Falmouth Marine School

An Investigation into the Fitness for Purpose

of Current Wildlife Protection Policy and Law
with Particular Regard to Marine Mega-Fauna

Ken Gould
Marine Environmental Management FdSc

May 2009

marinewildlifepolicyandlaw.blogspot.com Photo from

The Scottish Government
 i. Abstract

The oceans and its inhabitants are becoming increasingly under threat from the effects of humans.
Whilst this problem was largely not known, or perhaps ignored, in the past there is a steadily
increasing amount of legislation covering marine wildlife protection, with more to come in the
future. This is a particular point of interest for me and so this investigation looks at the effectiveness
of current legislation and what needs to happen in the future to maintain the biodiversity of our
oceans, both nationally and internationally.
This investigation features a simple information synthesis from many sources from around the
world, looking at current and future legislation, voluntary schemes and the effect that education can
have on conservation.
The result of this investigation indicates that current legislation is weak, and is based on hard to
enforce terrestrial laws, but that future legislation looks to solve this problem.
The report concludes with suggestions as to what can be done with education schemes and what
future research can be carried out to further the results of this investigation.

i
marinewildlifepolicyandlaw.blogspot.com
 ii. Contents

Abstract i.

Contents ii.

Abbreviations iii.

Introduction 1.

A History of Biodiversity and the Anthropogenic Impacts Upon It 1.

Wildlife Crime 3.

Protected Areas 4.

Other Legislation 6.

Enforcement of Current Legislation 6.

Prosecutions 7.

Cetaceans 9.

Sharks 10.

Education and Tourism 11.

Implementation of Law

- The Present 13.

- The Future 14.

Conclusion 15.

References 18.

ii
marinewildlifepolicyandlaw.blogspot.com
 iii. Abbreviations

CRoW Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000

CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
COTES Control of Trade in Endangered Species (Enforcement) Act 1997
DEFRA Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
EC European Community
EU European Union
IUCN International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources
IWC International Whaling Commission
JNCC Join Nature Conservation Committee
LINK Wildlife and Countryside Link
MCZ Marine Conservation Zone
MNR Marine Nature Reserve
MPA Marine Protected Area
NTZ No Take Zone
PAW Partnership for Action Against Wildlife Crime
RMNC Review of Marine Nature Conservation
RSPB Royal Society for the Protection of Birds
SAC Special Areas of Conservation
SPA Special Protection Area
SSSI Special Site of Scientific Interest
WCA Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981
WDCD Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society
WiSe Wildlife Safe Accreditation Scheme
WoRMS World Register of Marine Species
WSPA World Society for the Protection of Animals

iii
marinewildlifepolicyandlaw.blogspot.com
 1. Introduction
This project was born from an interest in the effects of marine tourism on cetaceans. Initial research
in the area of marine tourism highlighted the lack of specialised marine wildlife protection legislation
that was currently in force, especially around the British coast.
Initially the project was just to be about the WiSe course, which as explained later is an accreditation
scheme for wildlife watch tour boat operators. The project was to analyse the effectiveness of the
scheme and explore areas for which it could expand into in the future in order to give marine life the
greatest protection possible.
However, now I plan on looking at marine legislation as a whole. The eventual aim of this project will
be to suggest ways in which marine biodiversity and wildlife protection could be improved, whether
it be through increased specialised legislation for the marine environment, or through educational
schemes such as the WiSe course. This will be looked at on both a national and international scale.
To achieve this aim I will carry out a simple synthesis of information from as many sources as
possible, with analysis throughout. To back this up it will be supported by a weblog which will bring
together all the information in an easier to read way, as well as featuring pictures and videos to
illustrate. This weblog can be found at marinewildlifepolicyandlaw.blogspot.com.
Although this project will feature little primary research, it will act as an enabler for me to carry out
future research in the same area, using the results of this investigation as a starting and focussing
point. This extended research is planned for next year.

2. A History of Biodiversity and the Anthropogenic Impacts Upon It

The term biodiversity (biological diversity) was first coined in 1985 by W. G. Rosen during his
planning of the National Forum on Biological Diversity for the National Research Council. However its
first appearance in written word was in 1988 when E. O. Wilson used it as a title for the
aforementioned forum.
Since then the use of the term has gained increasing popularity in the world of science and more
recently has gained public recognition in the face of climate change and increased threat of
extinction to wildlife all around the world. However, the marine environment is often overlooked in
this view of biodiversity. According to the World Register of Marine Species (WoRMS) there is an
estimated 230,000 different species of flora and fauna in the world’s oceans, with 140,962 already
confirmed. This is a small figure of only what is known to exist. Still the deep ocean and the harder to
reach areas may contain tens of thousands of unique species. Some scientists estimate the grand
total of different species to be in the region of 1 to 10 million.

1
marinewildlifepolicyandlaw.blogspot.com
These species though are increasingly under threat. In fact, scientists believe that humans are
increasing the rate of species extinction by up to 1,000 times (Science & Spirit, 2007). A recent, and
perhaps the most well known, example of aquatic species extinction was the Yangtze River dolphin.
The dolphin is listed as critically endangered on the International Union for the Conservation of
Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) Red List. However, a six week search in 2006 found no
evidence of the dolphin (there now hasn’t been a confirmed sighting since 2002), known in China as
the Baiji, and they were declared functionally extinct. Effectively what this means is that even if
there is a small population remaining, it will be too small to save due to the likely inbreeding that
would result. Whilst there was an attempt to save the species, it was too little too late, as Chinas
industrial expansion meant the increased use of the river for fishing, river traffic and energy
production (from the Three Gorges Dam) and the increased pollution caused too much stress to the
animal. It is thought that its ability to use sonar to hunt for food was severely reduced. The Baiji was
the first aquatic mammal to become extinct since the Caribbean Monk seal in the 1950s.
Further, the IUCNs Red List also states that roughly 20% of mammals, 29% of amphibians and 4% of
fish are critical, endangered or vulnerable. This percentage is also increasing every year.
So it’s clear to see that wildlife, whether terrestrial, freshwater or marine are under increasing
threat. In the case of the Baiji it was clearly anthropogenic factors that had the greatest effect on its
population. The same is true for the Caribbean Monk seal, which lost its main habitat due to
colonisation, and over fishing meant a lack of food for the seal. They were also exploited for their oil
and occasionally for their meat. The Japanese Sea Lion also became extinct in the 1950’s due to
excessive harvesting of them for their oil, skin and organs. So it seems relatively clear that humans
are having a major impact on wildlife populations, whether it is direct or indirect, and whilst the
above examples were localised species the damage that humans are doing is far from localised.
As an example of human impacts, the world’s oceans now contain about 400 ‘dead zones’. These are
zones which lack enough oxygen to maintain life. This is often caused by algal blooms. Algal Blooms
prevent sunlight from entering deeper into the water. The result of this is increased oxygen levels in
the day, due to the photosynthesis of the algae, but vastly decreased oxygen levels at night due to
the algae respiring. The consumption of dead algae by microorganisms also uses oxygen and reduces
levels. Eventually the water will enter hypoxia, a state of oxygen depletion, and will no longer be
able to support life. This is then called a dead zone. A study by R. J. Diaz (Virginia Institute of Marine
Science) and R. Rosenberg (Department of Marine Ecology, University of Gothenburg) in 2008
located 405 dead zones, taking up 95,000 square miles of the ocean. The two scientists have been
monitoring dead zones since the 60’s and say that the area taken up by dead zones has almost
doubled every decade since then. Whilst dead zones can occur naturally, the occurrence of them has

2
marinewildlifepolicyandlaw.blogspot.com
increased hugely because of human impacts. River run offs of fertilizer as well as increased pollution
are increasing the nitrogen levels in certain areas. This eutrophication of waters is increasing the
algal blooms, and therefore increasing the amount of dead zones.
Whilst it’s unlikely that dead zones themselves are going to cause the extinction of certain marine
mammals, it is possible that an increase in dead zones could have potentially catastrophic effects on
the biodiversity of the surrounding ocean. Combine this with overfishing, the hunting of marine
wildlife for commercial uses, destruction of habitats and the ever increasing threat of
anthropogenically catalysed climate change and it becomes obvious that humans are having at least
some negative effect on the oceans and its biodiversity.

3. Wildlife Crime
As said before, awareness of the troubles that the ocean faces, as well as its importance to us as
humans, is leading to an increase in legislation being produced. By its definition, legislation names
crimes. There are currently around 150 laws covering wildlife protection in the UK, and hundreds
more around the world (Greater Manchester Police, 2008). This count includes laws for terrestrial
animals, birds and plants.
Wildlife and animal protection laws have been around for over 100 years. But the marine
environment is often overlooked. Recently legislation has increased in the area of marine life,
especially with the introduction of the Marine Bill. Now over 30 species of marine animal are
protected under recent conservation laws.
There are three basic wildlife crimes according the Partnership for Action Against Wildlife Crime.
They are ‘the illegal trade in endangered species’, ‘crimes involving native species which are
endangered or of conservation concern’ and ‘cruelty to and the persecution of wildlife species’
(PAW, 2008). The protection for animals against these crimes comes from several different acts and
regulations but they form general layers of protection. To put it in a simplistic way there are three
offences for protected marine life. These are Intentional Harm, Deliberate Harm and Reckless
Disturbance (Seafish, 2007). This protection extends to all dolphins and whales, as well as turtles,
basking sharks, walrus and other smaller animals.
Whales and dolphins are the most protected species around the British coast. Up to 12nm off the
coast, recklessly disturbing them is considered a crime. This means that if any species of whale or
dolphin (of which there are 11 common to our waters, but the protection extends to all animals
rarely seen in our waters) are seen in British waters then they must be given as wide a berth as
possible, in order to not disturb them. If a fishing vessel or any other vessel in territorial waters does
recklessly disturb these protected species then they could be subject to a prison sentence of up to 6

3
marinewildlifepolicyandlaw.blogspot.com
months or a hefty fine. This protection also extends to a range of 200nm off Britain’s controlled
waters. The protection here is a little less stringent though, but reckless disturbance can still carry a
fine of up to £5,000. The reckless disturbance laws were brought in under the Countryside and
Rights of Way Act in 2000. Section 12 of CRoW amended the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to
afford threatened species a greater level of protection (Joint Nature Conservation Committee, 2000).
Before then the WCA only prevented intentional harm. The same Act also banned whaling in British
waters (Seafish, 2007).
This protection was largely created to ensure that fishermen are considerate to the wildlife found in
British waters. The CRoW Act gives no excuse for the disturbance of these species. Guidance notes
available on the acts state that fishermen should either avoid waters where protected species are
abundant, or if totally unavoidable, then they should work alongside conservation groups to find a
way that isn’t harmful to the wildlife. This is especially important inside 12nm, as the law considers
there to be no excuse for the disturbance of cetaceans, regardless of it being accidental or not.
Other legislation also gives protection to other animals. Basking sharks are given the same level of
protection inside 12nm as whales and dolphins, but outside of 12nm the law only prevents
intentional killing. Seals are also protected under the Conservation of Seals Act 1970 in certain
seasons. This act also gives the government the power to create special protection for them if
needed. Otters, marine turtles and sturgeon are also all protected from intentional and deliberate
harm out to 200nm by the Wildlife and Countryside Act, the Habitats Regulations 1994 and the
Offshore Habitats Regulations 2007.

4. Protected Areas
Legislation has also created special areas where further protection applies. There are three types of
special areas. They are Special Sites of Scientific Interest (SSSI), Special Areas of Conservation (SAC)
and Marine Nature Reserves (MNR). Legislation also brought in Special Protection Areas, although
these only protect birds they do often extend out to sea.
SSSIs cover approximately 7% of the UK (Natural England, 2008) and were originally set up by the
National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 but now the legislation comes from the
Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and CRoW 2000. The formation of SSSIs is decided by the relevant
conservation body for that part of the UK. The bodies are Natural England, Countryside Council for
Wales, Scottish Natural heritage or the Northern Ireland Environment Agency.
Once formed these areas are given protection from development, damage or neglect. Development
may also be stopped if it’s not actually in the SSSI if the result of such a development could cause
damage to the site. Development may go ahead if it is necessary or potentially beneficial to the SSSI.

4
marinewildlifepolicyandlaw.blogspot.com
The protection is not definite, as all applications and activities on the land are considered by the
appropriate body, and whilst there is a set list of banned activities (called Operations Likely to
Damage), if its proven that these activities will not have an effect on the site, or be beneficial, then
the agencies involved may allow it to occur. The conservation bodies will also set up a management
plan for the SSSI. The owners of the land will be made responsible for the upkeep of these areas, and
may be given funds to help.
SSSIs form the basis on which many other conservation areas are formed.
Special Areas of Conservation are usually located in SSSIs. In the UK there are 81 Marine SACs
covering about 2% of the UKs waters, and even more terrestrial. In 1992 the European Community
(part of the European Union) introduced the EC Habitats Directive. This directive listed 189 habitats
and 788 species that require special protection status. If these are found in EU members waters then
a special area of conservation should be set up around them. These sites must be monitored in order
to conserve the species present. If governments discover something having a detrimental effect on
the protected species then they must take action to prevent this from happening (JNCC, 2008). This
EC directive was brought into British Law more effectively with the formation of the Habitats
Regulations and the Offshore Habitats Regulations in 1994 and 2007 respectively. Inside 12nm the
SACs are identified and monitored by the appropriate conservation bodies. Outside of 12nm it is the
JNCC who are responsible for the identification of SACs. SACs and Special Protection Areas for birds
form a larger EU wide network called Natura 2000. If countries breach the legislation covering SACs
then they may face huge fines from the EU and punishments such as reduced trading from member
countries. One problem with SACs is that they only allow protection of internationally important
species, and afford no protection to species which are only nationally important (DEFRA, 2008). This
is obviously a huge loophole that needs closing up with new national legislation. Marine Nature
Reserves were created under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 “to conserve marine flora and
fauna and geological or physiographical features of special interest, while providing opportunities for
study of the systems involved” (Naturenet, 2008). Currently there are only 3 MNRs in the UK. They
are Lundy Island, Skomer Island and Strangford Lough. The small amount of MNRs, compared to
SSSIs or SACs is down to the complexity of the law covering them. The laws for MNRs are based on
terrestrial laws which themselves are based on land ownership. Because no one owns the seabed
and normal laws therefore do not apply, enforcement becomes a problem, this is looked at later on.
MNRs can only be formed up to 3nm from the coast as well. Around Lundy Island a No Take Zone
(NTZ) has been formed in order to maintain biodiversity in the area. These zones are protected by
law. The NTZs also serve as areas where marine life can be monitored in an area with no human

5
marinewildlifepolicyandlaw.blogspot.com
interference and benefits have been seen in terms of some species populations (Lundy Field Society,
2009).

5. Other Legislation
Many species are also given protection from certain crimes by other legislation. The banning on
whaling in 1981 in British waters has obviously had a beneficial effect on whales and the Convention
on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, or CITES, has banned the
trading of around 25,000 species of plants and 5,000 species of animals (CITES, 2008). CITES is a
voluntary international agreement between governments and was started in 1963 after a meeting
by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, countries can opt to adhere to the rules
set out by CITES, and in order to do this must form their own national laws. However, once they
have agreed to the convention they are legally bound to follow the rules given, so despite the lack of
international law governing them, it’s not as ineffective as it may sound at first. In the UK the law
covering the trade of animals is the Control of Trade in Endangered Species (Enforcement) Act 1997
(COTES). CITES currently has 175 members across the globe. The aim of the convention is not to
prevent trade entirely, but to ensure the sustainability of such trade. Many species on the list are
not currently under threat, but over exploitation could cause this, and this is what CITES is trying to
prevent. Therefore species are given a range of protection by CITES. It may ban trade altogether or
allow trade only by licensed parties (CITES, 2008).
There is a steady stream of marine conservation legislation coming in as well. On May 5th 2009 the
EU announced a complete ban on the selling of seal products. This drastically reduces the market for
seal products by about 25% and should have a far reaching impact on the conservation of seals
around the world, many of whom were shot or clubbed to death for their pelts or oil. The World
Society for the Protection of Animals estimates that hundreds of thousands of seals are killed every
year, potentially up to a million, on a commercial basis so this relatively small bit of legislation could
have a huge effect on conservation of marine fauna. (WSPA, 2009)
As will be explained later, the Marine Bill, which is currently awaiting parliamentary approval, could
have a great effect on the conservation of marine species as well.

6. Enforcement of Current Legislation

Enforcement of these laws is largely left down to the police. However, they are given help by several
different organisations. HM Customs, the Environmental Agency, Local Authorities, English Nature,
the Countryside Council for Wales and the RSPB all have enforcement powers (The Environmental
Audit Committee, 2004). In April 2002 the National Wildlife Crime Intelligence Unit was formed. The

6
marinewildlifepolicyandlaw.blogspot.com
unit ‘received support from DEFRA (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs), the
Scottish Executive, the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Home Office and HM Revenue and
Customs’ (National Wildlife Crime Unit, 2009) and gathered intelligence in order to support the
police and other relevant authorities. In 2006 the unit evolved into a ‘new, developed and
strengthened unit’ called the National Wildlife Crime Unit. This unit ‘is a police-led, standalone,
multi-agency unit with the UK wide remit for Wildlife Crime... The Unit gathers intelligence on
national wildlife crime and provides analytical and investigative support to police and customs
officers across the UK’ (National Wildlife Crime Unit, 2009). They are a group of 15 members from
groups such as DEFRA and HM Revenues and Customs and act as a central hub for all the different
organisations, and prioritise the different wildlife crimes. Currently their priorities are CITES
enforcement and fresh water mussels among others.
Actual enforcement still very much comes down to police, although they do now have a huge
network of organisations backing them with investigations. Each police force around the UK now has
at least one Wildlife Crime Officer whose duty it is to investigate wildlife related crimes. These
officers are also backed up by the Partnership for Action Against Wildlife Crime (PAW). PAW ‘is a
multi-agency body comprising representatives of the organisations involved in wildlife law
enforcement in the UK... Its main objective is to promote the enforcement of wildlife conservation
legislation, particularly through supporting the networks of Police Wildlife Crime Officers and HM
Revenue and Customs officers’ (PAW, 2008). PAW allows governmental bodies to work alongside
non-governmental bodies who volunteer to join the partnership. Partners will share information and
work together to not only help with investigations of wildlife crime, but also to raise awareness and
education. This means that despite the relatively low amount of specialists working in enforcement,
partnerships and information sharing allow the police to work with the best knowledge possible.
Currently, PAW consists of about 100 non-governmental organisations (PAW, 2008).

7. Prosecutions
Enforcement of the terrestrial wildlife protection laws has been relatively successful in recent years.
Illegal wildlife trading in the UK is worth an estimated £64m (BBC, 2006). In 2008 the Wildlife Crime
Unit brought charges upon a man who was leader of a huge smuggling ring, thought to be the largest
ever seen in Britain. Michael Elliot, who was suspected of smuggling for more than 10 years was
found guilty but under British law was only given a suspended 2 year sentence. He is however now
facing Prosecution in America. (PAW, 2008)
In 2008 a man was found guilty of selling two protected Moluccan cockatoos. However, he was only
fined £520 in total and given a six month discharge. (PAW, 2008)

7
marinewildlifepolicyandlaw.blogspot.com
In 2006, Dr Sian Lim from London was found guilty of smuggling 126 rare orchids into the UK
commercially. The result from this trial was a two month prison sentence. This was the first custodial
sentence to be given under CITES laws. In 2007 he was also ordered to pay £110,331 as well as
£15,000 costs. So it seems that despite the increasing amount of investigation into these areas and
the increase in charges being brought against smugglers of protected species, the current legal
framework of British law all too often allows offenders to get away relatively lightly, or sometimes
completely, despite the huge amount of money they can make and damage they can cause.
To put some of these sentences slightly into context, in 2001 a man was fined £3,100 for taking
common sandpiper and chaffinch eggs and another man was sentenced to 4 months imprisonment
for being in possession of goshawk and goosander eggs.
Protected areas seem to fare better in terms of prosecutions though. In 2008, Wemmergill Moor Ltd
built a new track, car park and drainage system through Lune Forest in Durham, a SSSI, without
permission, resulting in 4433 square metres of damaged land. The company was fined £50,000 by
the courts and ordered to pay restoration costs of £237,548.99. (PAW, 2008)
So it would seem that in areas of more clear cut conservation the law can act as intended and
uphold conservation legislation to a sufficient standard. But in more internationally focussed areas
of crime, it struggles to bring the right people to sufficient justice.
There seems to be a surprisingly small amount of prosecutions, or even charges, for marine wildlife
crimes. In 2008, two people were found guilty of disturbing a solitary dolphin in a harbour in Kent.
The dolphin was a tourist attraction and was friendly with humans. But when the two men jumped
into the water to swim with the dolphin after going to a party, the dolphin showed clear signs of
distress. The police were called and the men were ordered out of the water but refused. Eventually
they came out but experts stated that the dolphin clearly showed signs of distress and its normal
behaviour patterns were disturbed. Both men were fined £350 and given 120 hours community
service. (PAW, 2008) this crime was clearly caught on camera and under the CRoW Act 2007 the
charge of reckless disturbance was upheld. Whilst this was a relatively small crime it does go to show
that the laws can be upheld. And the sentence seems sufficient considering that the crime was
committed probably more out of ignorance than from malicious intent. Most other marine crimes
come under CITES or pollution laws. Illegal trade of protected marine species is often prevented but
during the transit or sale of these species, rather than at source. This is perhaps down to the
difficulty of upholding the law out at sea where these laws are significantly less defined. Past 12nm,
most laws change or stop applying, and it is here where the most damage for cetaceans and other
mega-fauna can occur. The existence of several Marine Nature Reserves does little for the sea at

8
marinewildlifepolicyandlaw.blogspot.com
large and the inability of SSSIs to cross the baseline of the UK means the sea really enjoys very little
protection by British law.
So it seems that current legislation is struggling to deal with protection of marine life, especially
further out to sea where, terrestrial laws are almost impossible to uphold effectively. In these cases
it could be education that could have the major effect for the protection of marine species, mega-
fauna especially.

8. Cetaceans
There are 86 species of cetaceans in the world including dolphins, whale and porpoise. Cetaceans
are amongst the most well known and popular marine animals but are increasingly becoming under
threat. Many of the species are endangered or threatened and a few are facing extinction. Their
populations are steadily falling, this is thought to be down to increase impact from ‘fisheries and
bycatch, chemical pollution, ship strikes, noise, disturbance and harassment, habitat loss and
deliberate hunts. Many of these impacts are difficult to monitor’ (Convention on Migratory Species,
2003). Most cetaceans are also migratory species, spending lots of time in open ocean which isn’t
owned by any one territory, and their relatively slow reproduction rates mean impacts can have a
greater effect on them than it would on a fast reproducing animal. This poses a problem to their
conservation as national legislation would struggle to properly enforce itself in these areas.
However, a unified international approach to cetacean conservation could have huge impacts on
cetacean wellbeing. Currently in the UK, cetaceans are only covered by the Wildlife and Countryside
Act and its amendment after the ECs Offshore Habitats Regulations came into force. This only
prevents the deliberate harm and the reckless disturbance of cetaceans though, and really does
nothing to prevent the loss of cetaceans through other impacts. Due to the lack of Marine Protected
Areas in offshore waters, current legislation struggles to enforce proper conservation methods and
so cetacean stocks are really not benefitting from current laws.
Cetaceans do face other threats as well. In Japan it’s typical to slaughter dolphins for use in tinned
food. Dolphin meat demand is not particularly high, but is often labelled as whale meat and sold in
tins. However, a fisherman in Taiji, where dolphin hunting goes on for 6 months a year, said, ‘We
don’t kill the dolphins primarily for their meat. We kill them as a form of pest control (Save Japan
Dolphins, 2008)’ as dolphins are in direct competition with Japanese fishermen for more valuable
fish stocks. An increase in public awareness has put Japan under great pressure in recent years but it
seems unlikely that they will change their ways regarding this, and the hunting has become a more
secretive practice.

9
marinewildlifepolicyandlaw.blogspot.com
Japan also used to be one of the biggest whaling countries in the world. Their catch peaked at
226,000 tonnes in 1962, after that the International Whaling Commission introduced quotas for
commercial whaling (New York Times, 2007). In 1985 the IWC introduced a ban on all commercial
whaling, allowing whaling only for scientific practices, with the resulting catch then allowed to be
sold on the market. Whale meat was considered a delicacy in Japan, and due to the current lack of it
due to the ban, dolphin meat is sometimes falsely labelled as whale meat.
Whilst Japan isn’t the only whaling country, it was perhaps the most dedicated towards it, and have
appealed the ban almost every year since its introduction, but international threats of reduced trade
and fishing rights has kept this appeal from going through. Schemes like this go to show that
international pressure can have an effect on certain countries economic practices. The IWC, though,
is a voluntary agreement, and so isn’t assured to work, as can be seen by the fact that Canada left
the IWC after the commercial ban was introduced so that they could continue commercial whaling.
The IWC has had a noticeable effect on the populations of certain species. Minke whales, for
example, have since turned around their once threatened status and are now thriving.
Whaling isn’t the biggest threat to most cetaceans though. As mentioned above, and matched by the
Natural History Museums 5 main threats to dolphins, whales and porpoises, Noise Pollution,
Chemical Pollution, Climate Change, Fisheries and Habitat Loss can have greater and longer lasting
effects. Cetaceans rely on hearing to navigate and hunt and so noise pollution can greatly confuse
them, disturbing feeding patterns, mating behaviour and migration. Concentrated noise in certain
areas can kill dolphins and whales, as it’s not uncommon for them to beach themselves in their
confusion.
Chemical pollution is also a threat, as it can reduce the food that cetaceans rely on, as well as
eventually being absorbed by the cetaceans themselves. Pilot whales have been found in Japan to
contain excess levels of Mercury in their meat. Similarly, climate change can affect the supply of
food, and as waters warm up, certain species may be unable to migrate properly, potentially
resulting in extinction of colder water species. Habitat loss can also play a huge part, as explored
earlier with the extinction of the Yangtze River dolphin in China.
The Natural History Museum though, say the biggest threat is fisheries and bycatch. Every year an
estimated 300,000 whales and dolphins die as a result of commercial fishing (Natural History
Museum, 2009).

9. Sharks
Sharks also come under threat. Similarly to cetaceans they can be hugely affected by noise and
chemical pollution. Oceana, a North American ocean conservation advocacy group state the two

10
marinewildlifepolicyandlaw.blogspot.com
biggest threats to sharks to be bycatch and finning. However, some sharks are also fished for their
oils which are used in cosmetics (Oceana, 2007). Oceana estimate the death toll of sharks due to
finning to be in the region of 26 to 73 million per year with tens of millions further caught
unintentionally as bycatch.
Britain’s coastline is home to 21 species of shark, from small Catsharks, to the second biggest fish in
the sea, the up to 8m long basking shark, and roughly half of these species are non-migratory.
Similarly to cetaceans, sharks live long lives, growing slowly with long pregnancies resulting in few
births. This means that they are particularly susceptible to the impacts of overfishing and the more
visible or desirable species could relatively quickly become extinct.
In European waters, finning is banned. However, several countries are allowed to give permits for
shark fishing. Fins are the most valuable part of sharks and as a result, sharks are caught, their fins
removed and the shark then thrown back into the waters, often still alive. Both the US and Scotland
have now taken measures to stop this. New acts will require sharks to be landed whole, before their
fins are removed (Oceana, 2009) (Shark Trust, 2009). This is not only more humane for the sharks
but is much less profitable for fishermen and should drastically reduce the amount of sharks being
caught.
Sharks need similar levels of protection as cetaceans in order to prevent the extinction of species,
but stocks should be able to recover quickly if given the proper conservation aids.
Research on sharks has increased drastically over recent years though. Sharks are being tagged and
their distribution monitored so that a better picture can be made of their habitats and cover, and as
a result conservation methods can be targeted more specifically. Recently it was discovered that
Basking Sharks off the coast of England, which previously disappeared in winter months, swim into
the deep water and travel as far as the Caribbean (Shark Trust, 2009). An increased understanding of
the international travel of marine species means international agreements will need to be agreed
upon in order to properly conserve these species. Whilst this is a more difficult task than creating
national legislation, it could bring about a more global change and awareness of marine
conservation.

10. Education and Tourism

The disturbance of breeding or feeding grounds or the disturbance of migration routes can have a
massive effect on the well being of marine life, especially the more sensitive cetaceans and mega-
fauna. For this reason the WiSe scheme was set up to educate boat tour operators on the potential
effects they can have on marine wildlife and instruct them on how to responsibly operate around
wildlife. “WiSe (WIldlife SafE) is a Training and Accreditation scheme aimed at operators of

11
marinewildlifepolicyandlaw.blogspot.com
passenger pleasure craft, wildlife cruise operators, dive boats and charter yachts who may come into
contact with “mega” marine wildlife such as whales, dolphins, basking sharks or seals.” (2004)
So far this has been a great success around Britain, but the migration patterns of cetaceans means
that a more international approach is needed, and so far there is only one boat tour operator based
outside of the UK that has taken the WiSe scheme. But the WiSe scheme, or equivalent, could
potentially have a huge impact on the wellbeing of marine fauna. Perhaps a greater effect than
simple legislation can have, as prevention is often better than cure. Mark Orams (1999) states that,
‘Data available from the early 1990’s show it (the whale watching industry) has been increasing at
around 10 percent per year’. The Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society say that over 10 million
people go whale or dolphin watching every year (WDCS, 2008), a huge increase from the 5.4 million
that went in 1994 (Orams, M. 1999). A report by the Government of Spain and the Regional
Government of the Canary Islands published in June 2008 attributed 11% of all cetacean strandings
around the Canaries to collisions with ships and boats. Considering that 75% of all strandings were
due to natural causes, this means that almost half of all man caused strandings were due to
maritime traffic. With the rise in marine tourism stated by Orams we can assume that if left
unchecked then this figure could rise even more, especially taking into account the rise in popularity
for ‘extreme’ water sports such as jet skiing and wake boarding.
Currently the WiSe scheme is only promoted towards boat tour operators. Yet it seems that most
cetacean strandings are due to collisions with high speed boats, an area of tourism and leisure that is
as of now little considered in the conservation of marine mega-fauna. This is an area where
legislation would struggle to reach, but simple education could have huge benefits in. Relaxed
wildlife watching boat tours are no less dangerous towards marine life though. A 1999 DEFRA report
suggests that even without direct contact with marine wildlife boats can cause disturbance. Noise
from the propellers can confuse them and disturb hunting or disorientate the animals. Interference
can reduce feeding times, disturb mothers and calves and can even cause cetaceans to move to less
favourable areas. Even if the animals themselves initiate contact with the boats there can still be
negative effects. Janik & Thompson (1996) say that this could also reduce feeding or resting times.
DEFRA back this up giving guidelines to boaters to maintain a steady course even if the cetaceans
have come to the boat with no encouragement, going on to say that stopping to interact with the
animals causes more disturbance than otherwise routine maritime traffic would have.
Both Orams’ ‘Marine Tourism’ and Wearing & Neil’s ‘Ecotourism: Impacts, Potentials and
Possibilities’ build a similar picture of the marine/eco tourist. According to both Orams (1999) and
Wearing & Neil (1999) the typical tourist taking part in marine wildlife tours will be in a higher pay
bracket with the possibility of a university education. They also both suggest that they will be

12
marinewildlifepolicyandlaw.blogspot.com
motivated by the desire to explore and experience something they can’t typically experience. Both
books suggest that an ‘ecotourist’ will travel alone or in a couple more often than in bigger groups to
enhance this sense of personal experience. However, with boat trips a slightly different picture can
be painted. Because of the relative ease of getting a boat tour it’s possible to go on holiday for a
totally unrelated reason and go on a boat trip with a whole family relatively cheaply. It’s arguable
that these are simply tourists and not ‘real’ ecotourists and this could be what poses a main problem
to wildlife. A lack of education or concern for the general well being of the wildlife they go to watch
leads to a mentality where the client wants the operator to get as close as possible to the animals,
having an adverse affect on the population in the area. The same can be said for those seeking quick
thrills whilst at the beach on holiday. Many tourist beaches in sunnier climes will have a company
renting out jet skis or offering powerboat rides for little money. These obviously create a lot of noise
and sometimes recklessness on behalf of the user, but are incredibly hard for normal legislation to
cover effectively. All these factors should be addressed to aid in the conservation of cetacean stocks
around the world, and this is something that the WiSe, or similar, scheme could aid with if given the
proper support from the tourism community and international governmental organisations.

11. The Implementation of Law

11.1 The Present
One thing that has become apparent over the course of this investigation is the difficulty of
implementing terrestrial wildlife law to the marine environment. The Wildlife and Countryside Link
(simply known as LINK) has carried out extensive inspections of current legislation for the marine
environment and agree with the view that marine species need their own set of legislative measures
in order to properly be protected, and their conservation ensured. Current protection for the marine
environment comes from the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and its amendments. Because this
was originally formed as a purely terrestrial piece of legislation its laws did not cover marine life.
Later amendments to the act introduced marine regulations. However, the laws used to protect the
land don’t work well in a marine environment, largely due to the lack of ownership, and therefore
responsibility for the seas and sea bed. To fill the loopholes and properly ensure the conservation of
the marine environment, the WCA would either need completely rewriting with the sea in mind, or a
complete new set of legislation that could specialise in the ocean and its inhabitants.
In 2004 LINK submitted thoughts on improvements that had to be carried out for the marine
environment and species to the Review of Marine Nature Conservation working group (LINK, 2005).
The RMNC was set up by DEFRA in 1999 to assess the current framework for marine nature
conservation (JNCC, 2008). In its final report the RMNC said, ‘The Shortcomings of existing domestic

13
marinewildlifepolicyandlaw.blogspot.com
species protection legislation suggest that it may be appropriate to consider an overhaul of the
current system. This was a conclusion of the Sub-group on Legislative Mechanisms. One option
would be to replace the marine elements of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 with new,
bespoke legislation and other mechanisms for marine species and habitat protection. This would
provide the benefit of allowing the development of a coherent ecosystem approach for the
protection of important features’ (LINK, 2005).
So it seems a widely held view, both in government and non-government organisations that current
wildlife legislation doesn’t transpose over to the marine environment very well. But there may be
hope in the future in the form of the Marine Bill.

11.2 The Future

The Marine Bill is an act that aims to reform the way we look at our waters all the way out to 200nm.
This would be very welcome as for the most part the WCA only extends out to territorial waters at
12nm.
Both LINK and the Review of Marine Nature Conservation suggest that an ecosystem based
approach would be the best way to give protection to marine species. This would mean the mass
gathering of data based on what actually lives in our waters in a more defined area view rather than
the general overview we currently have. This would allow the mapping of habitats and would benefit
the creation of protected areas based on this new knowledge. Currently most data on marine
conservation has been collected around coastlines or strict physiological features and fails to
adequately display the contents of our territorial waters, let alone expanding out to 200nm.
The result of this would be a variety of marine protected areas, where activities damaging to the
ecosystem in that area could properly be regulated, with the laws defined by specialist marine
legislation, rather than the enforcement of terrestrial-centric laws (for example those governing
SACs and SSSIs) upon the same area.
These areas do actually already exist, but the enforcement is fairly weak away from the coast and
that’s what the Marine and Coastal Access Bill would aid in. DEFRA list the main types of MPA in the
UK at the moment to be ‘Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) for habitats of European importance,
Special Protection Areas (SPAs) for birds, and Marine Nature Reserves (MNRs) for nationally
important habitats and species’ (DEFRA, 2009). MPAs can have play a huge part in the protection of
coastal waters, currently roughly 2% of Britains waters are MPAs, however this is almost completely
limited to the coast (DEFRA, 2009). There are only 4 SACs outside of territorial waters.
The Marine and Coastal Access Bill proposes a new type of MPA called Marine Conservation Zones
(MCZs). These would replace Marine Nature Reserves, such as that at Lundy Island, removing the

14
marinewildlifepolicyandlaw.blogspot.com
burden from the Wildlife and Countryside Act. These areas would feature varying levels of
protection. In some there would be a ban on certain types of fishing, whereas in others there may be
a complete ban on exploitative activities (DEFRA, 2008). Because the Marine Bill will apply all the
way out to Britain’s 200nm limit, MCZs in conjunction with other MPAs and European marine sites
could go a long way to protecting Britain’s biodiversity. The increased level in protection, as well as
the increased level of knowledge gained by the greater attention to waters beyond the current
12nm limit, will allow certain threatened species of flora and fauna to be properly conserved. The
Marine Bill should also aim to ensure the sustainability of current resources found in our waters, by
preventing overfishing and overharvesting of threatened species of fish or plant.
In the South West a project called Finding Sanctuary works to ‘design a network of Marine Protected
Areas (MPAs). The goal of the MPA network is to safeguard our region’s undersea habitats and
marine life and to help ensure the long-term sustainability of marine resources in the region’
(Finding Sanctuary, 2008). Finding Sanctuary is a joint project between ‘stake holders’ in the waters
of the south west, which Finding Sanctuary define as ‘anyone who might in any way benefit or lose
out as a result of the MPA network’, and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee and Natural
England. Finding Sanctuary involves local fisherman, local industries and wildlife groups, who all
work together, using the specialist knowledge of the JNCC and Natural England to create a network
that benefits all the users, or at least aims not to punish anyone, whilst maintaining the health of
marine ecosystems in the area. To do this they map areas of economic and ecological importance to
properly define areas which need protecting.
This scheme has proved popular and similar schemes are being looked at by the JNCC and Natural
England in the North Sea and English Channel, and further to eventually cover all of Britain’s waters
(DEFRA, 2008).
The government has stated that it wants the MPA network that will eventually be established by the
Marine Bill to be partly designed in consideration with local communities, and so it seems that this
kind of project, where local knowledge can have a huge benefit, could be pivotal in the
establishment of a properly protected marine environment.

12. Conclusion
In this investigation I set out to look at the current effectiveness that marine wildlife protection
policy and law. During the report I have looked at current and future legislation as well as voluntary
protection schemes and educational programs.
Over the course of the investigation it has become clear that the current legal framework does not
work well for the marine environment, neither nationally or internationally. The main reason for this

15
marinewildlifepolicyandlaw.blogspot.com
is the lack of importance placed on the oceans in the past. Legislation for terrestrial species and
habitats is well founded and can follow simple laws based on land ownership. The trouble with
ocean environments comes when these laws are copied over to water which technically isn’t owned.
Whilst responsibility of the waters can be given, it currently is enforced very ineffectively under
these terrestrially created laws. Whilst it seems that every good intention has been made for the
oceans and its inhabitants, the current legal framework is letting it down. So in the future it seems
necessary for either the current legislation to be completely overhauled and rewritten with marine
habitats and species enjoying an equal level of importance as their terrestrial counterparts, or for
completely new specialist legislation to be brought in. It seems likely that the upcoming Marine and
Coastal Access Bill will address this issue by creating protected marine zones of national importance
that can be protected by laws designed for them, rather than laws which have simply been amended
to consider them.
We definitely seem to be on the right track though. Projects such as Finding Sanctuary, which can
continue to work alongside the Marine Bill, seem to make the best use of local knowledge,
something which has, as of yet, lacked in the creation of laws and protected areas, and this could
really play a key role in the creation of an ocean which is allowed to thrive, whilst still allowing us to
make use of its resources sustainably. This project should go hand in hand with the creation of new
Marine Protected Areas to replace the current ineffective Marine Nature Reserves.
The use of the oceans resources could be considered one of the biggest threats to marine
biodiversity. It’s widely considered that, in British waters at least, bycatch poses the biggest threat to
cetaceans and sharks. Bycatch laws need to be tightened up in the future to prevent the loss of
major cetacean and shark species. Bycatch also plays a role in the loss of smaller fish species as well
and whilst this is an area of current research in order to reduce bycatch by way of new nets (which
undoubtedly would help cetaceans and sharks), the smaller species need protection from the
catching and disposing of unwanted fish by fishermen. This could simply be by the creation of new
catch limits, or a ‘you catch it, you land it’ style law whereby fishermen are not allowed to dispose of
huge amounts of unwanted fish. Bycatch is a huge problem and this potentially could be a subject
for future research, as it’s currently a hugely controversial area of argument between fishermen and
conservation bodies.
At present it seems that it is voluntary organisations that seem to be having the biggest effect on
conservation. Both the International Whaling Commission (IWC) and the Convention on
International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) have had a huge effect on
the reduction activities which are harmful to marine wildlife. The IWC has banned commercial
whaling and allowed several species of once threatened whales to thrive and CITES has had success

16
marinewildlifepolicyandlaw.blogspot.com
at reducing the illegal trade of animals and animal parts. Both of these organisations are voluntary
and both have had an effect that perhaps most people wouldn’t expect from a voluntary
organisation. These two organisations highlight what international pressure can do for the natural
environment. Although couple international pressure with the threat of reduced trading rights and
resource availability and perhaps it becomes a little clearer why both the IWC and CITES work so
well.
So it seems that the future is bright for marine life, especially if the Marine Bill goes through. But
cetaceans are still constantly under threat from users of the water, and currently legislation doesn’t
cover boat users particularly effectively. Boat users can go out without insurance or with no
experience and drive relatively quick craft around in areas where wildlife can be seen. This obviously
poses a huge threat to cetaceans especially, as expanded on before. The WiSe scheme aims to
address this but it does currently have its shortcomings. It’s not tested and is a relatively easily
attainable accreditation which isn’t monitored after. It’s too new a scheme to properly analyse its
effectiveness but it is a scheme which could have potentially great benefits for cetaceans. One
suggestion would be an attempt to establish it worldwide, similarly to the Royal Yachting
Association. This would allow proper monitoring of it and would create an international set of rules
which boat users should adhere to. At present there is too little legislation covering water craft use
in wildlife areas. In the UK it’s limited to the laws covering reckless disturbance, but again this is
difficult to enforce. That’s not to say that an accreditation scheme is a waste of time though. At the
moment it’s perhaps a little underutilised and needs properly establishing, although this may require
the creation of new laws which would allow it to properly utilise them in order to reduce the impacts
of maritime traffic on marine wildlife.
So, in conclusion, it seems that in the future marine wildlife will enjoy proper protection, and in turn
species which are currently under threat, of which there are many, should be able to turn their
fortunes around and once again thrive. This does rely on the establishment of specialist laws which
allow proper protection and enforcement, but the ever increasing public awareness of the threats
facing the oceans should ensure that these laws do eventually come into force, at least in Britain. On
an international scale the oceans need alliances like the IWC and CITES in order to properly protect
the open areas from exploitation, and this is something which is slowly but surely occurring. But the
increase in national marine protection laws around the world will almost definitely have a
monumental impact on marine wildlife. So although progress up until now has been slow, it looks
like soon, with the continuous pressure brought on by public awareness, protecting the oceans will
be forefront in the upcoming policies of international governments.

17
marinewildlifepolicyandlaw.blogspot.com
 13. References
13.1 Books
Orams, M., 1999, Marine Tourism: Development, Impacts and Management, London: Routledge
Wearing, S. & Neil, J., 1999, Ecotourism: Impacts, Potentials and Possibilities, Oxford: Butterworth-
Heinemann

13.2 Documents
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, 2008, Protecting Our Marine Environment
Through the Marine Bill, [online] available at:
http://www.defra.gov.uk/marine/pdf/legislation/protect-marine-env-leaflet.pdf accessed
12/05/2009
Environmental Audit Committee, 2004, Environmental Crime: Wildlife Crime, [online] available at:
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.com/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmenvaud/605/605.pdf
accessed 10/05/2008
The Green Blue, 2006, The Effects of Boating and Watersports on Wildlife [online] available at:
http://www.thegreenblue.org.uk/publications/documents/Wildlife.pdf accessed 11/05/2009
Government of Spain, 2008, Interaction Between Maritime Traffic and Cetaceans in the Canaries
Archipelago, [online] available at:
http://www.iwcoffice.org/_documents/commission/IWC60docs/60-CC12.pdf accessed 11/05/2009
Oceana, 2009, Senate Introduces Bill to End Shark Finning in U.S. on Earth Day, [online] available at:
http://oceana.org/fileadmin/oceana/uploads/Sharks/Press_releases/Shark_Bill_Re-
Introduced_in_Senate_FINAL_4.22.09.doc accessed 12/05/2009
Wildlife and Countryside Link, 2005, Biodiversity Protection and Conservation in the Marine
Environment,[online] available at:
http://www.wcl.org.uk/docs/Link_Marine_Bill_WP_Bio_Protection_Conservation_25Aug05.pdf
accessed 12/05/2009

13.3 Websites
BBC News, 2006, What is Wildlife Crime? [online] available at:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6065470.stm accessed 10/05/2009
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna, 2008, Homepage,
[online] available at: http://www.cites.org accessed 09/05/2009

18
marinewildlifepolicyandlaw.blogspot.com
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, 2008, Marine Conservation Areas – A Proposed
Designation Tool for the Marine and Coastal Access Bill, [online] available at:
http://www.defra.gov.uk/marine/biodiversity/mcz.htm accessed 12/05/2009
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, 2009, Marine Protected Areas, [online]
available at: http://www.defra.gov.uk/marine/biodiversity/protected-areas.htm accessed
12/05/2009
Finding Sanctuary, 2008, Homepage, [online] available at: http://www.finding-sanctuary.org
accessed 12/05/2009
Greater Manchester Police, 2008, What is a Wildlife Crime? [online] available at:
http://www.gmp.police.uk/mainsite/pages/WhatIsaWildlifeCrime.htm accessed 07/05/2009
Joint Nature Conservation Committee, 2008, The Countryside and Rights of Way Act2000, [online]
available at: http://www.jncc.gov.uk/page-1378 accessed 08/05/2009
Joint Nature Conservation Committee, 2008, Review of Marine Nature Conservation, [online]
available at: http://www.jncc.gov.uk/page-1540 accessed 12/05/2009
Lundy Field Society, 2009, Lundy Marine Nature Reserve Zoning Scheme, [online] available at:
http://www.lundy.org.uk/inf/zone.html accessed 08/05/2009
National Wildlife Crime Unit, 2009, About Us, [online] available at:
http://www.nwcu.police.uk/pages/aboutus/aboutus.asp accessed 10/05/2009
National Wildlife Crime Unit, 2009, Background, [online] available at:
http://www.nwcu.police.uk/pages/aboutus/background.asp accessed 10/05/2009
Natural England, 2008, Sites of Special Scientific Interest, [online] available at:
http://www.sssi.naturalengland.org.uk/Special/sssi/index.cfm accessed 08/05/2009
Naturenet, 2008, Marine Nature Reserve, [online] available at:
http://www.naturenet.net/status/mnr.html accessed 08/05/2009
Oceana, 2007, The Greatest Threats to Sharks, [online] available at:
http://www.oceana.org/sharks/threats accessed 12/05/2009
Partnership for Action Against Wildlife Crime, 2008, PAW Homepage, [online] available at:
http://www.defra.gov.uk/paw accessed 10/05/2008
Partnership for Action Against Wildlife Crime, 2008, Recent Prosecutions, [online] available at:
http://www.defra.gov.uk/paw/prosecutions/default.htm accessed 10/05/2009 accessed 10/05/2009
Partnership for Action Against Wildlife Crime, 2008, What is Wildlife Crime? [online] available at:
http://www.defra.gov.uk/paw/crime/default.htm accessed 12/05/2009
Save Japan Dolphins, 2008, Get Educated, [online] available at:
http://www.savejapandolphins.org/educate.php accessed 12/05/2009

19
marinewildlifepolicyandlaw.blogspot.com
Science & Spirit Magazine, 2007, Human Impact Upon Extinction Rates, [online] available at:
http://www.science-spirit.org/archive_cm_detail.php?new_id=116 accessed 07/05/2009
Shark Trust, 2009, Giant Shark Mystery Solved: Unexpected Hideout Found, [online] available at:
http://www.sharktrust.org/content.asp?did=32738 accessed 12/05/2009
Shark Trust, 2009, Scotland Proposes Strict Measures to Improve Shark Fisheries Management,
[online] available at: http://www.sharktrust.org/content.asp?did=32696 accessed 12/05/2009
Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society, 2008, Whale Watching, [online] available at:
http://www.wdcs.org/connect/whale_watch/index.php accessed 11/05/2009
WiSe, 2008, What is WiSe? [online] available at: http://www.wisescheme.org/html/whatis.html
accessed 11/05/2009
World Society for the Protection of Animals, 2009, Victory for Animal Welfare: EU Bans Sale of Seal
Products, [online], available at:
http://www.wspa.org.uk/latestnews/2009/Victory_for_animal_welfare_EU_bans_sale_of_seal_pro
ducts.aspx accessed 10/05/2009

13.4 Cover Photo

The Scottish Government, 2009 [online] available at
http://cci.scot.nhs.uk/Resource/Img/921/0016132.jpg accessed 14/05/2009

20
marinewildlifepolicyandlaw.blogspot.com