Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

A Game of Cat and Fish: How to Restore the Balance in Sustainable Fisheries Management

2009; Taylor & Francis; Volume: 40; Issue: 1 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1080/00908320802631486

1521-0642

Benjamin K. Sovacool,

Arctic and Russian Policy Studies

Abstract This article argues that continued reliance on input/output controls and restrictions in fisheries management may be insufficient to protect global fish stocks. Instead, a transition beyond supply-side measures to those aimed at reducing demand for fish stocks may be necessary. The article offers a proposal for five types of demand-side or market-based measures: elimination of fishing subsidies, bolstering of import restrictions, ceasing trade in endangered and threatened fish stocks, strengthening civil and criminal penalties against illegal fishers, and pursuit of punitive trade sanctions against flag states flouting international fishery guidelines to help prevent and deter global overfishing. Keywords: fisheries conservationillegalunreportedunregulated (IUU) fishingoverfishing The author is also an adjunct assistant professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia, USA, where he has taught in the Government and International Affairs Program and the Department of History. Notes iSee Susanna M. Grant, “The Applicability of International Conservation Instruments to the Establishment of Marine Protected Areas in Antarctica,” Ocean and Coastal Management 48 (2005): 782–812; Elizabeth deLone, “Improving the Management of the Atlantic Tuna: The Duty to Strengthen the ICCAT in Light of the 1995 Straddling Stocks Agreement,” New York University Environmental Law Journal 6 (1998): 656–673; Lee A. Kimball, The International Legal Regime of the High Seas and the Seabed Beyond the Limits of National Jurisdiction and Options for Cooperation for the Establishment of Marine Protected Areas in Marine Areas Beyond the Limits of National Jurisdiction, Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity Technical Series No. 19 (Montreal: UNEP, Nov. 2005), 14; Lawrence Juda, “Rio Plus Ten: The Evolution of International Marine Fisheries Governance,” Ocean Development & International Law 33 (2002): 109–144; William Edeson, “The International Plan of Action on Illegal Unreported and Unregulated Fishing: The Legal Context of a Non-Legally Binding Instrument,” International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 16 (2001): 603–623; and Andrew Clarke and Colin M. Harris, “Polar Marine Ecosystems: Major Threats and Future Change,” Environmental Conservation 30 (2003): 19. 1. U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1833 U.N.T.S. 397. 2. Agreement to Promote Compliance with International Conservation and Management Measures by Fishing Vessels on the High Seas, 2221 U.N.T.S. 120. 3. U.N. Straddling Stocks and Highly Migratory Stocks Agreement, 2167 U.N.T.S. 3. 4. Food and Agricultural Organization, The State of World Fisheries (1998), available at www.fao.org/docrep/W9900E/w9900e00.htm#TopOfPage (accessed on 2 April 2008). 5. See Ransom A. Myers and Boris Worm, “Rapid Worldwide Depletion of Predatory Fish Communities,” Nature 423 (2003): 280–283; and Tracy M. Price, “Negotiating WTO Fisheries Subsidy Disciplines: Can Subsidy Transparency and Classification Provide the Means Towards an End to the Race for Fish?” Tulane Journal of International and Comparative Law 13 (2005): 148. 6. Ray Hilborn, Trevor A. Branch, Billy Ernst, Arni Magnusson, Carolina V. Minte-Vera, Mark D. Scheuerell, and Juan L. Valero, “State of the World's Fisheries,” Annual Review of Environment and Resources 28 (2003): 370. 7. Tim Eichenberg and Mitchell Shapson, “The Promise of Johannesburg: Fisheries and the World Summit on Sustainable Development,” Golden Gate University Law Review 34 (2004): 598. 8. R. Quentin Grafton, James Kirkley, Tom Kompas, and Dale Squires, Economics for Fisheries Management (New York: Ashgate, 2006), 1. 9. Adam B. Jaffe, Richard G. Newell, and Robert N. Stavins, “A Tale of Two Market Failures: Technology and Environmental Policy,” Ecological Economics 54 (2005): 164–174. 10. See B. K. Sovacool and Kelly Siman-Sovacool, “Revoking a License to Krill: What the U.S. Can Do to Save Fish Stocks in Antarctica,” Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy 10 (forthcoming); Carl Safina, “The World's Imperiled Fish,” Scientific American 273, no. 5 (1995): 49; and Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture (Rome: FAO Fisheries Department, 1995), 6–9. 11. Sovacool and Siman-Sovacool, supra note 10; and The State of World Fisheries, supra note 10, at 6–9. 12. The State of the World Fisheries, supra note 10, at 6–9. 13. See Barry Hart Dubner, “On the Basis for Creation of a New Method of Defining International Jurisdiction in the Arctic Ocean,” Missouri Environmental Law and Policy Review 13 (2005): 1–23; Christopher C. Joyner, “The 1991 Madrid Environmental Protection Protocol,” Marine Policy 20 (1996): 183–197; and Jeffrey Zinn and Eugene H. Buck, “Marine Protected Areas: An Overview,” CRS Report for Congress (Feb. 11, 2005). 14. See Marilyn A. Brown, “Market Failures and Barriers as a Basis for Clean Energy Policies,” Energy Policy 29 (2001): 1197–1207. 15. See Sungjoon Cho, “Linkage of Free Trade and Social Regulation: Moving Beyond the Entropic Dilemma,” Chicago Journal of International Law 5 (2005): 625–673; Cinnamon Carlarne, “The Kyoto Protocol and the WTO: Reconciling Tensions Between Free Trade and Environmental Objectives,” Colorado Journal of International Environmental Law and Policy 17 (2006): 45–88; and Steve Charnovitz, “Free Trade, Fair Trade, Green Trade: Defogging the Debate,” Cornell International Law Journal 27 (1994): 459–525. 16. Lawrence Juda, “Rio Plus Ten: The Evolution of International Marine Fisheries Governance,” Ocean Development and International Law 33 (2002): 109–144. 17. Beryl L. Crowe, “The Tragedy of the Commons Revisited,” Science, Nov. 18, 1969, 1103. 18. David Osborn, “Challenges to Conserving Marine Biodiversity on the High Seas Through the Use of Marine Protected Areas—An Australian Perspective,” in Managing Risks to Biodiversity and the Environment on the High Sea, Including Tools Such as Marine Protected Areas—Scientific Requirements and Legal Aspects, ed. Hjalmar Thiel and J. Anthony Koslow (Berlin: Put International Academy for Nature Conservation, Mar. 4, 2001), 103–112. 19. Garrett Hardin, “The Tragedy of the Commons,” Science 162 (Dec. 13, 1968): 1243–1248. 20. Donald R. Leal, “Prologue,” in Evolving Property Rights in Marine Fisheries, ed. Donald R. Leal (New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 2005), x. 21. Soft law typically refers to the nonbinding multilateral declarations of intergovernmental conferences (such as the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development), or recommendations or resolutions from intergovernmental bodies (such as the United Nations General Assembly). Not binding—and thus unlike treaties—soft law instruments, the product of careful negotiations, may emerge into hard law at a later time. See C. M. Chinkin, “The Challenge of Soft Law: Development and Change in International Law,” International and Comparative Law Quarterly 38 (1989): 850–877. 22. International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, 161 U.N.T.S. 72. For a comment on its general implications, see Simon Lyster, International Wildlife Law: An Analysis of International Treaties Concerned with the Conservation of Wildlife (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 17–38. 23. International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by Oil, 327 U.N.T.S. 3. 24. See Continental Shelf Convention, 499 U.N.T.S. 311; Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone Convention, 516 U.N.T.S. 205; High Seas Convention, 450 U.N.T.S. 11; and Fishing and Conservation of the Living Resources of the High Seas Convention; 559 U.N.T.S. 285. For a general overview, see Robin Rolf Churchill and Alan Vaughan Lowe, The Law of the Sea, 3d ed. (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1999), 1–16. 25. Gregory D. Pendleton, “State Responsibility and the High Seas Maritime Environment: A Legal Theory for the Protection of Seamounts in the Global Commons,” Pacific Rim Law and Policy Journal 14 (2005): 500. 26. Joyner, supra note 13, at 190. 27. The Convention on Biological Diversity, 1760 U.N.T.S. 79, represents the first attempt to take steps toward the conservation of biodiversity at the global level. The Convention has three interconnected goals: the preservation of biological diversity, the sustainable use of its components, and the fair and equitable sharing of the uses of natural resources. Yet, Article 4 holds that contracting parties to the CBD have responsibility for components of biological diversity within the limits of national jurisdiction and for processes and activities carried out under their jurisdiction and control both within and beyond their borders. With respect to areas beyond national jurisdiction, such as the high seas, parties are urged to cooperate, nothing more. 28. Harry N. Scheiber, “The Biodiversity Convention and Access to Marine Genetic Materials in Ocean Law,” in Order for the Oceans at the Turn of the Century, ed. Davor Vidas and Willy Ostreng (London: Kluwer Law International, 1999), 188. 29. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1155 U.N.T.S 331, Article 34. 30. Geoffrey Palmer, “New Ways to Make Environmental Law” American Journal of International Law 86 (1992): 259–283. 31. International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, (and its 1978 Protocol of Amendment), 1340 U.N.T.S. 61. 32. U.N. Fish Stocks Agreement, supra note 3. 33. K. X. Li and Jim Ni Ng, “International Maritime Conventions: Seafarers’ Safety and Human Rights,” Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce 33 (2002): 391. 34. See Eichenberg and Shapson, supra note 7, at 597; and J. D. Brax, “Zoning the Oceans: Using the National Marine Sanctuaries Act and the Antiquities Act to Establish Marine Protected Areas and Marine Reserves in America,” Ecology Law Quarterly 29 (2002): 71–129. 35. See James Rasband, James Salzman, and Mark Squillace, Natural Resources Law and Policy (New York: Foundation Press, 2004), 427; and Zachary Tyler, “Saving Fisheries on the High Seas: The Use of Trade Sanctions to Force Compliance with Multilateral Fisheries Agreements,” Tulane Environmental Law Journal 20 (2006): 48–49. 36. See Hilborn et al., supra note 6, at 374. 37. Rosamond L. Naylor, Josh Eagle, and Whitney L. Smith, “Salmon Aquaculture in the Pacific Northwest: A Global Industry with Local Impacts,” Environment 45, no. 8 (2003): 18–39. 38. Daniel Pauly, Reg Watson, and Jackie Alder, “Global Trends in World Fisheries: Impacts on Marine Ecosystems and Food Security,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 360 (2005): 5–12. 39. See D. M. Johnson, “The Driftnetting Problem in the Pacific Ocean: Legal Considerations and Diplomatic Options,” Ocean Development and International Law 21 (1990): 5–39; A. H. Richards, “Problems of Drift-Net Fisheries in the South Pacific,” Marine Pollution Bulletin 29 (1994): 106–111; Richard Ellis, The Empty Ocean: Plundering the World's Marine Life (New York: Island Press, 2003), 19; and Leslie A. Davis, “North Pacific Pelagic Driftnetting: Untangling the High Seas Controversy,” Southern California Law Review 64 (1991): 1057–1068. 40. Davis, supra note 39, at 1059. 41. See Eichenberg and Shapson, supra note 7, at 592. 42. Callum Roberts, quoted in Biial Trivedi, “Marine Reserves Found to Boost Nearby Fishing Grounds,” National Geographic Today, Dec. 4, 2001, 45. 43. Robert Ovetz, “The Bottom Line: An Investigation of the Economic, Cultural, and Social Costs of Industrial Longline Fishing in the Pacific and the Benefits of Sustainable Use Marine Protected Areas,” Marine Policy 30 (2006): 810. 44. Hilborn et al., supra note 6, at 360. 45. See Elizabeth deLone, “Improving the Management of the Atlantic Tuna: The Duty to Strengthen the ICCAT in Light of the 1995 Straddling Stocks Agreement,” New York University Environmental Law Journal 6 (1998): 656–673. 46. Dag Standal, “Nuts and Bolts in Fisheries Management—A Technological Approach to Sustainable Fisheries?” Marine Policy 29 (2005): 255–263. 47. See Price, supra note 5, at 141. 48. See Mark Kurlansky, Cod: A Biography of the Fish that Changed the World (New York: Penguin Books, 1997), 10–11; Craig S. Smith, “North Sea Cod Crisis Brings Call for Nations to Act,” New York Times, Nov. 7, 2002, A3; and Eichenberg and Shapson, supra note 7, at 590–591. 49. Desley Mather and Matthew Gianna, “Scientists Predict Extinction for Southern Bluefin Tuna,” Greenpeace Fishery Report (Sept. 9, 1997), available at archive.greenpeace.org/comms/97/ocean/press/sept09.html (accessed on 20 March 2008). 50. B. Holmes and R. Stone, New England Groundfish: From Glory to Grief (Washington, DC: Center for Marine Conservation, 1996), 1–2. 51. See Brax, supra note 34, at 94. 52. See Oliver A. Houck, “On the Law of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Management,” Minnesota Law Review 81 (1997):. 869; Pew Oceans Commission, America's Living Oceans: Charting a Course for Sea Change (Washington, DC: Pew Oceans Commission, 2003), 2; Christopher J. Carr and Harry N. Scheiber, “Dealing with a Resource Crisis: Regulatory Regimes for Managing the World's Marine Fisheries,” Stanford Environmental Law Journal 45 (2002): 54; and Tyler, supra note 35, at 48–49. 53. Pew Oceans Commission, supra note 52, at 2. 54. See Hilborn et al., supra note 6, at 361. 55. Ibid., at 373. 56. Ibid., at 375. 57. Ibid. 58. Mark T. Gibbs, “Lesser-Known Consequences of Managing Marine Fisheries Using Individual Transferable Quotas,” Marine Policy 31 (2007): 112–116. 59. Rognvaldur Hannesson and Stein Ivar Steinshamn, “How to Set Catch Quotas: Constant Effort or Constant Catch?” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 20 (1991): 71–91. 60. A. Karagiannakos, “Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and Quota Management System in the European Union,” Marine Policy 20, no. 3 (1996): 235–248. 61. Harrison Fell and James N. Sanchirico, “The Political Economy of Addressing Overfishing in U.S. Waters,” Resources for the Future Policy Commentary, Oct. 22, 2007, 11–15. 62. Jim Gilmore, The Pollock Conservation Cooperative: A Private Sector Initiative Promoting Conservation of Marine Resources (ATSEA, 2003), available at www.atsea.org/images/co-oppositionBriefing.pdf (accessed on 4 January 2008). 63. Pacific Whiting Conservation Cooperative, A Partnership in Responsible Fishing (May 22, 2008), available at www.pacificwhiting.org/ (accessed on 1 June 2008). 64. Fell and Sanchirico, supra note 61, at 12. 65. United States Executive Order 13158 of May 26, 2000. 66. G. N. Tuck and H. P. Possingham, “Marine Protected Areas for Spatially Structured Exploited Stocks,” Marine Ecology 192 (2000): 89–101. 67. See Charles Kennel, Testimony Before the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, April 19, 2002, 2; Robert E. Blyth, Michel J. Kaiser, Gareth Edwards-Jones, and Paul J. B. Hart, “Implications of a Zoned Fishery Management System for Marine Benthic Communities,” Journal of Applied Ecology 41 (2004): 951–961; Karen N. Scott, “The Day After Tomorrow: Ocean CO2 Sequestration and the Future of Climate Change,” Georgetown International Environmental Law Review 18 (2005): 57–108.; K. Kelleher, C. Bleakley, and S. Wells (eds.), A Global Representative System of Marine Protected Areas, 4 Vols. (Washington, DC: IUCN, 1995); and Simon J. Cripps and Sabine Christiansen, “A Strategic Approach to Protecting Areas on the High-Seas,” Managing Risks to Biodiversity and the Environment on the High Sea, Including Tools Such as Marine Protected Areas—Scientific Requirements and Legal Aspects, ed. Hjalmar Thiel and J. Anthony Koslow (Berlin: International Academy for Nature Conservation, Mar. 4, 2001), 113–122. 68. Alexander Gillepsie, “Obligations, Gaps, and Priorities Within the International Regime for Protected Areas,” Georgetown International Environmental Law Review 19 (2006): 31. 69. U.S. Coast Guard, Universal Shipborne Automatic Identification System Transponder (Washington, DC: U.S. Coast Guard, Oct. 4, 2002), available at www.navcen.uscg.gov/marcomms/ais.htm (accessed on 20 December 2007). 70. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Fishery Management: Vessel Monitoring Systems (Washington, DC: NOAA, 2006). 71. European Commission, Fisheries—Vessel Monitoring System (Mar. 17, 2006), available at ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/control_enforcement/vms_en.htm (accessed on 4 February 2008). 72. Wiliam E. Schrank, “Is There Hope for Fisheries Management?” Marine Policy 31 (2007): 299–307. 73. Hannesson and Steinshamn, supra note 59, at 71–91. 74. Terry Heaps, “The Effects on Welfare of the Imposition of Individual Transferable Quotas on a Heterogeneous Fishing Fleet,” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 46 (2003): 557–576. 75. See Arthur E. Neiland and Christophe Béné, Poverty and Small-Scale Fisheries in West Africa (New York: Springer, 2004), 12–19; and Roman Grynberg, Fisheries Issues in WTO and ACP-EU Trade Negotiations (Brussels: EU Commonwealth Secretariat, 2003), 3–6. 76. Karagiannakos, supra note 60, at 235–248. 77. Ibid. 78. Elena Anferova, Markus Vetemaa, and Rognvaldur Hannesson, “Fish Quota Auctions in the Russian Far East: A Failed Experiment,” Marine Policy 29 (2005): 47–56. 79. Ikerne del Valle and Kepa Astorkiza, “Institutional Designs to Face the Dark Side of Total Allowable Catches,” ICES Journal of Marine Science 64 (2007): 851–857. 80. Convention on Future Multilateral Cooperation in Northwest Atlantic Fisheries, 1135 U.N.T.S. 369. 81. See Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO), Conservation and Enforcement Measures, NAFO FC Doc. 06/1 Serial No. N5206 (2005), 11–12; and Tyler, supra note 35, at 73. 82. Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, NAFO VMS Programme (Oct. 2006), ix. 83. See John A. Heap, “Has CCAMLR Worked? Management Policies and Ecological Needs,” in The Antarctic Treaty System in World Politics, ed. Arnfinn Gorgensen-Dahl and Willy Ostreng (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1992), 48. 84. Eric J. Molenaar, “Multilateral Hot Pursuit and Illegal Fishing in the Southern Ocean: The Pursuits of the Viarsa 1 and the South Tomi,” International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 19 (2004): 31. 85. See Olav Schram Stokke and Davor Vidas, “Conclusions,” in Governing the Antarctic: The Effectiveness and Legitimacy of the Antarctic Treaty System, ed. Olav Schram Stokke and Davor Vidas (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 452. 86. See Carr and Scheiber, supra note 52, at 61–62; and Tyler 2006, supra note 35, at 67. 87. Carr and Scheiber, supra note 52, at 46. 88. See Elizabeth R. DeSombre, “Fishing Under Flags of Convenience: Using Market Power to Increase Participation in International Regulation,” Global Environmental Politics 5, no. 4 (2005): 75. 89. See Jessica K. Ferrell, “Controlling Flags of Convenience: One Measure to Stop Overfishing of Collapsing Fish Stocks,” Environmental Law 35 (2005): 338. 90. Michael Richardson, “Crimes Under Flags of Convenience” (May 19, 2003), available at yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=1633 (accessed on 1 November 2007). 91. Ibid. 92. See American Maritime Officer, “Hearing Probes U.S. Security Risks of Using FOC Ships” (2002), available at www.amo-union.org/newspaper/Morgue/7–2002/Sections/News/security.htm (accessed on 10 October 2008). 93. Christopher D. Stone, “Too Many Fishing Boats, Too Few Fish: Can Trade Laws Trim Subsidies and Restore the Balance in Global Fisheries?” Ecology Law Quarterly 24 (1997): 511. 94. See Trysh Stone, “Fishing in the Freezer: Challenges for Fisheries Managers in Australia's sub-Antarctic Fisheries” in Southern Ocean Fishing: Policy Challenges for Australia, ed. Sam Bateman and Donald R. Rothwell (Wollongong: Center for Maritime Policy, 1998), pp. 97–100. 95. Ibid., at 97–98. 96. Ibid. 97. See IUCN High Seas Task Force, Closing the Net: Stopping Illegal Fishing on the High Seas (Washington: IUCN, 2006), pp. 27–28. 98. National Environmental Trust, Black Market for White Gold: The Illegal Trade in Chilean Sea Bass (Washington, DC: NET, Sept. 2004), available at www.net.org/proactive/newsroom/release.vtml?id=28875 (accessed on 10 October 2008). 99. Ibid. 100. See IUCN High Seas Task Force, supra note 97, at 28–29. 101. See DeSombre, supra note 88, at 73–95. 102. Richard McGarvey, “Demand-Side Fishery Management: Integrating Two Forms of Input Control,” Marine Policy 27 (2003): 208–218; Jonathan Harris and Anne-Marie Codur, “Economics of Fisheries,” in Encyclopedia of Earth, ed. J Cutler Cleveland (Washington, DC: National Council for Science and the Environment, 2006), 445–447; and Benjamin K. Sovacool and Kelly Siman, “Creating Legal Teeth for Toothfish: Using the Market to Protect Fish Stocks in Antarctica,” Journal of Environmental Law 20 (2008): 15–33. 103. See J. Samuel Barkin and Kashif Mansori, “Backward Boycotts: Demand Management and Fishery Conservation,” Global Environmental Politics 2 (2001): 31. 104. Ibid., at 31–32. 105. Ibid., at 33–41. 106. Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, 993 U.N.T.S. 243. 107. Stone, supra note 93, at 505–537. 108. See Food and Agricultural Organization, FAO Expert Consultation on Economic Incentives and Responsible Fisheries (Rome: FAO, Nov. 28 to Dec. 1, 2000), 1–5; and Tyler supra note 35, at 51. 109. Nancy Nelson, “International Concern for the Sustainability of the World's Fisheries,” Colorado Journal of International Environmental Law and Policy (1999): 157–163. 110. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, “Marine Fisheries and the Law of the Sea: A Decade of Change” in The State of Food and Agriculture (Washington, DC: FAO, 1992), 29–30. 111. Ibid. 112. Stone, supra note 93, at 518 113. Ibid., at 510. 114. On September 24, 2007, the United States announced new regulations requiring all imports of toothfish entering the country be documented using an ECD system. The scheme allows U.S. officials to access a unique document online for each shipment. Given that the electronic information for incoming U.S. shipments is only accessible by a toothfish import control officer, it is exceptionally difficult for it to fall into the hands of any party outside of the system, minimizing the occurrence of falsification and fraud. The new regulations also require that any catch entering the United States must have been harvested while using the centralized VMS regardless of the location of the catch. Although the United States took some criticism for its unilateral position (which essentially goes beyond the requirements of CCAMLR), the Secretariat of the World Trade Organization has stated, for now, that it does not constitute an antidiscriminatory trade practice and is approved under global trading rules. See World Trade Organization, The Environmental Benefits of Removing Trade Restrictions and Distortions: The Fisheries Sector, Note by the Secretariat, WT/CTE/W/16 (Geneva: WTO, Oct. 16, 2000). 115. See National Environmental Trust, supra note 98, at 19. 116. CITES, supra note 106. 117. 16 U.S.C. 1531–1544, 87 Stat. 884. 118. CITES, supra note 106, arts. I and II. 119. See How CITES Works (2008), available at www.cites.org/eng/disc/how.shtml (accessed on 10 October 2008). 120. See National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Office of Protected Resources, The Endangered Species Act (2004), available at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/laws/esa/ (accessed on 10 October 2008). 121. Hugh Possingham, Sandy J. Andelman, Mark A. Burgman, Rodrigo A. Medellin, Larry L. Master, and David A. Keith, “Limits to the Use of Threatened Species Lists,” Trends in Ecology and Evolution 17 (2002): 503. 122. See M. Taylor, K. S. Suckling, and R. R. Rachlinski, “The Effectiveness of the Endangered Species Act: A Quantitative Analysis,” BioScience 55 (2005): 360–367. 123. See Yovanny Lopez, “Uruguayan Company and Corporate Executive Plead Guilty and Are Sentenced for Illegal Dealings in Chilean Seabass,” NOAA Office of Law Enforcement Press Release (Nov. 13, 2006), available at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ole/news/news_SED_111306.htm (accessed on 10 January 2008). 124. Melanie Gosling, “Company Bust for Poaching in City, but Boss Still Gets Honoured in Israel,” Cape Times, Aug. 6, 2003, available at www.capetimes.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=271&fArticleId=202674 (accessed on 10 October 2008). 125. See Joe Kruger and Billy Pizer, Europe Goes to Market: Opportunities and Challenges with a Trail Blazing Trading System (Washington, DC: Resources for the Future, 2004), 2–5; and Jeffrey K. Mangis, “The United States Sulfur Dioxide Emissions Allowance Program: An Overview with Emphasis of Monitoring Requirements and Procedures,” European Environment Agency Technical Report No. 29 (Nov. 5, 1999), 1–9. 126. Ole Langniss and Ryan Wiser, “The Renewables Portfolio Standard in Texas: An Early Assessment,” Energy Policy 31 (2003): 527–535. 127. International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna, www.iccat.int/ (accessed 10 October 2008). 128. Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna, www.ccsbt.org/ (accessed 10 October 2008). 129. Indian Ocean Tuna Commission, http://www.iotc.org/English/index.php (accessed 10 October 2008). 130. See Rebecca Lent, Format for Documenting Categorical Exclusion of Several Actions (NOAA, 2006), available at www.rdc.noaa.gov/~foia/216–6exh.html (accessed on 10 October 2008). 131. Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna, “Action Plan” (revised Mar. 21–23, 2000), available at www.ccsbt.org/docs/pdf/about_the_commission/action_plan.pdf (accessed 10 October 2008). 132. Gordon Helm, “U.S. Bans Bluefin Tuna Imports from Three Nations Fishing in Violation of ICCAT,” Aug. 21, 1997, available at www.publicaffairs.noaa.gov/pr97/aug97/noaa97-r158.html (accessed 10 October 2008). 133. Linda A. Chaves, “IUU Fishing: WTO Consistent Trade Measures to Address IUU Fishing,” FAO Document Repository (2000), available at www.fao.org/DOCREP/005/Y3274E/y3274e0i.htm (accessed on 10 October 2008). 134. See Lent, supra note 130. 135. See DeSombre, supra note 88. 136. Ibid. 137. See Gregory Shaffer, “International Decision: United States—Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products. WTO Doc. WT/DS58/AB/R,” American Journal of International Law 93 (1999): 507–514; Louise de La Fayette, “International Decision: United Sates—Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products—Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Malaysia,” American Journal of International Law 96 (2002): 685–692; and DeSombre, supra note 88, at 73–95. 138. See DeSombre, supra note 88, at 93. 139. See World Trade Organization 2000, supra note 114. 140. See Hilborn et al., supra note 6. 141. Ibid., at 374. 142. See Hardin, supra note 19, at 1247.