International Treaty
In Mission, our toughest challenge has been finding a solution to one of the world's greatest problems, the oceans. 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 the Oceans. 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.
Our solution attempts to address a global problem--a problem that will affect billions of people--so we needed an implementation scheme that sought international consensus. Therefore, we are proposing a treaty, as opposed to introducing a new intergovernmental body, specifically because the infrastructure to enact it already exists, thereby increasing the credibility of our solution and the probability of international implementation.
Provisions of the Treaty
The Agreement for the Introduction of Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 Relating to the Preservation of the Oceans will include the aquaculture, marine protected area, climate and environment, fishery management, technology, and additional international cooperation aspects of our solution. Some examples of treaty specifics include:
- The Marine Protected Areas "ten percent plan" requires that 10% of the world oceans should be covered with No-Take Marine Reserves within fifteen years
- Aquaculture facilities will be encouraged an implemented where possible as determined by the Regional Assessment Councils (to be discussed in latter section)
- Signatory States will agree to uphold the articles of this Treaty and thereby enforce them within their territorial waters. A signatory State will not allow fishing fleets to register under the State's flag if that same fleet is registered under a non-signatory State's flag that has been found to violate the Law of the Sea, the Agreement on Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks, or this Treaty.
- Additionally, signatory States agree to stop all import of fish or fishery products that were caught unsustainably as found by this Treaty and the aforementioned UN law.
- Enforcement regulation of IUU fishing by member States (to be discussed under "Enforcement")
- To reduce and contain overfishing, a two phased plan for quotas and taxes will be implemented, requiring first that Individual Transfer Quotas (ITQ) be assigned and assessed by regional councils (to be discussed in latter sections) with a transition into mostly regional taxes.
How to Introduce the Treaty
To implement this Treaty, a Convention of the United Nations must be called, upon which time member states will discuss and debated the merits of the Treaty until a consensus can be reached, as occurred in the Third Convention of the Law of the Sea (Koh).
The Structure, Operations, and Enforcement of the Treaty
The structure of this Treaty calls for the introduction of Regional Assessment Councils (RAC), as well as Regional Tribunals. The RACs are comprised of marine scientists and economic advisors and serve the same purpose as the current Regional Fishing Bodies in use, but will hopefully be more effective. RACs are responsible for regions based on the following criteria:
(if they aren't then they can be party (if they sign LOS, if they dont they can be observers) under part XI, section 4, article 156, Part XVII, article 305, Annex 9, article 1. they can be a part of the LOS under Part XVII, article 305 and annex 9 article 1)
RACs assist countries with the implementation of the Treaty: the Treaty calls for several national measures to be taken, with guidelines for how these should come about. The RACs tailor the Treaty's provision to its member states' capabilities.
Regional Tribunals correspond to the RACs and will be an intermediary for the Tribunal established by LOS. The intention is for the Regional Tribunals to settle disputes more quickly and efficiently because boards will be more familiar with the region's conflicts. If a member chooses to appeal the Regional Tribunal's decision, or if a conflict is inter-regional, then the case will go the Tribunal.
The enforcement of this Treaty to deter IUU practices is two-fold: disputes and suspicions of illegal activity are settled through the Tribunal system, while international enforcement to deter IUU fishing is the responsibility of member states. This Treaty calls for the implementation of regulatory fleets (similar to the U.S. Coast Guard) to patrol the EEZ of a member State. The Treaty encourages the strict enforcement, enabled by GPS tracking, through boat confiscation and freezing of assets. On the high seas, it is any member State's responsibility to report illegal activity to the Tribunals of other member States. If a non-member is found to be defying the regulations outlines by this Treaty or other UN laws relating to the seas, then it is the responsibility of each member State to stop all commercial agreements with this party (as per the aforementioned provisions of the Treaty).
The Argument for a new Treaty
The current Law of the Sea and other maritime legislation governing the international community is simply not effective enough. The current version of the Law of the Sea has been in effect since the early 1980s, but global fish consumption has not decreased, and the ecological degradation to the oceans has only worsened. New action is necessary to save the globe's largest natural resource. The United Nations 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 (in force as from 11 December 2001), which was passed at the United Nations Conference held from 1993-1995, calls for the conservation of fish stocks, one of our primary goals, through vague and insubstantial suggestions: Part II, Article V (an overview of the General Principles of the Agreement), calls for measures to "ensure long-term sustainability of... fish stocks," including protecting biodiversity, assessing the impacts of human activities and environmental factors, preventing overfishing, minimizing pollution and waste deposited in the oceans, adopting "conservation and management measures for species belonging to the same ecosystem or associated with or dependent upon the target stocks," collecting and sharing data on fish stocks in a "timely manner," promoting and conducting research to develop "appropriate" fishery technologies, and implementing and enforcing monitoring and surveillance measures to ensure compliance. This article and others like it in the Agreement and in LOS aim for the same general principles as Mission, but fail to require solid and definitive action.
Tommy T.B. Koh, President of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, said that the Law of the Sea was a "monumental achievement, second only to the Charter of the United Nations" (Koh). Our proposal is equally progressive in an age that may doubt the ability of the international community to take action---but it is possible, and even more importantly, it is necessary.
Our solution is innovative, integrating the newest research, fresh perspectives in international governance, and a true desire to save the oceans. This Treaty is unique in that it attempts to ensure the welfare of the oceans, not just the fisheries.
Membership
Nations with any interest in preserving a resource that billions of people depend on daily will be obligated to sign this document, as it is the only measure currently capable of addressing the global crisis. This Treaty is modeled after science and policy currently being researched and implemented all over the world. In most cases, this Treaty simply improves upon the actions already being taken by states in an attempt to progress existing initiatives.
Additional incentive for member states to join is trade and economic benefits. Precedent shows that major fishing states, such as Japan, Russia, China, the European Commission, Iceland, Indonesia, India, the Maldives, and Malaysia (the United States is preparing to vote on the ratification of the LOS), support UN efforts to preserve the oceans. If these states also sign this Treaty agree to refrain from trade in illegally caught or unsustainably caught fish, which encourages nations with economic interests to sign.
Also important to consider is that proposed treaties are debated and modified in Convention, allowing for more international consensus. The Third Convention on Law of the Sea took nine years to complete, but made history (Koh).
Support and Precedent
Though one of the primary goals of the Mission 2011 team has been developing creative incentives to encourage maximal international support, 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 achieve the same public fervor and rally of support as yet one more means to our end: saving the oceans.
Our solution is also similar to legislation passed in the UN and individual countries. Past UN legislation regarding the oceans has experienced success: the Law of the Sea made history when 119 members signed the very first day, more than any other agreement in the history of the UN (Koh); and the Fish Stocks Agreement, though boasting less signatories, has achieved the support of major fishing nations from across the globe, including the Bahamas, Saint Pierre and Miquelon (via France), Greenland (via Denmark), Faeroe Island (via Denmark), Iceland, Portugal, Japan, Maldives, Kiribati, Montserrat, and Tonga (NMFS, 2006). Additionally, the Magnuson-Steven Act (amended in 2007) of the United States, outlines many of the same provisions as the proposed Treaty, and also clearly supports ratified UN agreements: Section 606 states that, "The President shall utilize appropriate assets of the Department of Defense, the United States Coast Guard, and other Federal agencies to detect, monitor, and prevent violations of the United Nations moratorium on large-scale driftnet fishing on the high seas for all fisheries under the jurisdiction of the United States and, in the case of fisheries not under the jurisdiction of the United States, to the fullest extent permitted under international law" (P.L. 95-265, 2007).
Though our plan proposes measures unprecedented in UN agreements (such as our international tax plan and the firm stance on halting trade of IUU fish), there have been several cases of past radical movements to save the environment, primarily the removal of lead from gasoline, the sharp decrease in CFCs to preserve the ozone layer, and the introduction of dolphin-safe tuna.
There is also support to suggest that world powers, such as the United States, would support the hard restrictions against IUU and unsustainable fish: Section 603 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act states, "The United States, or any agency or official acting on behalf of the United States, may not enter into any international agreement with respect to the conservation and management of living marine resources or the use of the high seas by fishing vessels that would prevent full implementation of the global moratorium on large-scale driftnet fishing on the high seas, as such moratorium is expressed in Resolution 46/215 of the United Nations General Assembly" (P.L. 94-265, 2007).
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%) (IWC, 2007a). Article VIII of the 1946 IWC Convention must be amended to allow this change (IWC, 2007b).
Cooperation Between Developed States and Developing States
One of the most essential challenges facing developing states is the transition from a fish-dominated economy and diet to a less fish-dependent one. After all, for many of these developing states, the cheapest way to acquire protein and generate income is to fish their oceans - fish is free, regenerates without human effort, and comes at no cost to the harvester (no farming, plowing, or planning required). Thus, developing states often do not have incentives or reasons of why they should alter their economy. This is where assistance from developed states should come in.
Under Part XII, Section 3, Articles 202 and 203 require that "States shall, directly or through competent international organizations [which could include the RFB councils we have recommended]: promote programmes of scientific, educational, technical and other assistance to developing States for the protection and preservation of the marine environment and the prevention, reduction and control of marine pollution. Such assistance shall include... training of their scientific and technical personnel; facilitating their participation in relevant international programmes; supplying them with necessary equipment and facilities; enhancing their capacity to manufacture such equipment; advice on and developing facilities for research, monitoring, educational and other programmes... [States shall also give developing nations preferential treatment for] the allocation of appropriate funds and technical assistance; and the utilization of their specialized services" (Division, 1984). Therefore, it is reasonable to enhance the system in which developed nations provide incentives for developing states to shift to more environmentally-sound aquaculture practices and fishing methods. In particular, financial assistance, technical education, and sharing of mutual scientific research are especially called for. The visit of scientific experts qualified in the areas of environmental conservation to developing countries should be sponsored. Moreover, joint ventures between the developing and the developed nations with the aim of creating mutual benefit through environmental conservation (for example: creating marine reserves or assisting with marine tourism in the target country) should be encouraged as a method of cooperation (Agenda 21). Also, developing nations and developed nations may work together in marine research, with developing nations supplying the labor and local knowledge of conducting the scientific experiments and the developed nations providing the experts in guiding and designing the experiments. Eventually, the technology can also shift over so that local experts will be trained and the developing nations will be able to generate research capabilities on their own. This creates revenue and promotes environmentalism amongst the bloc of developing nations. Mission hopes to encourage more collaboration between the developed and the developing worlds in order to stabilize marine ecosystems and eventually global fisheries. This collaboration can be nurtured through communication between the regional councils and continued interaction in the UN.
Preventing Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated Fishing
Especially with an otherwise well-executed solution to sustainable fishing, the Food and Agriculture Association's plan (INTERNATIONAL PLAN OF ACTION TO PREVENT, DETER AND ELIMINATE ILLEGAL, UNREPORTED AND UNREGULATED FISHING, 2001) to prevent illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing will be especially ineffective. The major problem with this solution is that it consists of suggestions without any political or economic influence to assist countries in following the suggestions. We propose the following solution containing inherent economic incentives:
Illegal Fishing Discipline
An enforcement agency in each state will be charged with the enforcement of fishing regulations. A fleet of boats will patrol waters and apprehend boats who are engaged in activities that have been defined as illegal. Subsequently, the vessel, fishing materials, and catch will be seized. The fishing vessel, materials, and catch can then be sold and the funds can be used to support the enforcement agency and any additional funds can be used for fisheries research or fishery restoration.
This method has precedent in the seizure of cars used for drug transport and their sale at public auction in the United States. In justification of the sale of the catch (which may be controversial as they were caught illegally), as the fish are already dead, no benefit is derived from tossing them back into the water; thereby, with the goal of creating revenue that can be used for further enforcement, research, and fishery protection, we recommend the sale of the confiscated catch.
Flag-Hopping Deterrent
A State should pass a law making flag-hopping to a country which does not abide by international fishery law (such as Law of the Sea) and management practices illegal. As such, any vessel or company which adopts a flag-of-convenience under such a country has committed a crime under the host nation. That State should then freeze the assets of the company or individual responsible until the time when that party renders to the government the fishing vessel(s) and fishing materials. The government may then sell the seized vessels and materials or use them as it sees fit.
The benefits of this are that the State does not need to expend resources to chase down boats that have adopted such flags-of-convenience, and it will gain revenue from the seizure of the those illegal assets. Furthermore, political pressure applied from banks to refrain from seizing assets (since a major draw to banks is their security and the promise that one?s funds will always be
available) can be countered by an advertising/political campaign that portrays banks as wishing to keep criminals solvent (consider public disapproval of Swiss banks protecting Nazi funds).
Developing Natoins
We recognize that developing nations would most likely disregard this policy, since they would desire the most possible assets in the shortest possible time in order to become fully developed. Therefore, we propose that an investment system by adjacent developed countries should be implemented. The adjacent developed countries would loan a large sum of money to the developing country to help establish IUU policies in developing nation and modernize the nation. Both companies would subsequently benefit economically: the developed through interest on the investment and through maintaining its mutual fish stock with the adjacent developing country, and the developing country through initial capital and later fish availability.
Works Cited
United Nations Division for Sustainable Development. (2004). Agenda 21, Chapter 34. Retrieved November 21, 2007, from http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/agenda21/english/agenda21chapter34.htm.
International Whaling Commission. (2007). Scientific Permits. Retrieved November 19, 2007, from http://www.iwcoffice.org/conservation/permits.htm.
International Whaling Commission. (2007). Whale Population Estimates. Retrieved November 19, 2007, from http://www.iwcoffice.org/conservation/estimate.htm.
Borger, J. (2001, March 29). Bush Kills Global Warming Treaty. The Guardian Unlimited: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2001/mar/29/globalwarming.usnews.
Cornwall, W. (2007, October 29). Seattle Meets Kyoto Global-Warming Targets. The Seattle Times: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003982047_webkyoto29m.html.
Doerr, J. (2006, September 3). California's Global-Warming Solution. Time Magazine: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1531324,00.html.
Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative: An Initiative of the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic States of the U.S. Retrieved November 16, 2007, from web site: http://www.rggi.org/index.htm.
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.
Division of Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea. (10 December 1984). United Nations Convention on The Law of the Sea. Retrieved 12 November 2007, from http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_overview_convention.htm.