...
Major problems facing the enforcement of international fishing regulations are "flag hopping" and fishing under flags of convenience. These phenomena are direct results of many countries opening their ship 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 Countries can make money from the registry of foreign ships, so the practice of open registry has become 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 and are not parties to relevant international treaties. This means that fishing companies that register under the flags 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 with no fear of repercussion, and if the country of registry decides that it wishes 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 limits the effects of fishing regulations (Desombre, 2005).
...
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 on its Web site, 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... (UN-OCEANS, 2005).
...
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 (Fisheries and Aquaculture Department, 2007). 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 facing the actual implementation of these proposals. Unfortunately, no specific plans have been on proposed, hence the need for further reforms.
Another IPOA involves shark fisheries. Until recently, sharks had been fished sustainably. At present, however, more effort is being put into shark fishing, and the areas in which shark fishing is done have expanded. There is cause for concern that some shark species are in danger of being overfished. Sharks have particularly long recovery times after they have been overfished. "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." (Fisheries and Aquaculture Department, 2007) In this case, the UN has proposed no cooperative international plan. Rather, the organization suggests that each state be responsible for creating its own plan for managing shark fisheries.
The IPOA for Seabirds aims to reduce the number of birds caught accidentally in commercial longline fisheries. 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 on 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 (Fisheries and Aquaculture Department, 2007).
A final and essential IPOA supported by the Fisheries and Aquaculture Department is the International Plan of Action to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing (IPOA-IUU). 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." (Fisheries and Aquaculture Department, 2007).
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 fish stocks with no conservation measures (INTERNATIONAL PLAN OF ACTION TO PREVENT, DETER AND ELIMINATE ILLEGAL, UNREPORTED AND UNREGULATED FISHINGInternational 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, the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC) estimates that nearly 20% of the 2001 trade in redfish was illegal, unreported, or unregulated, and the International Council for the Exploration of the Seas (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, the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) estimates that between 1997 and 2000 about 90 kilotonnes of toothfish was taken from the oceans in an illegal manner, more than twice the reported catch for the same period (ICES, 2005).
The UN has responded to IUU fishing with the International Plan of Action to Prevent, Deter, and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated Fishing ( IPOA-IUU). In this case, international cooperation is imperative. Unfortunately, no binding resolutions have been created to control IUU fishing. According to a Washington University document, the 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).
...
However, to this point RFBs have been largely ineffective for a number of reasons, the foremost of which is that few of the RFBs have actually utilized the instruments provided to them by the above 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 as members nations with conflicted conflicting interests, especially between developed and developing nations, which have which has bred inefficiency. In many cases member nations have even refused to abide by the decisions of their RFBs.
...
International Council for the Exploration of the Seas
Wiki Markup
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:
...
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 internal estimates for unaccounted fishing mortality (UFM) to create estimates for the stock's 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 based on its reproductive capacity and sustainability; ICES defines sustainability as the ability to withstand a population crash at status quo fishing intensity ability remain stable under current fishing pressure (ICES, 2006). These stock parameters are also used to set boundaries on fishing mortality rates and spawning stock biomass values for use in management plans.
...
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).
Wiki Markup
[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)
...
Many countries subsidize their fishing industries because of the important roles they play in the 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 is going towards the sponsorship of fishing fleets, thus encouraging the global fishing effort and increasing fishing capacity . This has led 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 includes 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), they provide 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 prices for foreign fish are not lower than prices for domestic fish, and import quotas, which restricts the number of fish that can be imported.
...
The U.S. and Canadian governments have also provided subsidies to promote domestic fishery development for many years. In addition, they have also used approximately $3 billion on income maintenance for unemployed fishermen and fish plant workers and to improve fishery science. Starting in the 1960s, most subsidies are intended for expansionary purpose. Subsidy programssubsidies were intended to expand the fishing industry by, for example, aid for fishermen to obtain fishing vessels and to sell their catches in a lower price, are intended to stimulate their economies and to protect their domestic fish industries helping fishermen buy boats and sell their catches at lower prices. Nevertheless, in the 1990s, when people started to realize the problem of overfishing, both countries began to subsidize the fisheries industry in the form of buy-back programs to reduce the number of fishing fleet, for example, the "New England groundfish fleet" and "Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands crab fleet" financed by the federal Government. These subsidies are introduced in response to the increasing environmental problem caused by over-fishing. However, the main constituents of fishing industry with buyback programs to reduce the size of fishing fleets. Although these subsidies were introduced in response to the problem of overfishing, most subsidies in both countries are still subsidies that are intended for expansionary purpose intended to expand the fishing industry (Schrank, 2003).
Norway, one of the largest cod-catching countries, grants loans to its fishing industry to protect its domestic fish production. It also provides price support, insurance subsidies, operating subsidies, minimum income guarantees, vacation support and unemployment insurance, bait subsidies, gear subsidies and damage compensation (Schrank, 2003).
In view of the harmful nature of some subsidies, the World Trade Organization advised its members on restricting to restrict subsidies designed to promote exports (namely those promote the buying of fishing vessels and intend to lower the selling price of catches) and established controls over all other form forms of subsidies. However, Japan and the United States, which are the main decision-makers of the World Trade Organization, endorse the "no-need approach" in which they propose no restriction of subsidies as they dispute the causal link between subsidies and over-exploitation overexploitation of fish resources. They suggest that poor fisheries fishery management, instead of subsidies, is the main cause of over-fishingoverfishing. Therefore, they propose that regimes deal with that regulatory regimes including 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.) should be implemented indeed to improve the international fisheries fishery management. Therefore, difficulties in restricting subsidies internationally exist it is difficult to internationally restrict fishing subsidies (Benitah, 2004).
(CHILD PAGE 3 FOR PRESENT ENDS HERE)
...
Fishing nets and traps today are made of durable polymer fibers, built to last. While this seems great at first, this durability can kill millions of fish and other organisms. When fishing nets or traps are lost due to storms or negligence, they actually continue to catch fish (Gabriel, 2005). And thanks to those polymer fibers, they can keep catching fish or crabs or other life for months or years. To make matters worse, many traps and nets become self-baiting: fish become trapped in the gear and die, other fish come to feed on the dead fish, become trapped themselves, and continue the cycle until the net becomes completely full (Matsuoka, 2005). This is called "ghost fishing," and it is probably the most frustrating problem plaguing the fishing industry today. Hundreds or thousands of fish or crustaceans can be caught in a single net, and the fish aren't even used in any way; they are completely wasted. According to Laist (1996), fish deaths caused by ghost fishing may account for be up to 30% of the 30% as large as annual landings in some areas. Some countries, such as Sweden, Poland, New Zealand, and the United States, have already instated gear retrieval programs to try to address the issue of ghost fishing, but more, and more universal, measures will be needed if we want to completely solve the problem (Brown and Macfadyen, 2007).
...
Current State of Fish Tracking
...
Today, both scientists and commercial fishermen track fish. While both use sonar for biomass both use sonar for biomass estimates, fishermen use the estimates to "catch fish more effectively, while scientists use \ [the data\] to study fish distribution and estimate stock distribution and estimate stock abundance" (ICES, 2006). Scientists also use larger-scale methods to survey fish scale methods to survey fish populations, such as trawl surveys and tagging projects.
Trawl Surveys
Trawl surveys are large-scale research efforts that can provide scientists with data on the types of fish, numbers of fish, and characteristics of fish in a given region. They have immense value; NOAA trawl surveys, for example, yield information for nearly 200 species (NOAA).
Trawl surveys are generally short in duration; NOAA uses a thirty-minute trawl (NOAA). ICES data indicates that trawl surveys are generally better with shorter durations than with longer durations, as the short duration gives a more precise point assessment and reduces the number of individual fish that are collected, reducing the work load on the scientists conducting the survey (ICES, 2005).
How Trawl Surveys Work
While there are many variations in trawl survey design, most trawl surveys consist of a short bottom trawl using commercial trawling gear. Following a predetermined course, the trawler makes repeated short trawls, analyzing the collected sample after each trawl. All of the fish in the trawl are counted, measured, and weighed, and then a small subsample is selected to be dissected to reveal age, diet, and health information (NOAA).
Research by ICES by ICES indicates that the distribution of fish species is dependent on depth and seafloor characteristics (ICES, 2005). Thus, an optimally designed optimal survey would stratify by take into account depth and seafloor sediment before surveyingtype.
Tagging Projects
While trawl surveys produce large produce large amounts of data on the distribution of fish, they cannot determine fish migratory patterns. Such information can be provided by a tagging project (Swain & Caradine, 1960). Tagging surveys allow scientists to record locations for capture and release, as well as vital data, such as length and weight, about each fish at both capture and release. The scientists can then use the data then use the data to document migration paths (Schwarz, Schweigert, & Arnason, 1993).
...
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 covered under this treaty fit under one of three categories: Appendix I, Appendix II, and Appendix III (CITES, 2007a). Appendix I includes species threatened by extinction; export and import permits are required. Appendix II includes species in which trade must be controlled against utilization which threatens survivalstrictly controlled to prevent overexploitation; only export permits are required in for 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 WhalingWhaling
The International Whaling Commission, established to protect whale stocks, sets criteria for any activity involving the hunting of whales. Objections to any decision made by the IWC may be raised, provided it is 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 industries under claims that the decision to set zero catch limits adversely affects respective national interests and thus does not apply. However, such objections were not made until years after the decision was made by the IWC; therefore, legal issues exist regarding this violation 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 greatest 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 endeavorsThus there should be no reason to continue commercial whaling.
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 is under the control of each nation and overrides all other IWC regulations, 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 that these permits have been used as a loophole in the IWC moratorium and that the whales caught during such research are being killed primarily for commercial use. Japan has denied such claims.
...
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, established by the IWC, will be established and will comprise the scientific and logistical aspects of the management of all aboriginal fisheries.
...
An integral part of solving the current problem is taking action against all forces which are destroying marine life and the marine environment. One such force which the public is not generally aware of is pollution from 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" (Clemmitt, 2005). Even more devastating are the effects of cruise ships on delicate environments such Caribbean coral reefs, where the effects of pollution are magnified: In the United States, cruise ships are allowed to dump raw, untreated sewage into the ocean after the ship has moved beyond the three-mile limit, ocean when they are more than three miles from land and many ships routinely perform this action. Indeed, this waste is filled with bacteria, killing and sickening marine life and harming human health (Clemmitt, 2005).
...
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.unmigrated-wiki-markup.
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\[\]
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.
...
The European Commission. (14 March 2005). Fisheries and Maritime Affairs. Received 21 November 2007, from http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/fisheries/missn_en.htm.
Fisheries and Aquaculture Department. (2007) Retrieved October 25, 2007, from Fisheries and Aquaculture Department Web site: http://www.fao.org/fi/website/FIRetrieveAction.do?dom=org&xml=FI_org.xml&xp_nav=1