International Treaty
In Mission, our toughest challenge has been finding a solution to one of the world's greatest problems, the oceans. But what would that solution be without implementation? without a means to achieve it? To ensure that our solution reaches the highest pinnacles of government and society, we have developed an international forum for discussion, regulation, and innovation in the realm marine ecosystem and fisheries protection. Currently, the UN Division of Ocean Affairs and Law of the Sea governs codifies conventional international law (EarthTrust). The Law of the Sea, or LOS, has been supplemented by other legislation, including the Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 Relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks. It is our vision to call another UN Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 Relating to the Preservation of Global Fisheries. This Convention would concern the introduction of a new agreement (treaty) among nations to meet the following objectives as defined by Mission 2011: end overfishing, preserve marine ecosystems, and develop alternative measures to meet the nutritional needs of the international populace.
Elements to keep:
- regulations concerning the natural resources of the oceans
- natural gas, oil, and minerals 200 miles out from the coast belong to that country
- freedom to travel the seas
- arctic sea passage
International Body
...
- need to read the current Law of the Sea to determine how much we should change
- strong objections to the current LOS because of sovereignty issues
...
...
- once several large players enter the body/accept the charter, it will economically beneficial to join, since member states only trade fish with states that fish sustainably, and do not allow companies to register with them that fish under the flags of countries who haven't signed
- other incentives to get those initial countries to join?
- education!!! this benefits everyone
- improves public image
- some believe that if we get the US on board, we can get others to follow suit, so focus on US
...
- enforce signatory states to keep to the charter
- economic incentives/sanctions
- GPS tracking devices?
- enforcement by signatory states within their own country
- leave means of enforcement up to countries, but provide them with necessary commissions to receive advice on how to implement and phase in these changes
...
- money is funneled into the Division of Ocean Affairs as part of the UN budget
- there were other ideas for how to get funding--any help on this one guys?
- individual countries can use the fish taxes to support their own programs
- save a fish program?
- this was presented as possibly and NGO that could work with (but separate from) the international body
...
One of the primary issues with establishing an international regulatory board or commission is gaining enough countries to acknowledge and commit to make the decisions of the body effective. One of the primary goals of the Mission 2011 team has been developing creative incentives to encourage maximal international support. Yet we are also prepared to acknowledge that full compliance is unrealistic and most unlikely. Skeptics may claim that without support of a few key states, such as the United States, Japan, or China, the organization would fail, as the International Court of Justice has. There is evidence, however, to suggest that if public awareness and education campaigns are successful, that we could effectively achieve the aims of the organization without the support of a given nation. After the U.S. government rejected the Kyoto Protocol, considered by many to be a "death warrant"(Borger, 2001), the individual states and cities in America responded with force: nine Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states are currently leading the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, which is developing a cap-and-trade program for greenhouse gas emissions that they hope other states will join (RGGI, About RGGI); California recently passed the Global Warming Solutions Act in 2006, which will require major industries to cut emissions 25% by 2020 (Doerr, 2006); and the mayor of Seattle, Greg Nickels, has made "climate change a cornerstone of his administration," reducing Seattle's emissions 8% below 1990 levels (Cornwall, 2007). Nickels also hosted a global-warming conference of U.S. mayors in mid-October and has succeeded in getting more than 650 mayors from across the states to take the pledge to reduce emissions (Cornwall, 2007). Clearly, political support on the national level is not the deciding factor in an initiative's efficacy. We hope to acheive the same public fervor and rally of support as yet one more means to our end: saving the oceans.
...
EarthNet's "DriftNetwork" Program. International Law Governing Driftnet Fishing on the High Seas. Retrieved 16 November 2007, from the World Wide Web: http://www.earthtrust.org/dnpaper/intllaw.html.
The Whaling Solution
We, as the Terrascope Mission 2011 group, recognize the need to protect whales from the threat of extinction and exploitation. Thus, we endorse the IWC zero catch limit moratorium until sufficient research has proved that whale populations have reached a stable, sustainable level. The catch limits set for approved aboriginal communities should be kept in addition to existing whale sanctuaries. We also endorse the trading regulations set by CITES to prevent the import and export of endangered and threatened cetacean species.
We also recognize the need for scientific research to gain more information about whale populations. However, we advocate means of gathering data that do not involve the lethal killing of whales; other methods, such as tagging and sighting, would be preferred. Should lethal means are inevitable, a limit as to how many whales can be used should be set. Thus, we propose that all proposals involving lethal research must be approved by the Scientific Committee set up by the IWC, which would follow the guidelines issued by the Commission. The rate of usage during such research should not exceed the growth rate of the whale population; in the case that the growth rate of the population is not yet known, the number of whales used should not exceed 5% of the current population size (growth rates for whale populations have found between 3% and 12%). Article VIII of the 1946 IWC Convention must be amended to allow this change.
Works Cited
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 Fund for Animal Welfare. (2007). Iceland signals an end to its commercial whaling enterprise due to lack of consumer demand. Retrieved November 19, 2007, from http:///www.ifaw.org/ifaw/general/default.aspx?oid=220372.
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.
International Whaling Commission. (2207). Whale Population Estimates. Retrieved November 19, 2007, from http://www.iwcoffice.org/conservation/estimate.htm.
International Whaling Commission. (2007). Whale Sanctuaries. Retrieved November 19, 2007, from http://www.iwcoffice.org/conservation/sanctuaries.htm.
Muller, George C. (2007). Timeline of Commercial Whaling. Retrieved November 19, 2007, from http://www.cgeorgemuller.com/timeline.htm.