Report on Proposed Amendments to the Marine Mammal Protection Act and Alignment with Sustainable Development Goals

1.0 Background: The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA)

• Enacted in 1972, the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) is a foundational U.S. law for marine conservation.
• Its primary objective is to maintain the health and stability of the marine ecosystem and ensure marine mammal populations are at optimum sustainable levels.
• Key provisions of the Act make it illegal to harass, capture, or kill any marine mammal.
• The Act provides a critical exception for the sustainable subsistence harvesting of marine mammals by Alaska Native peoples, an activity which directly supports their livelihoods and food security, aligning with SDG 1 (No Poverty) and SDG 2 (Zero Hunger).
• For over 50 years, the MMPA has provided a framework for robust research, tribal consultation, and public input on activities that could potentially harm marine life.

2.0 Analysis of Proposed Legislative Changes

• A proposed bill seeks to amend the MMPA, introducing significant changes to its core conservation tenets.
• The most critical change involves lowering the conservation standard for marine mammal populations from the current mandate of “health and abundance” to “continued survival.”
• This revised standard is projected to increase the vulnerability of marine species to injury and mortality, particularly from industrial activities such as offshore oil and gas development.

3.0 Implications for SDG 14: Life Below Water

The proposed amendments present significant challenges to the achievement of SDG 14, which aims to conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas, and marine resources for sustainable development. The legislation could negatively impact several key targets within this goal.

3.1 Marine Ecosystem Health and Pollution (Targets 14.1 & 14.2)

• The current MMPA framework supports the protection and restoration of marine ecosystems by regulating industrial activities and minimizing bycatch.
• Weakening the Act could facilitate increased industrial pressures, such as harmful noise pollution in Cook Inlet. This could threaten the highly imperiled beluga whale population and undermine efforts to protect vulnerable marine ecosystems, in direct opposition to Target 14.2 (sustainably manage and protect marine and coastal ecosystems).
• Increased industrial activity, including offshore oil exploration, heightens the risk of pollution, conflicting with Target 14.1 (prevent and significantly reduce marine pollution of all kinds).

3.2 Biodiversity and Species Protection

• The proposed “continued survival” standard contrasts sharply with the global goal of halting biodiversity loss.
• Species such as bowhead whales, walruses, and bearded seals in the northern Bering Sea and Arctic Ocean could face increased threats from newly emboldened offshore oil exploration and the expansion of destructive trawl fisheries.
• This directly conflicts with the conservation objectives of SDG 14 and SDG 15 (Life on Land), which includes preventing the extinction of threatened species.

4.0 Socio-Economic Impacts and Broader SDG Alignment

The legislative changes carry potential consequences for local economies and communities, impacting several SDGs beyond direct marine conservation.

1. SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth: A decline in marine mammal populations, particularly whales, could negatively affect the sustainable tourism sector. Whale-watching operations in Southeast Alaska and Prince William Sound, which are vital local businesses, could face economic hardship, undermining progress toward Target 8.9 (promote sustainable tourism).
2. SDG 1 & SDG 2: No Poverty & Zero Hunger: The proposed changes could indirectly threaten the food security and cultural heritage of Alaska Native communities. If unchecked industrial activities lead to a significant reduction in marine mammal populations, future restrictions on subsistence harvesting may become necessary, impacting the livelihoods and nutritional needs of these communities.
3. SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production: The proposed legislation is viewed as prioritizing extractive industries over environmental stewardship. This approach is inconsistent with the principles of sustainable management and the efficient use of natural resources as outlined in SDG 12.

5.0 Conclusion

• The proposed amendments to the Marine Mammal Protection Act represent a significant departure from the established conservation principles that have protected Alaska’s marine biodiversity for over five decades.
• An analysis indicates that the changes would directly impede the achievement of SDG 14 (Life Below Water) by weakening protections for marine species and ecosystems.
• Furthermore, the amendments pose risks to the attainment of SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth), SDG 1 (No Poverty), and SDG 2 (Zero Hunger) by threatening sustainable tourism and the subsistence rights of indigenous communities.
• Maintaining strong institutional frameworks for environmental protection, such as the current MMPA, is critical for ensuring the long-term health of marine ecosystems and the coastal communities that depend on them, in line with the overarching 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

Analysis of the Article in Relation to Sustainable Development Goals

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

1. SDG 14: Life Below Water

   This is the most central SDG to the article. The entire piece is a defense of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), a law designed to protect marine species like whales, walruses, polar bears, and seals in Alaska. The article discusses threats to these animals from industrial activities, pollution, and legislative changes, directly aligning with the goal of conserving and sustainably using the oceans and marine resources.

2. SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth

   The article connects the health of marine mammal populations to local economies. It explicitly states that a decline in whale populations would harm “the many whale-watching tour operators in Southeast Alaska or the Prince William Sound,” which are local businesses that depend on sustainable tourism. This links marine conservation directly to job security and economic prosperity in coastal communities.

3. SDG 2: Zero Hunger

   The article highlights the importance of marine mammals for Indigenous communities. It notes that the MMPA supports the “sustainable subsistence harvest of marine mammals by Alaska Native people.” It warns that if industrial activities harm these animal populations, it could lead to “future restrictions on Alaska Native subsistence harvest,” thereby threatening a crucial source of food security and cultural practice for these communities.

4. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

   The article focuses on a piece of legislation, the MMPA, describing it as a “landmark law” and a remarkably successful institutional framework for conservation. The conflict discussed is about an attempt to weaken this law (“gut the… Marine Mammal Protection Act”). The author’s call to “defend the Marine Mammal Protection Act” is a plea to maintain a strong, effective, and non-discriminatory law for sustainable development, which is a core aspect of SDG 16.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

• SDG 14: Life Below Water

  • Target 14.1: By 2025, prevent and significantly reduce marine pollution of all kinds. The article mentions the need to minimize damage from industrial activities and warns that weakening the MMPA could allow industries to “further pollute places like Cook Inlet with harmful, loud noise.”
  • Target 14.2: By 2020, sustainably manage and protect marine and coastal ecosystems to avoid significant adverse impacts. The article’s entire purpose is to advocate for the protection of marine ecosystems and the mammals within them. It states the MMPA “seeks to protect the special ecosystems marine mammals rely on.”
  • Target 14.4: By 2020, effectively regulate harvesting and end destructive fishing practices. The article mentions that the MMPA helps by “reducing bycatch in fisheries” and warns against the “northward expansion of destructive trawl fisheries.”

• SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth

  • Target 8.9: By 2030, devise and implement policies that promote sustainable tourism that creates jobs. The article directly links the protection of whales to the viability of “whale-watching tour operators,” stating that “with fewer whales, these local businesses could struggle.” This supports the promotion of sustainable tourism as a source of local employment.

• SDG 2: Zero Hunger

  • Target 2.4: By 2030, ensure sustainable food production systems and implement resilient agricultural practices that… help maintain ecosystems. The article discusses the “sustainable subsistence harvest of marine mammals by Alaska Native people” as a key food system. It warns that unchecked industrial activities could “dramatically [reduce] marine mammal populations,” threatening this food source.

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

  • Target 16.b: Promote and enforce non-discriminatory laws and policies for sustainable development. The MMPA is presented as a key policy for sustainable development. The article is a call to action to enforce and protect this law (“Alaskans must defend the Marine Mammal Protection Act”) against rollbacks that favor corporate interests over conservation and community well-being.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

• Indicators for SDG 14 (Life Below Water)

  • Population health and abundance of marine mammal species: The article contrasts the current MMPA mandate of “health and abundance” with the proposed, weaker standard of “continued survival.” This implies that the population size and health of species like the “highly imperiled beluga whale” are key indicators of the ecosystem’s condition.
  • Level of marine pollution: The mention of “harmful, loud noise” from industrial activities and potential pollution in Cook Inlet suggests that levels of acoustic and chemical pollution are relevant indicators.
  • Rate of marine mammal bycatch: The article explicitly states that one success of the MMPA is “reducing bycatch in fisheries,” making this a clear indicator of progress in sustainable fishing practices.

• Indicator for SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth)

  • Economic viability of local sustainable tourism businesses: The article implies that the success of “whale-watching tour operators” is a direct indicator of a healthy marine environment. A decline in their business would indicate a failure to protect the natural assets they depend on.

• Indicator for SDG 2 (Zero Hunger)

  • Volume and sustainability of subsistence harvests: The article refers to the “sustainable subsistence harvest of marine mammals by Alaska Native people.” The ability of these communities to continue this practice without restriction and without depleting the animal populations serves as an indicator of both ecosystem health and food security.

• Indicator for SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions)

  • Legal status and enforcement of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA): The central issue of the article is the proposed weakening of this law. Therefore, the continued existence, strength, and enforcement of the MMPA itself is the primary indicator of whether strong institutions for environmental protection are being upheld.

4. Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: adn.com