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.