[asia-apec 80] 1989 PACIFIC RIM PAPER PART II

[Northwest FOE Office]

[PART II. 1989 PACIFIC RIM PAPER - NW Friends of the Earth]


VIII.  COMMERCIAL FISHERIES CONCERNS - Tuna/Dolphins

     Within the US, 28 vessels, which comprise the United States
tuna purse seine fleet, are allowed to kill 20,500 dolphins each
year during their commercial fishing operations.  The combined
annual kill for the foreign tuna fleet is approximately 100,000
dolphins in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean (ETP), an area
extending from Mexico to Peru and westward approximately 2,000
miles.

     Because dolphins and tuna swim together in this section of
the Pacific, the purse seine fleet search out and encircle
dolphin herds in order to catch tuna.  In the process, many
dolphins drown in the nets.  The eastern spinner dolphin
population has been reduced by 80% of its original size.

     The Marine Mammal Protection Act, passed by the US in 1972,
initially reduced the number of dolphins killed by the domestic
tuna fleet.  But because of fierce lobbying by the tuna industry,
the U.S. tuna fleet currently operates under an indefinite permit
allowing the killing of up to 20,500 dolphins annually.

     Amendments to the Marine Mammal Act in 1984 required a
regulatory program on the killing of dolphins on any foreign
nation that wishes to export tuna to the US.  This provision has
not been enforced by the Reagan or Bush Administration.

[1996 UPDATE: The Tuna-Dolphin Issue has been extensively debated
as part of both NAFTA and GATT.  For more information contact: NW
Office, Friends of the Earth, (206) 633-1661)].


IX. COMMERCIAL FISHERIES CONCERNS - North Pacific High Seas
Driftnets

     In the North Pacific, Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea operate
over 1,500 ships that use monofilament nonbiodegradable plastic
gillnets that are deployed in the open ocean.  These drift nets
range from 7 miles to 30 miles in length.  The long, nearly
invisible driftnets catch non-target species.  Of particular
concern are charges that the Taiwan squid-fishing fleet is
actually taken in large numbers of small salmon on the high seas.
 On 19 April 1989 the US Coast Guard was ordered to board a
Taiwanese squid boat in international waters about 1,250 miles
south of Attu Island in the North Pacific and inspect it for
illegal catches of salmon. (Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 20 April
1989)

     Long driftnets are often cut by other marine shipping, or if
illegally set, are abandoned if discovery is anticipated.  These
"ghost" nets are suspected of drifting in the oceans for months,
if not years, creating a hazard to navigation and possibly
continuing to catch fish and other marine mammals.  Recent
studies on small segments of driftnets 2000 meters and smaller
show that such nets collapse into a ball shape within a number of
weeks.  However, no studies have been done on longer lengths of
driftnets.

     The International North Pacific Fisheries Commission (INPFC)
provides a regulatory regime for the salmon driftnet fisheries. 
However, no international regulation for squid fisheries exist. 
Without onboard observers, it is difficult to catch and verify
driftnet pirates.  However, it is known that large quantities of
salmon have been offered for sale by suppliers in Taiwan,
Singapore, and Thailand. These countries have no salmon runs and
are not sanctioned to harvest salmon under the INPFC.

     A Driftnet Impact Monitoring, Assessment and Control Act was
passed by the US in 1987.  The Secretary of Commerce was required
to submit a report to Congress identifying the nature, extent,
and effects of driftnet fishing in the North Pacific Ocean on
marine resources of the US.  This report, and other sections of
the act requiring monitoring of the unregulated squid driftnet
fisheries, could result in the US taking the initiative among the
Pacific Rim countries to solve this problem.

[1996 UPDATE:  Significant progress has been made through the
United Nations in banning driftnet fishing.]


X. COMMERCIAL WHALING

     It is said that two Germans saved more whales than all the
commissions and conservation organizations in the world combined.
 The two Germans were Kaiser Wilhelm and Adolf Hitler.  Their
actions helped lead to World War I and World War II.  During
these two world wars, commercial whaling became too dangerous as
man turned to killing his own species.

     Between the two World Wars, some halfhearted efforts to
regulate whaling were attempted under the League of Nations. 
However it was not until 1946 that fourteen whaling nations
(including the US) met and signed the International Convention of
the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW) and created the International
Whaling Commission (IWC).

     The IWC, however, has no enforcement provisions, observation
procedures, or penalties.  In addition, it allows IWC members to
issue themselves permits to conduct whaling for "scientific"
purposes.  However, the US Congress has passed amendments to two
existing laws.  The first, the Pelly Amendment to the Fisherman's
Protective Act allows the US to ban imports of fisheries products
from countries which "diminish the effectiveness of an
international fisheries conservation program."  The second, the
Packwood-Magnuson Amendment to the Fisheries Conservation and
Management Act subjects such countries to an automatic reduction
of their permitted allocation of fish harvested inside US
territorial waters.

     Despite these efforts, between 1970 and 1979, the IWC voted
on quotas which resulted in the harpooning of nearly a quarter of
a million whales.  By 1982, however, a moratorium on all
commercial whaling was approved.  However, Japan, Norway and the
Soviet Union, among others, filed objections stating that they
would not abide by the moratorium.  In addition, both Japan and
Iceland are also engaged in "scientific" whaling.

     The next meeting of the IWC is in 1990 and the commercial
whaling ban will be reviewed.  However, commercial whaling under
the IWC could only resume if 75% of the member nations agree.

(For more Information contact:  The American Cetacean Society
(703) 920-0076)


XI.  OIL SPILL LIABILITY AND COMPENSATION

    The recent Exxon oil spill off of Valdez, Alaska was only the
latest in a series of oil spill accidents stretching from
Washington state, to the Hawaiian Islands, to Antarctica.  The US
has a fragmented hodge podge of national and state laws providing
inadequate cleanup and damage remedies, taxpayer subsidies to
cover cleanup costs, third party damages that go uncompensated,
corporate structures designed to limit exposure, and substantial
barriers to victim recoveries -- such as legal defenses, statutes
of limitation, and burdens of proof that favor those responsible
for the spill.

     Under existing US law, at least five statutes deal with the
issue of oil spill liability and compensation.  Each is
different, and each is inadequate.  The Clean Water Act has
jurisdiction over most large tanker and inland barge incidents. 
It sets liability limits for federal oil spill removal costs and
natural damages which are too low and provide no coverage or
compensation for other damages.

     The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act Amendments, under
which off-shore oil and gas drilling takes place, the Deep Water
Ports Act, and the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Authorization Act, all
provide varying and uneven liability standards and scope of
cleanup costs and damages.  However, the most serious restriction
on oilspill liability is the Limitation of Liability Act which
was passed in 1851.  It offsets liability against the value of
the vessel and cargo. In some situations, the owner pays nothing
because the vessel and cargo are written off as a total loss.

    In April 1989, US Senator Brock Adams (D-WA) introduced an
oil tanker/barge safety bill requiring that all tankers over
20,000 tons operating in US waters and constructed after the date
of enactment would be required to have double hulls and bottoms. 
Other legislation on oil spill liability has also been introduced
and hearings will continue throughout this session of Congress.

     On the international front, the International Maritime
Organization (IMO) is responsible for establishing a framework
for oil tanker shipping and safety.  Two treaties were agreed to
in 1969 and 1971 which sought to establish a uniform
international oil spill liability and compensation system. 
Because of the weak nature and loopholes in the treaties, the
environmental community did not support ratification and the US
has not ratified the treaties.  In 1984, the treaties were
significantly improved.  However, the US still has reservations
because of preemption of national and state laws.

[1996 Update:  In 1990, the U.S. passed the Oil Pollution Act
covering oil spill prevention, cleanup and liability issues.  In
addition, in 1994, Friends of the Earth published "Crude
Awakening", a massive report on oil spills by the U.S. oil
industry.  For copies of this report contact: Friends of the
Earth-D.C., (202) 783-7400).]


XII.  MARINE DEBRIS

    The problem of marine debris is common to all Pacific Rim
Countries.  While a large share of floating ocean pollution,
particularly plastics, have land-based sources, plastic marine
debris from ships poses significant environmental, health,
safety, storage, and disposal problems.

     The world's merchant fleet alone is estimated to dump
450,000 plastic containers into the oceans every day.  The
commercial fishing fleet discard 100,000 tons of plastic fishing
gear and 25,000 tons of plastic packaging annually.  Over nine
million recreational boaters discard an additional 37,000 tons of
trash each year.  The US Navy alone dumps about four tons of
plastic trash per day.  Currently, the US generates an estimated
1,100 pounds of plastic trash per person per year.  An estimated
700,000 tons of this plastic trash are dumped at sea.

     Marine mammals can be killed through ingestion of plastic or
through entanglement in nets, packing strips or plastic rings
surrounding beverage containers.  While the East Coast of the US
was awash in medical and sewage waste during the summer of 1988,
the Pacific beaches of Washington State were covered not just
with oil from a December 1988 barge spill, but with tons of
plastic debris, as well.

     The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution
by Ships established a framework for dealing with pollution from
international shipping. "MARPOL" Annex V, agreed to in 1978, has
been ratified by the US.  Together with its implementing
legislation, the Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control
Act of 1987 and the Driftnet Impact Monitoring, Research and
Control Act of 1987, plastic dumping is no longer legal anywhere
in the world's oceans by any of the 35 nations signatory to the
MARPOL Protocal, nor is it now legal to dump plastics in US 200-
mile coastal and navigable freshwaters.  However, as of 1989,
other Pacific Rim countries, such as Canada, had not yet ratified
Annex V. 

     The US Coast Guard prepared regulations in 1989 which
require US Ports to dispose of shipboard plastics and set out the
restrictions on the disposal of other garbage discharges.  Two
related concerns continue to be use of incineration at sea as a
disposal practice and an exemption for the US Navy until 1994.

(For more information contact: Center for Marine Conservation
(202) 429-5609.)


XIII.  HAZARDOUS/SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL

     Solid and hazardous waste dumping is another idea which is
being batted around the Pacific Rim.  In 1988, according to
accounts in Pacific Daily News, a US firm proposed to use an
uninhabited atoll (Taongi) of the Marshall Islands as a dump for
millions of tons of solid waste.  The proposal involves shipping
3.5 million tons of waste the first year and up to 25 million
tons and 30 ships after five years.  Admiralty Pacific claims to
have already signed numerous waste contracts with US West Coast
firms and hoped to transport 10 percent of the garbage produced
on the West Coast to Taongi.

     The Republic of the Marshalls has a total land area of 72
sq. miles spread over 33 atolls.  Eniwetok, Bikini and Rongelap
atolls are uninhabited due to contamination by US atmospheric
atomic bomb tests in the 1950's.

     According to Greenpeace, other US firms have been at working
trying to convince various Pacific Governments that importing
toxic waste is a good idea.  Western Samoa, American Samoa,
Tonga, the Solomon Islands and Papua New Guinea have all been
approached with proposals for land-based incinerators of chemical
detoxification plants.  In addition, Recycled Energy Inc. has
lobbied the City of Los Angeles to send their sewage sludge to
the Philippines. However, since the Philippines government has
outlawed foreign waste imports, Los Angeles will have to deal
with their sludge themselves.

     "Multinational Monitor" reports that in 1980, 12 companies
notified the US Environmental Protection Agency that they
intended to export hazardous waste.  By 1987, the number had
grown to 465, and officials predicted that up to 575 companies
would be exporting waste in 1988.

     Bills, such as the Waste Export Control Act, H.R. 2525, have
been introduced in the US House of Representatives in 1989 to
require all US waste to be disposed of be in compliance with U.S.
environmental standards, regardless of the location of disposal. 
Unfortunately, many members of Congress are under intense
pressure to help stop various waste disposal schemes in their own
districts, and perceive that overseas shipments can be made to
locations that contain no voters.

     On 22 March 1989, delegates from 33 Countries (including six
from the Pacific Rim: Canada, Colombia, Guatemala, Mexico, Panama
and the Philippines) signed a treaty in Basel, Switzerland
setting up global rules of procedure for the international waste
trade.  The Basel Convention disappointed many NGO's since it did
not ban the export of hazardous waste.  Rather, when ratified by
20 countries, it will merely require that waste exporters receive
the written consent of importing nations before any waste
shipment takes place.  The lack of a ban was particularly
dismaying since at least 45 countries have already banned the
import of foreign wastes.

(For more information contact: Greenpeace (202) 462-1177.)


XIV.  MILITARIZATION OF THE PACIFIC RIM

     The militarization of the Pacific Rim is increasing. 
According to a 1989 RAND Corporation study prepared for the
Department of Defense, by the year 2010, Japan will become a
formidable military power. China will increase its military
budget to half that of the Soviet Union while potentially
becoming the largest economic power in the world, next to the
United States.

     A 1989 report by Greenpeace on nuclear weapon accidents at
sea shows that the mere presence and transport of such weapons
poses risks.  The actual use of nuclear weapons would result in
an environmental holocaust.  In the minds of most people, the
last nuclear detonations occured when the US dropped two nuclear
bombs on Japan. 

     In reality, thousands of nuclear weapons have been exploded
within the Pacific Rim or by Pacific Rim countries, including the
United States, France and China, in atmospheric, underground and
underwater nuclear testing.  Today, France continues to test
nuclear weapons beneath the sea floor in French Polynesia.
(France exploded 44 atmospheric nuclear tests and an additional
108 underwater tests in the area since 1966).

     Coastal environmental impacts from military projects are
also of concern.  In the US, many military bases are several
polluted by toxic wastes. Even new bases are not without
environmental problems.  In 1985, the US Navy proposed to dredge
a new "Homeport" for the nuclear-powered carrier U.S.S. Nimitz
and support ships in Port Gardner Bay, near Everett, Washington
in Puget Sound.  The Navy proposed to dredge contaminated
sediments from the harbor.  They would then barge and dump the
sediments in 400 ft. of open water in Puget Sound.  Later, they
would attempt to "cap" the contaminated sediment with "clean
material". The Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund brought suit on
behalf of Friends of the Earth and other environmental
organizations to stop this dumping project.  After a lengthy
court battle, the Navy agreed not to dispose of contaminated
dredge spoils in Puget Sound.

(For more information contact Greenpeace (202) 462-1177 or
Northwest Office, Friends of the Earth (206) 633-1661)


XV. ANTARCTICA

     Antarctica is the earth's most isolated and pristine
continent.  It is twice the size of Australia and contains the
Transantarctic Mountains which rise to over 15,000 ft.  Although
Antarctica is ice-covered, it contains a variety of wildlife,
including emperor penguins and seals.  The surrounding waters
contain krill and other marine life which were severely impacted
from an oilspill from a polar supply ship that ran aground and
capsized in February of this year.

     It has no government of its own.  Rather, eighteen nations
have decision making status under the Antarctic Treaty.  Another
17 nations have observer status at the biennial Antarctic Treaty
System.  There were twelve original signers to the Treaty in
1959, Argentina, Australia, Chile, France, New Zealand, Norway
and Britain who have land claims, plus the US, USSR, South
Africa, Japan and Belgium.  The Treaty, which expires in 1991,
has demilitarized the area.  In 1964, a conservation protocol to
the Treaty, called "Agreed Measures for the Conservation of
Antarctic Fauna and Flora" was adopted.  Two other conservation
agreements, the 1972 Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic
Seals, and the 1980 Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic
Marine Living Resources, have also been adopted.

     However, because the Antarctic is a continent, it contains
mineral deposits such as uranium, coal, oil and iron.  As a
result, 33 nations agreed, in 1988, to a convention to allow
mining exploration and development in Antarctica.  This Antarctic
Minerals Convention is a badly flawed regime that will spell
disaster if it is ratified.  Major problems with the convention
include the lack of any environmental protection agency to
regulate activities, and no participation by NGO's.  An
international consenus on protecting Antarctica's vast resources
and habitat is needed.  Antarctica should become a symbol of
peaceful international co-operation and environmental protection.


XVI. SUMMARY

     While international law and international conventions
regulating the environmental use of oceans are still in their
infancy, they can still be examined for confidence-building
measure benefits.  In addition, Pacific Rim countries need to
seriously change their trade/lending practices to address the
problems associated with global warming, biodiversity loss, and
the decline of productive natural renewable resources, such as
soil, fisheries, and forests. The high seas can no longer
continue to be viewed for resource exploitation opportunities or
as disposal sites for the planet's growing waste problems.

     All Pacific Rim countries should take the following steps to
protect the environment of the Pacific Rim:

* Institute energy conservation plans and reduce usage of non-
renewable fossile fuels. 
* Reduce emissions of green house gases to stop global warming
and eliminate the useage of ozone destroying CFC's.
* Support integrated pest management practices.
* Set a goal of zero discharge of pollutants into the air and
water.
* Increase the acreage of sensitive areas, including endangered
species habitat, within national preservation systems.
* Begin restoration programs for wetlands, forests and
agriculture.
* Conduct research which will establish carrying capacities for
watersheds.
* Fund family planning programs to reduce population growth.
* Review trade/lending policies to incorporate environmental
impact assessments.

     As the preamble to the London Dumping Convention states, ".
. .the marine environment and living organisms which it supports
are of vital importance to humanity, and all people have an
interest in assuring that it is so managed that its quality and
resources are not impaired".

     We cannot maintain national security in the face of
international pollution on and within the Pacific Rim.  The
freedom of the seas does not mean the freedom to pollute. 
Protection of the environment must become the goal of all Pacific
Rim nations.  The earth needs more friends.
David E. Ortman
NW Friends of the Earth
4512 University Way N.E.
Seattle, WA  98105
(206) 633-1661