[Senate Hearing 108-971]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 108-971
GLOBAL OVERFISHING AND INTERNATIONAL FISHERIES MANAGEMENT
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JUNE 12, 2003
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
85-979 WASHINGTON : 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected].
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
JOHN McCAIN, Arizona, Chairman
TED STEVENS, Alaska ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South
CONRAD BURNS, Montana Carolina, Ranking
TRENT LOTT, Mississippi DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West
OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine Virginia
SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts
GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon JOHN B. BREAUX, Louisiana
PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada RON WYDEN, Oregon
GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia BARBARA BOXER, California
JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire BILL NELSON, Florida
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
Jeanne Bumpus, Republican Staff Director and General Counsel
Robert W. Chamberlin, Republican Chief Counsel
Kevin D. Kayes, Democratic Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Gregg Elias, Democratic General Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on June 12, 2003.................................... 1
Statement of Senator McCain...................................... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 2
Statement of Senator Lautenberg.................................. 27
Prepared statement........................................... 28
Statement of Senator Stevens..................................... 3
Statement of Senator Sununu...................................... 64
Witnesses
Collins, Admiral Thomas H., Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard......... 4
Prepared statement........................................... 5
Lent, Ph.D., Rebecca, Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Regulatory Programs. National Marine Fisheries Service,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, United States
Department of Commerce......................................... 7
Prepared statement........................................... 9
Turner, Hon. John F., Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Oceans and
International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, Department
of State....................................................... 15
Prepared statement........................................... 17
Myers, Dr. Ransom A., Killam Chair of Ocean Studies, Dalhousie
University..................................................... 31
Prepared statement........................................... 33
Ruais, Richard P., Executive Director, East Coast Tuna
Association.................................................... 36
Prepared statement........................................... 39
Speer, Lisa, Senior Policy Analyst, National Resources Defense
Council........................................................ 47
Prepared statement........................................... 49
Sullivan, Ph.D., Patrick J., Department of Natural Resources,
Cornell University............................................. 51
Prepared statement........................................... 54
Appendix
Hollings, Hon. Ernest F., U.S. Senator from South Carolina,
prepared statement............................................. 71
Inouye, Hon. Daniel K., U.S. Senator from Hawaii, prepared
statement...................................................... 72
Letter dated June 11, 2003 from Justin LeBlanc, Executive
Secretariat, International Coalition of Fisheries Association
to the Members of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation................................................. 73
Letter dated May 29, 2003 to the Editor of Nature, from Mark
Maunder, Senior Scientist, Inter-American Tropical Tuna
Commission; John Sibert, Manager, Pelagic Fisheries Research
Program, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Alain Fonteneau,
Scientist, French Institut de Recherches pour le Development;
John Hampton, Manager, Oceanic Fisheries Program, Secretariat
of the Pacific Community; Pierre Kleiber, Fishery Biologist,
NOAA Fisheries--Honolulu Laboratory; and Shelton Harley, Senior
Scientist, Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission............. 75
Response to written question submitted by Hon. John McCain to
Hon. John F. Turner............................................ 76
Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Ernest F.
Hollings to:
Rebecca Lent, Ph.D........................................... 76
Hon. John F. Turner.......................................... 79
Patrick J. Sullivan, Ph.D.................................... 82
Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Daniel K. Inouye
to:
Rebecca Lent, Ph.D........................................... 82
Admiral Thomas H. Collins.................................... 86
Hon. John F. Turner.......................................... 86
Wyden, Hon. Ron, U.S. Senator from Oregon, prepared statement.... 72
GLOBAL OVERFISHING AND INTERNATIONAL FISHERIES MANAGEMENT
----------
THURSDAY, JUNE 12, 2003
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m. in room
SR-253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. John McCain,
Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN McCAIN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ARIZONA
The Chairman. Good morning. The Committee meets today to
hear testimony on the issue of global overfishing and explore
the United States' role in international fisheries management
and ways to improve it.
Over the past month, there has been significant media
coverage on global overfishing, which has helped raise the
Nation's overall awareness of the condition of global
fisheries. The message is, our oceans are in danger and we need
to take action to protect them.
The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
estimates that approximately 47 percent of the world's major
marine fish stocks or groups of stocks are fully exploited,
therefore producing catches that have reached or are very close
to their maximum sustainable limits. While another 18 percent
are overexploited, another 10 percent of such stocks have been
depleted or are recovering from depletion. An additional study
conducted by Ransom Myers, who is here to testify, concludes
that large pelagic fish worldwide are at 10 percent of their
historic levels.
Meanwhile, the FAO predicts the world demand for fisheries
products will only continue to grow over the next three
decades. According to its economic modeling, the FAO believes
global annual consumption of fish per person will increase from
about 16 kilograms today to between 19 and 21 kilograms in
2030. Fish consumption per person is projected to increase by
more than 84 percent in China, almost 60 percent in South Asia,
and by almost 50 percent in Latin America and in the Caribbean.
The United States needs to think about where we're going to get
the fish necessary to meet this growing demand.
As we'll hear this morning, worldwide stocks of
commercially valuable fish have generally decreased, but at the
same time the size and catching capacity of the world's fishing
fleet have continued to increase. These excessive efforts are
fueled in large part by huge Government subsidies which a 1999
World Bank report estimated account for 20 to 25 percent of the
world's annual fishing revenues, or $15 to $20 billion.
Efforts to manage international fisheries are complicated
by disparate support from fishing nations and outright
noncompliance. On the high seas, illegal, unreported,
unregulated fishing is common. There are few incentives to
adhere to international agreements. The consensus view on
international fisheries is that there are many problems.
Unfortunately, what much of the media attention over the past
month has missed is the progress the United States has made in
better managing its own domestic fisheries. Through the
Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996, Congress mandated an end to
overfishing and provided our regional fisheries management
councils with many new management tools. Since then, many
important domestic stocks have been rebuilt or are in the
process of recovering.
The United States has an obligation to lead by example in
international fisheries management and help other nations make
the difficult decisions necessary to protect and preserve our
common oceans. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses and
learning their recommendations on how we can more effectively
manage international fisheries. I freely acknowledge that this
is a very large and very difficult and very challenging issue,
and one that's going to require a lot of examination, and
perhaps we should somehow see if we can't get some of the
programs that have worked within the United States of America
adopted internationally and, of course, enforcement is a major
aspect and a major challenge.
[The prepared statement of Senator McCain follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. John McCain, U.S. Senator from Arizona
Good morning. The Committee meets today to consider the issue of
global overfishing and to explore the United States' role in
international fisheries management and ways to improve it.
Over the past month, there has been significant media coverage on
global overfishing, which has helped to raise the Nation's overall
awareness of the condition of global fisheries. The message is our
oceans are in danger and we need to take immediate action to protect
them.
The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations
estimates that approximately 47 percent of the world's major marine
fish stocks or groups of stocks are fully exploited and are therefore
producing catches that have reached, or are very close to, their
maximum sustainable limits, while another 18 percent are over-
exploited. Another 10 percent of such stocks have been depleted or are
recovering from depletion. An additional study conducted by Ransom
Myers (who is here to testify) concludes that large pelagic fish
worldwide are at 10 percent of their historic levels.
Meanwhile, the FAO predicts the worldwide demand for fisheries
products will only continue to grow over the next three decades.
According to its economic modeling, the FAO believes global annual
consumption of fish per person will increase from about 16 kilograms
today to between 19 and 21 kilograms in 2030. Fish consumption per
person is projected to increase by more than 84 percent in China,
almost 60 percent in South Asia, and by almost 50 percent in Latin
America and the Caribbean. The United States needs to think about where
we are going to get the fish necessary to meet this growing demand.
As we will hear this morning, worldwide stocks of commercially
valuable fish have generally decreased, but at the same time, the size
and catching capacity of the world's fishing fleet have continued to
increase. These excessive efforts are fueled in large part by huge
government subsidies, which a 1999 World Bank report estimated account
for 20 to 25 percent of the world's annual fishing revenues, or $15 to
$20 billion.
Efforts to manage international fisheries are complicated by
disparate support from fishing nations and outright non-compliance. On
the high seas, illegal, unreported, unregulated fishing is common;
there are few incentives to adhere to international agreements.
The consensus view on international fisheries is that there are
many problems. Unfortunately, what much of the media attention over the
past month has missed is the progress the U.S. has made in better
managing its own domestic fisheries. Through the Sustainable Fisheries
Act of 1996, Congress mandated an end to overfishing and provided our
regional fisheries management councils with many new management tools.
Since then, many important domestic stocks have been rebuilt or are in
the process of recovering.
The U.S. has an obligation to lead by example in international
fisheries management and help other nations make the difficult
decisions necessary to protect and preserve our common oceans. I look
forward to hearing from our witnesses and learning their
recommendations on how we can more effectively manage international
fisheries.
Senator Stevens.
STATEMENT OF HON. TED STEVENS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA
Senator Stevens. Mr. Chairman, I welcome your interest in
this subject, and I do believe these recent reports are
alarming.
We have at times been able to carry to the world community
some of our concepts of protection of basic species of the
oceans. I mention, for instance, the driftnet issue that we
took to the U.N. and secured the approval of the world through
the U.N. of a ban on the use of driftnets. They are a scourge
of all creatures of the sea.
But beyond that, as you have mentioned, we have not been
too successful in convincing the world to listen to our
scientists and listen to those who have given us some of the
answers as to how to protect species and how to even improve
their status as far as the quantity of fish available from any
particular species.
You will recall we've worked on the American Fisheries Act,
which is dealing with pollack. Since the time we declared
protection of our 200-mile limit, pollack has increased four to
five times in the total size of its biomass, and the way it's
being harvested it should continue to increase, increase until
it really gets to the point where its total food chain will not
support any further expansion.
Mankind is not destroying pollack as it increases its
harvest of pollack, but clearly, in the areas particularly of
the chase for these enormous fish I think these reports are
just startling in terms of the numbers that are surviving, and
I do believe that we should find ways to take to the world
community our urgent plea that we act now to try and not only
protect those species, but restore their vitality and help them
recover.
We have the means to do that. It's not very expensive.
That's the reason we've been pursuing the concept of
rationalization in our North Pacific, to try and prevent the
overgrowth of harvesting capacity, really the growth of it to
the point where it threatens survival of the species, so I
think you'll find that all of us here on this committee are
really very interested in helping you pursue this course, and
again, I thank you for holding the hearing.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Stevens. I want to welcome
the witnesses, Admiral Collins, Commandant of the United States
Coast Guard, Dr. Rebecca Lent, Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Regulatory Programs at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Association, and Hon. John F. Turner, Assistant Secretary,
Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific
Affairs at the Department of State.
We'll begin with you, Admiral Collins. Welcome.
STATEMENT OF ADMIRAL THOMAS H. COLLINS, COMMANDANT, U.S. COAST
GUARD
Admiral Collins. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Senator
Stevens. It's a pleasure to join you this morning to discuss
this incredibly important topic, and as the global demand for
fish increases, so does our responsibility to ensure their
sustainability of this very finite fisheries resource, and
today, as you have alluded, we see many significant threats to
their sustainability, including underreporting catch, using
illegal harvesting methods, and unlawful encroachment in our
exclusive economic zones.
The Coast Guard's role is to enforce the laws and
regulations that prohibit these practices in partnership with
our other Federal agencies. Our highest priority objective is
to prevent illegal encroachment of U.S. EEZs and to ensure
compliance with U.S. and international laws and regulations
regarding living marine resources. We take this role very
seriously, and approximately 12 percent of our budget for 2004
is planned for this mission area.
From our perspective, there are four key ingredients to
improving our international fisheries enforcement posture:
first, the existence of a strong regulatory scheme that is
enforceable; second, adequate enforcement presence in key
living marine resource areas for compliance and deterrence
purposes; third, the application and leverage of effective
technology, especially in the areas of monitoring and
surveillance; and fourth, productive, outcome-focused
partnerships with other nations. These four aren't mutually
exclusive. There is linkage between all four. Let me very
quickly cover the four.
Presence. It's clear from our experience that the more our
vessels are out there, the less fishing vessels violate the
law. The challenge is that we have an incredibly vast area to
oversee, 3.36 million square miles of EEZ, and the U.N. Fish
Stocks Agreement adds to enforcement requirements by extending
that enforcement requirement to the high seas. Clearly, there
is a current and projected mismatch between our current force
structure, our resource base, and enforcement requirements, and
of course our presence requirements can be mitigated by the
application of technology.
Second, strong regulatory scheme. We actively and
aggressively support the Department of State and NOAA in
developing and promoting international enforcement regimes in
partnership with the National Marine Fisheries Service and the
Department of Justice in prosecuting violations, and there has
been much, much progress in this area. The United States was
one of the first nations to ratify the U.N. Fish Stocks
Agreement, whose purpose is to ensure long-term conservation
and sustainable use of the fish stocks. It is really one of
those, I think watershed pieces of enforcement regime.
The remaining challenge is to increase nation-state
participation in the Fish Stocks Agreement, and until we do so,
the Fish Stocks Agreement's utility will be limited. Twenty
nations harvest over 75 percent of the world's total fish
catch. Seventy-five percent of the world's total fish catch is
harvested by 20 nations. Only four of them have signed the Fish
Stocks Agreement.
The Chairman. Which are?
Admiral Collins. Norway, Russia, United States, and the
fourth one escapes me for the moment, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Japan?
Admiral Collins. Maybe Japan--Canada is the likely fourth.
We can confirm that for the record, sir.
Technology, the third area. We are working aggressively in
partnership with NOAA to implement a national fisheries
monitoring system, and we expect to make continued progress in
that over the next several years. We think VMS, the vessel
monitoring system that provides positive identification of
vessels transmitting data and indicates where and what the
vessel is doing is absolutely essential to any enforcement
regime. It's indispensable technology, and very, very
importantly, our deep water modernization project, integrated
deep water systems, is very, very much key to bringing new
technology, new capability to our off-shore enforcement
requirement.
The fourth and critically important is partnerships with
other nations. We are directly engaged as an organization, the
United States Coast Guard, with the counterpart enforcement
agencies in Canada, Mexico, Russia, Japan, South Korea,
People's Republic of China, and many others, and our efforts
include enforcement MOUs with them, fisheries enforcement
workshops with them, ship rider agreements with them, joint
operations and boarding officer training with them, and we
currently have a fisheries enforcement agreement with Canada
and the People's Republic of China and Taiwan, and we're in the
process of concluding one with Russia as well, and working on
one with Mexico.
We collaborated with Russia on a joint operations manual
addressing joint law enforcement operations in the Bering Sea
in a very, very successful way, and we're also a member of many
formal regional fisheries management organizations. These
international mechanisms are absolutely indispensable to moving
ahead positively in the enforcement area.
So, summary, four items we think are the magic ingredients
to success: presence, strong regulatory regime, technology, and
partnerships are what is needed, are the key ingredients to
bake this cake, so to speak, in effective international
enforcement. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'll be glad to
answer any questions at the appropriate time.
[The prepared statement of Admiral Collins follows:]
Prepared Statement of Admiral Thomas H. Collins, Commandant,
U.S. Coast Guard
Good morning Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the
Committee. It is a pleasure to appear before you today to discuss the
Coast Guard's role in international fisheries management.
As the demand for fish products increase globally, so too does the
responsibility of all nations to ensure the sustainability of our
fishery resources. The high seas and the resources they hold are the
village commons of the 21st Century. Today we see many significant
threats to their sustainability. These threats take the form of
illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, under-reporting catch,
using illegal harvesting methods such as high seas drift nets, and
unlawful encroachment into the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). The
Coast Guard's role is to enforce the laws and regulations that prohibit
these practices. This is a mission we take seriously and into which we
funnel significant resource capital. This year, 12 percent of the Coast
Guard's Operating Expenses budget is dedicated to supporting the
fisheries mission.
Under the auspices of the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation
and Management Act, the Coast Guard is the only Federal agency capable
of projecting a law enforcement presence throughout the EEZ and in key
areas of the high seas. The Coast Guard invests significant resources
to patrol these waters and works closely with domestic and
international enforcement agencies to thwart illegal fishing practices
at sea.
The Coast Guard assists the Department of State in developing
international enforcement regimes through various Regional Fishery
Management Organizations such as the International Convention for
Conservation of Atlantic Tuna, the North Pacific Anadromous Fish
Commission, the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, and the
Convention on the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish
Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific to name a few. The Coast
Guard maintains a liaison officer at the State Department's Office of
Marine Conservation to advise U.S. delegations to these organizations
on the enforceability of proposed management regimes. We also work
closely with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's
(NOAA) Fisheries Office for Enforcement and the Department of Justice
in prosecuting foreign fishers who illegally encroach upon the U.S.
EEZ.
``Fish do not recognize international boundaries'' is an oft-quoted
phrase in the fisheries management and enforcement business, and the
Coast Guard is directly engaged with enforcement agencies in Canada,
Mexico, the Russian Federation, Japan, South Korea, the People's
Republic of China and many other nations to promote sustainability
through compliance with regulations and management regimes. Our efforts
include enforcement Memoranda of Understanding, fisheries enforcement
workshops, ship rider agreements, joint operations, and boarding
officer training. In an action plan on the Marine Environment and
Tanker Safety prepared last week at the G-8 Summit in Evian, France, G-
8 leaders, led by President Bush, pledged to work towards sustainable
fisheries and marine conservation.
I would like to share with you a success story in international
cooperation and effective enforcement. In 1991, the United Nations
declared an international moratorium on the use of large-scale (greater
than 2.5 kilometers in length) pelagic high seas driftnets. Since that
time, the U.S. Coast Guard, NOAA Fisheries, the Canadian Department of
Fisheries and Oceans, the Russian Federal Border Service, the People's
Republic of China Bureau of Fisheries, and the Fisheries Agency of
Japan have worked together to all but eliminate high seas driftnet
fishing in the North Pacific. Our closely coordinated efforts have
resulted in Russian officers staffing a joint command center in Alaska,
Chinese enforcement officers sailing on U.S. Coast Guard cutters, and
NOAA Fisheries agents flying in Canadian Air Force surveillance planes.
These countries are also members of the North Pacific Heads of Coast
Guard organization that I personally participate in. The North Pacific
Heads of Coast Guard, recognizing the importance of fisheries, recently
implemented a Fisheries Working Group to meet regularly and discuss
fisheries issues of regional interest.
The Coast Guard's fisheries law enforcement strategic plan OCEAN
GUARDIAN, stipulates that our highest priority enforcement mission is
to prevent encroachment of the U.S. EEZ and internal waters by foreign
fishing vessels. The Plan also emphasizes ensuring compliance with
international agreements for the management of living marine resources
such as the United Nations Driftnet Moratorium.
Fisheries enforcement, particularly enforcement of international
fisheries management schemes, is a mission largely conducted by Coast
Guard Deepwater assets. The U.S. EEZ is the largest and most productive
in the world. It occupies 3.36 million square miles and includes 95,000
miles of coastline. It contains an estimated 20 percent of the world's
fishery resources. These vast patrol areas, coupled with the long
distance from U.S. shores--for example the non-contiguous EEZ in the
central Pacific--provide a significant challenge to the Coast Guard's
assets. As fish stocks throughout the world dwindle and the fleets of
distant water fishing nations are being pushed farther from home and
into the high seas in search of catch, the bounty of our EEZ becomes a
more attractive quarry. The improved capabilities the Coast Guard will
garner and the technology we will have available to leverage as a
result of the Integrated Deepwater System project will greatly enhance
our ability to enforce international fisheries regulations in the U.S.
EEZ and beyond.
The world is becoming more aware of the need to ensure the
sustainability of our collective fish stocks. At the same time, the
United States is becoming increasingly involved in the management of
living marine resources on the high seas. Naturally, this means the
Coast Guard will become even more involved in the enforcement of
agreements to which the U.S. is a party. In the past, international
policies governing the conservation of high seas fisheries fell well
short of their goals because they lacked any effective enforcement
provisions. However, in 1995, a landmark agreement, the Straddling Fish
Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks Agreement established the
framework for all future international fishery regimes. This agreement
calls for strict adherence with fishery conservation measures and, more
importantly, contains non-flag state enforcement provisions that allow
the Coast Guard to board foreign fishing vessels flagged by any nation
party to any mutual international fishing agreement. The Agreement
entered into force on December 11, 2001.
I believe emphasis in three areas is the key to improving our
international fisheries enforcement posture. First, active
participation in international fora such as the Regional Fishery
Management Organizations I mentioned earlier. Second, working within
those fora to develop a regulatory regime that not only sustains the
resources, but is also enforceable. Finally, providing the resources
necessary to carry out enforcement operations under that scheme. By
resources, I am referring to people, vessels and also technology such
as the Vessel Monitoring System, multi-lateral working groups like the
North Pacific Heads of Coast Guard organization, and joint operations
such as the high seas driftnet operations in the North Pacific.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. I will
be happy to answer any questions you may have.
The Chairman. Thank you, Admiral. Dr. Lent, welcome.
STATEMENT OF REBECCA LENT, Ph.D., DEPUTY ASSISTANT
ADMINISTRATOR FOR REGULATORY PROGRAMS. NATIONAL
MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND
ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
COMMERCE
Dr. Lent. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the
Committee, for this opportunity to testify on international
fishery conservation and management. The United States has one
of the most comprehensive systems of fisheries management in
the world. We have extensive science-based regulations on our
commercial and recreational vessels more robust than most of
those around the world. We have also led efforts for
conservation, reducing overfishing and capacity in many
international agreements and in many bilateral agreements, and
are working on compliance as well. We hope other countries will
recognize the benefits of sustainable fishing practices and
compliance.
In May of this year, the article published in the
scientific journal, Nature, raised the issue of worldwide
depletion of predatory fish. This is consistent with the
scientific view of the impacts of global fisheries on marine
ecosystems. It's not a new finding that fishing has made fish
stocks decline. However, there's a lot of uncertainty about
what happened in these stocks before data were collected
systematically.
Some of the conclusions reached in this article are global
in scope, and we share those views in our scientific community
about overfishing and resource declines, but the conclusions
about specific fisheries in ocean areas, that's where the
uncertainty kicks in. We are increasing our focus of scientific
research on the impacts of marine fishing, working with our
global partners in this research.
On the management front, the U.S. has made a lot of
progress in international fisheries management. We're a leader
in swordfish and billfish conservation through ICCAT, the
Atlantic Tunas Commission. We're also a leader in bycatch
technology development, and transfer of that bycatch,
particularly for sea turtles and sea birds and sharks.
We're going to continue our science-based work in
recommending rebuilding programs for overfished stocks and in
addressing bycatch internationally. I just want to highlight a
few of our successes at ICCAT, the International Commission for
the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas. We have rebuilding plans
for Western Atlantic bluefin tuna, North Atlantic swordfish,
and for blue and white marlin. We've already seen the payoffs
of these rebuilding plans for swordfish. They're nearly at
their goal.
We've also adopted a number of measures to improve
compliance with ICCAT in addressing IUU fishing, as you pointed
out. We've also addressed measures for bycatch of sharks, sea
birds, and turtles.
We still have a ways to go at ICCAT in terms of data
collection, making sure we stay on track with rebuilding plans,
and get the overfished stocks under rebuilding plans as well.
With regard to CCAMLR, that's the Convention on the
Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources, the big
focus here is Patagonian toothfish. The important measure that
we have there is a tracking system which should help ensure
that consuming nations, as we are, aren't buying IUU toothfish.
International Whaling Commission meetings start next week.
We'll focus on our four main principles, which is, we support
the moratorium on commercial whaling, we support aboriginal
subsistence whaling, we oppose lethal research whaling, and we
oppose the international trade in whale products.
NAFO, the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, our
big concern there is access for U.S. vessels. There has been
some success in rebuilding, particularly yellowtail flounder,
but we're not sharing in those successes, and we're working on
that.
We're taking a number of steps in our agencies to address
international bycatch issues. We have agreements with foreign
nations regarding long-line fishing, sea turtles, an
international bycatch strategy, a number of workshops working
with scientists as well as fishery managers worldwide.
COFI, the Committee on Fisheries at the Food and
Agriculture Organization in Rome, the focus there has been
addressing global problems of overcapacity. There are just too
many boats out there. One country may take care of their
overcapacity, but the vessels end up in somebody else's
country, so we have to work on this internationally. There is
an international plan of action for fishing capacity, and the
United States is working on our national plan.
Convention on International Trade and Endangered Species,
CITES, that is a useful adjunct to traditional fishery
management. For marine species that are traded, it's an
important tool for tracking the amount of fishing that's going
on and for, in some cases, banning that trade if that's helpful
to fishery management organizations, particularly where there
are no regional fishery management organizations in place.
A relatively new issue is uncontrolled deep sea fishing. As
the global fish stocks have become overfished, vessels are
displacing to the deep sea seamounts in mid-oceanic ridges.
These are areas beyond any domestic authority. They are often,
particularly in terms of species, not covered by regional
fishery management organizations that are already in place
because they're not the pelagics, they're fish such as
toothfish. Unmanaged and uncontrolled fishing is a real threat
to biodiversity.
Another problem is subsidies, because some countries
continue to subsidize their fishing industry. We're working
through the World Trade Organization, WTO, to address these
subsidies, which reach levels of $10 to $15 billion a year.
In summary, we are making progress, not as fast as some
would hope, but we feel that we're addressing these issues
internationally. We are leading the fight to address
overfishing, overcapacity, and reducing bycatch.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Lent follows:]
Prepared Statement of Rebecca Lent, Ph.D., Deputy Assistant
Administrator for Regulatory Programs. National Marine Fisheries
Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, United States
Department of Commerce
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for inviting
me to testify on topics related to international fishery conservation
and management. I am Rebecca Lent, Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Regulatory Programs in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, Department of Commerce.
Within the Bush Administration, NOAA Fisheries and our Federal
partners at the Department of State and the Department of Homeland
Security, working in concert with state, tribal, and other Native
American groups, have and are continuing to accomplish an impressive
program of international living marine resource conservation and
management.
The United States has one of the most comprehensive systems of
fisheries management. The commercial fishing industry in the United
States is required to comply with extensive science-based regulations
that are more robust than those found in industrial fishing countries
world-wide. Moreover, the United States has led efforts to reduce
overfishing and fishing industry capacity under many international
agreements. The United States continues to be a world leader in
compliance with these international fisheries agreements. Hopefully,
other industrial fishing countries, such as members of the European
Union, will recognize the benefits of sustainable fishing practices and
improve compliance with these international agreements.
I would like to emphasize, however, that many of the challenges we
face in international fisheries management will require broad
international cooperation if we are to be successful in our efforts to
mitigate the decline and collapse of major fish stocks. These
challenges include: (1) eliminating overfishing; (2) rebuilding
overfished stocks; (3) managing the needs of highly migratory species;
(4) managing fisheries sustainably; (5) recovering protected species;
(6) conserving habitats; (7) improving the science that guides
management; (8) working toward ecosystem-based management; and (9)
addressing problems of bycatch and harvesting capacity.
I will provide an overview of our efforts to address these issues
in several international fora including (1) ICCAT (International
Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas), (2) CCAMLR
(Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources),
(3) IWC (International Whaling Commission), (4) NAFO (Northwest
Atlantic Fisheries Organization), (5) FAO (Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations), (6) WTO (World Trade
Organization), (7) CITES (Convention on International Trade in
Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora), (8) the growing focus of
attention and concern regarding deep sea fishing on seamounts and mid-
oceanic ridges, and (9) recent press accounts about the status of the
world's fish stocks and their management.
ICCAT (International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas)
ICCAT coordinates the international management of tunas and tuna-
like species. The organization currently has 35 members. Primary U.S.
objectives over the last several years have included seeking measures
to rebuild overfished stocks and improve adherence to ICCAT rules by
members and non-members. The United States has also focused on measures
to address bycatch issues.
With regard to rebuilding, we have had a number of successes,
including the adoption of rebuilding plans for western bluefin tuna
(1998), North Atlantic swordfish (1999), and blue and white marlins
(2000). The sacrifices made to rebuild North Atlantic swordfish began
to show results last year with a significant increase in biomass, which
subsequently led to increases in quota allocations. On the compliance
front, ICCAT has adopted a variety of state-of-the-art measures. ICCAT
can and has imposed penalties (e.g., quota reductions, trade sanctions)
against members for infractions. The Commission has also adopted action
plans that contemplate the use of trade sanctions against countries
that diminish the effectiveness of ICCAT, with sanctions having been
imposed in several instances. These measures have been successful in
reducing illegal, unregulated, and unreported (IUU) fishing in the
Convention area. Most recently in its fight against IUU fishing, ICCAT
adopted a vessel list program that provides a basis to limit market
access to only those products taken by authorized vessels.
Regarding bycatch issues, ICCAT has adopted proposals to improve
data collection and reporting on sharks and seabirds. A similar
proposal for sea turtles will be under consideration at the 2003 ICCAT
meeting. The ICCAT measure also encourages releasing sharks taken as
bycatch, and minimizing shark waste and discards. A shark assessment is
planned for 2004.
Despite the strides made at ICCAT, particularly over the last
decade, a number of difficult issues remain. Data collection and
reporting continue to be a challenge for some parties, and a special
meeting will be held in the fall 2003 to consider this matter.
Moreover, the stock structure of Atlantic bluefin tuna, currently
managed as two separate stocks, remains in question and ICCAT agreed to
convene a meeting of scientists and managers in November 2003 to look
into this issue. In addition, ensuring ICCAT rebuilding plans stay on
course and new programs are developed for other overfished stocks (such
as bigeye tuna) will be important in upcoming meetings. We intend to
ensure that ICCAT continues to make needed progress in improving member
compliance and non-member cooperation, including addressing IUU issues.
With respect to compliance issues in ICCAT fisheries, the Secretary
of Commerce recently (April 25, 2003) sent letters to the European
Commission (EC). Secretary Evans noted the importance of the
conservation of marine fisheries and expressed concern about actions
and positions taken by the EC at ICCAT in 2002-particularly regarding
EC support of an eastern bluefin tuna total allowable catch far in
excess of scientifically recommended, sustainable levels. Secretary
Evans stated that positions such as these have the potential to
threaten the long-term future of shared resources and to lead to
serious friction in U.S.-EC trade relations. As an example, the
Secretary pointed to a petition filed and later withdrawn by a
recreational fishing organization under Section 301 of the Trade Act of
1974 that sought relief from allegedly unjustifiable acts, policies,
and practices of the EC related to ICCAT. In his letter, the Secretary
urged the EC to take prompt action to improve their compliance with
existing ICCAT measures and to reconsider accepting science-based
conservation measures in the future.
In addition to this action, NOAA Fisheries has received a request
to certify the EC pursuant to the Pelly Amendment to the Fishermen's
Protective Act of 1967 for diminishing the effectiveness of ICCAT. The
decision on certification has been left open for the time being while
we monitor the activities of the EC and its Member States. In this
regard, Assistant Administrator Hogarth recently sent a letter to the
EC Director General for Fisheries explaining the request, noting its
seriousness, and indicating that we intend to investigate it fully. He
has also been in contact with the head of the EC delegation to ICCAT
concerning this matter, and we continued our dialogue at the ICCAT
intersessional meetings in Madeira in late May 2003. We have been
stressing the importance of EC implementation of its ICCAT commitments
and will continue to do so.
CCAMLR (Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living
Resources)
Due to the scale of IUU fishing for toothfish in and beyond waters
subject to CCAMLR, a Catch Documentation Scheme (CDS) for toothfish was
adopted in 1999. The CDS identifies the origin of toothfish imports,
determines if the toothfish were harvested consistent with CCAMLR
conservation measures, monitors international trade, and provides catch
data for stock assessments in the Convention Area. Although NOAA
Fisheries has fully implemented the CDS in the United States, it
recently published final regulations streamlining administration of the
program and enhancing efforts to prevent the import of illegally
harvested toothfish. Effective June 16, 2003, NOAA Fisheries will
operate a pre-approval system for toothfish imports. Pre-approval will
allow the agency to review toothfish catch documents sufficiently in
advance of import to facilitate enforcement and provide additional
economic certainty to U.S. businesses in the toothfish trade.
Information provided to CCAMLR has indicated high levels of IUU
fishing in the Convention Area. The majority of CCAMLR Members agreed
that catches reported as harvests from FAO Statistical Areas 51 and 57,
high sea areas in the Indian Ocean adjoining the Convention Area, were
not credible and were in all likelihood fish pirated from within the
Convention Area. They also expressed concerns, shared by the United
States, that information reported in catch documents did not match
scientific understanding of toothfish distribution and potential
biomass of toothfish on the high seas. Therefore, also as of June 16,
2003, no imports of fresh or frozen toothfish represented as harvested
within FAO Areas 51 or 57 will be allowed entry into the United States.
Importers applying for a pre-approval certificate for fish that has
been harvested from either of these areas will be denied pre-approval.
IWC (International Whaling Commission)
The 55th Annual Meeting of the International Whaling Commission
(IWC) will be held in Berlin June 16th through 19th. The Bush
Administration reaffirms longstanding principles that will guide United
States policy at this meeting: we will support the IWC's commercial
whaling moratorium, support aboriginal subsistence whaling, oppose
lethal research whaling, and oppose the international trade of whale
products.
Iceland recently rejoined the IWC with a reservation to the
commercial whaling moratorium. The Bush Administration welcomes Iceland
as a member of the Commission, but the United States recently filed a
formal objection to Iceland's reservation. In addition, Iceland
recently submitted to the IWC a plan to conduct lethal research on
whales. The United States opposes lethal research and urges Iceland not
to begin this program. Likewise, Japan continues to conduct lethal
research with the take of up to 700 whales per year. The United States
continues to urge Japan to cease the killing of whales under scientific
permits. Germany will put forth a resolution on scientific whaling at
the annual meeting that we intend to support.
In addition, Norway and Iceland have initiated the first
international trade of whale products in 14 years. The Bush
Administration has urged both countries to halt this trade. Last year,
Japan submitted a resolution for the consideration of Japanese
community-based whaling. This resolution contained a marked change from
previous proposals whereby the quota would be non-commercial, and based
on the advice of the Scientific Committee. Japan is expected to present
a proposal regarding this matter. We have not yet seen this proposal,
but will only consider supporting it if these two criteria (non-
commercial--i.e., the proposal would establish sufficient safeguards to
ensure that whales that would be taken under the program are not used
for commercial purposes--and based upon the advice of the IWC
Scientific Committee), at a minimum, are met.
Mexico plans to put forward a resolution to create a Conservation
Committee that is meant to reaffirm the conservation objective of the
Convention. The United States intends to support the creation of this
committee, as it would improve the governance of the Commission's work.
Italy intends to put forth a resolution on bycatch of whales. The
United States intends to support this resolution, since we recognize
bycatch as a serious conservation issue and it would be synergistic
with the National Bycatch Strategy recently issued by NOAA Fisheries.
The United States continues to work in good faith to establish a
Revised Management Scheme (RMS) for commercial whaling. However, the
last round of working group meetings were disappointing in that
representatives of the whaling nations and their supporters did not
accept any compromise put forth by the United States and others. The
United States has repeatedly demonstrated its willingness to develop a
science-based and enforceable RMS. Our efforts, however, have been
thwarted by the pro-whaling nations, which, to date, have been
unwilling to agree to the incorporation of adequate monitoring measures
into the RMS. At the annual meeting, Japan will likely put forth a
proposal on the RMS. However, Japan's proposal last year lacked the
necessary components for a credible scheme and would have eliminated
the commercial whaling moratorium and whale sanctuaries.
Finally, the United States intends to support Australia and New
Zealand in their proposal to establish a South Pacific Sanctuary, and
Brazil's proposal to establish a South Atlantic Sanctuary. Both of
these sanctuary proposals are science-based and would help the recovery
of depleted whale stocks.
NAFO (Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization)
NOAA has provided leadership on U.S. delegations to NAFO meetings
since the United States joined the organization in 1996. NAFO manages
groundfish, flatfish, and shellfish (many of which are under zero
directed take regimes) in the waters of the northwest Atlantic beyond
areas of national jurisdiction. Some of these stocks are rebuilding and
one, yellowtail flounder, has recovered sufficiently to reestablish a
directed fishery. A U.S. priority within NAFO is to reform allocation
practices and obtain greater access for U.S. vessels to fish for
recovering stocks. NOAA Fisheries hosted a NAFO Working Group meeting
in Miami earlier this year to press for more progress in this area, but
it has been slow. On the other hand, we have made considerable gains
within NAFO on transparency, implementing a risk-based approach,
effectively dealing with problems of fishing by non-members, and
upgrading NAFO mechanisms and processes for monitoring compliance by
NAFO members. Nevertheless, the issue of obtaining benefits for U.S.
fishermen commensurate with the considerable financial and other
contributions the United States makes to NAFO has led us to begin a
reassessment of our proper role within the organization.
COFI/Capacity (Committee on Fisheries, Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations)
A major and common problem that plagues a large number of domestic
and world fisheries is overcapacity in the harvesting sector. The
United States has recognized this global problem for more than a
decade, and has worked for years to address the issue of overcapacity
in the harvesting sector through technical and policy-level
consultations held under the sponsorship of FAO. Accordingly, we agreed
in 1997 to consultations leading to an international plan of action for
the management of fishing capacity (IPOA) and joined all the other FAO
Members in approving the IPOA on this subject in 1999. NOAA Fisheries
played an active role in the technical and policy-level meetings to
bring these negotiations to a successful conclusion. In particular, I
would like to single out the efforts of NOAA Fisheries technical
experts who developed definitions and measures of capacity and
overcapacity for marine capture fisheries that were later endorsed by
FAO, and have become the world standards.
The IPOA for the management of fishing capacity included a
provision calling on all signatories to develop a national plan of
action for the management of fishing capacity. NOAA Fisheries has been
working on this task for the last few years, but crafting a national
plan of action for the management of fishing capacity has been a
challenge. The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
does not mandate the regulation of fishing capacity, and certain tools
that would enable the Councils and NOAA Fisheries to manage capacity
were either legally unavailable--in the case of individual fishing
quotas until October 2002--or were untried and therefore untested--in
the case of Fishing Capacity Reduction Programs under Section 312(b)-
(e). Nevertheless, NOAA Fisheries has prepared a draft national plan of
action that we believe is consistent with our legal mandates and
authorities.
Our national plan of action has gone through internal and public
review. We are in the process of making changes in response to comments
provided by our constituents through a Federal Register notice of
availability. The comment period closed in March of this year. We
expect to send the final plan to FAO this year.
The United States, through the Committee on Fisheries (COFI), also
provided leadership in the development of IPOAs regarding seabirds,
sharks, and IUU fishing. The United States has completed development of
its NPOAs relative to seabirds and sharks, and has developed a draft
NPOA on IUU fishing that was presented at COFI earlier this year.
CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild
Fauna and Flora)
The Bush Administration continues to believe that CITES can serve
as a useful adjunct to traditional fisheries management through its
comprehensive permitting and trade control protocols. Such systems can
deter IUU fishing and assist in promoting domestic management programs
for commercially exploited marine species. CITES was designed to
support sustainable international trade in fauna and flora, but is not
a substitute for scientific management and domestic regulation of
fishery resources. In instances where no RFMO is in place (as is the
case with queen conch and sturgeon), a CITES listing can encourage the
establishment of regional management mechanisms. In the case of queen
conch (listed in 1992), since 1996, NOAA Fisheries and the Caribbean
Fishery Management Council have organized the International Queen Conch
Initiative, which provides a forum for countries in the Wider Caribbean
to develop coordinated approaches to regional management of the
species. In the case of sturgeon (listed in 1997), regional cooperation
among range States has led to the setting of intergovernmental quotas
for sturgeon species in the Caspian Sea region. Closer cooperation
between CITES and FAO should further strengthen these efforts, as FAO
is experienced in supporting regional fisheries management
organizations in developing regions of the world.
The Bush Administration has also supported cooperative efforts
between CITES and CCAMLR to improve the management and enforcement of
measures taken to conserve toothfish and potentially other Southern
Ocean species. In addition, we continue to advocate the continued
linkage of CITES listings with actions taken by the IWC to conserve
whale stocks, such that the applicable trade prohibitions under CITES
reflect the decisions on commercial whaling established by the
recognized international management authority.
Deep Sea Fishing
From a global perspective, as more and more fish stocks have become
overfished, the search for economically harvestable fish resources has
led displaced fishing vessels to deep sea seamounts and mid-oceanic
ridges in high seas areas beyond the jurisdictions of any nation and
beyond the reach of many international management regimes. These areas
have several common characteristics: they are isolated and fragile
ecosystems, and there tends to be a paucity of legal frameworks within
which to manage the fisheries in these areas in a sustainable or any
other manner. Areas of concern include deep sea seamounts and mid-
oceanic ridges in the Indo-Pacific Oceans and the Atlantic Ocean. The
lack of legal management frameworks makes these areas one of the last
frontiers in the world's oceans. Unmanaged and uncontrolled fisheries
in these areas represent the greatest threat to the conservation of
biodiversity due to human factors, since other threats (e.g., due to
ship discharges and other sources of pollution) are already at least
potentially addressed by existing international legal frameworks.
There are a number of international meetings dealing with these
problems that are scheduled during the balance of this year and beyond.
NOAA Fisheries intends to participate actively in addressing these
matters because we are all too familiar with the portability of deep
sea fishing fleets in the current environment of overfishing and
overcapacity. We first faced these challenges with regard to large-
scale pelagic driftnet fishing on the high seas. We will bring our
responsibilities for recovering and conserving protected species and
habitats, and our concern with reducing bycatch and addressing IUU
fishing to bear in addressing these problems as part of NOAA's global
marine stewardship mission.
The World's Fish Stocks and Their Management
On May 15, 2003, an article entitled ``Rapid worldwide depletion of
predatory fish communities'' was published in the scientific journal
Nature. The article is consistent with the current scientific view of
impacts of global fisheries on marine ecosystems, but determining that
fish stocks worldwide have declined is not a new conclusion. NOAA
Fisheries scientists share many of the views identified by the authors
of the article. However, there continues to be significant uncertainty
regarding what may have gone on before data were collected
systematically. Although some conclusions reached by the authors that
are global in scope (e.g., regarding overfishing and resource declines)
are widely shared in the scientific community, the conclusions reached
about specific fisheries and ocean areas are affected by this
uncertainty.
We recognize that world ecosystems have been, and will continue to
be, altered as a result of human activities. Rebuilding stocks to
healthy levels includes a human impact component that must be
considered. Therefore, NOAA is increasingly focusing its attention on
scientific research into the impacts of marine fishing on our
ecosystems. Because this is a global issue, we are working with the
international community to address the multiplicity of issues that
surround sustainable utilization of living marine resources. Although
scientific research is an important component, the United States has
made progress in a number of areas of fisheries management. For
example, the United States is a strong leader in swordfish and billfish
conservation through the ICCAT. The United States is also a leader in
technology development (e.g., longline gear) and transfer as it relates
to sea bird and sea turtle bycatch. Nonetheless, we are not satisfied
with the current state of international fisheries management, and we
will continue to promote the establishment of rebuilding programs for
overfished stocks, as we have done in ICCAT and NAFO, and improved,
science-based management, as we are doing in all the regional fisheries
management organizations of which we are a member.
Fish Subsidies
Many commercially-traded fish stocks are fully exploited or over
exploited. While it is generally acknowledged that ineffective or
poorly enforced management regimes in global fisheries are the
principal culprits in the decline of certain stocks, there is reason to
believe that global levels of subsidies (estimated at between $10-15
billion annually) have exacerbated the problem. For this reason, World
Trade Organization (WTO) Ministers agreed in Doha, Qatar in December
2001 to clarify and improve existing WTO rules on fisheries subsidies.
The World Summit on Sustainable Development, held in Johannesburg South
Africa in September 2002, further committed the global community to
reduce and eliminate subsidies that lead to overcapacity and
overfishing.
The United States has actively supported and contributed to work on
fisheries subsidies in a variety of fora, and has long advocated WTO
action on this issue. We believe that the fisheries subsidies
negotiations are an important part of the WTO's commitment to making
trade, development, and environmental policies mutually supportive: in
other words, a demonstration that trade liberalization is a ``win-win-
win.'' We have therefore been working hard in Geneva, along with a
group of like-minded countries, known as the ``friends of fish,'' to
fulfill the Doha mandate and establish better disciplines on fisheries
subsidies. Although a few countries have slowed the negotiations
somewhat, progress toward a successful conclusion is being made.
International Bycatch Reduction Activities
In the September 2000 Annual Report to Congress on International
Bycatch Agreements, required by Section 202(h) of the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act, NOAA Fisheries concluded, and
the Department of State concurred, that seeking international
agreements with foreign nations conducting pelagic longline fishing
operations for Atlantic and Pacific highly migratory species was
necessary and appropriate to protect endangered and threatened sea
turtles. An international strategy was developed and detailed in the
June 2001 Report to Congress.
In January 2002, Assistant Administrator Hogarth appointed an
interagency International Bycatch Reduction Task Force to carry out the
strategy. Although the initial focus of this effort was to reduce sea
turtle bycatch in longline fisheries internationally, it also took on
responsibilities relating to bycatch issues involving sharks and
seabirds. It has since been fully integrated into our broader NOAA
Fisheries National Bycatch Strategy. We continue to host and
participate in international working groups in support of bycatch
mitigation. A few examples of these include:
Participation and financial support for the Second
International Fishermen's Forum in November 2002, which focused
on sea turtle and seabird bycatch mitigation;
Participation and financial support of an Asia-Pacific
Economic Forum Fisheries Working Group Shark Workshop, which
included bycatch issues, in Huatulco, Mexico in December 2002;
Planning and hosting an international technical workshop on
reducing sea turtle interactions with longline gear in February
2003, in Seattle, Washington;
Securing State Department funding to support the meeting of
the Parties to the First Inter-American Sea Turtle Convention,
to be held in San Jose, Costa Rica, in August 2003; and
Planning for an interdisciplinary workshop to be co-
sponsored by the International Center for Living Aquatic Marine
Resource Management and others on the conservation needs of sea
turtles in the Pacific Basin, planned for November 2003 in
Bellagio, Italy.
The Task Force is preparing a report of its activities during the
first year of operation, and I would be happy to provide copies of it
when completed.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to review how NOAA
Fisheries is conducting the tasks assigned it pursuant to the many
international fisheries' treaties and conventions with which the United
States is involved. The Bush Administration is committed to working
with our state and Federal partners for the effective management of our
Nation's fisheries resources. This concludes my testimony, Mr.
Chairman. I am prepared to respond to any questions Members of the
Committee may have.
The Chairman. Thank you, Dr. Lent. Mr. Turner, welcome.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN F. TURNER, ASSISTANT
SECRETARY, BUREAU OF OCEANS AND INTERNATIONAL
ENVIRONMENTAL AND SCIENTIFIC AFFAIRS,
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Mr. Turner. Mr. Chairman, good morning, and Senator
Stevens, Senator Lautenberg. Indeed, it's a pleasure for me to
join my colleagues, Dr. Lent and Admiral Collins, to address
this most important issue of international fisheries, and I
have a written statement which I'd like to submit to the
record.
Mr. Chairman, indeed, as you have noted, a lot of attention
recently has now focused on oceans and marine resources, and
rightfully so. Obviously, many of the world's most valuable
fish stocks are in bad shape.
As you also noted, Mr. Chairman, overfishing is a major
problem, and is a closely related problem of fishing
overcapacity. There are simply too many boats chasing too few
fish. Modern fishing technologies further increase this
capacity by making it easier to locate, track, and kill fish.
Some Government subsidies to the fisheries sectors also
contribute to this problem of overcapacity. The very nature of
ocean fishing, particularly fishing on the high seas, makes
fishing rules, where present, difficult to enforce.
The need to combat IUU fishing has risen to the forefront
of the challenges we face and, of course, paramount around the
world we must also reverse the serious degradation of marine
habitats of sport fish and marine life.
Mr. Chairman, I think we are making some progress. Some
significant accomplishments have been done during the last
couple of years to build a foundation of promise for the
future. Recent international agreements seek to respond to
these problems. The U.N. Fish Stocks Agreement and the FAO High
Seas Compliance Agreement, both of which are now in force,
contain groundbreaking provisions on the responsibility of flag
states to control the fishing activities of their vessels.
Two FAO international plans of action on fishing capacity
and IUU fishing provide additional tools. Two others are in the
works to address the important issue of bycatch mortality and
shark conservation. The upcoming trade round also has a mandate
to impose greater discipline on subsidies that contribute to
overfishing.
Although the situation we face is indeed global in nature,
most international fisheries are managed on a regional basis.
I'd like to just briefly touch on a couple of regions. First is
the issues with Canada and the Pacific Northwest, and a
resource I know important to the constituents of Senator
Stevens, and second, the tuna fisheries in the vast Western and
Central Pacific.
I'm pleased to report that relationships with Canada over
fishery issues in the Pacific Northwest, including Alaska, are
better than they have been in almost two decades. The Pacific
Salmon Agreement resolved longstanding issues between the two
sides, and has allowed the Pacific Salmon Commission to
function effectively once again. We also have included three
other bilateral fishery agreements with Canada, which I'd like
to note.
First is the agreement to manage the salmon fisheries on
the Yukon River. However, there is ongoing need for
authorization and appropriation of funds to implement this
agreement. Second, the U.S. and Canada have agreed to amend the
1981 Albacore Tuna Treaty to limit the level of fishing
permitted by vessels of each country in their mutual waters. We
hope that the Senate will act favorably on the treaty amendment
and that Congress will enact implementing legislation.
Third, we have recently concluded negotiations with Canada
on a new agreement to manage and share the valuable
transboundary stock, Pacific whiting, also known as Pacific
hake. This agreement, once it enters into force, should prevent
overfishing of this stock. Again, we look forward to working
with Congress to develop the implementing legislation.
Concerning, briefly, the Pacific tuna fisheries, I would
note two positive developments. In 2000, the United States and
18 other nations signed a new treaty to manage tuna and other
highly migratory species in the Western Central Pacific, an
area that produces more than half the world's tuna catch, and a
major area until now not covered by a management agreement.
Once the treaty is submitted to the Senate for advice and
consent, we will work with Congress again on implementing
legislation.
Second, we have reached agreement with the Pacific Island
parties to extend the South Pacific Tuna Treaty. This is the
successful existing treaty that allows U.S. vessels to fish for
tuna in the waters of 16 Pacific Island nations. We have
submitted the treaty amendments to the Senate.
I'm proud of the progress and the leadership role the
United States has played in many of these successes. It
demonstrates that concerted international and regional action
can help address the problems we are facing.
Let me suggest some next steps we all need to pursue in the
future. First, as the Admiral pointed out, the international
community must make sure that the commitments contained in
recent fishery agreements are implemented. Specifically, we
must continually press our international partners to join us in
rebuilding depleted fish stocks, reduce fishing capacity,
conduct more fisheries science, and follow the advice of that
science, move ahead toward an ecosystem-based management,
reduce the sources of land-based pollution and reef
degradation, and develop fishing gear and techniques that
reduce bycatch further and produce fewer adverse effects.
Second, we must complete the task of creating new
management regimes to oversee international fisheries that have
until recently been largely unregulated.
Third, we must expand the use of new tools for enforcing
fishing rules and cracking down on illegal fishing.
Finally, we must all work together to build the capacity of
developing nations to help them manage fisheries in waters
under their jurisdiction. Roughly 90 percent of the fish caught
in oceans are taking from waters within the jurisdiction of
coastal states, particularly developing coastal states. Because
many valuable fish stocks migrate widely, it is manifestly in
our own interests to help these developing countries better
manage these stocks and their waters. Again, Mr. Chairman and
Committee Members, thank you for this opportunity to appear
before you, and I, too, look forward to trying to answer any of
your questions.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Turner follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. John F. Turner, Assistant Secretary, Bureau
of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs,
Department of State
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
Your invitation to testify before this Committee today on the U.S.
role in international fisheries could not be more timely. The state of
the world's oceans in general, and its fish stocks in particular, has
recently received a great deal of attention. We are also looking
forward to the report of the Commission on Ocean Policy later this
year, which will undoubtedly contain a broad range of recommendations
for action that will warrant serious consideration by the
Administration and Congress.
I welcome this attention, for it affords us an opportunity to raise
awareness of the issues we have been confronting, of the progress we
have made, and of the daunting challenges that still face us.
My statement today begins with a brief overview of the general
situation as we see it and then reviews a number of more specific
issues, with a particular focus on those for which the Administration
believes congressional action is necessary or desirable. In some cases,
the testimony of other witnesses on this panel will elaborate on these
specific issues. My statement closes with some thoughts on next steps
that we must take.
Overview
In 2002, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations (FAO) reported that global production from capture fisheries
and aquaculture is currently the highest on record. Worldwide, the
tonnage of fish caught in the oceans and inland areas has remained
relatively stable in recent years, while the tonnage of fish produced
by aquaculture has continued to increase markedly. International trade
in fish products has also risen tremendously.
These trends mask a number of very serious problems, however. Many
of the world's primary fishery resources are under stress. A number of
key fish stocks have collapsed from overfishing and environmental
degradation (such as cod in the Northwest Atlantic), while others have
become depleted (such as Atlantic bluefin tuna). While stocks in the
Pacific Ocean are generally thought to be in somewhat better shape,
increasing fishing effort on a number of those stocks gives us reason
to be concerned.
In 2002, FAO estimated that, among the major marine fish stocks or
groups of stocks for which information is available, about 47 percent
are fully exploited, while another 18 percent are overexploited. An
additional 10 percent of such stocks have been depleted or are
recovering from depletion. In short, there are relatively few major
fisheries that can absorb additional fishing effort. Meanwhile, we see
a growing demand for fisheries products and many vessels looking for
new places to fish.
Many factors have contributed to this situation. Most international
management of fisheries relies upon ``open access'' approaches that can
create incentives toward overfishing. Moreover, improvements in fishing
technology, coupled with substantial government subsidies to fishers,
have greatly increased harvesting capacity worldwide. To make matters
worse, environmental degradation has spoiled some fish habitat. The
ability of vessels to operate outside governmental controls, including
by adopting ``flags of convenience,'' has rendered fisheries
enforcement less than effective in many circumstances. The use of
certain kinds of fishing gear and fishing techniques has also led to
serious concerns about the ``bycatch'' of other species (including some
endangered species) and harm to the marine environment.
Fortunately for the fish, and for the fishers whose livelihoods
depend on them, we have worked to create a network of agreements
designed to address these critical problems. The United States can take
great pride in our leadership in this field, as we often played the
role of drafters and brokers for these international agreements.
Congress has also provided leadership in this field, including through
Senate advice and consent to the ratification of international
fisheries treaties and enactment of relevant legislation.
Building on the general international law framework set forth in
the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the past
decade has witnessed a veritable explosion of new agreements and
standards for the conservation and management of fisheries worldwide.
Some of the important instruments are:
The 1995 UN Fish Stocks Agreement
The 1993 FAO Compliance Agreement
The 1995 FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries
Four FAO International Plans of Action on specific matters
The 1996 Inter-American Sea Turtle Convention
The 1999 Agreement on the International Dolphin Conservation
Program
The 2000 Central and Western Pacific Tuna Convention (not
yet in force)
Our challenge now is to ensure effective implementation of the full
range of these instruments. Working with Congress, U.S. constituent
groups and our partners in the international community, we hope to
realize the goal of sustainable fisheries worldwide.
Global Issues
Fisheries around the world are extraordinarily diverse. The species
sought, the gear and techniques employed and the markets served all
vary widely. Still, a number of common problems plague many fisheries.
Worldwide, we are experiencing significant overcapacity of fishing
fleets--there are simply too many boats chasing too few fish. Excess
fishing capacity creates pressure toward overfishing. Certain
government subsidies to the fisheries sector exacerbate this problem of
overcapacity, by allowing otherwise unprofitable vessels to remain
engaged in fishing activity.
The very nature of ocean fishing, particularly fishing on the high
seas, makes it difficult to enforce fishing rules. With the downturn in
many valuable fisheries, the rules have become stricter, while the
incentive to evade the rules has grown. The need to combat ``illegal,
unreported and unregulated'' fishing--also known as IUU fishing--has
risen to the forefront of challenges facing the international community
in this field.
Many of the agreements I mentioned earlier seek to respond to these
common, pressing problems. The UN Fish Stocks Agreement and the FAO
Compliance Agreement, both of which are now in force, contain ground-
breaking provisions on the responsibilities of flag States to control
the fishing activities of their vessels. Two of the FAO International
Plans of Action--on fishing capacity and IUU fishing--have provided new
tools for addressing these concerns. The upcoming Trade Round also has
a mandate to impose greater disciplines on subsidies that contribute to
overfishing.
Let me reiterate that these agreements might not exist, or would
not be as strong, without U.S. leadership in this field. The United
States was among the first to ratify the UN Fish Stocks Agreement and
the FAO Compliance Agreement. Our concerted diplomatic campaign to urge
other nations to ratify these treaties has succeeded in bringing them
into force. We can also take credit for our many contributions to the
FAO International Plans of Action and the other instruments now in
place to pursue sustainable fisheries.
Regional Issues
Regional Fishery Management Organizations
Much of the specific management of international fisheries is
accomplished through regional fisheries management organizations. The
United States is a member of more than a dozen such commissions and
related organizations. These organizations adopt measures to conserve
and manage fisheries under their auspices, conduct related scientific
research and provide venues for undertaking new policy initiatives in
the field of marine conservation.
Funding to support U.S. participation in these organizations comes
from appropriations to the International Fisheries Commissions account.
Specifically, this account covers the U.S. share of operating expenses
of nine international fisheries commissions and organizations, one sea
turtle convention, the International Whaling Commission, two
international marine science organizations, and travel and other
expenses for non-Federal U.S. Commissioners.
In recent years, Congress has appropriated roughly $20 million for
this account annually. For FY 2003, the Bush Administration requested
$19.78 million. Congress appropriated $17.1 million. In the Conference
Statement accompanying the FY 2003 Omnibus Appropriations Bill, no
funding was allocated for the operating expenses of the Pacific Salmon
Commission and five other commissions. The Administration has submitted
a notice to Congress on reprogramming funds within the International
Fisheries Commission. The reprogramming will allow for the smallest
feasible amount of funding so the Pacific Salmon Commission may
continue operations and full funding of the smaller commissions. The
Great Lakes Fisheries Commission and the International Pacific Halibut
Commission will both be taking reductions in order to have all fish
commissions in this account operating this fiscal year.
For FY 2004, the Bush Administration's budget request for
International Fisheries Commissions amounts to $20.04 million, which
includes $75 thousand for the Antarctic Treaty. We hope that Congress
will appropriate the full amount.
International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas
(ICCAT). This commission manages tunas (and tuna-like species, such as
swordfish) in the Atlantic Ocean. Key conservation issues facing ICCAT
include maintenance of rebuilding programs for North Atlantic
swordfish, pressing for greater compliance with ICCAT rules, cracking
down further on ``IUU'' fishing of ICCAT species, reviewing ICCAT's
practice of managing eastern and western bluefin tuna as separate
stocks, and pressing for measures to conserve sea turtles and sharks
incidentally captured in these fisheries. Recent attention has been
focused on the EU's activities in ICCAT, and in fact a coalition of
environmental groups and several state governors submitted a request to
certify the EU under the Pelly Amendment to the Fishermen's Protective
Act of 1967 for diminishing the effectiveness of ICCAT. We are working
closely with the Department of Commerce on this issue.
Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO). This Commission
manages a wide variety of fisheries on the high seas of the northwest
Atlantic Ocean, many of which remain seriously depleted. Some stocks,
however, are rebounding after years of sharply restricted fishing,
including yellowtail flounder. U.S. priorities in NAFO include seeking
greater access for U.S. vessels to such recovering stocks and modifying
the NAFO system for allocating quotas more generally. The United States
has taken an active role in NAFO and held many positions of leadership
in the organization; however, we are considering the proper balance
between our level of participation in NAFO and the benefits we accrue
there. The Department of Commerce witness will also address this issue
in more detail.
Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC).
Negotiations to establish a Western and Central Pacific Fisheries
Commission concluded in September 2000. Throughout the negotiating
process, the United States was a leader in developing the key
provisions of this Convention and in bringing other nations together to
accept a strong and balanced text. The United States and 18 other
States have signed the Convention that will create the WCPFC, but it
has not yet entered into force. The area covered by this Convention
encompasses the last major area of the world's oceans not covered by a
regional management regime for tunas and other highly migratory
species. This region produces more than half the world's annual tuna
catch. The United States is actively participating in the WCPFC
Preparatory Process.
One key issue that we hope to see addressed under this new
Convention is that of excess fishing capacity--too many vessels
catching too many fish. While the stocks of tuna in the Western and
Central Pacific are not currently considered to be over-fished, excess
capacity complicates adoption and implementation of effective
conservation and management measures and has significant implications
for the economic viability of these fisheries in the longer term.
This Convention, which enjoys strong support from the tuna industry
and conservation organizations, will require Senate advice and consent
to ratification. New legislation to implement the Convention will also
be necessary before the United States could become a party to it. We
look forward to working with the Committee on such legislation.
Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living
Resources (CCAMLR). The 24-member Commission for the Conservation of
Antarctic Marine Living Resources governs the harvesting of marine
resources in the Southern Ocean. Concern has grown over the illegal
harvesting of Patagonian toothfish, a high-value, long-lived fish
species marketed in the U.S. as Chilean sea bass. CCAMLR designed an
innovative catch documentation system in 2000 and, at its last meeting
in November, adopted changes to distinguish better between legal and
illegal catches and is instituting a list of fishing vessels which have
engaged in IUU fishing. CCAMLR also is moving towards an Internet-based
document and tracking system to reduce the possibilities for fraud.
Other Commissions. The United States participates in a number of
other international fisheries commissions as well. Two of them, the
International Pacific Halibut Commission and the Great Lakes Fishery
Commission, involve Canada as the only other member. Two others, the
North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization and the North Pacific
Anadromous Fish Commission, have missions to conserve salmon stocks in
their respective regions, including by ensuring that such stocks are
not fished on the high seas. Finally, we are a longtime member of the
Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission, which regulates tuna fishing
in the Eastern Pacific and is involved with our efforts to protect
dolphin stocks in that region, as discussed below.
Bilateral Issues with Canada
Relations with Canada over fishery issues are better than they have
been in many years. The 1999 Pacific Salmon Agreement appears to have
resolved long-standing problems and has allowed the Pacific Salmon
Commission to function effectively once again. The agreements on Yukon
River salmon, on the amendments to the 1981 Albacore Treaty and on
managing the transboundary Pacific whiting stock, described below, are
noteworthy achievements as well.
The 1981 U.S.-Canada Albacore Treaty allows vessels of each country
to fish for albacore, without limitation, in waters of the other
country. In 2002, the United States and Canada agreed to amend the
Treaty to provide for limits on such fishing. Such changes are
necessary to limit a recently fast-growing Canadian fishery in U.S.
waters and also to permit future management of the stock by both sides.
President Bush transmitted the amendment to the Treaty to the Senate in
January 2003 and we are hopeful that the Senate will act favorably on
this matter in the near future. In addition, we need legislation to
implement the Treaty, both in its existing form and as revised. Such
legislation was introduced in the 107th Congress (H.R. 1989). The
Senate passed this legislation in November 2002, but the House did not
take action on the bill before final adjournment. The legislation was
included in the Magnuson bill just transmitted to Congress, and we hope
that Congress will pass the legislation in the very near future.
Most recently, U.S. and Canadian delegations have reached consensus
on the text of an agreement to manage and share the valuable
transboundary stock of Pacific whiting, also known as Pacific hake.
Disagreements over sharing arrangements have led to overfishing in the
past, as the United States took 80 percent of the allowable harvest,
while Canada took more than 30 percent. This agreement, once it enters
into force, should remedy that problem effectively. We look forward to
working with Congress in developing implementing legislation for this
agreement.
The United States and Canada reached agreement on a management
regime for salmon fisheries on the Yukon River in Alaska and the Yukon
Territory in March 2001. U.S. and Canadian officials concluded the
agreement through an exchange of notes in December 2002. As this is an
executive agreement, it did not require Senate advice and consent to
ratification, nor was any additional legislation needed to implement to
agreement. However, there is an on-going need for the authorization and
appropriation of funds to implement the Agreement, including for the
Restoration and Enhancement Fund established under the Agreement.
Finally, I would note that we are exploring ways to gain greater
access for U.S. vessels to ports in Atlantic Canada. We are also
engaged in efforts to resolve a dispute over lobster fishing in waters
around Machias Seal Island off the coast of Maine.
South Pacific Tuna Access Agreement
This Treaty, which allows U.S. vessels to fish for tuna in the
waters of 16 Pacific Island States, entered into force in 1988 and was
amended and extended in 1993 for a ten-year period, through June 14 of
this year. In 2002, the United States and the Pacific Island Parties
concluded negotiations to extend the operation of this Treaty for an
additional ten-year period, through June 14, 2013. The amendments to
the Treaty and its Annexes will, among other things, enable use of new
technologies for enforcement, streamline the way amendments to the
Annexes are agreed, and modify the waters that are open and closed
under the Treaty. President Bush submitted the amendments to the Treaty
to the Senate for advice and consent in February 2003. Minor amendments
to Section 6 of the South Pacific Tuna Act of 1988, Public Law 100-330,
will be necessary to take account of the Amendment to paragraph 2 of
Article 3, ``Access to the Treaty Area,'' which permits U.S. longline
vessels to fish on the high seas of the Treaty Area.
The Treaty provides considerable economic benefit to all parties,
with the value of landed tuna contributing between $250 and $400
million annually to the U.S. economy. Nearly all of this fish is landed
in American Samoa and processed in two canneries located there, one of
which is owned by U.S. interests. These canneries provide more than 80
percent of private sector employment in that territory.
Bilateral Issues with Russia
Relations with the Russian Federation over fisheries issues in the
North Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea are contentious. The failure of
Russia to ratify the 1990 Maritime Boundary Treaty continues to create
uncertainty, while corruption and lack of government resources have led
to serious overfishing in Russian waters. A large-scale overhaul by the
Government of the Russian Federation of its bureaucratic structure for
managing fisheries is at present complicating efforts to address these
matters. We are nevertheless actively looking for new ways to cooperate
with Russia to improve this situation, including through the
development of two new agreements, one on cooperation in marine science
and the other on fisheries enforcement.
Ecosystem Issues
We see a growing consensus in the international community that
fisheries cannot be managed effectively by dealing with fish stocks in
clinical isolation from the ecosystems in which they live. To be
effective, fisheries managers must take into account such things as the
relationships between target fish stocks and associated or dependent
species, the effects of fishing practices on the marine environment,
and non-fishing factors that affect the health and biomass of fish
stocks.
The modern international norms of fisheries management certainly
reflect the need for ``ecosystem-based'' fisheries management. The 1995
UN Fish Stocks Agreement, for example, calls upon States to
minimize pollution, waste, discards, catch by lose or abandoned
gear, catch of non-target species, both fish and non-fish
species, . . . and impacts on associated or dependent species,
in particular endangered species, through measures including. .
.the development and use of selective, environmentally safe and
cost-effective fishing gear and techniques.
The United States, through the combined efforts and Congress and
the Executive Branch, has made progress in addressing these issues at
the international level, but the work has, in many ways, only just
begun. I would like to touch briefly on two well-known issues related
to ``bycatch'' of non-target species: (1) efforts reduce sea turtle
mortality in fishing operations and (2) efforts to reduce dolphin
mortality in the purse seine fishery of the Eastern Pacific Ocean.
Sea turtles. Section 609 of Public Law 101-162 prohibits the
importation of shrimp and products of shrimp harvested in a manner that
may adversely affect sea turtle species. By May 1 of each year, the
Department certifies to Congress those nations meeting criteria set
forth in the statute relating to the protection of sea turtles in the
course of shrimp trawl fishing. In 2003, we certified 39 nations and
one economy (Hong Kong) as meeting the requirements of Section 609.
Haiti did not meet certification requirements for 2002 and Indonesia
remained uncertified from the previous year. Earlier in 2003, we
removed Honduras and Venezuela from the list of certified countries.
The United States is a leading participant in two groundbreaking
international agreements to protect sea turtles, one in the Americas
and another in the Indian Ocean region. Although both regimes are just
getting off the ground, they hold considerable promise for reversing
the declines of these endangered species. The Department of State leads
the U.S. delegation to meetings held pursuant to these agreements.
Congress has supported these agreements through the appropriations
process.
We are also working with NOAA Fisheries and the international
community in a variety of fora to address the specific problem of the
bycatch of sea turtles in longline fisheries. In 2002, the Department
participated in the Second International Fishers' Forum, hosted by the
Western Pacific Fisheries Management Council in Hawaii. The Department
also helped sponsor and participated in the International Technical
Expert Workshop on Marine Turtle Bycatch in Longline Fisheries in
February 2003 in Seattle. In February 2003, we secured a commitment of
FAO to convene an international technical consultation among members of
FAO on the bycatch of sea turtles in longline and other commercial
fisheries. The Department views this as the next step in a global
campaign to seek solutions to this serious problem. In advance of that
meeting, however, we are considering ways to work within some regional
fisheries management organizations, such as the Inter-American Tropical
Tuna Commission (IATTC), to provide input from those organizations into
that process.
Tuna/dolphin. Following enactment of the 1997 International Dolphin
Conservation Program Act, the United States and other countries whose
vessels participate in the purse seine tuna fishery of the Eastern
Pacific Ocean entered into negotiations to create an effective, binding
agreement to protect dolphins from harm in this fishery. The resulting
1999 Agreement, which built on an earlier voluntary regime, has been a
solid success, bringing observed dolphin mortalities down to extremely
low levels through the use of proper incentives for vessel captains and
a strong oversight program that includes mechanisms for transparency
otherwise unknown in the field of international fisheries. Under the
resulting 1999 Agreement and the earlier voluntary regime, dolphin
mortalities have been reduced more than 98 percent from as recently as
1987.
We are aware of concerns regarding the level of compliance with
this Agreement by some fishing countries. While the level of reported
infractions represents a small percentage of overall activity under the
Agreement, the Departments of State and Commerce are working with the
other participants in the International Dolphin Conservation Program to
address these concerns and to ensure that compliance with the Agreement
is at the highest possible level. It should be noted, however, that the
other countries whose vessels operate in this fishery entered into the
1999 Agreement with the expectation that the United States would adopt
a new definition of ``dolphin-safe'' tuna. However, the International
Dolphin Conservation Program Act made such a change in definition
contingent on the outcome of certain studies and a finding by the
Secretary of Commerce, a matter that remains in litigation.
Some Next Steps
Mr. Chairman, the Bush Administration continues to provide strong
international leadership in pushing for global action to achieve
sustainable fisheries. But the United States cannot do this alone. Our
success will depend in large measure on our ability to harness and
direct the energies of the international community toward a number of
critical goals.
First, the international community must do more than pay lip
service to applying a greater conservation ethic to the regulation of
ocean fisheries. The commitments contained in recent fisheries
agreements are the right commitments, but they cannot remain mere words
on paper. Similarly, we must give effect to the commitments in this
field made at the World Summit for Sustainable Development,
particularly to rebuild depleted fish stocks on an urgent basis. The
nations of the world must reduce fishing capacity in an effort to
reduce pressure for overfishing. We must also devote more effort to the
conduct of marine scientific research related to fisheries and must
follow scientific advice consistently. Governments, both individually
and through their participation in regional fisheries management
organizations, must continue moving towards ``ecosystem-based''
fisheries management as well. In particular, we must do more to develop
fishing gear and techniques that reduce bycatch further and produce
fewer adverse effects on the marine environment. One critical need in
this respect is to find ways to reduce the bycatch of endangered sea
turtles in longline fisheries worldwide.
Second, we must complete the task of creating new management
regimes to oversee important international fisheries that have, until
recently, been largely unregulated. One prime example is for the tuna
fisheries in the Central and Western Pacific, in which the Bush
Administration is exercising a leadership role, as I mentioned earlier.
The United States actively helped fashion a new regime to manage
fisheries in the Southeast Atlantic Ocean, even though we do not have
vessels fishing in that region at this time, in order to make that
regime as strong as possible. We are also nearing the completion of an
effort to overhaul the treaty creating the Inter-American Tropical Tuna
Commission, which will allow that body to operate in conformity with
modern norms of fishery conservation and management. We must use these
new and improved regimes to press forward on an aggressive agenda to
achieve sustainable fisheries in these respective regions.
Third, we must expand the use of the new tools for enforcing
fishing rules, many of which are showing promise. Fisheries enforcement
officials from various governments are coordinating their activities in
real-time as never before, including through an informal Network that
the United States and Chile helped to launch. We are seeing
improvements in the area of monitoring, control and surveillance of
fishing vessels, including through the use of independent observers and
satellite-based vessel monitoring systems. While IUU fishing remains a
very serious problem, we have succeeded in raising the profile of this
issue and in putting pressure on governments to curb this practice. The
Bush Administration has just issued a National Plan of Action on IUU
Fishing, which contains many useful recommendations. This Action Plan
will build on steps being taken in a variety of regional fisheries
management organizations, including documentation schemes to reduce
trade in illegally harvested fish, as well as controls on the landing
and transshipment of fish in port. The international community also
appears to be reconsidering the notion of exclusive flag-State
jurisdiction over fishing vessels on the high seas, as a growing number
of agreements allow other States to take certain enforcement actions
against such vessels.
Finally, we must build help developing countries build their own
capacity to manage fisheries in waters under their jurisdiction more
effectively. Roughly 90 percent of fish caught in the oceans are taken
from waters within the jurisdiction of coastal States, particularly
developing coastal States. Because many valuable fish stocks migrate
widely, it is manifestly in our own interest to help these developing
countries better manage those stocks in their own waters, particularly
to control rampant illegal fishing that too often takes place.
We certainly have much work to do if we are to reestablish
sustainable fisheries worldwide. There is no hiding the fact that the
situation facing many fisheries remains bleak. In short, we must ensure
that the impressive collection of international agreements we have
negotiated in the past decade do not remain mere words on paper. We
must continue our efforts to turn those words into concrete actions if
the situation facing international fisheries is to improve.
Conclusion
Thank you very much for this opportunity to address the Committee.
I would be pleased to try to answer any questions that you may have.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Turner. I don't
claim to be an expert on this issue, but it seems to me that
there's good news and bad news here. In the United States'
coastal waters around the Pacific Northwest, there is a steady
but incremental increase in the numbers of fish and our ability
to harvest and not deplete them. Do you agree or disagree with
that statement? Admiral.
Admiral Collins. I'll probably defer to the scientists, Mr.
Chairman, but clearly the most robust fisheries left on the
planet are in and around our EEZs and Alaska, the pollack,
salmon, and tuna fisheries that----
The Chairman. We have a sustainable growth program in these
areas. Would you agree with that statement, Mr. Turner?
Mr. Turner. Mr. Chairman, I think we still have a lot of
work to do, but the U.S. among all fishing nations has tried to
reduce the capacity of their fleets, has tried to embark on
good management and good enforcement, and many of the
progresses that I mentioned, I am convinced personally would
not have happened without U.S. leadership on the world scene.
The Chairman. But I'm just talking about the fishing areas
around the United States. Do you agree, Dr. Lent? I didn't know
this question was going to be that hard.
[Laughter.]
Dr. Lent. Yes, Senator, we agree. We have limited entry in
virtually all of our fisheries in the United States. Where we
have overfishing occurring we are addressing that with
rebuilding plans. We've seen clear progress in New England, 150
percent increase.
The Chairman. Now, the bad news is that apparently
worldwide, according to numerous studies, there are very
serious problems that are causing a significant depletion, and
even endangerment of certain species of fish. Do you agree with
that statement, Dr. Lent?
Dr. Lent. Yes, Senator.
The Chairman. Do you agree with that statement?
Mr. Turner. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. And according to a recent study, and a number
of experts in the panel of witnesses that will follow you, the
reason why we've been able to maintain the level of catch is
that the fishing boats--they're no longer boats--have ranged
further and further, as you alluded to in your statement, Dr.
Lent, and with the improved capabilities for harvesting fish.
Is that correct?
Dr. Lent. That's correct. The technology advancements have
been spectacular.
The Chairman. Mr. Turner.
Mr. Turner. Yes, sir. I agree, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Let me ask this, I'm sure you had the
opportunity of reading the recent study which has stirred up so
much, perhaps not controversy, but certainly attention to the
issue. What are your views--and Admiral, I'll leave you out of
this. What are your views, Dr. Lent and Mr. Turner, on that
study, a very important contribution, you have some
disagreements with it--just give me your general overall
impression.
Dr. Lent. Thank you, yes, very quickly, we welcome the
increased attention that this article and these types of things
bring for all Americans on the challenges of fishery management
and fishery science, and we all agree that fishing has an
impact on the resource, that we need to increase management. We
also appreciate the fact that this problem tends to be more of
an international problem than one domestically.
Where we disagree, and where we have debate that we want to
see ongoing with the Nature article is the degree to which the
fish stocks have actually been fished down. We actually want to
be about 50 percent of the original stock size for really
maximum, optimum sustainable yield.
The Chairman. Did I understand you to say 50 percent?
Dr. Lent. That's correct.
The Chairman. Depletion.
Dr. Lent. That's correct.
The Chairman. As opposed to 70 or 90 percent?
Dr. Lent. This is a rough estimate. When you're fishing a
stock to the point where you want maximum sustainable yield, in
most cases you're about 50 percent, and I believe the authors
would agree with that.
The important thing is that if that goal moves, if we have
new data that show us that in fact we can go higher, that's
great. It happened in New England, we've adjusted our
rebuilding plans, we're still growing. If the goal moves, we'll
move to that greater goal. It's a good sign. It means we can
actually get more fishing, more jobs, and more income, and more
food out of these stocks.
The Chairman. So you are in agreement with the study, with
some questioning about the percentages?
Dr. Lent. That's correct, Senator, in specific cases, and
we do have our scientists looking at it, and they are
communicating with the authors.
The Chairman. Mr. Turner.
Mr. Turner. Mr. Chairman, again I think the attention this
year from the Nature report, the Pew Commission, we'll look
forward to Admiral Watkins' report this fall, and many have
certainly raised the attention appropriately.
I think, though I am no marine fisheries scientist, I think
where the debate is happening on some of the findings of, say,
the Nature article are a question on some of the base
inventories, going back to the fifties, whether the earliest
data on what the base was, and I think there will be a robust
discussion of some of those numbers, but the overall finding
that fish stock are in trouble I think is certainly legitimate
and a welcome finding.
The Chairman. Isn't the experience we had with the cod,
isn't that some kind of a warning sign of what could happen to
other species of fish which are perhaps less identifiable, like
the tuna and others that we could reach a crisis point pretty
quickly? Mr. Turner.
Mr. Turner. Oh, I think definitely so. There are some
successes out there. I think the Alaska fishery is in pretty
good shape. Pacific tuna seem in reasonably good shape. Thanks
to the management scheme we are at least cautiously optimistic.
Atlantic swordfish may be rebounding some, and the same with
yellowtail flounder, so there are some positives out there, but
the cod, the crash of that resource should be a reminder to all
of us how fragile and how quickly you can take down what was
once thought a boundless resource.
The Chairman. Well, it seems to me that if, in line with my
first questions to you, that if, within the United States and
the areas that we have specific control over we're doing pretty
well, we could do a lot better, but we're certainly not in an
emergency situation, as some allege in other parts of the
oceans of the world, then it seems to me our challenge is to
pursue international enforceable agreements. Have we done
anything more in that area, Dr. Lent and Mr. Turner?
Dr. Lent. Mr. Chairman, as we point out in our testimony,
we have made a lot of progress. We have new agreements that are
recently negotiated. We've got virtually all of the oceans
covered. The one area that's missing is the seamounts issue,
because even though we've got the oceans covered with regional
fishery management organizations, those are mostly for
pelagics, the tunas and the swordfish and the billfish, so we
have a couple of meetings coming up this year focusing on the
seamount fisheries. We'll need to look at that. Again, room for
progress in all of these agreements.
The first step is get an agreement and get management
recommendations, enforce them, get compliance. I think we're
making progress.
The Chairman. Well, I hope that the Commission, headed by
Admiral Watkins, might come up with some specific
recommendations for a framework to get additional international
agreements.
Life is anecdotal, but I hear from everywhere that fishing
is not what it once was. Don't you hear the same thing,
Admiral?
Admiral Collins. Yes, sir, but it depends where you are and
what fish stock you're talking about, Mr. Chairman. I think
there are a couple of models out there that are shining
examples of how we can be effective. Senator Stevens mentioned
high seas driftnet and the challenge. I think that's a model of
success, because it involves those four ingredients that I
talked about.
If you go through that issue and you can see that we have
been aggressive on all four of those categories, for example,
we have a North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission that has
been very, very active between China and Japan, Russia, Canada,
and ourselves. We've worked very, very closely, and it's the
only regional fisheries management organization scheme that
specifically addresses enforcement agency interoperability as
part of the game plan.
It calls for, like, an annual planning meeting. It talks
about how we're going to deal with this operationally on an
enforcement basis. We plan out surveillance aircraft hours. We
plan out who's going to be the response vessel if we sight one
of these things, and basically we've driven them out of
business, and it will be through a very, very--use of
technology, joint operations, a strong regulatory regime and
presence, and we've been very, very, very successful there, so
I think there are some best practices-type of experience that
we can use and try to import to other places.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Stevens.
Senator Stevens. I really think that the problem that we've
got is to look at the size of the boats and the management of
the boats to try and see how we can find some means to bring
about some internal discipline in the fleets. Admiral Collins,
have you looked at the ownership and management of these boats
from the point of view of the global economy? Isn't the control
concentrating in about two or three different countries in the
world over the total fleet that's out there, the big boats?
Admiral Collins. Yes, sir. We haven't done an exhaustive
study on that, but clearly, you know, the distant fishing
nations in terms of the Pacific, which I'm most familiar with,
the distant fishing nations in the world are clearly the big
players. China, Taiwan, Korea and so forth have far reach and
far impact and large fleets, and that's the challenge of the
U.N. fish talks agreement and the western enforcement, is that
we have noncontiguous EEZs to worry about, places like Palmyra
and Johnston Island and Baker Island and so forth, spread all
over the Pacific, 1.8 million square miles alone in those
areas, and we've added through the fish stocks agreement
responsibilities to enforce on the high seas, so that drives it
up over 20 million square miles of area. It's a huge challenge,
given the vastness and the far reach of some of these major
fishing nations, many of which have not signed the fish stocks
agreement.
Senator Stevens. Well, the experience we've had in the
North Pacific, where we've had violations, has been with rogue
nations that come in with vessels that are not subject to any
agreement, and your people have had to seize them and we've had
to pursue them. It just seems to me that what we ought to do
is, we ought to try to find some way to bring about an
international registry of vessels and to put transponders on
all of them with identification so we know where they are and
who they are, and that we keep track of the landings, find some
way to find out where this fish is being brought ashore,
whether it's processed at sea or on shore.
The difficulty is, as I think so many people think the
fishing is being done by the coastal nations in their area.
It's my feeling that the fleets of the world are so large now
that many of them are registered in one country, operate in
another, and have the profits going to another, and it's really
difficult to get a hold of.
Did you ever read that little book, Mr. Turner, on cod, how
cod changed the world? It's a very short little book, but it
really demonstrates how the British and others followed cod
around the world, so it's not a new process, is what I'm
saying. This has been going on for centuries. The difference is
the efficiency of the vessels now, and the fact that they now
can stay at sea forever.
Mr. Chairman, when we first brought about the 200-mile
limit, I'd taken a flight from Kodiak to the Pribilof Islands
and encountered some 90 factory trawlers that were there year-
round, and they were not subject to our laws. They were not
subject to any kind of conservation commitment. They were not
subject to any kind of, really, protection for any species. One
of them actually had a big grinder like a big garbage disposal
in the center of the deck, and everything was pushed in there
and ground up and made into fishmeal.
The world has a 200-mile limit now, but most nations don't
enforce it, do they?
Mr. Turner. Senator, your observation on the size of boat
relates to the capacity issue, and it's a vital one. Some of
the things that are going on as we wrestle with that difficult
one, the FAO is looking at a plan of action on the capacity
question. We are working with, especially developing countries
on what the protocol is and the tracking and the behavior of
flags of convenience, where many of these flagging states need
to do a better job of controlling and monitoring and enforcing
good practices on the ships.
Another issue is the subsidy issue, and the United States
has tackled that directly with cooperation we're getting from
USTR and the Department of Commerce through the WTO and others,
and then some of the management regime are instigating new
tracking mechanisms to track vessels that have a record of IUU,
or fishing outside of boundaries or regulations, and I think
that will improve, and then we need to help these developing
countries.
We have countries that depend on proteins for indigenous
people and so forth, where big fishing fleets are covering up
the names of their boats and going right in along shore and
just mining the bottoms of these countries in violation of all
international law. These developing countries quite often don't
have the patrol boats or the capacity, so working with the
Coast Guard and others, the FAO, we're trying to do training
and capacity-building in developing countries that really get
preyed upon by some of the big fishing fleets around the world.
It's one of our focuses.
Senator Stevens. I see my light's on, but I had in my
office just the day before yesterday a group of people who are
willing to put those transponders on any vessel at a cost of $3
a day, but if you look at the number of vessels out there, the
question is, who is going to pay it? It's going to be the
United Nations, or it's going to be the U.S., and how do we
really get to the concept of enforcement and reporting? Once we
know where they are, of course we can start tracking them and
comparison of the depletion of particular types of species, but
it's going to be a monumental task. I look forward to working
with all of you. I think it's a challenge for the United States
to try and convince the world that the concept of overfishing
has to be stopped. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you. Senator Lautenberg.
STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK LAUTENBERG,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY
Senator Lautenberg. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. This hearing is
extremely opportune from a timing standpoint, because the news
that we get about fishing stocks and the disappearance, or at
least the endangerment of species is so evident, just from the
front page news stories. Mr. Chairman, I want to put my full
statement in the record.
The Chairman. Without objection.
Senator Lautenberg. But I would just like to extract a
little bit from my statement that outlines the problem for me.
When I look at the National Research Council figures suggesting
the total biomass of fish and invertebrates harvested or killed
each year probably exceeds 110 million tons a year, and we know
that that figure exceeds what could be a maximum sustainable
catch at 100 million tons a year. What puzzles me is that we're
looking at a supply of nutrition and substance for so many
people, and this is like someone eating a meal until your
cheeks can't hold any more and then wondering how you're going
to feed for the next day and the next week.
I'm interested casually as a fisherman, as someone who goes
to the sea a lot in a boat. I know that from the coast of New
Jersey, which is in a key location for fishing activity, that
the fishermen, the recreational fishermen have to go out
further and further and further to bring back any fish, and so
it is with the commercials as well. When I see the technology,
and you see the ships that are being built for fishing at a
cost that says that ship has to operate 24 hours a day in order
to try and make a return on investment. What they do is, they
come in, turn over crews, get rid of their load, and some of
them load off into other factory-type ships and go back in and
refresh the crew and go out again.
These huge rigs are just raking the bottom. It's not
skimming, it's raking. They take up just about everything that
grows, and I wonder what we can do in terms of enforcing
international agreements. I look at what happened with
rockfish, or striped basses they're called, and they were in
serious condition in terms of the numbers of fish, and their
principal breeding place I guess is the Chesapeake, and we
stopped the fishing. It was a good piece of legislation here.
We stopped them from fishing the small size, and now there's an
abundance of the fish.
Bluefish, for instance, which were so plentiful it was hard
not to catch them, are harder to find, and cod, halibut, blue
marlin, I mean, these things that were here in such prolific
quantities that you didn't have to have any skill to catch
them, and you could bring them home for lunch, dinner, family,
et cetera. So we're chasing the fish, and one doesn't have to
be a rocket scientist or a marine biologist to understand that
there are fewer fish. Senator Stevens, when the Japanese put
out a 60-mile line, a longline, trailing behind fish, I mean,
they're taking all kinds of stuff out of there. I don't know
how many hooks, but there are thousands of hooks.
[The prepared statement of Senator Lautenberg follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg,
U.S. Senator from New Jersey
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for convening today's hearing on Global
Overfishing.
Today in the United States there is growing concern over the effect
of over-fishing on the ecological health of our oceans and the economic
health of our coastal fishing communities. Globally, fishing is an
especially important source of revenue and food in developing countries
and, in fact, 65 percent of the world's catch in 1993 was from
developing countries. In 1996 fisheries products directly provided
about 14 kg of food for each person on the planet. Simply from an
economic perspective, fishing is an economically important
international industry, with first sale revenues of approximately $100
U.S. billion per year for all fishery products according to the
National Research Council.
Mr. Chairman, we are seeing storm clouds on the horizon. Dr. Myers
research suggests that we have only 10 percent of all large fish--both
open ocean species such as tuna, swordfish, marlin, and the large
ground fish such as cod, halibut, skates, and flounder left in the sea.
Yet on May 13 of this year the National Marine Fisheries Service
announced that North Atlantic Swordfish is no longer being overfished
and swordfish stocks are almost fully rebuilt. Who is right?
Mr. Chairman, the health of these stocks of large predatory fish
has enormous ecological implications for marine species. We already
know that removal of large predators from an ecosystem results in long
term disturbances all across the board.
There are other signs of trouble. In recent years global marine
catches appear to have reached a plateau of about 84 million metric
tons per year, although total fish production has increased because of
new investments in aquaculture. National Research Council figures
indicate that the total biomass of fish and invertebrates harvested or
killed each year by ocean fishing probably exceeds 110 million tons per
year. Mr. Chairman, this 110 million ton figure is extremely important
because many scientific estimates of the long-term potential catch of
marine species are at about 100 million tons per year. This suggests
that the total mortality of marine species is at, or near, the maximum
sustainable level. Our state of knowledge about these matters is not
perfect, that is why the Sustainable Fisheries Act is based on
precautionary principles. The question is. . .are we taking enough
precautions to ensure the sustainable use of our ocean resources, or is
it full-speed ahead into the dark!
Mr. Chairman I look forward to hearing from the witnesses today to
learn more about the global over-fishing problem and hear their
recommendations for solutions to this global crisis.
Senator Stevens. Will the Senator yield? They've got one
double tow where they've got a net that long and two boats
pulling it.
Senator Lautenberg. Yes, and the catch is devastating,
including the bycatch, just everything that swims.
So it's a worrisome thing. The one thing that I've seen,
and I know it's true across the country, is that if we reduce
the pollution in the water, reduce the fishing, then nature
takes over. We see now in rivers around New Jersey and even in
New York they're starting to see stripers are coming back in.
They even see some Atlantic salmon. They're probably
excessively mercurized, and I wouldn't suggest eating them. How
many actions, Admiral, have been taken to curb illegal fishing
inside and outside the United States exclusive economic zone?
What percentage of known or suspected illegal fishing actions
does that figure represent?
Admiral Collins. Our major--there are four major areas that
we have concentrated, primarily concentrated on in terms of
stopping intrusion into our EEZ or a boundary line type of a
scenario, the Bering Sea and the Western Pacific area, and
Mexico, the boundary line with Mexico, and the New England
fisheries and the boundary line with Canada represent the four
areas where we, if we're going to have a cutter available to do
fisheries in those four areas, that's where he's going to go.
We have particularly put a great deal of emphasis, and it's
a risk-based allocation of our resources with particular
attention to the maritime boundary and the Bering Sea. We have
managed our stocks very, very well, Russia not so well, and
there's incredible pressure for Russian boats to come over the
boundary line and fish in our waters, so we have maintained,
even in the face of homeland security pressures on our resource
base, we have maintained at a minimum a one-ship presence up in
the Bering Sea with a helicopter-equipped cutter to enforce the
boundary line.
Now, that's quite a challenge because it's a 1,700-mile
boundary line. It's the distance from Miami to Boston, vast
resources, and a one-cutter presence is a challenge, but we
have been consistent. We've had a number of seizures. We've got
the message across. We're going to be again--it's about 4 or 5
months out of the year that that's a primary area for concern,
and we're going to be there all the time and exerting as robust
a presence as we possibly can, relative to that enforcement
regime.
Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Chairman, the Coast Guard's been a
favorite part of our Government for me, and we always ask them
to do more with less. We'll find another activity for you,
Admiral Collins, I guarantee you, to pull your ships into
another direction.
Can I ask this one question?
The Chairman. Sure.
Senator Lautenberg. Do you have the data, Dr. Lent, Mr.
Turner, about how much of our fishing depletion, the fish
supply depletion, is caused by not fishing, but by other things
like pollution, and abuse of the waters?
Dr. Lent. We have some information on that. For particular
species such as Pacific salmon, particularly endangered Pacific
salmon, habitat is probably the biggest part of the problem we
have had. We've taken care of the overfishing. We are looking
at habitat very closely. We have a new habitat mandate under
sustainable fisheries. We don't necessarily have an easily
quantifiable number, but where habitat plays a role it is
certainly front and center in our fishery management.
Mr. Turner. Senator, I'd just like to comment. I think your
observations that the issue of fishery depletion goes far
beyond the take of fish, fishery and the fishing practices. We
simply have to do a better job of sustaining the habitat,
whether it's the estuaries like Chesapeake Bay or coral reefs
or whatever.
The United States did, with many partners, launch what we
feel is an integrated oceans model approach at the Johannesburg
summit last September. We're going to road test that with a lot
of partners, including agencies here at the table, in the
Caribbean, where we're going to look at everything from land-
based pollution and waste treatment to forestry practices and
agriculture practices and development along the coastlines all
the way out to how do we husband the fishery in the reef. We
call it our white water to blue water initiative, and if it
works, we hope to take it elsewhere in the world.
Senator Lautenberg. Excellent. Mr. Chairman, my
commendation to you. We manage to not only get useful data here
but interesting, as well. I thank you for your persistence in
getting to these problems. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you, sir.
Senator Stevens, do you have anything?
Senator Stevens. No further questions.
The Chairman. I thank the witnesses, and after the Watkins
Commission meets we'll probably be wanting to talk to you
again. I think that would be an appropriate time for this
Committee to consider whatever legislative recommendations or
other recommendations that they might make, and I thank you for
being here today.
Dr. Lent. Thank you.
Mr. Turner. Thank you.
Admiral Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Our next panel is Dr. Ransom Myers, the
Killam Chair of Ocean Studies, Dr. Richard Ruais, who is the
Executive Director of the East Coast Tuna Association, Ms. Lisa
Speer, Senior Policy Analyst of the National Resources Defense
Council, and Dr. Patrick Sullivan, Assistant Professor at
Cornell University.
Welcome, and we'll begin with you, Dr. Myers. Thank you,
and thank the other witnesses for being here.
STATEMENT OF DR. RANSOM A. MYERS, KILLAM CHAIR OF OCEAN
STUDIES, DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY
Dr. Myers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's an honor to be
here.
Last month, my coauthor and I published a paper in Nature
where we attempted to examine all cases in the world where we
could go back to the beginning of industrial fishing both on
the continental shelves and in the open ocean. Let me show you
this plot to give an example of the spread of long-line fishing
worldwide.
In 1952, MacArthur, who was running Japan at the time,
allowed the Japanese long-liners outside of the area around
Japan if they agreed to keep good records. It is these records
we used to examine long-line fishing. The red means there's an
incredible amount of catch per area. Catch rates are
incredible, 10 big fish or more per 100 hooks. When you think
about putting in 100 hooks and getting 10 tuna and marlin, plus
many sharks, it's a really amazing catch.
By this time the depleted area around Japan--and the only
area of high catch rates was this ring of red around it, and as
time progressed, in 1958 you'd eliminated the high catch rates
in the Pacific here, and the only areas of red is here in the
Indian Ocean, way out here, so the areas where they were
originally high is now low, and the red represents this spread
of long-lining, leaving behind very low catch rates and
depleted abundance.
And as you see here, we've skipped over to the Atlantic,
getting phenomenally high catch rates, particularly of
bluefins, and these represent huge--and just a few years later,
the rate, the catches have been reduced down to very low levels
by 1980. In fact, by 1970 the world is blue in terms of, we've
reduced the big fish in the world's oceans by a factor of 10.
That is, there's roughly 10 percent left. Whole areas of the
ocean has been abandoned. This area that used to have these
enormously high catch rates off of Brazil abandoned, it's not
even worth fishing there any more.
And by 1970, when the ICCAT assessment, International
Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna assessments,
from 1970 when depletion had already occurred, bluefin tuna was
estimated to be 10 times the abundance presently, so the rest
of Atlantic tuna is now one-tenth of what it was in 1970, but
in 1970 it was already tremendously depleted. Fish that used to
migrate into U.S. waters from this area, from Brazil, had been
eliminated from these large areas of the Atlantic Ocean and
from the North Sea.
The Chairman. Why do we not have anything from 1990 or
2000?
Dr. Myers. Oh, I just--because I have it on my movie, but
it was difficult to show the movie here.
The Chairman. I see.
Dr. Myers. I mean, I just--after 1970, things don't change
very much, because there's relatively low catch rates
worldwide.
The Chairman. I see.
Dr. Myers. It's just basically, we have a movie that's lots
of action in the beginning, and then by 1970 it's very boring,
because there's not many fish left on a comparative basis.
We did the same thing for the continental shelves from the
Grand Banks of Newfoundland to the Gulf of Thailand to
Antarctic islands, where we had surveys on the continental
shelves that went back to the beginning of time, beginning of
industrial fishing, and the purpose was, it was motivated by
when I was young, traveling in Africa, after growing up in
Mississippi, by the way--too bad Senator Lott isn't here--the
incredible abundance and diversity in the Serengeti plains
greatly impressed me, and has also greatly impressed me outside
of the Serengeti you just had just such devastated landscape
with goats eating dirt, and my motivation for doing the study
was to see what the oceans looked like before we devastated it,
and the difference is really, truly astounding.
OK, now what are the consequences of this study? There are
two, primarily. We can vastly increase the yield, the catch, by
reducing fishing mortality, as has been done in Alaska, for
example. The magnificent Magnuson-Stevens Act allowed Alaska to
increase the abundance tremendously, and to increase the catch,
so we can do economically much better by fishing less and
allowing the stocks to rebuild, and this is on a worldwide
scale.
Number two, and I think more importantly, present fishing
practices will eventually drive sensitive species such as
sharks, some of the turtles, some of the long-lived species
like perhaps bluefin tuna or blue marlin extinct simply because
they're being caught at rates that are simply unsustainable.
In January, my students and I published extensive analysis
in the journal, Science, where we looked at hammerhead sharks,
thresher sharks, white sharks, and basically all the sharks,
large sharks caught in this big area of the Northwest Atlantic
here, and we found that the larger sharks like hammerheads,
threshers, and great white sharks had been declined by 80
percent in 15 years, and if we go back to the U.S. surveys
carried out by the Bureau of Fisheries in the 1950s, we find
that in the Gulf of Mexico, oceanic white tips, formerly the
most abundant there, their spawning females are now 1,000th of
their abundance that the U.S. Bureau 1950s survey showed that
were there, so the sharks worldwide, many of the large sharks
will go extinct under present fishing practices.
When we say 10 percent of the community is decreased, that
means that certain species, certain species are decreased much,
much more, and present fishing practices will drive these
sensitive species to extinction, and ICCAT and these
international management agencies now do not assess these
sharks, which are the prime species. The one reason why we had
success in Alaska is that sensitive species, Pacific halibut,
for example, were examined. They're fished in such a way as not
to drive those to extinction. They get good commercial harvests
from those.
So those are the two main points, and this question of
extinction of the sharks is, I think, a vital question, and my
6-year-old son really likes hammerhead sharks, and he's told me
to pass on the word that these are not allowed to go extinct,
and present fishing practices--present fishing practices will,
and in fact in this area, unless we reduce fishing mortality,
that is, the number of hooks and the number of deaths caused by
long-lining, by at least 50 percent, my calculations show--and
I'm right--that they will go extinct in this region under those
pressures, and this is worldwide.
If you look at data for Thailand, for Argentina, for
Australia, for Italy where I have my students working, the same
pattern occurs worldwide, so this is a worldwide phenomenon. We
have a chance now. It's early enough that we can stop this
worldwide extinction just as we stopped the extinction of the
great whales, and no one involved in those decisions to stop
the whaling worldwide is sorry for being involved. Their
children are proud of them, and your children and grandchildren
will be proud of you if this worldwide threat to the sharks can
be stopped.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Myers follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Ransom A. Myers, Killam Chair of Ocean
Studies, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia
Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee:
My name is Dr. Ransom A. Myers. I am a quantitative fishery
population biologist by training and experience. I received a B.Sc. in
Physics from Rice University in 1974, a M.Sc. in Mathematics from
Dalhousie University in 1981, and a Ph.D. in Biology from Dalhousie
University in 1984. Between 1983 and 1997, I was employed as a research
scientist for the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans. In 1997,
I was awarded the Killam Chair in Ocean Studies at Dalhousie
University, which is an endowed research professorship. My specialty
includes the population dynamics and management of marine fish and
invertebrates.
I have published over 100 refereed scientific papers and six book
chapters in my area of expertise. I have served on a number of
commissions and committees that were established to study the
population dynamics of marine organisms. These include the Board of
Directors of the Ocean Institute of Canada, the NOAA review of the
International Whaling Commission's Revised Management Procedure, and
the Methods Working Group of the International Commission for the
Exploration of the Sea. I am presently supervising 10 graduate students
working on population dynamics of marine species.
State of World's Fish Stocks--Only 10 percent of Large Fish in the
World's Oceans Remain
Last month we published an article in the scientific journal
Nature, describing the results of our research on the global decline of
large fish due to overfishing (see attached). Our major finding is that
we have only 10 percent of all large fish--both open ocean species
(tuna, swordfish, and marlin) and large groundfish (cod, halibut,
skates, and flounder)--left in the sea. Our study shows that industrial
fisheries take only ten to fifteen years to effect this change.
Since 1950, we have rapidly reduced large fish populations between
the tropics and the poles to less than 10 percent of what they were.
Their depletion not only threatens the future of these species and the
fisheries that depend on them, but it could also bring about a complete
re-organization of global ocean ecosystems, with unknown consequences.
For this study, I spent 10 years assembling data sets representing
all major types of fisheries in the world. We used data from scientific
surveys for the continental shelves and data from pelagic longlines,
the world's most widespread fishing gear, for the open ocean, which
cover all oceans except the circumpolar seas. These longlines catch a
wide range of species in a consistent way over vast areas. Whereas
longline fishers used to catch 10 fish per 100 hooks in many areas, now
they are lucky to catch one.
Large fish are not only declining in numbers, but with intense
fishing pressure they can never attain the body sizes they once did.
Where detailed data are available, we see that the average body size of
these top predators is less than half of what it was in the past. For
example, the few blue marlin that remain today reach one fifth of the
weight they once did. In many cases, these fish are under such intense
fishing pressure that they never have the chance to reproduce.
Recovery requires a substantial overall reduction of fishing
mortality (the percentage of fish killed each year). This includes
reducing quotas, reducing overall fishing effort, cutting subsidies,
reducing bycatch, and creating networks of marine reserves. I believe
that a minimum reduction of 50 percent of fishing mortality in the
world's pelagic longline fisheries may be necessary to avoid further
declines of particularly sensitive species such as large sharks. Even
greater reductions are required to obtain the Maximum Sustainable
Yields. Once stocks are restored to higher abundance, we could get just
as much fish out of the ocean with only \1/3\ to \1/10\ of the fishing
effort. Fishers and communities who depend on these resources would see
substantial benefits in the long run.
Although the rapidity and extent of the decline is shocking, our
results were not surprising to marine ecologists and fisheries
biologists who are familiar with overexploited marine ecosystems.
Analyses carried out by Dr. Daniel Pauly (University of British
Columbia) using a modeling approach in the North Atlantic, and by Dr.
J. Jackson of Scripts Institute of Oceanography using historical data
from coastal regions, have come to similar conclusions: the present
biomass of large fish in the oceans is only a small fraction of the
pre-exploitation biomass. The analysis we published in Nature is
consistent with, and independent of, these assessments.
The conclusions of our analysis would not be so shocking if it were
not for the problem of shifting baselines. This is the problem whereby
our conception of what is natural in marine ecosystems reflects only
the recent state of the system, in which many species are at
historically low levels of abundance. Thus we lose sight of the true
magnitude of many declines. Here are some examples of marine species
whose true declines have been obscured in part by the problem of a
shifting baseline:
1. Atlantic halibut, which once supported a very valuable fishery in
New England, is now all but extinct in this region.
2. Before European settlement, there were more green turtles in the
Caribbean and the Gulf of Mexico than there are now wildebeests
in the Serengeti. The remnant populations of this species are
now only a very small fraction of what they were.
3. Atlantic bluefin tuna (and hence its fisheries) has been
eliminated from over half its former range (populations in the
south Atlantic and in the North Sea are gone). Production from
this valuable species is thus only a small fraction of what
could be achieved.
4. Swordfish were once harvested in great numbers using harpoons
close to shore between Long Island and northern Nova Scotia.
5. Even before 1900, once abundant Atlantic salmon had been
eliminated from southern New England rivers, and this species
is now virtually extinct in the Northeast.
6. The great cod stocks of Newfoundland and the Grand Banks have
been declared Endangered by the Canadian government.
7. On the west coast, valuable abalone populations have been
eliminated in many areas, and show little, or no, sign of
recovery.
We must recognize that fishing is a strong agent of ecological
change that has altered our marine ecosystems through many population
collapses and extirpations. It is critical that we do not allow our
perception of what is natural in our oceans to foster complacency about
these losses.
Consequence 1 of our study: Fisheries Yields Can be Greatly Increased
by Responsible Management
Our study clearly shows that most fisheries in the world
overexploit to the point that they produce only a small proportion of
the potential fisheries yield. Recovery through responsible management
is possible.
For example, the increase in catch by the fishermen of New England
is clear evidence of what improved management can do. Although by the
early 1990s in New England, fish stocks had been reduced to less than
one-tenth their original levels, reduced fishing and the use of closed
areas have been used to rebuild the stocks by 150 percent. According to
the National Marine Fisheries Service, however, they still require
rebuilding by another 400 percent of the present levels to achieve
Maximum Sustainable Yield. They predict that this increase will result
in a significant increase in fisheries yield (personal communication,
Dr. Steven A. Murawski of NMFS, Woods Hole). Scallops have increased in
the area with limited fishing on Georges Bank by an extraordinary 22
times in only 6 years. The experience on Georges Bank clearly shows
what can be achieved with appropriate management; in many cases, e.g.,
scallops, the results may exceed the predictions of both scientists and
fishers. Nevertheless, more than half of the fish stocks in the region
remain overexploited and the NMFS estimates that the aggregate
groundfish biomass needs to increase by 3 times.
Unfortunately, many species will take a long time to recover,
particularly those that take many years to mature. It will be many
years before bluefin tuna, Atlantic halibut, or Pacific ocean perch
return to levels where they can produce maximum sustainable yields.
Consequence 2 of our study: Present Fishing Patterns Will Result in the
Eventual Worldwide Extinction of Many Large Marine Species--in
Particular Sharks
Overexploitation threatens the future of many large vertebrates.
Many species of tuna, sea turtles, and seabirds are now conservation
concerns because of intense fishing pressure. My students and I have
recently demonstrated in a paper published in the journal Science that
many shark populations off the eastern U.S. coast have undergone rapid
and large declines. Populations of hammerhead, great white, and
thresher sharks have each declined by about 80 percent within the last
15 years. Recently my students have extended this analysis back to the
start of commercial longline fishing using surveys carried out by the
U.S. Bureau of Fisheries in the Pacific, the Gulf of Mexico, and the
eastern Atlantic. In all cases we found that the shark populations were
at a small fraction of their original abundance. In an extreme case, we
found that the number of spawning female oceanic white tip sharks in
the Gulf of Mexico is one thousandth of their initial abundance. This
is alarming because this was once the most common pelagic shark in the
region. Other researchers have found similar results around the world.
I believe that the present global situation of sharks parallels the
situation of whales forty years ago. In both cases, fishing was
threatening the viability of future populations of large marine
vertebrates. When the analysis of the state of the world's whale
populations was first presented forty years ago there was extreme
resistance to changing management policy. However, effective management
action was taken, and the whale species of the world were saved.
Effective management action is now needed for sharks.
Overexploitation of sharks occurs in almost every area where they
are fished, because sharks have little resilience to fishing pressure
(they have few young and require many years to reach maturity), and
because of a lack of sensible management. Overexploitation often occurs
because sharks are caught in multispecies fisheries in which the target
species are much more productive than the shark species. This
phenomenon occurs in the pelagic longline fishery which targets the
much more productive tunas, and even in the bottom longline fishery on
the southeastern U.S. coast which targets more productive shark species
at the expense of less productive ones. The overexploitation of sharks
is an example of a very general phenomenon in multispecies fisheries,
whereby the most sensitive species become quickly overfished, while the
more productive species continue to drive the fisheries.
State of U.S. Fish Stocks
There are examples of well-managed fisheries in the United States.
Alaska, in particular, stands out in comparison to international
standards. A key management policy that was followed in Alaska, and is
seldom effectively used elsewhere, is that they managed the
multispecies fishery so that no single species was overfished, even
though this meant that the biomass of some species was kept at a higher
level than required to produce Maximum Sustainable Yield. In
particular, this management policy aimed to prevent overharvesting of
Pacific halibut, a species that is very valuable but also very
sensitive to fishing pressure. This allowed fishing mortality on the
whole community to be kept at sustainable levels. In contrast, in New
England and eastern Canada no such management policy was in place,
which resulted in the virtual commercial extinction of Atlantic
halibut, and the eventual overexploitation of all the groundfish
stocks. The present management policy for New England has resulted in a
partial recovery of groundfish stocks, something that Canada and Europe
have not been able to achieve. The partial recovery in New England is a
great achievement. However, it is crucial that the groundfish stocks in
New England be allowed to fully recover to the point where they can
provide the much larger yields that they are capable of producing.
Unfortunately, the partial recovery in New England is not typical of
most U.S. fisheries.
More typical are cases like the red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico,
where fishing mortality has not been reduced despite continued
scientific advice, or the top predators on the coral reefs of the main
islands of Hawaii which are at only 1.5 percent of virgin levels
according to a recent U.S. Fish and Wildlife study. Much work is still
required on U.S. fisheries management to improve the productivity of
marine populations.
Improving U.S. Fisheries Management
U.S. fisheries management has begun to accomplish something that
few other countries have done; it has increased abundance and yield of
an overexploited, overcapitalized fishery, i.e., the New England
groundfish fishery. However, this progress has been slow, and was
largely forced through court action. There are continuing legal fights
to improve the management in many U.S. fisheries. On the west coast
there is still management by trip limits for the groundfish fishery,
which often forces fishers to discard large amounts of valuable fish in
order to stay within the regulations. That is, there are regulations
that effectively force fishers to act in a dishonest manner in order to
keep fishing. In other fisheries there has been little progress, in
spite of strong scientific evidence that management actions need to be
taken. For example, it is very clear that the Gulf of Mexico red
snapper fishery could produce much more yield, but little effective
action has been taken.
In many cases, there is strong, short-term pressure to stabilize
fish populations at low biomass levels (often as low as 10 percent of
the unexploited levels), rather than to take the necessary management
actions to initiate population recovery.
Perhaps the single most useful change in fisheries management would
be a rethinking of the way scientific advice informs management
decisions. Under the present system, careful scientific analysis that
clearly will result in improved fisheries yields in the long term is
not acted upon by the regional councils. Further improvements in
fisheries management require that managers act upon the results of
careful scientific analyses. Currently, scientific advice is often
ignored by regional fisheries management councils for short term
political objectives.
One problem of the current system is that uncertainty in the status
of fish stocks can result in risk-prone management strategies, rather
than risk-averse strategies. For example, in eastern Canada, fishing
continued on cod stocks to the point where a resource that had employed
tens of thousands of fishers, and produced a vibrant culture for
centuries has now been declared Endangered by the Canadian government.
On the issue of the great disaster of the Canadian cod, I speak as a
scientist whose scientific advice was ignored time after time. For
political reasons, fishing continued until one of the world's great
biological resources, the Grand Banks cod, was almost eliminated. The
setting of scientific advice for fisheries management cannot be allowed
to become a political football if long term benefits of a fishery are
to be realized.
The U.S. and International Fisheries
There are two areas of marine environmental policy where the U.S.
is among the leaders of the world: protection of endangered species and
protection of marine habitat. This leadership could be extended to the
international arena by three actions:
1. Require protection of all species from extinction by
international fisheries management agencies. In particular,
sharks worldwide, and leatherback turtles in the Pacific,
require changes in law for long term survival.
2. The success of groundfish fisheries management in Alaska (based
around protection of Pacific halibut) should be extended to
other multispecies fisheries. Adoption of this management
approach in the Northwest Atlantic could lead to efforts to
recover the once great Atlantic halibut resource, which would
force changes in the international management system that would
benefit all groundfish species.
3. Require protection of critical marine habitat. As an example,
unique seamounts are being destroyed for short term economic
gain. There should be a worldwide ban of destructive fishing on
all seamounts, especially those in international waters.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Mr. Ruais, welcome.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD P. RUAIS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
EAST COAST TUNA ASSOCIATION
Mr. Ruais. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is indeed a great
privilege to provide this Committee with testimony on the
critical issue of the U.S. role in international fisheries
management.
Obviously, one of the reasons for this hearing is the
recent controversy over the Nature article by Dr. Myers and Dr.
Worm. The fact that this study contributed to this hearing is
the only positive contribution to fishery conservation one can
find about the study. Their finding of a significant decline in
the biomass of large fish from the virgin state over the last
40 years of fishing is essentially irrelevant to the critical
business before international and domestic fish managers today.
The correct challenge to fishery managers is to evaluate the
condition of each stock in relation to the estimated maximum
sustainable yield, and then develop fish policies to achieve
those yields.
Mr. Chairman, there's a tidal wave of criticism developing
in the scientific community over the Myers and Worm analysis,
which has already been deemed to be fundamentally flawed. I
think you will also find that Dr. Myers is not necessarily in--
--
The Chairman. Now, I don't mean to interrupt, Mr. Ruais,
but that was not the opinion of the administration witnesses,
that they were, quote, fundamentally flawed.
Mr. Ruais. Well, in my written testimony, Senator, I think
I've cited a number of Pacific fishery experts who have
reviewed carefully the Nature study, and they found it to be
fundamentally flawed, and there are substantive works in
process to show that it's an oversimplification of catch-per-
unit-effort data potentially showing just fishing down of hot
spots and other potential problems, but I think the legitimate
peer review is--it will take a little bit of time to complete.
It's not yet done, but it is taking place, and in my written
testimony I think I've cited at least three major pelagic large
fish researchers who already are saying some pretty damning
things, and I could read some of those quotes if you want. I
wanted to spare actually reading some of them for now.
But I think importantly, Mr. Chairman, the Committee needs
to know that Dr. Myers' paper was funded by the Pew Charitable
Trust and is part of a continuing campaign to create an
atmosphere of false crisis in the public mind over the status
of our shared high seas and coastal fishery resources.
The Chairman. Excuse me, the Pew Charitable Trust is part
of an ongoing campaign?
Mr. Ruais. That's correct, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. What evidence do you have of that?
Mr. Ruais. Well, the study that Dr. Myers did was funded by
the Pew Charitable Trust. It's not a secret that they have been
maintaining a campaign----
The Chairman. What evidence do you have of that, that
they're maintaining some kind of campaign?
Mr. Ruais. I believe there's been a number of articles in a
number of papers. There's been a number of researchers that
have followed very carefully the grant process at Pew, and that
they provide money to various researchers to provide fisheries
studies that predict doom and gloom, and scare the public away
from our fishery resources, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. That's a remarkable indictment of a very fine
organization, Mr. Ruais. That is really a remarkable
indictment. I hope you have evidence to back that up.
Mr. Ruais. I believe that we do, Senator.
The Chairman. I don't think you do, because I've had a lot
to do with the Pew Charitable Trust, and I know that that is
not the way that they do business.
Go ahead.
Mr. Ruais. The underlying objective appears to be to
further excessively harm commercial and recreational fisheries
and the worldwide fish-eating public. Pew's longstanding anti-
fishing campaign is needlessly and irresponsibly scaring the
public away from healthy fish stocks.
Mr. Chairman, the real truth and news the media should be
reporting is that on all coasts of this country in at least the
last decade the fishing industry has aggressively pursued
innovative and effective remedies to fish resource problems at
great industry cost. The real picture is that under NMFS'
leaders, Rollie Schmitten and Dr. Bill Hogarth, there's been an
unprecedented level of cooperation between the U.S. fishing
industry and Government, and great strides have been made to
restore many stocks of large and small fish. My written
testimony details this considerable progress, as does the
latest NMFS status of the stocks publication.
I do want to point out that in particular with the
aggressive leadership of our U.S. commissioners to the
International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic
Tunas, including our Commercial Commissioner, Glenn Delaney,
the North Atlantic swordfish stock has been fully rebuilt in
half the time expected. Regarding Western Atlantic bluefin
tuna, ICCAT's latest stock assessment shows the largest year
class since 1973 of new giant-size spawners are now available
to drive the established rebuilding program on schedule.
These successes and others demonstrate that the domestic
and international systems are in place for the conservation of
our fisheries, and while not perfect, especially in the
international context, are working well.
I want to bring to the committee's attention the most
critical problem areas remaining in many international
organizations such as ICCAT. The problems include the lack of
political will among certain nations to support conservation
standards, poor compliance records with conservation agreements
by some contracting parties, and a continuing problem with
pirate fishing on the high seas, as has already been discussed.
In the ICCAT context, the European community, Morocco, and
Taiwan stand as countries lacking the political will to
conserve. Attached to my testimony, Mr. Chairman, is a very
important recent letter from the Secretary of Commerce, Don
Evans, to the European community protesting the EU's lack of
political will to follow ICCAT's scientific advice on
sustainable quotas for Eastern bluefin tuna.
The letter notes that these EU positions have the potential
to lead to serious friction in U.S.-EU trade relations. The
letter is a breakthrough for the U.S. commissioners at ICCAT,
who have long sought action by the administration to pressure
the EU. for conservation leadership. The focus on the EU is
because, as the largest harvester of nearly all ICCAT species,
the EU can either be a powerful international example of
resource stewardship, or be a terrible example and an excuse
for other countries not to comply.
The letter is a terrific step forward, because it elevates
ICCAT into the arena of serious bilateral trade relations and
policies.
Mr. Chairman, there are no international fish police to
enforce ICCAT measures on the high seas. Instead, the
marketplace for these species is the arena for effective
enforcement. ICCAT has recognized this, and has adopted what
are perhaps the most progressive multilateral trade provisions
governing illegal fish produced by member and nonmember
nations. Nonetheless, the U.S. continues to provide the world's
largest markets for fish taken in contravention to ICCAT rules.
The U.S. Government has not been sufficiently aggressive with
its current authority to stop this black market. After 10 years
of development, the U.S. has sufficient multilateral authority
from ICCAT to accomplish two important objectives.
Number one, immediately put into place the requirements,
procedures, and funding and manpower necessary to prevent entry
into the U.S. of any ICCAT species caught illegally by member
or nonmember nations, including fish by the fleet of nearly 200
large pirate vessels, and two, to implement similar measures
that will enable the U.S. to use its market to leverage
compliance from those nations that do not adhere to ICCAT
bycatch requirements such as those that apply with respect to
billfish.
And finally, Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out one
last opportunity for the Committee to significantly advance the
conservation interests of our highly migratory fish, and that
is an upcoming EU bilateral trade meeting that's going to be
taking place later this month.
Mr. Chairman, I respectfully recommend to the Committee
that you and some members insist upon a meeting with these EU
officials while they are here, along with the three U.S. ICCAT
Commissioners, to discuss EU fish conservation policies. I urge
you to ask the EU how they can possibly justify forcing a quota
policy for Eastern Atlantic bluefin tuna 6,000 metric tons
above the annual level recommended by ICCAT. I can assure you
that elevating this ICCAT issue to your high level of attention
will unquestionably advance U.S. fish conservation interests.
Thank you very much for the time, and I'm sorry I went a
little over.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ruais follows:]
Prepared Statement of Richard P. Ruais, Executive Director,
East Coast Tuna Association
Mr. Chairman, it is indeed a great privilege to provide this
Committee with testimony on the critical issue of the U.S. role in
international fisheries management. I have been involved with domestic
and international fishery management for 25 years, first as staff with
the New England Fishery Management Council and since 1991 as Executive
Director of East Coast Tuna Association representing giant Atlantic
bluefin tuna fishermen who use rod and reel, harpoon and small-scale
purse seine vessels in the Northeast. Since 1991, I have participated
in every plenary meeting of the International Commission for the
Conservation of Atlantic Tunas and participated in the domestic process
of developing U.S. objectives and strategies for the Commission
meetings.
Obviously, one of the reasons for this hearing is the recent
controversy in the media surrounding an article published in Nature
titled ``Rapid worldwide depletion of predatory fish communities'' by
Ransom A. Myers & Boris Worm. The fact that this study contributed to
this hearing is regrettably the only positive contribution to fishery
conservation and management one can find about the study and its
conclusions. Supported by the Pew Charitable Trust the study is part of
a well-funded, devious strategic campaign with domestic and
international components to create an atmosphere of false crisis in the
public mind over the status of our shared high seas and coastal
fisheries resources. The underlying objective appears to be to further
excessively harm commercial and recreational fisheries and the
worldwide fish eating public. Pew's directed antagonism towards
commercial fisheries is continuing to shift attention away from the
ecosystem damages from offshore oil and gas exploration and spills, as
evidenced by the sparsity of media coverage of the ecological disaster
caused by the Prestige breaking up off the coast of France last year.
As recent spills in Narragansett Bay and Buzzards Bay have graphically
demonstrated, this is counterproductive to any efforts to insure proper
controls to minimize such damage in U.S. waters. The domestic component
is being carried out by the Pew Ocean Commission, which has been
described as ``a self appointed, elitist group with a vested interest
in fabricating crisis'' (see attached ``The Truth About New England's
Fisheries'')
Mr. Chairman, there is a tidal wave of criticism developing in the
scientific community over the Myer & Worm analysis and conclusions
which have already been deemed to be ``fundamentally flawed'' (see
attached) by noted Pacific large pelagic researchers such as Dr. John
Sibert. Dr. Sibert goes on to note that ``Myers and Worm do the
fisheries community a disservice by applying a simplistic analysis to
the available data which exaggerates declines in abundance and implies
unrealistic rebuilding benchmarks.'' Dr. Gary Sharp (Center for
Climate/Ocean Resources Study) puts it more bluntly with:
``Their (Myers & Worm) meta-analysis as reported is not good
science-as exposed by the most recent nonsense . . . presented
via Nature, stating that all large ocean fish are at 10 percent
of historical levels. That statement denies what we know, and
the many complexities that are not explained, or even mentioned
in an article. The missing bits only show that the authors know
nothing about the majority of the fisheries they claim to, nor
the knowledge that is available.''
Dr. Vidar Wespestad (20 years prior service with Alaska Fisheries
Center of NOAA) concludes about the article: ``I can clearly state that
these views do not hold water in our region, and in fact most of the
recently published Nature article is erroneous and people truly
knowledgeable are writing a rebuttal.'' There is much more Mr. Chairman
but we will let the tidal wave of scientific criticism underway set the
scientific record straight over the next several months.
To use a finding that pelagic fish stocks experienced a significant
reduction from virgin condition over 40 years ago in an unqualified
fashion to scare the consuming public to stop eating healthy seafood
(as the notorious enemy of fishermen Pew Trusts has been repeatedly
doing) is irresponsible and undermines the incredible amount of
international work ongoing to fix existing resource and management
problems. Regrettably, the Pew Trusts shamefully ignores the reality
that more than half the world's population depends on fish for a
significant portion of its food protein.
That it can be shown that the onset of fishing reduces stocks over
time in some predictable amount from their pristine condition is not
news to scientists or to fishermen. Scientists have long been aware
that for many stocks a reduction of at least 50 percent from a virgin
``unfished'' condition is fully expected in order to arrive at a stock
condition where full and sustainable exploitation can take place. As a
matter of fact, in an interview broadcast on NPR last week, Myers
stated ``When fisheries management is used and used effectively, there
is not a concern about the biomass reducing by a factor of 50 or even
60 or even probably 70 percent''. This is why the Myer and Worm suspect
finding of a 90 percent reduction is irrelevant to international and
domestic fish managers today, and is simply inconsistent with our
actual observations and experience. The correct challenge to fishery
managers is to evaluate the condition of each stock in relation to its
estimated maximum sustainable yield, and to develop fish policies to
achieve that yield.
Mr. Chairman, the real truth and news the media should be reporting
is that the fishing industry and its representatives are not in the
mode of denying that we continue to have cases of serious resource and
management shortcomings domestically and internationally. On all coasts
of this country however, and for at least the last decade, the fishing
industry has aggressively pursued innovative and effective remedies to
fish resource and management problems at great industry cost. The real
picture is that under the NMFS leadership of Rollie Schmitten and Dr.
Bill Hogarth there has been an unprecedented level of cooperation
between U.S. fishing industry and government and great strides have
been made to restore many stocks of large and small fish.
NMFS reports that the latest data shows that most U.S. stocks are
no longer overfished under increasing regulations required by the
Sustainable Fisheries Act and of those that remain overfished greater
than 80 percent are recovering. The New England groundfish complex has
increased by over 150 percent in the past five years. The New England
scallop fishery is now rebuilt. In California, the sardine fishery that
Pew Commission Chairman Leon Panetta is fond of referring to was
destroyed by unusual weather patterns, not overfishing. The sardines
have returned to Monterey Bay and are sustainably managed coast-wide.
In Alaska, where fisheries account for about half the seafood landed
annually in the U.S., crab, salmon, halibut and groundfish fisheries
are being harvested at sustainable levels.
As a consequence of the aggressive efforts and leadership of the
U.S. Government and the U.S. longline industry at ICCAT, the North
Atlantic Swordfish stock has been fully rebuilt in half the time
expected and, along with the South Atlantic Swordfish stock, both are
now producing the maximum sustainable yield. Still, Pew-generated media
such as the very recent Washington Post article is misinforming the
public that Atlantic swordfish are seriously depleted and should not be
consumed.
Regarding western Atlantic bluefin tuna (the former ``poster-
child'' fish of green groups seeking ``charismatic megafauna'' for
profitable fundraising), ICCAT's latest stock assessment shows the
largest year-class since 1973 of new giant size spawners are now
available to drive the established rebuilding program to completion and
on schedule. In a broader context, the United Nations Food and
Agriculture finds that global capture fisheries production is stable
with 72 percent of fish stocks are either under, moderately or fully
exploited.
Coalitions of fishing industry organizations believe that these
successes and others demonstrate that the domestic and international
systems in place for the conservation and management of our fisheries,
while not perfect especially in the international context, are working
well. This is in sharp contrast to what the authors of the Nature
article, and the Pew-funded media campaign have led the public to
believe. For example, largely as a result of outstanding, aggressive
leadership by U.S. Commissioners to ICCAT since the early 1990s (and in
particular the efforts of ICCAT Commissioners Rollie Schmitten, Dr.
Bill Hogarth and Glenn Delaney), ICCAT has been on the cutting edge of
developing and implementing legally sustainable international processes
leading to sanctions for non-compliance and agreements to address other
critical international management infrastructure shortcomings. We
welcome any assistance this Committee can render to reasonably speed up
the process and eliminate remaining obstacles to effective, efficient
and equitable long term conservation and management.
I want to bring the Committee's attention to the most critical
problem areas remaining in many international conservation and
management organizations such as ICCAT and where substantial
improvements are necessary. These include the lack of political will
among certain Nations to support generally accepted conservation
standards and consequent failure to agree on policies to achieve
conservation objectives; poor compliance records with established
conservation agreements by some contracting parties and; a continuing
problem with illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing (IUU and often
referred to as ``pirate fishing''). In the ICCAT context, the European
Community, North African countries bounding the southern coast of the
Mediterranean Sea (in particular Morocco) and Taiwan standout as
countries lacking the political will to embrace the responsibilities of
conserving our shared highly migratory resources.
I would like to call the Committee's attention to an April 25, 2003
letter (attached) to the Honorable Pascal Lamy, European Community
Commissioner for Trade from Secretary of Commerce Donald Evans
protesting the EU's lack of political will to follow ICCAT scientific
advice on the establishment of sustainable quotas for eastern Atlantic
bluefin tuna. The Secretary notes with disappointment that the EU's
policy to set bluefin quotas 6,000 mt above the scientific advice for
each of the next 4 years ``undermines ICCAT's ability to effectively
manage Atlantic stocks and threatens the viability of U.S. recreational
and commercial fishing industry.'' The letter also notified the EU that
``positions such as these not only threaten the long-term future of our
shared marine resources . . . they also have the potential to lead to
serious friction in U.S.-EU trade relations''.
This letter represents a breakthrough for the U.S. Commissioners at
ICCAT who have long sought support and action by the Administration to
pressure the EU for more conservation leadership within ICCAT. The
Commissioners focus on the EU recognizes that the EU is the most
significant harvester in nearly all of the species under ICCAT purview
and because of the influence they maintain with North African
countries. In this respect, the EU can either chose to set a powerful
international example of resource stewardship or provide a terrible
example and excuse for other countries not to comply.
The letter is a terrific step forward because it elevates ICCAT
into the arena of serious bilateral trade relations and policy rather
then just another fish or environmental issue. Our industries are very
grateful to the Secretary and Under Secretary Grant Aldonis and Senior
Policy Advisor Sloan Rappoport for the development of this letter. It
remains to be seen whether this threat alone will influence a change in
EU policies or whether further direct interventions by high-ranking
officials within Commerce and State Department and implementation of
trade sanctions will be required. We would hope this Committee could
find additional avenues to influence further support within the
Administration and elsewhere to pressure ICCAT parties for compliance.
I would also refer the Committee to a letter to Mr. John Spencer,
Head, Unit of International and Regional Arrangements, EU from Dr.
William Hogarth, dated April 23, 2003. This important letter also
raises serious concerns about the EU conservation behavior, but this
time in the context of consideration by the Secretary of Commerce to
certify the EU for ``diminishing the effectiveness'' of ICCAT pursuant
to the Pelly Amendment of the Fishermen's Protective Act. The request
for such a certification was made by several east coast governors in
support of their coastal and high seas fishermen. If the Secretary were
to certify EU under the Pelly Amendment, it could lead to trade
sanctions against the EU until they adopt a stronger conservation
ethic. This could be an effective tool, but despite a number of
certifications made over the years, the U.S. Government has declined to
impose actual economic trade sanctions (except in one case). I am
afraid there are few in the international community that fear the
certification threat. Nevertheless, we are very grateful to Dr. Hogarth
for exercising this option as a means to elevate ICCAT issues and
increase pressure on the EU.
Mr. Chairman, I must reiterate that within international fora for
fisheries conservation, the U.S. is the leading voice for tough
conservation standards and measures. We often lead by example,
subjecting our fishermen to even greater fishing restrictions than our
foreign counterparts. This is clearly the case in our commercial and
recreational fisheries for Atlantic swordfish and Atlantic bluefin
tuna. But it is also established biological reality that we are
responsible for a very small portion of mortality on these stocks and
we cannot successfully conserve these stocks unilaterally without
cooperation from all of the major fishing nations.
There are no international fish police to enforce ICCAT measures on
the high seas. Instead, the marketplace for these species is the arena
for effective ICCAT enforcement. ICCAT has recognized this and has
adopted what are perhaps the most progressive and aggressive
multilateral trade provisions and policies governing ICCAT-illegal fish
produced by both member and non-member nations. Nonetheless, the U.S.
continues to provide one of the world's largest markets for fish taken
in contravention of ICCAT rules and regulations. The reason is that the
U.S. Government has not been sufficiently aggressive with its current
authority or with its fiscal resources to stop this black market. It is
my view, shared by many in our U.S. ICCAT team, that the U.S. has
sufficient multilateral authority from ICCAT to accomplish 2 important
objectives, each of which would enormously improve the conservation
benefits of our achievements at ICCAT thus far, and tremendously
strengthen U.S. effectiveness at ICCAT in the future:
(1) to immediately put into place the requirements, procedures and
funding and manpower necessary to prevent entry into the U.S.
of any ICCAT species caught illegally by member or non-member
nations, including fish of Atlantic origin suspected of being
laundered through Pacific markets, as well as fish presently
harvested by a fleet of more than 200 large pirate vessels; and
(2) to implement similar measures that will enable the U.S. to use
its market to leverage compliance from those nations that do
not adhere to ICCAT bycatch requirements such as those that
apply with respect to billfish. Yet, the U.S. undermines its
own efforts by allowing nations that ignore billfish bycatch
requirements to openly market their directed species catch such
as swordfish and tunas in the U.S. marketplace.
In the interest of having conservation programs be efficient and
equitable it is clear to many in the fishing industry and many in
government that the fastest and most effective way to improve the
international conservation picture is for the U.S. to employ such
legitimate trade sanctions against countries undermining the
effectiveness of international programs. Those U.S. fishermen
sacrificing under the burden of ICCAT restrictions have a right to
expect that the U.S. Government will, at least, insure that fish caught
in violation of ICCAT programs by contracting parties or ``pirate'' IUU
fishing vessels not be allowed to unfairly compete with legitimate US-
caught fish in U.S. markets.
Another opportunity for this Committee to significantly advance the
conservation and management of highly migratory fish in the Atlantic is
at an upcoming bilateral meeting here in the U.S. with the EU and,
where their top ICCAT officials will be present. Mr. Chairman I
respectfully recommend to the Committee that you and some Members
insist upon a meeting with these EU officials while they are here,
along with the 3 U.S. ICCAT Commissioners, to discuss EU fish
conservation policies. I urge you to ask of the EU how they can
possibly justify forcing a quota policy for eastern Atlantic bluefin
tuna 6,000 mt annually above the level recommended by ICCAT (including
European scientists) scientists for the next 4 years. This policy will
not produce ``stability'' as claimed, rather it risks decimation of
eastern and Mediterranean assemblages of bluefin tuna many of which
are, with certainty, bound for a casual and ordinary trans-Atlantic
swim to our coastal waters.
I can assure you that elevating this ICCAT issue to your high level
of attention will unquestionably advance U.S. interests and large
highly migratory fish conservation. This will particularly be the case
if you insure that all three U.S. ICCAT Commissioners are allowed to
participate in this designated government-to-government meeting. This
designation is occasionally employed by lower level staff, particularly
within the Department of State, who may not share NMFS leadership
strong resolve to put our best team forward. It is critically important
that all three presidentially appointed U.S. ICCAT Commissioners be
afforded the opportunity to fully participate.
Finally, there are 2 changes to the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act
we believe will strengthen U.S. leadership at ICCAT. The first required
change would be to lengthen the terms of the non-government
commissioners from the current maximum of 2 to 3 consecutive year terms
as is the case for regional fishery council members. We have made this
request to the Subcommittee in September of 1999. We note, in
particular, that with respect to foreign delegations at ICCAT there
appears to be no such term limits and that such continuity can offer
strategic advantages at the negotiating table. The job of ICCAT
commissioners requires considerable technical expertise and time to
master the craft of negotiating with delegations from 32 other fishing
nations. As noted earlier, the U.S. currently has an excellent winning
team. The arbitrary two-term limit regrettably will break up this team
at a crucial time at ICCAT.
The second change would be to, again similar to the regional
council system, provide per diem remuneration for the recreational and
commercial commissioners while on official ICCAT related business. This
would recognize the considerable time and effort required to fulfill
the responsibilities and carry out the mandate entrusted to these
Commissioners under their Presidential appointments. This change should
also make it clear that the recreational and commercial commissioners
are official government representatives while fulfilling their ICCAT
responsibilities and as such, allow continuous participation in all
government-to -government meetings related to ICCAT business. The
recreational and commercial ICCAT Commissioners are an essential part
of the U.S. ICCAT team and have responsibilities entrusted to them by
the President. It is highly inappropriate and counterproductive to keep
them in the dark on issues critical to the success of ICCAT.
Thank you Mr. Chairman and Members of this Committee for holding
this hearing and for helping to advance the conservation and management
of our coastal and shared highly migratory fish stocks.
______
Department of Commerce
Washington, DC, April 25, 2003
Hon. Pascal Lamy,
Commissioner for Trade,
European Commission,
B-1049 Brussels, Belgium.
Dear Commissioner Lamy:
I believe that the conservation of marine fisheries is of the
utmost importance, for both commercial and environmental reasons.
Although I am sure that the Commission generally shares this view, I am
writing to express my serious concerns with the actions taken and
positions adopted by the EU and EU member states with respect to the
conservation of the migratory species covered by the International
Convention for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT). I also want
to emphasize that the repercussions reach beyond concerns solely with
the environment, as is often the case with fishing issues, because they
have a direct effect on trade as well.
In particular, I am concerned that overfishing by EU member states
is reducing stocks of ICCAT species below sustainable levels.
Specifically, I was extremely disappointed that ICCAT agreed to an EU
delegation proposal to set the Total Allowable Catch for Eastern
Atlantic bluefin at 32,000 metric tons, which is 6,000 metric tons
above the cap recommended by ICCAT's scientific advisory body. Support
for such proposals undermines ICCAT's ability to effectively manage
Atlantic stocks and threatens the viability of U.S. recreational and
commercial fishing industries.
Positions such as these not only threaten the long-term future of
our shared marine resources, but, as I noted, they also have the
potential to lead to serious friction in U.S.-EU trade relations. In
September 2002, the Recreational Fishing Alliance, an organization
representing the U.S. sport fishing industry, filed a petition under
Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 to address allegedly unjustifiable
acts, policies and practices of the EU related to ICCAT. The 301
petition also alleged that EU subsidies to its fishing industry through
the Common Fisheries Policy and its funding mechanism, the Financial
Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (MFG), are actionable under the WTO
Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures. Although the
Recreational Fishing Alliance withdrew its 301 petition prior to the
October 2002 ICCAT meeting, it has expressed its intent to re-file the
petition if its concerns are not addressed.
The EU is a world leader in supporting protection of the global
environment and the sustainable use of natural resources. In the case
of Atlantic fishing stocks, however, it appears that the actions and
positions of the EU and its member states are at variance with these
goals. I would like to work together with you so as to make ICCAT an
effective steward of our shared Atlantic fisheries, and to prevent this
issue from becoming another bilateral trade irritant. To that end, I
urge you to take prompt action to improve EU compliance with existing
ICCAT obligations and to re-consider accepting science-based
conservation measures to guarantee a sustainable future for species
like the Atlantic bluefin tuna and white marlin.
I have asked Grant Aldonas, Under Secretary for International
Trade, to serve as a point of contact for this important issue, and
would ask that you similarly designate an appropriate point of contact
for the Commission.
As you know, the Administration is also interested in discussing
opportunities for improving disciplines on worldwide fishing subsidies
pursuant to the Doha Department Agenda, an objective, I trust we both
share. I look forward to cooperating with you to improve the U.S.-EU
relationship on these matters.
Sincerely,
Donald L. Evans,
Secretary.
cc: Ambassador Robert B. Zoellick
United States Trade Representative
cc: The Honorable Franz Fischler
Commissioner for Agriculture, Rural Development and Fisheries
European Commission
______
United States Department of Commerce
Silver Spring, MD, April 23, 2003
Mr. John Edward Spencer,
Head, Unit of International and Regional Arrangements,
European Commission,
B-1049--Brussels, Belgium.
Dear Mr. Spencer:
I am pleased that we were able to begin our agreed bilateral
discussions concerning implementation by the European Community (EC) of
ICCAT's new restrictions, including the harvest of juvenile bluefin
tuna, and other matters earlier this month. I am only sorry that
circumstances were such that we could not meet face-to-face. As I
mentioned during our phone call, these discussions take on particular
significance given that they are also the subject of a request to the
U.S. Secretary of Commerce from several U.S. Governors and
environmental organizations that he certify the EC pursuant to the
Pelly Amendment to the Fishermen's Protective Act of 1967 for
diminishing the effectiveness of ICCAT.
The Pelly Amendment directs the Secretary of Commerce to
periodically monitor the activities of foreign nationals that conduct
fishing operations in a manner or under circumstances which diminish
the effectiveness of an international fishery conservation program and
determine if such activity should be certified to the President of the
United States. Upon receiving such certification, the President may
prohibit the importation into the United States of any products from
the offending country for any duration of time that the President
determines appropriate.
As I noted to you, I would like to continue our dialogue on these
important issues as soon as possible. The ICCAT intersessional meetings
in Madeira present a good opportunity for a follow-up meeting and we
should take advantage of it. I will be arriving the weekend prior to
the start of those meetings and propose that we meet for a few hours on
Sunday, May 25, 2003. In addition, I note that our annual U.S.-EU
fisheries bilateral has been scheduled for June 30-July 1 in
Washington, D.C. While I will not be in town for that meeting, I will
be back on July 2 and would like to propose an informal meeting in my
office to continue our important discussions. My staff will be in touch
to confirm our next meeting date and time.
It was a pleasure talking with you recently, and I look forward to
our next meeting.
Sincerely,
William T. Hogarth, Ph.D.,
Assistant Administrator for Fisheries.
______
Original Message
From: ``John Sibert''
To:
Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 8:55 AM
Subject: Myers & Worm Nature article
Fishfolk,
Lest anyone fret about the apparent lack of response to the Myers
and Worm Nature article, please be assured that several responses are
in preparation. The following summarizes some comments that my
colleagues and I are assembling regarding the M&W interpretation of
longline data; it is only the beginning.
1. The Myers and Worm study is fundamentally flawed because of the
aggregation of CPUEs for different species that show different
time-series trends and have different longline catchability and
uncritical interpretation of pooled CPUE as an index of
``community biomass''.
2. The popular interpretation of the results of the study as
indicating population or community level changes in abundance
is incorrect. Longline gear selects mainly the oldest fish and
therefore the conclusions of the study should be more
restricted.
3. The Myers and Worm definition of tropical area for the Pacific is
too restrictive and should have included the main core habitat
of tropical tunas and billfish (to 15N). Their claim that this
area could not be considered because it was fished prior to
1952 is grossly overstated. Available information suggests that
longline fishing effort prior to 1952 in the equatorial area
was very low and largely of an exploratory nature. Declines in
CPUE of yellowfin and bigeye in this region are neither rapid
nor spectacular.
4. The declines in CPUE documented in the Myers and Worm study show
considerable differences among species in the western and
central Pacific. Most of the visual impact of the decline
occurs because of a very high yellowfin CPUE in 1953, when
fishing was very spatially restricted and occurred in only part
of the year. Changes in albacore CPUE are demonstrably related
to species targeting when data from other fleets (Taiwan) are
considered. No decline in bigeye CPUE occurred in any region
considered over the entire time series. Decline in CPUE in the
temperate region is restricted to southern bluefin tuna. The
onus is on Myers and Worm to explain how these very different
patterns could have resulted given the general claims that they
make regarding the impact of longline fishing on pelagic fish
stocks.
5. The species-specific changes in CPUE need to be assessed in the
context of models that incorporate species-specific population
dynamics and make use of a greater range of data than catch and
effort statistics from one fleet using one gear. Size-based
age-structured models are currently being used for the main
species exploited by longline in the western and central
Pacific. The results of these analyses will be available within
two months.
6. There is no doubt that fishing decreases the abundance of fish
populations. The simplest of fishing theories predict that the
size of fish populations at full and sustainable exploitation
is about half of their pre-exploitation size. Many of the tunas
and billfishes included in this analysis have been carefully
assessed by sophisticated models that include multiple gear
types, spatial effects, age structure, and long time series.
Most of these analyses estimate declines that are far less
severe than indicated by the nominal CPUE. There is also no
doubt that some fish populations are overexploited, that others
are near full exploitation, and that steps need to be taken to
reduce levels of exploitation. Myers and Worm do the fisheries
community a disservice by applying a simplistic analysis to the
available data which exaggerates declines in abundance and
implies unrealistic rebuilding benchmarks.
Regards,
John Sibert.
______
NEWS RELEASE--Associated Fisheries of Maine Trawlers Survival Fund
The Truth About New England's Fisheries
For more information: Maggie Raymond, Robert Lane
(New Bedford, MA, June 3, 2003)--Associated Fisheries of Maine and
the Trawlers Survival Fund join fishermen and fishing communities
around the country in hailing the successes of U.S. fisheries
management programs, and refuting the claims of the Pew Oceans
Commission that our Nation's fisheries are in crisis. Fisheries
management programs in New England continue to demonstrate measurable
and substantial success in building sustainable fisheries. Commercial
fishing in New England provides millions of pounds of highly valued
seafood, thousands of jobs, and defines the social fabric of our
coastal communities.
The overwhelming body of evidence does not support the doom and
gloom picture of the Nation's fisheries painted by the Pew Ocean
Commission, and New England fishermen are concerned that this alarmist
report will only serve to undermine the U.S. fisheries management
process that has been largely successful. ``The Pew Commission is a
self-appointed, elitist group with a vested interest in fabricating
crises, said Robert Lane of the Trawlers Survival Fund. ``None of the
Commission's recommendations are at all useful to the thousands of
people who roll up their sleeves every day to do the hard work of
fishing and developing fishery management plans.''
New England groundfish, our Nation's first fishery, and still the
region's principal fishery, has rebounded under strict management
plans. These 24 stocks of finfish have, collectively, tripled in
biomass since 1994. In particular, Georges Bank haddock and yellowtail,
Gulf of Maine haddock, silver hake, and witch flounder, have all made
significant gains, and are rapidly approaching a ``rebuilt'' status.
The scallop fishery is now considered rebuilt and provides
significant economic benefits to harvesters throughout New England and
the Mid-Atlantic region, and the public has enjoyed a steady,
sustainable supply of this highly valued seafood, at a reasonable
price.
The herring resource in New England is presently above its biomass
target, and fishing mortality remains low. Monkfish, the region's 3rd
most valuable fishery, is no longer overfished and is very near its
biomass target.
``All of these gains, of course, have come at great cost to New
England fishermen'', said Maggie Raymond of Associated Fisheries of
Maine. ``Strict limitations on the number of days fished, the largest
mesh size in the world, and thousands of square miles of seasonal and
year-round closed fishing areas have caused economic hardship, but have
also contributed to the quick turn-around in the status of these
resources.
The Pew Oceans Commission recommends, among other things, that
fisheries management decision-making be taken from responsible managers
with regional knowledge of fisheries, and moved to a bureaucracy in
Washington, DC. Raymond responded, ``Members of the regional fishery
management councils have the local knowledge essential to crafting
regulations that achieve conservation goals while attempting to
minimize the economic impacts of regulations on fishermen and fishing
families. Because Associated Fisheries of Maine supports sound
fisheries management, I have acted as an advisor to the New England
Fishery Management Council, recommending the adoption of some of the
most draconian restrictions imposed on our fisheries to date''.
Reliable data from the National Marine Fisheries Service, the
United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), and the
International Commission for Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT), as
well as from the Nation's regional fishery management councils, shows
consistent progress in rebuilding and maintaining healthy fish stocks,
and healthy fishing communities. For detailed information about our
Nation's fisheries see the National Marine Fisheries Service ``Status
of the Stocks'' at http://www.nmfs.noaa.clov/sfa/reports.html and for
New England fisheries, see ``Heading Toward Recovery'' available at
http://www.nefmc.orq/
``The truth is out there'', said Robert Lane. ``But good news
doesn't grab the headlines. The stories of sustainable fisheries--good
food and good jobs--won't put the names of the members of the Pew
Commission in the daily newspaper.''
#####
Associated Fisheries of Maine is a grass roots coalition of fishing
and fishing dependent business whose members work and reside along the
entire coast of Maine, as well as in Massachusetts. The Trawlers
Survival Fund is comprised of over 100 fishing vessels from the coasts
of Massachusetts and Rhode Island. Both organizations are fully
committed to sound fisheries management, to providing high quality
seafood to the public, and to improving the safety of commercial
fishing.
The Pew Oceans Commission's traveling road show has been made
possible through generous funding by the Pew Charitable Trust. The Pew
Charitable Trust has also donated several million dollars to an
advocacy group known as Oceana. Oceana, in turn, has spent most of that
money on lawsuits that thwart the U.S. Government's efforts to
implement effective fisheries management. The National Marine Fisheries
Service, in response, has been forced to re-allocate a significant
portion of its taxpayer funded budget to compiling litigation records
instead of to evaluating, implementing, and enforcing fishery
management plans.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Ms. Speer, welcome.
STATEMENT OF LISA SPEER, SENIOR POLICY ANALYST, NATIONAL
RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL
Ms. Speer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you very much
for holding this hearing today on a very, very important issue.
Before I begin, I want to just quickly address one of the
issues that Mr. Ruais raised, and that is to point out that the
journal, Nature, is one of the top scientific journals in the
world, and Mr. Myers' article, along with every other article
that is published in Nature, is extensively reviewed prior to
publication by peer scientists.
In addition, it's not just Dr. Myers' report. Dr. Myers' is
only one of a series of reports that have come out recently
from the National Academy of Sciences, from the Food and
Agriculture Organization, from the National Marine Fisheries
Service, that show that we are in serious trouble. We have a
serious problem.
But I want to thank this Committee for holding this
hearing, and in particular for its leadership on international
fisheries issues in the past. Senator Stevens was a key leader
on the driftnet ban, he was a key leader on the U.N. Fish
Stocks Agreement, and I think now is the time for us to again
assert our leadership on the world stage to begin to address
some of the problems that we've heard discussed today.
There are three things that I think we ought to consider in
terms of asserting leadership on the world stage and addressing
these issues. First, I think the United States needs to lead by
example, and at 4.5 million square miles, our EEZ is the
largest in the world, and if we are to assert leadership
globally we need to make sure that our own house is in order,
and while there have been very promising signs of rebuilding in
places, the overall picture remains troublesome.
According to the National Marine Fisheries Service, well
over a third of our assessed fish stocks that are federally
managed are either overfished, or being fished unsustainably,
or both, but that's just one measure of the problem we face. In
addition, fishing catches a huge amount of other marine
creatures that are discarded dead. Worldwide, the figure is
one-quarter of the world catch is discarded dead, and second,
the damage to fish habitat posed by some fishing practices is
changing the undersea landscape and the ecosystem in ways that
we don't fully understand, but that are potentially very
troublesome.
The kinds of changes that we think are necessary at home
include some of the things that have been recommended by the
Pew Oceans Commission and that we think are likely will be also
recommended by the National Oceans Commission, and that is,
number 1, to replace the existing fragmented system of ocean
laws with an overall national ocean policy that's based on the
doctrine of public trust.
Fisheries management here at home needs to be strengthened
in several ways, first by separating conservation from
allocation decisions, and restricting destructive gear that can
damage fish habitat.
Finally, scientists tell us that fully protected marine
reserves where there is no extractive activity allowed is one
way of helping to increase fisheries, to improve ecosystem
health, and to rebuild depleted populations.
The Pew Commission report contains a number of other
recommendations. I'd like to submit it, along with my
testimony, for the record.
The Chairman. Without objection.
Ms. Speer. The second major initiative I think the U.S.
could undertake is to protect the seamounts that Dr. Lent and
others referred to. These are submarine mountains that rise 100
meters or more from the ocean floor. They tend to be isolated
and, as a result, they tend to be hot spots of biodiversity in
the ocean. According to the UNFAO there are tens, if not
thousands of endemic species on each of these seamounts,
species that are found nowhere else in the world.
We know very, very little about these seamounts, but they
appear to be incredible spots of high biodiversity that require
protection. Right now, there is high seas bottom trawling going
on on these seamounts that can destroy the very basis of life
on them by raking over cold water corals and reducing important
productive habitats to rubble in a very short order.
We very much favor a high seas moratorium on bottom
trawling on seamounts. We feel that is something that the
United States could play a very important leadership role. We
need to map these things. We need to identify what's on them.
We need to figure out how important are they to the ocean
ecosystem before we go trashing them with bottom trawling and
other harmful methods of fishing.
Last, I think it's really critical to continue to play the
kind of leadership role that the United States has played in
trying to address illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing.
This is a really tough issue. The United States has been a
leader, and we need to continue to push there. Domestic
legislation that the committee has considered and has
introduced is one possibility, I think, that may be fruitful,
and we would welcome the opportunity to continue to work with
the Committee on this issue.
Finally, the fishing capacity issue is a big one. We need
to elevate the discussion of subsidies in particular, harmful
subsidies, subsidies that encourage construction and other
improvements of fishing vessels, and at the WTO and in other
international fora we think elevating this issue, making a
bigger deal out of it, is very important.
And last, Mr. Chairman, I would thank you again for holding
this hearing. I think the time is ripe. This problem is
emerging, it's pressing, we can't ignore it any longer, and
it's time for us to step up to the plate.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Speer follows:]
Prepared Statement of Lisa Speer, Senior Policy Analyst,
Natural Resources Defense Council
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee:
My name is Lisa Speer. I am Senior Policy Analyst with the Natural
Resources Defense Council (NRDC), a national conservation organization
dedicated to protecting natural resources and public health. We
appreciate the opportunity to testify on the U.S. role in international
fisheries management.
My work over the last 20 years at NRDC has focused on ocean and
coastal resource conservation, both here and abroad. I have had the
honor of serving on the U.S. delegation to a number of major
international fisheries negotiations, including the UN Conference on
Straddling Stocks and Highly Migratory Species, as well as negotiations
to implement the resulting treaty in the North Atlantic and the Western
Pacific. NRDC has been active in issues debated at the International
Convention for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), the Inter-
American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC), the Convention on
International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), and other
international institutions that address fisheries issues. Here at home,
NRDC has been extensively involved in regional fisheries management
issues in New England, the Mid-Atlantic and the Pacific, swordfish and
other highly migratory species in Atlantic, and overall implementation
of the Magnuson-Stevens Act at the national level. Most recently, the
President of NRDC, John Adams, served on the Pew Oceans Commission,
which issued its report and recommendations last week.
I would like first to thank the Committee for holding this hearing.
Coming on the heels of Dr. Myers' report in Nature last month, the
report of the Pew Commission last week, the Defying Oceans End
conference in Cabo San Lucas earlier this month and the conclusion of
the 4th UN Open-ended Informal Consultative Process on on Oceans and
the Law of the Sea last Friday, the timing could not be more
propitious.
Overview of international fisheries
Recent reports and events highlight the fact that we are rapidly
reaching, and in many cases have exceeded, the limits of ocean
ecosystems and the fisheries they support. According to the UN Food and
Agriculture Organization (FAO), seventy-five percent of the world's
marine fish populations are fully fished, overfished, or depleted. Sea
turtles, marine mammals and seabirds are threatened by incidental catch
in fishing gear, as are many species of commercial and non-commercially
important fish. More than 2 billion pounds of bycatch--roughly 25
percent of the world's total catch--is discarded dead, the collateral
damage of fishing. Destructive fishing practices such as dredges and
bottom trawls damage the habitat on which marine life, including
important commercial fish species, depend. Overcapacity and subsidies
continue to propel short term overexploitation at the expense of long
term sustainability.
The depletion of the seas has enormous implications for the human
environment as well as the natural one. Globally, marine fisheries
employ roughly 20 million people worldwide, many from developing
countries where fishing provides a critical source of income as well as
food. Here in our own back yard, depletion of cod off Atlantic Canada
has cost more than 40,000 people their jobs and has devastated coastal
fishing communities throughout the Atlantic provinces.
The experience around the globe is mirrored here at home, where
well over a third of federally managed assessed fish stocks are either
overfished or are being fished unsustainably, or both. Rampant
overfishing in New England, the Pacific and elsewhere has resulted in
dramatic declines in key fish stocks, resulting in the loss of jobs and
painful readjustments in many fishing communities.
Increasing pressure on deep sea fisheries
Faced with declining stocks in nearshore coastal waters, fishermen
are venturing farther out into previously untouched areas of the deep
sea, home to exceptionally vulnerable species and habitats, with
unknown consequences. According to FAO, the catch of oceanic species
typically found on the high seas has tripled since the mid-1970s.
The rapid increase in fishing pressure on seamounts and other deep
water areas is of particular concern. Seamounts are submarine mountains
and hills that can rise 1000 meters or more from the ocean floor. They
are distributed throughout the world's oceans. Recent research
indicates that seamounts are centers of biodiversity that frequently
exhibit a very high degree of endemism. According to the U.N., the
total number of species endemic to deep-sea seamounts may range from
tens of thousands or more, thus potentially making these ecosystems the
most prolific and diverse on the planet.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Draft Report of the Secretary-General on Oceans and the Law of
the Sea, June 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Along with deep coral formations and other deep water features,
seamounts typically support slow-growing, long-living animals, which
can take hundreds or even thousands of years to develop and are
exceedingly vulnerable to disturbance. Very little about the
distribution, abundance and dynamics of these features and the species
that inhabit them is known.
Bottom trawl fishing poses the greatest danger to seamount
ecosystems due to the impact of the gear on bottom habitat. Advancing
technology now allows fishing vessels to easily locate and fish in
previously inaccessible deep-sea areas, including seamounts, banks and
canyons, which harbor long-lived deep sea fish such as orange roughy.
Trawling for these fish can destroy deep water coral and other complex
benthic communities, reducing thriving bottom complexes to rubble in
short order.
The role of the United States in addressing international fisheries
The United States has played a key role in promoting reform of
international fisheries management over the years. To cite but a few
examples, U.S. leadership was essential to securing the 1991 UN
moratorium on large scale driftnets on the high seas, the
groundbreaking, legally binding conservation provisions of the UN
Agreement on Straddling and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks, and the FAO
International Plan of Action (IPOA) on illegal, unreported and
unregulated (IUU) fishing. U.S. leadership was essential in securing
agreement at ICCAT to adopt a recovery plan for North Atlantic
swordfish, which have made a remarkable comeback, and in securing
agreement on multilateral trade measures to help enforce ICCAT rules.
These and other efforts have served to greatly enhance
international fisheries conservation and management. But much more
needs to be done. The magnitude of the problem here in the U.S. and
around the world calls for a major initiative to chart a new course for
fisheries. As a major fishing nation, and one of the world's largest
consumers of seafood, the U.S. is in an important position to lead such
an effort. Elements of this initiative should include the following.
(1) The U.S. should lead by example. At 4.5 million square miles,
our EEZ is bigger than the Nation's land area and is the
largest in the world. If we are to assert leadership globally,
we need to ensure that domestic fisheries are managed
responsibly and sustainably. Despite important progress, we
remain far short of this goal. More than one third of assessed
fish stocks are either overfished, being fished unsustainably,
or both according to NMFS, and some are approaching extinction,
including several species of snapper, grouper, and Pacific
rockfish. The Pew Oceans Commission report outlines important
steps we can take here at home to overhaul domestic fisheries
management. These include:
a. Replace the existing, fragmented jumble of ocean laws and
programs with a unified national ocean policy based on the
doctrine of public trust, with clear and coordinated goals,
objectives and standards based on protecting ecosystem
health and requiring sustainable use of ocean resources.
b. Overhaul Federal marine fisheries management by separating
conservation and allocation decisions, restricting fishing
gear that is destructive to marine habitats, and
implementing ecosystem based planning and zoning.
c. Establish a system of fully protected marine reserves.
The Pew Commission report contains many other critically important
recommendations for improving fisheries management in the United
States. I would like to submit the report for the record.
(1) Pursue an immediate moratorium on high seas bottom trawling on
seamounts, deep coral reefs and other sensitive areas. Such a
moratorium should apply until deep water corals, seamounts and
other biodiversity hotspots on the high seas can be identified
and measures to protect them adopted. In most high seas
regions, there are virtually no controls on bottom trawling,
and there is great concern that many species are being lost to
trawling before they can even be identified. Bottom trawling
should be suspended in sensitive areas of the high seas until
these features can be mapped, assessed and protected.
(2) Continue to play a leadership role in implementing the FAO Plan
of Action to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported
and Unregulated Fishing. The United States has been a leader in
promoting international cooperation to deter IUU fishing.
Continued progress on this front is essential if the World
Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) goal of restoring
depleted stocks to healthy levels worldwide by 2015 is to be
met. Domestic legislation enabling the U.S. to restrict imports
of certain fish caught in a manner that is not consistent with
international agreements governing fishing and protection of
the marine environment has been introduced in the Committee,
and we believe this approach holds promise for addressing the
problem of IUU fishing. We would welcome the opportunity to
work with the Committee on this type of legislation.
(3) Promote the prompt implementation of the FAO International Plan
of Action on Management of Fishing Capacity. Most importantly,
that portion of the $13 billion/year of officially reported
fishing subsidies (likely an underestimate)\2\ that contributes
to overcapacity and overfishing must be addressed. In addition
to ongoing discussions of the issue at the WTO, the upcoming
2004 FAO technical consultation on subsidies in the fisheries
sector and how they affect overcapacity, overfishing and IUU
fishing, provides a potential opportunity to make progress on
this issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ WWF, 2001. Hard Facts, Hidden Problems: A Review of Current
Data on Fishing Subsidies.
In closing, we again commend the Committee for holding this
hearing, and urge your continued involvement and interest in this
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
critical environmental issue. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Dr. Sullivan, welcome.
STATEMENT OF PATRICK J. SULLIVAN, Ph.D., DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL
RESOURCES, CORNELL UNIVERSITY
Dr. Sullivan. Chairman McCain, Members of the Committee,
thank you for the invitation to discuss the U.S. role in
international fisheries management.
A significant number of the world's fisheries are not in
good shape. The Director General of the Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations at a recent conference
stated that 50 percent of the world's marine fishery resources
are fully exploited, 25 percent are overexploited, and 25
percent could support a higher exploitation rate.
He goes on to state that despite warning, the trend toward
overfishing observed since the early 1970s has not yet been
reversed. Similar concerns can be raised here at home as well.
In the 2001 annual report to Congress by the National Marine
Fisheries Service, the report states that of the stocks whose
status is known, 163 are considered in healthy condition, while
81 are considered overfished.
Given the general consensus that too many populations are
overfished, why hasn't more action been taken? The reason is
that fisheries management represents a troubled juxtaposition
of the human need for these resources in terms of food and
protein, economic income, culture, and recreation, with the
challenges this need causes to the environment in terms of
population sustainability, species viability, and ecosystem
stability.
Fisheries science, while making reasonable progress toward
understanding our marine ecosystems and the populations
therein, faces the daunting task of providing information and
advice about these complex systems to constituencies that
represent seemingly competing objectives of resource
utilization and environmental conservation. Fisheries
management is difficult. Tough decisions must be made that
influence people's livelihoods and their quality of living, but
these decisions also influence ecosystems and consequently the
quality of the environment.
It may seem that the objectives voiced by resource
utilization and conservation groups are in conflict, but in
fact both should represent similar overarching goals. Both seek
a healthy, functioning, productive marine ecosystem.
Why the conflict? Often the short-term demands on a
fisheries resource such as keeping fishers employed, markets
satisfied, or fishing communities economically viable
overshadow the very real but difficult-to-see long-term
consequences that continued high demand can bring about. In
situations where demand for the resource is high, and the long-
term consequences are seemingly unclear or uncertain, the
tendency is to remain at status quo.
Unfortunately, such a response only digs the hole deeper,
making any remedial action difficult to take, often resulting
in severe economic and ecological repercussions.
One symptom of this unresolved conflict is indicated by the
letter to the journal, Nature, by Dr. Myers and Dr. Worm. I
appreciate this article, and I think one of the reasons I was
called today was to help debate it, and I'm certainly willing
to answer questions and help do that, but the signs of
something amiss in our marine ecosystems is widely known. We
have the Pew Commission report in 2003 on American Living
Oceans, we have the National Marine Fisheries report, Toward
Rebuilding America's Marine Fisheries, 2003, we have the
National Academy of Public Administration report, Courts,
Congress, and its Constituencies, Managing Fisheries by
Default. I have listed here 12 publications, some of which I
was involved with, with the National Academy of Sciences,
Natural Research Council, over and over again----
The Chairman. All of them concluding that?
Dr. Sullivan. That there is uncertainty in doing fisheries
management, that it's a tough job, and that more needs to be
done, and that overfishing is taking place.
The Chairman. Twelve different studies?
Dr. Sullivan. Pardon me?
The Chairman. Twelve different studies?
Dr. Sullivan. Yes.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Dr. Sullivan. Fisheries management is a tough, tough
problem, and there is a number of reports that have already
addressed this, and I'm a little surprised, I was telling Ran
before, that this particular article should raise so much
attention, when this has been raised over and over again over
the last 10 years.
So I think the ocean is a fantastic resource, but I also
think it's an incredible ecosystem, and I think, if interacted
with reasonably, could result in an ecologically balanced and
economically viable partnership. One of the neat things about
fishing in the ocean is, we're doing it, we're trying to do it
in an ecologically balanced fashion as opposed to, you know, I
don't know, rice or something like that. You know, the
ecosystem goes away, and then we put rice in. We don't do that
with fish. We try not to do that. We try to do it in a sort of
balanced way.
So how might we do this better? I think first we should
recognize the uncertainty associated with it, and adjust to
that, but this may mean operating in a risk-averse fashion,
where information is lacking. We can't keep up the overfishing
for the fish stocks that we're looking at. It seems to be
relevant especially to some of the predators, but it's
affecting other fish as well.
Quite often, unfortunately, the science gets the blame for
the errors that occur, and one of the reasons why there's so
many reports is, managers keep getting the message that
overfishing is taking place, and so the managers ask the
scientists why that's so, and don't believe the answers. I
think that's a problem.
So I think quite often, again, that science gets the blame
for errors that occur when we're trying to manage our
fisheries, and in some circumstances it's blame that's properly
placed. However, asking scientists to remove all of the fog in
terms of what we can do so that we can drive at top speed in
terms of managing our fisheries I think is unrealistic, and
presupposing that we can control marine systems to the level
that we are presently attempting I think is overly risking.
It's overly risky ecologically, I think it's overly risky
economically.
I believe the best way to achieve an economically and
ecologically balanced relationship with the ocean worldwide is
to set the stage for doing so at home. To do this, I think we
must create realistic, flexible, ecosystem-based fisheries
management plans. These plans may need to step beyond the
optimum and maximum yield objectives toward constructing
objectives that create opportunity without encountering undue
risk.
Think again of this problem raised with the observed
depletion of predators. We are working with complex ecosystems
here. Our objectives should fit into that. The balance that
results may not be optimal for all stakeholders, so perhaps we
should better define what opportunities we wish to create, and
what risks we wish to avoid. The Myers and Worm letter to
Nature is just a warning. The warnings are abundant. National
Marine Fisheries Service, the Pew Commission, the National
Academy of Sciences all provide well-thought-out and
appropriate advice. Still, tough decisions need to be made.
I would be happy to answer any questions you might have.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Sullivan follows:]
Prepared Statement of Patrick J. Sullivan, Ph.D., Department of Natural
Resources, Cornell University
Chairman McCain, Members of the Committee, thank you for the
invitation to discuss the U.S. Role in International Fisheries
Management.
A significant number of the world's fisheries are not in good
shape. The Director-General of Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)
of the United Nations Dr. Jacques Diouf at the Reykjavik Conference on
Responsible Fisheries in the Marine Ecosystem (1-4 October 2001) stated
that 50 percent of the world's marine fishery resources are fully
exploited, 25 percent are overexploited and about 25 percent could
support higher exploitation rates. He goes on to state that ``Despite
warning, the trend towards more overfishing observed since the early
1970s has not yet reversed.'' Similar concerns can be raise here at
home as well. The 2001 Annual Report to Congress by the National Marine
Fisheries Service states that of the stocks whose status is known 163
are considered in healthy condition while 81 are considered to be
overfished. Given the general consensus that too many populations are
overfished, why hasn't more action been taken? The reason is that
fisheries management represents a troubled juxtaposition of the human
need for these resources in terms of food and protein, economic income,
culture, and recreation with the challenges this need causes for the
environment in terms of population sustainability, species viability,
and ecosystem stability. Fisheries science, while making reasonable
progress towards understanding our marine ecosystems and the
populations therein, faces the daunting task of providing information
and advice about these complex systems to constituencies that represent
the seemingly competing objectives of resource utilization and
environmental conservation. Fisheries management is difficult. Tough
decisions must be made that influence people's livelihoods and their
quality of living, but these decisions also influence ecosystems and
consequently the quality of the environment. It may seem that the
objectives voiced by resource utilization and conservation groups are
in conflict, but in fact both should represent similar overarching
goals. Both seek a healthy functioning productive marine ecosystem. Why
the conflict? Often the short-term demands on a fisheries resource,
such as keeping fishers employed, markets satisfied, or fishing
communities economically viable, overshadow the very real, but
difficult to see, long-term consequences that continued high demand can
bring about. In situations where demand for the resource is high and
the long-term consequences are seemingly unclear or uncertain, the
tendency is to remain at status quo. Unfortunately, such a response
only digs the hole deeper, making any remedial action difficult to take
often resulting in severe economic and ecological repercussions.
One symptom of this unresolved conflict is indicated in the letter
to the journal Nature by Myers and Worm (2003, Vol 423:280-283) on the
``Rapid worldwide depletion of predatory fish communities''. But the
signs of something amiss in our marine ecosystems are widely known. The
Pew Commission Report ``America's Living Oceans'' (2003), the National
Marine Fisheries Service Report to Congress ``Toward Rebuilding
America's Marine Fisheries'' (2003) and the National Academy of Public
Administration Report ``Courts, Congress, and Constituencies: Managing
Fisheries by Default'' (2002) indicate the need for something other
than status quo in how we deal with fisheries and with our marine
ecosystems. A number of National Academy of Sciences National Research
Council (NRC) Reports have also come out on this and related topics
over the last ten years (i.e., 1994 Improving the Management of U.S.
Marine Fisheries, 1996 The Bering Sea Ecosystem, 1996 Upstream: Salmon
and Society in the Pacific Northwest, 1998 Improving Fish Stock
Assessments, 1998 Review of the Northeast Fishery Stock Assessments,
1999 Sharing the Fish: Toward a National Policy on Individual Fishing
Quotas, 1999 Sustaining Marine Fisheries, 2000 Improving the
Collection, Management and Use of Marine Fisheries Data, 2000
Recruiting Fishery Scientists, 2001 Marine Protected Areas, 2002
Science and Its Role in the National Marine Fisheries Service). We know
there's a problem.
A few years ago I testified before the Senate Subcommittee on
Oceans as chair of one of these NRC committees. During that testimony I
tried to convey that uncertainty plays a large role in determining the
limits of our understanding of fisheries populations. This uncertainty
about the responses of marine systems to human intervention is not
confined to the United States alone. I have reviewed and provided
advice to Iceland on cod, New Zealand on hoki, Canada on black cod, and
Japan, New Zealand, and Australia, on southern bluefin tuna. As a
population dynamicist for ten years with the International Pacific
Halibut Commission I provided advice on the halibut fishery (another
longline fishery) in the North Pacific, and have provided advice to the
Pacific Fisheries Management Council and currently to the New England
Fisheries Management Council on fisheries science, stock assessment and
harvest management strategies. The common theme in all these systems is
uncertainty. A respected fisheries scientist John Shepherd was once
quoted as saying ``Estimating the number of fish in the sea is just the
same as counting the number of trees in a forest, except you can't see
the fish and they move.'' Uncertainty is a fact of life, but one I
think we can respond appropriately to. However, the actions we take
must be thoughtful and informed and we must recognize that in most
circumstances if we err, we should err on the side of safety for our
ecosystem. This guiding principle is called the precautionary approach
and it represents an attempt to recognize that errors that impact the
ecosystem may be irrevocable. Just to clarify, I do not interpret this
principle to mean that being risk averse when it comes to fisheries
management should mean that we should not make use of our ocean's
resources. We cannot all live on mountain tops in Nepal, and even if we
all did this we would still require resources (e.g., rice, air, water)
to sustain ourselves. No, I think the ocean is a fantastic resource as
well as an incredible ecosystem, and if interacted with reasonably
could result in an ecologically balanced economically viable
partnership.
How might we do this better? First we should recognize this
uncertainty and adjust to it, which may mean operating in a risk-averse
fashion where information is lacking. I was thinking about an
appropriate analogy on a recent trip home to Ithaca, NY, from a meeting
I was attending in Woods Hole, MA. The best I could come up with on the
interstate was that fisheries management was a lot like driving on the
turnpike. Some of us like using cruise control. It is a bit less
taxing, but we need a wide open road to make use of it. Some of us like
keeping our foot on the pedal in seeking out an optimal speed. But in
driving this way we must be diligent and keep a much closer eye on the
road. Right now in fisheries management for many fisheries I believe we
are at high speed on the turnpike in the fog using cruise control. We
cannot keep it up and we are already seeing the consequences of taking
too many risks. Quite often the science gets the blame for errors that
occur when we try to manage our fisheries. And in some circumstances
this blame is properly placed. However, asking scientists to remove all
the fog so we can drive at top speed is unrealistic. And presupposing
that we can control marine systems to the level that we are presently
attempting is overly risky. It is overly risky ecologically. It is
overly risky economically.
I believe the best way for us to achieve an economically and
ecologically balanced relationship with the ocean worldwide is to set
the stage for doing so at home. To do this I think we must create
realistic flexible ecosystem-based fishery management plans. These
plans may need to step beyond optimum and maximum yield objectives
towards constructing objectives that create opportunity without
encountering undue risk. Think again of the problem raised by the
observed depletion of predators. We are working with complex ecosystems
here. Our objective should be to fit into it. The balance that results
may not be optimal for all stakeholders, and so perhaps we should
better define what opportunities we wish to create and what risks we
wish to avoid. The Myers and Worm letter to Nature is just a warning.
The warnings are abundant. The National Marine Fisheries Service, the
Pew Commission, the National Academy of Sciences are all providing well
thought out and appropriate advice. Still tough decisions need to be
made.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Dr. Sullivan. Thank you
for your testimony.
Mr. Ruais, I probably shouldn't bother with this, but you
say that in your statement the Pew Ocean Commission, which has
been described as, quote, ``self-appointed, elitist group with
a vested interest in fabricating a crisis, see attached, The
Truth about New England Fisheries.'' That attached, ``The Truth
about New England Fisheries'' article, is by the Associated
Fisheries of Maine Trawlers Survival Fund. I won't even
comment.
Dr. Myers, do you believe that your study is a radical
departure from other studies that have been conducted by other
organizations, including the United States Government?
Dr. Myers. No.
The Chairman. Do you believe that Admiral Watkins'
Commission will basically reach the same conclusions that you
have?
Dr. Myers. Yes.
The Chairman. Mr. Ruais, do you believe that Admiral
Watkins' Commission, from what you've seen of their work so
far, will reach roughly the same conclusions that Dr. Myers
has?
Mr. Ruais. I'm not sure, Senator, if that's going to be the
outcome.
The Chairman. If they do, would that lend some credibility
to the Associated Fisheries of Maine Trawlers Survival Fund?
Mr. Ruais. Well, I think it would lend more credibility to
the statements of Dr. Mike Sissenwine, chief scientist at NOAA,
who has also tried to reassure the public that within the Myers
study there is not a lot that's new or surprising to
scientists. We all know that when you go fishing, you reduce
fish stocks. That's not the issue that's before us today. The
issue is, where are we in relation to maximum sustainable
yield, and I think by any reasonable standard, both
domestically and internationally, we're making progress to
date, dramatic progress, as you heard from Dr. Rebecca Lent. In
a short period of time after----
The Chairman. Now, that's not what I heard from Dr. Rebecca
Lent. I heard from Dr. Rebecca Lent that domestically,
particularly in the Northwest, thanks to Magnuson-Stevens and a
number of other measures that have been taken, we're doing
pretty well, but I heard from Dr. Rebecca Lent that we're not
doing very well at all internationally.
Mr. Ruais. Well, I'm sorry, Senator, but I didn't quite
hear that from Dr. Lent. I heard that we are making progress--
--
The Chairman. How? You were in the audience.
Mr. Ruais. I was. I was, Senator McCain, but I do believe
that we are making substantial progress at ICCAT. We've
recovered the swordfish resource in half the time. Bigeye tuna
is stable, yellowfin tuna is stable. We have problem areas. The
industry does not deny that we have problem areas remaining,
but we are making progress, and we're here today to ask the
committee to help us in the area where we can finish the job,
and that is, we lack the political will internationally to get
a job, we recognize that.
There's some bad players out there, some bad actors, and
we're asking for help domestically to produce the political
will within the European community and other countries to focus
in on the remaining big problems that we have and allow us to
finish the job, but we just feel it's very unfair to have these
series of articles coming out painting doom and gloom when
fishermen across this country on every coast are sacrificing
like crazy to rebuild these resources in a fairly short period
of time.
Everybody knows what the conditions of the stocks were in
the 1980s and early 1990s, since SFA, and it took about 2 years
to get the rebuilding plans in place, we now have more than 50
percent of our fisheries that are recovered, and the remaining
80 percent are recovering. That's remarkable progress in that
short period of time.
The Chairman. Mr. Ruais, there's a disconnect here.
Everyone acknowledges and appreciates what has happened with
the U.S. domestically. The overwhelming body of scientific
opinion is what is happening internationally. Unfortunately, we
are part of the globe, and the oceans are part of the globe,
and this is the problem, many of which Senator Stevens pointed
out, overfishing and others, so--well----
Mr. Ruais. If I could----
The Chairman. I'd like to hear from the other witnesses if
you don't mind, Mr. Ruais.
Dr. Sullivan, what is your view here, please, on the
veracity of Dr. Myers' study and other preponderance of
scientific opinion that we have a problem internationally?
Dr. Sullivan. I think we have a problem overfishing both
nationally as well as internationally. With regard to Dr.
Myers' article, I think it's important to recognize the scale
at which it's done. One of the things that I appreciate about
what Dr. Myers does is, he takes large data sets and analyzes
them, pulls them together and analyzes them in a way that folks
cannot, but what we're looking at are like, broadbrush kinds of
pictures, and the message is, is that these fish stocks are
going down. I think that broadbrush picture is accurate.
Now, whether we should take his analysis and say we need to
reduce fishing uniformly by a third throughout the globe, if we
want to get into that, we have to do the detailed kind of work.
This report won't help with that. It's a warning message, and I
think it apparently did the right thing, but in terms of
specifics we might say, well, Southern bluefin tuna, we
definitely have to do something about that, but something else
like yellowfin or albacore, maybe it's OK, and those kinds of
things, so you know, we have to recognize the scale at which
it's done.
The Chairman. But you would recognize that as long as we
have the kind of illegal activities that are going on by these
fishing vessels that are registered in one country, owned by
another, offloaded in another, that we have got a significant
potential problem here?
Dr. Sullivan. Sure. I think that's true in the U.S., as
well as internationally.
The Chairman. Senator Stevens.
Senator Stevens. Mr. Chairman, I'm with you on the global
concept, and I think there's really a disaster globally. I do
think, though, and I'm not in total agreement with Mr. Ruais,
but I do think the witnesses are sort of bringing the domestic
scene into that disaster area and we don't belong there.
The National Marine Fisheries' annual report came out in
May this year. It showed that we have a steady improvement,
that these laws that we've passed are affecting not only just
my area, the North Pacific, but the waters off our coast in
general. It showed that one fish stock that had been listed as
depleted is now fully recovered, rebuilt. Four species were
taken off the overfish list. Seventy overfished species
continue to recover under the Federal rebuilding plans, and
they're hopeful that they will be successful. The North
Atlantic swordfish and the Atlantic pollack were determined to
be no longer overfished. Swordfish is almost completely
rebuilt, and over the past 5 years, 20 species have been taken
off the overfished list and they've eliminated overfishing in
25 species.
Now, that doesn't say that we've done the job totally, but
I get the feeling--and Ms. Speer, I would ask you this
question. You seem to think that this global problem is our
problem, and Dr. Sullivan, you hinted the same thing just now.
Why can't we take credit for what we're doing and understand,
none of those plans called for immediate recovery in one year.
Since we've passed that sustainable fisheries concept and put
in place these plans, they're working, and I think we need your
help rather than criticism of what's going on.
Why do you continue to assert that we need a new plan for
managing fisheries off our shores and calling fish a public
property? It's nobody's property until it's harvested. You
know, God put them there--that's my belief--and they're not
your property and not my property until someone harvests them,
but it's our duty to protect them, and you seem to think that
we've got to come up with some plan that I have to have a
permit from the Federal Government to take fish out of the
ocean. Isn't that your plan?
Ms. Speer. Senator Stevens, the domestic situation I think
is one where if you look at the NOAA numbers--I'm just looking
at them now--there's 932 federally managed stocks. Of those, we
only know the status of 237. Of those, 88 are overfished, so
well over a third are overfished.
Senator Stevens. They're listed as overfished. If they're
subject to plans, then they are recovering right now. Each one
of them is recovering. There's not one of them listed that's
going backward. Do you agree with that?
Ms. Speer. No. I can cite for one example, cod on Georgia's
Bank, which is continuing to decline. It's now at 14 percent of
what scientists consider----
Senator Stevens. That's a family, not a species, now. Let's
be careful of what we're doing. Unfortunately, your
organization and others do that all the time.
Ms. Speer. The stocks that are assessed by the National
Marine Fisheries Service are done on a stock-by-stock basis,
but the overfishing statistics don't reflect the full picture.
In addition, lots and lots of marine life is dying in nets and
on long lines both in this country----
Senator Stevens. I agree with that. We tried our best to
deal with what you mentioned in terms of the amount of fish
returned to the ocean dead. We've tried to stop bycatch. We've
tried to penalize those people who do destroy one species in
trying to harvest another, but that's still a progress of the
plans. The plans are starting to work, and it took us 100 years
to get to the bad place we're in, and we've only been going at
this now, what, 4 years?
Ms. Speer. One of the real positive recommendations that I
think the Pew Commission report made, and that we agree with,
is based on the experience in Alaska, where the scientists
established the maximum level of catch that should be caught,
and the council rarely exceeds that. The council almost never
overrides the scientists.
Senator Stevens. We never do.
Ms. Speer. That is not the case in----
Senator Stevens. We never override it, but under the
Magnuson-Stevens Act, no council is supposed to override it.
The problem is the discipline of the other councils, and we
have to deal with that, but my time has run out and I've got to
go to another meeting, but I would urge you who are concerned
about the world to give us credit for what we've done.
How can we sell to the world the success we've had if it's
criticized here at home? Now, I think you should join us in
saying, we've not gone as far as we want to go, we're certainly
not perfect, but we have taken steps the world should take. If
you say they haven't worked, why should they take them? I think
you're misleading the world in criticizing what we've done. We
have done more than the world, and it is working. It's not
perfect, but I urge you to join us.
The fault I find with the Pew Commission report, it is
negative. It once again, it says the Steller sea lion is dying
off because of lack of pollack, when pollack is there four to
five times the amount it was there 5, 10 years ago. Now,
please, you've got monstrous organizations, and they do good,
but you should help us in what we're trying to do globally, and
you can't do that if you criticize us at home.
Ms. Speer. We'd like to help make both places a better
situation.
Senator Stevens. We're making it better here at home, but
that's not what people are hearing from you today. They're
hearing from you today, the United States still has the problem
that the globe has. That's not true. We have some of the
problems, but we're working on them, and the rest of the globe
has not.
Dr. Sullivan, I interrupted you. Sorry.
Dr. Sullivan. Mr. Stevens, thank you. I appreciate what
you're saying, and to clarify I think--my opinion is the
National Marine Fisheries Service is doing a great job. The
science is good. I think they're providing good advice. I don't
think that advice is always taken, and I think that we are
making inroads, but we still have a long way to go.
If the director general is saying a quarter of the fish in
the world are overfished, and if the National Marine Fisheries
report is saying one-third of ours is overfished, that's
telling me that, I mean, we may be doing the right things, but
we need to kind of continue along that path. That's all I have
to say.
Senator Stevens. Mr. Chairman, I'd only make one comment.
If we didn't have as many lawyers attacking these plans and let
them work for a few years before they attacked them, we might
be better off than we are today. Almost every one of these
plans has been attacked by one of your organizations' financed
lawsuits, and I think that's delayed the recovery that could
have come from those plans had they been followed in the first
place.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Stevens. Ms. Speer, do you
want to----
Ms. Speer. Yes. I understand there is concern about
litigation, and you know, we don't want to do litigation any
more than the NMFS wants to get litigation at them, but it's
been our experience that in many cases the law as you wrote
it--and Ran called it the Magnificent Stevens Act, and it is,
it's a good law, but it's often not implemented properly, and
for example, summer flounder, which is a lawsuit that NRDC was
involved in, the council came up with a plan that had an 18
percent chance of meeting the overfishing target.
Now, if we were building a bomb that had an 18 percent
chance of hitting its target, the people who invented the bomb
would be out on their ears very quickly. We sued them and we
got them up to 50 percent, which is still not, in our view,
very adequate, but it's a better--we again and again and again
have had to go to court to ensure that these laws are
implemented properly.
The Chairman. So they're just trying to make sure that your
intentions are carried out.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Speer. Thank you, Senator McCain.
Senator Stevens. My comment is this. I've been a lawyer now
for over 50 years. Why did you enjoin the plan? Why didn't you
go in and go to court and try to get improvements to the plan
and let it start? You delayed it 2 years, so the 18 percent
that might have worked, the part of it that might have worked,
you delayed.
Now, I believe in litigation to force compliance with laws,
but your organization particularly uses an injunction to stop
them, and then you litigate, and have appeals and whatnot. The
plan doesn't go into effect for 2 or 3 years. I would help you
a great deal if you would just take the concept of challenging
the plan, but at least let it start. That's happened out our
way several times. We've been delayed in terms of implementing
a plan, and we've lost a couple of years, and in the course of
those couple of years our stocks decline. Thank God, we now
have them in place, and my intentions are still good, Mr.
Chairman.
The Chairman. Ms. Speer, I have found from long years of
relationship with Senator Stevens that he always gets the last
word.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. Senator Lautenberg.
Senator Lautenberg. Yes, thanks.
The Chairman. Thank you for your patience, Senator
Lautenberg.
Senator Lautenberg. Well, I'm subdued by my interest and
the challenge, because I have some disagreement with some good
friends here, and I think that if we can't look in the mirror
and see what's wrong and take those steps, then we're kind of--
we've got our heads in the sand. Do we have a lot of foreign
fleets fishing in what would be restricted waters? Is that a
problem these days?
Mr. Ruais. No, it's generally not. There's very little
foreign fishing going on, at least in the Atlantic Ocean today.
Senator Lautenberg. Now, how about in the Pacific Ocean?
Mr. Ruais. No.
Senator Lautenberg. They are not within our limits?
Mr. Ruais. Not within the U.S. EEZ, Senator.
Senator Lautenberg. Anybody want to say anything?
Dr. Myers. Some of the fish stocks that migrate from U.S.
waters into other waters, for example Atlantic halibut, which
is in absolutely desperate, desperate shape, should be, like
Pacific halibut, a great source of wealth to Canada and the
U.S. and the world, is now virtually extinct, and halibut goes
from the U.S. to Canada in international waters, and none of
the countries have made significant progress in terms of
protection. Protect the sensitive species, and we'll have the
great fisheries in the Northeast as we have in Alaska, so get
the Atlantic halibut back, and that needs international action,
led by the U.S. on the issue.
Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Ruais, you are the Executive
Director of the East Coast Tuna Association?
Mr. Ruais. Correct.
Senator Lautenberg. What is the mission of that
association?
Mr. Ruais. We represent about 300 rod-and-reel, hand-thrown
harpoon fishermen and small purse seine fishermen that fish for
the United States' allocation of giant bluefin tuna from New
England through North Carolina, essentially, and our mission
is, we sponsor a lot of independent science to determine the
status of the resource. We initiated the electronic pop-up
satellite tag program to determine where these fish are
migrating to, and we've been involved in a lot of other
regional research.
Senator Lautenberg. I take it from your comments that as
far as your associates are concerned, it is let's go fishing,
and there's plenty out there for us, and not to worry about it.
Do I characterize your view correctly?
Mr. Ruais. No, Senator, and I apologize, and I'm a bit at a
loss to see where the disconnect--I'm sure it's my fault.
Senator Lautenberg. Well, the disconnect is that you are
very critical of Dr. Myers' report, and our other friends here
talk about declining stocks. I see it in a relatively
nonscientific way, as I mentioned earlier. I go to some of the
fishing ports along the New Jersey and New England coast, and
hear seasoned fishermen complain about how far out they've got
to go before they can strike a reasonable harvest--even to
places they thought might produce some decent quantities, they
come back with far less.
So I'm taking what real people who make a living that way
tell me. They relay that there isn't enough out there, and then
I see Dr. Myers' report. By the way, Dr. Myers, do you go
through peer review before you're released to publication?
Dr. Myers. The journal, Nature, is the most difficult
journal to get a paper in, and plus, this study was taken from
10 years and has been criticized by probably 100 scientists.
Not all agree with me, but I've duplicated all of the analysis
multiple ways.
Senator Lautenberg. Do you have any scientists that agree
with you?
Dr. Myers. Oh, I would say the great majority of scientists
agree with me, and there's virtually no disagreement about the
groundfish stocks. I mean, no one really disagrees. The only
disagreement is about whether the tunas of the world are one-
tenth of what they were, or one-twentieth what they were, or
one-third of what they were, but that's the level of
disagreement.
Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Ruais, do you agree that there's a
decline in the amount of tuna out there, or is it just the same
that it's always been?
Mr. Ruais. Yes, Senator, I do think that I acknowledge that
we realize that there remain some very critical problem areas,
species that have not yet been addressed by ICCAT or other
international fora.
In terms of Dr. Myers' work, I think it's too early for one
to make a broad conclusion that most of the scientists out
there agree with the methodology that he used. There is some
very significant criticism very early on. It takes a while for
the scientists to gear up and respond, but it will be coming
online, but we don't try to deny that we have problems, and
what we're looking for, we're very aggressive in pursuing
Commerce Department and State to try to give us the tools for
the U.S. commissioners to get the job done at ICCAT, and if you
sense some frustration in my own testimony, and some anger and
disappointment, it's because fishermen----
Senator Lautenberg. I sense all of those, yes.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Ruais. OK, well, that's because they're real, Senator,
because the industry----
Senator Lautenberg. Well, I'm going to interrupt you and
ask Ms. Speer and Dr. Sullivan, where do you come out in this
little debate that we've had with these two--is the science
questionable that Dr. Myers is producing, is following? Do you
sense that Mr. Ruais is much closer to the reality? Do you have
views on that?
Ms. Speer. Again, I think as Dr. Myers pointed out, the
journal, Nature, is one of the best, if not the best and the
most highly respected scientific journal in the world.
Senator Lautenberg. Says who?
Ms. Speer. Says many different scientists. If you poll
scientists, I think you would find that answer is pretty
consistent.
Senator Lautenberg. Dr. Sullivan, do you agree?
Dr. Sullivan. Yes, Nature's a good journal.
[Laughter.]
Senator Lautenberg. OK. Somebody's out of step.
Ms. Speer. The review process that these poor guys have to
go through is pretty tough before this thing can actually
appear, but it's more than that. It's not just Dr. Myers'
study. It's studies by Dr. Pauli, it's studies by the National
Academy of Sciences, it's studies by the National Marine
Fisheries Service--I mean, the data is overwhelming. We have a
problem.
Senator Lautenberg. It comes to similar conclusions.
Ms. Speer. And we need, what we really need is for the
United States to step up on the world stage and take this issue
on and really elevate it and move ahead on the issues we've
talked about today: illegal and unregulated reporting, capacity
issues, protecting hot spots of biodiversity like seamounts and
deep sea corals.
Senator Lautenberg. Dr. Sullivan.
Dr. Sullivan. Thank you. I guess I would like to add a
little balance. I mean, we're all kind of ganging up on the
tuna guy.
[Laughter.]
Senator Lautenberg. He's got fairly broad shoulders.
Dr. Sullivan. I think broadly there are problems. One of
the things that I see that upsets me is, when we react to these
things we seem to react broadly too, so for example, one of the
things that happens with tuna in particular is, we work on
dolphin-safe tuna. Most people, Joe Citizen, don't know that
some tuna are associated with dolphins and some tuna are not
associated with dolphins, and so when something hits the press
that people fishing for tuna are endangering dolphins, what
happens is, we just stop eating tuna, and it's not that simple.
It's more complex than that.
There are some fisherman--so when this happens there are
entire fleets in the Pacific, tropical Pacific that go out of
business that are actually doing ecologically, economically the
right thing, and so I think my only caution with Dr. Myers'
article is what I said before. It's a broadbrush picture, and
he's really good at picking those kinds of things out, but when
we go and say, should we fish on yellowfin tuna any more, we
can't take the broad study and make an automatic demarcation as
to what should happen with each of these individual species, so
I think there is some cause--I mean, we can't just stop
fishing. I mean, it's an important resource.
Senator Lautenberg. But if you're saying that there are
some species that are doing better than others, I mean, that's
reasonable. The question is, are there more that are doing
worse, and does it disturb the ecological chain? I know that
cod are such a basic nutrient for people, especially off our
Northeast corner and then to suddenly find these things that
were so abundant and plentiful before not available--by the
way, the blue marlin, is there a problem with blue marlin? How
do you feel about the blue marlin, Dr. Ruais?
Mr. Ruais. Well, I'm not a doctor. I'm not a scientist,
Senator.
Senator Lautenberg. I try to elevate you so you're
competitive here.
Mr. Ruais. Blue marlin is under ICCAT management right now.
There are very strict limitations here in the United States on
our recreational fisheries and on our commercial long-line
fleet, which are totally prohibited from landing any marlin,
and they're required to release alive as close to the boat as
they can in the best shape possible.
The trouble is, again, on the high seas we don't have that
kind of cooperation with the high seas international actors
that are playing here, and we have the pirate ship problem, and
that's one of the suggestions we've made to this Committee, is
to give the commissioners, Department of Commerce, press the
Department of Commerce to use the multilateral authority that
we have right now at ICCAT to use our marketplace to force
those incentives to force the other countries to begin to
cooperate.
And if I could just finish up, Senator, in the question you
had asked me before, why are we frustrated, there is a strong
view across this country, whether it's in the Gulf of Mexico,
the Pacific, or here, that U.S. fishermen across the board are
doing more than anyone else leading the way to try to solve
domestic and international fish problems, and then we're kind
of blind-sided by studies like this that then get picked up by
the Washington Times in the morning and you wake up to, by
taking swordfish, tuna, and sharks off the menus and demanding
that seafood restaurants provide sustainable seafood choices,
this hurts the people who are making the main contributions to
conserving these resources.
Swordfish in the North Atlantic is completely rebuilt. In
the South Atlantic it's operating at maximum sustainable yield.
There's no reason to be scaring the public into telling them
that they shouldn't be eating these seafoods.
Senator Lautenberg. Well, is there any disagreement with
that conclusion about the swordfish abundance?
Dr. Myers. I mean, just from personal experience, I work
with fishermen along Nova Scotia, and particularly the
swordfish harpooners, and this is a great way to fish. You go
out in a boat and you--you kill them yourself. You get big
ones. This is the kind of fishing that's really great, and my
friends that fish, you know, year after year, the large
swordfish are gone.
You know, how many people are harpooning for swordfish
along Long Island any more, right in close to shore? None. How
many people are harvesting swordfish by Maine? None, and the
same with Nova Scotia, where I know the fishermen. These guys
are great, and the idea that swordfish are recovered, in spite
of what ICCAT says, my personal opinion is, it's simply
ridiculous.
But to agree with Mr. Ruais about the importance of getting
the EU in particular in their environmentally self-righteous
ways to act, even somewhat in a conservation management way, is
really difficult. Their data is terrible. Their management and
their data collection, there's almost no data collected on
sensitive species like sharks, which is what the U.S. does
really well.
Senator Lautenberg. I want to ask one question to see if
anybody knows, and I've overstayed my time, and I appreciate
your patience, Mr. Chairman, and that is, do any of you have
any indication of what the salmon population is in Alaska,
Prince William Sound, and that area?
Dr. Sullivan. It goes up and down, depending on whether the
currents are going up into Alaska or going down. It switches
back and forth between Alaska and the southern lower U.S.
Senator Lautenberg. Was it damaged? Does it reflect damage
that occurred with the Exxon Valdez at all, or is it way past
that?
Dr. Sullivan. No, I think environmentally that did not play
a role there.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you. Senator Sununu, and I'll go and
vote and you can finish up.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN E. SUNUNU,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE
Senator Sununu. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me try to find some common ground, and reiterate a
couple of points that I heard that I think are pretty
important.
First, Senator Stevens noted that it is important that we
recognize where we have had success domestically. I think it's
fair to say that the United States has been very aggressive in
establishing domestic plans for a number of species, and it is
important that we recognize where we've been successful
domestically, because that is going to be critical to us being
effective in pushing for greater compliance internationally.
I think that is an extremely important point, and I will
come back to that with respect to ICCAT, and in that regard, if
we are too vague and too broad and too sweeping in our
conclusions or criticisms of our own industry, we will lose
credibility. That doesn't mean that we haven't had failures as
well as successes domestically, but if we do not recognize the
domestic successes, we will not have credibility when we really
need to push hard, whether it's through ICCAT or through the
EU, or through other international treaties, to make a
difference, and I think there is some consensus here as well
that among the biggest problems we face, the biggest challenges
we face are the international ones, and I don't think we can
lose sight of that fact.
Second, it seems to me that to the extent that there is
concerns with this study in Nature--and let me stipulate that
certainly at least for today Nature has joined Alan Greenspan
on the pinnacle of hallowed ground----
[Laughter.]
Senator Sununu.--and reverence, and at least on Capitol
Hill, and maybe appropriately so, but that doesn't mean that
either Nature or Alan Greenspan aren't wrong once in a while,
not that your study is wrong. It may be, it may not be, but
these are good publications, and he's a good chairman of the
Federal Reserve, and we like them both.
[Laughter.]
Senator Sununu. But it seems that if there's a concern
here, it's that the study, as I understand it, and I haven't
read the entire study, and I appreciate your testimony, but the
study talks broadly about predatory species. It doesn't go into
depth or draw specific conclusions about all of these predatory
species, and there are some predatory species.
We can talk about bluefins more, and I want to talk in
detail about bluefins, but there are some species where we have
these management plans in effect, and you can look at the NOAA
data, and swordfish was mentioned, I think bluefin, bigeye--you
know, I don't know what these fish look like exactly, but there
are cases where we have management plans domestically, and some
international cooperation, where we have either eliminated the
overfishing status or begun rebuilding stocks, or if the
testimony is correct, actually reached a rebuilt status for
swordfish according to ICCAT.
So I think the disconnect is, or the concern is that we not
use a study looking at broad patterns of predatory fish to
conclude that we have failed on all species of predatory fish.
Fishermen, to the extent that I know them, and I don't know any
of the big harpoon guys in Nova Scotia, but we have little guys
who fish at the co-op in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, and they do
work hard, but they target species. They're out there going for
hake, they're out there going for cod, or they're fishing for
shrimp in the wintertime. They're doing different things.
They're targeting species, so they're not out there, I'm going
out to get some predatory fish today.
Therefore, we need to think in terms of targeted plans to
strengthen specific stocks in specific areas, recognize the
successes, and work on the failures, and I think if there's any
place that there's a disconnect, I think that's where it is.
Let me ask Mr. Ruais, talk a little bit more about the pop-
up tuna program, and this is important, because I think Dr.
Sullivan made the comment, the scientists come up with answers,
and maybe sometimes they're listened to, sometimes they're not,
sometimes they're right, sometimes they're not. I think this is
an area where for a pretty small amount of money, at least as
far as Washington is concerned, $200,000, $300,000, two, three
years ago, with great cooperation from fishermen who started
this pop-up tuna program, could you describe it a little bit,
and talk a little bit about some of the findings, because what
little I've seen of the program I've found to be quite
interesting.
Mr. Ruais. Well, thank you, Senator Sununu, and thank you
for all your support in years prior to make sure that those
funds were available, and I was actually hoping you were going
to continue, because you were doing such a great job of
defining it, but in the 1980s, when scientists didn't have
enough information on the migration patterns of bluefin tuna,
an assumption was made back in 1981 that there were two stocks,
and so ICCAT drew an arbitrary line down the middle of the
Atlantic Ocean at 45 degrees and said, we'll manage the Western
Atlantic under great restrictions, and we'll leave the Eastern
Atlantic alone, and the assumption was that mixing was minimal.
Fishermen knew that that was wrong, that we knew these fish
went great distances. Conventional tagging told us that. There
was an episode of 17 fish tagged off of Miami in the 1970s, and
14 of them were recaptured in Norwegian purse seine fisheries
50 days later, so we knew that they were capable, but nobody
knew just exactly how extensive the migrations were, and the
trouble with putting tags on the fish, regular tags on the fish
is, you have get the tag back in order to know the completed
journey.
The beauty of pop-up satellite tags, electronic tags, is
that they release at a predetermined time, pop up, float up to
the surface, and then start sending the information to the Argo
satellite, and you know exactly what's going on, and what this
revealed from a fairly small study, as you mentioned, at the
New England Aquarium is that anywhere from 30 to 55 percent of
the bluefin in New England at any given time on Jeffreys Ledge,
in the Gulf of Maine, swim across that line within a year of
that tag being placed, and what that shows is that it truly is
a shared management, a shared resource picture, and the U.S.
can't do it alone, and it began to give managers, our ICCAT
commissioners, some leverage to demand in the East that they
begin conserving as well, because clearly we had an argument
now that they were usurping the conservation gains.
When we release the fish, when we're stopped because of
quota, when we're stopped because of size limits and the fish
swim across the line, if the fishery over there is not
operating under the same conservation standard, then the
conservation effort of U.S. fishermen is wasted, and that is
the remarkable contribution that pop-up satellite tags have
already done on bluefin, and now that story is being repeated
on a number of other species as well.
Senator Sununu. Dr. Myers, any comment about the study, or
was it your hunch that the line was arbitrary?
Dr. Myers. Well, it was very clear from the study that
Mather carried out that my colleague referred to is that the
bluefin tuna off the U.S. coast, particularly off of Florida,
migrate into European waters, and it's also very clear that,
and one motivation for this study is that those fish that we
assessed are now largely gone. The Europeans eliminated the
fish that swam from Florida waters, very clearly in the 1950s,
into their waters. The great fisheries in the North Sea, there
used to be huge flows----
Senator Sununu. Wait, I'm sorry, if it was so clear that
these fish were migrating in the 1950s, why was the assumption
made by ICCAT that they didn't swim east to west, and that
there wasn't migration between the Eastern Atlantic and the
Western Atlantic?
Dr. Myers. ICCAT is an imperfect organization. I mean, I
think it was abundantly clear. There were very good studies
carried out in the fifties and sixties, and also the fish
tagged off of Florida migrated down--you see these red areas
here? The Japanese eliminated the bluefin tuna in the South
Atlantic, I mean, eliminated. They caught 200,000 in the first
15 years of the fishery. With 80 million hooks in the last 15,
they have caught exactly zero, so the fish that used to come
and be available for U.S. fishermen are now gone in a way that
I think that ICCAT grossly underestimate.
Senator Sununu. So you think the New England Aquarium
program was a waste of money?
Dr. Myers. No, no, I didn't say that.
Senator Sununu. I mean, it sounds like it was just
verifying something that you believe was proven without doubt
in the fifties and sixties.
Dr. Myers. Well, I believe that the general patterns and
the satellite pop-up tags programs in general carried out by
the New England Aquarium and the Monterey Bay Aquarium have
provided enormously useful additional information, because we
only knew where they were caught, not where they went.
Senator Sununu. Mr. Ruais, do you support Secretary Evans'
effort to enforce, not to work with the EU, but to require the
EU to enforce ICCAT and to do a better job with compliance,
including eliminating the subsidies?
Mr. Ruais. Yes, Senator. In fact, we've been begging for
that assistance to the U.S. commissioners, because without that
high level involvement, until highly migratory fish are made a
large international issue like we've never seen before, we're
not going to get the cooperation from these countries that we
need, and the quickest way to get there is the trade sanction
route. It's not the one we prefer, but you cannot enforce these
things on the high seas.
We heard the Admiral say that the EEZ is 3.3 million miles,
ours alone. If you get out on the high seas, 94 percent of the
world's surface is the oceans, and we certainly can't have
Coast Guard vessels out there. The marketplace is the place to
be.
Senator Sununu. Ms. Speer, has your organization put out
any specific recommendations to help force compliance for the
EU? Have you worked with your organizations over in Europe to
force compliance with ICCAT?
Ms. Speer. We unfortunately are a domestic organization and
so do not have offices over there.
Senator Sununu. You don't talk to any of those other
international groups concerned about fisheries or the
environment?
Ms. Speer. We do, in fact, and I think there are some very
interesting options with respect to trade restrictions that are
out there. The committee last year, Senator Kerry introduced
some legislation that would permit, for example, the United
States to prohibit the importation of fish that is caught in
ways that are not consistent with international agreements to
protect either fisheries or the marine environment. Those types
of pieces of legislation domestically I think could really
help.
Can I just respond to one thing?
Senator Sununu. Can you imagine a world where I said no?
[Laughter.]
Senator Sununu. Of course. Of course.
Ms. Speer. I would like to just address a couple of things.
One is, the lead by example, I completely agree with you. We
need to go out there and put ourselves out there, and the
measures we have taken, and many of them have been very
painful, to restore fisheries. That said, we can't very well
tell other nations to clean up their act if our own house is
not in order, and I think that's the point.
The point is, we need to work abroad, but we also need to
work here so that we're setting an example that we can go to
other places credibly and say, we've done this here, we've
taken a lot of very serious and very difficult actions to
restore our fisheries, and you need to do the same.
Second, with respect to Nature at the pinnacle, Nature is
at the pinnacle, but again it's not just Nature, it's Science,
it's the National Academy of Sciences, it's the National Marine
Fisheries.
Senator Sununu. I don't disagree. I was just making the
point that there's no need to quibble about the veracity of
Nature. I was just surprised how many times we had used the
word, Nature, and I don't disagree with you in the least.
Ms. Speer. OK. The issue you raised about broad brush, and
needing to look deeper than just the broad brush, is absolutely
right, and as you said, when people go out off New England,
when they go out to target a specific species, they're
targeting a specific species. The problem is, they're using
gear that doesn't target specific species. They're using long
lines that are nonselective, and they catch a lot of other
fish, including sharks, and the status of sharks is something
of very great concern, as well as other fish, and so getting at
the issues of gear I think are really important.
Larry Crowder is coming out with an article in Science next
month. 3.5 million hooks are set every night around the globe.
60,000 leatherback turtles are caught each year in those long
lines, a quarter of a million loggerheads, and these are
collateral damage that is extremely important, and it's
important to look beyond just the status of individual fish to
what we're doing to the whole ecosystem.
And last, on swordfish recovery, swordfish recovery is
something that we are really proud of, because we made
swordfish at NRDC a very important issue.
The closures of nursery areas in the South Atlantic, and
the reduction in quota that was adopted by ICCAT were
absolutely essential to making sure that that stayed on track.
That said, biomass, the recovery to the biomass levels that are
considered healthy is only one measure. It's not just how big
you are. It's what the population structure looks like, and
most of the recovery is still concentrated in these little
guys. We have to let them grow bigger and restore that whole
population structure in order to have a healthy fishery, and I
think that's one of the issues that Dr. Myers was trying to get
at.
Senator Sununu. Well, maybe I should just quit, because
you've basically agreed with, you know, most of the things that
I said, and that's always a good way to leave the hearing room.
But with regard to the last point, I don't necessarily agree
that you have to have the biggest and most ancient of fish in
order to have a healthy, sustainable, manageable population in
that you do need a certain distribution of age, that's spawning
population in order to sustain that population, but you don't
necessarily need--I don't know, how old does a bluefin tuna
get, 30 years?
Mr. Ruais. Close, yes, sir.
Senator Sununu. You don't necessarily need 30- or 35- or
40-year-old bluefin to have a healthy population.
Now, we may decide we want to have 30- or 40-year-old
bluefin. That may be our regulatory regime, but if you're
looking at sustainable fisheries practices, just having a
certain cohort of 35-year-old fish doesn't necessarily
determine the health of the overall fishery.
Now, maybe you're going to argue you just can't have a
healthy fishery without 35-year-old bluefin. I don't know that
I agree with that statement. I think biomass is important. It
is important to have different cohorts spawning at different
times, and you're probably going to tell me there's some sort
of a cycle, like a 2-year, where they spawn and then don't
spawn.
In fact, that's true. I think the pop-up programs showed
that, didn't it, that some spawning age fish don't go down to
the gulf to spawn, they actually, for some reason during the
spawning season they're up in the North Atlantic. Isn't that
the case?
Mr. Ruais. It is. In fact, they may be spawning somewhere
else.
Senator Sununu. Who knows? OK, enough about the personal
habits of fish.
[Laughter.]
Senator Sununu. I just wanted to make that final point.
It's in my power now to thank all the panelists. I think this
is a very interesting discussion. I think we very much agree
we've got a big international problem. We do have some
successes domestically, and I'm sure the scientists are going
to be out there on boats and talking to their friends in Nova
Scotia to keep getting our Committee good information.
Thank you very much. The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:37 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Prepared Statement of Hon. Ernest F. Hollings,
U.S. Senator from South Carolina
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this timely hearing on the very
real problem of global overfishing and what it means for our marine
environment and our economy. This Committee has a long bipartisan
history of working together in to solve problems caused by unlimited
and reckless fishing practices. Over its history, the leadership of
this Committee, including Warren Magnuson, Ted Stevens, and John Kerry,
have made lasting contributions to conservation of living marine
resources both in the United States and on the high seas. In fact, it
was overfishing by foreign fleets that brought this Committee together
back in 1976 to pass the Fishery Conservation and Management Act, which
extended U.S. management authority out to 200 miles, a full five years
before President Reagan formally declared the 200 mile U.S. EEZ.
In addition, many of our members have authored or championed
efforts to curb deadly and wasteful fishing practices. These include
resolutions to ban the use of large-scale high seas driftnets--
``curtains of death''--and this pressure ultimately resulted in the
1991 United Nations ban on the use of such nets. Our members were also
responsible for legislation that established the famous ``dolphin
safe'' label, through which consumers ensure they are buying tuna that
was not harvested using methods that harm or kill dolphins. And when
U.S. law required our shrimp fishermen to use turtle excluder devices
(TEDs), I wrote the 1990 law that reduced sea turtle mortalities in
foreign shrimp trawl nets by ensuring shrimp imported into the U.S. was
caught using TEDs.
Most recently, the 1996 Sustainable Fisheries Act, authored by
Senators Stevens and Kerry, and strongly supported by this Committee,
set the gold standard for fishery management around the world. Sadly,
the world has not yet followed, and everyone in the end will be paying
the price. The recent press reports, including Dr. Myers' Nature study,
tell us that we must be vigilant and take heed of what is happening out
there. Since fish stocks roam from place to place, this global failure
affects us. No matter what we do here at home, we see that fisheries
around the world are declining if they are not managed responsibly.
Well, I think all our witnesses have to concede that fisheries are not,
in many cases, even being managed.
Moreover, we need to look at whether we are telling consumers the
whole truth: that as our appetite for seafood grows, we are driving
practices that will bring us to the brink of economic and political
disaster. Scientific reports have shown that landings from global
fisheries have shifted in the last 45 years (particularly in the
Northern Hemisphere) from large fish toward smaller invertebrates and
plankton-eating fish. This phenomenon, known as ``fishing down the food
web,'' is not sustainable in the long term. Both overfishing and
fishing down the food chain threaten global food security. These fish
are sold here in the U.S., and we don't even know where it's been,
whether it's safe, and how it was harvested. This is basic information
we have the right to know.
We want to hear more about who's responsible, and how bad it is,
but it's even more important to talk about the solutions that will get
us some results. There's a real problem when our fishermen who do the
right thing are going broke because they are undersold by imports that
cost less because they don't comply with any of the same conservation,
health or safety standards. I think the east coast governors got it
right--we really have to show what we are made of in the trade world.
The U.S. is the third largest importer of seafood,--$9.9 billion in
2001. We should use that voice to hold other countries accountable for
destructive practices that have impacts on our economy and health,
especially countries who don't follow the very rules they put on paper.
Now, there was a lot of opposition when the shrimp-turtle law went
into effect, but we got it implemented and it is being used right now.
I will bet my bottom dollar that having those requirements at the
negotiating table help move the ball forward far more than the typical
``meet and greet'' sessions that go on out there. We need more tools to
ensure our law-abiding U.S. fishermen are on a level playing field with
imports, so that U.S. consumers can be assured they are eating seafood
that will be available for decades to come. I could go on at length
also about the lack of inspection of imported seafood--but that is for
another day. All I will say is that as a result of last year's Farm
Bill, we'll finally have ``country of origin'' labeling for seafood.
That's a victory for consumers, who can now ``Buy American,'' but it's
only a start.
I appreciate that many of our witnesses are holding up certain U.S.
fisheries as examples of good management, giving us hope, rather than
just telling us the ``sky is falling'' and heading on home thinking
they've done their job. It's gratifying to hear that the Sustainable
Fisheries Act has changed the course of U.S. fisheries management--even
in some of the New England fisheries--which I know has not been an
easy. But U.S. fishery management is not perfect and we have some more
strides to make, so we also want suggestions for improving things here
at home. We are doing a lot here in Congress to get NOAA more money for
the science and management reforms that are needed to make sure we get
this all done, and done right.
I look forward to hearing about all of these issues from our
experts.
Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Daniel K. Inouye, U.S. Senator from Hawaii
The issues of global overfishing and insufficient international
fishing management are vital to our nation, and especially to Hawaii,
where fishermen compete with numerous Asian countries' fishermen for
the marine resources needed for nourishment and economic growth. While
stocks in the Pacific are generally thought to be in better shape than
Atlantic stocks, the increased fishing takes from China, Japan, and
other Asian countries are starting to cause concern.
It is clear that many stocks internationally have been overfished,
but I think it is inappropriate to make overarching statements that all
the world's stocks are in peril. Within the United States Exclusive
Economic Zone (EEZ) major efforts are underway to replenish diminished
stocks, and there have been success stories. The National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration announced in May of this year that four
species were removed from the overfished list in 2002, and 70 other
species that are overfished continue to recover under Federal
rebuilding plans. While our management regime is not perfect, we should
take pride in the broad efforts of researchers and fishermen. Everyone
involved with these issues is working very hard to rebuild depleted
stocks and sustainably manage all stocks.
The major challenge to U.S. marine fisheries management and key
frustration of U.S. fishermen is that U.S. fishing fleets are
restricted--and in some cases, prohibited--from fishing on the high
seas while foreign fleets are able to continue unimpeded. These
restrictions force the costs of compliance with U.S. law upon our
domestic fishermen, allowing foreign fleets to out-compete them with
cheaper products harvested using ecologically damaging fishing
practices. For example, in Hawaii, our longline fishing fleet is barred
from harvesting the healthy swordfish stock on the high seas as a
result of a judicial decision citing concern over interactions with
endangered sea turtles. However, the larger longline fleets from other
nations have continued to fish those same stock without protective
measures, and so the restrictions from our domestic law have benefitted
neither the sea turtles nor the U.S. fishermen.
As the U.S. fishery management regulatory regime becomes more
stringent due to the conservation-focused approach we have adopted, the
failure of other nations to adopt similar measures will have growing
economic and conservation implications to world oceans and fish stocks.
We must address this problem before all the world's stocks are truly
over-exploited.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Ron Wyden, U.S. Senator from Oregon
Mr. Chairman, if this committee takes just one thing away from the
doom-and-gloom fish stories of the past few days, it should be this.
Fishery management in this country has to move, right now, from
exploitation mode to sustainability mode. Otherwise, the losses this
Committee is hearing about today will become irreversible.
In my home state of Oregon, I've seen poor management of the
groundfish fishery damage fish stocks and hurt coastal communities.
But, this year, I have also seen sustainable fishing reap the third
highest landings ever in our Dungeness crab fishery. I'm convinced
today that fresh, new approaches to fishery management can remedy the
mistakes of the past and help create stronger, more sustainable oceans
and fishing communities.
My colleague Senator Smith and I have already won bipartisan
approval for one new idea: an industry-financed buyback to help those
who want to leave the crowded West Coast groundfish fishery do so,
leaving a more sustainable fishery for those who remain. Now, along
with Senator Murray, we have introduced the Capital Construction Fund
Qualified Withdrawal Act of 2003. That proposal would let fishers use
money they've saved to work on their vessels, use it instead to retire
or to fish in a more sustainable way.
M. Chairman, the United States can lead the world by example in
fixing the fishery crisis. America is coming up with new ways, every
day, to make the situation better. It's the job of this Committee, and
of this Congress, to facilitate the bold efforts necessary to make
America's fisheries live again.
Update on Current Wyden Fisheries Initiatives
West Coast Groundfish Capacity Reduction (a.k.a. Buyback) Program
NOAA fisheries [formally National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS)] published the proposed rules for the buyback program on
May 28, 2003.
After a 30 day comment period, NOAA fisheries will review
the comments and publish the final regulations.
Bids for fishing permits will then be accepted by NOAA
fisheries and the number of permits and vessels that will be
removed from the fishery using the $46 million available to the
buyback will be determined.
A referendum needing a simple majority to pass will be held
where fishers will vote to decide if the buyback should be
completed.
Capital Construction Fund (CCF) Qualified Withdrawal Act of 2003 (S.
1193)
A CCF is an account were fishers can deposit profits tax
free provided the money is only used to replace or upgrade
their vessel in the future.
The CCF was conceived at a time when the Federal Government
wanted to help expand American fishing fleets. Fish populations
have declined and many fisheries are now over-capitalized.
This bill changes current law to allow fishers to remove
money from their CCF for purposes other than increasing fishing
capacity such as contributing to an IRA, paying the industry
fee associated with a buyback program, acquiring a vessel
monitoring system, or the purchase or construction of bycatch
reduction gear.
The bill is supported by the environmental community (e.g.,
National Resource Defense Council) and the fishing industry
(e.g., Fisherman's Marketing Association and OR Trawl
Commission) and has bipartisan support (co-sponsored by Sen.
Smith and Sen. Murray).
______
International Coalition of Fisheries Associations
June 11, 2003
Dear Members of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation:
I am writing to you in anticipation of the June 12, 2003 hearing of
the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation regarding
the status of global fishery resources. I am the Executive Secretariat
of the International Coalition of Fisheries Associations (ICFA), a non-
governmental organization of 22 national commercial fish and seafood
trade associations from the leading fishing nations of the world.
ICFA is committed to the long-term sustainable use of living marine
resources. ICFA believes that sustainable fisheries make an important
contribution to global food security and supports robust fishery
conservation and management systems based on sound science.
ICFA is concerned that a recently released scientific paper
published by Drs. Myers and Worm in the magazine Nature declaring
drastic overfishing of global fishery resources by commercial fishing
has received undue attention as part of an aggressive campaign against
commercial fishing by the Pew Charitable Trusts. It is important for
you to know that government fisheries scientists and managers all over
the world have severely criticized the assumptions, methods, and
conclusions of the Myers & Worm paper. Many have stated that there are
serious flaws in the claims, and those claims are deliberately
misleading the public. Scientists concerned about this are preparing
detailed scientific critiques of recent claims and are seeking
scientific publication. In fact, the attached letter to the editor of
Nature magazine from six such scientists, whose work is acknowledged in
the Myers & Worm paper, makes the point that the Myers and Worm
analysis contributes nothing towards good fisheries management or the
understanding of the world fishery stock status.
The Myers and Worm paper is simply not supported by a larger
analysis of fisheries information. The United Nations Food and
Agriculture Organization (FAO), the premier international authority on
fisheries reports that most of the world's fisheries (72 percent) are
healthy. ICFA wants this figure to be 100 percent and recognizes that
some fish stocks do need to be re-built. But this problem needs to be
kept in perspective, not sensationalized.
Fishery managers from international management bodies and countries
all around the world are scratching their heads at the conclusions of
the Myers and Worm paper when the fisheries under their jurisdiction
are being sustainably managed, whether it be the rebuilt North Atlantic
swordfish population under the International Commission of the
Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) or the sustainable management of
tunas in the Eastern Tropical Pacific by the Inter-American Tropical
Tuna Commission (IATTC).
It is important to note that almost all pelagic fish--as well as
fishing methods--are subject to international management regimes that
include virtually all fishing nations, the best fisheries scientists,
and important stakeholders such as fishermen and environmental groups.
Considerable effort is invested by all of these players to ensure that
the fisheries are healthy. These international management regimes are
increasingly robust and are committed to long-term sustainable use of
fishery resources. Where management regimes are lacking, international
discussions are underway to develop appropriate new organizations and
agreements. ICFA encourages the Committee to solicit input from these
international conservation and management organizations in order to
obtain an objective understanding of the situation.
Such an objective look at the situation with respect to the
conservation status of pelagic species around the world will show that
nearly all stocks of tuna are in a healthy condition. The only
exceptions are bluefin tuna stocks, and these are very strictly
regulated and recovering. Swordfish stocks and most stocks of billfish
and sharks are also not overfished, although more scientific
information is needed regarding the status of some species.
It is well-known to fishery scientists that virgin fish stocks will
decline when they are fished, even significantly. The point of good
conservation practice is to be able to fish the stocks at a sustainable
level. The maximum sustainable yield--the maximum catch that can safely
be taken from a stock year after year--occurs at about 30-40 percent of
the unexploited population size. This conservation standard is accepted
around the world and is reflected in virtually all strong conservation
treaties, including the United Nations Convention on the Law of the
Sea.
Myers and Worm lament the declining catches of giant fish--but from
the point of view of good fisheries conservation the issue is the
health and viability of the fish population. In fact, it is accepted by
fisheries scientists that in most fisheries it is preferable to target
large fish that have already reproduced and therefore contributed to
the future population. Most conservation problems arise from catching
too many juvenile fish before they have reached sexual maturity.
The FAO has developed a Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries
adopted by all FAO member nations, as well as International Plans of
Action to tackle many of the issues confronting nations striving to
achieve good fisheries management. The FAO now has international
commitments on plans to eliminate illegal, unregulated and unreported
fishing activities, manage over capacity in fishing fleets, reduce the
incidental catch of sea birds, and conserve and manage sharks.
The efforts of the Pew Charitable Trusts unreasonably deny the
principle of sustainable use that has been agreed to by all United
Nations member countries. The world faces a very real challenge of
continuously increasing human populations and the need to secure enough
food for the people of present and future generations. The United
Nation's 1995 Kyoto declaration and plan of action on the sustainable
contribution of fisheries to food security describes that challenge.
The campaign now underway denies the needs of human beings to secure
sustainable sources of food from the sea.
Conservation and management of fish and matters related to marine
resources should be dealt with by UN FAO, Regional Fisheries Management
Organizations, and government fisheries management authorities that
have expertise and scientific knowledge. They have the technical
capacity to ensure that sound, scientifically based, fair and
reasonable decisions on fisheries management are made. The knowledge
and experience of fishermen is an essential ingredient for management
decisions by those institutions. Fishermen depend on sustainable
fisheries and oceans. They fully recognize the need to safeguard
sustainable fish stocks and the marine environment for the maintenance
of their livelihoods. Fishermen have no interest in depleting fish
stocks--their long-term futures will only be assured by uniting with
management agencies to ensure that sustainable fisheries are achieved.
ICFA is committed to working with all parties genuinely interested
in the sustainable management of fishery resources to contribute to
global food security. ICFA appreciates the opportunity to submit these
comments to the Committee. To learn more about ICFA, contact
www.icfa.net.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Justin LeBlanc,
Executive Secretariat.
Attachment
Comision Interamericana del Atun Tropical
Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission
La Jolla, CA, 29 May 2003
Ref: 0396
The Editor
Nature
Washington, DC.
Dear Sir/Madam,
The article by Myers and Worm ``Rapid worldwide depletion of
predatory fish communities'' is disappointing because it does not give
us the answers that we need to manage tuna and billfish populations.
There are several questions that need to be answered before any
conclusions can be made about the effect of declines in large pelagic
predators: (1) has the catch per unit of effort (CPUE) declined
substantially, (2) is the CPUE proportional to abundance, (3) what
portion of the abundance is represented by CPUE, (4) what effect does
the decline have on the species, (5) what effect does the combination
of declines in all large pelagic species have on the ecosystem?
Myers and Worm have answered the first question, a trivial point,
as it is generally recognized by fishery scientists that CPUE often
substantially decreases in the initial phases of a fishery, especially
for tuna longline fisheries. A substantial decrease is required based
on currently accepted sustainable fisheries management practices
(maximum sustainable yields occur at about 30-40 percent of the
unexploited population size, with 40 percent chosen by many management
agencies as a precautionary measure). It is also commonly believed that
during this initial period of exploitation, CPUE decreases more rapidly
than abundance. This is supported by the fact that the large declines
during periods of often low catches and the recent large catches taken
from populations at low CPUE levels are inconsistent with realistic
population dynamics. In fact, if Myers and Worm plotted the catches on
their Figure 1, much of the substance of their argument would
disappear. In addition, catches and population abundance have been
sustainable over several decades for many of the populations,
corroborating current assessments of stock status.
Myers and Worm have not increased our understanding of world
fishery stock status. They have only sensationalized the declines in
CPUE (in many cases using unrepresentative selections of species and
spatial strata). At best, they have motivated stock assessment
scientists to focus more on exploring the reasons behind the large
declines in CPUE in the initial stages of exploitation. Unfortunately,
Myers and Worm did not provide us any insight into this problem. We
still need to reconcile the inconsistency between CPUE, catch, and our
understanding of population dynamics (see http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/
PFRP/ for more details about various hypotheses). As indicated by Myers
and Worm, we also need to investigate the consequence of declines in
groups of species, rather than just focusing on the species themselves.
For example, what is the consequence to the ecosystem if we exploit all
commercially-important species at their maximum sustainable yield
levels? This is an important point that is fully recognized and
increasingly studied by tuna scientists.
Sincerely,
Mark Maunder,
Senior Scientist,
Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission.
John Sibert,
Manager, Pelagic Fisheries Research Program,
University of Hawaii at Manoa.
Alain Fonteneau,
Scientist,
French Institut de Recherches pour le Developpment.
John Hampton,
Manager, Oceanic Fisheries Program,
Secretariat of the Pacific Community.
Pierre Kleiber,
Fishery Biologist,
NOAA Fisheries--Honolulu Laboratory.
Shelton Harley,
Senior Scientist,
Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. John McCain to
Hon. John F. Turner
Question. Law of the Sea--Does the Administration support Senate
ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea?
Answer. In 2001, the Administration publicly announced its support
for U.S. accession to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the
Sea (UNCLOS). The Administration's position has not changed.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Ernest F. Hollings to
Rebecca Lent, Ph.D.
Question 1. International Agreements on Sea Turtles--For the past
three years, we've included report language in the CJS Appropriations
bill that directs the State Department to negotiate strong
international agreements to protect sea turtles. This is important,
since U.S. fishermen have to comply with the Endangered Species Act--
wherever they fish. What has the Administration done to carry out this
direction? Why haven't more efforts been placed on binding agreements,
especially with countries in the Pacific Rim?
Answer. The Administration developed a formal Course of Action
under Section 202(h) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act for addressing the bycatch of sea turtles in foreign
longline fisheries and provided it in the National Marine Fisheries
Service's (NOAA Fisheries) June 2001 Annual Report to Congress on
International Bycatch Reduction Agreements (attached). The Course of
Action includes working through all available Regional Fisheries
Management Organizations, the United Nations Food and Agriculture
Organization (FAO) Committee on Fisheries (COFI), as well as new and
established bilateral fisheries agreements and forums.
We have been actively working to implement this strategy and engage
other nations that participate in global longlining in focused
discussions of the sea turtle bycatch problem. NOAA Fisheries convened
a technical expert workshop in February 2003 that brought together
participants from 19 countries and four intergovernmental
organizations. The goal of the workshop was to discuss and develop
recommended actions to address global incidental capture of sea turtles
in longline fisheries with the hope that the implementation of these
actions, where applicable, might reduce this particular threat.
One of the highest priority actions resulting from this meeting was
a call for FAO to convene an intergovernmental technical consultation
to address the issue of marine turtle bycatch in longline fisheries.
The Committee on Fisheries met in Rome, Italy, in February 2003 and
agreed to hold such a consultation in 2004. NOAA Fisheries is actively
working to ensure a robust examination of the problem and potential
solutions at the upcoming Technical Consultation. In addition, we have
raised the serious issue of bycatch of sea turtles in longline
fisheries at a number of international fisheries meetings that have
been held over the past several years. We have discussed the matter and
called for increased cooperation and focused efforts on reducing
bycatch in discussions with Chile, as well as regional fishery
management organization forums including the International Commission
for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) and the Inter-American
Tropical Tuna Commission.
Of particular note are NOAA Fisheries directed research efforts to
develop gear solutions that will significantly reduce or eliminate
incidental capture of sea turtles, while retaining target species catch
levels. NOAA Fisheries sponsored research in the northwest and eastern
Atlantic is producing extremely promising results showing that the use
of certain hook designs and usage of particular baits and baiting
techniques can significantly reduce the bycatch of certain species of
turtles. We are extremely hopeful that once these experiments are
completed and fully peer reviewed that we can take the results and
recommendations, with confidence, to the international longline fishing
community and champion their global adoption.
Important multi-lateral agreements also exist that are specifically
focused on sea turtle conservation. These include the Inter-American
Convention for the Conservation and Protection of Sea Turtles (open for
accession to all western hemisphere nations) and the Memorandum of
Understanding for the Conservation and Management of Marine Turtle and
their Habitats of the Indian Ocean and Southeast Asia. While the former
is binding and the latter is non-binding, both provide forums for
seeking agreements on reducing bycatch of sea turtles in longline
fisheries. Both agreements are in their early stages of implementation,
but we see promise in working through these agreements to achieve
desired results on this front.
Question 1a. What information do we have about the impacts of
foreign fishing fleets on sea turtles? Aren't many turtles that migrate
to U.S. waters or to high seas fisheries used by U.S. fishermen
impacted by foreign fishing fleets, for example, in the very waters of
the Pacific where the Hawaiian longline fishing fleet is banned from
fishing due to U.S. conservation laws?
Question 1b. What kinds of other incentives, or disincentives, is
the Administration offering to bring these countries to the table? What
about trade measures?
Answer. Global incidental capture levels of sea turtles in all
foreign fishing fleets are not available, as many fisheries are not
observed or are insufficiently observed to generate highly reliable
capture rates. However, we believe that the cumulative global bycatch
of sea turtles in the world's foreign fishing fleets (including all
fishing gear that catches sea turtles) is having a significant impact
on sea turtle populations. Sea turtles are highly migratory and these
migrations (reproductive and developmental) may take them through
international waters as well as the waters of many nations during their
lifetime. Whenever longlining or other problematic fishing gear for
turtles is deployed in areas inhabited by turtles, the potential for
incidental capture exists. For these reasons, NOAA Fisheries is seeking
solutions to reduce this bycatch. We are working diligently through all
available channels to elevate this dialogue internationally and,
through gear research, are hopeful that a technological solution will
be found. We believe that technological solutions will sell themselves
because employing an effective means of avoiding sea turtle-fisheries
interactions would seem to be in everyone's interests. While the turtle
excluder device (TED) trade measures have been shown to be effective in
providing an incentive to adopt turtle safe gear, the Administration is
not proposing such an approach for imports of longline caught seafood.
Question 2. Shark Finning--What have we done?--Three years ago, we
passed the Shark Finning Prohibition Act, which banned shark finning by
U.S. fishermen. The final bill included language requiring the State
Department to identify nations responsible for shark finning, and
immediately start negotiations to go about banning this practice
worldwide.
Question 2a. We explicitly asked for a list of nations engaged in
shark finning, but I don't see anything on this in Secretary Evans'
report. Do we have this information?
Question 2b. Secretary Evans' report to Congress under the Shark
Finning Prohibition Act states that annually the U.S. imported shark
fins from at least 10 nations. Are any of these nations actually
involved in shark finning?
Question 2c. What is the primary fishing method--longlining?
Question 2d. In 1999 FAO adopted an ``International Plan of
Action'' on sharks. But four years later, how close are we to banning
the practice of shark finning--or preventing shark declines--
internationally?
Question 2e. What kind of impact does a U.S.-only shark finning ban
have on the future of shark populations worldwide?
Answer. As required by Sec. 6 of the Shark Finning Prohibition Act
(Act), the Department of Commerce has submitted annual reports
describing efforts to carry out the Act, the first in February 2002 and
the most recent in December 2002. We are currently preparing the report
that is due on January 1, 2004.
The Administration is committed to managing sharks on a sustainable
basis in waters under our jurisdiction and to achieving the same goal
internationally. Only a part of this concern is addressed by
prohibiting shark finning, which we have done domestically, consistent
with Sec. 3 of the Act. This is why we strongly supported the
development in 1999 of the Food and Agriculture Organization's
International Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of
Sharks (IPOA) and completed our corresponding U.S. National Plan of
Action in early 2001.
We have not been able to compile a reliable list of flag states
whose vessels engage in shark finning, in large part because there is
no single, official source for relevant data. It is probably true that
a significant amount of shark finning, but by no means all, occurs in
conjunction with longline fishing on the high seas. This is where most
public attention is focused. However, the provisions of the Act
relating to waters beyond U.S. jurisdiction are not limited to high
seas areas, nor are they limited to longline fishing gear. It is likely
that shark finning occurs within the jurisdictions of other countries
and in conjunction with fishing gears other than longlines. Thus, it is
a formidable task to determine with high confidence the incidence of
shark finning in waters beyond our jurisdiction. Therefore, we are
carrying out this task with appropriate care, given the implications
set forth in Sec. 5 of the Act, that our information is accurate and
reliable. Also, due to the complexity of the shark fin trade, fins are
not necessarily produced by vessels of the country from which they are
exported. Factors such as availability of product, labor, markets,
degree of processing, overseas contacts and astute trading can all play
a role in determining the country of export.
There is no recognized international standard discouraging or
prohibiting the finning of sharks, although, as indicated in the
Department of Commerce's annual reports to Congress, we are striving to
create one. With the direction and support provided by the Committee
and the Congress, such a standard is beginning to emerge. The following
countries and the European Union have adopted domestic measures that
address shark finning in an effort to prohibit the practice: Australia,
Brazil, Canada, Costa Rica, India, Nicaragua, Oman, and South Africa.
In the case of Nicaragua, U.S. officials consulted regularly with
authorities in Managua in drafting anti-finning legislation, and their
final law is nearly identical to that of the United States. Mexico is
in the process of developing comprehensive shark fishing regulations
that may prohibit shark finning.
There is a misconception that the IPOA provides for explicit
prohibition of this practice-it does not. The relevant provision, in
Paragraph 22 of that document, says that National Plans of Action
``should aim to . . . minimize waste and discards from shark catches in
accordance with article 7.2.2.(g) of the Code of Conduct for
Responsible Fisheries (for example, requiring the retention of sharks
from which fins are removed. . . .'' This language encourages full
utilization and avoidance of wastage. Other provisions collectively
call for the sustainable conservation and management of sharks, a
standard to which we fully subscribe and the overarching reason we
continue to encourage at every opportunity the development of National
Plans of Action by nations that have not yet developed them and the
full implementation of this generic standard as well as a prohibition
on shark finning at the national, regional, and global levels.
In addition, NOAA Fisheries has worked closely with partners in the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the State Department to promote
shark conservation in the Convention on International Trade in
Endangered Species (CITES). This has included successful efforts to
regulate international trade in the world's two largest sharks (basking
shark and whale shark) and promote greater communication between FAO
and CITES on the IPOA-Sharks implementation.
The impact of the U.S. only shark finning ban on the future of
shark populations worldwide is expected to be positive to the extent
that other countries are joining the effort to ban shark finning (e.g.,
European Union, Brazil, Australia, Canada, Costa Rica, India, South
Africa, and others).
Question 3. Import Certification Scheme--U.S. fishermen are subject
to all U.S. fishing laws in high seas areas, as well as the
conservation requirements of the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the
Endangered Species Act, even though they are fishing beyond the U.S.
EEZ. Thus, U.S. fishermen are at a harvesting disadvantage as compared
with largely unregulated high seas fleets, which are often not subject
to harvest limits or required to minimize bycatch. At the same time,
many countries are parties to international agreements and guidelines
but are not effectively enforcing them with respect to their fishing
fleets.
Wouldn't it be a good first step to adopt an import certification
program, modeled on our shrimp-turtle law, that requires imports to be
harvested in compliance with applicable international fishing
agreements and guidelines? This is actually far less than we did in the
shrimp-turtle law, that required imports to meet turtle protection
standards comparable to U.S. laws.
Since so few strong international agreements have been reached that
require countries to protect marine mammals and turtles from
interactions with various types of fishing gear, what if we did a
certification program just like the shrimp-turtle approach, but for all
protected species and for all types of fisheries, and require that you
can only export to the U.S. if you are in compliance with standards
comparable to U.S. law?
Answer. If an international standard regarding conservation of
marine mammals and other species were developed, it is possible that a
workable import certification scheme could be constructed with
assistance from other countries. The Catch Documentation Scheme for
Patagonian toothfish of the Commission for the Conservation of
Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) is a perfect example, which
thus far has not been the subject of any complaints taken to the World
Trade Organization by any of the members. However, it should be noted
that U.S. industry has expressed concerns over the recent proliferation
of different fishery product import certificates which confuse customs
authorities worldwide and complicate day-to-day operations.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Ernest F. Hollings to
Hon. John F. Turner
Question 1. International Agreements on Sea Turtles--For the past
three years, we've included report language in the CJS Appropriations
bill that directs the State Department to negotiate strong
international agreements to protect sea turtles. This is important,
since U.S. fishermen have to comply with the Endangered Species Act--
wherever they fish. What has the Administration done to carry out this
direction? Why haven't more efforts been placed on binding agreements,
especially with countries in the Pacific Rim?
Question 1a. What information do we have about the impacts of
foreign fishing fleets on sea turtles? Aren't many turtles that migrate
to U.S. waters or to high seas fisheries used by U.S. fishermen
impacted by foreign fishing fleets, for example, in the very waters of
the Pacific where the Hawaiian long-line fishing fleet is banned from
fishing due to U.S. conservation laws?
Question 1b. What kinds of other incentives, or disincentives, is
the Administration offering to bring these countries to the table? What
about trade measures?
Answer. The Administration has made the issue of sea turtle
conservation at the international level a high priority. We actively
administer and enforce Public Law 101-162, relating to use of turtle
excluder devices by shrimp trawl fleets in countries exporting shrimp
to the United States. We are working to give full effect to the Inter-
American Sea Turtle Convention, a legally binding agreement focused on
the wide range of issues affecting sea turtle populations in the
western hemisphere. We are working to implement the Indian Ocean and
Southeast Asia sea turtle MOU to address sea turtle conservation
throughout that region. We are working through regional fisheries
management organizations (RFMOs) to address issues related to
incidental capture of sea turtles in commercial fisheries. For example,
the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) has adopted
measures to reduce incidental capture and mortality of sea turtles in
purse-seine fisheries. The IATTC is considering additional measures for
purse-seine fisheries and is in the initial stages of considering steps
to address such incidental capture in longline fisheries.
More can and must be done. Recently, considerable effort and
resources have been devoted to incidental capture in longline
fisheries, in both the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans. Before seeking to
enter into negotiations for new legally binding agreements, however, we
have some additional groundwork to do and we are actively engaged in
that work. First, we need additional data on sea turtle bycatch. We
need to know more about when and where sea turtle bycatch occurs
geographically, seasonally, and within the water column (at what
depth). Second, we need to work to develop further the gear
modifications and fishing strategies that have been tested with very
promising, but as yet inconclusive, results. Together, these efforts
are critical to developing targeted solutions that will be technically
feasible and result in real and permanent progress in reducing sea
turtle mortality.
In our view, the prospect of trade measures is of limited
effectiveness because, unlike with shrimp trawl fleets, the United
States is not the principal market for the fish caught by these
longline fleets. Closing markets might send an effective political
message, but the real and permanent progress we seek in reducing
incidental mortality can only be advanced with the cooperation and
participation of the fishing states with fleets engaged in longline
fishing in the Pacific.
Through our efforts over the past year we have been building that
support, with notable success. In February, the FAO Committee on
Fisheries adopted a proposal, co-sponsored by the United States, to
convene a policy-level meeting to address sea turtle mortality in
commercial fisheries, with a particular emphasis on the problem of
longline bycatch. We are currently working with the FAO and with these
fishing states to ensure that this meeting is successful and achieves
tangible results. In addition, we should and will seek to identify, as
a matter of priority, interim measures that can be implemented in the
short term to reduce incidental mortality. We will also continue
working within the various fisheries organization to advance this issue
on as many parallel tracks as possible.
Question 2. Shark Finning--What Have We Done?--Three years ago, we
passed the Shark Finning Prohibition Act, which banned shark finning by
U.S. fishermen. The final bill included language requiring the State
Department to identify nations responsible for shark finning, and
immediately start negotiations to go about banning this practice
worldwide. We explicitly asked for a list of nations engaged in shark
finning, but I don't see anything on this in Secretary Evans' report.
Do we have this information?
Question 2a. Secretary Evans' report to Congress under the Shark
Finning Prohibition Act states that annually the U.S. imported shark
fins from at least 10 nations. Are any of these nations actually
involved in shark-finning?
Question 2b. What is the primary fishing method--longlining?
Question 2c. In 1999 FAO adopted an ``International Plan of
Action'' on sharks. But four years later, how close are we to banning
the practice of shark finning--or preventing shark declines--
internationally?
Question 2d. What kind of impact does a U.S.-only sharkfinning ban
have on the future of shark populations worldwide?
Answer. As much of this question pertains specifically to the
report to the Congress prepared by the Department of Commerce, National
Marine Fisheries Service, and other technical issues under the purview
of that agency, we note that the Department of State concurs with the
response provided by Commerce to those parts of this question and will
not repeat those answers here.
We reiterate the commitment of this Department, along with the
Department of Commerce, to implement the provisions of the
International Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of
Sharks. As noted in the Commerce response, effective action to address
and reverse the decline of many shark populations requires a
comprehensive approach based on the need for a number of necessary
measures to ensure conservation and management of sharks. Within this
context, the effect of shark finning on the conservation and
sustainable use of sharks is an important issue that requires further
action. At the same time, there are other issues beyond the finning
issue that must be addressed if we are to sustain and rebuild shark
populations in many areas.
Question 3. Import Certification Scheme--U.S. fishermen are subject
to all U.S. fishing laws in high seas areas, as well as the
conservation requirements of the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the
Endangered Species Act, even though they are fishing beyond the U.S.
EEZ. Thus, U.S. fishermen are at a harvesting disadvantage as compared
with largely unregulated high seas fleets, which are often not subject
to harvest limits or required to minimize bycatch. At the same time,
many countries are parties to international agreements and guidelines
but are not effectively enforcing them with respect to their fishing
fleets.
Wouldn't it be a good first step to adopt an import certification
program, modeled on our shrimp-turtle law, that requires imports to be
harvested in compliance with applicable international fishing
agreements and guidelines? This is actually far less than we did in the
shrimp-turtle law, that required imports to meet turtle protection
standards comparable to U.S. laws.
Since so few strong international agreements have been reached that
require countries to protect marine mammals and turtles from
interactions with various types of fishing gear, what if we did a
certification program just like the shrimp-turtle approach, but for all
protected species and for all types of fisheries, and require that you
can only export to the U.S. if you are in compliance with standards
comparable to U.S. law?
Answer. The shrimp-sea turtle approach that you mention has been
highly successful precisely because it was carefully crafted to take
into account specific situations with respect to the operation of
shrimp trawl fleets and global trade in shrimp from all sources of
production. While such catch documentation schemes can and have been
successful, we believe their continued success and ability to withstand
WTO challenges depends on this attention to detail. Whether a single
catch certification scheme could be developed that would cover all
situations with all fisheries is a question that requires very careful
consideration. That said, the Administration has worked to develop and
implement other successful catch certification schemes including ones
for toothfish under the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic
Living Marine Resources (CCAMLR), as well as for bluefin tuna,
swordfish and bigeye tuna under the International Commission for the
Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) and more recently in the Inter-
American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). These schemes have the added
advantage of being multilateral in nature and agreed among all parties
to these international organizations. In our view, these tailored
multilateral approaches provide the best approach to catch
certification schemes that can withstand WTO scrutiny.
Question 4. Import Bans under Pelly Amendment--Under the so-called
``Pelly Amendment'' to the Fishermen's Protective Act (22 U.S.C. 1978),
the President may prohibit any imports from a country if the Secretary
of Commerce has certified that nationals of the foreign country
conducted fishing, or takings or trade of endangered or threatened
species in a manner that ``diminishes the effectiveness'' (e.g.,
violates or undermines) of international agreements. However, the U.S.
has rarely used the Pelly import provision, although the Secretary of
Commerce has made its finding in numerous cases.
How often has the President fully exercised the ``Pelly Amendment''
to the Fishermen's Protective Act, and banned imports from countries
that the Secretary of Commerce has found are violating international
fishing or protected species agreements?
Answer. Since its enactment in 1969, the Secretaries of Commerce or
Interior have certified countries under the Pelly Amendment on 36
occasions for diminishing the effectiveness of an international fishery
conservation program or for diminishing the effectiveness of any
conservation program for endangered or threatened species. In 1994, the
President prohibited imports of certain fish and wildlife products from
Taiwan for diminishing the effectiveness of the Convention on
International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora based
upon certification by the Secretary of the Interior. On three occasions
(former Soviet Union (1985) and Japan (1988 and 2000)), certifications
under the Pelly Amendment by the Secretary of Commerce for diminishing
the effectiveness of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) also
resulted in certification under the Packwood Amendment to the Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The Packwood Amendment
requires the Secretary of Commerce to reduce allocations to fish in
U.S. waters by not less than 50 percent. Such reductions were applied
to the former Soviet Union in 1985 and to Japan in 1988, but not in
2000 against Japan because that country was no longer fishing in U.S.
waters.
Question 5. Why hasn't the President fully exercised this
provision?
Answer. The authority to prohibit imports under the Pelly Amendment
is discretionary. Generally speaking, Presidents have said they were
not imposing import prohibitions under the Pelly Amendment because they
saw other avenues as more effective in achieving desired results.
Indeed, certified nations have often modified the behavior that led to
Pelly certifications without the imposition of import prohibitions.
Question 6. Pelly says that the President may prohibit any imports
from a country if the Secretary of Commerce has certified that
nationals of the foreign country have conducted fishing, or takings or
trade of endangered or threatened species in a manner that ``diminishes
the effectiveness'' of international agreements. So why haven't we
taken action to ban imports of important products from these nations--
like rice from Japan--each time they kill whales because of the
International Whaling Commission's ban on commercial whaling?
Answer. The response provided to the second question also addresses
the above question.
Question 7. Norway recently sold whale meat to Iceland for the
first time in 14 years, undermining the International Whaling
Commission's ban on commercial whaling, and the ban on trade of such
species under CITES. Does the Department of Commerce plan to certify
this action under the Pelly Amendment?
Answer. The decision whether to certify Norway for exporting whale
meat to Iceland rests with the Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary
of the Interior. Norway's export of whale meat to Iceland is currently
under review by the Department of Commerce.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Ernest F. Hollings to
Patrick J. Sullivan, Ph.D.
Question. Import Certification Scheme--U.S. fishermen are subject
to all U.S. fishing laws in high seas areas, as well as the
conservation requirements of the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the
Endangered Species Act, even though they are fishing beyond the U.S.
EEZ. Thus, U.S. fishermen are at a harvesting disadvantage as compared
with largely unregulated high seas fleets, which are often not subject
to harvest limits or required to minimize bycatch. At the same time,
many countries are parties to international agreements and guidelines
but are not effectively enforcing them with respect to their fishing
fleets.
Wouldn't it be a good first step to adopt an import certification
program, modeled on our shrimp-turtle law, that requires imports to be
harvested in compliance with applicable international fishing
agreements and guidelines? This is actually far less than we did in the
shrimp-turtle law, that required imports to meet turtle protection
standards comparable to U.S. laws.
Since so few strong international agreements have been reached that
require countries to protect marine mammals and turtles from
interactions with various types of fishing gear, what if we did a
certification program just like the shrimp-turtle approach, but for all
protected species and for all types of fisheries, and require that you
can only export to the U.S. if you are in compliance with standards
comparable to U.S. law?
Answer. Probably the best first step would be to demonstrate how to
do this by example here at home. Good domestic resource management will
result greater availability of resources as well as lower risk to the
environment. Economically it makes sense to do this. If we manage our
resources well, then we will have resources to harvest at a time when
others will not, the price will go up as demand increases, and what
U.S. fishermen will have to endure in the short run as a harvesting
disadvantage will result in a windfall as the resource tables turn.
When others see the advantages that result from good management
measures they will follow suit. Imposing a certification scheme may
work, but it is a stick not a carrot. If we go forward with a
certification scheme, then we should try to learn from what worked and
what did not with the present schemes especially here at home. For
example, are successful schemes best developed and executed through
government and law or through actions articulated by NGOs or private
organizations? How broad a brush will be used in defining compliance?
Too broad a brush will limit appropriate resource utilization
practices. Too fine a brush will result in complicated legislation and
will increase costs and enforcement concerns. My suggestion is that we
work to straighten out our own backyards through the development of
good science and policy as a precursor to straightening out the
world's. We should be able to export successful management practices.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Daniel K. Inouye to
Rebecca Lent, Ph.D.
Question 1. Dr. Lent, in your written statement you say that the
U.S. is a leader in longline gear technology development and transfer
as it relates to sea bird and sea turtle research. Now that the U.S.
has developed technologies to alleviate bycatch by longline fleets,
what steps are being taken to export those technologies?
Answer. Preliminary results from cooperative research efforts on
the Grand Banks have shown that larger circle hooks can significantly
reduce sea turtle catch in the pelagic longline fishery (e.g., with
mackerel bait, the number of loggerhead sea turtles caught was reduced
by 65 percent in one trial). Unlike ``J'' hooks, which are often
swallowed, circle hooks often become anchored in the mouth, and
therefore hook extraction is easier and also safer for sea turtles (see
attached file). De-hooking devices and methods have been developed for
sea turtles that are too large to be boated, and those small enough be
brought aboard (see attached file ``de-hooking etc.,'' which shows
devices used to remove hooks and line from turtles caught on pelagic
longlines.) Long handled LaForce line cutters and long handled Aquatic
Release Corporation (ARC) de-hookers are used to remove gear on turtles
not boated (see figure A). The Epperly Biopsy Pole is used with a
stainless steel corer to take tissue samples for genetics. Short
handled de-hookers are used to remove hooks from animals that are
boated (see figure B). Miscellaneous tools have been developed to
remove line, hooks, or the barb or eye of hooks on boated turtles (see
figure C). A dip net is used to bring small (<50 kg) turtles aboard
(see figure D). Mouth openers and gags are used on boated turtles to
allow access to internal hooks (see figure E).
NOAA Fisheries gear experts introduced the bycatch reduction
technology described above to the international fishing community and
resource managers at the International Fisheries Forum in Honolulu
(2002), and at the NOAA-sponsored International Technical Expert
Workshop on Marine Turtle Bycatch, in Seattle, WA (2003). As a result
of these meetings, our efforts to transfer these technologies have
increased, and requests for international technical assistance
continue. NOAA Fisheries recently transferred circle hooks to Chile,
and transferred circle hooks, de-hooking devices and line cutters to
Brazil. We have received keen interest in both bycatch reduction
technology and training from Mexico, Japan, Australia, New Zealand and
Peru. We are also are providing training and de-hookers and circle
hooks for field testing to Ecuador. Our scientists have provided
technical advice to Costa Rica on implementing TED research principles
using circle hooks. These technological transfers have been supported
by the ongoing cooperative work of the pelagic longline industry,
private sector gear specialists, and scientists from NOAA Fisheries. As
new technological solutions are discovered, we will continue to work to
export these technologies to other fishing nations.
The situation in the case of seabirds is a bit different because,
even as the FAO International Plan of Action was being adopted in 1999,
there was an accepted ``toolbox'' of technological solutions that had
proven utility in reducing the incidental catch of seabirds in longline
fisheries in different geographical areas. The International Plan
itself was a compilation of these solutions and an urging that the
international community select from the toolbox those solutions that
would work in a particular area. Our approach regarding the export of
these solutions is to support vigorously the development of National
Plans of Action on seabirds and participation in international meetings
and workshops to promote the free transfer of technological solutions.
Question 2. During oral testimony, it was said many times that the
U.S. must lead by example to encourage other countries to comply with
conservation efforts, yet our domestic fleets continue to suffer
economic devastation while foreign vessels ignore most attempts at
international fishing management. What is the Administration doing to
level the playing field for our domestic fleets?
Answer. History has shown that the U.S. Congress establishes living
marine resource management law and policy for our country that often
become the law in other countries. This requires us to lead by example
most of the time. The Administration encourages other countries and the
regional fisheries management organizations (RFMOs) in which they
participate to follow these examples and implement these laws and
policies with as little lag time as possible and to ensure that
existing conservation rules are effectively enforced. In general terms,
this is what we have done in negotiating the Code of Conduct for
Responsible Fishing, the Compliance Agreement, the 4 International
Plans of Action, and the United Nations Fish Stock Agreement at the
global level; implementing these principles through RFMOs at the
regional level; and encouraging their implementation through our
various bilateral fisheries arrangements at the national level. As
described above, we are making significant progress in sharing by-catch
reduction technology and encouraging its use by other fleets.
Attachment
Course of Action to Promote International Agreements that Address the
Need to Reduce Sea Turtle Bycatch in Foreign Longline Fisheries
General
1. The United States recognizes the critical need to reduce
incidental capture of marine turtles in longline fisheries, to evaluate
other sources of fishing mortality, and to take appropriate action to
minimize turtle bycatch in international fisheries.
2. The United States has taken steps to quantify marine turtle
bycatch and to seek solutions to reduce the international problem of
incidental capture of marine turtles. The United States supports the
sharing of information on the incidental capture of sea turtles in all
fishing gear. The United States recognizes data collection on marine
turtle bycatch is critically important to understand the impacts these
activities may have on turtle populations. The United States hopes that
by sharing its domestic information, it will encourage and support
existing bilateral efforts as well as facilitate new regional and
global efforts to collect and share turtle bycatch data and encourage
cooperative research.
3. The United States is proceeding to identify and evaluate gear
and/or fishing technique modifications that may serve as an alternative
to fishery closures to reduce sea turtle bycatch in longline fisheries
and should request and encourage the international cooperation
necessary to achieve this goal.
Global
4. The United States intends to provide a summary report to the
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) for
distribution to FAO members on the bycatch of marine turtles in U.S.
longline fisheries and the findings of its research as well as
recommendations to address the issue.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The United States provided this summary to the Twenty-fifth
Session of the Committee on Fisheries, Rome, February 24-28, 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. At the Twenty-Fourth Session of the FAO Committee on Fisheries
(COFI), the United States distributed a concept paper for an
international technical experts' meeting to evaluate existing
information on turtle bycatch, to facilitate and standardize collection
of data from those fisheries that are likely to interact with marine
turtles, to exchange information on experimentation with longline gear
relative to turtles and target species, and to identify and consider
solutions to reduce turtle bycatch. There were, however, differing
views on how to address the conservation problems of sea turtles. COFI
agreed that an international technical meeting could be useful despite
the lack of agreement on the specific scope of that meeting. The United
States concluded that the international technical experts' meeting
would be most productive if focused on problems associated with a
specific gear type. A prospectus for a technical workshop to address
longline bycatch of marine turtles is included in this Report to
Congress.\2\ However, this does not preclude the need for other gear-
specific international workshops in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The Technical Workshop was held in Seattle, February 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regional
6. The United States will initiate efforts through regional fishery
management organizations and other regional fisheries and conservation
bodies, as appropriate, e.g., the International Commission for the
Conservation of Atlantic Tuna, the Asia Pacific Fisheries Commission,
and the mechanisms to be established under the Inter-American
Convention and the Convention on the Conservation and Management of
Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific, to
call attention to the international problem of sea turtle bycatch in
fisheries, particularly longline fisheries, and promote international
cooperative efforts to collect information on the incidence of sea
turtle bycatch and gear and/or fishing technique modifications that may
ameliorate the problem. We will promote our technical workshop as the
forum that should receive and consider such information. The United
States will also pursue potential co-sponsors for the technical
workshop.
Bilateral
7. The United States will use relevant bilateral relationships to
encourage the collection and sharing of information and the eventual
implementation of means of reducing sea turtle bycatch in fisheries,
particularly longline fisheries. For example, we can follow up on
Mexico's commitment to share observer data from its Pacific swordfish
and shark fisheries and on Chile's 1999 undertaking to collect
information on bycatch of sea turtle in its swordfish fishery. This
topic will also be suggested for the agendas of bilateral meetings with
Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Canada, the European Community, and other nations
with fisheries of concern.
8. The United States will demarche any flag states with a
significant longline fleet, and Taiwan, to emphasize the international
nature of this problem, to describe the steps the United States is
taking to address it, and to request information relative to sea turtle
bycatch in longline fishing according to a specification that will be
developed. We should also make a similar demarche to the Executive
Secretaries (or equivalent) of regional fisheries management
organizations or arrangements in whose area of operation longline
fishing occurs to request any relevant information held by those
organizations.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Daniel K. Inouye to
Admiral Thomas H. Collins
Western Pacific EEZ Boundaries
Question. Admiral Collins, in your oral testimony, you stated that
the U.S. Coast Guard has only one cutter dedicated to patrolling the
Bering Sea U.S. EEZ boundary. What dedicated platforms are being used
to patrol the extensive Western Pacific EEZ boundaries?
Answer. Elimination of Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) encroachments
is our top fisheries enforcement priority. In assignment of our cutter
and aircraft resources, however, this priority must compete with our
other fisheries enforcement priorities as well as our other CG
missions. In the Bering Sea, where we have a consistent and significant
threat in place, i.e., 20-30 foreign factory trawlers within five miles
of our EEZ for approximately six months of the year, we dedicate a
cutter to patrolling this area and augment these cutter patrols with
occasional C-130 flights. The threat against our Western Pacific EEZ
boundaries is not nearly as predictable or as constant. This makes
enforcement of these boundaries no less important, but it does make
dedicating a cutter to this area inefficient and ineffective. The Coast
Guard patrols this wide area through occasional C-130 flights.
The EEZs surrounding the Hawaiian Islands and the Western Pacific
island territories comprises over 40 percent of the 3.36 million square
mile U.S. EEZ. A multinational fleet of fishing vessels target highly
migratory fish stocks, including tuna in and around these waters. These
fleets migrate from year to year as the stocks are affected by Pacific
El Nino events. The vast areas, distances, and changing nature of these
fishing fleets make surveillance very resource-intensive. We are
committed to protecting these and all of our EEZ boundaries. Continued
support of the Coast Guard's Deepwater recapitalization efforts is
critical to improving the prosecution of this mission. The Deepwater
program will provide highly capable cutters and aircraft, including
unmanned aerial vehicles, with the requisite speed and endurance to
patrol these regions more efficiently.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Daniel K. Inouye to
Hon. John F. Turner
Question 1. What sorts of actions can Congress take to assist
efforts to make the international community take action and make real
contributions to conservation efforts, rather than the empty rhetoric
it currently offers?
Answer. In recent several years, the United States has been at the
forefront of efforts to negotiate and implement a new international
legal framework governing the conservation and management of the
world's living marine resources and give teeth to internationally
agreed measures. Two key parts of this framework are the United Nations
Agreement for Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks
(Fish Stocks Agreement) and the Agreement to Promote Compliance with
International Conservation and Management Measures by Fishing Vessels
on the High Seas (Compliance Agreement). These agreements entered into
force in December 2001 and April 2003, respectively. Together, these
agreements provide strong tools to address issues that have too long
been left unattended and we are now working to implement those tools in
regional fisheries management organizations such as ICCAT, IATTC, NAFO,
CCAMLR, and others. Congressional support for these agreements,
including rapid Senate action for advice and consent to ratification,
has been vital to our efforts in this regard and will continue to be so
in the future. This includes congressional support for full funding for
U.S. payments to regional fisheries management organizations to which
the United States is a party.
This new international framework and agreements will only be
effective to the extent that vessels and nations comply with them and
implement faithfully their provisions. For this reason, the United
States and other countries have been focusing recent efforts on
controlling illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. The United
States along with other countries pushed for and achieved negotiation
of an International Plan of Action (IPOA) to Prevent, Deter and
Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing. The IPOA calls
on each country to prepare its own national plan of action on IUU
fishing. The United States is in the final stages of preparing its
national plan of action. The plan will contain recommendations for
possible changes to U.S. legislation to strengthen both national and
international efforts to control IUU fishing. We welcome an opportunity
to work with the appropriate congressional offices as this work
progresses.
Question 2. What is the Administration doing to level the playing
field for our domestic fishing fleets, particularly when our fleets are
at a disadvantage as compared to the largely unregulated foreign high
seas fleets, and the U.S. has some of the lowest tariffs in the world
for fish imports.
Answer. The Administration is working across the board at the
global, regional, subregional and bilateral level to achieve equity and
a level playing field for U.S. fishermen. In the Western and Central
Pacific Ocean, for example, (including the waters around the state of
Hawaii) U.S. fishermen operate at a high standard with respect to
conservation and management measures, data collection, observer
coverage, vessel monitoring systems, and other requirements. The
recently negotiated Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Convention
establishes similar requirements for all countries fishing in the
region that are party to the agreement. Our goal is to ensure that all
major fishing players join the convention and that all such states and
entities operate under the same set of rules. The Administration takes
the same approach in each regional fishery management organization to
which the United States is a party and is actively and aggressively
seeking ways to address instances where countries or vessels operate
outside the agreed rules.