Hey there. I realize that I haven't posted anything but I have been researching and coming up with ideas.
During a team meeting we were discussing the problems with today's current laws, regulations, policies, and ways of enforcement. I suggested that before any regulations could be put in place a good enforcement agency or enforcement system must be established. I also suggested that before developing a global solution (which will be difficult because one solution might not work for every country around the world) our team should develop a solution fitting for the United States. The solution that would work for the U.S. will (would) be easy to adjust to fit other developed countries. The plan, if implemented by the U.S., would be easier to implement because the U.S. would be the one to set the example. The U.S. could then us its powerful position and persuasion power to convince other countries to adopt the solution. One solution for all of the worlds countries seems impractical because the world is comprised of different countries with different cultures, different governments, and different ways of living. If you have ever purchases sweatpants one size does not fit all. It seems more practical and feasible for a general solution to be developed and implemented by the U.S. and adjusted for other countries differences. For example, if a fish quota system would be implemented the quota for Japan should be higher than that for other countries simply because the people of Japan eat more fish and DEPEND on more fish to survive. The objective for Mission 2011 should not be: to develop a "Global" solution that all countries would have to follow but rather a "general" solution that can be customized for each country. The general plan could have a global goal; to increase biodiversity, preserve habitats, reduce negative economic impact the plan might have, etc. But to reach those goals it has to be specific to a country in order for it to work properly and efficiently. Once Mission 2011 develops the "general" (customizable) plan it can propose other plans (or rather examples of how it can be customized) for other countries. With this, we as a group can present to the board of experts in December with the goals of the plan (what needs to be done for the better of the oceans, fish populations, and the fishing industry) and a flexible plan that they can use and customize to accomplish these goals. We must remember that like a palm tree which sways when circumstances change and storms pick up, our plan must remain flexible in case circumstances change it can easily "sway," be adjusted and implemented.
I mentioned earlier that before any laws, regulations, or policies could or should be implemented a good form of enforcement should be developed. Currently, there are many regulations and suggestions regarding fishing, and the seas. The main problem that has prevented the current policies from taking effect is the lack of enforceability. The UN attempted to establish an enforcing agency that would press suit to violators. The agency was inefficient and hardly did any enforcing. Now why is it that it is so difficult to enforce oceanic laws? Some believe that it is the shear size of the oceans. They are to big to patrol and keep track of all the vessels. My counter argument to that belief is the sky. The sky is much larger than the oceans but today countries are still able to regulate the types of airplanes that fly in their airspace. Planes are much faster than shipping vessels but countries are still able to track and communicate with them. The United States, along with other countries, have "no fly zones" which, like the name suggests, no plane is allowed to fly. I figure if it is possible to have and enforce no fly zones it must be possible to regulate the seas and no fishing zones. My proposed solution is GPS. All shipping vessels should be required to carry a GPS tracking device. Let's take the United States for example.
The United States should require all fishing vessels to carry a GPS tracking device. An agency would be required to regulate the use of these devices but its ultimate purpose would be to track the vessels themselves and locate violators. Using the U.S. as an example the best agency for this task is already in place, the Coast Guard. The GPS systems that I researched are inexpensive, versatile, and small. They not only pinpoint the exact location of the vessel but they also have the capability to track the vessels path, heading, and speed. The information collected by the GPS system relays it to a satellite, which then sends it to a main headquarters where it is collected and stored in a computer system. This system should be regulated and operated by agencies such as the coast guard. The GPS system will provide fishermen with up to date information about closed areas and other prohibited zones directly to their vessel. The system will also make it easy for the Coast Guard to track and find vessels that violate the law. Instead of having fleets of ships searching the seas for violators we can have people searching computer screens for violators. The GPS system should be given a serial code specific to a particular vessel. This would be similar to a motor vehicles license plate, allowing the authorities to ID both the boat and the owner of the boat. A GPS system seems to be the most practical and feasible means of enforcement for oceanic law. For the U.S. the Coast Guard seems to be the best suited agency for this idea to work. As for other countries their navy or other agency similar to the U.S. Coast Guard would be best for adopting the GPS solution and enforcing oceanic law.
Websites with information on current GPS tracking devices:
http://www.guardianmobility.com/Air_Solutions.php
http://ezinearticles.com/?Marine-GPS-Maintains-Boater-Safety&id=652865
Most of the GPS systems are under $1000, making it relatively affordable. (If they can afford the boat, they can probably afford a GPS system) There has been some discussion going around regarding the use of government funds (such as subsides) to pay for the system so the fishermen don't have to. This seems like a reasonable solution considering that direct subsides to fishermen are thought to be a bad idea. (I do not have the resources to back up this statement, this was brought to my attention during a team meeting by a fellow teammate who had researched subsides, please check the wiki pages regarding subsidies for more information.)
In order to save and restore fish populations fishermen will loose their jobs. It is a terrible thought that a fishermen, with his years of experience and knowledge of the seas will be out of work. One proposed solution might be to recruit the out of work fishermen to the enforcement agency. This would allow them to use their superior knowledge of the sea to help enforce the laws, seek violators, and (if put in a scientific position) increase the fish populations. We must realize that fishermen will be out of work as we reduce the number of fish they are able to catch. From an economic standpoint we must try to reduce the economic impact our solutions will have. We must try to find places for any out of work fishermen that might result from our solution. Recruiting them into the enforcement agencies, scientific research teams, and other agencies that would benefit from their knowledge of the seas would both help the fishermen and reduce the economic impact that might result.
Twenty years ago the United Nations passed the "Law of the Sea." The Law of the Sea was intended to resolve the major oceanic problems experienced by countries. Problems such as territorial issues, fishing issues, environmental issues, pretty much anything relating to the seas. The Law of the Sea developed the 12 mile radius all countries have off of their shores. Within the 12 mile radius countries have absolute jurisdiction and power of what goes on their. There is a 200 mile economic zone where it is "for the use of
living and non-living natural resources."
The Law of the Sea made plenty of suggestions regarding increasing fish populations and preserving the natural habitat. The main problem is that they are all suggestions. The Law of the Sea offers no means of enforcement and does not state that countries should adopt the policies. It basically implies that it would be best if countries adopted them.
http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_20years/oceanssourceoflife.pdf