International Whaling and the IWC (International Whaling Commission)

By Tia Rose MSc. 

     Since the early days of man, hunting was a means of survival. As civilization advanced, harvesting animals for food has become a novelty. Recent decades have provided insight to our detrimental effects on our surroundings as our human population expands. Current whaling practices prove inhumane and unnecessary to sustain man’s appetite. Scientific studies on our ocean’s declining great whales have lead to concern for the well being and maintenance of these species. New scientific data has shown that the harvesting of whales is completely unsustainable today, due to major overexploitation.

     Current management of international whaling has come under scrutiny in recent years, due to the divide between pro and anti whaling nations. Pro-whaling nations, such as Japan, continue to view whales as a food resource and use whaling as a political tool to maintain other fisheries around the world.

     I'd like to reflect on the history of whaling and the current management framework relied on today. The economic benefits are superseded, but not outweighed, by the shift from whaling to whale watching, as has been illustrated by other countries. There is a great need for a normalization of the International Whaling Commission to suit current scientific knowledge of these gentle giants. Future recommendations need to reflect the shift in traditional, cultural practices to accommodate current conservation values. To maintain a healthy environment, with which we rely on, preserving biodiversity is essential to the health and survival of humans and our planet.

International Whaling History

     Whaling refers to the hunting of whales which dates back to 3,000 BC (Britannica, retrieved 2013). The traditional Arctic whaling developed in the seventeenth century with organized fleets, and by the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries it had evolved into a competitive international industry. In the twentieth century, factory ships were introduced along with the concept of whale “harvesting,” and by the late nineteen-thirties, more than fifty thousand whales were killed annually (Wikipedia, 2009a).

    The depletion of cetacean species over centuries of overexploitation precipitated attempts to institute regulations for the whaling industry by setting catch limits in the twentieth century. In 1931, the Convention for the Regulation of Whaling was signed in Geneva in an effort to control the Antarctic whale fishery ("Convention For The Regulation of Whaling," 1935; Gambell, 1993). In 1937, nine nations signed a new international agreement for the regulation of whaling, as the 1931 convention was failing to be functionally useful. This new agreement protected depleted stocks, forbidding the capture of females accompanied by calves, restricted the pelagic whaling season in the Antarctic to three months and regulated broad areas of the world’s oceans by closing north of 40”s to factory ship operations. This agreement went further by requiring governments to record statistics of vessels, catches, biological data on the whales, and quantities of products obtained (Gambell, 1993).

      Known as the 1938 Protocol, a whale sanctuary between longitudes 70” W and 160”W in the Antarctic, as well as a ban on humpback whales in Antarctic, were designated that year (Gambell, 1993). The following protocols in 1944 and 1945 set an overall catch limit in the Antarctic region (Gambell, 1993). In 1946, fifteen nations came together with a common interest in preserving and maintaining the global population of whale stocks by creating the International Whaling Commission (IWC) (Smith, G. 1984). Not all countries joined the International Whaling Commission out of desire to conserve whales, but to preserve their own commercial interests in whaling.

      In 1975, the International Whaling Commission accepted its “new management procedure” for commercial whaling, which established a management scheme based on a systems analysis program of maximum sustainable yield (MSY) designed to regulate catches on an individual basis, rather than by a blanket action (Gambell, 1993). During this same time the development of aboriginal hunting was also established.

     In 1982, the International Whaling commission took a precautionary approach and adopted a moratorium on commercial whaling (Gambell, 1993). The use of the precautionary principle represented a new approach to managing uncertainty (Heazle, 2006) and the International Whaling Commissions adoption of a moratorium on commercial whaling points to a major turning point in dealing with scientific uncertainty. This approach set the stage for the welfare of the environment in dominating the commissions policy (Heazle, 2006).

Current Whale Industry

     As whale stocks in every ocean in the world have been reduced to a fraction of their original population sizes, the International Whaling Commission is under global scrutiny and pressure from both conservationists and pro-whaling countries (Smith, G. 1984). Contemporary arguments for and against whaling are the subject of ongoing discussion and conservation groups argue commercial whaling, which is banned under the International Whaling Commission, still occurs under the guise of scientific research (Wikipedia, 2009b).

     Under current regulations of the International Whaling Commission, members whale under three general exemptions: aboriginal whaling, scientific permits, and whaling under objection (Miller, 2007). Questions regarding the validity and value of scientific research by International Whaling Commission members and the scientific community have arisen. ‘While scientific whaling has not been outlawed, the International Whaling Commission passed resolutions in 2000, 2001, and 2005 urging Japan to withdraw its proposal for scientific whaling’ (Miller, 2007).

      The delicate legal regime of the International Whaling Commission faces serious challenges to continued collaboration between invested parties. Countries, such as Norway and Iceland, that still participate in commercial whaling have openly objected to the International Whaling Commission’s policy of zero-take on commercial whaling, and so are not held to it, as participation in the IWC is voluntary. ‘In April 1992, the North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission (NAMMCO) was established by the Faroe Islands, Greenland, Iceland and Norway’(Eiriksson, 1992), which allows a so-called, harvesting of a “sustainable quota of marine mammals”. The North Atlantic Marine mammal Commission was established in part out of dissatisfaction with the IWC's zero-take quota (Eiriksson, 1992) and has challenged the legitimacy of the International Whaling Commission. Japan has threatened to leave the IWC, like Greenland, and join NAMMCO, should the moratorium on whale hunting not be lifted.

     The issue here ‘is not that some whales are not abundant, but that the whaling industry cannot be trusted to regulate itself or to honestly assess the status of potentially exploitable populations’ (P. J. Clapham, et al, 2007). This impression originates from a long history of illegal, unlawful, and unreported takes by the Soviet Union and the current conduct of Japan today. It has been discovered, through recently released records of old Soviet whaling ships, that approximately forty-six thousand whales were slaughtered illegally in the Southern Ocean and never reported to the International Whaling Commission, between the years of 1947 and 1973 (P. Clapham, et al, 2008, 2009). Today, Japan’s inadequate science, implausible stock assessments, insistence to cull marine mammals as an appropriate form of management, and the fabrication of whaling and fisheries catch data (P. J. Clapham, et al, 2007) exemplify why the whaling industry cannot be trusted in regulating itself.

     Under the guise of scientific whaling, Japan has killed close to ten thousand whales, four times the amount killed for research by all other nations combined since 1952 (P. J. Clapham, et al, 2007). Japan’s interest in whaling is part of a larger picture involving a perceived right to hold boundless access to worldwide marine resources; thus, concessions made in regard to the International Whaling Commission could have potentially serious consequences in other arenas (P. J. Clapham, et al, 2007).

From Whaling to Whale Watching –The Stakeholders

     In the 1950’s the first whale watching company was founded off the coast of California. Today whale watching has grown into a $USD 2.1 billion per year industry occurring in 119 countries where more than thirteen million people took tours during 2008 (O'Conner, 2009). Whale watching has even developed in countries that still hunt whales, such as Japan, Norway, and Iceland (Hoyt, 2001).

     The development of whale watching, in the last sixty years, has increased the magnitude of stakeholders in regard to the future of the International Whaling Commission. In 1946, the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling was signed by fifteen countries; Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Denmark, France, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom, the Union of South Africa and The United States (IWC, 2013). Today, there are nearly ninety members (IWC, 2013).

     Given the highly migratory nature of cetaceans, their removal from an area can dramatically affect another. Such as in the case of Southern Hemisphere Humpback Whales which feed in Antarctic waters and migrate north to breeding and calving grounds. At the beginning of the twentieth century, southern humpback whale numbers were thought to have been one-hundred twenty thousand. This estimate is conservative considering one-hundred sixty thousand were reportedly killed from 1900-1963 and then additional forty-six thousand that were illegally slaughtered by Soviet Union whaling ships between the years of 1947 and 1973 (P. Clapham, et al, 2009; Eyre, 2009). This assault on the humpback whale populations precipitated the closure of shore whaling stations in Australia and New Zealand in the early 1960’s (P. Clapham, et al, 2008) and many of the whales killed are thought to have been from Oceania populations, such as Tonga (Eyre, 2009).

     In the Kingdom of Tonga, the humpback whale population has shown little recovery from whaling, even though the east coast of Australia population has exhibited a noticeable increase (Noad, 2008). This might be caused by several factors, including the possibility that the individuals killed for research in the Southern Ocean by the Japanese are part of the Tongan population of humpbacks, although this is just speculation. Tonga is not a member of the International Whaling Commission, but is affected by the actions taken by it and, therefore, is one of the many stakeholders in regard to the issue of international whaling.

     Each year, the Japanese scientific research permits, through the International Whaling Commission, give allowances to take these whales. The loss of Humpback whales in the Southern Ocean can accumulate to lost dollars in whale watching countries, such as Tonga, that rely on the population to return to breeding and calving grounds. Also, disruption of equilibrium of marine communities will inevitably result in degradation of lower trophic level species from the removal of whales.

     It has been suggested that people and whales prosper more when these gentle giants are seen and not hurt (Hoyt, 2001). In fact, the growth of the whale watching industry is so great that over that last ten years, it has left behind global tourism growth rates, creating thousands of businesses and jobs around the world, more than three thousand operations globally that employ more that thirteen thousand individuals (O'Conner, 2009). The International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) reported more than 13 million people took whale watching tours in 2008 (O'Conner, 2009), increasing the number of stakeholders, to not only whale watching operators and workers, but to the individuals whose livelihoods depends on the ability to study, film, and photograph cetaceans. Not included here, and often overlooked, are the individuals who find intrinsic value and joy in seeing cetaceans in their natural habitat; to some extent they also have a stake in the future of whales.

     The standing moratorium on whaling is then seen to secure and protect a significant amount of some countries Gross Domestic Product (GDP), livelihoods of whale-watch operators, workers, researchers, and wildlife photographers. As countries, such as Japan, Norway, and Iceland, hold firmly to their right to hunt endangered cetacean populations, it is clear that Cartesian ideals still remain today, pinning nature against man; nature on one side and culture on the other; nature is winning or man is winning. Murray Bookchin, a pioneer in the ecology movement who was against exploiting the natural world as a resource to be dominated, once said ‘the plundering of the human spirit by the market place is paralleled by the plundering of the earth by capital’ (Bookchin, 1971 & 2004). By this standard, as the future of whaling is debated by governments, it is increasingly clear that whale watching is the most sustainable, environmentally-friendly and economically beneficial ‘use’ of whales today (O'Conner, 2009).

Management Arrangements

     The International Whaling Commission has developed management procedures that deal with uncertainty that identifies trade-offs among management objectives and assess outcomes of alternative actions(A. D. E. Smith, et. al., 1999). The framework of management strategy evaluations (MSE) is adaptive in design and attempts to manage uncertain action like those of dynamic ecosystem processes such as food chain interactions and dependencies(Sainsbury, 2000). Previous methods by the International Whaling Commission for setting catch limits through maximum sustainable yields (MSY) proved to be a failure in that they inadequately estimated key parameters (Sainsbury, 2000).

     The International Convention for the Regulations of Whaling states, in Article III, that it was established to carry out ‘proper conservation of whale stocks and thus make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry’ (IWC, 1946). The shift over the years from pro-whaling to a moratorium on whaling has fractured the International Whaling Commission into two separate opposing sides. Exaggerating the debate and further polarizing the International Whaling Commission is the inability of anti-whalers to accede the concern for the principle of food security and the pro-whalers to recognize that the ‘anti-whaling case rests as much on animal rights issues as it does on stock sustainability’ (Iliff, 2008b).

     Stakeholders are no longer just those interested in whaling for subsistence but those with  vested interest in other fisheries around the world, like Japan, as well as the countries whose whale watching industry has grown to influence their economy. The International Whaling Commission has become a battleground, ineffective for either position, and often ignoring other threats to cetaceans around the world such as pollution, vessel strikes, marine debris, and climate change (Black, 2008). Additionally overlooked by pro-whalers is the amount of toxins found in whale meat and the health risk it presents to the public (Simmonds, 2002).

     One management arrangement attempts to secure votes in the International Whaling Commission, by recruiting in and employing bilateral aid to encourage developing countries to support one side of the agenda over the other (Miller, 2007). In 2006, a return of the majority position to anti-whalers of the International Whaling Commission caused yet another threat from Japan to withdraw from the Convention (Iliff, 2008b). This threat poses both positive and negative feedback loops for both sides. Firstly, if Japan does withdraw it would release them from obligation to comply with the Convention and allow anti-whaling groups to change the International Whaling Commission and International Convention for the Regulations of Whaling toward a more conservation minded organization (Iliff, 2008b). Alternatively, depending on what members followed Japan’s lead, it would test the legitimacy of the International Whaling Commission and lose the ability to control global whaling activities of pro-whaling nations (Iliff, 2008b).

 Recommendations for the Future

    Since the 1980s, the growth of both pro and anti whaling members in the International Whaling Commission demonstrates the struggle to attain votes in order to gain control and power of the commission (Iliff, 2008a). Though, in the last ten years, very little has been accomplished to resolve the debate between whaling and whale conservation. Countries such as Norway, Iceland, Greenland, and the Faroe Islands have opted out of the International Whaling Commission to facilitate their own whaling customs, leaving Japan as the last remaining major pro-whaling nation.

     The Japanese word for whale is “Brave Fish” pronounced “ISANA", so closely are whales tied to their fisheries. Though, public opinion in Japan does not support whale meat consumption (Miller, 2007), there are two major arguments for Japans insistence to continued whaling. Firstly, if Japan submits to an injunction from the international community, like that from the International Whaling Commission, to desist in harvesting of one marine resource, it may set a precedent for submitting to future injunctions in other fisheries (Iliff, 2008a). Secondly, as fish stocks decrease globally due to overexploitation, Japanese Fisheries Agency can blame whales for the cause and thus absconding responsibility themselves (Iliff, 2008a).

     Much attention is paid to Japan, as it plays a pivotal role in this two sided controversy as the archetype for all whaling nations and, thus, brings legitimacy to the International Whaling Commission. By continuing to follow the Conventions rules, under scientific permits, Japan is able to continue their annual whale hunts while still working within the framework; creating one of the few positive feedback loops in this management system. In this way both pro- and anti-whaling sides are getting what they want, for the moment.
    
     The International Whaling Commission is not a major political, economic, or environmental regime in today’s modern times (Miller, 2007). Neither is whaling a very large portion of Japans economy. In fact, as Japanese government spending is under review and wasteful programs look to be cut, the whaling industry could be coming to an end (Greenpeace, 2009). The Japanese government has been subsidizing whaling in the Southern Ocean for years, though little profit is seen from it (Graef, 2013).
     Identifying and promoting solutions to the issues surrounding the controversy of international whaling is a difficult task. The main cause for concern for whaling countries is food resources and scarcity. Finding a way to assure food availability in other areas, other than whale meat, in food cultures built around fisheries will then become a necessity in negotiating a way forward. The past deputy whaling commissioner for Japan, Joji Morishita, has stated ‘Japan’s fisheries can’t be protected without whaling’ (P. J. Clapham, et al, 2007). Assuring nations, such as Japan, of their fisheries rights and collaborating in global sustainable fishing will also be necessary.

     While governments debate over the validity of whaling and fisheries rights, global fishery stocks are collapsing from over-exploitation, increased pollutants are making their way to people’s dinner table, and species are going extinct. This realization is imperative in order to change our attitudes and behavior toward the natural world. A shift in old approaches to food cultures needs to give way in order to pave the way for new cultural paradigms. If this choice is not made soon voluntarily, it will be made later out of necessity. Food scarcity will continue to be of major concern with the exponential demand of overexploited resources.

Resources/Links/Ideas/Ect: Sea Shepherd, Whale Wars, The whale Warriors: The Battle at the Bottom of the World to Save the Planet's Largest Mammals,


           “Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's needs, but not every man's greed.”
                                                                          ― Mahatma Gandhi

© Sea Illumination All Rights Reserved.

 
 

Overview of U.S. legislation on fisheries to Protect Biodiversity in Marine Ecosystems

    
By Tia Rose MSc.

     We humans have been fishing for nearly 40,000 years (wikipdia). Feeding the world over, the ocean has sustained our populations then as it still does today. It's estimated that “ecological communities on continental shelves and in the open ocean contribute almost half of the planet's primary production, and sustain three-quarters of global fishery yields” presently (Worm, B. 2003), but not for long. If we continue our current practices, according to Boris Worm, it is predicted our fisheries will collapse by 2048 (Worm, B. 2003). As fishing can alter the structure, function, productivity, and resilience of marine ecosystems‟ (Dayton, et al. 2002) recent scientific analysis suggests that the global ocean has lost more than 90% of large predatory fishes.‟ (Worm, B. 2003) This loss of marine biodiversity “is increasingly impairing the ocean's capacity to provide food, maintain water quality, and recover from perturbations (aka: pollution).” (Worm, B. 2006) Such concerns have moved the United Nations to resolve the return of global fish stocks to healthy levels. (United Nations. New York. 2002) 

     Worldwide, the average amount of fish consumed each year per capita is approximately 14. 96 kg. (FAO UN, 2008) The U.S. annually consumes 16.4 kg (FAO UN, 2008), just slightly higher than the world average. As one of the largest consumers of fish, what are the U.S. federal regulations and legislation for conserving and protecting biodiversity of fisheries? The Marine Mammal Protection Act, Endangered Species Act, and Magnson-Stevens Act are the three major Acts that govern US fisheries and are the focus of this overview.

Marine Mammal Protection Act

     The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), signed and enacted in 1972, was the first piece of legislation to manage and conserve a natural resource through an ecosystem based approach. Under the MMPA, it is illegal to take "any marine mammal; take defined as to harass, hunt, capture, or kill, or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal" (Marine Mammal Protection Act, 1972). The Act also places a moratorium on the sale, import, and export of marine mammal products and parts. It also sets regulations with regard to scientific research in the wild and the public display of captive marine mammals. 

     There are exceptions in the MMPA that allow for marine mammals [to] be taken incidentally in the course of commercial fishing operations" (MMPA, 1972) and for Alaska natives [to] hunt marine mammals for subsistence purposes, and [are allowed to] possess, transport, and sell marine mammal parts and products"(Kubiszewski, 2007). Exceptions to the MMPA also grant, to those who apply for and are authorized, special permits which allow incidental take of marine mammals during the course of an otherwise legal activity"(Kubiszewski, 2007).

     The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) oversees the implementation of the act through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Manatees, dugongs, sea otters, and polar bears are under the care of FWS. Whales, porpoises, seals and sea lions are managed under NMFS. The management of marine mammals in captivity falls under the care of the Department of Agriculture.

     The MMPA also established a Marine Mammal Commission that is required under section 204 of the Act to transmit an annual report to Congress on its activities and accomplishments during the immediately preceding year (Marine Mammal Commission). In the 2007 annual report released in October of 2008, a number of risk factors were identified as threats to marine mammal species and stocks. Those factors include direct and indirect fishery interactions, harmful algal blooms, contaminants, disease, anthropogenic noise, coastal development and habitat loss, and ship strikes (MMC Annual Report, 2007). Given that the human population is expected to reach 9.4 billion by 2050 it can be expected that these issues will only exacerbate the negative impacts on the marine ecosystem.
 
     Since the inception of the MMPA several key cases have brought to question the effectiveness of its ability to properly manage and protect marine mammals. An example of this is the United States v. Hayashi case in which a local Hawaiian fisherman fired two rounds from a shotgun at group of porpoises to stop them from eating his catch of Ahi tuna. Hayashi was charged with "knowingly taking a marine mammal" in violation of the MMPA. He was sentenced to one year unsupervised probation and a $500 fine. Hayashi appealed this decision to the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii, where his conviction was affirmed, and then to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, where his conviction was reversed. The Ninth Circuit Court determined that Hayahi's actions did not disrupt the porpoises behavior and stated that “reasonable actions ... not resulting in severe, sustained disruption of the mammal's normal routine ... [of] eating fish or bait off a fishing line are not rendered criminal by the MMPA or its regulations” (United States v. Hayashi). This determination on the definitions of “take” and “harass” given by this appeal case, I believe, went against the spirit of the MMPA.
 
     Another consideration is the jointly managed resources of marine mammals between the federal government and the Alaskan Natives. One resource of concern is the walrus populations of the Arctic, as Alaskan natives are permitted to utilize marine mammals as a cultural heritage for sustenance and economic gain. Harvest guidelines have been established for walrus hunting practices requiring the return of all meat. However, it's been reported that only some red meat is retained while the rest is wasted. With regard to this there are several challenges: the walrus population may be vulnerable to continued reductions in sea ice and marine productivity, the methods used to utilize harvested walrus have become more limited, the limits on the walrus harvests are more relaxed, and the value of ivory and need for cash is greatly enhanced (M. R. a. J. L. Joly, 2008). Legally restricting the allowable take of walrus is impossible without scientific population analysis which is lacking, further showing a limitation of this Act in protecting marine mammals effectively.
 
Endangered Species Act
 
     Following on the heels of the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) was signed and enacted in 1973. The widest ranging environmental law in the United States to be passed and, at the time, labeled the world's most powerful environmental legislation (Schwartz, 2008), the ESA is designed to protect endangered species and threatened species, and to take such steps, as may be appropriate, to achieve the purposes of the treaties and conventions (Endangered Species Act 1973). The Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species of wild Flora and Fauna(CITES) and the International Convention for the High Seas Fisheries of the North Pacific Ocean, as well as others, are just some of the treaties and conventions signed at the international level that the ESA has vouched to conserve endangered species.
 
     However, given that the US has not ratified the Convention on Biological Diversity, how effective is the ESA with protecting marine biodiversity in America? Does focusing on singular species prove to be adequate protection for an ecosystem? The ESA certainly shows that once a species is placed on the list the status of that species improves rather than deteriorates. Working in a dual capacity through not only extinction prevention but species recovery, the listing, protection, and possibly delisting of species is accomplished.
 
     The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service share the responsibility of administering the ESA. Marine Species are managed under NOAA by the NMFS. It's been noted that the inability of government to fully empower the agencies to implement the law has been the most notable failure of the ESA (Schwartz, 2008). Coupled with sparse funding, the decline in listed species in the recent past, and the delay of critical habitat determination has impacted the effectiveness of biodiversity protection in the last 40 years since the inception of the ESA.
 
     The ESA recognizes that the consequence of economic growth and development untempered by adequate concern and conservation (ESA, 1973) is the cause of species decline and extinctions. Critical habitats, therefore, are more important than ever, as habitat loss and degradations occur from development and are the leading threat to species. Designating a critical habitat for an endangered species does not preclude a property from being developed (Schwartz, 2008), but will require consultation with federal agencies under section 7 of the Act. This has caused great controversy for property rights advocates who would prefer the elimination of critical habitat designations from the ESA. Because of this resistance, only 494 listed endangered species have critical habitats out of the total 1351 listed (Schwartz, 2008).  Another unforeseen negative impact of critical habitats is the increase in property values of surrounding areas, as people enjoy living near these protected zones. This increased development places pressure on the near endangered species through the edge effect (the changes in the population or community structure that occur at the point where two habitat types meet).
 
     Recovery Plans also play a considerable role in maintaining and delisting endangered species, as a well-constructed recovery plan, can be an important focal document "and foster proactive management" (Schwartz, 2008).  However, recovery plans obligate neither funding nor actions "and often social interest and politics retain the capacity to trump strict biological consideration when it comes to recovery expenditures" (Schwartz, 2008).  As shown with the iconic bald eagle, that received $9.8 million in recovery funding, which is the accumulated total of 894 species (67%) with the least funding (Schwartz, 2008), skewed funding of charismatic species reduces the likelihood of rare species and overall biodiversity of being protected. If all species were equally valued, funding would be allocated based on threat and potential for recovery instead of political influence.
 
     Little of this matters should species not be listed in time, or at all, on the endangered species act. As many thousands of species in the “warranted but precluded” pool remain unlisted, more often than not they will become extinct waiting to be protected while those who are listed fare better. The data suggests positive impacts outweigh the negative ones as recovery outnumbers extinction 14 to 7 among the species delisted because of population change (Schwartz, 2008).

    The absence of any shark species listed on the federal ESA is a failure of the US fisheries in both listing and recovering marine populations that directly correlate to the health of biodiversity of the marine ecosystem. As stated above, the US is party to several international conventions and treaties, two of which have several elasmobranches (sharks and rays) listed as threatened. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) has 39 species on their red list and CITES has three listed as endangered of going extinct; the great white, the whale shark and the basking shark. Despite this, the US is reluctant to list any shark species as endangered because of the effects it may have financially on the fishing industry and the lack of funding likely to occur due to public opinion of sharks, though that opinion is changing. The confidence in the laws created, like the Shark Finning Prohibition Act of 2000 that ban shark finning and the import/export of shark, and those that limit shark catches, don't adequately account for or protect the millions of sharks killed each year as by-catch in the longline fishing industry.

   However, some encouraging signs by individual states have shown support for marine biodiversity. California's recent steps to integrate and connect Marine Protected Areas (MPA) and the listing of Great White Sharks under the protection of California’s Endangered Species Act is one encouraging sign. As of March 25, 2013 Maryland followed what California, Hawaii, Oregon and Washington, as well as Illinois, have already done and passed measures restricting the shark fin business.Where the federal government has shown a lack of commitment to protecting marine environments the states have stood up and created local laws that are doing just that. 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA)
 
     The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, or more commonly known as the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA), was signed in 1967, reauthorzed in 2006, governs fish populations within the United States Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ); 3-200 miles offshore (MSA). In the framework of the Act, foreign fishing vessels are required to apply for permits to fish within US water. Furthermore, the eight regions Fisheries Management Council was created and provides guidelines in managing the fisheries. The Fisheries Management Councils being New England, Mid-Atlantic, South Atlantic, Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, Pacific, North Pacific, and the Western Pacific. The regional Fishery Management Councils develop Fishery Management Plans (FMPs) for every fishery within their geographic region (MSA). The councils, which are required to seek broad public input from individuals with local knowledge and interest in the fisheries, are unique in the federal regulatory system (Matulich, et al. 2007).
 
     Councils develop FMPs that propose and implement regulations for a particular fishery which are to serve as the foundation for legal guidelines under the MSA. However, under the authority of NOAA, NMFS ultimately dictates the management measures and regulations. Despite the fact that NMFS cannot revise a council-submitted FMP amendment, or proposed regulation to suit its own policy preferences, or to write regulations that undercut council policy intent, except when they conflict with other applicable laws (Matulich, et al. 2007), a unanimous approval of a Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (BSAI) crab rationalization program by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (North Pacific Council) (Matulich, et al. 2007) failed in 2007, even after Congress instructed them to take it up. By overstepping its authority, NMFS defeats the spirit of the Act's value of forming policy from “local stakeholders and experts familiar with unique fishery circumstances” (Matulich, et al. 2007) and increases litigation against it. As of 2011 Amendment 34 and 37 changed that and the BSAI now has their crab rationalization program.
 
     In 1996 the MSA authorized and enacted the Sustainable Fisheries Act which initiated new mandates that require biological observers on board vessels, reduce amounts of bycatch, and reduce amounts of overfishing. As of 2006, the reauthorization of the MSA protects deep sea coral habitats, calls for the improvement in data collection for both recreational and commercial fisheries (Oceana), and the end to overfishing of all U.S. fish populations by 2010. In an effort to reach that goal NOAA has moved toward catch share schemes. (Dayton, et al. 2002)

     Catch sharing, which is a relatively new and promising approach to managing commercial fisheries, reduces wasteful fishing practices, improves fishing safety, and increases profits by giving fishermen a stake in fisheries and thus an incentive to conserve them. Also known as individual fishing quotas (IFQ), individual transferable quotas (ITQ), and territorial use rights in fishing; these programs have been used worldwide for over 30 years. Their key feature is that fishermen (individually or in cooperatives) are assigned either a percentage share of the total allowable catch or of fishing concessions in a given bay, bank, reef, or other ocean area (a system referred to as "territorial use rights for fishing") (Festa, et al. 2008). Catch Shares are not without their problems as they have been hard to establish for recreational fishing that can often equal or surpass the tonnage of fish caught by commercial fishing vessels.

     Given that the word biodiversity is an Americanism, according to Dictionary.com, it's surprising to see how little the word is used in our legislation with regard to its protection. In fact, it's not in any of the three Acts discussed above. Despite this fact the recent trend to gear legislation to protect it is there. 'In September 2013 the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, which regulates America’s fisheries, will be up for reauthorization for the first time since it was previously amended in 2006' (Conathon, M. 2013). Perhaps we will see that changed with it's reauthorization.
 
     Protecting biodiversity of the ocean is more than the protection of a charismatic species or the regulation of fishing, although that's part of it. The issues of pollution, climate change and invasive species are of equal concern and influence on the health of the marine ecosystems, yet little legal protection is addressed or given in this regard. The ESA comes closest in that it has a legal obligation to protect the ecosystem with which an endangered species lives, as in the case of the resident Killer Whale (Orcinus orca) population on the North West Coast of North America that was placed on the endangered species list in 2005, followed by NMFS designated critical habitat in November 2006. Designating the population as endangered under the ESA will help to alleviate human-caused threats that have reduced the population to as few as 78 whales. The main threats to killer whales are toxic chemicals such as PCBs, declining salmon stocks, and considerable boat traffic in their home range. This might also have an added benefit to the humans living near this community as the accumulated toxins in the predatory fish are of concern to the health of the general public who consume it.
 
     The complicated, politically-charged, and often costly task of protecting biodiversity of the ocean is an incredibly daunting task. This might explain the reluctance to list any fish as an endangered species. “The role of science should be to address these broader ecosystem effects and the interaction of fishing with other stressors in order to advance ocean management.” (Dayton, et al. 2002) As Boris Worms states “it is appropriate and necessary to attempt restoration on a global scale, and provide a benchmark against which community recovery could be assessed.” (Worm, B. 2003) Data suggests that protected species generally respond positively to proactive conservation management [and] is reason for optimism for the future of biodiversity‟ (Schwartz, 2008) and that at this point, these [negative] trends are still reversible" (Worm, B. 2006).

Resources/Links/Ideas/Ect: Green Facts: How much fish is consumed worldwide?, US states and Shark Finning News, The Dollars and Science of Fishery Management, Ecological Intelligence 

"The conservation of animals and plants is more important to human beings that we are to them. These forms of life are vital for our survival." - Laurnes vander Post 1982 lecture at University of Cape Town

“Inadequate funding for science makes poor management a self-fulfilling prophecy.”

 - Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) 2013 at the House Committee on Natural Resources this month.

© Sea Illumination All Rights Reserved.