The Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act of 1987 incorporates the provisions of MARPOL V that make it illegal for U.S. or foreign ships to discharge any plastics, including synthetic ropes, fishing nets, and plastic bags, into the ocean and other navigable waters. In 1989, the Coast Guard first promulgated regulations to enforce the MARPOL V provisions. These regulations specify that other forms of garbage, such as food waste and packing materials, may not be discharged within prescribed limits of U.S. shorelines. For U.S.-licensed boats above a certain size, the regulations require operators to post garbage discharge warning signs, maintain an approved waste management plan, and keep records of garbage disposal and discharges. For all vessels, U.S. and foreign, the regulations also set out the MARPOL V provisions against the illegal discharge of plastic and garbage, as well as the Coast Guard’s inspection procedures and possible penalties for infractions. The Coast Guard enforces compliance with MARPOL V mainly through its regional network of 47 marine safety offices. Enforcement personnel regularly inspect foreign and U.S.-licensed vessels for compliance with various safety and pollution regulations, including MARPOL V. If enforcement personnel find a violation of MARPOL V during their inspections, they document their findings and open an enforcement case on the Coast Guard’s computer system, the marine safety information system. The case is then forwarded to the district office, which reviews it for completeness and the sufficiency of evidence. If the district office finds the evidence to be sufficient, it forwards the case to one of three Coast Guard hearing offices for a civil penalty determination. In addition to the Coast Guard’s inspections, inspectors from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) also inspect commercial ships. APHIS inspects a majority of ships arriving from foreign ports, typically within 24 hours of their arrival, for compliance with U.S. plant and animal health laws. While APHIS is not required by law to enforce MARPOL V, it agreed in 1990 to help the Coast Guard do so. If APHIS suspects that a violation of MARPOL V has occurred, APHIS inspectors are supposed to notify the local Coast Guard marine safety office. The Coast Guard intensified its enforcement of MARPOL V following congressional criticism in 1990 and 1992 of the Coast Guard’s lack of progress in implementing MARPOL V. More aggressive enforcement, according to Coast Guard officials, has resulted in a steady increase in the number of MARPOL V violations found by enforcement personnel. Even so, the Coast Guard’s enforcement efforts have been affected by factors that affect the ability of its enforcement personnel to identify violations and adequately support their findings so that violators are penalized. Number of MARPOL V Enforcement Cases Has Increased The Coast Guard has identified an increasing number of violations of the MARPOL V regulations in recent years. In the first few years of the program, unless a violation was egregious, Coast Guard officials in the field said they often allowed violators to correct any problems and did not take enforcement actions. Since 1992, however, following increased congressional attention and aided by additional resources, the Coast Guard has strengthened the MARPOL V regulations and emphasized the need for personnel to be more aggressive in their enforcement. Accordingly, the number of enforcement cases involving violations of MARPOL V has increased from 16 in 1989, the first year of implementation, to 311 during 1994 (see fig. 1 and app. I for additional analysis of these violations). An increasing number of marine safety offices have initiated MARPOL V enforcement cases, indicating that the Coast Guard’s enforcement efforts are becoming more widespread. During 1991, two marine safety offices (New York and Corpus Christi) accounted for more than half of all enforcement cases, and only 20 of the 47 marine safety offices had initiated any cases. By 1994, the distribution of cases had become less concentrated—the five marine safety offices with the most cases accounted for more than half of all enforcement cases. Also, 33 marine safety offices had initiated at least one MARPOL V enforcement case. Of the 725 MARPOL V cases reported as of February 15, 1995, 69, or just under 10 percent, have resulted in the assessment of a penalty against the responsible party. The penalties ranged from a few hundred dollars to $50,000 and averaged almost $6,200 per case. However, 303, or 42 percent, of the cases submitted are still in process, including two-thirds of all the cases initiated in 1994. It is reasonable to assume that some percentage of the 303 cases still in process will also result in a penalty assessment and, therefore, that the percentage of cases which result in a penalty for this time period will likely increase over time. However, whether the Coast Guard’s success in obtaining penalties is improving over time is not yet known because so many 1993 and 1994 cases are still being processed. The remaining enforcement cases—those not in process or not having resulted in a civil penalty—have been administratively settled by the Coast Guard. These actions include case closure or dismissal, the issuance of a warning letter, or a referral to the country where the ship is registered—a procedure known as flag state referral—for consideration of possible fines or other actions by another country. Several factors impede the Coast Guard’s efforts to identify violations and, once they are identified, efficiently and effectively process enforcement cases for a civil penalty determination. Among these factors are (1) the inherent difficulty of enforcing MARPOL V, (2) the absence of a standardized MARPOL V inspection checklist, (3) diminished cooperation between the Coast Guard and APHIS, (4) inadequate feedback on case development, and (5) a burdensome and ineffective management information system. To cite a vessel for illegally discharging garbage or plastics, someone must see the event and report it, or the Coast Guard must develop strong evidence that such a discharge occurred. It is rare that Coast Guard personnel or others actually witness a vessel illegally disposing of plastics or other garbage. A Coast Guard hearing officer told us that unlike oil or hazardous waste discharges, discharges of plastics and other garbage usually do not leave a trail of evidence that can be traced to the offending party. According to Coast Guard officials in the field, should vessel operators knowingly choose to violate the MARPOL V discharge regulations, it is unlikely that they will be caught. Complicating enforcement efforts is the fact that one key component of the U.S. MARPOL V regulations—a requirement that vessels maintain garbage discharge records—does not apply to foreign-licensed ships.This difference is significant because a garbage discharge record is one of the key items that the Coast Guard uses as evidence in enforcement cases to prove that an illegal discharge has occurred. Equally significant, the Coast Guard can enforce MARPOL V for foreign vessels only within the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone. Demonstrating that a vessel discharged garbage at sea is difficult; proving that it occurred within U.S. jurisdiction is even more difficult. Because eyewitness accounts of illegal discharges are infrequent, the Coast Guard often must develop circumstantial evidence that would lead to a prima facie determination that a discharge violation had occurred. Proving that a violation has occurred on the basis of circumstantial evidence is not easy and requires Coast Guard personnel to conduct a thorough and methodical investigation while on board a vessel. This includes gathering statements, checking the ship’s food storage and garbage disposal areas, taking photographs, and examining logbooks and other records. To help personnel enforce a wide variety of safety and pollution regulations, the Coast Guard relies extensively on standardized inspection checklists. The Coast Guard recognizes the importance of these checklists in helping to identify violations and develop sufficient evidence to support an enforcement action. However, according to the Chief of the Marine Environmental Protection Division, a standardized checklist covering the MARPOL V portion of vessel inspections has not been developed because of competing priorities. In our visits to marine inspection offices, we found a variety of boarding checklists. For the inspections of foreign vessels, each office had devised its own checklist, which ranged from lists with a single reference to MARPOL V to lists containing several pages of questions and guidance. For inspections of U.S. vessels and foreign passenger ships, the Coast Guard provides standardized inspection booklets to its inspectors. However, because these booklets predate MARPOL V, they do not include any reference to MARPOL V. In some offices, these booklets have been updated to remind inspectors to check on compliance with MARPOL V, but updates have not been standardized among marine safety offices. The absence of a standard inspection checklist for MARPOL V can hinder the ability of enforcement personnel to identify violations and then develop sufficient evidence to support an enforcement action. During one inspection we witnessed, for example, the port safety officer used a checklist with only a single reference to MARPOL V and did not identify violations that his superior later acknowledged should have been cited. In other marine safety offices, where more extensive checklists were used, we saw more thorough examinations, involving extensive inspections of food storage, food preparation, and garbage disposal areas and a detailed questioning of the crew on garbage disposal practices. Coast Guard officials responsible for the MARPOL V program agreed that the inspection checklist should be standardized and, on the basis of our findings, told us that they will initiate steps to develop one. The extent of cooperation between the Coast Guard and APHIS has varied in some locations. During the first years of MARPOL V enforcement, APHIS was an important source for identifying MARPOL V violations. Now, however, cutbacks in APHIS’ funding and uncertainties about the extent of APHIS’ role in MARPOL V inspections have diminished cooperation between the agencies in some locations. On three separate occasions beginning in 1990, APHIS headquarters has directed its field units to cooperate with the Coast Guard in identifying MARPOL V violations.