleet is due to reflagging and recommissioning (MRAG, 2000). Vessel operators only pay about one third of the fees associated with obtaining a license and permit to fish in another country's waters. In offering these subsidies, countries are essentially encouraging the flag-hopping that was discussed earlier. Furthermore, this increases the fishing capacity of countries that are already under-compensated; in 1996, Guinea Bissau only received 1 percent of the profits made from the tuna caught in their waters (Kura et al., 2006).

American and Canadian fisheries have also been highly subsidized for many years in order to develop their domestic fisheries. Apart from that, they have also used approximately $3 billion on income maintenance for unemployed fishermen and fish plant workers and improving fisheries science. In 1990s, when people started to realize the problem of overfishing, both countries began subsidizing the development of technologies to reduce capacity (Schrank, 2003).

Norway, one of the largest cod-catching countries, grants loans to their fishing industries to support the export of their fishing market. They also grant loans to vessel arrangements, price support, insurance subsidies, operating subsidies, minimum income guarantees, vacation support and unemployment insurance, bait subsidies, gear subisidies and damage compensation (Schrank, 2003).

In view of the harmful nature of some subsidies, WTO agreed on restricting subsidies designed to promote exports and establish controls over other form of subsidies. Canada, Japan, and other countries with a large fishery industry, however, endorse the "no-need approach" in which no restriction of subsidies should be imposed as they dispute the casual link between subsidies and overexploitation of fish resources. They propose fisheries management regimes deal with catch controls (quotas), effort controls (restrictions on boat size, engine power and days at sea, etc.) and right-based structures (permits, individual transferable quotas, etc.). Therefore, in Japan's view, it would be unfair if these varying situations are ignored and certain fisheries subsidies automatically prohibited (Benitah, 2004).

(CHILD PAGE 4 FOR PRESENT ENDS HERE)

(CHILD PAGE 5 FOR PRESENT STARTS HERE)

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" with the help and expertise of more than 1600 scientists from its twenty member countries ("About us - What do we do?").\[1\] ICES uses its research to create cohesive marine management plans for its members.

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" (The ICES Strategic Plan, 2002). Specifically, ICES has defined ten major goals in its Strategic Plan:

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.

(The ICES Strategic Plan, 2002)
ICES has defined three major steps to implement these goals: create specific action plans that "relate activities and costs to the Strategic Plan," monitor the success of its Strategic Plan and update the Plan as necessary (The ICES Strategic Plan, 2002).

Organization

The three Advisory Committees oversee the work of all of ICES's scientific and working groups ("About us - ICES Structure"). The Advisory Committees, on fishery management, marine environment, and ecosystem management, each work to support one of the three major components of ICES advice.

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 (ICES, 2006). 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 (ICES, 2006).

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 (ICES, 2006). 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" (ICES, 2006). The stock is then classified on its reproductive capacity and sustainability; ICES defines sustainability as the ability to withstand a population crash at status quo fishing intensity (ICES, 2006). 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 (ICES, 2006).

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 (ICES, 2006).

+Footnotes+
\[1\] 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.

(CHILD PAGE 5 FOR PRESENT ENDS HERE)

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" with the help and expertise of more than 1600 scientists from its twenty member countries ("About us - What do we do?").\[1\] ICES uses its research to create cohesive marine management plans for its members.

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" (The ICES Strategic Plan, 2002). Specifically, ICES has defined ten major goals in its Strategic Plan:

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.

(The ICES Strategic Plan, 2002)
ICES has defined three major steps to implement these goals: create specific action plans that "relate activities and costs to the Strategic Plan," monitor the success of its Strategic Plan and update the Plan as necessary (The ICES Strategic Plan, 2002).

Organization

The three Advisory Committees oversee the work of all of ICES's scientific and working groups ("About us - ICES Structure"). The Advisory Committees, on fishery management, marine environment, and ecosystem management, each work to support one of the three major components of ICES advice.

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 (ICES, 2006). 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 (ICES, 2006).

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 (ICES, 2006). 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" (ICES, 2006). The stock is then classified on its reproductive capacity and sustainability; ICES defines sustainability as the ability to withstand a population crash at status quo fishing intensity (ICES, 2006). 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 (ICES, 2006).

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 (ICES, 2006).

+Footnotes+
\[1\] 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.\\

(CHILD PAGE 2 FOR PRESENT ENDS HERE)

(CHILD PAGE 3 FOR PRESENT STARTS HERE)

Subsidies

Many countries subsidize their fishing industries because of the important role it plays in their job economy and food supply. Annual subsidies for fishing amount to about $26 billion world wide, only $7 billion of which goes towards fisheries management and the support of conservation. On the other hand, $16 billion--more than 25 percent of the annual $56 billion trade in fish--is going towards the sponsorship of fishing fleets, thus encouraging the global fishing effort and increasing fishing capacity. This has lead to a 250% increase in the global fishing fleet (Sumaila & Pauly, 2006).

Fishing subsidies come in many forms. Direct government payments to the industry reduce operating costs of fishing vessels in order to encourage fishing. Such assistance include a grants made for the purchase of new fishing vessels, vessel decommissioning payments (buybacks), fishermen's unemployment insurance, compensation for closed seasons, equity infusions, and price support programs (Schrank, 2003). When implemented by developed countries for their Distant Water Fleets (DWF), it gives the vessels an advantage over the fishing boats of developing countries. Indirect financial assistance comes in the form of subsidizing shipbuilders and fish processors, credit and loan assistance, and tax reductions. Governments can also help their fishermen by imposing trade restrictions such as import tariffs, which ensures that foreign prices are not lower than domestic prices, and import quotas, which restricts the number of fish that can be imported.

Almost half of the subsidies issued in the world are from 38 different developed nations. The other half is accounted for by 103 different developing nations. This disparity only increases the advantages fishing fleets of developed nations have over their developing counterparts.

In France, construction subsidies are directed at DWFs catching tuna in the Indian ocean with purse seine. Furthermore, the government sponsors the deflagging of their own ships so that their vessels can be recommissioned under the flag of another country. Spain, too, offers up to a 55 percent construction subsidy, and subsidize joint ventures with Angola, Algeria, Argentina, Falkland Islands, Morocco, Mauritania, Senegal, Namibia, and other countries in Africa and South America, mainly to catch shrimp. A one third reduction in the Spanish fishing fleet is due to reflagging and recommissioning (MRAG, 2000). Vessel operators only pay about one third of the fees associated with obtaining a license and permit to fish in another country's waters. In offering these subsidies, countries are essentially encouraging the flag-hopping that was discussed earlier. Furthermore, this increases the fishing capacity of countries that are already under-compensated; in 1996, Guinea Bissau only received 1 percent of the profits made from the tuna caught in their waters (Kura et al., 2006).

American and Canadian fisheries have also been highly subsidized for many years in order to develop their domestic fisheries. Apart from that, they have also used approximately $3 billion on income maintenance for unemployed fishermen and fish plant workers and improving fisheries science. In 1990s, when people started to realize the problem of overfishing, both countries began subsidizing the development of technologies to reduce capacity (Schrank, 2003).

Norway, one of the largest cod-catching countries, grants loans to their fishing industries to support the export of their fishing market. They also grant loans to vessel arrangements, price support, insurance subsidies, operating subsidies, minimum income guarantees, vacation support and unemployment insurance, bait subsidies, gear subisidies and damage compensation (Schrank, 2003).

In view of the harmful nature of some subsidies, WTO agreed on restricting subsidies designed to promote exports and establish controls over other form of subsidies. Canada, Japan, and other countries with a large fishery industry, however, endorse the "no-need approach" in which no restriction of subsidies should be imposed as they dispute the casual link between subsidies and overexploitation of fish resources. They propose fisheries management regimes deal with catch controls (quotas), effort controls (restrictions on boat size, engine power and days at sea, etc.) and right-based structures (permits, individual transferable quotas, etc.). Therefore, in Japan's view, it would be unfair if these varying situations are ignored and certain fisheries subsidies automatically prohibited (Benitah, 2004).

(CHILD PAGE 3 FOR PRESENT ENDS HERE)

(CHILD PAGE 4 (CHILD PAGE 6 FOR PRESENT STARTS HERE)

Fishing Technology

...

Photograph from NOAA.
Bycatch includes everything from sand dollars to sea turtles.

(CHILD PAGE 6 FOR PRESENT ENDS HERE)

(CHILD PAGE 7 FOR PRESENT STARTS HERE)

Fish Tracking

Basics of Population Tracking

...

all of the works cite are on the More Research page

(CHILD PAGE 7 4 FOR PRESENT ENDS HERE)

(CHILD PAGE 8 5 FOR PRESENT STARTS HERE)

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.

(CHILD PAGE 8 5 FOR PRESENT ENDS HERE)

(CHILD PAGE 9 6 FOR PRESENT STARTS HERE)

Cruise Ship Pollution

Mission 2011 is about saving the oceans and the fisheries, and an integral part of solving the current problem is taking action against all forces of nature which are destroying marine life and the marine environment. One such force which the public is not aware of are the 'Floating Cities' known to the general public as cruise ships. California Represenative Sam Farr, whose district includes the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, writes, "The pristine ocean cruisers we see in TV commercials are also massive ocean polluters, often generating and dumping wastes equivalent to those of a small city into our coastal waters." (This a from a quote inside a source, the CQ researcher - I'm not exactly sure how to cite it.) Even more devastating are the effects of cruise ships near delicate environments such Caribbean coral reefs, where the effects of pollution are magnified.

(CHILD PAGE 9 6 FOR PRESENT ENDS HERE)

Works Cited

...