According to the Kasperson and Pijawka model, the selection of an effective management strategy depends on an assessment of the amount of intelligence (i.e., first-hand information) that can be collected to support interventions, and the degree of control—direct or indirect—that can be exercised over the target community. The same approach can be used to identify elements of an effective Annex V implementation strategy.
There are obvious limits on the federal government's information-gathering and control capabilities. The mandates of Annex V are difficult to enforce directly, and MARPOL depends on seafarers to continue to comply even when beyond sight of land. In the United States, federal enforcement depends on reporting of incidents and vessel boardings1 in port to a far greater extent than on surveillance at sea. Furthermore, because vessel operators may select from a range of compliance options, no single indicator can serve as proof that a vessel has complied with or violated the law. Individual infractions at sea are almost impossible to detect, and violators are difficult to prosecute unless witnesses come forth.
Even when garbage washes ashore that may have been discharged from a vessel, the burden remains on the enforcement agency to prove which mariner is the violator—often an impossible task. Thus, implementation of Annex V cannot rely solely on the government's ability to identify violators and enforce the law. Fortunately, the government is not the only party capable of gathering intelligence. As will become evident in this chapter, private managers, vessel operators and passengers, or other members of the maritime community may be in better positions to monitor practices than are government officials.
In ensuring compliance with pollution laws, the first line of control is direct government regulation. In some maritime sectors, government licenses, certificates, or other approvals may be withheld if a mariner, vessel, or port fails to comply with the law. Even when that authority is absent, there may be opportunities to exert indirect control if a fleet is subject to federal regulation for another purpose directly tied to mariners' livelihood.
Federal control capabilities vary by sector. Some fleets, notably cargo vessels and passenger cruise lines, are regulated directly by the Coast Guard. Military and public fleets, as arms of government, also are subject to direct control. Many commercial fishing vessels are regulated indirectly by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) through fisheries management and, on matters of
Sign in to access your saved publications, downloads, and email preferences.
Former MyNAP users: You'll need to reset your password on your first login to MyAcademies. Click "Forgot password" below to receive a reset link via email. Having trouble? Visit our FAQ page to contact support.
Members of the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, or National Academy of Medicine should log in through their respective Academy portals.
Thank you for creating a MyAcademies account!
Enjoy free access to thousands of National Academies' publications, a 10% discount off every purchase, and build your personal library.
Enter the email address for your MyAcademies (formerly MyNAP) account to receive password reset instructions.
We sent password reset instructions to your email . Follow the link in that email to create a new password. Didn't receive it? Check your spam folder or contact us for assistance.
Your password has been reset.
Verify Your Email Address
We sent a verification link to your email. Please check your inbox (and spam folder) and follow the link to verify your email address. If you did not receive the email, you can request a new verification link below