Proposed Amendments to U.S. Marine Mammal Protection Act Raise Concerns for SDG 14

Executive Summary

A U.S. House of Representatives subcommittee is deliberating a draft bill that proposes significant changes to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). This legislative review has initiated a critical debate among policymakers, conservation groups, and scientific institutions regarding the potential impacts on marine biodiversity and the United States’ commitment to Sustainable Development Goal 14 (Life Below Water). While proponents argue for modernizing the 50-year-old act, opponents warn that the changes could dismantle crucial protections for marine mammals.

Threats to Marine Conservation and SDG 14

Conservation organizations, including The Marine Mammal Center, have voiced strong opposition to the proposed amendments, highlighting their potential to undermine decades of progress in marine conservation, a cornerstone of SDG 14.

• Erosion of Protections: Dr. Jeff Boehm of The Marine Mammal Center stated that the proposed language would effectively “tear up” existing clauses designed to mitigate harm to marine mammals, rendering the remaining protections “negligible.”
• Jeopardizing Biodiversity: The current MMPA is credited with preventing the extinction of any marine mammal species in U.S. waters and facilitating the recovery of populations such as whales, dolphins, and sea otters. Weakening the act directly conflicts with SDG Target 14.2, which calls for the sustainable management and protection of marine and coastal ecosystems.
• Contradicting Past Success: Opponents note the irony of proposing these changes shortly after the 50th anniversary of the MMPA, which has been celebrated as a global model for effective environmental legislation.

Arguments for Legislative Modernization

Proponents of the bill, including former U.S. Senator Mark Begich, advocate for updating the act to address perceived inefficiencies. This perspective aligns with principles of institutional effectiveness under SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions).

• Addressing Ambiguity: The primary argument for the change is that the MMPA’s “vague or overly precautionary standards” have led to “confusion, delay and unintended harm” in its implementation over the decades.
• Improving Efficiency: The goal is to modernize the act to ensure it functions effectively in the current context, more than 50 years after its initial passage.

Legislative Deliberation and Scientific Input

The subcommittee’s hearing process reflects SDG Target 16.7, which emphasizes inclusive and participatory decision-making. However, the scientific community has largely sided against the proposed changes, underscoring the importance of science-based policymaking for achieving the SDGs.

1. The Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries convened to hear testimony from both supporters and opponents of the draft bill.
2. During the meeting, dozens of letters from scientific institutions opposing the amendments were officially read into the record, signaling a strong consensus against weakening the act.
3. The subcommittee concluded the session by deciding to continue the discussion at a future meeting, indicating that negotiations are ongoing.

Conclusion: Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

The debate surrounding the MMPA amendments has significant implications for the advancement of several Sustainable Development Goals.

• SDG 14 (Life Below Water): The primary concern is that diluting the MMPA would represent a significant setback for the conservation of marine life, directly opposing the goal of protecting marine ecosystems and preventing biodiversity loss.
• SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions): The conflict illustrates the tension between maintaining robust, proven environmental laws and efforts to streamline regulations, testing the strength and integrity of institutional commitments to sustainability.
• SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals): The active engagement of scientific bodies and non-governmental organizations like The Marine Mammal Center highlights the critical role of multi-stakeholder partnerships in advocating for and upholding environmental protections.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

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

• SDG 14: Life Below Water
  • This goal is central to the article, which focuses on the “Marine Mammal Protection Act” and its role in protecting “whales, dolphins, sea otters, sea lions and other marine mammals.” The entire debate revolves around the conservation of marine species and the health of marine ecosystems. The article explicitly states the act has been a “model that has kept any marine animal from going extinct in U.S. waters.”
• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
  • This goal is relevant as the article details a legislative process within a government institution, the “U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries.” The discussion concerns the potential modification of a key piece of national law, highlighting the role of institutions in creating, upholding, and amending policies for sustainable development. The process described, involving hearings with supporters, opponents, and scientific bodies, relates to institutional accountability and participatory decision-making.

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

1. Under SDG 14: Life Below Water
   • Target 14.2: “By 2020, sustainably manage and protect marine and coastal ecosystems to avoid significant adverse impacts…” The article directly addresses this by discussing the Marine Mammal Protection Act, a law designed to protect marine ecosystems by safeguarding key species. The concern that the proposed changes would make protections “negligible” speaks to the risk of failing to avoid “significant adverse impacts.”
   • Target 14.5: “By 2020, conserve at least 10 per cent of coastal and marine areas, consistent with national and international law…” The Act itself is a form of “national law” that contributes to the conservation of marine life within U.S. waters. The debate over weakening it is a direct challenge to the principles of this target.
   • Target 14.a: “Increase scientific knowledge, develop research capacity and transfer marine technology…” The article highlights the importance of science in policy-making by noting that “politicians read dozens of letters from scientific institutions opposing the draft.” This shows a reliance on scientific input to inform legislation regarding ocean health.
2. Under SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
   • Target 16.6: “Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.” The article describes the function of the House subcommittee, an institution tasked with reviewing legislation. The debate over whether the proposed changes are beneficial or harmful is a reflection on the institution’s effectiveness and accountability in protecting public goods like marine biodiversity.
   • Target 16.7: “Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels.” This is demonstrated by the subcommittee meeting where politicians “heard from supporters as well as people and institutions opposing the language change.” The inclusion of testimony and letters from various stakeholders like The Marine Mammal Center and scientific institutions shows a participatory process.
   • Target 16.b: “Promote and enforce non-discriminatory laws and policies for sustainable development.” The Marine Mammal Protection Act is a key “policy for sustainable development.” The core of the article is the debate over how this law is written and enforced, with opponents of the change arguing it would undermine the law’s purpose.

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

1. Indicators for SDG 14 Targets:
   • Population status of marine mammals: The article implies this as a key indicator of the Act’s success. Dr. Boehm states, “we have rebounded species of animals,” and the act has “kept any marine animal from going extinct.” The health and population trends of whales, dolphins, and sea lions serve as a direct measure of progress in marine conservation.
   • Level of legal protection: The language of the law itself is an indicator. The proposed change is described as “taking the floor and dropping it to almost non-existent.” The strength and enforceability of the “Marine Mammal Protection Act” is a direct indicator of the commitment to Target 14.2.
   • Number of “takes” of marine mammals: The article mentions language in the act “around mitigating and minimizing harm, minimizing takes of marine mammals.” The frequency of such incidents would be a quantitative indicator of the effectiveness of protection measures.
2. Indicators for SDG 16 Targets:
   • Existence of a participatory legislative process: The article describes the subcommittee meeting, the hearing of opposing views, and the consideration of scientific letters. This process itself is an indicator of an “inclusive, participatory and representative” institution (Target 16.7).
   • Status of environmental protection laws: The existence and strength of the Marine Mammal Protection Act is an indicator for Target 16.b. The legislative effort to either uphold or weaken this act measures the government’s enforcement of policies for sustainable development.

4. Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: kion546.com