RESIST: Standing Firm Against Trump’s Attacks on Marine Monuments and Sanctuaries

Donald Trump isn’t a big fan of laws.  Those annoying byproducts of democratic society get in the way of rule by fiat — or Twitter, as it were.  Donald Trump isn’t a big fan of the environment either.  Combining these two proclivities, Trump has charted a course to destroy the Environmental Protection Agency, to gut the Endangered Species Act, and to renounce any responsibility to take action on climate change.

Trump also has a discordant position on monuments:  If they are memorials to Confederate leaders, removing them is “so foolish!”  Yet, if the monuments set aside land, water, and oceans for conservation, Trump can’t wait to blast them out of existence.

Trump does not limit his plan to destroy or reduce conservation monuments to terrestrial parks like the Bears Ears National Monument in Utah.  Rather, as a product of Trump’s Executive Order 13795, “Implementing an America-First Offshore Energy Strategy,” Trump seeks to “review” (i.e., reduce or eliminate) 11 National Marine Sanctuaries and Marine National Monuments designated or expanded since April 28, 2007.  The goal is, quite clearly, to open these spaces up for potential oil and gas operations.

Among the monuments and sanctuaries on the chopping block are the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument off Hawaii, Rose Atoll Marine National Monument off American Samoa, Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary off California, and the Thunder Bay Marine Sanctuary off Michigan.

170109spinner

Spinner dolphins in the lagoon at Midway Atoll National Wildlife Refuge in Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument.  Photo credit: Andy Collins/National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Here at Sea Shepherd Legal, we are calling out this nonsense and fighting back in the name of conservation and the rule of law.

Our first step was to file comprehensive comments with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in opposition to Trump’s plan.  See SSL Comments on E.O. 13795 Review.   More steps will follow.  We will not go down without a fight.  To quote the former reality television star turned President, “It’s going to be beautiful.  Believe me.”  Despite Trump’s all-out-assault on the crown jewels of our national (and natural) heritage, we have good reason to be optimistic.  The results of a recent analysis demonstrated that, of the approximately 53,000 official comments submitted to NOAA on this topic, 99% were in favor of preserving our national monuments and sanctuaries.

*****

For those interested in some of the finer legal aspects of this issue, we encourage you to read our comments in full.  We also offer the following additional thoughts on how the President’s approach clashes with environmental and constitutional law.

The epitome of back-sliding

There is an emerging principle in global environmental law known as the principle of non-regression.  At its core, the non-regression principle stands for the common-sense proposition that environmental law should operate as one-way ratchet.  While lawmakers can and should improve environmental laws to meet new challenges, they should not use legislative power to roll back protections.  This principle “is based on the assumption that environmental law seeks to prevent the degradation of the environment by constantly improving environmental quality.”  Lia Helena Monteiro de Lima Demange,  The Principle of Resilience, 30 Pace Envtl. L. Rev. 695, 724 (2013).  While this principle may still be in its “embryonic” stage, as Brazilian Justice Antonio Benjamin phrases it, there is no question that this principle is urgently needed in the Anthropocene.  See Antonio Herman Benjamin, Environmental Courts and Tribunals: Improving Access to Justice and Protection of the Environment around the World, 29 Pace Envtl. L. Rev. 582, 589 (2012).

“Mr. Trump, the Framers called.  They suggest you take a look at the Constitution.”

In U.S. constitutional and administrative law, there is a far more familiar principle: that of limited executive authority.  Any power that the President has must arise from either an Act of Congress or the Constitution.  Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 585 (1952).  Although the President has authority to communicate his policy preferences to an executive agency, and agencies often have latitude to administer legislation, agency action is still confined by the boundaries of the law.  The President cannot simply undo the work of previous Administrations by saying, in effect, “There’s a new sheriff in town.”

As you read this, the Trump Administration is doing its best to smash both of these principles by laying the groundwork for erasing protections in 11 duly designated and/or expanded Marine National Monuments and National Marine Sanctuaries.

Please consider supporting our work to fight back by making a tax-deductible donation.

Advertisements

Calling out the Cacophony: Sea Shepherd Legal Submits Comments on Proposed Navy Sonar Operations

In the popular imagination, the ocean is synonymous with tranquility.  The crashing noise of a violent storm serves merely to punctuate, throwing into sharper relief the soothing sounds of lapping waves and gentle breeze that we so frequently associate with the sea.

Yet, as marine bioacoustics expert Christopher Clark explains, we deceive ourselves with these quaint notions:

“We look out at the ocean and see this bucolic seascape, and some seagulls flying along the horizon and maybe a sailboat, and we think everything is hunky dory. Well, it isn’t. We are injecting so much noise that we are effectively acoustically bleaching the world’s oceans.” — Prof. Christopher Clark, Cornell University

3633bb25c0d5dc6b3b864e10a84f4f5c

Credit: OceanCare

Over the past several decades, marine noise pollution has grown at an exponential rate. Noise from vessel traffic is doubling every decade.  Pile-driving, dredging, and seismic exploration for oil and gas add to the cacophony.  This last source, typically employing “air guns,” may be the worst of all.  As Clark observes, the noise from an air-gun survey is truly mind-boggling:

“It is so loud that when someone is surveying off northern Brazil, I can hear that explosion on a small piece of instrumentation that I deploy 60 miles off the coast of Virginia.”  — Prof. Christopher Clark, Cornell University

On top of all this, the U.S. Navy and other military forces around the world harass marine mammals with sonar, repeatedly blasting them with sound waves that cause severe stress, behavioral changes, masking (i.e., difficulty perceiving important natural sounds), non-auditory injury (i.e., gas bubble formation/rectified diffusion), strandings, and noise-induced loss of hearing sensitivity (a.k.a., “threshold shift”).

sonar

Credit: Collective Evolution

At Sea Shepherd Legal, we are fighting back.  On May 30, we filed a comprehensive document opposing a proposed regulation that would authorize the Navy to harass marine mammals all over the world through sonar training operations.

Harassing, or “taking,” marine mammals in this way is presumptively illegal under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA).  Nevertheless, by invoking the MMPA’s exception for “incidental take,” the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) proposes to issue regulations authorizing the Navy to harm almost incalculable numbers of marine mammals while conducting training exercises using low-frequency sonar.  The breadth of the proposed rule—and of the underlying activity it would facilitate—cannot be overstated.  This is, quite literally, a rulemaking of global proportions.

NMFS’ proposed rule would authorize “Level B” harassment of more than 100 species and stocks of marine mammals, with the list of potentially impacted species reading like a taxonomist’s index of the world’s cetaceans and pinnipeds.  Level B harassment is no trifling matter.  It is statutorily defined as “any act that disturbs or is likely to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of natural behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, surfacing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering, to a point where such behavioral patterns are abandoned or significantly altered.”   16 U.S.C. § 1362(18).

The proposed rule would authorize not just a few Level B takes here and there; it would authorize Level B harassment of up to 12 percent of any of the 100-plus stocks and species every single year, over a five-year period.  And the rule would not limit these takes to a particular region or stretch of ocean; save for polar waters, the Navy would have free reign to harass marine mammals in all of the world’s oceans, including the Mediterranean Sea.

As we explain in our comments, this rule would violate the MMPA because it ignores cumulative impacts and fails to prescribe sufficient mitigation measures.  Worse still, the rule is a slap in the face to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  Less than one year ago, the Ninth Circuit rebuked NMFS regarding the previous iteration of this same rule (covering the 2012 to 2017 time period).  NRDC, Inc. v. Pritzker, 828 F.3d 1125 (9th Cir. 2016).  Remarkably, just ten months later, NMFS repeats these mistakes, proposing a rule that runs roughshod over the MMPA’s formidable limitations governing “incidental takes.”  If NMFS does not revise the rule to incorporate additional mitigation measures and to properly account for cumulative impacts, the agency will, yet again, violate the MMPA.

To read our full analysis, click here.

To support our efforts to combat marine noise pollution, including ongoing work to address the plight of endangered Cook Inlet beluga whales and to fight against seismic surveys around the world, please consider making a tax-deductible donation.

Sea Shepherd Legal Securing Justice for the Sea – A 2016 Retrospective

At Sea Shepherd Legal, we are working to change the polices, practices, actions and inactions that imperil marine species — adding a new dimension to Sea Shepherd’s 40-year record of success.

ssl-logo_jolly-scales_geert

Using litigation, policy development and public outreach, we work globally on many issues.  Here are just a few of our 2016 projects:

(1)  Conducted training and provided materials to assist the Republic of Palau with enforcing its new 500,000 km² marine sanctuary against rampant poaching.   For more information, see this press release: palau-workshop-i-press-release.

(2)  Demanded the listing of imperiled marine species under domestic and international regimes.  From manatees and oceanic whitetip sharks under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) to thresher sharks, silky sharks, and devil rays under CITES, we are insisting that legal regimes live up to their potential.  If environmental laws are just slogans, they might as well be thrown in the dumpster.  We mean to see these laws enforced.

(3)  Provided legal briefing to officials in China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mauritania, Senegal and Singapore to halt ongoing illicit fishing activities discovered in Sea Shepherd Global’s Operation Icefish II and Operation Driftnet.

(4) Submitted amicus curiae brief in U.S. Court of Appeals to (1) support release of captive orca Lolita from Miami Seaquarium; (2) contest inappropriately narrow interpretation of “take” under the ESA; and (3) contest suggestion by lower court that captive animals are less susceptible to “take” than are wild animals.

(5) Opposed three applications by oil & gas exploration entities for “Incidental Take Permits” to harass (harm or even kill) Cook Inlet belugas.

(6) Filed a lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) against the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) for failing to timely provide requested materials related to Cook Inlet belugas.

(7) Partnered with the Latin American Environmental Prosecutors Network to enhance protections for marine wildlife and habitat throughout the region.  Among other efforts, we secured 140,000-plus signatures to pressure the government of Brazil to take specific action to protect the iconic Guiana dolphin from bycatch and irresponsible coastal development.

 . . . and a whole lot more.

*****

As the challenges mount, we rise to meet them.  This past year was overflowing with threats to marine ecosystems and wildlife.  Far from leaving us feeling overwhelmed, the dire state of affairs only strengthens our resolve.

Thank you to the entire Sea Shepherd family and its legion of supporters around the globe.  Here’s to 2017.  Bring it on.

Is Rio’s Guiana Dolphin the Next Vaquita? A Moment of Hope in Brazilian Prosecutors’ Fight to Save an Icon

As we have mentioned several times in the past, the iconic Guiana dolphin (Sotalia guianensis), or “boto-cinza” in Portuguese, may soon disappear from Rio’s waters.  The region’s two populations — in Guanabara Bay and Sepetiba Bay, respectively — are on a collision course with extirpation.

Since 2003, Rio’s Guiana dolphin numbers have dropped precipitously.  Nearly 10 Guiana dolphins are killed every month in fishing nets in Sepetiba Bay.  A decade ago, Septebia Bay was home to some 2,000 individuals.  Today, there are fewer than 800 remaining, and the Guiana dolphin may become a memory in just a few short years.

Additional threats include pollution, depletion of prey and habitat, ship traffic, port development and other coastal impacts.

“What we are fighting for here is to ensure that the Guiana dolphin doesn’t go the way of Mexico’s vaquita porpoise –- a species moments away from extinction due to some of the same threats,” explained Sea Shepherd Legal’s Executive Director, Catherine Pruett. Scientists recently concluded that just 60 vaquita are left.  (For information on Sea Shepherd Conservation Society’s latest efforts to protect the vaquita, click here.)

The good news:  Brazilian prosecutors have shown that they are willing and able to bring the fight to the illegal fishermen who are pushing the Guiana dolphin to the brink.

Early this week, the Ministério Público Federal for the State of Rio de Janeiro (Ministério Público) filed 15 civil actions against a total of 31 defendants for illegal, industrial-scale fishing in Sepetiba Bay.  The Ministério Público is a body of independent public prosecutors in Brazil.  Although technically a part of the executive branch, federal prosecutors in Brazil form an independent institution.  Thus, unlike the U.S. Attorney General and U.S. Attorneys, government officers subject to presidential appointment and removal, prosecutors within the Ministério Public are not beholden to such clear political control.

This latest series of filings is part of the Ministério Público’s broader campaign to crack down on illegal activity harming the Guiana dolphin.  Thanks to one of our Brazilian colleagues, we were able to translate the official press release into English.  The translated document is available here: baia-de-sepetiba.  The original (in Portuguese) can be accessed here.

ministerio_publico_estadual_riodejaneiro

boto-cinza-ameacas-2

As the press release explains, one of the major culprits is purse-seining for “bait fish” (e.g., sardines), which are then used to catch tuna.  Given the sensitive coastal environment and presence of the boto-cinza, fishing with purse seines has been illegal in Sepetiba Bay since 1993.  But in the absence of adequate enforcement, it still occurs.

We are happy to see Brazil’s prosecutors doing their part to confront this existential threat.  The Ministério Público clearly understands the gravity of the situation, observing as follows:  “If the percentage of mortality remains high, the species is expected to disappear from Sepetiba Bay in eight years.”

In many nations — certainly in the U.S. — federal prosecutors are loathe to call out the federal government for contributing to an environmental problem.  The Ministério Público’s willlingness to do so is especially encouraging.

In this case, the offending vessels have actually benefited from government largess in the form of diesel subsidies.  The Ministério Público makes no bones about it:  These subsidies must stop, and they must stop now.  Federal prosecutor Monique Checker strikes to the heart of the matter:  “If the Union [the government of Brazil] financially helps environmental offenders, it is itself participating in the criminal practice.”

Well said, Monique.  We stand firmly with you.

Take Action Alert: Stop the Killing Contests in Chesapeake Bay — Cownose Rays Need Your Help!

Mahatma Gandhi famously stated that “the greatness of a nation can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”  Under this standard, the United States, and Maryland in particular, should be judged very harshly for the inhumane treatment of cownose rays.

For some time now, summer on the Chesapeake Bay has meant slaughter for cownose rays.  Attracted by organized killing “contests,” bowmen pack up their gear, hit the water in their boats, and let arrows fly in an orgy of bloodlust.  After shooting the rays, often point-blank, with arrows, the “contestants” drag them out of the water by hooks, beat them mercilessly with metal clubs, and then toss them into boxes where they slowly suffocate to death.  The rays are then dumped into the river like garbage.  Untold numbers  of rays are brutally killed every year — many of which are pregnant females.

cownoseray_dying-570x321

This undercover video, captured by Showing Animals Respect and Kindness (SHARK), reveals a level of depravity that defies description.

Because this horrific “competition” is judged based on the weight of the catch, pregnant rays are an attractive option.  At the same time, though, these pregnant mothers present a challenge:  How to keep the pups inside during the weigh-in?

Contestants try everything from zip ties (“They put a tie strap on it so she can’t spit her babies out before they get back”) to pushing the babies back inside with their hands.  One clip even shows a contestant who tied the baby to its mother with a string, the pup simply dangling in the air.  

But here is the most shocking part:  Killing cownose rays for entertainment through inhumane contests is currently legal in Maryland.  

To protect these native migratory rays, and to preserve the Chesapeake Bay’s ecosystem, Maryland must prohibit such cruel and unnecessary contests.  In the past, proponents have attempted to justify the killing as necessary for the protection of the local shellfish industry.  However, recent scientific studies have shown that cownose rays are not to blame for shellfish losses.  In fact, these rays have low reproductive rates and are, therefore, incapable of rapid population increases — making them particularly vulnerable to overfishing.

Together with SHARK, Fish Feel, Maryland Votes for Animals, the Center for Biological Diversity, Last Chance for Animals, and other groups, Sea Shepherd Legal is pushing for an end to this legally sanctioned slaughter.

Take Action: Tell your state legislators and Governor Hogan to support proposed legislation that will stop these inhumane, cownose ray killing contests.

Write or call Governor Hogan:

Maryland Governor Larry Hogan
Call: 410-974-3901 or 1-800-811-8336
Online at: http://governor.maryland.gov/mail/default.asp

Sign the online petition.

Victory at CITES! Committee Votes to List the Silky Shark, Thresher Sharks, and Mobula Rays

We did it.  In a collective effort supported by numerous NGOs — and with the backing of several key nations — the committee tasked with considering species proposals voted today to recommend listing of silky sharks, thresher sharks, and mobula rays under CITES Appendix II.  While the committee’s recommendation could be overturned in the full plenary session tomorrow, we believe such an outcome is unlikely given the strong support for the listings.

Sea Shepherd Legal galvanized support in the days preceding this momentous occasion.  By relentlessly engaging delegates from all corners of the globe — and by hosting a packed side event — we did everything in our power to ensure this result.

Today’s developments stand in stark contrast to the position of the U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), which recently found that the bigeye and common thresher do not warrant protection under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).  NMFS made a grave mistake in reaching this conclusion.  Along with several other groups, Sea Shepherd Legal has been working to win these sharks the ESA protections that they deserve.

This victory is only the beginning.  Much work remains to be accomplished.  We need to list more sharks and rays.  More importantly, we must push for immediate and effective implementation of these new listings, along with greater enforcement of existing domestic and regional conservation measures.

Today, we celebrate.  Tomorrow, we continue the fight.

img_3495

Silky shark.  Photo credit: Alex Hofford.

Sea Shepherd Legal Packs the House in Johannesburg, Calling for CITES Protections for Sharks, Rays, and Other Marine Species

In just a few days, the international community will have a rare opportunity to give sharks, rays, and other marine species a measure of the protection they deserve.  Early next week, the parties to CITES will decide whether to list the silky shark, all species of thresher sharks, all species of mobula rays, the bangaii cardinalfish, the clarion angelfish, and the nautilus.  If successful, these listings will create serious legal obstacles to unchecked international trade — trade that is pushing these species to the brink.  It’s not enough, but it’s a significant step in the right direction.

ssl-questions

Last night, Sea Shepherd Legal held a panel discussion, calling for parties to do the right thing by supporting the proposals in favor of greater protections for marine species.  Featuring a compelling presentation by a distinguished biologist and stirring endorsements by official delegates from Brazil and the Philippines, the event galvanized support ahead of next week’s critical votes.

Vaquita.jpg

The parties are informed.  The world is watching.  Should the CITES community fail to respond, they will have no excuses to offer.  Parties:  Do the right thing.  Vote “yes.”

 

Giving Teeth to Toothfish Protections: CITES Listing Is a Must

This is the third entry in a series live from CITES CoP 17 in Johannesburg, South Africa

Known as “white gold” among illegal fishermen, Patagonian and Antarctic toothfish can fetch as much as $US 83 million for the catch from a single vessel.  In the face of this lucrative market, toothfish populations have experienced precipitous declines throughout their range.  Some of the only protections against the overharvest of toothfish are provided by the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR or Convention).

Here’s the problem:  CCAMLR is legally binding on only a small fraction of the world’s nations.  CCAMLR boasts but 25 Members and 11 Acceding States.  That means that only 36 nations, or approximately 18% of the world’s countries, have agreed to bind themselves to CCAMLR’s conservation measures.

So what?, you might be thinking.  Not every nation targets toothfish.  As long as the fishing nations are bound to the Convention, who cares?  And the really bad guys — pirate ships, like the Thunder — ignore laws entirely.   

The second thought may be right.  Extreme scofflaws are only deterred by stiff enforcement, which is where Sea Shepherd vessels like the Sam Simon and Steve Irwin come into play.  But the first thought — that CCAMLR is good enough as far as the law is concerned — fails to account for the complexities of the problem.

news-150410-1-1-gg-matze-flag-line-pile-9s1a9133-1000w

The Sam Simon hauls in miles of illegal gillnet abandoned by the Thunder.

Unfortunately, CCAMLR does not cover all nations whose vessels ply the Southern Ocean for toothfish.  Over the past decade, a number of nations that are not CCAMLR signatories have reportedly flagged vessels identified as engaging in illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing in Convention waters.  Moreover, CCAMLR’s reach does not extend to the many nations that import toothfish in international trade.  These nations fuel the  burgeoning demand for toothfish in international trade.

Bottom line:  We have a slew of nations not bound by CCAMLR that either (A) flag vessels that harvest toothfish, or (B) import toothfish.

Enter CITES.  Where CCAMLR suffers from limited membership, CITES boasts a nearly universal membership.  Out of 196 nations, 183 are parties to CITES.

If toothfish were listed under CITES Appendix I, commercial trade between CITES parties (the vast majority of the world) would be banned.  If, more realistically, toothfish were listed under CITES Appendix II, commercial trade could still occur, but non-CCAMLR states involved in fishing would face serious procedural hurdles designed to prevent fishing “detrimental” to the survival of the targeted toothfish species.

Recognizing the benefits of a CITES listing, in 2002, Australia tabled a proposal to list toothfish under Appendix II.  Unfortunately, Australia withdrew this proposal in the face of opposition, and the CITES CoP settled for a “solution” proposed by Chile.  This “solution” requested the CITES parties to adopt and implement the CCAMLR catch document scheme.  Nevertheless, despite the apparent good intentions out of which it emerged, the 2002 compromise has been an absolute disaster.

Now, with this background, we turn to its relevance for the current CITES Conference of the Parties (CoP).  Frustrated by the failure of the 2002 compromise, CCAMLR has submitted a formal plea to the CITES Secretariat to encourage CITES parties involved in the harvest and/or trade of toothfish to adhere to their prior commitments.  In its submission, CCAMLR describes the history of blatant noncompliance with those commitments:

2. In November 2002, the CITES Conference of Parties (CoP12) adopted Resolution 12.4 on ‘Cooperation between CITES and the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources Regarding Trade in Toothfish’ and Decisions 12.57 to 12.59 regarding the trade in toothfish.

3. Pursuant to Resolution Conf. 12.4 and Decisions 12.57 and 12.59, Parties to CITES involved in the harvest and/or trade of toothfish are requested to cooperate with CCAMLR’s Catch Documentation Scheme (CDS) for Dissostichus spp. Parties were also requested to report on the implementation of the CDS to the CITES Secretariat and for the information to be communicated to CCAMLR (CCAMLR-XXII, 2003, paragraphs 14.1 and 14.2). This document is submitted in accordance with the abovementioned resolution and decisions.

4. To date, no information has been made available to CCAMLR by the CITES Secretariat pursuant Resolution Conf. 12.4 with regard to the international trade in toothfish.

While supporting CCAMLR’s attempt to rectify this situation, we don’t belive its proposal to the CITES Secretariat goes far enough.  The history described above leads to but one conclusion:  Listing under CITES is absolutely necessary to the long-term survival of toothfish.  The 2002 compromise failed to reign in nations involved in fishing and trading in toothfish.  CITES parties that are not parties to CCAMLR have been given a chance, and they have failed.  For the sake of the toothfish — and for the sake of CITES’ credibility — toothfish species should be proposed for listing at the next CITES CoP.  Sea Shepherd Legal intends to work hard to achieve this goal.

Please support our work at CoP17 with a tax-deductible donation.

Sea Shepherd Legal Lands in South Africa for CITES CoP 17

The Sea Shepherd Legal team has landed in Johannesburg, South Africa, as an official NGO observer of the 17th meeting of the Conference of the Parties (CoP) to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).  Over the next two weeks, we will be advocating for greater protection for endangered marine wildlife.  Along the way, we will be posting daily recaps, calls to action, and important developments.

SSL Logo

 

CITES is a global environmental treaty regulating international trade in endangered species.  While trade in elephant ivory and rhino horn grabs many of the headlines, CITES also plays a critical role in trade related to marine wildlife.

Unfortunately, marine species have often receive short shrift under CITES.  This is especially true for species targeted by commercial fisheries, as many parties have insisted that regional fisheries management organizations (RFMOs) serve as the proper vehicles for governance.

Yet, it is undisputed that CITES was designed to target trade in all threatened and endangered species.  The treaty makes no distinction between marine and terrestrial wildlife, and the presence of other governance instruments (like RFMOs) neither logically nor legally precludes CITES protection.

Building on the successes of the 16th CoP in Thailand — where the parties agreed to list five species of sharks and all species of manta rays in Appendix II  — Sea Shepherd Legal will be pushing for further listings for marine wildlife.

Proposals this year include the silky shark (Carcharhinus falciformis), thresher sharks (Alopias spp.), and devil rays (Mobula spp.), along with nautilus species (Nautilidae spp.) and two species of reef fish (Pterapogon kauderni and Holacanthus clarionensis).

shark-silky-noaa-2

The silky shark is taken in large numbers in target and by-catch fisheries.  By 2013, the proportion of silky fins in the international market had increased to levels as high as 7.47%.

In addition to pushing for the adoption of these proposals — hardly a guaranteed outcome, unfortunately — we will be highlighting the key role of enforcement, including Sea Shepherd’s collaborative efforts with government forces to combat Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated fishing, as well as to protect the critically endangered vaquita and totoaba, both of which are listed in CITES Appendix I.

Stay tuned to this blog for updates, and consider making a donation to support our work to leverage CITES in favor of marine wildlife.

 

International Criminal Court Places New Emphasis on Addressing Destruction of the Environment

In what may amount to be another tool in Sea Shepherd Legal’s arsenal, the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) announced on Thursday a new policy to prioritize crimes “that are committed by means of, or that result in, inter alia, the destruction of the environment, the illegal exploitation of natural resources or the illegal dispossession of land.”

international-criminal-court

 

As the policy announcement makes clear, this shift does not create or expand the ICC’s jurisdiction.  The ICC is limited by its enabling treaty (the Rome Statute) to adjudication of four basic crimes:  genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression.  Similarly, the ICC is only able to investigate and prosecute such crimes where the involved nations are unable or unwilling to do so.

Nevertheless, while this policy shift is necessarily limited by the four corners of the Rome Statute, the announcement signals an important move toward greater recognition of environmental crimes.  By assigning priority to Rome Statute crimes “that are committed by means of, or that result in, . . . the destruction of the environment, the illegal exploitation of natural resources or the illegal dispossession of land,” the ICC points in the direction of greater parity for crimes that impact the environment and wildlife.

For too long, the environment and wildlife have played second fiddle.  Although the ICC and the Rome Statute remain primarily focused on harm to humans, yesterday’s news shows at least a partial broadening of the ICC’s perspective.  It is about time.

Please consider making a donation to support Sea Shepherd Legal and our work to fight crime against marine species.