|
global community.
Accordingly, this note argues that such a ban in
the Eastern Tropical Pacific Seascape should be
adopted.
Section II of
this note examines in depth the practice of
bottom fishing and the importance of the deep
sea, critically evaluating the ecological
and environmental impacts of deep sea bottom
trawling. In Section III, this note explains a
past effort to curb the practice, the proposed
international moratorium on deep sea bottom
trawling. Section IV of this note describes the
environment and politics of the Eastern Tropical
Pacific Seascape, an emerging international
marine management area. In Section V, this note
proposes an embargo on deep sea bottom trawling
in the Eastern Tropical Pacific Seascape, which
would benefit the area and provide an effective
model for international action. Recognizing the
support for and challenges to a regional embargo
on deep sea bottom trawling, Section VI
concludes that such an embargo would benefit the
region and set an important precedent for
international action.
II. Deep Sea Bottom Fishing
The unique characteristics of the deep sea,
including remarkable habitats such as seamounts,
make the deep sea ecologically invaluable.
Unfortunately, anthropogenic activities threaten
the health of the deep sea. One of the greatest
threats is deep sea bottom trawling, the global
significance of which is tremendous. The
ecological impact of deep sea bottom trawling is
so grave that the minimal economic benefit in no
way justifies the practice.
-The
Deep Sea and Seamounts
The deep sea
spans more than ninety percent of the ocean
floor and more than fifty percent of the earth's
surface. It begins on the deep continental
shelf and lies predominantly beyond any nation's
jurisdiction.3 The deep sea is as geologically
varied as the terrestrial environment, with
ridge systems, basins, plains, trenches, and
underwater mountains.
Seamounts, a common deep sea geologic
formation, are among the most biologically
rich and diverse landforms on earth. Seamounts
are submerged mountains that rise at least 1000
meters above the ocean floor but do not break
the ocean's surface.4 Though we rarely think of
mountain ranges as submarine, the longest
mountain range on earth is in fact under the
sea.
Very little is known about seamount ecosystems.
Though scientists estimate that there are as
many as 100,000 seamounts globally, fewer than
one percent of seamounts have been explored.
What scientists do know is that the bathymetry
and the productivity of seamounts afford a home
for countless species.
A diverse seamount bathymetry, the underwater
equivalent of topography, results in a
biologically rich ecosystem. Both benthic and
pelagic species, acclimated to a variety of
depths, may aggregate on the same seamount. Such
aggregation creates isolated systems rich in
organic matter and detritus in the middle of the
deep sea.
Available and abundant zooplankton further
facilitate life on seamounts. Seamounts are
believed to be an area of primary production of
zooplankton, the first link in the marine food
chain. Marine birds, fish, and mammals all
depend on zooplankton either directly or
indirectly. As a food source for higher tropic
level organisms, zooplankton serve as an
indicator of a healthy ecosystem.
Though seamounts serve as a permanent home to
many mobile and sedentary species, because of
their high biological productivity seamounts
also act as spawning and feeding grounds for
many migratory species. But what makes seamounts
breathtaking in their biodiversity is their high
number of endemic species, or species found
nowhere else on earth, caused by the seamounts'
relative isolation in the deep sea.9 Estimates
suggest there are as many as several million
species endemic to seamounts10 and that
seamounts may be the home of hundreds of
thousands of species yet undiscovered.
Though all marine species are at risk of harm
due to the destructive capacity of deep sea
fishing
activity, species found at greater depths on
seamounts are particularly vulnerable because of
their unusual characteristics. Deep sea species
tend to be slow growing, mature at a late age,
and have low fecundity. They are also quite
long-lived; the lifespan of several species is
more than 100 years. As a result, these
species may take decades upon decades to recover
from ecosystem disruption, if they recover at
all. Consider, for example, coral systems.
Scientists have only recently discovered coral
species in deep waters. Fifty years ago it was
thought that corals could not live in deep,
dark, cold water; scientists now have found that
two thirds of all corals are cold water
species. Some of these cold water corals are
more than 8000 years old! These ancient corals
are important to deep sea ecosystems. The corals
create vast structures that provide habitats for
many other deep water species. The discovery of
deep water corals evidences how little we
actually know about the deep sea.
Given their rich diversity, seamounts are also
home to concentrations of commercial species
such as shrimp, grouper, and
Chilean sea bass, which makes seamounts
attractive to the commercial fishing industry.
Unfortunately, deep sea bottom trawling, the
most common method of deep water fishing, is
also the most destructive to seamount
ecosystems. Recognizing this threat, scientific
groups and concerned parties encouraged the
United Nations in February of 2004 to establish
a global moratorium on seamount fishing. They
argued that the minimal economic benefits of
deep sea bottom trawling were drastically
disproportionate to the ecologic cost of the
practice. Though the United Nations has not yet
adopted the moratorium, global enthusiasm for
the reduction or elimination of deep sea bottom
trawling continues to increase with awareness.
- The Impacts
of deep Sea Bottom Trawling - Fishing.
In order to exploit the rich biodiversity of
species in the deep sea and seamounts, the
commercial fishing industry has enhanced trawl
capabilities. Vessels now employ more powerful
engines and better sonar for enhanced
efficiency, and consequently can trawl the deep
ocean floor to depths of up to 2000 meters.
Technology has made bottom trawling the most
commonly employed method of high seas bottom
fishing, accounting for eighty percent of the
bottom catch in the deep sea.
Deep sea bottom fishing trawlers consist of heavy metal
frames with nets and rubber wheels that roll
along the ocean floor, scooping up or crushing
down everything in their path and leaving trawl
scars that are miles long. Consider the
following excerpt from Charles Clover's The End
of the Line, illustrating the application of
trawling to land:
Imagine what people would say if a band of
hunters strung a mile of net between two immense
all-terrain vehicles and dragged it at speed
across the plains of Africa. This fantastical
assemblage . . . would scoop up everything in
its way: predators, such as lions and cheetahs,
lumbering endangered herbivores, such as rhinos
and elephants, herds of impala and wildebeest,
family groups of warthog and wild dog. Pregnant
females would be swept up and carried along,
with only the smallest juveniles able to wriggle
through the mesh.
Picture how the deep sea net is constructed, with a huge
metal roller attached to the leading edge. This
rolling beam smashes and flattens obstructions,
flushing creatures into the approaching
filaments. The effect of dragging a huge iron
bar across the savannah is to break off every
outcrop, uproot every tree, bush and flowering
plant, stirring columns of birds into the air.
Left behind is a strangely bedraggled landscape
resembling a harrowed field. The industrial hunter gatherers
now stop to examine the tangled mess of writhing
or dead creatures behind them. There are no
markets for about a third of the animals they
have caught because they [do not] taste too
good, or because they are simply too small or
too squashed. This pile of corpses is dumped on
the plain to be consumed by carrion.
Because of their great age and fragility,
cold water corals are frequent victims of deep
sea bottom trawling. When seamounts are
trawled, as much as ninety-eight percent of the
coral is lost. Coral caught as bycatch is sometimes
more prevalent in the trawl nets than the
targeted species. For example, when bottom
trawlers fished for orange roughy on the South
Tasman Rise in 1997, they brought up 4000 tons
of orange roughy and 10,000 tons of coral. This
figure does not even account for the extensive
amount of coral that was damaged but not
captured in nets. Very little is known about
cold water corals, but if bottom trawling
continues to decimate deep water reef systems we
may not have the opportunity to learn more.
Human effects on the coral are already evident
at nearly every reef surveyed.
Cold water corals are not the only organisms
caught as bycatch. The Greenpeace flagship,
the Rainbow Warrior, tracks and documents
destructive fishing practices. A crew member
from the Rainbow Warrior posted online on June
11, 2004,
We've been spending more time collecting and
analyzing bycatch-the discarded fish that
trawlers dump back into the sea. There's an
assumption that throwing back the fish is "OK",
because the fish can swim off in freedom. Not
so-the shock of the kilometre-long journey to
the surface, plus the crushing weight and
friction inside the net, is more than enough to
kill or maim them.
Targeted species also suffer from deep sea bottom
fishing; "nearly all exploited deepwater
species are being harvested outside safe
biological limits," claims Duncan Currie of
Greenpeace. Sharks,
like most top predators, have suffered
tremendously from industrial trawling. Within
five years of introducing commercial trawls to
the Gulf of Thailand, sixty percent of
Thailand's large finfish, sharks, and skates
were lost. This effect parallels the condition
of commercial fisheries worldwide. A recent
article in Nature revealed that the global
population of large fish is today only ten
percent of what it was in 1950, before the
large-scale industrialization of the fishing
industry. Industrialized fishing depletes fish
stocks at an unsustainable rate, and deep sea
bottom trawling contributes significantly to the
problem.
Bottom deep sea fishing ravages an area twice the size
of the United States each year. Deep sea
species tend to be slow-growing and long-living,
and accordingly take decades to recover from the
impact of deep trawlers. Moreover, because the
trawlers are not species-specific, they
eliminate entire ecosystems, making it more
difficult for deep sea life to recover and
flourish. Scientists believe that, as a result,
widespread species extinction is likely. These
effects combined with the prevalence of the
practice make deep sea bottom trawling the
greatest threat to seamount biological health.
The Economic Significance
of Deep Sea Bottom Fishing.
Though deep sea bottom
fishing is one of the
most significant threats to the marine
environment, it provides very little benefit
to the world economy or to global food security.
In 2001, bottom trawling represented only
0.2-0.25% of the fish landed globally.
Destructive fishing practices are often excused
because the fish collected by such methods
contribute substantially to the protein supply
of developing countries or subsistence cultures.
This exception is inapplicable to deep sea
bottom trawling because the fishery contributes
little, if anything, to the third world protein
supply. The major markets for high seas bottom
catch are the United States, the European Union,
and Japan. In these markets the high seas
catch is a luxury good rather than a necessary
protein source.
Nor is the deep sea bottom trawl fishery
significant to the global fish industry. In
2001, the value of the deep sea bottom trawl
fishery amounted to, at most, 0.5% of the value
of the global fish catch, or 0.3% of the value
of global fish production.39 Moreover, the
practice is dominated by eleven wealthy
countries: Denmark, Estonia, Iceland, Japan,
Latvia, Lithuania, New Zealand, Norway,
Portugal, Russia, and Spain. Those countries
employ very few vessels in deep sea bottom
trawling; though roughly 3.1 million fishing
vessels operate globally each year, only several
hundred operate in the deep sea trawl fishery.
These statistics show that the deep sea bottom
trawl fishery is a limited access fishery that
benefits the global fishing industry only
minimally.
Deep sea fishing is limited to wealthy
countries because the vessels require a
great deal of technology, power, and fuel. As a
result, the high seas are not a true global
commons, because limited entrance to the market
means only the wealthiest countries can access
the resource. Heavily capitalized fishing
vessels are often funded through government
subsidies. As with agriculture in the United
States, subsidization of fishing industries only
leads to more capitalization and exploitation.
The wealthy, developed countries that have
subsidized fishing vessels for deep sea bottom
trawling invest with the hope that these vessels
can exploit untapped resources, relieve the
over-fished jurisdictional waters, and provide a
return on the investments into the fleet. The
fishers have every incentive to exploit the
resource to the maximum extent possible and lack
the financial security to take actions to ensure
the long-term health of the marine ecosystem.
The marine resources harbored in the deep sea
and in seamount ecosystems may be unparalleled.
Yet they are threatened globally by deep sea
bottom trawlers. The sweeping ecological
destruction wrought by deep sea bottom trawlers
is wholly disproportionate to both the minimal
economic value of the fishery and to its
insignificant contribution to the global protein
demand. In recognition of that disproportional, a variety of interested
parties have supported the elimination of the
practice of deep sea bottom trawling.
-A Proposal
for an International
Moratorium on Deep Sea Bottom Fishing
As threats to the deep sea increased over the
last few years, organizations and fisheries
experts worldwide began to direct their
attention toward the health of seamount
ecosystems. In 2002, U.N. General Assembly
Resolution 57/141 recommended that international
organizations strive to improve the biodiversity
and health of seamounts and other deep sea
ecosystems. In February 2004, member states to
the Convention on Biological Diversity called on
the U.N. General Assembly to take steps to
eliminate practices destructive to the marine
environment and, specifically, to the deep sea.
Interested parties began to push for an
international moratorium on seamount bottom
fishing that would temporarily protect these
valuable ecosystems and preserve marine
biodiversity until there was enough information
to establish permanent regulation. "Never before
had such a large number of scientists united
around a specific marine environmental issue,"
claimed the Deep Sea Conservation Coalition. However the U.N. Open-Ended Consultative Process
on Oceans and the Law of the Sea (UNICPOLOS) in
June of 2004 and 2005, discussed but failed to
adopt the moratorium. On both occasions, the
moratorium was blocked by countries with strong
fishing interests, including Iceland, Japan, and
Spain. Countries with a strong economic and
cultural stake in fisheries often stridently
oppose any restriction on that industry.
Because the United Nations failed -as usual- to adopt the
proposed moratorium, leaving an untold number of
species to face irreversible habitat
destruction, protection of the deep sea is left
to individual nations. Those nations that
participate in deep sea bottom trawling may
voluntarily agree to refrain from the activity,
but if they refuse, other nations should work
together to prohibit the practice in their
collective jurisdiction. Introducing a
moratorium on deep sea bottom trawling on a
regional scale would not only preserve the deep
sea of that region, but would exemplify deep sea
protection for the rest of the world.
-Eastern Tropical Pacific Seascape
Initiative
Recent cooperation among neighbor states has
produced a regional management strategy for the
biologically important area off the Pacific
coast of Latin and South America. There are many
advantages to establishing a cooperative
management regime in this region, given its
ecological value and uniquity. The Eastern
Tropical Pacific Seascape Initiative (ETPSI)
will not only protect essential marine habitat,
but it should serve as a model for international
marine management.
- The Region
The tropical waters off the Pacific coast of
Central and South America encompass one of the
most species-rich marine corridors on earth. A
tremendous number of unique terrestrial animals
depend on the health of this seascape, including
the marine iguana and fur seal.50 A diverse
array of birds such as albatross, penguins,
blue-footed boobies, and scarlet macaws inhabit
the corridor. The region is also home to
endangered marine species such as the
leatherback turtle and the blue whale.51
Visitors pay thousands of dollars to visit the
area for the opportunity to see this inimitable
aggregation of biodiversity that includes
species found nowhere else on earth.
The coastal states bordering the marine
corridor, hereinafter called "the Seascape,"
include Costa Rica, Colombia, Ecuador, and
Panama. Each country boasts its own unique
coastal habitats that host a wide array of
unique species. Moreover, the unusual
combination of the geology and ecology of each
country's coastal and marine environment creates
a region that is unparalleled in environmental
value.
1. Costa Rica
Costa Rica is known worldwide for its remarkable
coastal and marine environment, both of which
are protected nationally and internationally.
One of Costa Rica's most famous national parks,
Las Baulas, is an essential nesting habitat for
the critically endangered leatherback sea
turtle.52 At nearly ten feet in length and two
thousand pounds, the leatherback is the largest
marine reptile in the world.53 The global
population of female leatherbacks has dropped
from 90,000 to 5000 in the last two decades, and
nearly 1000 of those females nest in Las
Baulas.54 Las Baulas is also home to 174 species
of birds and, like the rest of Costa Rica, is
rich with beautiful and rare marine and
terrestrial species.55
While Costa Rica in its entirety contains a
breathtaking array of flora and fauna, Cocos
Island is Costa Rica's crown jewel. This
picturesque island teems with life, as the
island and its surrounding oceanic habitat
supports coral species, species of crustaceans,
500 species of mollusks, and 250 fish species. As an isolated oceanic island, Cocos
holds a great number of endemic species. Of the
235 plant species on the island, 70 are endemic,
as are 3 of the 87 bird species. Cocos is protected by Costa Rica as a national
park and internationally as a World Heritage
Site and a Ramsar Wetland of International
Importance.
2. Colombia
The great biodiversity of Colombia's Gorgona
Island, like Costa Rica's Cocos Island, may be
attributed to the Intertropical Convergence
Zone. Both islands are located in this
equatorial zone where trade winds from the
Northern and Southern Hemisphere converge,
mixing weather and currents. These effects
facilitate migration and dispersion of larvae of
various organisms. Furthermore, the terrestrial
areas of both Cocos and Gorgona are covered
predominantly by rainforests and are as rich
with species as are the surrounding waters.
Unique coralline formations surround Gorgona and
include eighteen different species of corals.
Like Cocos, Gorgona is protected as a national
park. The national park currently encompassing
the island totals 236 square miles and is
ninety-seven percent oceanic.
Colombia's smaller island, Malpelo, is one of
the country's natural highlights. At least 220
fish species and 10 species of coral inhabit the
waters around Malpelo.64 Oceanic and continental
currents combine to draw species to the area,
and the isolated nature of the island results in
high levels of endemism. One crab species, two
starfish species, two reptiles, and several
coralline fishes are all endemic to Malpelo.65
Unfortunately, over-fishing threatens the
biodiversity of Malpelo more than any other
human activity.66
3. Ecuador
Fishing threatens the ecology of many of the
countries in this region, including Ecuador.
Any threat to the environmental health of
Ecuador is significant, because it is one of the
biologically richest countries in the world.
About eighteen percent of the bird and orchid
species on earth are found in Ecuador. The
Galapagos islands alone account more than 800
plant species, 298 fish species, and 57 bird
species, as well as numerous endemic reptile
species and several indigenous mammal species.
Galapagos is also especially high in endemism,
with about twenty-five percent of marine species
and thirty-six percent of plant species in the
archipelago endemic to the area. With the
exception of two species, all of the reptiles in
the Galapagos are endemic. Ecuador's Galapagos
Marine Reserve extends 40 nautical miles from
the coasts of the 120 islands in the Galapagos
chain. The Special Law for the Galapagos governs
the area, though the islands are also protected
as a World Heritage site.
4. Panama
Though not protected as a World Heritage site,
Panama's Coiba Island may be the most
well-preserved island in the region. Because
Panama established a penitentiary on the island
for dangerous criminals, tourism has been
virtually non-existent and human impact to Coiba
has been minimal. Coiba National Park further
protects the island chain as one of the largest
marine parks in Central America. Coiba is the
largest forested island in the Americas, eighty
percent of which is virgin tropical rainforest,
and supports an astonishing 1450 plant species,
36 mammals, and 147 birds. Additionally, the
waters surrounding Coiba support one of the
largest reef systems in the Eastern Pacific as
well as more than 20 species of sea mammals and
69 species of fish. Like the other isolated
islands in the region, Coiba is high in
endemism.
5. The Combined Value of the Seascape
The convergence of the Seascape countries
creates a unique aggregation of species,
currents, and landforms, as well as cultural and
economic priorities. And just as each country
has its own natural wonder, each country depends
on the health of its environment, underwater and
above the waterlevel.
The coastal interface of Costa Rica, Colombia,
Ecuador, and Panama provides a unique habitat
for many marine and terrestrial organisms. The
varied geology and diversity of habitats of the
Seascape creates opportunity for species
diversity. Many islands in the Seascape are
oceanic, meaning they arose in the deep ocean
and bear no physical or historical connection to
the continent.80 Oceanic islands tend to be high
in endemism, which increases the biological
diversity of the region. The unusual
juxtaposition of diametrically opposed land
forms-terrestrial mountains and deep ocean
trenches-allows a unique interplay between
drastically different organisms.
Focal points of the Seascape, and accordingly of
the ETPSI, are the many seamounts, the
prevalence of spawning grounds, and the complex
migratory patterns within the region. As there
may be as many as 100,000 seamounts worldwide
and at least 30,000 in the Pacific Ocean,
within the Seascape there are likely hundreds,
if not thousands, of seamounts. The seamounts in
the Seascape occur largely on the Cocos and
Carnegie Ridges, and also on the Coiba and
Malpelo Ridges. The Cocos Ridge, containing
Cocos Island, ascends 3000 meters above the
ocean floor. In Ecuadorian waters, seamounts
rise from a depth of 4000 meters to just below
the surface. The Malpelo Ridge also rises 4000
meters, peaking at Malpelo, the only mountain on
the ridge to break the ocean's surface. Gorgona and Galapagos also represent the
terrestrial outcroppings of submerged mountain
ranges, and Coiba too is neighbored by large
seamounts. The Seascape encompasses a
bathymetrically diverse area of the tropical
Pacific, and that diversity enables the Seasacpe
to serve as a home for countless species.
Upwelling and the convergence of currents also
helps make the Seascape one of the most
biodiverse regions on earth. This area marks the
convergence of the Humboldt Current, the
Equatorial Current, the Costa Rican Coastal
Current, the Panama Current, and the Panama
Bight Gyre. The upwelling that result from the
convergence of these currents facilitate
migration and disperse larvae of a variety of
corals and other marine invertebrates. The Costa
Rica Dome, a notable upwelling in the Seascape,
provides a valuable breeding and feeding ground
and contributes to the ecological, aesthetic,
and productive value of the region. The currents make the Seascape a
dynamic ecosystem, important for breeding,
feeding, and merging species, and also for
illustrating the international nature of the
area.
Though Galapagos, Malpelo, and Cocos are all
oceanic islands and therefore high in endemism,
the volcanic continental islands of Gorgona and
Coiba are also valuable. Volcanic islands are
separated from the mainland by deep ocean
trenches which pelagic species gather in and
migrate through and which shipping vessels use
as by-ways.
Fishing, tourism, and shipping are all important
industries in the corridor and are tied very
closely to the health of the area. The
economies of the four countries and especially
of the coastal communities are heavily dependent
on fishing. However, poaching, over-fishing, and
non-sustainable fishing practices like deep sea
bottom trawling threaten the marine environment
and the sustainability of the fishing industry. Increasing worldwide attention and
support for the area has introduced a large
tourism industry that has become valuable to
these countries. Again however, if tourism
development is not pursued with environmental
health in mind, future tourism and the
well-being of the region will suffer. Already,
development due to tourism and population
increase in Galapagos, Coiba, and Gorgona has
resulted in sedimentation and pollution that
damages the surrounding reefs. The ecosystems
of the Seascape should be preserved for their
ecological as well as economic value.
The aforementioned unique attributes of the
Seascape are what make it so valuable to Panama,
Costa Rica, Colombia, and Ecuador for tourism,
fishing, and shipping, and the diverse ecology
of the region makes it valuable to scientists
everywhere. But it will take more than a strong,
well-enforced local management plan to protect
this region. International management of the
region is necessary to guarantee protection of
the Seascape. Cooperative management in an area
of such ecological value will show the world how
countries can work together to preserve marine
resources.
- The Seascape Initiative
While protected areas total twelve percent of
the Earth's surface, less than one percent of
protected areas are in the ocean. In fact, it
is often said that we know more about Mars than
we do about our own deep sea. Recognizing the
threatened status of the world's oceans and the
biological wealth of the Seascape,
nongovernmental organizations and international,
national, and local governments have begun to
cooperate in an attempt to establish a model for
regional marine conservation. This model should
protect the invaluable resources of the
Seascape, while setting a global example for the
prevention of bottom trawling and the protection
of the deep sea.
In February 2004, the governments of Ecuador,
Costa Rica, Panama, and Colombia announced
their intent to cooperatively manage the
Seascape under the ETPSI. The ETPSI represents an
international collaboration of not only those
states, but also the U.N. Foundation, U.N.
Educational, Scientific, and Cultural
Organization's (UNESCO) World Heritage Centre (WHC),
and nongovernmental organizations such as
Conservation International (CI). To date,
cooperation on the ETPSI has been substantial.
More than 300 groups and organizations are
involved, some of whom have already pledged more
than US$3.1 million to the project.
ETPSI is also a small part of a larger agreement
between the U.N. Foundation, WHC, and CI to
protect current and proposed World Heritage
sites. The Seascape currently includes two
World Heritage sites: Costa Rica's Cocos Island
and Ecuador's Galapagos Islands. Panama's Coiba
and Colombia's Gorgona and Malpelo islands are
under consideration by UNESCO for such
designation. Currently Cocos and Galapagos are
two of only six marine reserves on the World
Heritage list. In total, the Seascape
includes six substantial reserves and national
parks. One of the goals of the ETPSI is to gain
World Heritage designation for additional sites
in the region.
The dominant goal of the ETPSI is to create a
system of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs)
throughout the region so that the ecosystem may
be managed as a whole, under a single set of
objectives and regulations. Management of the
Seascape will seek to increase the marine
biodiversity of the region and encourage
collaboration between the four Seascape
countries. Fishing, tourism, and shipping will
be allowed to continue in the region, but in a
manner that minimizes impact on the Seascape. The proposed regional management
regime represents a formal recognition by these
nations that the natural interconnectedness of
the Seascape requires cooperative management.
Tremendous cooperation and funding are required
to manage an area the size of the Seascape.
Though the territory covered by the Seascape is
limited to the coastlines and Exclusive Economic
Zones (EEZs)106 of Colombia, Panama, Costa Rica,
and Ecuador, it totals 211 million hectares (or
520 million acres). Because the EEZ is
measured both from the mainland coastline and
from offshore islands, the presence of island
chains hundreds of nautical miles offshore
greatly increases the EEZ and, accordingly, the
size of the Seascape. The size and geology of
the Seascape result in the inclusion of the deep
sea in the states' combined EEZ. The enormous
area covered by the ETPSI and the inclusion of
the deep sea are what make the region valuable
as a global test case.
- Prohibiting Deep Sea Bottom Fishing - Trawling
within the Seascape.
Destructive practices that provide no benefit to
the coastal states, such as deep sea bottom
fishing or trawling, can and should be prohibited by the ETPSI within the Seascape. None of the Seascape
countries are among the eleven nations invested
in or profiting from deep sea bottom trawling,
therefore there is not even a nominal
justification for the harm the activity will
cause to the Seascape. Bottom trawling in the
Seascape will devastate the ecology of the
marine corridor, as well as the fisheries and
tourism dependent on the health of that ecology.
Though the deep sea is found predominantly in
international waters, the Seascape is a unique
exception. The presence of islands 500 miles
offshore allows the ETPSI to encompass the deep
sea and subject typically unregulated waters to
national jurisdiction. The ETPSI has the
opportunity to set an international example
through the management of the deep sea,
traditionally a global commons, in a region
where the deep sea ecology is critical to
hundreds of thousands of species. Accordingly, a
moratorium on seamount trawling in the Seascape
should be an essential part of the ETPSI
management plan.
- A Regional Embargo in the Absence of an
International Moratorium.
At this time, a regional embargo is not only
more likely to be enacted than is an
international moratorium, but it may also
increase the likelihood of an international
moratorium. Additionally, a regional embargo
would serve as an important conservation tool
for the protection of regional marine resources,
including seamount habitats. Because most
seamounts are found on the high seas, outside
the jurisdiction of states and regional
fisheries management organizations (RFMOs), most
seamounts are currently unprotected. Though
regional management is ultimately insufficient
to protect seamounts globally, the success of
regional embargos may encourage U.N. approval of
a global moratorium and provide an example of
how best to execute and enforce such a
moratorium.
Currently, only one RFMO, the Commission for the
Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living
Resources, has acted to protect the seabed from
bottom trawling.The primary weakness with RFMOs is that they lack the authority to
effectively regulate international high seas,
where the deep sea is most often found.
Non-member countries are not bound by RFMO
regulations, and member countries may elect to
be excluded from certain regulations.
However, the ETPSI has an advantage over a
typical RFMO. While RFMOs attempt to regulate
the high seas or commons through a cooperative
agreement among fishing nations, the ETPSI
regulates its member countries' EEZs and
therefore has the authority to exclude
non-participatory nations or regulate their
fishing
- Requirements for an Effective Regional Embargo
Aside from the authority to exclude,
additional elements necessary for an effective
embargo on deep sea bottom trawling include
enforcement capabilities, good reporting and
monitoring mechanisms, and a charter including a
mandate to protect deep sea species. The four
Seascape countries should draft a written
agreement to evidence their commitment, serve as
a formal recordation of the embargo, and
facilitate dispute resolution. Once the member states
establish a written agreement, adequate
enforcement will remain the biggest obstacle to
effective implementation of an embargo on deep
sea bottom trawling. Although thorough reporting
and monitoring will enhance enforcement efforts,
both will require a serious commitment of
resources by the Seascape countries and
supporting organizations.
- Support for a Regional Embargo
Various international treaties and conventions,
such as the Convention on World Heritage, the
U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, and the
U.N. Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries,
provide support for the ETPSI, though they do
not necessarily require the adoption of the
regional management regime. However, when
combined with domestic support for the ETPSI,
these international treaties and conventions
facilitate adoption of the proposal to eliminate
deep sea bottom trawling in the Seascape.
1. International Law
International governments and organizations are
likely to support the ETPSI regional embargo on
deep sea bottom trawling because the ban is
consistent with most international conservation
treaties and regulations. International
agreements create, at the very least, soft law
obligations for the member nations. However, a
nation arguably disregards these obligations
when it allows deep sea bottom trawling in its
jurisdictional waters or engages in bottom
trawling in a foreign EEZ or on the high seas.
Several international agreements set aside
critical areas for protection. The Convention on
Wetlands of International Importance, also known
as the Ramsar Convention (Ramsar), requires
member countries to designate wetlands critical
for, inter alia, protection of biodiversity to
the list of Wetlands of International
Importance. As of 2000, Costa Rica has
designated 2455 square kilometers, Colombia 4000
square kilometers, Ecuador 948 square
kilometers, and Panama 1110 square kilometers of
wetland to the list. Portions of Cocos, Las
Baulas, and Galapagos are all designated under
Ramsar. As the oldest international agreement
established for the protection of ecosystems,Ramsar
requires that countries manage their designated
areas as a reserve and promote sustainable
utilization of the entire wetland environment. The effects of deep sea bottom
trawling illustrate that the practice would not
promote sustainable or wise use of a Wetland of
International Importance.Banning deep sea
bottom trawling within the Seascape is
consistent with the principles of the Ramsar
Convention, to which all ETPSI nations are
party.
The more commonly known treaty establishing
protected areas is the 1972 UNESCO Convention
Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural
and Natural Heritage, or the Convention on
World Heritage. As noted earlier, in the Seascape
only Galapagos and Cocos are listed as World
Heritage sites, though Coiba, Malpelo, and
Gorgona are all under consideration for such
designation. The Convention on World Heritage
obligates a country to make every effort to
protect areas of natural heritage, whether
listed or not. Parties must also cooperate on an
international scale to protect common heritage. Prohibiting deep sea bottom
trawling within the Seascape is consistent with
the affirmative duties of the World Heritage
Convention.
An embargo on deep sea bottom fishing - trawling within
the Seascape is also consistent with the
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), which
obligates parties to develop national plans for
the conservation and sustainable use of
biodiversity. That requirement pairs nicely with
the U.N. World Summit on Sustainable
Development, whose Plan of Implementation
requires elimination of destructive fishing
practices and mandates the maintenance of "the
productivity and biodiversity of important and
vulnerable marine and coastal areas, including
the areas within and beyond national
jurisdiction." Because deep sea bottom
trawling is not a sustainable use of the
biodiversity of the Seascape, elimination of the
practice is consistent with the CBD and the U.N.
World Summit on Sustainable Development.
International treaty law further protects
biodiversity under the Convention on
International Trade in Endangered Species
(CITES), which prohibits trade in species at
risk of extinction. Research vessels have
already shown that deep sea bottom trawling
disrupts endangered species protected
internationally under CITES. The Greenpeace
research vessel, the Rainbow Warrior, recently
found CITES-listed black coral in a deep sea
trawl net. The absolute devastation wrought by
deep sea bottom trawling leads scientists to
predict that species extinction is probable in
the wake of bottom trawling. Species
extinction is exponentially more likely in the
Seascape, where at least hundreds of species are
endemic to the area. Accordingly, CITES requires
elimination of deep sea bottom trawling in the
Seascape.
International fisheries treaties also prohibit
deep sea bottom fishing or trawling. The U.N. Food and
Agriculture Organization (FAO) Code of Conduct
for Responsible Fisheries demands that fisheries
management, whether by country or by region,
apply the precautionary principle. The
precautionary principle requires that when
little is known about the hazards of a practice,
that practice must be employed with caution.
Widespread eradication of the deep sea
environment, when little is known about its
ecology, is wholly contrary to the precautionary
principle.
The U.N. Fish Stocks Agreement (FSA) also
applies to the ETPSI and, like the FAO Code of
Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, employs the
precautionary principle. The FSA requires
RFMOs to manage fisheries of migratory or
straddling stocks, which are common to the
Seascape and are often harvested via deep sea
bottom trawling. Additionally, the FSA requires
the protection of ecosystems and biodiversity
and employs an ecosystem approach for the
protection of habitats of special concern. Accordingly, the FSA
specifically requires the selection and use of
fishing gear consistent with that protection.
Deep sea bottom trawling is inconsistent with
the ecosystem approach to conservation and
contrary to the provisions of the FSA.
Because deep sea bottom fishing or trawling
violates the gamut of international
conservation and fishery agreements, it is
likely an illegal fishery. The International
Plan of Action to Prevent, Deter, and Eliminate
Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated Fishing, promulgated by the FAO,
defines illegal fishing as fishing that is
inconsistent with state conservation
responsibilities under international law.
Under the FAO Compliance Agreement, which
governs illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU)
fishing and Flag of Convenience (FOC) issues,
states are responsible for vessels flying their
flag and must ensure that the vessels engage in
activities consistent with international
agreements.
The U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea
(UNCLOS)139 "is the strongest comprehensive
environmental treaty now in existence or likely
to emerge for quite some time."UNCLOS
Article 197 requires states to "protect and
preserve the marine environment" and participate
in regional and global efforts toward
sustainable management of high seas fisheries. UNCLOS
articles 117-119 require cooperation among
states to conserve living resources on the high
seas. Although deep sea bottom trawling
typically occurs on the high seas, it is not a
high-seas fishery in the Seascape. Still, under provisions such as UNCLOS Article 194(5),144 states have a duty to
protect fragile ecosystems like those found in
the deep sea and on seamounts.
International fisheries and conservation law
consistently supports a prohibition on deep sea
bottom fishing or trawling and is, at the
very least, persuasive on the law of the
Seascape countries. In addition to the
aforementioned treaties, affirmative action
commanded by U.N. General Assembly Resolution
57/141 requires improved management of seamounts
for the protection of their biodiversity. Seamount and deep sea
management should incorporate the precautionary
principle and ecosystem approach required by
both the U.N. FSA and U.N. Code of Conduct for
Responsible Fisheries. Finally, ETPSI nations
must voluntarily and enthusiastically agree to
refrain from engaging in deep sea bottom
trawling and exploitation of the deep sea by
their own flag vessels.
2. Domestic Enthusiasm
Article 77 of UNCLOS, providing a coastal
state with the sovereign right to explore and
exploit its seabed resources, works both for
and against deep sea and seamount protection. The
sovereign right to resources gives coastal
states the right to exclude foreign vessels,
however, this right also gives coastal states
the authority to exploit their own seamounts. It
is therefore especially important that ETPSI
member countries emphatically support the ban on
seamount deep sea bottom trawling, even in
application to domestic fishing.
Costa Rica has been an ardent supporter of the
Deep Sea Conservation Coalition, leading the
call for countries to adopt a voluntary
moratorium on deep sea bottom trawling in the
wake of the United Nation's failure to act.
Costa Rica's enthusiasm is not surprising when
considering the advantages of eliminating deep
sea bottom trawling. Advantages include
preservation of each country's biological wealth
at both the species and ecosystem level,
prevention of irreversible species extinction,
and economic benefits to tourism and, perhaps
counter intuitively, fishing industries.
Sustainable levels of recreational fishing
contribute to the tourism industry in the
region. Allowing access to anglers in lieu of
factory trawlers promotes a healthier fishery
and increased tourism, bringing greater income
to the region. Local economies would also
thrive in the absence of commercial trawling.
Industrialized fishing efforts threaten local artisanal fishing by unsustainably exploiting
the resource. Areas prohibiting industrialized
fishing, such as marine reserves, have been
shown to improve small-scale artisanal fisheries
as well as adjacent fisheries. Reducing the
volume of commercial fishing in the Seascape by
prohibiting factory trawlers provides Seascape
and adjacent stocks with an opportunity to
recover. Permanently barring deep sea bottom
trawl access to the Seascape ensures protection
of the ecosystem in perpetuity and increased
biological and financial wealth to the coastal
states.
- Challenges to a Regional Embargo
Several challenges face the adoption of a
regional embargo on deep sea bottom fishing or trawling.
First, the perception that a ban on deep sea
bottom trawling will hurt commercial fisheries
has interfered with negotiations on embargo
projects. In reality, the impact on commercial
fishing would be minimal and would easily be
outweighed by the benefits to tourism and
recreational and artisanal fishing. Second,
law-abiding fishers worry that IUU fishing will
undo any strides made by the embargo. Regional
managers can prevent IUU fishing by tightening
port controls, increasing cooperation between
nations, and improving enforcement mechanisms.
However, providing effective enforcement will
prove to be the most substantial challenge to a
ban on deep sea bottom trawling in the Seascape.
To ensure effectiveness of the regional embargo
on deep sea bottom trawling, the Seascape
countries must establish a combination of tough
legislation, continued government support for
that legislation, and reliable funding.
1. Existing Commercial Fisheries Within the
Seascape
While enforcement looms as the biggest obstacle
to a successful embargo on seamount trawling,
enforcement issues are irrelevant if the ETPSI
member nations fail to come to an agreement in
the first place. Commercial fishing, while a
great threat to the biological health of the
Seascape, is also a great asset to the economies
of the four Seascape countries. Consequently,
the countries may be hesitant to set a precedent
of embargo in the industry. Consider Ecuador.
Already, due to the importance of fishing to the
economy, Ecuador is hesitant to agree to and
approve limitations on fishery activity. In
adopting regulations, Ecuador and all member
countries must be assured that the moratorium
comes at no cost to their economy but with great
benefit to the health of their marine
environment, which translates into economic
benefits for their fishing and tourism
industries.
Ecuador relies on the fishery industry more
heavily than any other Seascape country. In
1998, the most recent year for which this data
is available, fishing constituted 6.3% of
Ecuador's gross domestic product (GDP), just
above the world average of 6%. In 2000, the
value of Ecuadorian fish product exports totaled
US$587,842,000153 with 1.26% of the nation's
population employed in the industry.
The remaining three Seascape countries also
depend heavily on their fishing industries. In
Panama, fish is the second biggest export.155
The value of Panamanian fish exports totaled
US$262,730,000 in 2000,156 with 0.48% of the
population employed in the industry.157 The
value of Costa Rican fish exports in 2000 was
roughly US$118,000,000,158 with 0.18% of the
population employed in the industry.159 Fishing
represented 0.32% of Costa Rica's GDP in
2002.160 In Colombia, fishing totaled 0.54% of
the GDPin 2001.161 The value offish exports
totaled US$191,246,000 in 2000,162 with 0.33% of
the population employed in the industry.163
Though Seascape countries are substantially
invested in fishing, because they do not
engage in deep sea bottom trawling an embargo on
trawling would not negatively affect Seascape
fishing industries. In fact, such an embargo
would improve domestic fishing by preserving and
sustaining a healthy and abundant resource. In
the Seascape deep sea trawl fishery, all vessels
are foreign.
In considering the economics of the Seascape,
revenues from tourism should not be overlooked.
While the economies of the four Seascape
countries depend on the fishing industry, they
also rely heavily on tourism. A moratorium on
deep sea bottom trawling and the resulting
healthy ecosystem would improve tourism in the
Seascape. This would be evident most in Costa
Rica, where tourism depends largely upon a
healthy marine environment. Tourism incentives
may explain why Costa Rica has already expressed
a strong interest in a moratorium on deep sea
bottom trawling.
Though the most vested in fishing of the four
countries, Ecuador may be the next to follow
Costa Rica if convinced that prohibiting deep
sea bottom trawling is in the country's best
interest. The Ecuadorian government seems
enthusiastic in its support for conservation of
the Galapagos archipelago, an area important to
Ecuador's tourism industry. In 1998,
then-President Fabian Alarcon signed the
Galapagos Conservation Law to protect the island
chain by expanding protected waters and banning
industrial fishing within those waters.
Although commercial fishing is prohibited, artisanal
fishing is allowed in the Galapagos Marine
Reserve.167 Twelve hundred people participate in
the fishery. Recent growth in artisanal fishing
and the ensuing negative environmental effects
has led Ecuador to consider extending the
no-take area to thirty-five percent of the
reserve. Also, the Charles Darwin Foundation is
working in the Galapagos to help the community
find viable economic alternatives to fishing. Recognition
of the importance of a healthy marine ecosystem
is beginning to result in regulation of fishing,
even in Ecuador.
Although artisanal and local fishing can
threaten Seascape health, the effects of
these practices are substantially less
detrimental than those of deep sea trawlers.
Large-scale, overcapitalized fishing vessels
easily out-compete smaller operations and
threaten the future of small-scale or
subsistence fishermen. By eradicating benthic
ecosystems, foreign trawling vessels destroy the
health of the Seascape by decreasing
populations, reducing species diversity, and
disturbing the necessary ecological balance. In
Costa Rica, large commercial enterprises are
placing small-scale fishing at risk. Costa Rican fishers are
frustrated by foreign efforts that deplete near
shore resources and force local fishers to go
further out and expend more fuel and time.
Ultimately, depleted in- and off-shore waters
will force desperate fishers to fish illegally
in marine reserves. The elimination of deep sea
bottom trawling in the Seascape will improve the ETPSI countries' artisanal and commercial
fisheries as well as their tourism industries,
while also reducing the need for illegal fishing
in marine reserves.
2. Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated Fishing
IUU fishing is an increasing problem globally and within the Seascape. According to the FAO,
"[a] wide range of illicit activities fall into
the category of IUU fishing, for example:
operating without licenses; targeting and
catching prohibited species; using outlawed
types of gear; disregarding catch quotas; or
non-reporting or underreporting of species and
catch weights." IUU fishing constitutes much of
existing high seas fishing on seamounts.
Stricter and more thorough "port state
measures," including inspections by flag states
and coastal states, will help reduce IUU
fishing if all active countries agree to
participate.
Unfortunately, Panama, a neighbor to the
Seascape, is one of the states most involved in
the FOC program whereby a country sells its flag
to a vessel so that the vessel may avoid any
control of its activities by its true home
country. This system allows vessels to operate
under the flags of countries that are either not
signatories to, or who do not enforce, various
international treaties.
Elimination of the FOC system is ardently
advocated by many fisheries experts who believe
the system operates only to help commercial
vessels sidestep international treaties.
Other suggestions for confronting IUU fishing
include shared and globally accessible records
of vessels' recent fishing activities, which
would allow states to prohibit vessels engaged
in illegal fishing from docking. However, this
approach can be ineffective when vessels either
return to their flag state or otherwise land
outside of the jurisdiction of the coastal state
pursuing enforcement. Additionally, an illegal
fisher can land his fish without question by
landing at a certain time of day or on the
weekend when the port inspectors are off-duty,
or at a private dock outside the jurisdiction of
the Coast Guard.
The FAO Compliance Agreement regulates FOC and
IUU issues. The FAO suggests that reductions
in IUU fishing can be achieved through tighter
port controls and increased cooperation between
countries. Tighter port controls would, for
example, remedy the situation in Costa Rica by
preventing offloading of illegal fish. FAO
members have met to consider implementation of a
"best practices" regime for IUU
fishing, which would recommend that all vessels
wishing to dock be subject to investigation. Minimal
investigation at port can reveal whether a
vessel has been involved in IUU fishing.
Agreement by the four Seascape countries to
engage in FAO "best practices" to discover IUU
fishing could result in vast reductions of the
illegal catch in the region. Additionally,
Seascape countries must adopt legally
enforceable penalties for landing IUU fish.
Costa Rica does not even currently have
penalties in place for illegal fishing.
Regulation without penalty or enforcement has
little or no effect. Accordingly, the ETPSI must
control IUU fishing, including fishing under
FOCs, to ensure the effective implementation of
its regional embargo.
3. Enforcement
Enforcement will be the most significant
obstacle to successful implementation of the
ETPSI management plan. Monitoring and
enforcement of existing fishing law in the
Seascape has been virtually non-existent to
date.187 Insufficient resources and legislation,
as well as financial pressure from foreign
countries, exacerbates and encourages lax
enforcement.
Once the Seascape countries appreciate the
importance of effective monitoring and
enforcement within the region, sufficient
resources to effect enforcement are needed. An
unusual example is Costa Rica, which does not
have a standing army and thereby lacks a lot of
the enforcement capabilities that most countries
readily enjoy. Yet even developing countries
with an established military still struggle with
insufficient resources. Even with staunch
legislation, they lack the financial resources,
technology, and manpower to thoroughly monitor
their EEZ. For example, although Ecuador has an
absolute ban on the practice of shark finning,
in 1998 an Ecuadorian vessel was stopped in the
waters around Galapagos with 8000 fins. In 2001, the Galapagos National Park
Service stopped Costa Rican and Colombian
vessels illegally shark finning in the Galapagos
marine reserve. In the last seven years, roughly
20,000 shark fins have been confiscated in the
waters around Galapagos. The Galapagos
Islands, like Cocos, are a World Heritage site
frequently violated by illegal fishing. A
region recognized internationally as critically
important to the biodiversity and ecology of our
planet should receive international assistance
for the preservation of that resource.
Several non-profit groups have responded to the
need for enforcement assistance, either
financially or physically. Monitoring of waters
around Cocos and Galapagos is done largely by
the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, a
non-profit organization that patrols the waters
around the world enforcing national and
international law on the high seas under the
authority of the United Nations. Sea Shepherd
contributed to Costa Rican enforcement efforts
by patrolling the waters around Cocos and
donating surveillance equipment to Cocos
rangers. Still, international fishing interests
linger. Taiwan pressured Costa Rica to eliminate
Sea Shepherd interference with illegal fishing
efforts. In 2002, the captain of a Sea Shepherd
vessel was threatened by Costa Rica with
imprisonment for six months pending an
investigation into his interactions with foreign
fishing fleets. Because under Costa Rican law a
person can be imprisoned for up to six months
during investigation of an accusation, the
captain left the country. Subversive pressure
threatens sufficient enforcement in the area and
should be denounced by the ETPSI. The foreign
fishing influence especially threatens the
necessary supplemental enforcement efforts from
nongovernmental organizations.
Similarly, domestic threats to enforcement
within the Seascape countries should be
eliminated. For example, in the Galapagos,
the government has lost credibility with the
people by continually refusing to enforce
fishing restrictions. In 1999, roughly 16,000
people lived in the Galapagos, and the small
size of the community exacerbates enforcement
problems. Though the Galapagos Islands are
managed primarily as a no-take reserve, artisanal
fishing is still allowed in most areas of the
park.200 Non-sustainable harvest of lobster and
sea cucumber threatens the region because
harvest limits are ignored, leaving enforcement
failures to blame for over-fishing. Efforts by
park managers to further restrict catch within
the area are often met with violent resistance
by fishers. In 2000, when the Ministry of the
Environment first attempted to enforce harvest
limits on lobster, fishers responded with
violent protests; because the politicians were
also the friends and family of the fishers, they
supported the protests. Similar retaliations met
attempts by the Galapagos Park Director to seize
commercial tuna vessels fishing illegally. These
events illustrate why the United States
considers enforcement a substantial obstacle to
effective implementation of U.S. Agency for
International Development programs in Ecuador.
The Seascape countries need to take steps to
ensure that they are able and willing to manage
the Seascape under the ETPSI before
international governments and organizations will
invest in enforcement efforts in the Seascape.
They must draft strong legislation against
illegal fishing including penalty provisions,
create credible government force behind that
legislation, and commit national resources as a
showing of good faith and commitment to the
legislation. These steps will not only
demonstrate the Seascape countries' commitment
to regional management and conservation, but
will also ensure that the ETPSI will be an
effective regional management agreement.
- Conclusion
A ban on deep sea bottom fishing or trawling in the Eastern
Tropical Pacific Seascape will improve the
biological health of the Seascape, as well as
benefit tourism and domestic and artisanal
fisheries. Additionally, the embargo will
operate as an international test case for the
prohibition of deep sea bottom trawling. Every
effort must be made by the ETPSI countries and
supporting organizations to set a strong and
successful precedent. To achieve this goal, the
Seascape countries must invest in and employ
effective enforcement mechanisms to eliminate
illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing in
the region and to encourage domestic and
international support for the project. A
successful embargo of the deep sea bottom trawl
fishery on a regional scale will encourage
similar action globally, improving neighboring
fisheries and preserving a vast and unique
ecosystem.
Author ANNA VINSON, J.D. Candidate, Georgetown University Law
Center, (2006); A.B., Duke University (2003). ©
2006, Anna Vinson. The author wishes to thank
Dr. David Guggenheim and Professor Thomas T.
Ankersen for inspiring the subject of this note
and Professor Lisa Heinzerling for her insight
and advice on earlier drafts. The author also
wishes to thank her parents, whose support and
encouragement made this, and everything,
possible.
Copyright Georgetown University Law Center
Winter 2006. .....Pls. note that we edited the
text slightly to make it optically more clear
and added some internet specific add on to make
the text more relevant to search, -comment from
webmaster of this website.
 |
