Team 5 focused on the following issues: international fishing regulations, deep sea fishing and the polar regions. The significant research that we have done thus far concerning these issues has been summarized below:
Current UN Involvement:
A subcommittee of the FAO (the Fisheries and Aquaculture Department) has an outlined a FishCode programme, where objectives are "to raise the economic, social and nutritional benefits obtained from the fisheries and aquaculture, especially in developing countries, through the adoption of responsible development, management and conservation practices, including improved institutional and legal arrangements." The department has also created a Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, which "sets out principles and international standards of behaviour for responsible practices with a view to ensuring the effective conservation, management and development of living aquatic resources, with due respect for the ecosystem and biodiversity," and also "recognizes the nutritional, economic, social, environmental and cultural importance of fisheries and the interests of all those concerned with the fishery sector. The Code takes into account the biological characteristics of the resources and their environment and the interests of consumers and other users." Within this Code of Conduct, the FAO has several suggested International Plans of Action (IPOAs) which would apply to "all States and entities and to all fishers." 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 liscence and quotas. The suggested action to be taken currently involves assessing and monitoring fishing capacity as well as preparing and implementing national plans. 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 recognized with the actual implementation of these proposals.
Unfortunately, no specific plans have been on proposed, though the main ideas that we have gathered from our research has helped us to understand what needs to be included in our solution.
Sources: http://www.fao.org/fi/website/FIRetrieveAction.do?dom=org&xml=fishcode_prog.xml , http://www.fao.org/fi/website/FIRetrieveAction.do?dom=org&xml=CCRF_prog.xml&xp_nav=2, http://www.fao.org/fi/website/FIRetrieveAction.do?dom=org&xml=ipoa_capacity.xml
The Spanish Fishery:
In a PowerPoint presentation given by the Spanish Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries, and Food with data from 2000-2002 on the Spanish fisheries I have found information about the conservation efforts of Spain and the size and scope of their fishing industry. The Minister discusses the location of the Spanish fishing fleet and the relative size of the fleet at each location, as well as the fish output and trade. Spain has also taken measures to offset their substantial impact on the ocean's fish populations by implementing marine reserves, aquaculture, and fishery inspections/satellite tracking (Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca y Alimentacion [MAPA], 2002).
The data show that the Spanish fleet fishes in every major ocean and has over 20 joint ventures with other countries, most of which are in Africa. Also, the overwhelming majority of Spanish fishing vessels have been operating for more than thirty years, and the majority are less than 9 meters in length (so not large boats owned by corporations). Additionally, Spanish ships output nearly one million tons of fish (including crustaceans), cans two hundred and fifty thousand tons, and imports around 5 billion tons per year (a number which far outweighs the amount of fish exported per year) (MAPA, 2002). More than 75,000 Spaniards are employed in the fishing an aquaculture industries (EarthTrends).
Their efforts to preserve the oceans are as follows: the Ministry runs five of the eighteen marine reserves off the coast of Spain (though according to EarthTrends, Spain has 34 marine reserves), and produces around 300,000 tons in fish (including mollusks, fish, and crustaceans) from aquaculture, most of which is marine based (approx. 10% is land-based) (MAPA, 2002). Spain has "As in many other parts of Europe, in Spain aquaculture and particularly that of salt water species, is nowadays perceived as the only means to preserve the present equilibrium between supply and
demand of fish products for human consumption" (Bascrco, 45). "In Europe, 80% of the supply of sea bass and sea bream is now provided by the aquaculture sector" produced in more than 90 hatcheries in 15 countries (Basurco, 46).
A center run by the MAPA is also tracking approx. 1,700 fishing vessels with portable on board "Blue Box" units. The government also employs GPS to track vessels (MAPA, 2002).
The fishing industry is an extremely component of both the culture and the economy in Spain. More than 75,000 Spanairds are employed in the fishing an aquaculture industries, and twelve percent of the total protein intake in Spain is fish. Spain is tied for second in most comsumption of fish per capita (after Japan) with Portugal and Norway (Basurco, 46).
SOURCES:
Basurco, B., & Larrazabal, G. (2000). "Marine fish farming in Spain." CIHEAM--Options Mediterraneennes, 30, 45-56.
EarthTrends: Country Profiles: Coastal and Marine Ecosystems---Spain. Retrieved November 7, 2007, from University of Washington, Fisheries-Oceanography Library Web Site: http://www.lib.washington.edu/fish/subjects/fishstat.html#international
Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca y Alimentacion. (2002). Fisheries in Spain. Madrid, Spain: Jose Ortega.
The Japanese Fishery:
Flag Hopping and Fishing under Flags of Convenience:
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 One of the only effective ways proposed to solve this issue is fish trade restrictions with countries who do not comply with international fishing regulations and allow companies under them to do the same. This provides a strong economical incentive for these countries to join an international fishing policy and abide by it, making it more profitable for them to follow environmental policy than it is for them to disregard it and leaving flag hoppers with nowhere to jump.
Main Source: "Fishing Under Flags of Convenience: Using Market Power to Increase Compliance with International Regulations" Elizabeth R. Desombre. Massachusetts Institute of Technology 2005
History of Compliance with International Mandates:
As our plans involve producing behavioral changes on a global scale, the issue of compliance and enforcement are major factors to consider. Throughout history, there have been multiple instances of international mandates imposed upon the entire international community, with varying degrees of success. In each of the two cases, the probable motivating factors and relevance to our solution are considered.
One of the most significant international agreements from the past century is the Geneva Convention , which dictates the rules of war and attempts to bring a little humanity and order into an otherwise chaotic and barbaric means of settling disagreements between nations. This mandate, accepted by virtually all major countries in the world today, bans certain weapons, such as chemical and biological agents, and guarantees basic rights to soldiers in enemy hands. However, despite the wide-spread acceptance of the Geneva Convention, the primary motivating factor appears to be self-preservation; people follow the rules in the hope that should the tides change, their opponents will treat them decently as well. For those with nothing to lose, like terrorists, the Geneva Convention is simply disregarded. The situation with preserving global fisheries does not pose the same imminent alternative of painful death and torture, making it more difficult to ensure compliance.
Another such international mandate is the Kyoto Protocol. Dealing with the carbon emissions of developed nations, this agreement is concerned with staving off the projected disastrous effects of global warming. Each country receives a pre-determined limit on the amount of carbon its factories and industries release into the atmosphere, prompting nations to find more environmentally friendly means of conducting business. Like the case of the ocean's fisheries, the atmosphere is an international resource that is threatened by the actions of every person on Earth, with consequences that can disrupt the livelihood of the entire world. Unfortunately, conforming to the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol is extremely costly; though potentially beneficial in the long term, the immediate costs often deter nations from complying, or even agreeing to the Kyoto Protocol at all. Furthermore, the current punitive measures stated in the agreement have proved to be worthless; nations that exceed their carbon limit are supposed to do better the year after, and the economic sanctions are minor to nonexistent. Aside from being loosely enforced, the punishment itself is counterintuitive. At present, the economic incentives to ignore the Kyoto Protocol have far outweighed the benefits. Saving the Earth is the ideal goal, but between the economy and the environment, we have observed that most nations will consider financial stability a top priority.
Sources: http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=1307667221&sid=5&Fmt=2&clientId=5482&RQT=309&VName=PQD; http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=801652851&sid=5&Fmt=2&clientId=5482&RQT=309&VName=PQD; http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=784211311&sid=5&Fmt=3&clientId=5482&RQT=309&VName=PQD
Our preliminary ideas for a solution (from the international standpoint):
We propose creating an international body under the UN- possibly affiliated with the FAO (but which could also be autonomous) that would regulate/manage/enforce the following treaty that is designed to meet our goals (as of October 29):
1. How do we enforce international fishing regulations, including what technology could be used and where technology could be used?
a. We need to achieve near full compliance from most countries and create incentives to deter flag hopping.
i. China, US, EU, Japan, Russia, Canada, Brazil, South Africa, India, Malaysia, Indonesia, Australia, New Zealand and other countries with large fishing demand*
ii. Offer economic incentives from our regulatory body: trade restrictions on fish/fishing technology placed upon non-compliant countries; similar or more stringent rules apply to countries who sign but flag hop
b. How do we achieve near-full compliance?
i. Treaty/mandate/charter
1. Countries are responsible for all ships that are registered under their flag
2. Cannot register with a noncompliant country
3. Limit what technology can be used where
a. Info from Team 2
4. Fishing quotas for international waters/polar regions
a. Info from other teams on quota success
5. Each countries regulates compliance of ships under its flag by use of
a. Tracking devices
b. Regulatory officers
6. Each country responsible for regulating/measuring/tracking the biodiversity and biomass within coastal regions
7. Funds from dues to research biodiversity/biomass in international and the polar regions
a. How do we track this? Team 10
ii. Financial officers provided to each signatory by the regulatory body to help them balance the demands of the treaty without damaging the economy
1. Committee of experts that deals with case by case
c. Create a body: International Regulatory Commission for Sustainable Fishing (IRCSF)
i. Either autonomous, like NATO
ii. Or a part of the UN, like WHO or UNICEF (suggested)
1. Maybe under or affiliated with the FAO