Issue Brief

Scope of the Challenge

Oceans sustain life on earth. They shape the climate, feed the world, and cleanse the air we breathe. They are also vital to our
economic well-being, ferrying roughly 90 percent of global commerce, housing submarine cables, and providing roughly one-third of
traditional hydrocarbon resources (as well as forms of energy such as wave, wind, and tidal power). But the oceans are increasingly
threatened by a dizzying array of dangers, from the resource competition and overfishing to climate change and pollution.
Threats to the worlds ocean are inherently transnational, touching the shores of every part of the world, and almost universally
exacerbated by poorly regulated human activity. Nearly 30 percent of the worlds fish stocks are depleted due to overexploitation.
Meanwhile, port-based megacities dump pollution into the oceans, exacerbating the degradation of the marine environment and the
effects of climate change. In addition, the oceans have become the worlds garbage dumpat the heart of the Pacific Ocean, scientists
have discovered the North Pacific Gyre, where particles of plastic outweigh plankton six to one.
While the oceans have always been farmed for their immense resources, new technologies are making old practices unsustainable;
when commercial trawlers scrape the sea floor, for instance, they bulldoze entire ecosystems. And while commercial ships remain on
the surface, they produce carbon-based emissions that pollute the air. When carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere, much of it
is absorbed by the worlds oceans. The water, in response, warms and acidifies, destroying habitats like wetlands and coral reefs, and
resulting in expansive dead-zones along many coastlines. And, glacial melting in the Polar Regions is raising global sea levels, which
threaten not only marine ecosystems but also humans who live on or near coasts. Innovations like offshore drilling and deep seabed
mining are helping humans extract resources from unprecedented depths, but with questionable environmental consequences. With the
melting Arctic emerging as a promising frontier for entrepreneurial businesses and governments, access to the northernmost oceans
portends countless threats to the delicate Arctic ecosystem.
Beside environmental and biological threats, the oceans can also facilitate transnational crime. Piracy, drug smuggling, slavery, and
illegal immigration all occur in waters around the world. Even the most sophisticated ports struggle to screen cargo, containers, and
crews without creating regulatory friction or choking legitimate commerce. In recent history, the United States has policed the global
commons, but India and China are building blue-water navies that can operate across the deep oceans. This raises new questions about
how an established security guarantor should accommodate risingand increasingly assertivenaval powers.
To be good stewards of the oceans, nations around the world need to embrace more effective multilateral governance in the economic,
security, and environmental realms. So far, the most comprehensive attempt to govern international waters produced the United
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). But U.S. refusal to ratify the convention, despite widespread bipartisan
support, continues to limit its strength, creating a leadership vacuum in the maritime regime. Other states that have joined the treaty
often ignore its guidelines or fail to coordinate policies across sovereign jurisdictions. Even if it were perfectly implemented,
UNCLOS first came into force twenty years ago and is increasingly outdated.
Important initiativessuch as local fishery arrangements and the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) Regional Seas Programme
form a disjointed governance landscape that lacks legally binding instruments to legitimize or enforce their work. Recently, however,
countries increasingly recognize the need for more comprehensive oceans governance. For example, the 2012 United Nations
Conference on Sustainable Development, also known as Rio+20, identified oceans (or the "blue economy") as one of the seven
priority areas for sustainable development. While the conference produced few concrete results, it did launch the process to establish a
set of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), including a proposed oceans SDGs, which would give countries and international
organizations a road map for improving oceans conservation and governance. As threats to the oceans become more pressing, nations
around the world need to rally to create and implement an updated form of oceans governance.
Oceans Governance: Strengths & Weaknesses
A fragmented system, but gaining attention
Overall assessment: A fragmented system, but gaining attention
Oceans governance is disjointed at best. The international system is fragmented and fails to harmonize national, regional, and
international policies. It lacks a global mechanism to monitor and evaluate ocean governance across sectors and among countries. As a
result, countries do not consistently implement the governance efforts necessary to ensure the conservation, sustainable development,
and future of the seas.
The 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) established fundamental legal principles for the global oceans
governance system and is the bedrock of international oceans governance, but it is increasingly outdated and impossible to enforce.
This convention, arguably the largest and most complex treaty ever negotiated, was finalized in 1982 and entered into force in 1994.

Enshrined as a widely accepted corpus of international customary law, UNCLOS clearly enumerates the rights, responsibilities, and
jurisdictions of states in their use and management of the worlds oceans. The treaty defines "exclusive economic zones" (EEZs), as
the coastal water and seabed areasextending two hundred nautical miles from shoreover which a state has special rights over the
use of marine resources; establishes the limits of a countrys "territorial sea," or the sovereign territory of a state that extends twelve
nautical miles from shore; and clarifies rules for transit through "international straits." It also addresseswith varying degrees of
effectivenessresource division, maritime traffic, and pollution regulation, as well as serves as the principal forum for dispute
resolution on ocean-related issues. To date, 165 countries and the European Union have ratified UNCLOS.
UNCLOS is a remarkable achievement, but its resulting global oceans governance regime suffers several serious limitations: First, the
worlds leading naval power, the United States, is not party to the convention, which presents obvious challenges to its effectiveness
as well as undermines U.S. sovereignty, national interests, and ability to exercise leadership over resource management and dispute
resolution. Despite myriad military, economic, and political benefits offered by UNCLOS, a small but vocal minority in the United
States continues to block congressional ratification.
Second, UNCLOS, is now thirty years old and, as a result, does not adequately address a number of emerging and increasingly
important international issues, such as widespread maritime pollution, and transnational crime committed at sea, or fishing on the high
seasa classic case of the tragedy of the commons.
Third, both UNCLOS and subsequent multilateral measures have weak surveillance, capacity-building, and enforcement mechanisms.
Although various UN bodies support the instruments created by UNCLOS, they have no direct role in their implementation. Individual
states are responsible for ensuring that the conventions rules are enforcedwhich presents obvious challenges in areas of overlapping
or contested sovereignty, or effectively stateless parts of the world.
The UN General Assembly has attempted to advanceg the oceans agenda at the international level, but its recommendations are weak
and constrained by the bodys lack of enforcement capability. In an effort to address some of the major oceans governance gaps within
the organization, the United Nations launched the Oceans Compact in August 2012 to improve coherence of the UNs oceans-related
mandates, and enhance the UNs coordination with both governments and nongovernmental entities involved in the global oceans
governance system. However, the Oceans Compact has struggled to affect real change.
Other international organizations that operate in conjunction with UNCLOSsuch as the International Maritime Organization (IMO),
the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea (ITLOS), and the International Seabed Authority (ISA)also play an important role
in the global oceans governance regime. The IMO has helped to reduce ship pollution to historically low levels, although it can be
slow to enact new policy on issues such as invasive species that are dispersed around the world in ballast water. ITLOS only functions
if member states are willing to submit their differences to its judgment, while the ISA labors in relative obscurity and operates under
intense pressure from massive commercial entities. In addition, the oceans governance regime lacks a global evaluation framework to
assess progress in addressing major oceans challenges. No single institution is charged with monitoring and collecting national,
regional, and global data on the full range of oceans-related issues, particularly on crosscutting efforts. Periodic data collecting does
take place in specific sectors, such as biodiversity conservation, fisheries issues, and marine pollution, but comprehensive datasets are
still incomplete. The Global Ocean Observing System is a promising initiative for gathering scientific data on the status of marine and
ocean environments across the seven oceans, in order to track developments and forecast climate change threats. While sponsored by
the UNEP, World Meteorological Organization, International Council for Science, and Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission,
it is significantly underfunded and unevenly implemented around the world. Without concrete and reliable data, it is difficult to craft
effective policies that address and mitigate emerging threats.
Nevertheless, the success of UNCLOS requires coastal states to first make comprehensive oceans strategy a prioritya goal that
remains elusive thus far. Coastal states struggle to craft policies that incorporate the many challenges involving the oceans, from
transnational drug smuggling and protecting ravaged fish stocks to establishing proper regulatory measures for offshore oil and gas
drilling. Among the handful of countries that have comprehensive ocean policiesincluding Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Japan,
and most recently the United Statesfew synchronize their activities with other countries. Even at the domestic level, local, state, and
national maritime actors rarely coordinate their agendas and priorities.
Finally, at the regional level, several initiatives attempt to organize the cluttered oceans governance landscape. The UNEP Regional
Seas Program, for instance, works to promote cooperation for marine and coastal management, albeit with varying degrees of success
and formal codification. Likewise, in 2007 the European Union instituted a regional Integrated Maritime Policy (IMP) that addresses a
range of environmental, social, and economic issues related to oceans, as well as promotes surveillance and information sharing. The
IMP also works with neighboring partners to create an integrated oceans policy in places such as the Arctic, the Baltic, and the
Mediterranean.
Maintaining freedom of the high seas
Maintaining freedom of the high seas: Guaranteed by U.S. power, increasingly contested by emerging states
Freedom of the high seas has been firmly entrenched in international jurisprudence for hundreds of years. Seventeenth century jurist,
Hugo Grotius, recognized that a state could not truly thrive without Mare liberum, the indiscriminate right of all nations to traverse
the planets oceans. Today, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, states that activity on the high seas should be open
to all states, whether coastal or landlocked.

To protect freedom of the high seas, the United States leverages its naval capabilities, ensuring peace, stability, and freedom of access
throughout the worlds oceans. As Great Britain ensured a Pax Britannica in the nineteenth century, the United States presides over
relatively tranquil seas where global commerce is able to thrive. The U.S. navy is unmatched in its ability to provide strategic stability
on, under, and above the worlds waters. With almost three hundred active naval ships and almost four thousand aircraft, its battle fleet
tonnage is greater than the next thirteen largest navies combined. Despite recent budget cuts, U.S. naval power continues to reign
supreme, but in a spirit of international cooperation. For instance, in 2007, the U.S. Navy released a strategy report that called for
cooperative relationships with more international partners, to promote greater collective security, stability, and trust.
The United States has not faced a credible competitor since the end of the Cold War and, thus far, developing and emerging powers
have largely supported the U.S. armada to ensure that the oceans remain open to commerce. However, emerging powers with bluewater aspirations raise questions about how U.S. naval hegemony will accommodate new and assertive fleets in the coming decades.
Even tensions between these rising powers could prove problematic. China, for instance, has been steadily building up its naval
capabilities over the past decade as part of its "far sea defense" strategy, which has set the PLA Navy on course to overtake the U.S.
Navy in terms of size by 2020. It began sea trials on its first aircraft carrier in 2011, and immediately began construction of a second
aircraft carrier to be launched in 2020. In addition, China is investing heavily in submarines outfitted with ballistic missiles. At the
same time, India has scaled up its military budget by over 60 percent since 2001, spending over $46 billion in 2013 alone. India plans
to spend nearly $45 billion over the next twenty years on its navy, and as part of its military modernization plan, the Navys budget
was increased to $4.7 billion in 2013, providing funds to purchase new ships and submarines.
Tensions among these rising powers could prove problematic. In the South China Seathrough which trillions of dollars of
international trade flows each yearChina, Taiwan, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei, and the Philippines have competing territorial and
jurisdictional claims, particularly over rights to exploit vast oil and gas reserves. Meanwhile, in the East China Sea, Japan and China
dispute ownership of the resource-rich Diaoyu (in Chinese) or Senkaku (in Japanese) Islands, and clashes have repeatedly threatened
to erupt into larger conflicts.
Furthermore, countries in the region have failed to establish meaningful mechanisms to increase communication channels between
their militaries, utilize international arbitration mechanisms, or develop the long-delayed binding code of conduct between China and
ASEAN countries. For instance, while members of ASEAN and China agreed to reduce the risk of violent escalation in the
Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea in 2002, no parties have implemented the proposed confidence-building
measures to date. While Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and Chinese President Xi Jinping signaled movement toward reopening
diplomatic channels during a recent meeting regarding the disputed islands, it remains to be seen if any concrete steps will be taken to
alter the unstable trajectory.
Confronting illicit trafficking
Confronting illicit trafficking: Uneven regional enforcement, weak antislavery efforts
In addition to being a highway for legal commerce, oceans facilitate the trafficking of drugs, weapons, and humans, which are often
masked by the flow of licit goods. Individual states are responsible for guarding their own coastlines, but often lack the will or
capacity to do so. Developing countries, in particular, struggle to coordinate across jurisdictions and interdict. But developed states
also face border security challenges. Despite its commitment to interdiction, the United States fails to seize more than 70 percent
[PDF] of suspected drug shipments that enter the country by maritime transport.
Increasing port and container security
Of the 500 million containers shipped annually, only 2 percent are inspected, leaving the vast majority wide open to exploitation by
traffickers. International organizations attempt to assist domestic law enforcement agencies, customs authorities, and the private sector
in establishing effective container controls to prevent maritime smuggling. For example, through the UN Office on Drugs and Crime
(UNODC) and the World Customs Organization, the UNs Container Control Programme [CCP] runs Joint Port Control Units (JPCU)
in more than thirty ports in seventeen countries. Through extensive training of JPCU agents, as well as facilitation of information
exchanges between ports, the CCP is a promising model for increasing maritime security in the developing world. The CCP is
bolstered by several ad hoc multilateral antitrafficking initiatives, including the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code,
which provides a uniform set of measures to enhance the security of ships and ports.
Another way to combat illicit trafficking is through regional coordination of IMO Port State Controls (PSCs), which facilitate the
inspection of foreign ships arriving in state ports. The Paris Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control, for instance,
provides a model for an effective regional inspections regime, examining all ships that enter members ports for violations of
conventions on maritime safety in twenty-seven states in Europe and North America. Vessels that violate conventions can be detained
and repeat offenders can be banned from the memorandums area, although the agreement does not permit searching for illegal cargo.
Similar PSC initiatives exist in several regions around the world, including in Latin America, the Asia Pacific, the Mediterranean, the
Indian Ocean, and the Persian Gulf Region.
Finally, the United States leads several initiatives that enhance maritime commerce security internationally and domestically. The
Proliferation Security Initiative facilitates international cooperation to interdict ships that may be carrying illicit weapons of mass
destruction, ballistic missiles, and related technology.

The initiative is endorsed by over 100 countries, but has faced criticism for lacking transparency, a formal structure, and enforcement
mechanisms. Proponents counter that the absence of these elements enables the initiatives success. The Container Security Initiative
(CSI), also spearheaded by the United States, attempts to prescreen all containers destined for U.S. ports and identify high-risk cargo.
Combating human trafficking in the fishing industry
The exploitation of humans for trafficking and forced labor is rife on the high seas, as the vast expanse of open water allows for ships
involved in these crimes to operate under relative anonymity. Forced labor in the fishing industry is strongly linked to the illegal,
unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing industry, which accounts for up to 33 percent of annual legal catch. Forced labor and
IUU fishing are particularly egregious in the Greater-Mekong Subregion (GMS), which includes Cambodia, China, Lao PDR,
Myanmar, Thailand and Vietnam. In Thailand for instance, international investigations [PDF] revealed that the majority of migrant
fishing workers have been sold into bonded labor and forced to work in inhumane conditions under threat of torture or death.
The UNODC oversees UN activity on human trafficking, guided by two protocols to the UN Convention on Transnational Organized
Crime. In April 2014, the UN also launched the United Nations Action for Cooperation Against Trafficking in Persons (UN-ACT),
which aims to improve policy and operational responses to human trafficking in the GMS. UN-ACT seeks to strengthen regional and
national capacity to stop human trafficking rings; support research to interrupt IUU catch from being sold; and improve civil societys
capacity to monitor trafficking and help victims. UN-ACT also provides the six governments of the GMS with leadership development
and knowledge and skills training, as well as assistance in building institutional capacity and accountability mechanisms, through the
Coordinated Mekong Ministerial Initiative against Trafficking (COMMIT Process).
The International Labor Organization (ILO) also works to eliminate forced labor through several mechanisms focused specifically on
the fishing industry, such as the ILO Work in Fishing Convention and the 2014 Protocol on Forced Labor, which updated the 1930
ILO Forced Labor Convention. The IMO also seeks to address forced fishing labor, and fishing labor standards more generally,
through two complementary conventions: Torremolinos, which focuses on ship-board safety standards (but has only been ratified by
six countries); and the Standards of Trading, Certification and Watchkeeping for Fishing Vessels Personnel (STCW-F), which came in
to force in 2012 and requires mandatory safety training and standards for all crew members aboard large fishing vessels. STCW-F
applies to all vessels entering port in any of the 158 states that are party to the convention, significantly reducing the number of ports
in which ships crewed by forced laborers can dock.
Although these international frameworks and protocols provide important groundwork for preventing maritime human trafficking,
they often remain unratified, unimplemented, or lack enforcement mechanisms. In addition, these policies often remain uncoordinated
among states and lack monitoring capacity to ensure implementation. Greater political will, state capacity, and multilateral
coordination are necessary to curb modern slavery on the high seas, as well as better data tracking and information sharing regarding
shipping vessels and catch supply chains.
Securing commercial shipping
Securing commercial shipping: Significant risk, substantial international efforts
Global shipping is incredibly lucrative, but its sheer scope and breadth present an array of security and safety challenges. The world
fleet consists of approximately 50,000 ships registered in more than 150 nations. With more than one million employees, this armada
transports around nine billion tons [PDF] of goods per yearroughly 90 percent of global trade. And the melting Arctic is opening
previously impassable trade routes, shaving weeks off commercial shipping times. In 2009, two German merchant
vessels traversed the Northeast Passage successfully for the first time in recent history, and in 2013 the first large freighter completed
the journey. But new routes and increased traffic present new challenges and despite impressive innovations and strict governance in
the shipping industry, maritime accidents and attacks on ships still occur frequently, resulting in the loss of billions of dollars of cargo.
Ensuring the safety and security of the global shipping fleet is essential for the stability of the world economy.
Internationally, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) provides security guidelines for ships through the Convention on the
Safety of Life at Sea, which governs everything from construction to the number of fire extinguishers on board. The IMO also aims to
prevent maritime accidents through international standards for navigation and navigation equipment, including satellite
communications and locating devices. Although compliance with these conventions has been uneven, regional Port State Control
initiatives have helped coordinate implementation of the IMOs foreign vessel inspection requirements, increasing the safety of
international shipping.
In addition, numerous IMO conventions govern the safety of container shipping, including the International Convention on Safe
Containers, which creates uniform regulations (for structure and maintenance of shipping containers), and the International
Convention on Load Lines, which determines the volume of containers a ship can safely hold. However, these conventions do not
provide comprehensive security solutions for maritime containers, and illegal cargo could be slipped into shipping containers during
transit. Since 1992, the IMO has tried to prevent attacks on commercial shipping through the Convention for the Suppression of
Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, which provides a legal framework for interdicting, detaining, and
prosecuting terrorists, pirates, and other criminals on the high seas.

In reality, most enforcement efforts since the 9/11 attacks have focused on securing ports to prevent the use of a ship to attack, rather
than to prevent attacks on the ships themselves. Reflecting this imperative, the IMO, with U.S. leadership, implemented the
International Ship and Port Facility Security Code (ISPS) in 2004. This code helped create international standards for ship security,
requiring ships to have security plans and officers. However, as with port security, the code is not obligatory and no clear process to
audit or certify ISPS compliance has been established. Overall, a comprehensive regime for overseeing the safety of international
shipping has not been created.
The United States attempts to address this vulnerability through the Container Security Initiative (CSI), which aims to prescreen all
containers destined for the United States, and to isolate those that pose a high-security risk before they are in transit. The initiative,
which operates in fifty-eight foreign ports [PDF], covers more than 80 percent of container cargo en route to the United States. Several
international partners and organizations, including the European Union, the Group of Eight (now the Group of Seven), and the World
Customs Organization, have expressed an interest in modeling security measures for containerized cargo based on the CSI model.
Still, experts estimate that only 2 percent of containers destined for U.S. ports are actually inspected.
Combating piracy
Combating piracy: Lingering danger, collective response
After the number of attacks worldwide reached a record high in 2011, incidences of piracy dropped in 2013. Off the coast of Somalia,
the number of attacks decreased from 237 in 2011 to only 15 cases in 2013, primarily due to impressive international mobilization and
enhanced naval patrols off the coast of Somalia, as well as increased stability in the Somalian government. However, attacks
intensified near Nigeria and Indonesia as pirates shifted routes in response to increased policing, raising fresh concerns over the
shifting threat of piracy.
In addition to the human toll, pervasive piracy can have significant economic ramifications. According to the World Bank, the global
economy lost $18 billion [PDF] in 2010 as the cost of trade increased because of Somali piracy. While the annual cost dropped to $3.2
billion in 2013, global trade continues to be adversely affected. Sustained international coordination and cooperation is essential to
preventing and prosecuting piracy.
Recognizing this imperative, countries and international organizations from around the world have shown unprecedented cooperation
to combat piracy, particularly near the Gulf of Aden. In August 2009, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization commenced Operation
Ocean Shield in the horn of Africa, where piracy increased close to 200 percent between 2007 and 2009. This effort builds
upon Operation Allied Protector and consists of two standing maritime groups with contributions from allied nations. Although the
efforts concentrate on protecting ships passing through the Gulf of Aden, they also focus on helping countries, specifically Somalia,
prevent piracy and secure their ports. The initiative has been remarkably successful in achieving its mandate, with no ships captured
by pirates off the coast of Somalia since May 2012, compared with the twenty-four ships captured by pirates in 2011. In June 2014,
NATO decided to extend the missions mandate for two additional years.
With the aim of providing better information about the organizational and financial structures of high value pirate networks, the
International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL) launched the Maritime Piracy Task Force in 2010. INTERPOL is also
currently working toward creating an information-sharing mechanism to allow navies combatting piracy to access INTERPOLs
fingerprint database, in order to facilitate the indictment of pirates. The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) also monitors financial
flows related to maritime piracy and released studies in July 2011 on maritime piracy and kidnapping for ransom, which outlined the
challenges associated with identifying, investigating, and tracing illicit financial flows connected with maritime piracy.
Meanwhile, the United States helped establish Combined Task Force 151 to coordinate the various maritime patrols operating in East
Africa. Other countries including Russia, India, China, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, and South Korea, have also sent naval vessels to the
region. Elsewhere, national antipiracy patrols have successfully reduced or eradicated piracy attacks off the coast of countries
including Bangladesh and Ecuador.
At the same time, regional organizations have also stepped up antipiracy efforts. The Regional Cooperation Agreement on Combating
Piracy and Armed Robbery against Ships in Asia [PDF] was the first of such initiatives, and has been largely successful in facilitating
information-sharing, cooperation between governments, and interdiction efforts. And in May 2012, the European Union naval
force launched its first air attack against Somali pirates land bases, the first strike of its kind by outside actors to date. Finally, through
its Mission in Somalia (AMISOM), the African Unions Peace and Security Council established AMISOM Maritime in December
2011, with the express purpose of combatting Somali piracy off the coast of Mogodishu.
International condemnation has broadly legitimized the use of force against pirates. In June 2008, the UN Security Council
unanimously passed Resolution 1816, encouraging greater cooperation in deterring piracy and asking countries to assist Somalia in
ensuring coastal security. This was followed by Resolution 1846, which allowed states to use "all necessary means" to fight piracy off
the coast of Somalia. In Resolution 1851, the Security Council legitimized the use of force on land as well as at sea to the same end.
More recently, Resolution 2125, which passed in November 2013, renewed antipiracy measures in Somalia. Outside the UN,
watchdogs such as the International Maritime Bureau, which collects information on pirate attacks and provides reports on the safety
of shipping routes, have proven successful in increasing awareness, disseminating information, and facilitating antipiracy cooperation.

However, such efforts face several legal challenges. For instance, many large commercial vessels rely on private armed guards to
prevent pirate attacks, but the legal foundations governing these forces are shaky at best. In addition, the international legal regime
continues to rely on individual countries to prosecute pirates. To this end, the UNODCs Maritime Crime Programme (MCP) was
established in 2009 to improve the criminal justice capacity of Somalia and its neighboring states. The MCP operates under a regional
piracy prosecution model, which helps coordinate efforts to apprehend and prosecute pirates among states in three regions: West
Africa, the Indian Ocean, and the Horn of Africa. The MCP also established the Piracy Prisoner Transfer Programme in 2012, which
aids states in the transfer of convicted Somali pirates back to Somalia and provides financial assistance for Somalia in upgrading and
building detention facilities to hold convicted pirates, as well as training and providing funds for additional staff for these facilities.
Other initiatives attempt to increase regional legal capacity to combat piracy. The UN Trust Fund to Support the Initiatives of States to
Counter Piracy of the Coast of Somalia, which has operated under the administration of UN Development Project since 2012, aims to
defray the financial capital required from countries like Kenya, Seychelles, and Somalia to prosecute pirates, as well as to increase
awareness within Somali society of the risk associated with piracy and criminal activity. And INTERPOLs Project Bada assists
nations in building capacity to prosecute pirates, especially through training of national policing authorities.
Reducing marine pollution and climate change
Reducing marine pollution and climate change: Compounding problem, inadequate progress
Pollution has degraded environments and ravaged biodiversity in every ocean. Over 80 percent of marine contamination stems from
land-based pollutants, particularly along heavily developed coastal areas.
Plastic pollution in the ocean poses an especially sizeable problem. Around 80 percent of marine pollution emanates from the land. In
the past ten years, more plastic has been produced than in the previous century, resulting in huge increases in plastic marine waste. In
the Los Angeles area alone, for instance, approximately ten metric tons of plastic waste, which takes one thousand years to
disintegrate, is carried into the Pacific Ocean each day. Across the world, the ocean currents carry billions of tons of plastic waste into
the high seas each year, resulting in microscopic pieces of plastic floating on the surface of the ocean and culminating in giant
subtropical garbage gyres. Plastics not only damage marine lifecausing around one million seabird deaths from intestinal blockages
and choking each yearthey could also have severe effects on human life as plastic toxins make their way into our waterways and
work their way up food chains. In addition, plastic waste costs an estimated $13 billion in damages to marine ecosystems annually.
UNEP Regional Seas Programme has sponsored several initiatives to control pollution, modeled on a relatively successful program in
the Mediterranean Sea. In 1995, states established the Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from
Land-Based Activities (GPA) [PDF], which identifies sources of land-based pollution and helps states establish priorities for action. In
2011, representatives from sixty-five countries adopted the Manila Declaration, which improved guidelines for countries to better
implement the GPA between 2012 and 2016. UNEP has also helped establish Global Partnerships on Marine Litter, Nutrients, and
Wastewater Management, which increase awareness and guide best practices on each type of marine pollution.
While shipping is the most environmentally friendly way to transport bulk cargoes, shipping vessels are also a major source of marine
pollutionsixteen of the worlds largest ships alone produce can produce as much sulfur as all the cars in the world combined.
Compounding this issue, a 2014 study revealed that maritime traffic has increased by 300 percent since 1992. Regulating maritime
pollution remains complicated because of its inherently transnational nature. Shipping is generally governed by the International
Maritime Organization (IMO), which regulates maritime pollution through the International Convention for the Prevention of
Pollution from Ships (MARPOL). States are responsible for implementing and enforcing MARPOL among their own fleets to curb the
most pernicious forms of maritime pollution, including oil spills, particulate matter such as sulfur oxide (SOx) and nitrous oxide
(NOx), and greenhouse-gas emissions. Port cities bear the brunt of air pollution, which devastates local air quality because most ships
burn bunker fuel (the dirtiest form of crude oil). The IMOs Marine Environmental Protection Committee has taken important steps to
significantly reduce the impact of commercial shipping emissions on acidification and eutrophication, by amending the MARPOL
guidelines to limit the ratio of SOx, NOx, and particulate matter found in ship exhaust gas to .1 percent by 2015. Despite such efforts,
a 2010 study [PDF] from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development found that international shipping still
accounts for nearly 3 percent of all greenhouse gasses.
The IMO has been notably successful in reducing the amount of oil spilled into the marine environment. Despite a boom in global
shipping, accidental tanker oil spills reached an all-time low between 2010 and 2013, down by over 90 percent since the 1970s. The
achievements of the IMO have been further strengthened by commitments by the countries of the Group of Eight (now Group of
Seven) to cooperate on oil pollution through an action plan that specifically targets pollution prevention for tankers.
Climate change, which is exacerbated by pollution, also causes significant environmental damage. The increase in greenhouse gases
due to anthropogenic activity causes the ocean to warm, which in turn changes ocean currents and surface temperatures. In November
2014, the International Pacific Research Center publish a study indicating that 2014 will have the highest global mean sea surface
temperatures in recorded history. As the world warms, oceans absorb increased levels of carbon dioxide, which acidifies the water and
destroys wetlands, mangroves, and coral reefsecosystems that support millions of species of plants and animals. According to recent
studies, ocean acidity could increase by more than 150 percent by 2050 if counteracting measures are not taken immediately.

Moreover, melting ice raises sea levels. The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates that sea levels could rise
between 10.2 and 38.2 inches by 2100. Beyond eroding beaches, and increasing the salinity of freshwater bodies, rising sea levels
threaten to submerge low-lying areas, such as the tiny island nation of the Maldives, the lowest country in the world. In addition,
coastal flooding would have a devastating economic impact and estimates suggest that economic losses could run up to one trillion
dollars annually by 2050.
In response to the growing dangers of rising sea levels, as well as other climate change threats, U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel
unveiled a Climate Change Adaptation Roadmap for the Department of Defense (DoD) in October 2014. First listed as a threat to
national security in the DoDs 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review, climate change is now recognized as an immediate threat to the
effectiveness of the U.S. military. The roadmap suggests possible changes to operations, ranging from natural disaster relief to
counterterrorism.
Individual states are responsible for managing changes in their own marine climates, but multilateral efforts to mitigate the effects of
climate change on the oceans have gained momentum. In particular, the UNEP Regional Seas Programme encourages countries
sharing common bodies of water to coordinate and implement sound environmental policies, and promotes a regional approach to
addressing climate change. More recently, the Nagoya Protocol to the Convention on Biological Diversity, which entered into force in
October 2014, aims to strengthen the conservation of biological diversity and the sustainable use of its components, while ensuring
fair and equitable distribution of the benefits of genetic resources.
Finally, fifty-two industrialized states committed to the Kyoto Protocol to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, which
set greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets between 2008 and 2012. The United States, however, was not party, despite being the
worlds top emitter at the time, and by 2012 many of the states did not meet their targets. Despite continued increases in greenhouse
gas emissions, a successor to the Kyoto Protocol has yet to be implemented.
Sustainable fisheries policies on the high seas
Sustainable fisheries policies on the high seas: Mixed progress
States have the legal right to regulate fishing in their exclusive economic zones (EEZs), which extend two hundred nautical miles from
shoreand sometimes beyond that, in the case of extended continental shelves. But beyond the EEZs are the high seas, which do not
fall under any one countrys jurisdiction. Freedom of the high seas is critical to the free flow of global commerce, but spells disaster
for international fisheries in a textbook case of the tragedy of the global commons. For years, large-scale fishing vessels harvested fish
as fast as possible with little regard for the environmental costs. Overall, high seas fisheries suffer from two sets of challenges:
ineffective governance and enforcement capacity, and lack of market-based governance solutions to remedy perverse overfishing and
IUU fishing incentives.
Although there are numerous international and multilateral mechanisms for fisheries management, the system is marred by critical
gaps and weaknesses, which are exploited by illegal fishing vessels. Articles 117 and 118 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea
enumerate the specific fisheries responsibilities of state parties, placing the onus on national governments to form policies and
regional agreements that ensure responsible management and conservation of fish stocks in their respective areas. UNCLOS was
further strengthened by the UN Fish Stocks Agreement (FSA), which called for a precautionary approach toward highly migratory and
straddling fish stocks that move freely in and out of the high seas. Eighty-One countries have joined the FSA thus far, and a review
conference in May 2010 was hailed as a success due to the passage of the Port State Measures (PSMs). The PSMs combat IUU fishing
which accounts for over 26 million tons of fish, worth up to $23.5 billion, annuallyby cutting off access to lucrative markets
through strict port controls. Yet around 30 percent of fish stocks have continued to stagnate or decline to dangerously low levels, and
the PSMs cannot take effect until twenty-five states have ratified the agreement, stagnating efforts to prevent IUU operations.
Regional fishery bodies (RFBs) are independent regional mechanisms that work under the auspices of the FAO. The mandates of the
various bodies vary, but in general they supervise and coordinate conservation, development, and management of fisheries. For
example, RFBs provide guidelines and advice on total allowable catch, by-catch, vessel monitoring systems, areas or seasons closed
for fishing, and recording and reporting fishery statistics. However, only a portion of these bodies oversees the execution of their
recommendations, and some RFBs allow members to unilaterally dismiss unfavorable decisions. Additionally, RFBs are not
comprehensive in their membership and, for the most part, their rules do not apply to vessels belonging to a state outside the body.
Even when regional bodies make a binding decision on a high-seas case, implementation hinges on state will and capacity. In 2003,
the UN General Assembly established a fund to assist developing countries with their obligations to implement the FSA through
RFBs. The overall value of the fund remains small, however, and countries compliance is often constrained by resource scarcity. This
results in spotty enforcement, which allows vessels to violate international standards with impunity, particularly off the coasts of weak
states. Migratory species like blue fin tuna are especially vulnerable because they are not confined by jurisdictional boundaries and
have high commercial value.
Some of the RFBs with management oversight, such as the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living
Resources and the South East Atlantic Fisheries Organization, have been relatively effective in curbing overfishing. They have
developed oversight systems and specific measures to target deep-water trawl fishing and illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing
in the high seas. Many regional cooperative arrangements, however, continue to suffer from weak regulatory authority. At the same
time, some regions like the central and southwest Atlantic Ocean lack RFBs.

Overfishing is driven in no small part by government-granted fishing subsidies. Subsidies range from cheap fuel, which encourages
bottom-trolling methods, to funds for new vessel construction, which adds unnecessary boats to the already saturated global fishing
fleet. In Europe, for instance, subsidies resulted in vessels dumping thousands of tons of unwanted catch back into the sea in order to
ensure their catch-limit was made up of only the most valuable fish before returning to port. In October 2013, the EU voted to address
the subsidies issue by enforcing legal measures that ensure fishing boats land all catch.
Catch shares (also known as limited access privilege programs) have had great success in reducing overfishing. Catch shares help
fisheries maximize efficiency by dedicating a stock of fish to an individual fisherman, community, fishery association, or an individual
state. A strict catch-limit is set before the beginning of each fishing season and commercial fishermen can then buy and sell shares to
maximize profit. A 2011 study of North American fisheries showed that catch limits were exceeded significantly less after the
implementation of catch shares. And more sustainable catch shares policies could increase the value of the fishing industry by an
estimated $36 billion. Although allocating the shares at the domesticmuch less internationallevel remains problematic, the idea
reflects of the kind of policy work required to better manage the global commons.
Managing the Arctic
Managing the Arctic: Rapid change, lagging governance reforms
Arctic ice is melting at unprecedented rates. At this pace, experts estimate that the Arctic could be ice-free as early as 2050, and
possibly much earlier. As the ice recedes and exposes valuable new resources, multilateral coordination and observation [PDF] will
become even more important among states (and indigenous groups) jockeying for position in the region.
The melting ice is opening up potentially lucrative new sea routes and stores of natural resources in the Arctic. Since September 2009,
cargo ships have been able to traverse the fabled Northwest and Northeast Passages, which are significantly shorter than traditional
routes around the capes or through the canals. Widening sea routes also mean that fishing fleets can travel north in search of virgin
fishing stock, and that cruise ships can carry tourists chasing a last glimpse of the disappearing ice. At the same time, untapped
resources such as oil, natural gas, rare earth minerals, and massive renewable wind, tidal, and geothermal energy hold enormous
potential. Preliminary estimates indicate that the Arctic Circle may hold 22 percent of the worlds hydrocarbon resources, including 90
billion barrels of oil and 1,670 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Beyond oil and gas, the Arctic may also hold valuable commodities
such as zinc, nickel, and coal.
New opportunities in the Arctic also portend new competition among sovereign states with many overlapping territorial claims to the
Arctic seabed. In August 2007, for instance, Russia symbolically planted a flag on the Arctic floor, staking a claim to large chunks of
the Arctic surrounding the geographic North Pole. As the geostrategic importance of the region rises, the overlapping territorial claims
of the Arctic states threaten the stability of the region. In 2008, the five states with Arctic coastlinesCanada, Denmark, Norway,
Russia, and the United Statesagreed to the Ilulissat Declaration [PDF], which effectively rejected the need for a new legal regime
for the Arctic and declared the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) as the main legal instrument for Arctic development,
including the resolution of territorial disputes. Yet, while Articles 76 and 234 of UNCLOS govern the limits of the outer continental
shelf (OCS) and regulate activities in ice-covered waters, respectively, not all Arctic states have ratified UNCLOS, including, most
notably, the United States.
Consequently, countries and regional organizations must create and coordinate strategies for the Arctic that promote international
cooperation. The Obama administration implemented the first U.S. National Strategy for the Arctic Region [PDF] in May 2013, which
aims to coordinate U.S. priorities in the Arctic, including advancing U.S. security interests, ensuring responsible Arctic stewardship,
and strengthening international cooperation. And the European Union, which includes the Arctic states of Denmark, Finland, and
Sweden, began developing a more robust Arctic Policy in 2012 based on recommendations from the European Commission [PDF],
(which itself signaled greater EU engagement in the region). However, Arctic policies and strategies are not well coordinated among
states and there remains a formidable list of nagging sovereignty disputes that will require creative bilateral and multilateral
resolutions.
One multilateral forum, the Arctic Council, comprising eight Arctic nations, has grown in international prominence, and begun
drawing high-level policymakers. The council signed its first legally binding treaty on search and rescue missions in May 2011 and
signed a second [PDF] designed to improve procedures for combatting oil spills in the Arctic in 2013. In addition, the Arctic Council
incudes twelve non-Arctic Permanent Observer states, nine intergovernmental and inter-parliamentary organizations, and eleven
NGOs as permanent observers. The inclusion of nonstate stakeholders and emerging countries that have expressed interest in pursuing
Arctic opportunitiessuch as China, which sent its research icebreaker Xuelong, or Snow Dragon, on five Arctic expeditions since
1999serves to strengthen the Arctic Councils credibility and legitimacy in leading the development of Arctic governance structures.
While these are significant steps, the forum has yet to address other issues such as overlapping OCS claims, contested maritime
boundaries, and the legal status of the Northwest Passage and the Northern Sea Route.
Regulatory mechanisms must also be put in place to mitigate the impact of increased activity in the Arctics relatively pristine
environment. Environmental damage in the Arctic has ecological ramifications with major consequences for people affected by arctic
melting and for those residing in the circumpolar North. To address these issues, the Arctic Council implements the Arctic
Environmental Protection Strategy (AEPS) through six working groups, including the Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment.

It also operates the Arctic Council Indigenous Peoples Secretariat, which comprises six Arctic indigenous organizations and aims to
help Arctic indigenous communities maintain a say in the impending development of the Arctic, especially changes that affect
traditional harvesting stocks. Yet the environmental changes seen in the Arctic oceans today are a product of forces elsewhere in the
world and the challenge will therefore require the multilateral action of countries around the world, not just Arctic states, to combat
climate change.
Finally, as the influx of shipping traffic increases sharply in the coming decade, new international regulations must be implemented to
both mitigate the environmental impact and to ensure the safe and free flow of commerce. The IMOs recently drafted Polar Code is a
promising example. This agreement "sets structural classifications and standards for ships operating in the Arctic as well as specific
navigation and emergency training for those operating in or around ice-covered waters." If the code passes it will be mandatory for all
IMO member states under the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea by 2017.
U.S. and International Oceans Policy Issues
Introduction
The United States championed many of the most important international maritime organizations over the past fifty years. It helped
shape the decades-long process of negotiating the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and has played a leading role in many
UNCLOS-related bodies, including the International Maritime Organization. It has also served as a driving force behind regional
fisheries organizations and Coast Guard forums. Domestically, the United States has intermittently been at the vanguard of ocean
policy, such as the 1969 Stratton Commission report, subsequent conservation acts in the 1970s, the Joint Ocean Commission
Initiative, catch limits on all federally-managed fish species, and most recently, plans to create the world's largest marine reserve.
The Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution and the Monterey Bay Research Institute have long been leaders in marine science. And
from a geopolitical perspective, the U.S. Navy secures the worlds oceans and fosters a peaceful environment where global commerce
can thrive.
Yet the United States lags behind on important issues, most notably regarding its reluctance to ratify UNCLOS. And until recently, the
United States did not have a coherent national oceans policy. To address this gap, U.S. president Barack Obama established the
National Ocean Policy and the National Ocean Council (NOC) by Executive Order 13547 on July 19, 2010. The National Ocean
Council is responsible for developing strategic action plans to achieve nine priority objectives that address some of the most pressing
challenges facing the ocean, our coasts, and Great Lakes. In April 2013, the NOC released the National Ocean Policy Implementation
Plan [PDF], which lays out over 200 specific actions that federal agencies will take to coordinate and address major oceans challenges.
This comprehensive oceans policy framework has cleared the way for the spadework of coordinating U.S. ocean governance and
could lay the groundwork for the United States to take the leading role in harmonizing international oceans efforts.
Law of the Sea ratification
Should the United States ratify the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea?
Yes: The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea , which created the governance framework that manages nearly three-quarters of the
earths surface, has been signed and ratified by 165 countries and the European Union. But the United States remains among only a
handful of countries to have signed but not yet ratified the treatyeven though it already treats many of the provisions as customary
international law. Leaders on both sides of the political aisle as well as environmental, conservation, business, industry, and security
groups have endorsed ratification in order to preserve national security interests and reap its myriad benefits, such as securing rights
for U.S. commercial and naval ships and boosting the competitiveness of U.S. companies in seafaring activities. Notably, all of the
uniformed servicesand especially the U.S. Navystrongly support UNCLOS because its provisions would only serve to strengthen
U.S. military efforts. By remaining a nonparty, the United States lacks the credibility to promote its own interests in critical decisionmaking forums as well as bring complaints to an international dispute resolution body.
No: Opponents argue that ratifying the treaty would cede sovereignty to an ineffective United Nations and constrain U.S. military and
commercial activities. In particular, critics object to specific provisions including taxes on activities on outer continental shelves;
binding dispute settlements; judicial activism by the Law of the Sea Tribunal, especially with regard to land-based sources of
pollution; and the perceived ability of UNCLOS to curtail U.S. intelligence-gathering activities. Lastly, critics contend that because
UNCLOS is already treated as customary international law, the United States has little to gain from formal accession.
Expanding the Container Security Initiative
Should the United States lead an initiative to expand the Container Security Initiative globally?
Yes: Some experts say the only way to secure a global economic system is to implement a global security solution. The U.S.-led
Container Security Initiative (CSI) helps ensure that high-risk containers are identified and isolated before they reach their destination.
Fifty-eight ports are already on board with the initiative, and many countries have expressed interest in modeling their own security
measures on the CSI.

The World Customs Organization called on its members to develop programs based on the CSI, and the European Union agreed to
expand the initiative across its territory. With its robust operational experience, the United States is well positioned to provide the
technical expertise to ensure the integrity of the container system.
No: Opponents maintain that the United States can hardly commit its tax dollars abroad for a global security system when it has failed
to secure its own imports. To date, more than $800 million and considerable diplomatic energy has been invested in CSI to expand the
program to fifty-eight international ports, where agents are stationed to screen high-risk containers. Given the scale of world trade, the
United States imports more than 10 million containers annually, and only a handful of high-risk boxes can be targeted for inspection.
After huge expenditures and years of hard work to expand this program after September 11, 2001, only about 85 percent of the cargo
that enters the United States transits through foreign ports covered under CSI, and of that, only about 2 percent is actually inspected (at
a cost to the U.S. taxpayer of more than $1,000 per container). Despite congressional mandates to screen all incoming containers,
critics say that costs make implementing this mandate virtually impossible, and the Department of Homeland Security has delayed
implementing the container scanning rule on 100 percent of inbound containers until 2016. The limited resources the United States has
available, critics argue, should be invested in protecting imports bound specifically for its shores.
Decline in global fisheries
Should the United States be doing more to address the drastic decline in the worlds fisheries?
Yes: Advocates say that the further demise of global fish stocks, beyond being a moral burden, undermines the commercial and
national security interests of the United States. Depleting fish stocks are driven in large part by the prevalence of illegal, unreported,
and unregulated fishing and the overcapitalization of the global commercial fishing fleet from domestic subsidies. To protect domestic
commercial fisheries and the competitiveness of U.S. exports in the international seafood market, the United States should enhance
efforts by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to manage, enforce, and coordinate technical assistance for nations
engaging in IUU fishing.
Domestically, the United States has taken important steps to address the critical gaps in fisheries management. In 2012, the United
States became the first country to impose catch limits on all federally managed fish species. Recent studies have shown that at least 64
percent of U.S. fish stocks have either been rebuilt or have made significant progress toward regeneration, thanks to the legislative
efforts, such as the implementation of federal fisheries laws. The United States could also promote market-based mechanisms, like
catch shares and limited access privilege programs, to help fishermen and their communities curb overfishing and raise the value of
global fisheries by up to $36 billion.
No: Critics argue that fisheries management is by and large a domestic issue, and that the United States has little right to tell other
nations how to manage their own resources, particularly when such measures could harm local economies. They contend that the
science behind overfishing is exaggerated, as are the warnings about the consequences of an anticipated fisheries collapse. Existing
conventions like the 1995 Fish Stock Agreement already go far enough in addressing this issue. Any additional efforts, they contend,
would be a diplomatic overreach, as well as an excessive burden on a struggling commercial fishing industry. Critics also question
how market-based mechanisms, such as catch-shares, would be distributed, traded, and enforced, warning that they would lead to
speculative bubbles.
The melting Arctic
Should the United States push for more multilateral cooperation to cope with the melting Arctic?
Yes: The melting Arctic holds important untapped political, strategic, and economic potential for the U.S. government, military, and
businesses. This emerging frontier now supports a variety of economic activities, including energy exploration, marine commerce, and
sustainable development of new fisheries. The Obama administration launched a National Strategy for the Arctic Region [PDF] in
2013, which upholds international cooperation as one of the three main priorities of the United States in the Arctic. However, countries
such as Russia, Canada, Norway, and China have already made claims to the region, while the United States has not ratified the UN
Convention on the Law of the Sea, which remains the premier forum of negotiating and arbitrating disputes over contested territory.
As a nonparty, the United States loses invaluable leverage and position. In addition, the U.S. Coast Guard has only two
aging icebreakers, whereas Russia operates over thirty. Experts argue that the U.S. government should also adopt the recently
drafted Polar Code, which is an agreement that "sets structural classifications and standards for ships operating in the Arctic as well as
specific navigation and emergency training for those operating in or around ice-covered waters. If the code passes it will be
mandatory for all IMO member states under the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea by 2017.
No: Opponents argue that Arctic Council activities, the 2009 National Security Presidential Directive and Homeland Security
Presidential Directive, and the 2013 National Strategy for the Arctic Region [PDF], which outlines U.S. Arctic priorities, are
sufficient. Any collaboration with Canada to resolve disputes over the Northwest Passage might undermine freedom of navigation for
U.S. naval assets elsewhere, especially in the Strait of Hormuz and the Taiwan Straits, and this national security concern trumps any
advantages from collaborating on security, economic, or environmental issues in the Arctic. Last, given the dominant Russian and
Canadian Arctic coastlines, future Arctic diplomacy might best be handled bilaterally rather than through broader multilateral
initiatives.

Recent Developments
Department of Defense publishes climate change adaptation roadmap
October 2014
On October 13, 2014, the U.S. Department of Defense unveiled its Climate Change Adaptation Roadmap, signaling a more
constructive response to the issue since the Pentagon first classified climate change as a threat in its 2010 Quadrennial Defense
Review. The comprehensive plan designates climate change as a threat multiplier on issues ranging from infectious disease to
terrorism. The Pentagon plans to address the maintenance of coastal military installations in the face of sea level rise, the growing
frequency of natural disaster relief, and the longevity of military equipment in changing weather patterns.
Tensions continue to rise in South China Sea
July 2014
Tensions continue to rise in the South China Sea, as China and its neighbors claim sovereignty over disputed territories. On January 1,
China imposed new restrictions on foreign fishing vessels entering disputed portions of the South China Sea. The move angered some
of Chinas neighbors, including Vietnam, Taiwan, Malaysia, and the Philippines. It also drew criticism from the United States,
especially in light of Chinas unilateral declaration of an Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) over the East China Sea last year. In
March, the Philippines took its maritime territorial claims to the international tribunal in the Hague, after the Chinese Coast Guard
expelled two Philippine ships from the waters surrounding the Spratly Islands. Finally, tensions flared in May between China and
Vietnam over Chinas plans to set up oil rigs in waters claimed by both countries. However, both governments have since released
statements indicating a willingness to open diplomatic channels to resolve the dispute.
Global Ocean Commission final report released
June 2014
The Global Ocean Commissionan international organization mandated with developing feasible policy directives to address
overfishing, large-scale loss of marine habitat and biodiversity, and the lack of effective management and enforcement in high seas
governancereleased its final report on June 24, 2014. The report outlines eight proposals to strengthen oceans governance, urging
states and international institutions to work together to promote: sustainable fishing, the protection of vulnerable areas, the reduction
of marine biodiversity loss, a stronger push against IUU fishing, and the elimination of plastics pollution.
Obama proposes world's largest marine reserve
June 2014
President Obama announced plans to create the world's largest marine sanctuary during the State Departments Our Ocean summit,
hosted by Secretary Kerry on June 16-17, 2014. The planned reserve will expand the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National
Monument in the central Pacific from roughly 87,000 square miles up to an estimated two million square miles. On the first day of the
conference, the president of Kiribati also announced a ban on all commercial fishing in the Phoenix Islands Marine Protected Area
(roughly the size of California) beginning January 1, 2015.
Modern slavery in the fishing industry exposed
June 2014
In June, an investigation led by the Guardian exposed that shrimp exports to the United States, United Kingdom, and other states
around the world, are directly tied to slavery in the Thai seafood industry. Thailand was downgraded the lowest ranking on the State
Department's human trafficking index in 2014which ranks states according to how well they combat and prevent human trafficking
putting it on par with North Korea and Iran. Despite widespread criticism, in June Bangkok rejected a protocol to the ILO's Forced
Labor Convention of 1930, which requires member states to identify, release, and compensate victims of forced labor, and prosecute
the perpetrators.
Shell suspends drilling in the Arctic
January 2014
In January, Royal Dutch Shell suspended plans to drill in the Arctic, following a number of problems on the initial drilling site and the
decision of a U.S. appeals court, which stated that the U.S. Interior Department had wrongly awarded licenses to drill in the Arctic
without adequately evaluating the environmental impact of the drilling.

Despite spending approximately $5 billion toward its Arctic exploratory drilling projects, Shell decided to indefinitely suspend its
Arctic ambitions in 2014. The decision was seen as a short-term victory by many environmental advocacy groups, including the World
Wildlife Fund and Greenpeace, which call for Arctic waters to be off-limits to exploratory drilling.
Options for Strengthening Ocean Governance
Introduction
There are a series of measures, both formal and informal, that can be taken to strengthen U.S. and global ocean governance. First, the
United States must begin by finally ratifying the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. On this foundation, the United States should
then tap hitherto underused regimes, update twentieth-century agreements to reflect modern ocean challenges, and, in some cases,
serve as the diplomatic lead in pioneering new institutions and regimes.
These recommendations reflect the views of Stewart M. Patrick, senior fellow and director of the International Institutions and Global
Governance program.
Ratify UNCLOS
The United States should ratify the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea as soon as possible
The United States should finally join the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, an action that would give it further credibility and
make the United States a full partner in global ocean governance. This carefully negotiated agreement has been signed and ratified by
165 countries and the European Union. Yet despite playing a central role shaping UNCLOSs content, the United States has
conspicuously failed to join. It remains among only a handful of countries with a coastline, including Syria, North Korea, and Iran, not
to have done so.
Emerging issues such as the melting Arctic lend increased urgency to U.S. ratification. By rejecting UNCLOS, the United States is
freezing itself out of important international policymaking bodies, forfeiting a seat at decision-making forums critical to economic
growth and national security interests. One important forum where the United States has no say is the commission vested with the
authority to validate countries claims to extend their exclusive economic zones, a process that is arguably the last great partitioning of
sovereign space on earth. As a nonparty to the treaty, the United States is forgoing an opportunity to extend its national jurisdiction
over a vast ocean area on its Arctic, Atlantic, and Gulf coastsequal to almost half the size of the Louisiana Purchaseand
abdicating an opportunity to have a say in deliberations over other nations claims elsewhere.
Furthermore, the convention allows for an expansion of U.S. sovereignty by extending U.S. sea borders, guaranteeing the freedom of
ship and air traffic, and enhancing the legal tools available to combat piracy and illicit trafficking. Potential participants in U.S.organized flotillas and coalitions rightly question why they should assist the United States in enforcing the rule of law when the United
States refuses to recognize the convention that guides the actions of virtually every other nation.
Coordinate national ocean policies
Coordinate national ocean policies for coastal states
The creation of the comprehensive and integrated U.S. oceans strategy in 2013 should be immediately followed by similar efforts in
developing maritime countries, namely, Brazil, Russia, India, and China (BRIC). These so-called BRIC nations will be critical players
in crafting domestic ocean policies that form a coherent tapestry of global governance. Ideally, such emerging powers would designate
a senior government official, and in some cases the head of state, to liaison with other coastal states and regional bodies to coordinate
ocean governance regimes. Consistent with the Regional Seas Program, the ripest opportunity for these efforts is at the regional level.
With UN assistance, successful regional initiatives could then be harmonized and expanded globally.
Strengthen high seas fishing governance
Place a moratorium on critically endangered commercial fisheries and combat IUU fishing
Governments need to tighten regulations on commercial fishing, in order to ensure the reconstruction of overexploited fish stocks.
Commercial fishing, a multi-billion dollar industry in the United States, is in grave danger due to extreme overfishing. In the last fifty
years, fish supplies that were previously considered inexhaustible have been reduced to alarmingly low levels. Up to 90 percent of
large predatory fish are now gone. Nearly half of fish stocks in the world have been fully exploited and roughly one-third have been
overexploited. To be sure, recent fishing policies have helped rebuild some North American fish stocks to stable levels, providing
substantial environmental and economic benefits. The 2012 imposition of catch limits on all federally managed fish species is an
important and long overdue first step, which should be expanded to include a moratorium on the most endangered commercial
fisheries, such as the Atlantic blue fin tuna. Numerous other species are under threat. Policymakers should stand up to intense political
pressure and place fishing moratoriums on the most threatened fisheries to give them a chance to rebound.

Implementing the moratorium that the United States, Canada, and Norway have proposed in the Arctic ocean would be a critical first
step. In addition, states should implement stronger regulations in ports to prevent illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing
productswhich make up around 33 percent of annual legal catchfrom reaching the legal market. An important first step would
be for states to ratify the Agreement on Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated
Fishing (PSMA), which cannot take effect until twenty-five states ratify the agreement.
Strengthen UNCLOS
Strengthen and update UNCLOS
The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and related agreements serve as the bedrock of international ocean policy. While some fear
that renegotiating the agreement could leave it worse off, UNCLOS is thirty years old and if it is to remain relevant and effective, it
must be strengthened and updated to respond to emerging threats such as transnational crime and marine pollution, as well as
employing market-based principles of catch shares to commercial fisheries, especially in the high seas. Lastly, UNCLOS Article 234,
which applies to ice-covered areas, should be expanded to better manage the opening Arctic [PDF], which has become an area of
increasing focus and international tension in recent years. Through mechanisms like article 76 of UNCLOS, which governs the limits
of the outer continental shelf, UNCLOS member states should counter the pressure of coastal states that unilaterally seek to push
maritime borders seaward, such as Chinas claim to 90 percent of the South China Sea. Additionally, states should focus on using
UNCLOS mechanisms to resolve nagging maritime conflicts, such as overlapping EEZs from extended continental shelf claims, and
sovereignty disputes, such as that of the Spratly and Hans Islands.
Reduce plastic pollution
Strengthen restrictions on plastics production and disposal
Plastic pollution endangers the ecosystem of the oceans, with drastic consequences for marine life. International and domestic
mechanisms have failed to adequately regulate both the production and disposal of plastics. States should implement appropriate
domestic regulation to comply with existing international mechanisms designed to mitigate plastic marine pollution, including the
International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, Annex 5, (MARPOL) and the International convention for the
Prevention of Pollution from Land-based Sources (Paris Convention). While recycling programs and bioplastics do present stopgap
solutions to traditional plastics, only a small percent of recycled plastics are repurposed and the production of predominantly plantbased bioplastics presents additional environmental problems. A major reliance on plastic has increased exponentially, with more
plastic produced in the past decade than in the prior century. In September 2014, California became the first state in the United States
to ban single-use plastic bags in grocery stores and other commercial businesses. With half of plastic products used only once, the
United States and other countries should follow suit and phase out the production and use of single-use plastic bags and other
containers.
Improve scientific observations
Increase funding for research, exploration, and monitoring
We know more about the moon than we do about the deep sea floor. The long-term understanding of the oceans is vital to every
nation, and should not be sidelined as a low-priority item. The lack of scientific data leaves major gaps in our understanding of the
complex relationship between the oceans health and the health of the rest of the planet. Improving scientific data on oceans, including
acidification trends, will enhance our ability to both monitor changes in the oceans and better anticipate and address the effects of
these changes. Improved data will also help enhance early warning systems for industries that rely on the health of marine ecosystems.
In addition there lies unknown potential in the discovery of biological organisms that could contribute to the quality of human life,
such as new pharmaceutical products. Better data will inform better oceans governance through more effective policy, both
domestically and internationally. The United States should seek to allocate more federal funding for scientific observation, research,
and exploration of the oceans, and encourage other countries to do the same while seeking to increase international collaboration
among national oceanographic programs.

Bolster capacity
Bolster capacity of developing coastal states
Many ocean-related governance issues have shortcomings not because rules for better management do not exist, but because
developing states cannot enforce them. A failure in the oversight of sovereign waters inevitably leads to environmental degradation
and, in cases like Somalia, can morph into problems with global implications, such as piracy. Accordingly, states and international
institutions should provide knowledge, training, and financial assistance to help less developed coastal states build the capacity to
enforce (1) fisheries rules fleets; (2) International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution From Ships regulations to reduce ocean
dumping and pollution; (3) other shipping regulations in states with open registries such as Liberia, Panama, Malta, and the Marshall
Islands; (4) and existing mandates created to stop illicit trafficking. Developed countries should also help less developed areas monitor
environmental variables such as acidification, coral reefs, and fisheries, and provide financial assistance to help mitigate the effects of
pollution and climate change.