The Oceans

The oceans are on the verge of complete collapse, a fact substantiated by multiple reports: the decrease in biodiversity due to overfishing and invasive species, the chemical threats of global warming and pollution, and destructive and increasingly efficient fishing technology - among other causes - have been found to fundamentally alter the state of the oceans in a decidedly negative manner.

The Pew Oceans Commission is a part of a highly respected U.S. based independent nonprofit trust that focuses on solving and educating the public on today's most challenging problems. The "Policy" page of the "Protecting Ocean Life" section clearly defines the current problem:
"Marine life is threatened by human activity and has become more endangered than ever before. A recent study in the journal Science found that over the centuries humans have caused the depletion of 90 percent of the ocean's large predators, the elimination of 65 percent of seagrass and wetland habitat, the degradation of water quality 10- to 1,000-fold, and the acceleration of species invasions in 12 major estuaries and coastal seas around the world" (Pew).

Findings released more than a year ago in Science provide overwhelming evidence that loss in marine biodiversity, which is "directly caused by exploitation, pollution, and habitat destruction, or indirectly through climate change and related perturbations of ocean biochemistry" (Worm et al., 2006, p. 787), leads to significant overall decrease in productivity. This decrease in biodiversity and subsequent decrease in productivity, as well as the disruption of ocean currents from global pollution (Pew), directly impacts all of humanity, from those who eat and catch fish to land-locked nations without any immediate connection to the fishing industry. Boris Worm, the scientist who introduced the idea of "no fish by 2050," has been quoted as saying, "We're going to run out of viable fisheries, out of all seafood species by the year 2050" (ScienCentral, 2006). In conjunction with several others, Worm wrote the article in Science relating the devastating effect of the loss of biodiversity:
"Human-dominated marine ecosystems are experiencing accelerating loss of populations and species, with largely unknown consequences. We analyzed local experiments, long-term regional time series, and global fisheries data to test how biodiversity loss affects marine ecosystem services across temporal and spatial scales. Overall, rates of resource collapse increased and recovery potential, stability, and water quality decreased exponentially with declining diversity. Restoration of biodiversity, in contrast, increased productivity fourfold and decreased variability by 21%, on average. We conclude that marine biodiversity loss is increasingly impairing the ocean's capacity to provide food, maintain water quality, and recover from perturbations. Yet available data suggest that at this point, these trends are still reversible" (Worm et al., 2006, p. 787).

(CHILD PAGE 1 FOR PRESENT STARTS HERE)

The World Fisheries

"In 2000, the FAO stated that 72% of the world's marine fish resources are either fully exploited or in decline. This state of overexploitation has led to practices in cascade fishing, where smaller, immature individuals or different stocks of lesser value and quality replace the former stocks that existed in higher trophic levels. Thus, leading to the current declining trend in fish harvest from high-value demersal fish to lower-value pelagic fish" (Duke). According to statistics from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which manages U.S. fisheries, the tonnage of fish caught in American fisheries from 1950 to 2006 has nearly doubled to more than 4.3 million tons per year, with a peak in 1997 at nearly 4.8 million tons (NOAA, 2007), yet because of this increase in production, the fish stocks have decreased by 90% since 1950 (Big-Fish, 2003). "Only 10 percent of all large fish - both open ocean species including tuna, swordfish, marlin and the large groundfish such as cod, halibut, skates and flounder - are left in the sea" (Big-Fish, 2003). The fisheries are as susceptible to collapse as the ecosystems upon which they depend.

Fish Consumption

One of the largest problems the oceans face today is the increasing demand for fish products. As stocks are continuously fished beyond sustainable levels and demand increases, fish populations worldwide face the possibility of collapse.

"Global consumption of fish has doubled since 1973, and the developing world has been responsible for nearly all of this growth. Countries with rapid population growth, rapid income growth, and urbanization tend to have the greatest increases in consumption of animal products, including fish products, and the developing world has experienced all three trends. China, where income growth and urbanization have been major factors, dominates consumption of fish products. It accounted for about 36 percent of global consumption in 1997, compared with only 11 percent in 1973. India and Southeast Asia together accounted for another 17 percent in 1997, with total consumption doubling since 1973.  Although total fish consumption declined somewhat in developed countries, this decline was dwarfed by increase in the developing world" (Ahmed et al., 2003). Without curbing the demand, it is these developing nations that will feel the full force of ecosystem failure.

Image from: ICES Stock Summary Database.

This graph clearly depicts the general decline in cod stocks over the last 50 years.  In some cases, the drop represents more than half the initial overall biomass.

Sport Fishing

Sport fishing presents a much larger problem for the world's fisheries than most people realize. It is true that recreational fishing accounts for only 4% of the total fish landed in the United States, but when large industrial fisheries, such as menhaden and pollock, are excluded, that figure rises to 10% (Coleman, Figueira, Ueland, Crowder, 2004). In certain regions, the numbers are even more frightening; recreational fishermen catch 38% of all fish landed in the South Atlantic, and a full 64% in the Gulf of Mexico (Coleman et al. 2004). These figures do not even include all of the fish thrown overboard dead by fishermen due to current sport fishing regulations, such as bag and size limits (Coleman, et al. 2004). Additionally, recreational fishing typically affects only top-level predators, such as marlin, red drum, and red snapper, as opposed to commercial fishing which affects lower-level fish as well. This causes "cascading trophic effects" that can drastically alter marine systems, affecting millions of other fish and humans as well. To make matters worse, sport and recreational fishing are actually growing: 9% in the past five years (NOAA, 2006). Clearly, this is an area the world can no longer ignore.

"Flag Hopping" and Fishing Under Flags of Convenience

Major problems facing the enforcement of international fishing regulations are "flag hopping" and fishing under flags of convenience.  These phenomena are direct results of many countries opening their ship registries to fishing companies of other nationalities. Countries can make money from the registry of foreign ships, so the practice of open registry has become 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 and are not parties to relevant international treaties.  This means that fishing companies that register under the flags 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 with no fear of repercussion, and if the country of registry decides that it wishes 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 limits the effects of fishing regulations (Desombre, 2005).

World Fish Production

Figure-1

Figure-2

Figure-3

Table-1

Current Catch

Figures 1 and 2 indicate that the overall amount of fish being sold on the world market is increasing every year. The amount of fish pulled from our oceans is beginning to level off while the amount of fish provided by aquaculture is increasing, but the oceans still cannot support the amount of fishing humanity is doing. This means that the amount of fish being pulled from the ocean currently (wild catch) must decrease for ecosystems to stabilize.

Currently, there about 132.5 millions tons of fish is produced annually worldwide. Of that, 42.3 million tons, or nearly one third of the total, was produced by aquaculture.

Figure-4

Figure-5

Figure 4 shows that rate of growth of per-capita fish production has slowed over the past thirty years. The amount of fish per person has gone up, but the amount of that provide by capture fisheries has remained constant over the years. The amount of fish per person has grown because of the increased supply of fish provided by aquaculture. Because the population is still increasing, the world's demand for fish is increasing. If the amount of fish pulled from the ocean remains constant, as it has over the last 20 or so years, the amount of fish per person will begin to drop, which will cause people to starve, economies to collapse, and our fish stocks to become depleted.

Figure-6

Figure-7

China is a major fish producer but it is also a major consumer. Over the last few years, China has been placing increasing emphasis on aquaculture, which has caused the amount of fish it produces to increase overall while the wild catch has leveled off.

All facts and figures from this section come from the supplied tables.

(CHILD PAGE 1 FOR PRESENT ENDS HERE)

(CHILD PAGE 2 FOR PRESENT STARTS HERE)

International Cooperation

Currently, there are several international organizations working towards aspects of our goal to save the oceans. The UN has employed several research and management groups and and has set out governance of the oceans by the Law of the Sea and subsequent agreements and annexes. Other organizations for the protection of the oceans include regional fishery bodies (RFBs), also known as regional fishery management councils.

Current International Legislation

The Law of the Sea is a complex and comprehensive document that, when put into action after the Convention on the Law of the Sea in 1982, formalized traditional maritime law and outlined rules for the conduct of nations as it relates to boundaries, deep seabed mining, passage through territorial zones, settlement of international disputes, and marine research, among other topics. The Law of the Sea Treaty "marked the culmination of more than 14 years of work involving participation by more than 150 countries representing all regions of the world, all legal and political systems and the spectrum of socio/economic development" (Oceans and LOS, 2007).

The territorial sea is a region up to but not exceeding 12 nautical miles from a baseline, defined in Part I of the LOS as "the low-water line along the coast as marked on large-scale charts officially recognized by the coastal State." Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ) are areas not exceeding 200 nautical miles from the baseline in which the coastal state has exclusive mining rights to natural resources. While coastal states maintain sovereignty over their territorial seas, foreign vessels are permitted "innocent passage" without prejudice.

The International Seabed Authority

The International Seabed Authority is a technically autonomous organization created to fulfill Part XI of the UN Law of the Sea treaty. The Authority controls the extraction of minerals and other natural resources from the seabed outside EEZs. The Authority is comprised of five main governing bodies, including the Assembly, the Council, the Legal and Technical Commission, the Finance Commission, and the Secretariat.

The Assembly

"The Assembly of the Authority, its 'supreme organ' with the power to establish general policies, consists of all ISA members. This membership is composed of all parties to the Law of the Sea Convention, numbering 153 at the end of February 2007" (ISA, 2007).

The Council

"As 'the executive organ of the Authority', the Council establishes specific policies in conformity with the Convention and the general policies set by the Assembly. It supervises and coordinates implementation of the elaborate regime established by the Convention to promote and regulate exploration for and exploitation of deep-sea minerals by States, corporations and other entities. Under this system, no such activity may legally take place until contracts have been signed between each interested entity and the Authority. The Council's task is to draw up the terms of contracts, approve contract applications, oversee implementation of the contracts, and establish environmental and other standards" (ISA, 2007).

The Secretariat

The Secretary-General implements Authority policies, external relations, protocol matters, liaison and representation of the Authority.

UN Organizations

The UN has several branches to conduct research, create law, enforce treaties, and settle disputes regarding the Law of the Sea and subsequent treaties relating to the oceans, coasts, and marine life.

UN-OCEANS encompasses most UN operations relating to the oceans. After the UN Conference on Environment and Development in 1992, Agenda 21 - "an international programme of action for global sustainable development for the 21st century" - was adopted (UN-OCEANS, 2005). Chapter 17 of Agenda 21 calls for protection of the oceans, resulting in the formation of the Sub-committee on Oceans and Coastal Areas of the Administrative Committee on Coordination (ACC SOCA) in 1993. Due to the extensive number of agencies and committees already addressing the issue of the oceans and the need for a "new inter-agency coordinating mechanism," in September 2003, "the United Nations High-Level Committee on Programmes approved the creation of an Oceans and Coastal Areas Network (subsequently named 'UN-OCEANS') to build on SOCA" (UN-OCEANS, 2005). As stated on its Web site, UN-OCEANS has been established to:

• Strengthen coordination and cooperation of United Nations activities [and secretariats of international organizations and bodies] related to oceans and coastal areas;
• Review the relevant programmes and activities of the United Nations system, undertaken as part of its contribution to the implementation of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), Agenda 21 and the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation;
• Identify emerging issues, define joint actions and establish specific task teams to deal with these, as appropriate;
• Promote the integrated management of oceans at the international level...;
• Promote the coherence of United Nations system activities on oceans and coastal area... (UN-OCEANS, 2005).

The partners and/or potential partners of the UN-OCEANS program, which includes any agency expressing a will to be included, are the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN-DESA), the UN Division of Ocean Affairs and Law of the Sea (UN-DOALOS), the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), the UN Environmental Program (UNEP), the World Bank (IBRD), the International Maritime Organization (IMO), the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), the UN Development Program (UNDP), the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the International Seabed Authority (ISA), the International Labor Organization (ILO), the UN Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), the World Trade Organization (WTO), the World Health Organization (WHO), the UN Human Settlements Program ("UN-HABITAT"), the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), the UN University, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), and the International Hydrographic Organization (IHO).

The Fisheries and Aquaculture Departmentof the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN focuses on sustainable fisheries and aquaculture production to meet the needs of the world's population. The department's goals include creating jobs to alleviate poverty, bolstering international trade and economies, and providing a sustainable fish supply. The department has also created a Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries.

Within this Code of Conduct, several International Plans of Action (IPOAs), which would apply to "all States and entities and to all fishers," have been suggested. 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 license and quotas. The suggested action to be taken currently involves assessing and monitoring fishing capacity as well as preparing and implementing national plans (Fisheries and Aquaculture Department, 2007). 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 facing the actual implementation of these proposals. Unfortunately, no specific plans have been on proposed, hence the need for further reforms.

Another IPOA involves shark fisheries. Until recently, sharks had been fished sustainably. At present, however, more effort is being put into shark fishing, and the areas in which shark fishing is done have expanded.  There is cause for concern that some shark species are in danger of being overfished. Sharks have particularly long recovery times after they have been overfished. "Conservation and management of sharks is impaired by the lack of accurate data on catch, effort, discards, and trade data, as well as limited information on the biological parameters of many species and their identification."  (Fisheries and Aquaculture Department, 2007) In this case, the UN has proposed no cooperative international plan.  Rather, the organization suggests that each state be responsible for creating its own plan for managing shark fisheries.

The IPOA for Seabirds aims to reduce the number of birds caught accidentally in commercial longline fisheries.  These birds are a form of bycatch. Among the species most frequently caught throughout the world are albatrosses, fulmars, petrels and gulls. The UN recognizes that the situation could result in negative impacts on seabird populations. As with the IPOA-Sharks, there are no distinct international plans requiring collaboration, though national action within states is highly recommended after further assessment of the situation (Fisheries and Aquaculture Department, 2007).

A final and essential IPOA supported by the Fisheries and Aquaculture Department is the International Plan of Action to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing (IPOA-IUU). Fishing that occurs under any of these categories severely hinders any efforts to conserve fish species and promote sustainable fishing. "This situation leads to the loss of both short and long-term social and economic opportunities and to negative effects on food security and environmental protection." (Fisheries and Aquaculture Department, 2007).

Illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing is defined as fishing within the waters of a state without permission of and against the laws of that state, along with non-reported and misreported catches, and fish stocks with no conservation measures (International Plan Of Action to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing, 2001). IUU fishing is a major threat to the world's oceans. For example, the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC) estimates that nearly 20% of the 2001 trade in redfish was illegal, unreported, or unregulated, and the International Council for the Exploration of the Seas (ICES) Baltic Fisheries Assessment Working Group estimates that the actual value of Baltic cod catches are 35% to 45% higher than the reported values (ICES, 2005). Most strikingly, the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) estimates that between 1997 and 2000 about 90 kilotonnes of toothfish was taken from the oceans in an illegal manner, more than twice the reported catch for the same period (ICES, 2005).

The UN has responded to IUU fishing with the IPOA-IUU.  In this case, international cooperation is imperative. Unfortunately, no binding resolutions have been created to control IUU fishing.  The sanctions that the IPOA-IUU levies against violators are not enough to prevent them from participating in IUU fishing (Finding Nemo...and Eating Him: The Failure of the United Nations to Force Internalization of the Negative Social Costs that Result from Overfishing).

The UN Environmental Programfocuses on scientific issues. Though the UNEP is not currently heading any projects on the oceans, they are one of the UN organizations supporting GESAMP (see below).

The Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection, or GESAMP, is a research team that works on the science of sustainable oceans. GESAMP is a joint initiative supported by several UN organizations, including UNEP, FAO, the International Maritime Organization (IMO), the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (UNESCO-IOC), the World Meteorological Organization (WMO)), the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and the UN Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO).

Regional Fishery Bodies (RFBs)

Regional fishery bodies are essential to the protection of marine resources and the management of the oceans.

The FAO includes six RFBs:

• Fishery Committee for the Eastern Central Atlantic (CECAF)
• Western Central Atlantic Fishery Commission (WECAFC)
• Indian Ocean Fishery Commission (IOFC)
• Asia-Pacific Fishery Commission (APFIC)
• General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM)
• Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC)

There are many additional RFBs which are not connected to the FAO.

source: http://www.fao.org/fi/body/rfb/Big_RFB_map.htm

The 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea established that RFBs should have a set of "instruments" with which to protect and manage fisheries through international cooperation. Since then these instruments have been added to by several conventions:

1992 - Rio Declaration and Agenda 21 adopted by the United Nations Conference on the Environment and Development
1993 - Agreement to Promote Compliance with International Conservation and Management Measures by Fishing Vessels on the High Seas
1995 - Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries
1995 - Rome Consensus on World Fisheries
1995 - Kyoto Declaration and Plan of Action on the Sustainable Contribution of Fisheries to Food Security
1995 - Agreement for the Implementation of the Provision of the United Nations Convention of the Law of 10 December 1982 Relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks

These committees dealt with several issues including excess fleet capacity, bycatch and discards, and monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS). They also place more emphasis on the importance of the RFBs and increase their allocated abilities to control fisheries. They also impose certain restrictions on the RFBs: only members of RFBs can legally utilize resources under the control of a RFB. An RFB's actions must be transparent and use a precautionary approach to the management of fisheries. Nations under RFBs are also required to create a framework for carrying out MCS and enforcing international fishing agreements.

However, to this point RFBs have been largely ineffective for a number of reasons, the foremost of which is that few of the RFBs have actually utilized the instruments provided to them by the above agreements.  Most RFB mandates only allow them to provide suggestions to their member nations. Also, many RFBs have as members nations with conflicting interests, which has bred inefficiency. In many cases member nations have even refused to abide by the decisions of their RFBs.

The use of RFBs to promote regional cooperation and implementation of international fishery agreements is still a promising idea. In order for their potential to be met, they must be made much more powerful and gain the ability to utilize the instruments given to them by international agreements (Role of Regional Fishing Bodies, 1999).

International Council for the Exploration of the Seas

The International Council for the Exploration of the Seas (ICES) is a scientific organization based in Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES "coordinates and promotes marine research in the North Atlantic" with the help and expertise of more than 1600 scientists from its twenty member countries ("About us - What do we do?").[1] ICES uses its research to create cohesive marine management plans for its members.

Vision and Goals

The ICES vision is to develop "an international scientific community that is relevant, responsive, sound, and credible concerning marine ecosystems and their relation to humanity." The organization hopes to achieve the vision by advancing "the scientific capacity to give advice on human activities affecting, and affected by, marine ecosystems" (The ICES Strategic Plan, 2002). Specifically, ICES has defined ten major goals in its Strategic Plan:

Understand the physical, chemical, and biological functioning of marine ecosystems;
Understand and quantify human impacts on marine ecosystems, including living marine resources;
Evaluate options for sustainable marine-related industries, particularly fishing and mariculture;
Advise on the sustainable use of living marine resources and protection of the marine environment;
Enhance collaboration with organizations, scientific programs, and stake-holders (including the fishing industry) that are relevant to the ICES goals;
Maintain and further develop a modern and effective infrastructure to support ICES programs;
Keep abreast of the needs and expectations of ICES member countries;
Broaden the diversity of the scientists who participate in ICES activities;
Match the budget of ICES to the needs and expectations for scientific information and advice;
Make the scientific products of ICES more accessible to the public.

(The ICES Strategic Plan, 2002)
ICES has defined three major steps to implement these goals: create specific action plans that "relate activities and costs to the Strategic Plan," monitor the success of its Strategic Plan and update the Plan as necessary (The ICES Strategic Plan, 2002).

Organization

The three Advisory Committees oversee the work of all of ICES's scientific and working groups ("About us - ICES Structure"). The Advisory Committees, on fishery management, marine environment, and ecosystem management, each work to support one of the three major components of ICES advice.

Advice

The biggest benefit that ICES provides to the world of marine management is its advice service. ICES primarily gives advice in response to requests by member nations, but it may issue unsolicited advice if it feels the need (ICES, 2006). ICES has historically given advice based on single or mixed stock population and mortality targets, but is now beginning to introduce a comprehensive, ecosystem-based approach to its advice (ICES, 2006).

An ICES advice report is given for a specific region of the ocean that has unique ecological and social characteristics. These regions are referred to as "ecoregions" by ICES (ICES, 2006). Each ecoregion report contains an overview section, a report on human impacts on the region, and an assessment of ecological trends in the region and advice based upon those trends.

All ICES advice starts with analysis of single and mixed stock statistics (most notably fishing mortality and spawning stock biomass). The analysis combines publicly available catch data with internal estimates for unaccounted fishing mortality (UFM) to create estimates for the stock's fishing mortality rate. ICES uses historical records to develop critical limits on the spawning stock biomass; outside these limits the stock is considered to have "reduced reproductive capability" (ICES, 2006). The stock is then classified based on its reproductive capacity and ability remain stable under current fishing pressure (ICES, 2006). These stock parameters are also used to set boundaries on fishing mortality rates and spawning stock biomass values for use in management plans.

ICES continues by analyzing the effectiveness of different management plans for their ability to improve the health of the stock and their compliance with any international or national agreements to which the ecoregion may be subject. In general, plans are considered acceptable if they show that there is very little (less than 5%) chance that the plan will result in a spawning stock biomass less than the already defined critical level (ICES, 2006).

After selecting a management plan for each stock, scientists examine the effects of stock interaction and adjust their models accordingly. In the final phase, the effects of the management plan on the ecosystem are examined. Because this portion of the review is new, concrete standards have not been defined, and ways to quantify impacts on the ecosystem are still being researched. If findings show that the health of the ecosystem warrants special restrictions, however, those restrictions are incorporated into the management plan (ICES, 2006).

Footnotes
[1] Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States of America are members of ICES. Australia, Chile, Greece, New Zealand, Peru, and South Africa are affiliate countries.

(CHILD PAGE 2 FOR PRESENT ENDS HERE)

(CHILD PAGE 3 FOR PRESENT STARTS HERE)

Subsidies

Many countries subsidize their fishing industries because of the important roles they play in the economy and food supply. Annual subsidies for fishing amount to about $26 billion world wide, only $7 billion of which goes towards fisheries management and the support of conservation. On the other hand, $16 billion is going towards the sponsorship of fishing fleets, thus encouraging the global fishing effort and increasing fishing capacity (Sumaila & Pauly, 2006).

Fishing subsidies come in many forms. Direct government payments to the industry reduce operating costs of fishing vessels in order to encourage fishing. Such assistance includes grants made for the purchase of new fishing vessels, vessel decommissioning payments (buybacks), fishermen's unemployment insurance, compensation for closed seasons, equity infusions, and price support programs (Schrank, 2003). When implemented by developed countries for their distant water fleets (DWF), they provide an advantage over the fishing boats of developing countries. Indirect financial assistance comes in the form of subsidizing shipbuilders and fish processors, credit and loan assistance, and tax reductions. Governments can also help their fishermen by imposing trade restrictions such as import tariffs, which ensures that prices for foreign fish are not lower than prices for domestic fish, and import quotas, which restricts the number of fish that can be imported.

Almost half of the subsidies issued in the world are granted by 38 different developed nations. The other half is accounted for by 103 developing countries. This disparity only increases the advantages fishing fleets of developed nations have over their developing world counterparts.

In France, construction subsidies are directed at DWFs catching tuna in the Indian Ocean with purse seines. Furthermore, the government sponsors the deflagging of its own ships so that the vessels can be recommissioned under the flags of other countries. Spain, too, offers up to a 55% construction subsidy and subsidizes joint ventures with Angola, Algeria, Argentina, the Falkland Islands, Morocco, Mauritania, Senegal, Namibia, and other countries in Africa and South America, mainly to catch shrimp. A one-third reduction in the Spanish fishing fleet is due to reflagging and recommissioning (MRAG, 2000). Vessel operators only pay about one third of the fees associated with obtaining a license and permit to fish in another country's waters. In offering these subsidies, countries are essentially encouraging the flag hopping that was discussed earlier. Furthermore, this increases the fishing capacity of countries that are already undercompensated; in 1996, Guinea Bissau only received 1% of the profits made from the tuna caught in its waters (Kura et al., 2006).

The U.S. and Canadian governments have also provided subsidies to promote domestic fishery development for many years.  In addition, they have also used approximately $3 billion on income maintenance for unemployed fishermen and fish plant workers and to improve fishery science. Starting in the 1960s, most subsidies were intended to expand the fishing industry by, for example, helping fishermen buy boats and sell their catches at lower prices. Nevertheless, in the 1990s, when people started to realize the problem of overfishing, both countries began to subsidize the fishing industry with buyback programs to reduce the size of fishing fleets.  Although these subsidies were introduced in response to the problem of overfishing, most subsidies in both countries are still intended to expand the fishing industry (Schrank, 2003).

Norway, one of the largest cod-catching countries, grants loans to its fishing industry to protect its domestic fish production. It also provides price support, insurance subsidies, operating subsidies, minimum income guarantees, vacation support and unemployment insurance, bait subsidies, gear subsidies and damage compensation (Schrank, 2003).

In view of the harmful nature of some subsidies, the World Trade Organization advised its members to restrict subsidies designed to promote exports and established controls over all other forms of subsidies. However, Japan and the United States, which are the main decision-makers of the World Trade Organization, endorse the "no-need approach" in which they propose no restriction of subsidies as they dispute the causal link between subsidies and overexploitation of fish resources. They suggest that poor fishery management, instead of subsidies, is the main cause of overfishing. Therefore, they propose that regulatory regimes including catch controls (quotas), effort controls (restrictions on boat size, engine power and days at sea, etc.) and right-based structures (permits, individual transferable quotas, etc.) should be implemented to improve fishery management. Therefore, it is difficult to internationally restrict fishing subsidies (Benitah, 2004).

(CHILD PAGE 3 FOR PRESENT ENDS HERE)

(CHILD PAGE 4 FOR PRESENT STARTS HERE)

Fishing Technology

Modern fishing technology was built to catch as many fish as possible as efficiently as possible, and it is very effective at doing this. Unfortunately, it achieves this effectiveness at the expense of the health of ocean ecosystems. The three main problems of current fishing technology are: the destruction of the ocean floor and environs, ghost fishing, and bycatch.

Destruction of the ocean floor and environs

The main cause of this part of the problem is a fishing method called bottom trawling. Bottom trawling is usually done by one or two fishing vessels with a large net that is dragged along the bottom for a few hours at a speed of three or four knots. Target species vary widely, and can include orange roughy, hoki, ling, hake, and squid (Starfish, 2003). There are several types of bottom trawls: dredging, beam trawls, and demersal otter trawls. Each of these methods involves scraping the ocean floor with a rigid metal frame, causing massive damage (FishOnline, 2007). Some of the newest equipment is even worse; "rockhopper" equipment, which is used in areas that have rough terrain,  rolls weighty wheels over the sea floor, crushing anything in their way (Safina). Unfortunately, bottom trawling is the world's most lucrative fishing method, and so is quickly replacing much more ocean-floor-friendly methods like hook-and-line and trapping (Gabriel, 2005; Safina, p. 4).

Bottom trawls can dig up to several inches into the seabed, disrupting the bottom habitat and the animals that live there, including unique structures made by living creatures. Trawls kill marine life, destroying food sources and shelters, endangering young fish and thus future generations of ocean fauna (Safina, 5). Lab studies of the relationship between sea floor composition and predation showed that more complex habitats like rocks, rather than simple habitats like sand or mud, gave prey fish like young cod more time to escape their predators (Safina). Some areas of the oceans are trawled as many as 8 times per year. Each trawl pass kills between 5 and 20% of the marine life on the sea floor, so that even a single year's trawling can completely destroy the bottom life (Safina, p. 7-8). Deeper areas are affected even more; a study by Watling reveals that "certain bottom communities may need as much as a century" to recover (Safina, p. 18).

Dragging metal frames along the ocean floor also kicks up a cloud of sediment. While this does make the nets more efficient, as the dirt helps bring fish into the net, it also causes numerous problems. The increased amount of particles suspended in the water can diminish light levels and stifle bottom-dwelling inhabitants (Jones, 1992). Trawl gear can also redistribute vertical layers of sediment, mixing organic material into the water and creating anaerobic conditions that can kill scallop larvae (Jones, 1992).

The dragging metal frame of bottom trawlers indirectly kills significant quantities of ocean life, including commercial fish such as cod. Is it not, then, in the interest of everyone to find a way to fish without destroying the ocean floor?

Source: http://www.lophelia.org/conservation/threats_bt_d1.htm
A bottom trawling net with rock-hopping gear that leaves a path of destruction.

Ghost Fishing

Fishing nets and traps today are made of durable polymer fibers, built to last. While this seems great at first, this durability can kill millions of fish and other organisms. When fishing nets or traps are lost due to storms or negligence, they actually continue to catch fish (Gabriel, 2005). And thanks to those polymer fibers, they can keep catching fish or crabs or other life for months or years. To make matters worse, many traps and nets become self-baiting: fish become trapped in the gear and die, other fish come to feed on the dead fish, become trapped themselves, and continue the cycle until the net becomes completely full (Matsuoka, 2005). This is called "ghost fishing," and it is probably the most frustrating problem plaguing the fishing industry today. Hundreds or thousands of fish or crustaceans can be caught in a single net, and the fish aren't even used in any way; they are completely wasted. According to Laist (1996), fish deaths caused by ghost fishing may be up to 30% as large as annual landings in some areas. Some countries, such as Sweden, Poland, New Zealand, and the United States, have already instated gear retrieval programs to try to address the issue of ghost fishing, but more, and more universal, measures will be needed if we want to completely solve the problem (Brown and Macfadyen, 2007).

Bycatch

Every fishing method has potential to catch and kill non-target fauna, called bycatch. It is by far the most widespread of the technology-related propblems (Gabriel, 2005).

Most commercial fishing methods today involve dragging an enormous net through vast amounts of water. Inevitably, these nets will catch fish other than those species the fishermen want. In 2005 alone, 7.3 million tons of commercially viable fish were discarded into the ocean (ICES 2005). This would be fine, if the fish were able to survive to breed or be caught later. However, despite federal regulations that bycatch be returned to the ocean as "unharmed as possible," most fish thrown back are either already dead or die shortly afterwards (Turning a Blind Eye, p. 1-3). Ironically, such discards are often the result of regulations that are trying to limit overfishing by placing quotas on the amount or minimum size of fish a boat can bring in (ICES, 2005).

High mortality rates for non-target fish species can change the ecology of an area by changing food web relationships, altering predator-prey interactions, and destroying the environment. In the long term, bycatch can lead to overfishing, decreased productivity, and reduction in the size of the total catch (Turning A Blind Eye, p. 5). Almost 1,000 marine mammals, many of which are from critically endangered species, die every day after becoming tangled in fishing equipment. The largest threat facing marine animals is the possibility of being caught as bycatch, rather than pollution or collisions with ships (Verrengia, p. 4).

Clearly, bycatch is a problem that must be addressed if we are to live in a world of sustainable fisheries.

Photograph from NOAA.
Bycatch includes everything from sand dollars to sea turtles.

Fish Tracking

Basics of Population Tracking

Population tracking is not limited to fish. In its simplest form, population tracking is the collection of basic information, such as density and distribution, about a population. There are several methods for population tracking; the most common are mark-recapture sampling, distance sampling, and index sampling.

Mark-recapture sampling involves capturing an individual, marking it in some manner (typically with a unique tag), and then releasing it back into the wild. When samples are taken later, the ratio of tagged individuals to untagged individuals can be used to create estimates of population size and density. Distance sampling involves taking visual counts of individuals while traveling along a predetermined path; the population size and density can be estimated using algorithms that account for differences in visibility between individuals close to the path and those further away. Finally, index sampling involves measuring the density of the effects of individuals (such as footprints for bears or nests for birds), and then extrapolating that data to get total population and distribution estimates (Elzinga, Salzer, Willoughby, & Gibbs).

Current State of Fish Tracking

Today, both scientists and commercial fishermen track fish. While both use sonar for biomass estimates, fishermen use the estimates to "catch fish more effectively, while scientists use [the data] to study fish distribution and estimate stock abundance" (ICES, 2006). Scientists also use larger-scale methods to survey fish populations, such as trawl surveys and tagging projects.

Trawl Surveys

Trawl surveys are large-scale research efforts that can provide scientists with data on the types of fish, numbers of fish, and characteristics of fish in a given region. They have immense value; NOAA trawl surveys, for example, yield information for nearly 200 species (NOAA).

Trawl surveys are generally short in duration; NOAA uses a thirty-minute trawl (NOAA). ICES data indicates that trawl surveys are generally better with shorter durations than with longer durations, as the short duration gives a more precise point assessment and reduces the number of individual fish that are collected, reducing the work load on the scientists conducting the survey (ICES, 2005).

While there are many variations in trawl survey design, most consist of a short bottom trawl using commercial trawling gear. Following a predetermined course, the trawler makes repeated short trawls, analyzing the collected sample after each trawl. All of the fish in the trawl are counted, measured, and weighed, and then a small subsample is selected to be dissected to reveal age, diet, and health information (NOAA).

Research by ICES indicates that the distribution of fish species is dependent on depth and seafloor characteristics (ICES, 2005). Thus, an optimal survey would take into account depth and seafloor sediment type.

Tagging Projects

While trawl surveys produce large amounts of data on the distribution of fish, they cannot determine fish migratory patterns. Such information can be provided by a tagging project (Swain & Caradine, 1960). Tagging surveys allow scientists to record locations for capture and release, as well as vital data, such as length and weight, about each fish at both capture and release. The scientists can then use the data to document migration paths (Schwarz, Schweigert, & Arnason, 1993).

Tags come in two main classes: passive and active. There are many examples of passive tags; widely used varieties include pieces of plastic with identifying numbers that get attached to the fish and simple identifying paint marks on fish (Swain & Caradine, 1960). Another form of passive tags, known as PITs, is a bit more complex. PITs, or passive integrated transponders, are passive tags similar to RFID tags that have an embedded unique identification number and can be read electronically (Roussel, Haro, & Cunjak, 2000). Active tags, or tags that require a power source, are much more advanced than passive tags. Active tags currently deployed in some studies are capable of recording both water temperature and depth (Godo & Michalsen, 2000). These tags have advanced in recent years; some can now detect distance to the seafloor while others are capable of uploading data to satellites while the fish are in the ocean (Block, Dewar, Farwell, & Prince, 1998).

Problems with Today's Methods

Today's research surveys have some serious drawbacks. The sonar used cannot distinguish between fish of different species, making it useless for giving solid advice in a mixed-stock environment. Trawl surveys cannot determine migration paths accurately; they can only show that there are concentrations of fish in different places. Finally, tagging is very labor intensive; it requires fishermen to extract the tag from the fish and then send it in to a central data processing facility (Godo & Michalsen, 2000). This results in increased work for fishermen and a delay in the time from capture to data recording.

The Math behind the Method

Mathematics comes into play in two important areas of fish tracking: sample design and data analysis. Samples must be designed so that enough fish are collected over a large enough area to get an accurate representation of true fish populations. When analyzing the resulting data, there are several methods for estimating population parameters; the most appropriate method must be chosen.

Sample Design

Studies have shown that samples should be designed extensively, not intensively (Pennington & Volstad, 1994). Essentially, this means that many small samples should be taken instead of fewer, larger samples. Though reducing the sample size for each sampling location will reduce the total sample size, it will increase the effective sample size, which is more useful (ICES, 2005). Effective sample size takes into account that fish caught together tend to be more similar than the whole population; thus, more samples will result in more diverse samples (ICES, 2005).

The geographic distribution of samples is just as important as sample size and number. When designing the initial survey for any region, or if fish distributions in the target area are known to be random, a stratified random sample should be used (ICES, 2005). For areas in which fish distributions tend to follow trends, systematic samples give the best data (ICES, 2005).

Data Analysis

There are several ways to estimate population parameters. The most basic method involves multiplying the average density of fish found in the survey by the total range of the stock; other methods relate the age of fish at capture to total biomass with complex statistical methods (NOAA; Pennington & Volstad, 1994). Estimated population parameters can then be applied to a logistic population model so that estimates of maximum sustainable yield may be made (Jensen, 1975).

Works Cited

all of the works cite are on the More Research page

(CHILD PAGE 4 FOR PRESENT ENDS HERE)

(CHILD PAGE 5 FOR PRESENT STARTS HERE)

Whaling

Photo © Greenpeace / Jeff Pantukhoff.
School children in Baja, Mexico send a powerful message before an IWC meeting.

Trading Regulations

The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) of Wild Fauna and Flora regulates the export and import of endangered plants and animals between countries. All species covered under this treaty fit under one of three categories: Appendix I, Appendix II, and Appendix III (CITES, 2007a). Appendix I includes species threatened by extinction; export and import permits are required. Appendix II includes species in which trade must be strictly controlled to prevent overexploitation; only export permits are required for this group. Appendix III includes species that are protected by at least one country which has asked for assistance regarding trade; export permits and certificates of origin are required for such species. Cetacean species under Appendix I include the bowhead whale, right whale, humpback whale, roqual whale, grey whale, pygmy right whale, sperm whale, beaked whales, bottle-nosed whales, dolphins, river dolphins, and porpoises (CITES, 2007b). All other species of whales are listed under Appendix II.

Problems with the Whaling Situation

Commercial Whaling

The International Whaling Commission, established to protect whale stocks, sets criteria for any activity involving the hunting of whales. Objections to any decision made by the IWC may be raised, provided it is done within ninety days of notification of the decision, in which case other countries will have further time to object (IWC, 2007b). Both Norway and Iceland currently continue with their commercial whaling industries under claims that the decision to set zero catch limits adversely affects respective national interests and thus does not apply. However, such objections were not made until years after the decision was made by the IWC; therefore, legal issues exist regarding this violation of the moratorium.

However, studies commissioned by the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) and the Iceland Nature Conservation Association (INCA) have shown that demand for whale meat is very minimal in Iceland and Norway (IFAW, 2007). Thus there should be no reason to continue commercial whaling.

Scientific Whaling

Despite the zero catch limit set by the IWC, individual nations can still issue scientific permits that allow the lethal hunting of whales for research purposes. The right to issue such licenses is under the control of each nation and overrides all other IWC regulations, including the moratorium and sanctuaries (IWC, 2007c). Currently, only Japan, Iceland, and Norway are utilizing this right to kill whales for scientific research. Accusations have been made by several third-party organizations that these permits have been used as a loophole in the IWC moratorium and that the whales caught during such research are being killed primarily for commercial use. Japan has denied such claims.

Source: http://www.sharkfriends.com/whaling.html
A Grey Whale bleeding from shotgun wounds as it is hunted.

Subsistence Whaling

Several aboriginal communities that depend on whale meat for nutrition have been allowed to hunt whales, with catch limits set by the IWC (IWC, 2007a). An Aboriginal Whaling Scheme, established by the IWC, will be established and will comprise the scientific and logistical aspects of the management of all aboriginal fisheries.

(CHILD PAGE 5 FOR PRESENT ENDS HERE)

(CHILD PAGE 6 FOR PRESENT STARTS HERE)

Cruise Ship Pollution

An integral part of solving the current problem is taking action against all forces which are destroying marine life and the marine environment. One such force which the public is not generally aware of is pollution from cruise ships. California Represenative Sam Farr, whose district includes the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, writes, "The pristine ocean cruisers we see in TV commercials are also massive ocean polluters, often generating and dumping wastes equivalent to those of a small city into our coastal waters" (Clemmitt, 2005). Even more devastating are the effects of cruise ships on delicate environments, where the effects of pollution are magnified: In the United States, cruise ships are allowed to dump raw, untreated sewage into the ocean when they are more than three miles from land and many ships routinely perform this action. Indeed, this waste is filled with bacteria, killing and sickening marine life and harming human health (Clemmitt, 2005). 

(CHILD PAGE 6 FOR PRESENT ENDS HERE)

Clemmitt, M. (2005, November 4). Saving the oceans. *CQ Researcher*, *15*,
933-956. Retrieved November 21, 2007, from CQ Researcher Online,
http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/cqresrre2005110400.

Works Cited

Sources:

• Safina, C. (n.d.). Scorched-Earth Fishing. Retrieved September 27, 2007, from http://issues.org/14.3/safina.htm
• Verrengia, J. (DATE) Nearly 1,000 whales drowning in fishing nets: study. Retrieved September 13, 2007, from http://www.eurocbc.org/bycatch_death_toll_may_exceed_1000_cetaceans_daily_15june2003page1156.html
• ICES
• Brown, J. and Macfadyen, G. (2007). Ghost Fishing in European Waters: Impacts and Management Responses. Marine Policy, 31(4), 488-504.
• Laist, D.W. (1996). Marine Debris Entanglement and Ghost Fishing: A Cryptic and Significant type of Bycatch?. Alaska Sea Grant College Program, Fairbanks, AK. p.33-40.
• Matsuoka, T., Nakashima, T., & Nagasawa, N. (2005). A Review of Ghost Fishing: Scientific Approaches to Evaluation and Solutions. Fisheries Science, 71(4), 691-702.
• Jones, J. B. (1992). Environmental impact of trawling on the seabed: a review . New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 26, 59-67.
• Gabriel, O., ed. (2005). Fish catching methods of the world. Oxford, UK; Ames, IA: Blackwell Publishing.
• Fishing Methods (n.d.). Retrieved September 13, 2007, from http://www.starfish.govt.nz/science/facts/fact-methods.htm
• Fishing methods (n.d.). Retrieved September 13, 2007, from http://www.fishonline.org/site/www/caught_at_sea/methods

About us - ICES Structure. Retrieved November 15, 2007, from http://www.ices.dk/aboutus/structure.asp

About us - What do we do? Retrieved November 15, 2007, from http://www.ices.dk/aboutus/aboutus.asp

ICES. (2006). Report of the ICES Advisory Committee on Fishery Management, Advisory Committee on the Marine Environment and Advisory Committee on Ecosystems, 2006. Copenhagen, DK: International Council for the Exploration of the Sea. Retrieved November 16, 2007, from http://www.ices.dk/products/icesadvice/2006PDF/ICES%20Advice%202006%20Book%201.pdf

The ICES Strategic Plan. (2002). Copenhagen, DK: International Council for the Exploration of the Sea. Retrieved November 15, 2007, from http://www.ices.dk/iceswork/strategic%20plan-final.pdf

(1999). The Role of Regional Fishery Bodies in Conservation and Management of Resources. Food and Agriculture Organization. Retrieved 17 November 2007, from: http://www.fao.org/fi/website/MultiQueryAction.do?.

Finding Nemo...and Eating Him: The Failure of the United Nations to Force Internalization of the Negative Social Costs that Result from Overfishing. Washington University. Retrieved November 22, 2007, from http://law.wustl.edu/wugslr/issues/volume5_2/p381Cantrell.pdf

ICES. (2005). Joint Report of the Study Group on Unaccounted Fishing Mortality (SGUFM) and the Workshop on Unaccounted Fishing Mortality (WKUFM). Aberdeen, UK: International Council for the Exploration of the Sea. Retrieved November 22, 2007, from http://www.ices.dk/reports/FTC/2005/SGUFM05.pdf

INTERNATIONAL PLAN OF ACTION TO PREVENT, DETER AND ELIMINATE ILLEGAL, UNREPORTED AND UNREGULATED FISHING. (2001). Retrieved November 22, 2007, from http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/003/y1224e/y1224e00.HTM

Ahmed, M., Delgado, C.L., Meijer, S., Rosegrant, M.W., Wada, N. (2003). The Future of Fish: Issues and Trends to 2020. International Food Policy Research Insitute and WorldFish Center. Retrieved 18 November 2007, from the World Wide Web: http://www.ifpri.org.

Duke University. Mining vs. Farming: The International State of the Fisheries. Retrieved 17 November 2007, from the World Wide Web: http://www.biology.duke.edu/bio217/2002/fish/state.html.

(2007). International Seabed Authority. Retrieved 21 November 2007, from the World Wide Web: http://www.isa.org.jm/en/about.

Desombre, E.R. (2005). Fishing Under Flags of Convenience: Using Market Power to Increase Compliance with International Regulations. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

National Geographic News. (15 May 2003). Big-Fish Stocks Fall 90 Percent Since 1950, Study Says. Retrieved 21 November 2007, from the World Wide Web: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/05/0515_030515_fishdecline.html.

NOAA Fisheries Service. (6 August 2007). Annual Commercial Landing Statistics. Retrieved 17 November 2007, from the World Wide Web: http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st1/commercial/landings/annual_landings.html.

Coleman, F.C., Figueira, W.F., Ueland, J.S., & Crowder, L.B. (2004). The Impact of United States Recreational Fisheries on Marine Fish Populations. Science, 305, 1958-1960.

National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration, Fisheries Statistics Division (2007). By the Numbers: Saltwater Fishing Facts for 2006. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/PartnershipsCommunications/recfish/BytheNumbers2006.pdf.

Oceans and Law of the Sea: Division for Ocean Affairs and Law of the Sea. (23 October 2007). United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982. Retrieved 12 November 2007, from the World Wide Web: http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_overview_convention.htm.

The Pew Charitable Trust. Pew Oceans Commission. Retrieved 21 November 2007, from the World Wide Web: http://www.pewtrusts.org/our_work.aspx?category=128.

ScienCentral News. (11 November 2006). No Fish by 2050. Retrieved 21 November 2007, from the World Wide Web: http://www.sciencentral.com/articles/view.php3?type=article&article_id=218392867.

UN-OCEANS is a site that presents the history, mission, and partners of the UN-OCEANS program
http://www.oceansatlas.org/www.un-oceans.org/About.htm#Participation.

Worm, B., Barbier, E.B., Beaumont, N., Duffy, J.E., Folke, C., Halpern, B.S., Jackson, J.B.C., Lotze, H.K., Micheli, F., Palumbi, S.R., Sala, E., Selkoe, K.A., Stachowicz, J.J., Watson, R. (3 November 2006). Impacts of Biodiversity Loss on Ocean Ecosystem Services. Science Magazine, 314, 787-790. Retrieved 19 October 2007, from the World Wide Web:http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/314/5800/787\[\]

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 Whaling Commission. (2007). Catch Limits. Retrieved November 19, 2007, from http://www.iwcoffice.org/conservation/catches.htm.

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.

Marine Resources Assessment Group (2000). Impact of Fisheries Subsidies on Developing Countries. Retrieved November 23, 2007 from http://www.onefish.org/servlet/BinaryDownloaderServlet?filename=1079973819915_DFIDSUMMARYNOV2000.doc&refID=20413.  

 Milazzo, M. (2000). The World Bank: Subsidies in World Fisheries: A Re-examination. Technical Paper, No. 406, 4-6.

Benitah, M. (June 2004). Ongoing WTO Negotiations on Fisheries SUbsidies. ASIL Insights, 1-3.

Kura, Y., Revenga, C., Hoshino, E., & Mock, G. (2004). Fishing for Answers: Making Sense of the Global Fish Crisis. World Resources Institute.

Schrank, W. (2003). Introducing Fisheries Subsidies. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper, 437, 1-5

Sumaila, U.R. & Pauly, D. (2006). "Catching More Bait: A Bottom-up Re-estimation of Global Fisheries Subsidies." Retrieved November 23, 2007, from http://www.oceana.org/fileadmin/oceana/uploads/dirty_fishing/cut_the_bait/2007_Subs_outreach_kit/Pauly___Sumaila_Report_on_Subsidies_Oct06.pdf.&nbsp

The European Commission. (14 March 2005). Fisheries and Maritime Affairs. Received 21 November 2007, from http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/fisheries/missn_en.htm.

Fisheries and Aquaculture Department. (2007) Retrieved October 25, 2007, from Fisheries and Aquaculture Department Web site: http://www.fao.org/fi/website/FIRetrieveAction.do?dom=org&xml=FI_org.xml&xp_nav=1