Publisher Council on Foreign Relations
Release Date Last Updated: May 21, 2013
Scope of the Challenge
Oceans are the source of life on earth. They shape the climate, feed the world, and cleanse the air we breathe. They are vital to our economic well being, ferrying roughly 90 percent of global commerce, housing submarine cables, and providing one-third of traditional hydrocarbon resources (as well as new forms of energy such as wave, wind, and tidal power). But the oceans are increasingly threatened by a dizzying array of dangers, from piracy to climate change. To be good stewards of the oceans, nations around the world need to embrace more effective multilateral governance in the economic, security, and environmental realms.
The world's seas have always been farmed from top to bottom. New technologies, however, are making old practices unsustainable. When commercial trawlers scrape the sea floor, they bulldoze entire ecosystems. Commercial ships keep to the surface but produce carbon-based emissions. And recent developments like offshore drilling and deep seabed mining are helping humans extract resources from unprecedented depths, albeit with questionable environmental impact. And as new transit routes open in the melting Arctic, this once-forgotten pole is emerging as a promising frontier for entrepreneurial businesses and governments.
But oceans are more than just sources of profit—they also serve as settings for transnational crime. Piracy, drug smuggling, and illegal immigration all occur in waters around the world. Even the most sophisticated ports struggle to screen cargo, containers, and crews without creating regulatory friction or choking legitimate commerce. In recent history, the United States has policed the global commons, but growing Indian and Chinese blue-water navies raise new questions about how an established security guarantor should accommodate rising—and increasingly assertive—naval powers.
And the oceans themselves are in danger of environmental catastrophe. They have become the world's garbage dump—if you travel to the heart of the Pacific Ocean, you'll find the North Pacific Gyre, where particles of plastic outweigh plankton six to one. Eighty percent of the world's fish stocks are depleted or on the verge of extinction, and when carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere, much of it is absorbed by the world's oceans. The water, in response, warms and acidifies, destroying habitats like wetlands and coral reefs. Glacial melting in the polar regions raises global sea levels, which threatens not only marine ecosystems but also humans who live on or near a coast. Meanwhile, port-based megacities dump pollution in the ocean, exacerbating the degradation of the marine environment and the effects of climate change.
Threats to the ocean are inherently transnational, touching the shores of every part of the world. So far, the most comprehensive attempt to govern international waters produced the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). But U.S. refusal to join the convention, despite widespread bipartisan support, continues to limit its strength, creating a leadership vacuum in the maritime regime. Other states that have joined the treaty often ignore its guidelines or fail to coordinate policies across sovereign jurisdictions. Even if it were perfectly implemented, UNCLOS is now thirty years old and increasingly outdated.
Important initiatives—such as local fishery arrangements and the United Nations Environment Program Regional Seas Program—form a disjointed landscape that lacks legally-binding instruments to legitimize or enforce their work. The recent UN Conference on Sustainable Development ("Rio+20") in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, convened over one hundred heads of state to assess progress and outline goals for a more sustainable "blue-green economy." However, the opportunity to set actionable targets to improve oceans security and biodiversity produced few concrete outcomes. As threats to the oceans become more pressing, nations around the world need to rally to create and implement an updated form of oceans governance.
Oceans Governance: Strengths and Weaknesses
Overall assessment: A fragmented system
In 1982, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) established the fundamental legal principles for ocean governance. This convention, arguably the largest and most complex treaty ever negotiated, entered into force in 1994. Enshrined as a widely accepted corpus of international common law, UNCLOS clearly enumerates the rights, responsibilities, and jurisdictions of states in their use and management of the world's oceans. The treaty defines "exclusive economic zones" (EEZs), which is the coastal water and seabed—extending two hundred nautical miles from shore—over which a state has special rights over the use of marine resources; establishes the limits of a country's "territorial sea," or the sovereign territory of a state that extends twelve nautical miles from shore; and clarifies rules for transit through "international straits." It also addresses—with varying degrees of effectiveness—resource division, maritime traffic, and pollution regulation, as well as serves as the principal forum for dispute resolution on ocean-related issues. To date, 162 countries and the European Union have ratified UNCLOS.
UNCLOS is a remarkable achievement, but its resulting oceans governance regime suffers several serious limitations. First, the world's leading naval power, the United States, is not party to the convention, which presents obvious challenges to its effectiveness—as well as undermines U.S. sovereignty, national interests, and ability to exercise leadership over resource management and dispute resolution. Despite the myriad military, economic, and political benefits offered by UNCLOS, a small but vocal minority in the United States continues to block congressional ratification.
Second, UNCLOS is now thirty years old and, as a result, does not adequately address a number of emerging and increasingly important international issues, such as fishing on the high seas—a classic case of the tragedy of the commons—widespread maritime pollution, and transnational crime committed at sea.
Third, both UNCLOS and subsequent multilateral measures have weak surveillance, capacity-building, and enforcement mechanisms. Although various UN bodies support the instruments created by UNCLOS, they have no direct role in their implementation. Individual states are responsible for ensuring that the convention's rules are enforced, which presents obvious challenges in areas of overlapping or contested sovereignty, or effectively stateless parts of the world. The UN General Assembly plays a role in advancing the oceans agenda at the international level, but its recommendations are weak and further constrained by its lack of enforcement capability.
Organizations that operate in conjunction with UNCLOS—such as the International Maritime Organization (IMO), the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea (ITLOS), and the International Seabed Authority (ISA)—play an important role to protect the oceans and strengthen oceans governance. The IMO has helped reduce ship pollution to historically low levels, although it can be slow to enact new policy on issues such as invasive species, which are dispersed around the world in ballast water. Furthermore, ITLOS only functions if member states are willing to submit their differences to its judgment, while the ISA labors in relative obscurity and operates under intense pressure from massive commercial entities.
Fourth, coastal states struggle to craft domestic policies that incorporate the many interconnected challenges faced by oceans, from transnational drug smuggling to protecting ravaged fish stocks to establishing proper regulatory measures for offshore oil and gas drilling. UNCLOS forms a solid platform on which to build additional policy architecture, but requires coastal states to first make comprehensive oceans strategy a priority—a goal that has remained elusive thus far.
Fifth, the system is horizontally fragmented and fails to harmonize domestic, regional, and international policies. Domestically, local, state, and federal maritime actors rarely coordinate their agendas and priorities. Among the handful of countries and regional organizations that have comprehensive ocean policies—including Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Japan, the European Union, and most recently the United States—few synchronize their activities with other countries. The international community, however, is attempting to organize the cluttered oceans governance landscape. The UN Environmental Programme Regional Seas Program works to promote interstate cooperation for marine and coastal management, albeit with varying degrees of success and formal codification. Likewise, in 2007 the European Union instituted a regional Integrated Maritime Policy (IMP) that addresses a range of environmental, social, and economic issues related to oceans, as well as promotes surveillance and information sharing. The IMP also works with neighboring partners to create an integrated oceans policy in places such as the Arctic, the Baltic, and the Mediterranean.
Lastly, there is no global evaluation framework to assess progress. No single institution is charged with monitoring and collecting national, regional, and global data on the full range of oceans-related issues, particularly on cross-cutting efforts. Periodic data collecting does take place in specific sectors, such as biodiversity conservation, fisheries issues, and marine pollution, but critical gaps remain. The Global Ocean Observing System is a promising portal for tracking marine and ocean developments, but it is significantly underfunded. Without concrete and reliable data, it is difficult to craft effective policies that address and mitigate emerging threats.
Despite efforts, oceans continue to deteriorate and a global leadership vacuum persists. Much work remains to modernize existing institutions and conventions to respond effectively to emerging threats, as well as to coordinate national actions within and across regions. The June 2012 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development , also known as Rio+20, identified oceans (or the "blue economy") as one of the seven priority areas for sustainable development. Although experts and activists hoped for a new agreement to strengthen the sustainable management and protection of oceans and address modern maritime challenges such as conflicting sovereignty claims, international trade, and access to resources, Rio+20 produced few concrete results.
Maintaining freedom of the seas: Guaranteed by U.S. power, increasingly contested by emerging states
The United States polices every ocean throughout the world. The U.S. navy is unmatched in its ability to provide strategic stability on, under, and above the world's waters. With almost three hundred active naval ships and almost four thousand aircraft, its battle fleet tonnage is greater than the next thirteen largest navies combined. Despite recently proposed budget cuts to aircraft carriers, U.S. naval power continues to reign supreme.
The United States leverages its naval capabilities to ensure peace, stability, and freedom of access. As Great Britain ensured a Pax Britannicain the nineteenth century, the United States presides over relatively tranquil seas where global commerce is allowed to thrive. In 2007, the U.S. Navy released a strategy report that called for "cooperative relationships with more international partners" to promote "greater collective security, stability, and trust."
The United States pursues this strategy because it has not faced a credible competitor since the end of the Cold War. And, thus far, emerging powers have largely supported the U.S. armada to ensure that the oceans remain open to commerce. However, emerging powers with blue-water aspirations raise questions about how U.S. naval hegemony will accommodate new and assertive fleets in the coming decades. China, for instance, has been steadily building up its naval capabilities over the past decade as part of its "far sea defense" strategy. It unveiled its first aircraft carrier in 2010, and is investing heavily in submarines outfitted with ballistic missiles. At the same time, India has scaled up its military budget by 64 percent since 2001, and plans to spend nearly $45 billion over the next twenty years on its navy.
Even tensions among rising powers could prove problematic. For example, a two-month standoff between China and the Philippines over a disputed region of the South China Sea ended with both parties committing to a "peaceful resolution."China, Taiwan, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei, and the Philippines have competing territorial and jurisdictional claims to the South China Sea, particularly over rights to exploit its potentially vast oil and gas reserves. Control over strategic shipping lanes and freedom of navigation are also increasingly contested, especially between the United States and China.
Combating illicit trafficking: Porous, patchy enforcement
In addition to being a highway for legal commerce, oceans facilitate the trafficking of drugs, weapons, and humans, which are often masked by the flow of licit goods. Individual states are responsible for guarding their own coastlines, but often lack the will or capacity to do so. Developing countries, in particular, struggle to coordinate across jurisdictions and interdict. But developed states also face border security challenges. Despite its commitment to interdiction, the United States seizes less than 20 percent of the drugs that enter the country by maritime transport.
The United Nations attempts to combat the trafficking of drugs, weapons, and humans at sea. Through the Container Control Program (PDF), the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) assists domestic law enforcement in five developing countries to establish effective container controls to prevent maritime drug smuggling. The UNODC also oversees UN activity on human trafficking, guided by two protocols to the UN Convention on Transnational Organized Crime. Although UN activity provides important groundwork for preventing illicit maritime trafficking, it lacks monitoring and enforcement mechanisms and thus has a limited impact on the flow of illegal cargo into international ports. Greater political will, state capacity, and multilateral coordination will be required to curb illicit maritime trafficking.
New ad hoc multilateral arrangements are a promising model for antitrafficking initiatives. The International Ship and Port Facility Security Code, for instance, provides a uniform set of measures to enhance the security of ships and ports. The code helps member states control their ports and monitor both the people and cargo that travel through them. In addition, the U.S.-led Proliferation Security Initiative facilitates international cooperation to interdict ships on the high seas that may be carrying illicit weapons of mass destruction, ballistic missiles, and related technology. Finally, the Container Security Initiative (CSI), also spearheaded by the United States, attempts to prescreen all containers destined for U.S. ports and identify high-risk cargo (for more information, see section on commercial shipping).
One way to combat illicit trafficking is through enhanced regional arrangements, such as the Paris Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control. This agreement provides a model for an effective regional inspections regime, examining at least 25 percent of ships that enter members' ports for violations of conventions on maritime safety. Vessels that violate conventions can be detained and repeat offenders can be banned from the memorandum's area. Although the agreement does not permit searching for illegal cargo, it does show how a regional inspections regime could be effective at stemming illegal trafficking.
Securing commercial shipping: Global supply chains at risk
Global shipping is incredibly lucrative, but its sheer scope and breadth presents an array of security and safety challenges. The collective fleet consists of approximately 50,000 ships registered in more than 150 nations. With more than one million employees, this armada transports over eight billion tons (PDF) of goods per year—roughly 90 percent of global trade. And the melting Arctic is opening previously impassable trade routes; in 2009, two German merchant vessels traversed the Northeast Passage successfully for the first time in recent history. But despite impressive innovations in the shipping industry, maritime accidents and attacks on ships still occur frequently, resulting in the loss of billions of dollars of cargo. Ensuring the safety and security of the global shipping fleet is essential to the stability of the world economy.
Internationally, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) provides security guidelines for ships through the Convention on the Safety of Life at Sea, which governs everything from construction to the number of fire extinguishers on board. The IMO also aims to prevent maritime accidents through international standards for navigation and navigation equipment, including satellite communications and locating devices. Although compliance with these conventions has been uneven, regional initiatives such as the Paris Memorandum of Understanding have helped ensure the safety of international shipping.
In addition, numerous IMO conventions govern the safety of container shipping, including the International Convention on Safe Containers, which creates uniform regulations for shipping containers, and the International Convention on Load Lines, which determines the volume of containers a ship can safely hold. However, these conventions do not provide comprehensive security solutions for maritime containers, and illegal cargo could be slipped into shipping containers during transit. Since 1992, the IMO has tried to prevent attacks on commercial shipping through the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, which provides a legal framework for interdicting, detaining, and prosecuting terrorists, pirates, and other criminals on the high seas.
In reality, most enforcement efforts since the 9/11 attacks have focused on securing ports to prevent the use of a ship to attack, rather than to prevent attacks on the ships themselves. Reflecting this imperative, the IMO, with U.S. leadership, implemented the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code (ISPS) in 2004. This code helped set international standards for ship security, requiring ships to have security plans and officers. However, as with port security, the code is not obligatory and no clear process to audit or certify ISPS compliance has been established. Overall, a comprehensive regime for overseeing the safety of international shipping has not been created.
The United States attempts to address this vulnerability through the Container Security Initiative (CSI), which aims to prescreen all containers destined for the United States, and to isolate those that pose a high-security risk before they are in transit. The initiative, which operates in fifty-eight foreign ports, covers more than 86 percent of container cargo en route to the United States. Several international partners and organizations, including the European Union, the Group of Eight, and the World Customs Organization, have expressed interest in modeling security measures for containerized cargo based on the CSI model. Despite these efforts, experts estimate that only 2 percent of containers destined for U.S. ports are actually inspected.
Confronting piracy: Resurgent scourge, collective response
After the number of attacks reached a record high in 2011, incidences of piracy dropped 28 percent in the first three months of 2012. Overall, the number of worldwide attacks decreased from 142 to 102 cases, primarily due to international mobilization and enhanced naval patrols off the coast of Somalia. However, attacks intensified near Nigeria and Indonesia as pirates shifted routes in response to increased policing, raising fresh concerns over the shifting and expanding threat of piracy. In addition to the human toll, piracy has significant economic ramifications. According to a report by the nonprofit organization Oceans Beyond Piracy, Somali piracy cost the global economy nearly $7 billion in 2011. Sustained international coordination and cooperation is essential to preventing and prosecuting piracy.
Recognizing this imperative, countries from around the world have shown unprecedented cooperation to combat piracy, particularly near the Gulf of Aden. In August 2009, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization commenced Operation Ocean Shield in the horn of Africa, where piracy increased close to 200 percent between 2007 and 2009. This effort built upon Operation Allied Protector and consisted of two standing maritime groups with contributions from allied nations. Although the efforts concentrate on protecting ships passing through the Gulf of Aden, they also renewed focus on helping countries, specifically Somalia, prevent piracy and secure their ports. Meanwhile, the United States helped establish Combined Task Force 151 to coordinate the various maritime patrols in East Africa. Other countries including Russia, India, China, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, and South Korea, have also sent naval vessels to the region.
At the same time, regional organizations have also stepped up antipiracy efforts. The Regional Cooperation Agreement on Combating Piracy and Armed Robbery against Ships in Asia was the first such initiatives, and has been largely successful in facilitating information-sharing, cooperation between governments, and interdiction efforts. And in May 2012, the European Union naval force launched its first air attack against Somali pirates' land bases, the first strike of its kind by outside actors to date.
Like individual countries, international institutions have condemned piracy and legitimized the use of force against pirates. In June 2008, the UN Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1816, encouraging greater cooperation in deterring piracy and asking countries to provide assistance to Somalia to help ensure coastal security. This was followed by Resolution 1846, which allowed states to use "all necessary means" to fight piracy off the coast of Somalia. In Resolution 1851, the UN Security Council legitimized the use of force on land as well as at sea to the same end. Outside the UN, watchdogs such as the International Maritime Bureau, which collects information on pirate attacks and provides reports on the safety of shipping routes, have proven successful in increasing awareness, disseminating information, and facilitating antipiracy cooperation.
However, such cooperative efforts face several legal challenges. The United States has not ratified the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which governs crimes, including piracy, in international waters. More broadly, the international legal regime continues to rely on individual countries to prosecute pirates, and governments have been reluctant to take on this burden. Accordingly, many pirates are apprehended, only to be quickly released. In addition, many large commercial vessels rely on private armed guards to prevent pirate attacks, but the legal foundations governing such a force are shaky at best.
National governments have redoubled efforts to bring pirates to justice as well. In 2010, the United States held its first piracy trial since its civil war, soon followed by Germany's first trial in over four hundred years. Other agreements have been established to try pirates in nearby countries like Kenya, such as the UNODC Trust Fund to Support the Initiatives of States to Counter Piracy of the Coast of Somalia, established in January 2010. Under the mandate of the Contact Group on Piracy off the Coast of Somalia, the fund aims to defray the financial capital required from countries like Kenya, Seychelles, and Somalia to prosecute pirates, as well as to increase awareness within Somali society of the risk associated with piracy and criminal activity. Future efforts to combat piracy should continue to focus on enhancing regional cooperation and agreements, strengthening the international and domestic legal instruments necessary to prosecute pirates, and addressing the root causes of piracy.
Reducing marine pollution and climate change: Mixed progress
Pollution has degraded environments and ravaged biodiversity in every ocean. Much contamination stems from land-based pollutants, particularly along heavily developed coastal areas. The UN Environment Program (UNEP) Regional Seas Program has sponsored several initiatives to control pollution, modeled on a relatively successful program in the Mediterranean Sea. In 1995, states established the Global Program of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-Based Activities, which identifies sources of land-based pollution and helps states establish priorities for action. It has been successful in raising awareness about land-based pollution and offering technical assistance to regional implementing bodies, which are so often starved for resources. More recently, 193 UN member states approved the Nagoya Protocol on biodiversity, which aims to halve the marine extinction rate by 2020 and extend protection to 10 percent of the world's oceans.
Shipping vessels are also a major source of marine pollution. Shipping is the most environmentally friendly way to transport bulk cargoes, but regulating maritime pollution remains complicated because of its inherently transnational nature. Shipping is generally governed by the International Maritime Organization (IMO), which regulates maritime pollution through the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL). States are responsible for implementing and enforcing MARPOL among their own fleets to curb the most pernicious forms of maritime pollution, including oil spills, particulate matter such as sulfur oxide (SOx) and nitrous oxide (NOx), and greenhouse gas emissions. Port cities bear the brunt of air pollution, which devastates local air quality because most ships burn bunker fuel (the dirtiest form of crude oil). The IMO's Marine Environmental Protection Committee has also taken important steps to reduce SOx and NOx emissions by amending the MARPOL guidelines to reduce particulate matter from ships. Despite such efforts, a 2010 study (PDF) from the Organization for Economic Development and Cooperation found that international shipping still accounts for nearly 3 percent of all greenhouse gasses.
The IMO has achieved noteworthy success in reducing oil spilled into the marine environment. Despite a global shipping boom, oil spills are at an all-time low. The achievements of the IMO have been further strengthened by commitments by the Group of Eight to cooperate on oil pollution through an action plan that specifically targets pollution prevention for tankers. The IMO should strive to replicate this success in its efforts to reduce shipping emissions.
Climate change is also exacerbating environmental damage. In June 2009, global oceans reached their highest recordedaverage temperature: 17 degrees Celsius. As the world warms, oceans absorb increased levels of carbon dioxide, which acidifies the water and destroys wetlands, mangroves, and coral reefs—ecosystems that support millions of species of plants and animals. According to recent studies, ocean acidity could increase by more than 150 percent by 2050 if counteracting measures are not taken immediately. Moreover, melting ice raises sea levels, eroding beaches, flooding communities, and increasing the salinity of freshwater bodies. And the tiny island nation of the Maldives, the lowest country in the world, could be completely flooded if sea levels continue to rise at the same rate.
Individual states are responsible for managing changes in their own marine climates, but multilateral efforts to mitigate the effect of climate change on the oceans have picked up pace. In particular, the UNEP Regional Seas Program encourages countries sharing common bodies of water to coordinate and implement sound environmental policies, and promotes a regional approach to address climate change.
Sustainable fisheries policies on the high seas: An ecological disaster
States have the legal right to regulate fishing in their exclusive economic zones (EEZs), which extend two hundred nautical miles from shore—and sometimes beyond, in the case of extended continental shelves. But outside the EEZs are the high seas, which do not fall under any one country's jurisdiction. Freedom of the high seas is critical to the free flow of global commerce, but spells disaster for international fisheries in a textbook case of the tragedy of the commons. For years, large-scale fishing vessels harvested fish as fast as possible with little regard for the environmental costs, destroying 90 percent of the ocean's biomass in less than a century. Overall, fisheries suffer from two sets of challenges: ineffective enforcement capacity and lack of market-based governance solutions to remedy perverse incentives to overfish.
Although there are numerous international and multilateral mechanisms for fisheries management, the system is marred by critical gaps and weaknesses exploited by illegal fishing vessels. Articles 117 and 118 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) enumerate the specific fisheries responsibilities of state parties, placing the onus on national governments to form policies and regional agreements that ensure responsible management and conservation of fish stocks in their respective areas. UNCLOS was further strengthened by the UN Fish Stocks Agreement (FSA), which called for a precautionary approach toward highly migratory and straddling fish stocks that move freely in and out of the high seas. Seventy-eight countries have joined the FSA thus far, and a review conference in May 2010 was hailed as a success due to the passage of Port State Measures (PSMs) to combat illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing. Yet fish stocks have continued to stagnate or decline to dangerously low levels, and the PSMs have largely failed to prevent IUU operations.
Regional fishery bodies (RFBs) are charged with implementation and monitoring. The RFBs provide guidelines and advice on a variety of issues related to fishing, including total allowable catch, by-catch, vessel monitoring systems, areas or seasons closed for fishing, and recording and reporting fishery statistics. However, only a portion of these bodies oversee the management of their recommendations, and some RFBs allow members to unilaterally dismiss unfavorable decisions. Additionally, RFBs are not comprehensive in their membership and, for the most part, their rules do not apply to vessels belonging to a state outside the body.
Even when regional bodies make a binding decision on a high-seas case, implementation hinges on state will and capacity. In 2003, the UN General Assembly established a fund to assist developing countries with their obligations to implement the Fish Stocks Agreement through RFBs. The overall value of the fund remains small, however, and countries' compliance is often constrained by resource scarcity. This results in spotty enforcement, which allows vessels to violate international standards with impunity, particularly off the coasts of weak states. Migratory species like blue fin tuna are especially vulnerable because they are not confined by jurisdictional boundaries and have high commercial value.
Some of the RFBs with management oversight, such as the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources and the South East Atlantic Fisheries Organization, have been relatively effective in curbing overfishing. They have developed oversight systems and specific measures to target deep-water trawl fishing and illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing in the high seas. Many regional cooperative arrangements, however, continue to suffer from weak regulatory authority. At the same time, some regions like the central and southwest Atlantic Ocean lack RFBs. Some have suggested filling the void with market-based solutions like catch shares, which could theoretically alter the incentives toward stewardship. Catch shares (also known as limited access privilege programs) reward innovation and help fisheries maximize efficiency by dedicating a stock of fish to an individual fisherman, community, fishery association, or an individual state. Each year before the beginning of fishing season, commercial fishermen would know how much fish they are allowed to catch. They would then be allowed to buy and sell shares to maximize profit. By incorporating free-market principles, fisheries could reach a natural equilibrium at a sustainable level. According to research, more sustainable catch shares policies could increase the value of the fishing industry by more than $36 billion. Although allocating the shares at the domestic—much less international—level remains problematic, the idea reflects of the kind of policy work required to better manage the global commons.
Managing the Arctic: At a crossroads
Arctic ice is melting at unprecedented rates. At this pace, experts estimate that the Arctic could be seasonally ice free by 2040, and possibly much earlier. As the ice recedes and exposes valuable new resources, multilateral coordination will become even more important among states (and indigenous groups) jockeying for position in the region.
The melting ice is opening up potentially lucrative new sea routes and stores of natural resources. Since September 2009, cargo ships have been able to traverse the fabled Northwest and Northeast Passages, which are significantly shorter than traditional routes around the capes or through the canals. Widening sea routes also means that fishing fleets can travel north in search of virgin fishing stock, and that cruise ships can carry tourists chasing a last glimpse of the disappearing ice. At the same time, untapped resources such as oil, natural gas, rare earth minerals, and massive renewable wind, tidal, and geothermal energy hold enormous potential. In a preliminary estimate, the U.S. Geographic Society said that the Arctic could hold 22 percent of the world's hydrocarbon resources, including 90 billion barrels of oil and 1,670 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Beyond oil and gas, the Arctic has valuable mineral commodities such as zinc, nickel, and coal.
But new opportunities in the Arctic also portend new competition among states. In August 2007, Russia symbolically planted a flag on the Arctic floor, staking a claim to large chunks of Arctic land. Other Arctic powers including the United States, Canada, Norway, and Denmark have also laid geographical claims. The European Union crafted a new Arctic policy, and China sent an icebreaker on three separate Arctic expeditions. Each country stands poised to grab new treasure in this increasingly important geostrategic region.
The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) is a solid foundation on which to build and coordinate national Arctic policies, especially articles 76 and 234, which govern the limits of the outer continental shelf (OCS) and regulate activities in ice-covered waters, respectively. However, there remains a formidable list of nagging sovereignty disputes that will require creative bilateral and multilateral resolutions. The Arctic Council, a multilateral forum comprising eight Arctic nations, has recently grown in international prominence, signing a legally binding treaty on search and rescue missions in May 2011 and drawing high-level policymakers to its meetings. While these are significant first steps, the forum has yet to address other issues such as overlapping OCS claims, contested maritime boundaries, and the legal status of the Northwest Passage and the Northern Sea Route.
U.S. Ocean Governance Issues
The United States championed many of the most important international maritime organizations over the past fifty years. It helped shape the decades-long process of negotiating the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and has played a leading role in many UNCLOS-related bodies, including the International Maritime Organization. It has also served as a driving force behind regional fisheries organizations and Coast Guard forums. Domestically, the United States has intermittently been at the vanguard of ocean policy, such as the 1969 Stratton Commission report, multiple conservation acts in the 1970s, the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative, and, most recently, catch limits on all federally-managed fish species. The U.S.-based Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution and the Monterrey Bay Research Institute have long been leaders in marine science worldwide. And from a geopolitical perspective, the U.S. Navy secures the world's oceans and fosters an environment where global commerce can thrive.
Yet the United States lags behind on important issues, most notably regarding its reluctance to ratify UNCLOS. And until recently, the United States did not have a coherent national oceans policy. To address this gap, U.S. president Barack Obama created the Ocean Policy Task Force in 2009 to coordinate maritime issues across local, state, and federal levels, and to provide a strategic vision for how oceans should be managed in the United States. The task force led to the creation of a National Ocean Council, which is responsible for "developing strategic action plans to achieve nine priority objectives that address some of the most pressing challenges facing the ocean, our coasts, and Great Lakes." Although it has yet to make serious gains (PDF), this comprehensive oceans policy framework could help clear the way for the spadework of coordinating U.S. ocean governance and harmonizing international efforts.
Should the United States ratify the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea?
Yes: The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which created the governance framework that manages nearly three-quarters of the earth's surface, has been signed and ratified by 162 countries and the European Union. But the United States remains among only a handful of countries to have signed but not yet ratified the treaty—even though it already treats many of the provisions as customary international law. Leaders on both sides of the political aisle as well as environmental, conservation, business, industry, and security groups have endorsed ratification in order to preserve national security interests and reap its myriad benefits, such as securing rights for U.S. commercial and naval ships and boosting the competitiveness of U.S. companies in seafaring activities. Notably, all of the uniformed services—and especially the U.S. Navy—strongly support UNCLOS because its provisions would only serve to strengthen U.S. military efforts. By remaining a nonparty, the United States lacks the credibility to promote its own interests in critical decision-making forums as well as bring complaints to an international dispute resolution body.
No: Opponents argue that ratifying the treaty would cede sovereignty to an ineffective United Nations and constrain U.S. military and commercial activities. In particular, critics object to specific provisions including taxes on activities on outer continental shelves; binding dispute settlements; judicial activism by the Law of the Sea Tribunal, especially with regard to land-based sources of pollution; and the perceived ability of UNCLOS to curtail U.S. intelligence-gathering activities. Lastly, critics argue that because UNCLOS is already treated as customary international law, the United States has little to gain from formal accession.
Should the United States lead an initiative to expand the Container Security Initiative globally?
Yes: Some experts say the only way to secure a global economic system is to implement a global security solution. The U.S.-led Container Security Initiative (CSI) helps ensure that high-risk containers are identified and isolated before they reach their destination. Fifty-eight countries are already on board with the initiative, and many others have expressed interest in modeling their own security measures on the CSI. The World Customs Organization called on its members to develop programs based on the CSI, and the European Union agreed to expand the initiative across its territory. With its robust operational experience, the United States is well positioned to provide the technical expertise to ensure the integrity of the container system.
No: Opponents maintain that the United States can hardly commit its tax dollars abroad for a global security system when it has failed to secure its own imports. To date, more than $800 million and considerable diplomatic energy has been invested in CSI to expand the program to fifty-eight international ports, where agents are stationed to screen high-risk containers. Given the scale of world trade, the United States imports more than 10 million containers annually, and only a handful of high-risk boxes can be targeted for inspection. After huge expenditures and years of hard work to expand this program after September 11, 2001, only about 86 percent of the cargo that enters the United States transits through foreign ports covered under CSI, and of that, only about 1 percent is actually inspected (at a cost to the U.S. taxpayer of more than $1,000 per container). Despite congressional mandates to screen all incoming containers, critics say that costs make implementing this mandate virtually impossible. The limited resources the United States has available, they argue, should be invested in protecting imports bound specifically for its shores.
Should the United States be doing more to address the drastic decline in the world's fisheries?
Yes: Advocates say that the further demise of global fish stocks, beyond being a moral burden, undermines the commercial and national security interests of the United States. Depleting fish stocks are driven in large part by the prevalence of illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing and the overcapitalization of the global commercial fishing fleet from domestic subsidies. To protect domestic commercial fisheries and the competitiveness of U.S. exports in the international seafood market, the United States should enhance efforts by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to manage, enforce, and coordinate technical assistance for nations engaging in IUU fishing.
Domestically, the United States has taken important steps to address the critical gaps in fisheries management. In 2012, it became the first country to impose catch limits on all federally-managed fish species. Some species like the mahi mahi will be restricted for the first time in history. Many environmental experts hailed the move as a potential model for broader regional and international sustainable fisheries policy. To capitalize on such gains, the United States should aggressively work to reduce fishing subsidies in areas such as Europe that promote overcapitalization and thus global depletion of fish stocks. The United States could also promote market-based mechanisms, like catch shares and limited access privilege programs, to help fishermen and their communities curb overfishing and raise the value of global fisheries by up to $36 billion.
No: Critics argue that fisheries management is by and large a domestic issue, and that the United States has little right to tell other nations how to manage their own resources, particularly when such measures could harm local economies. They contend that the science behind overfishing is exaggerated, as are the warnings about the consequences of an anticipated fisheries collapse. Existing conventions like the 1995 Fish Stock Agreement already go far enough in addressing this issue. Any additional efforts, they contend, would be a diplomatic overreach, as well as an excessive burden on a struggling commercial fishing industry. Critics also question how market-based mechanisms, such as catch-shares, would be distributed, traded, and enforced, warning that they would lead to speculative bubbles.
Should the United States push for a more defined multilateral strategy to cope with the melting Arctic?
Yes: The melting Arctic holds important untapped political, strategic, and economic potential for the U.S. government, military, and businesses. This emerging frontier could potentially support a variety of economic activities, including energy exploration, marine commerce, and sustainable development of new fisheries. Countries such as Russia, Canada, Norway, and China have already made claims to the region, yet the United States remains on the sideline without a comprehensive Arctic strategy. The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) remains the premier forum of negotiating and arbitrating disputes over contested territory. As a nonparty, however, the United States loses invaluable leverage and position. In addition, the U.S. military does not have a single icebreaker, whereas Russia operates over thirty. Experts argue that the U.S. government should also adopt the recently proposed Polar Code, which is a voluntary agreement that "sets structural classifications and standards for ships operating in the Arctic as well as specific navigation and emergency training for those operating in or around ice-covered waters."
No: Opponents argue that Arctic Council activities and the 2009 National Security Presidential Directive, which updated U.S. Arctic polices, are sufficient. Any collaboration with Canada to resolve disputes over the Northwest Passage might undermine freedom of navigation for U.S. naval assets elsewhere, especially in the Strait of Hormuz and the Taiwan Straits, and this national security concern trumps any advantages from collaborating on security, economic, or environmental issues in the Arctic. Last, given the dominant Russian and Canadian Arctic coastlines, future Arctic diplomacy might best be handled bilaterally rather than through broader multilateral initiatives.
April 2013: Japan included in Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations
Japan agreed to join negotiations over the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), an ambitious free trade agreement between counties along the Pacific rim. Since the broad outline of the agreement was introduced in November 2011, sixteen rounds of negotiations have thus far brought eleven countries together to discuss the TPP. The addition of Japan, a major economic force in the region, as the twelfth participant comes as an important step in creating a robust agreement. Already, the South China Sea is the second-busiest shipping lane in the world, and should the TTP become a reality, transpacific shipping would dramatically increase. The seventeenth round of negotiations will take place in May and the current goal for agreement is October 2013.
March 2013: IMO pledges to support implementation of new code of conduct on piracy
At a ministerial meeting in Cotonou, Benin, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) pledged to support the implementation of a new code of conduct on piracy and other illicit maritime activity. The Gulf of Guinea Code of Conduct, drafted by the Economic Community of Central African States and the Economic Community of West African States, in partnership with the IMO, contains provisions for interdicting sea- and land-based vehicles engaged in illegal activities at sea, prosecuting suspected criminals, and sharing information between state parties. The code builds on several existing frameworks to create a sub-regional coast guard. The agreement is set to open for signature in May 2013.
March 2013: New fishing restrictions on sharks and rays
Delegates attending the annual meeting on the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) voted to place robust export restrictions on five species of sharks and two species of manta rays. Over the past fifty years, the three shark species—the oceanic whitetip, hammerhead, and porbeagle—have declined by more than 70 percent. Although experts cautioned that the new rules would be difficult to enforce in practice, the decision marked an important victory over economic interests, particularly of China and Japan.
January 2013: Philippines to challenge China's maritime claims in South China Sea
The Philippine government announced its intention to take China to an international arbitration tribunal based on claims that China violated the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. The dispute dates back to mid-2012, when tensions flared over the Scarborough shoal, which is claimed by both countries.
China, Taiwan, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei, and the Philippines have competing territorial and jurisdictional claims to the South China Sea, particularly over rights to exploit its potentially vast oil and gas reserves. Control over strategic shipping lanes and freedom of navigation are also increasingly contested, especially between the United States and China.
September 2012: Arctic ice reaches record low
In September 2012, ice in the Arctic Ocean reached an all-time low of 24 percent, shattering the previous record of 29 percent from 2007. The finding not only has implications for climate change and environmental stability, but also for heightened competition among states jockeying for access to critical resources in the region. For the first time, the melting Arctic has exposed troves of natural resources including oil, gas, and minerals, as well as newly accessible shipping routes. The United States, Russia, and several European states already control parts of the Arctic, and China is also an increasing presence.
September 2012: Tensions flare in the East China Sea
In September 2012, Japan purchased three islands in the East China Sea that form part of the Senkaku Islands, known as the Diaoyu Islands to the Chinese. The islands, claimed by both countries, have been controlled by Japan since 1895, but sovereignty remains hotly contested. Following Japan's announcement, protests broke out across China, and Chinese leaders accused Japan of "severely infringing" upon their sovereignty.
In a move to affirm its claim to the islands, China announced its intention to submit their objections to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf under the UNCLOS, and dispatched patrol ships to monitor the islands. In December 2012, tensions flared after a Chinese small aircraft flew into airspace over the islands, and both countries sent naval vessels to patrol nearby waters. Both sides remain adamant that there is no room for negotiations over their control of the islands, which are in close proximity to strategic shipping routes, fishing grounds, and potentially lucrative oil reserves.
Options for Strengthening Global Ocean Governance
There are a series of measures, both formal and informal, that can be taken to strengthen U.S. and global ocean governance. First, the United States must begin by finally ratifying the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. On this foundation, the United States should then tap hitherto underused regimes, update twentieth-century agreements to reflect modern ocean challenges, and, in some cases, serve as the diplomatic lead in pioneering new institutions and regimes. These recommendations reflect the views of Stewart M. Patrick, senior fellow and director of the International Institutions and Global Governance Program, and Scott G. Borgerson, former visiting fellow for ocean governance.
In the near term, the United States and its international partners should consider the following steps:
- Ratify UNCLOS
The United States should finally join the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), an action that would give it further credibility and make the United States a full partner in global ocean governance. This carefully negotiated agreement has been signed and ratified by 162 countries and the European Union. Yet despite playing a central role shaping UNCLOS's content, the United States has conspicuously failed to join. It remains among only a handful of countries with a coastline, including Syria, North Korea, and Iran, not to have done so.
Emerging issues such as the melting Arctic lend increased urgency to U.S. ratification. By rejecting UNCLOS, the United States is freezing itself out of important international policymaking bodies, forfeiting a seat at decision-making forums critical to economic growth and national security interests. One important forum where the United States has no say is the commission vested with the authority to validate countries' claims to extend their exclusive economic zones, a process that is arguably the last great partitioning of sovereign space on earth. As a nonparty to the treaty, the United States is forgoing an opportunity to extend its national jurisdiction over a vast ocean area on its Arctic, Atlantic, and Gulf coasts—equal to almost half the size of the Louisiana Purchase—and abdicating an opportunity to have a say in deliberations over other nations' claims elsewhere.
Furthermore, the convention allows for an expansion of U.S. sovereignty by extending U.S. sea borders, guaranteeing the freedom of ship and air traffic, and enhancing the legal tools available to combat piracy and illicit trafficking. Potential participants in U.S.-organized flotillas and coalitions rightly question why they should assist the United States in enforcing the rule of law when the United States refuses to recognize the convention that guides the actions of virtually every other nation.
- Coordinate national ocean policies for coastal states
The creation of a comprehensive and integrated U.S. oceans policy should be immediately followed by similar efforts in developing maritime countries, namely Brazil, Russia, India, and China (BRIC) . These so-called BRIC nations will be critical players in crafting domestic ocean policies that together form a coherent tapestry of global governance. Ideally, such emerging powers would designate a senior government official, and in some cases the head of state, to liaison with other coastal states and regional bodies to coordinate ocean governance policies and respond to new threats. Consistent with the Regional Seas Program, the ripest opportunity for these efforts is at the regional level. With UN assistance, successful regional initiatives could then be harmonized and expanded globally.
- Place a moratorium on critically endangered commercial fisheries
Commercial fishing, a multi-billion dollar industry in the United States, is in grave danger. The oceans have been overfished, and it is feared that many fish stocks may not rebound. In the last fifty years, fish that were previously considered inexhaustible have been reduced to alarmingly low levels. Up to 90 percent of large predatory fish are now gone. Nearly half of fish stocks in the world have been fully exploited and roughly one-third have been overexploited. The recent imposition of catch limits on all federally-managed fish species is an important and long overdue first step, which should be expanded and strengthened to a moratorium on the most endangered commercial fisheries, such as the Atlantic blue fin tuna. But tuna is hardly alone in this predicament, and numerous other species are facing the same fate. Policymakers should stand up to intense political pressure and place fishing moratoriums on the most threatened fisheries to give them a chance to rebound. Doing so would be a courageous act that would help rescue collapsing fish while creating a commercially sustainable resource.
In the longer term, the United States and its international partners should consider the following steps:
- Strengthen and update UNCLOS
The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and related agreements serve as the bedrock of international ocean policy. However, UNCLOS is thirty years old. If it is to remain relevant and effective, it must be strengthened and updated to respond to emerging threats such as transnational crime and marine pollution, as well as employing market-based principles of catch shares to commercial fisheries, especially in the high seas. Lastly, UNCLOS Article 234, which applies to ice-covered areas, should be expanded to better manage the opening Arctic, which will be an area of increasing focus and international tension over the coming years.
The international community should also counter the pressure of coastal states that unilaterally seek to push maritime borders seaward, as illustrated by China's claim to all of the South China Sea. Additionally, states should focus on using UNCLOS mechanisms to resolve nagging maritime conflicts, such as overlapping exclusive economic zones from extended continental shelf claims, and sovereignty disputes, such as that of the Spratly and Hans Islands.
- Bolster enforcement capacity
Many ocean-related governance issues have shortcomings not because rules for better management do not exist, but because weak states cannot enforce them. A failure in the oversight of sovereign waters inevitably leads to environmental degradation and, in cases like Somalia, can morph into problems with global implications, such as piracy. Accordingly, the international community should help less developed coastal states build the capacity to enforce (1) fisheries rules fleets; (2) International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution From Ships regulations to reduce ocean dumping and pollution; (3) other shipping regulations in states with open registries such as Liberia, Panama, Malta, and the Marshall Islands; (4) and existing mandates created to stop illicit trafficking. Developed countries should also help less developed areas monitor environmental variables such as acidification, coral reefs, and fisheries.


Restoring a Waterway for the 21st Century
A resource for the local community and a habitat for wildlife
You may not have heard of the Wilts & Berks Canal as it has been derelict for nearly a century. There are ambitious plans to bring the waterway back to life.
Its called the Wilts & Berks because it is said that a lazy draughtsman could not be bothered to write in full the county names!
Swindon is mid point of the waterway which linked the Thames at Abingdon with the Kennet & Avon Canal near Melksham.
A further link was made from Swindon to the Thames & Severn Canal at Cricklade (The North Wilts Canal). There were also branches to Chippenham, Calne, Longcot (near Shrivenham) and Wantage. The waterway now is located in Wiltshire Swindon and Oxfordshire since Local Government boundary changes in the 1970's.
The Wilts and Berks Trust is committed to returning this historic waterway to a navigable state. The canal will restore an important link in the national waterways network, but the project will be part of the green infrastructure of the region, creating connections between existing wildlife habitats and creating aquatic and wetland habitats for endangered species.
Working with our partners we aim to restore the canal route, provide wildlife habitats, cycleways and routes for walkers along the restored towpath.
The Trust would like your help to complete this exciting project- please explore this website to find out more.
Latest news follow us on Twitter Donate on line


Integrated Circuits are found in every conceivable electronic device, and control the on-off behavior of a device capable of conductive behavior. They evolved from vacuum tubes and transistors to incorporate hundreds of thousands of transistors on a single chip today.
IC's and semiconductors now control computing, communications, networking, and other facets of daily modern life. They are created by "etching" a pattern onto a semiconductor platform, such as silicon, which can then be controlled by exposure to electrical current.
Semiconductors are the individual "on-off" switches that make up a electronic devices. By only allowing the conductance of electricity in specific situations (as opposed to conductors and insulators), semiconductors can produce complex and sophisticated behaviors, calculations, and measurements. By working in tandem, many semiconductors can constitute an mp3 player, computer processor, or wireless network adapter.


WebMD Medical News
Daniel J. DeNoon
Louise Chang, MD
Oct. 9, 2012 – About 13,000 people in 23 states got the fungus-contaminated steroid pain shots in the ongoing outbreak of fungal meningitis.
So far, 119 people who got the shots have come down with fungal infections of the fluid surrounding their spinal cords and brains.
Eleven of those people have died. The case count rises daily, as symptoms of fungal infection can take up to a month to appear, and there's often a delay in case reporting.
Most of the 13,000 who got the tainted shots will not get the infection, suggests John Jernigan, MD, director of the CDC's office of health care infection prevention, research, and evaluation.
"The attack rate is still to be determined, but so far it appears that the vast majority of patients who received the injection have not developed evidence of meningitis," Jernigan says in an email. "But the investigation is ongoing, and exposed patients and their physicians should be vigilant for signs of illness."
All of the fungal infections to date have been in patients who received spinal injections. Some of the patients who received the contaminated steroids got shots in painful joints such as the knee or elbow. To date, none of these patients has reported a fungal infection.
The source of the outbreak is a compounding pharmacy called New England Compounding Center (NECC). The company makes more than 2,400 different medicines sold throughout the U.S. All have been recalled.
All cases so far have been in patients who received one of 17,676 single-shot vials of a steroid, methylprednisolone, since May 21, 2012. An FDA investigation of the NECC facility, including studies of whether other medications might be contaminated, is ongoing.
There haven't yet been any reports of fungal infection in patients who got joint injections of the NECC steroids. Even so, the CDC is warning such patients to be on the lookout for symptoms of fungal infection:
Patients who have such symptoms should see a doctor for further tests. Doctors likely will collect joint fluid to test it for fungal infection.
If you suspect you may have received a dose of contaminated medicine, contact the health provider who gave it to you. Ask if the medication came from NECC. All NECC products carry the NECC logo.
Clinics that gave the suspect shots are contacting all patients to warn them to look out for symptoms. Symptoms may appear one to four weeks after getting a pain injection.
For patients who got spinal injections, early symptoms may be very mild. At first, most patients only feel a little worse than usual. For example, patients with back pain may feel slightly worse pain, or slightly more weakness.
The CDC warns patients who have had a spinal steroid shot since May 21, 2012, to call a doctor immediately if they have any of these symptoms:
Treatment of fungal meningitis is complicated. Antifungal drugs must be given intravenously, every day. At least at first, patients should be treated in a hospital.
Treatment often lasts for several months, and can have serious side effects.
As of Oct. 9, the CDC reports deaths and cases in these states:
SOURCES:Curtis Allen, public information officer, CDC, email interview.CDC web site.FDA web site.David Kibbe, public information officer, Massachusetts Department of Health.


A grooved pulley wheel like that used for ropes is called a sheave. A single sheave mounted in a block and fixed in place simply changes the direction of force exerted on the rope passing over it. If the end of the rope that ordinarily would attach to the load is passed around a second, unfixed pulley and back to the fixed pulley, a load attached to the free pulley can be raised with half the effort, or with a mechanical advantage of 2. Thus arranged, the device is called a block and tackle. The number of pulley wheels mounted in the fixed and free blocks can be increased indefinitely to get a higher and higher mechanical advantage, the mechanical advantage equaling the number of strands running to the free pulley. Therefore if the rope is run over the first fixed pulley wheel, around the free pulley, over a second pulley wheel in the fixed block, and back to the free block, the mechanical advantage is 3. A 300-lb load can be raised by a pull of 100 lb on the free end of the rope. To raise the load 10 ft, however, the free end of the rope must be pulled 30 ft.
Disregarding friction, work output will always equal work input. If the action is reversed by attaching the load to the free end of the rope and pulling on the free block, the mechanical advantage becomes a mechanical disadvantage, but a speed advantage. A rope block and tackle is usually for hand operation. To lift larger loads by hand, a chain is substituted for the rope and the pulleys have grooves for gripping the links. A differential pulley consists of two pulleys of different radii connected and rotating as one on a common axle. The pulleys have their circumferences grooved and spiked so that a chain will run in them without slipping. Over the pulleys an endless chain is run, forming two hanging loops. In one loop is placed a movable block, whose pulley is shaped to take the chain. The load is attached to the movable block and is raised by pulling on the other loop of the chain.
Power-operated machinery usually has cables, as in vertical-lift drawbridges, power shovels, and cranes. Before the extensive use of electric motors, steam engines or water turbines often supplied the power for factory machinery. One engine or turbine might run a whole factory through a complicated system of shafts, pulleys, and belts. Pulleys for flat belts are crowned to keep the belt centered. Raised flanges will serve the same purpose, but they wear the edges of the belt. Drive pulleys for conveyor belts often have a covering, called lagging, to provide better grip. Individual electric motors usually provide drive by means of V belts, the pulleys having raised flanges to form slots that match the trapezoidal cross sections of the belts. Cone pulleys consist of a number of pulleys of varying diameters massed in the shape of a cone. They are used with belt drives for machines (e.g., lathes) requiring a variety of speeds.
In mechanics, a wheel that carries a flexible rope, cord, cable, chain, or belt on its rim. Pulleys are used singly or in combination to transmit energy and motion. In belt drives, pulleys are attached to shafts at their axes, and power is transmitted between the shafts by means of endless belts running over the pulleys. One or more independently rotating pulleys can be used to gain mechanical advantage, especially for lifting weights. The shafts around which the pulleys turn may attach them to frames or blocks, and a combination of pulleys, blocks, and rope is called a block and tackle. The pulley is considered one of the five simple machines.
Learn more about pulley with a free trial on Britannica.com.
A pulley (also called a sheave or block) is a wheel with a groove between two flanges around its circumference. A rope, cable or belt usually runs inside the groove. Pulleys are used to change the direction of an applied force, transmit rotational motion, or realize a mechanical advantage in either a linear or rotational system of motion.
A belt and pulley system is characterized by two or more pulleys in common to a belt. This allows for mechanical power, torque, and speed to be transmitted across axes and, if the pulleys are of differing diameters, a mechanical advantage to be realized.
A belt drive is analogous to that of a chain drive, however a belt sheave may be smooth (devoid of discrete interlocking members as would be found on a chain sprocket, spur gear, or timing belt) so that the mechanical advantage is given by the ratio of the pitch diameter of the sheaves only (one is not able to count 'teeth' to determine gear ratio).
Belt and pulley systems can be very efficient, with stated efficiencies up to 98%.
In a system of a single rope and pulleys, when friction is neglected, the mechanical advantage gained can be calculated by counting the number of rope lengths exerting force on the load. Since the tension in each rope length is equal to the force exerted on the free end of the rope, the mechanical advantage is simply equal to the number of ropes pulling on the load. For example, in Diagram 3 below, there is one rope attached to the load, and 2 rope lengths extending from the pulley attached to the load, for a total of 3 ropes supporting it. If the force applied to the free end of the rope is 10 lb, each of these rope lengths will exert a force of 10 lb. on the load, for a total of 30 lb. So the mechanical advantage is 3.
The force on the load is increased by the mechanical advantage; however the distance the load moves, compared to the length the free end of the rope moves, is decreased in the same proportion. Since a slender cable is more easily managed than a fat one (albeit shorter and stronger), pulley systems are often the preferred method of applying mechanical advantage to the pulling force of a winch (as can be found in a lift crane).
Pulley systems are the only simple machines in which the possible values of mechanical advantage are limited to whole numbers.
In practice, the more pulleys there are, the less efficient a system is. This is due to sliding friction in the system where cable meets pulley and in the rotational mechanism of each pulley.
It is not recorded when or by whom the pulley was first developed. It is believed however that Archimedes developed the first documented block and tackle pulley system, as recorded by Plutarch. Plutarch reported that Archimedes moved an entire warship, laden with men, using compound pulleys and his own strength.
These are different types of pulley systems:
The simplest theory of operation for a pulley system assumes that the pulleys and lines are weightless, and that there is no energy loss due to friction. It is also assumed that the lines do not stretch.
In equilibrium, the total force on the pulley must be zero. This means that the force on the axle of the pulley is shared equally by the two lines looping through the pulley. The situation is schematically illustrated in diagram 1. For the case where the lines are not parallel, the tensions in each line are still equal, but now the vector sum of all forces is zero.
A second basic equation for the pulley follows from the conservation of energy: The product of the weight lifted times the distance it is moved is equal to the product of the lifting force (the tension in the lifting line) times the distance the lifting line is moved. The weight lifted divided by the lifting force is defined as the advantage of the pulley system.
It is important to notice that a system of pulleys does not change the amount of work done. The work is given by the force times the distance moved. The pulley simply allows trading force for distance: you pull with less force, but over a longer distance.
In diagram 2, a single movable pulley allows weight W to be lifted with only half the force needed to lift the weight without assistance. The total force needed is divided between the lifting force (red arrow) and the "ceiling" which is some immovable object (such as the earth). In this simple system, the lifting force is directed in the same direction as the movement of the weight. The advantage of this system is 2. Although the force needed to lift the weight is only W/2, we will need to draw a length of rope that is twice the distance that the weight is lifted, so that the total amount of work done (Force x distance) remains the same.
A second pulley may be added as in diagram 2a, which simply serves to redirect the lifting force downward, it does not change the advantage of the system.
The addition of a fixed pulley to the single pulley system can yield an increase of advantage. In diagram 3, the addition of a fixed pulley yields a lifting advantage of 3. The tension in each line is W/3, and the force on the axles of each pulley is 2W/3. As in the case of diagram 2a, another pulley may be added to reverse the direction of the lifting force, but with no increase in advantage. This situation is shown in diagram 3a.
This process can be continued indefinitely for ideal pulleys with each additional pulley yielding a unit increase in advantage. For real pulleys friction among rope and pulleys will increase as more pulleys are added to the point that no advantage is possible. It puts a limit for the number of pulleys usable in practice. The above pulley systems are known collectively as block and tackle pulley systems. In diagram 4a, a block and tackle system with advantage 4 is shown. A practical implementation in which the connection to the ceiling is combined and the fixed and movable pulleys are encased in single housings is shown in figure 4b.
Other pulley systems are possible, and some can deliver an increased advantage with fewer pulleys than the block and tackle system. The advantage of the block and tackle system is that each pulley and line is subjected to equal tensions and forces. Efficient design dictates that each line and pulley be capable of handling its load, and no more. Other pulley designs will require different strengths of line and pulleys depending on their position in the system, but a block and tackle system can use the same line size throughout, and can mount the fixed and movable pulleys on a common axle.
Shape up your pulleys: minimize costly downtime and extend conveyor belt life by keeping wing pulleys free of entrapped material.(SPECIAL SECTION: CONVEYING & MATERIAL HANDLING)
Aug 01, 2009; Consider the frequent task of dislodging material from the standard wing pulley. It's necessary yet annoying and time...


Measuring environmental impact
Our approach in adopting a responsible attitude to climate change starts with the assessment of the environmental impact of each stage in our products' life by the means of a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA).
As part of our internal environmental program, Ecophon has carried out LCAs on our products in collaboration with Ecobilan SA (Pricewaterhouse Coopers), and according to the international ISO 14040 to ISO 14044 series of standards.
To give you an overview of the process and an idea of our products' carbon footprint, we will consider a fictitious panel, the "Ecophon index sound-absorbing acoustic panel" based on the most common physical characteristics of Ecophon products:
Format: 1000 x 1000mm
Edge design: Edge E
Surface: Akutex FT
Weight: 1.5 kg/m2
Based on "cradle-to-grave" LCA calculations, the total carbon footprint of our fictitious panel is 2.7kg CO2/m2, from extraction of raw materials through to the end-of-life phase (landfill). Click on the links below to find out more about the various phases of our panel's life and its environmental impact.


Skip to main content
More Search Options
A member of our team will call you back within one business day.
Low blood sugar (hypoglycemia) occurs when there is too little glucose (sugar) in your child’s blood. It can be caused by skipping meals or snacks, eating too little food, or taking too much insulin or diabetes medication. A lot of physical activity can also cause low blood sugar, even hours later. In severe cases, low blood sugar can lead to seizures or passing out.
Everyone’s symptoms are different. Your child may feel dizzy, weak, hungry, headachy, or shaky. Your child may seem cranky or confused. If lows happen very often over time, your child may no longer be able to sense them. Encourage your child to recognize his or her symptoms and tell you about them right away.
Stay calm so you can better help your child.
Check your child’s blood sugar to make sure that it is low. If you’re not able to check, treat for low blood sugar anyway.
Give your child 15 to 20 grams of fast-acting sugar such as 3 to 4 glucose tablets, a glass of nonfat milk, or 4 ounces (½ cup) of juice or regular soda. Diet soda will not help at all. Chocolate, cookies, and other fatty sweets will not work as quickly.
If possible, recheck blood sugar in 15 minutes. If it is still low, give your child another 15 to 20 grams of fast-acting sugar.
Once your child’s blood sugar is normal, give your child a snack or meal to eat.
If your child’s blood sugar does not go back up, call the doctor or take your child to the emergency room.
Be sure your child eats meals and snacks on time, and eats before exercising.
Have your child carry fast-acting sugar.
Don’t inject insulin near a muscle that’s going to be exercised.
Check your child’s blood sugar often, especially after exercise and at bedtime.
Keep fast-acting sugars handy.
Check blood sugar often, especially after activity and before bed.
For severe low blood sugar, your child may need a glucagon injection. Ask your child’s healthcare provider about glucagon emergency kits for home and school.


Modern laparoscopic surgeries may be minimally invasive, but they still require multiple incisions. To make laparoscopies even less intrusive, scientists and surgeons at Columbia University and Vanderbilt University have built a robot that can enter the body through a single 15-millimeter incision or through a natural opening like the mouth. Once inside the body the robot, which has not yet been tested in humans, unfolds like a NASA spaceship, communicates its position through a wire connected to an external computer, and follows instructions to advance, stop, tie sutures and perform other actions. It comes with a camera that tracks the movements of surgical instruments and projects them onto a computer console. Developers say it could perform appendectomies, hysterectomies, some types of kidney surgery, and possibly ear and throat surgery.
The Insertable Robotic Effector Platform (IREP) is entering animal testing this fall and could be available within five years. Until now, no study has offered conclusive proof that robotic surgery trumps traditional laparoscopic techniques, but IREP's developers say it is lighter and cheaper than da Vinci, the leading surgical system. “There is definitely a potential here,” says William Lowrance, a robotic surgery expert at the University of Utah, adding that it might offer more dexterity and precision than traditional laparoscopic tools.
This article was originally published with the title The Robot Will See You Now.


Posted September 1st, 2002
It's like "something from a bad horror movie"! This is how Maryland's Interior Secretary Gale Norton described the most widely reported environmental emergency
The emergency? The Asian snakehead fish.
The snakehead is an intriguing fish native to China. They have a voracious appetite, gobbling up everything they can get their teeth on. This includes other fish,
birds, frogs, and even their own offspring. Snakeheads seem to defy nature by being able to crawl on dry land for several days at a time, searching for prey.
In their native habitat, these three-foot oddities have natural predators and a specific habitat. However, in a small town in Crofton, Maryland (near Washington, D.C.),
the snakeheads made an unscheduled appearance.
A local resident bought the fish from a market in New York to make soup for an ailing relative. He kept the fish alive at home, but soon his relative got better and
the cost of feeding the carnivorous fish became too much. Hoping to get rid of the creatures, he dumped them in the pond.
In only a short amount of time, the snakehead fish thrived, producing more than 100 offspring. Even after state officials began treating the pond with herbicide in
hopes of killing off plant life and shutting down the oxygen supply to the fish, the snakeheads continued to survive. In fact, their uncanny nature to withstand treatment has earned
the snakeheads the nickname "frankenfish."
Maryland officials know that if the snakehead managed to escape the pond, they would wreak havoc in the local ecosystem. There are no natural predators of the snakehead
in Maryland, and officials feared that it would have a devastating affect on the local environment - especially if they reached the Little Patuxent River, which is located just 250 feet
from the pond.
As a secondary tactic, officials built a fence around the pond to catch any snakeheads slithering across the land. Then they sprayed the pond with a pesticide called
Rotenone. This poison blocks oxygen from getting to the fish's blood, killing them.
On September 4, 2002, officials sprayed the Rotenone onto the pond. The People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) lobbied against the use of the poison because
it was inhuman, however, they agreed that the fish must be destroyed in this particular habitat.
By Thursday morning, September 5, game officials claimed victory over the alien creatures. Eight hundred pounds of dead fish - including a large number of snakeheads
- floated to the surface. Countless others had sunk to the bottom and are expected to resurface when they start decomposing.
Use the Internet to research the snakehead fish. In your Science Journal, write an essay about what could happen if the snakeheads were released in the wild throughout


Even a modest backyard garden can result in an overabundance of homegrown fruits and vegetables, leading to wasted food. You don't have to stuff yourself full of excess produce, give it all away or let it rot - just can it. Home canning is a great way to preserve your garden harvest. Fresher and tastier than store-bought canned goods, home-canned food saves money and reduces packaging waste, too.
Food can be preserved in glass mason jars using either hot water bath or pressure canner methods. Heating the jars kills microorganisms that cause spoilage, and as the jars cool, air pressure seals the lids tightly. When stored in a dark, cool, dry location, sealed home-canned goods have a shelf life of about one year. Canning your produce is an ideal way to maintain a more local diet year-round, rather than relying on store-bought goods outside the growing season.
You can preserve virtually anything you grow in your garden with home canning. Get creative and add herbs, spices and other items to your fruits and vegetables, or make salsa, sauces and soups.
Home Canning Materials
To get started, you'll need the following items:
- Glass mason jars with lids and sealing rings, sterilized in boiling water and fully dried
- Large pot or pressure canner
- Canning rack, to hold jars inside the pot
- Wide-mouth funnel and ladle, to fill jars
- Tongs or jar lifters, to remove cans from the pot
- Home canning guide, such as the USDA's Complete Guide to Home Canning
The Basics of Canning Food
High-acid foods such as tomatoes, jams and jellies can be canned in a hot water bath. Sterilized jars are packed with food, sealed and completely submerged in boiling water for 5 to 85 minutes depending on the type of food and the size of the jars. Boiling removes the oxygen that remains in the jar to form a tight seal. This method can only be used with foods that have a pH of 4.6 or less, as the heat used isn't high enough to prevent the growth of a bacteria called Clostridium botulinum.
Modern pressure canners make home canning easier and safer than ever before, and come in a variety of sizes fitting up to two layers of pint-sized jars. Jars filled with food are placed on a rack inside the canner with 2-3 ices of water and processed at high temperatures. This method is ideal for low-acid foods including most vegetables.
Home canning is not difficult, but the risk of bacteria growth from improperly canned food requires careful attention to safety guidelines. Always follow instructions from a reliable source of home canning information, such as the National Center for Home Food Preservation.