Join us.

We’re working to create a just society and preserve a healthy environment for future generations. Donate today to help.

Donate

Extending Protection to Wildlife: Why the United States Should Ratify the Agreement on the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels

a(broad) perspective

Today’s post is first in a series on a recent CPR white paper, Reclaiming Global Environmental Leadership: Why the United States Should Ratify Ten Pending Environmental Treaties.  Each month, this series will discuss one of these ten treaties. 

Agreement on the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels Adopted and Opened for Signature on June 19, 2001 Entered into Force on February 1, 2004 Number of Parties: 13 Signed by the United States, June 19, 2001 Sent to the Senate on September 26, 2008, and January 16, 2009

Albatrosses and petrels are oceanic birds with a unique natural history:  they typically breed on remote, barren islands and spend most of their time flying long distances over the ocean.  Some species may not return to land for many years after birth and then only briefly to reproduce.  This highly migratory natural history means that these birds spend little time in any single country’s territory; most of their life is spent in international waters, where they are threatened by industrial fishing practices and marine pollution.  For example, an estimated 300,000 seabirds are killed each year as by-catch in the long-line fishing industry.   

The Agreement on the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels aims to enhance international cooperation for protecting these vulnerable species, including all 22 of the world’s species of albatrosses and seven species of petrels.  Parties to the Agreement commit to take a wide range of conservation measures, such as:

  • conserve and restore breeding habitat;
  • eliminate or control non-native species;
  • prohibit the deliberate taking of, or harmful interference with, the birds, their eggs, or their breeding sites;
  • prohibit the use of or trade in the birds; and
  • reduce or prevent incidental mortality from commercial fishing operations. 

The Agreement also calls for increased capacity building, exchange of scientific information, and efforts to increase public awareness of the threats to albatrosses and petrels.  The Agreement establishes a separate Secretariat and a periodic meeting of the Parties.

The United States initially signed but did not ratify the Agreement, effectively declining to participate in it.  However, both the George W. Bush and Obama Administrations have supported ratification by transmitting the Agreement to the Senate for its advice and consent to ratification.  The Bush Administration concurrently proposed the Albatross and Petrel Conservation Act, which was intended to implement the Agreement and mirrors much of its language.  The Act would authorize the Departments of Interior and Commerce to implement conservation and management measures for protecting albatross and petrel species.  The Act would also prohibit the deliberate taking of albatrosses and petrels and protect their breeding habitat and minimize the incidental killing of these birds from otherwise legal fishing activities.

Ratifying the treaty would enhance U.S. efforts to promote international cooperation in conserving these iconic seabirds, does not require substantive changes to U.S. law, and would likely benefit commercial fishermen in the United States.  Federal law already protects albatrosses and petrels and includes most of the Agreement’s obligations.  Some of the target species breed in U.S. territory but forage throughout the world, well beyond U.S. jurisdiction or control, and effective conservation is impossible without the cooperation of other fishing and coastal states.   Little opposition exists to the Agreement’s ratification, other than the general difficulty of achieving consensus in the US Congress for any environmental measure.  

The agreement is the latest in a long line of treaties aimed at the conservation of marine species that require international cooperation for their survival.  Wildlife such as whales, fur seals, tuna, and sea turtles are all protected by international agreements. The United States is a party to all of these agreements, and we should continue our leadership for the conservation of marine wildlife by swiftly ratifying the Agreement for the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels, and both chambers of Congress should pass implementing legislation.

For more information, please read the full CPR white paper, available here.

Showing 2,817 results

David Hunter | February 27, 2012

Extending Protection to Wildlife: Why the United States Should Ratify the Agreement on the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels

a(broad) perspective Today’s post is first in a series on a recent CPR white paper, Reclaiming Global Environmental Leadership: Why the United States Should Ratify Ten Pending Environmental Treaties.  Each month, this series will discuss one of these ten treaties.  Agreement on the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels Adopted and Opened for Signature on June […]

| February 23, 2012

Can Corporations Violate Human Rights? In Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, the Supreme Court May Say Yes … or No

On February 28, the Supreme Court will hear argument in Kiobel v Royal Dutch Petroleum, a case with far-reaching implications for efforts to hold corporations accountable when they commit or are complicit in abuses of human rights.  For over fifty years, Shell has extracted oil from Nigeria, causing great harm to the environment and people […]

Rena Steinzor | February 22, 2012

The Age of Greed: What the Chemical Industry Doesn’t Want You to Know

Imagine for a moment that you’rethe chief executive of a company that manufactures chemicals used in plastics that become consumer products, especially plastic picnic ware.  The head of your product development lab reports that she has just gotten some troubling results regarding one of your biggest sellers—a chemical agent that makes it possible for plastic […]

Robert Verchick | February 22, 2012

Mardi Gras, Check. BP ‘Trial of the Century’ Here We Come.

  Mardi Gras Float, 2011 Well, another magnificent Mardi Gras has ended, and at this point, I’d normally be slouched on the sofa sipping a tomato juice (neat) and sorting beads. But not this year.  That’s because next week, squadrons of lawyers, journalists, petroleum engineers, and fisher folk are scheduled to descend on New Orleans, […]

Kirsten Engel | February 21, 2012

EPA’s Standing Argument: A Sleeping Giant in the Tailoring Rule Litigation?

On Feb. 28 and 29, the D.C. Circuit is scheduled to hear arguments on a suite of industry-led challenges to EPA-issued greenhouse gas rules.  While attention has focused on industry’s challenge to EPA’s finding that greenhouse gases (GHGs) endanger the environment, industry’s challenge to the greenhouse gas permitting “tailoring” rule – a rule limiting the […]

Daniel Farber | February 20, 2012

Placing a Ceiling on Protection for Public Health

Cross-posted from Legal Planet. Governor Romney has endorsed an idea called regulatory budgeting, but it really means capping protection for public health. Romney’s position paper explains the concept as follows: To force agencies to limit the costs they are imposing on society, and to provide the certainty that businesses crave, a system of regulatory caps […]

Matt Shudtz | February 17, 2012

EPA Releases IRIS Assessment of Dioxin Non-Cancer Risks

Today EPA released the first part of its long-awaited reassessment of the human health risks posed by 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, a chemical considered to be the most toxic of the dioxin compounds and the stuff that made Agent Orange so bad for its victims.  It’s bittersweet news: on the one hand, the decades-long stretch between EPA’s first […]

Rena Steinzor | February 17, 2012

The Economist Recycles Old Right-Wing Ideas to Gut Public Protections

The Economist’s February 18 edition offers a cover package of five articles on “Over-regulated America” (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). Our British friends want you to know there’s a problem here in the States that needs fixing: A study for the Small Business Administration, a government body, found that regulations in general add $10,585 in […]

Sandra Zellmer | February 16, 2012

The Pipeline That Refuses to Die

Last month, President Obama denied TransCanada’s permit application for the Keystone XL pipeline because a congressionally mandated deadline did not allow enough time to evaluate the project once Nebraska completed its analysis for re-routing of the pipeline around the Sand Hills. A January 26-29 poll from Hart Research Associates found that, after hearing arguments for and […]