[Senate Hearing 113-269]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 113-269
THE ROLE OF CERTIFICATION IN REWARDING SUSTAINABLE FISHING
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OCEANS, ATMOSPHERE,
FISHERIES, AND COAST GUARD
of the
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 24, 2013
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
87-853 WASHINGTON : 2014
____________________________________________________________________________
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 THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia, Chairman
BARBARA BOXER, California JOHN THUNE, South Dakota, Ranking
BILL NELSON, Florida ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington ROY BLUNT, Missouri
MARK PRYOR, Arkansas MARCO RUBIO, Florida
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota DEAN HELLER, Nevada
MARK WARNER, Virginia DAN COATS, Indiana
MARK BEGICH, Alaska TIM SCOTT, South Carolina
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut TED CRUZ, Texas
BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii DEB FISCHER, Nebraska
MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin
EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts JEFF CHIESA, New Jersey
Ellen L. Doneski, Staff Director
James Reid, Deputy Staff Director
John Williams, General Counsel
David Schwietert, Republican Staff Director
Nick Rossi, Republican Deputy Staff Director
Rebecca Seidel, Republican General Counsel and Chief Investigator
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OCEANS, ATMOSPHERE, FISHERIES,
AND COAST GUARD
MARK BEGICH, Alaska, Chairman MARCO RUBIO, Florida, Ranking
BILL NELSON, Florida Member
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire
BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii DAN COATS, Indiana
MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico TIM SCOTT, South Carolina
TED CRUZ, Texas
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on September 24, 2013............................... 1
Statement of Senator Begich...................................... 1
Statement of Senator Rubio....................................... 3
Statement of Senator Nelson...................................... 4
Statement of Senator Heinrich.................................... 21
Statement of Senator Markey...................................... 23
Statement of Senator Blumenthal.................................. 49
Witnesses
Samuel D. Rauch III, Acting Assistant Administrator, National
Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.................... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 7
Darren Blue, Assistant Commissioner, Office of Facilities
Management and Services Programs, Public Buildings Service,
General Services Administration................................ 10
Prepared statement........................................... 11
Stefanie Moreland, Fisheries Policy Advisor to Governor Sean
Parnell, on behalf of the State of Alaska...................... 27
Prepared statement........................................... 28
Jeffrey Rice, Senior Director, Sustainability, Wal-Mart Stores,
Inc............................................................ 34
Prepared statement........................................... 35
Hon. Michael Montelongo, Senior Vice President, Sodexo, Inc...... 37
Prepared statement........................................... 39
John Connelly, President, National Fisheries Institute........... 41
Prepared statement........................................... 43
Appendix
Gulf Seafood Institute, prepared statement....................... 57
Letter dated October 3, 2013 to Hon. Mark Begich and Hon. Richard
Blumenthal from Michael Montelongo, Senior Vice President,
Public Policy and Corporate Affairs, Sodexo, Inc............... 59
Response to written question submitted by Hon. Edward Markey to:
Darren Blue.................................................. 60
Hon. Michael Montelongo...................................... 60
THE ROLE OF CERTIFICATION IN REWARDING SUSTAINABLE FISHING
----------
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 2013
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and
Coast Guard,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:34 a.m. in
room SR-253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Mark Begich,
Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARK BEGICH,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA
Senator Begich. Thank you very much, as we call the
Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries and Coast Guard
to order. Today, we're going to be talking about the role of
certification in rewarding sustainable fisheries.
As Chairman of the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Oceans and
Fisheries, I'm often accused of bragging about Alaska, but
there's so much, to be honest with you, to brag about. We have
more coastline and marine waters than the rest of the nation.
We produce more than half of the nation's wild fish. And we do
it the right way.
Sustainably is written into our Alaska constitution. Alaska
Department of Fish and Game regulates salmon harvest to ensure
adequate escapement to keep the fish coming back year after
year. And they do.
Alaska fisherman just proved it again, landing a whopping
270 million salmon this past summer, eclipsing the previous
record catch by almost 50 million. Our marine fisheries,
managed by NOAA Fisheries and the North Pacific Fisheries
Management Council, regulates some of the largest fish stocks
in the world and they are doing a great job. Alaska produces
over four billion pounds of pollock, cod, and other groundfish
every year. National standards set by the Magnuson-Stevens Act,
named after Alaska's late Senator Ted Stevens and Washington's
Warren Magnuson, restrict catches to sustainable levels.
Does this mean that everything is always perfect? Of course
not. Fish are not static. We control the harvest, but changing
conditions, ocean conditions and other factors out of our
control can affect the population dramatically. But neither is
our management of fisheries static. It is a continual process
of stock assessment, reassessment, and making the tough
decisions to manage our fisheries for the long run.
The State Fish Board and the Federal Regional Fish Councils
allow scientists, fishermen and conservationists to look at the
data and challenge assumptions. Not everyone is always happy
with the final decision, but it is an open, democratic
regulatory process. In Alaska, the North Pacific Council has
never exceeded scientifically set catch limits. Our fisheries
are regarded as one of the best managed in the world.
I'm looking forward to a positive discussion today in our
record of the fisheries sustainability, and why consumers and
retailers can be confident about the fish they buy from Alaska
and those landed under the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
I have to say, I was offended by the recent release of the
``We Don't Farm Like This'' video, by the World Wildlife Fund
Canada, and touting Marine Stewardship Council. The short
animated video grossly misrepresents the harvesting methods of
longline, purse seines, trawl fisheries and smears them
unsustainable. That is shocking since the WWF generally had a
good reputation of working with fishermen on common issues, and
especially offensive since the MSC has certified longline,
seine and trawl fisheries in Alaska as sustainable, and takes
industry money to label them as much.
MSC says they were aware of the WWF initiative, which one
of their board members said, ``Seemed like a good idea,
initially.'' Now they are both backpedaling, as they should.
Regrettably, it underscores the current issues over such third-
party certification programs. Many retailers and food service
providers today are demanding seafood be sustainable. That is a
good thing. Alaska has a good story to tell.
Our reliance just on any single group can be a problem.
Alaska salmon industry dropped MSC certification last year,
because of the shifting goal post, an increasing cost by this
NGO. They were still confident in our reputation for
sustainability. With the release of this video, others must be
considering the same.
Today's hearing, on the certification of seafood
sustainability, was scheduled before this ugly, disingenuous
video went viral. I didn't invite MSC to the hearing because I
wanted to focus on a broader issue here, but this video is hard
to ignore. I've asked WWF and MSC for an explanation for what
they were thinking when this was made. I also think they owe an
apology to Alaska fishermen and fishermen around the Nation who
make their living by providing healthy sustainable seafood. I
won't ask our witnesses to respond to this regrettable video
since they didn't have anything to do with it. But I do welcome
their testimony on their perspectives on seafood
sustainability.
In the first panel is going to be Mr. Sam Rauch, Acting
Assistant Administrator for the National Marine Fisheries
Service; and Darren Blue, Assistant Commissioner for Facilities
Management and Service Programs for the General Services
Administration.
In the second panel we will welcome: Stefanie Moreland, the
Special Assistant for Fisheries with the State of Alaska,
Office of the Governor; Mr. John Connelly, President of the
National Fisheries Institute; and then Mr. Jeffrey Rice, Senior
Director for Sustainability at Wal-Mart Stores; and Mr. Michael
Montelongo, Senior Vice President for Public Policy and
Corporate Affairs of Sodexo, a major international food service
provider.
We will welcome today's witnesses, but first we have
opening statement by the Ranking Member.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARCO RUBIO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA
Senator Rubio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
hearing.
The focus of this hearing is on a procurement and
contracting process. And, more specifically, on the definition
and role of ``sustainability'' in this process.
Now, let me begin by saying my position and that is that I
respect the right of private companies to make their own
procurement decisions without interference from the Federal
Government. When it comes to Federal procurement and
contracting practices and specifically procurement of seafood
by Federal agencies where there are contractors, I do think
this hearing is very timely.
Now, many of you who are here today are familiar with the
debate that's been publicly ongoing, for example, due to the
strong voices of Senators like Senator Murkowski and, of course
Senator Begich and others since June of this year, regarding
the National Park Services use of third-party certification for
sustainably-managed seafood.
Now, due to the service's use of the Monterey Bay Aquarium
Seafood Watch List, that's the standard for sustainable
seafood. Fish, such as the Wild Alaska salmon, are suddenly
ineligible for purchase at National Parks across the country.
Of course, being from Florida, an even greater concern to me,
and I know that of Senator Nelson as well, when the Parks
Service made their announcement is Red Snapper.
Then both the Gulf of Mexico and the South Atlantic would
also have been ineligible for purchase at national parks across
the country, despite the fact that these fisheries have been
rigorously, some would say too rigorously, managed by NOAA.
Now, as you may know, late last night the GSA posted on
their website an updated version of their guidelines that no
longer reference third-party certification. But I personally
believe this narrative still deserves attention, because I feel
it is part of a larger systemic pattern being conducted by the
administration.
When I first began examining this issue, I wondered why are
we even here; how did we get here. How did fisheries, such as
Red Snapper or Wild Alaska salmon, that are managed by the
United States Federal Government, suddenly become ineligible
for purchase by the very government that manages them? And you
don't have to dig deep to find the answer.
On October 5, 2009, the President issued a 15-page
Executive Order that, among other things, led to health and
sustainability guidelines issued by the General Services
Administration, who will be testifying here today, in
developing these guidelines. In typical, my opinion,
bureaucratic fashion, the GSA did not even consult with NOAA;
the sole agency charged with fisheries management when working
to define what is sustainable seafood.
Instead, GSA looked to environmental organizations, such as
the Monterey Bay Aquarium to define sustainable for procurement
purposes for the entire Federal Government. And the result has
been that U.S. fishermen, whose own livelihoods depend on
keeping fisheries sustainable, are baring the economic burden
of no longer being eligible for Federal procurement at national
parks despite their adherence to fishery management plans under
NOAA.
Now why this is important is the essence of the one thing I
think we as country share, as a shared value, is the notion
that in America, people who work hard and sacrifice should have
a real opportunity to achieve a better life and middle class
prosperity.
These fishery jobs are the epitome of that. These are
hardworking people who sacrifice, who put a lot on the line;
not just to feed their families, but to provide for the people
that work for them. And they're being unnecessarily punished by
this constant Federal interference. And in my opinion, today's
hearing is just one more example of this administration blindly
adhering to the environmental views of a few at the economic
cost of many of these hardworking, middle-class Americans from
Alaska all the way to Florida.
These extreme views do not have any place in the Federal
procurement process. So for that I applaud Senator Murkowski
for the legislation she introduced last week that would prevent
third-party certification for seafood from playing a role in
the Federal procurement process. And, as we'll hear from the
National Fisheries Institute today, there's a strong case to be
made that if a fishery is managed by NOAA, under the Magnuson-
Stevens Act or some other state equivalent, it should
automatically be considered sustainable. For those who do not
agree with this position, I would ask them then why should we
even federally manage these fisheries at all?
Finally, I'd be interested to hear from the GSA on whether
or not through this executive order issued by the president,
they were required to consider the increase costs of third-
party certification in the Federal procurement process. Because
after all, in this time of record deficits with yet another
debate around the corner on things like our Nation's debt
limit, I would think there'd be a higher priority on lowering
government spending rather than bowing to the views of a few at
the expense of the many.
So I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership and for
holding this hearing.
Senator Begich. Thank you very much. Let me see if--Senator
Nelson, did you have any opening that you would like to give
and----
STATEMENT OF HON. BILL NELSON,
U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA
Senator Nelson. Just a quick comment, Mr. Chairman.
One of the reasons why we passed, 2 years ago, the Restore
Act for the Gulf of Mexico is to give--it will not help you in
the Alaskan waters, but it clearly will for the Gulf--provide
money so that NOAA can do the updates in the research of what
is the fishery stock.
Problem in the past on both our Atlantic and our Gulf, has
been that the data is so outdated, they can't make an
intelligent decision about whether or not a stock ought to be
fished because the data is so, so many years earlier. That will
help in our waters.
Now we also have a problem of pirate fishing, where illegal
taking of fish impacts the fisheries and the fishermen. And so
I'm interested to hear what the folks here are going tell us on
the negative effect of pirate fishing on our commercial fishing
industries.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Begich. Thank you very much, Senator Nelson.
Senator Heinrich, do you have anything?
Let me ask the first two witnesses then--Mr. Rauch and then
Mr. Blue--if you could come to the table. We really appreciate
you being here. I think you get the sense of the concern that
we have.
And obviously, I want to echo what Senator Rubio did say at
the beginning and that is, you know, if we have a Magnuson-
Stevens Act which is designed to manage our fisheries to
sustainable levels and those that reach those sustainable
criteria, then, in my view, that is the ultimate certification
versus some third-party group determining what is sustainable
when, in reality, that's what we do every day here.
So I appreciate your willingness to come here to the
testify--to testify and I'd like to--what I'll do is I will
start--if that's OK, Mr. Rauch--I'll start with you and then
I'll go to Mr. Blue. And then we'll open for a round of 5-
minute questions from members.
Please.
STATEMENT OF SAMUEL D. RAUCH III, ACTING ASSISTANT
ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE, NATIONAL
OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
COMMERCE
Mr. Rauch. Good morning, Chairman Begich, Ranking Member
Rubio and members of the Committee. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify before you today. My name is Sam Rauch.
I am the Acting Assistant Administrator for NOAA's National
Marine Fisheries Service.
The Fisheries management process, established under the
Magnuson-Stevens Act, has established the United States as a
recognized global leader in responsibly managed fisheries and
sustainable seafood. In the U.S., we managed to Maximum
Sustainable Yield, which makes sustainability our standard. In
addition, every Magnuson-Stevens Act fishery complies with the
Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act and
the National Environmental Policy Act. As a result, our
domestic fisheries are among the most sustainably managed in
the world, taking into account target catch, bycatch and other
ecosystem impacts.
As such, we are also a model for other nations. In 2008,
the Fisheries Center at the University of British Columbia
spearheaded an extensive analysis of the most active fishing
countries in the world. The U.S. ranked number two overall out
of 53 countries, second only to Norway, which manages
substantially fewer stocks.
In the U.S., we manage 446 stocks and stock complexes under
46 different fishery management plans that are monitored to
ensure their effectiveness and adjusted as needed. Fishery
management plans are dynamic, science-based strategies
developed through a highly participatory and public process.
This process and system is successful.
In 2000--since 2000, we have rebuilt 34 stocks and the
number of stocks evict overfishing and the number of overfished
stocks are at an all-time low.
The U.S. model of fisheries management does not have an
end-point. Rather, it is a science-based, public, and
transparent process designed to prevent and stop overfishing.
It's based on continuous monitoring and enforcement.
Unfortunately, the stability of our fisheries and the
livelihoods of U.S. fishermen are challenged every day by
activities on the international front. For instance, pirate
fishing is a global problem that threatens ocean ecosystems and
impacts fisheries, food security, and coastal communities
around the world. By dodging conservation and management
measures, companies engaging in pirate fishing provide unfair
competition for law-abiding fishermen and seafood industries in
the marketplace, and can undercut the sustainability of
international and U.S. fisheries.
It's also important to recognize that, in the U.S., the
commitment to and investment in stewardship and sustainability
by our fishermen has not come without sacrifice. We need to
build on their commitment and ensure the successes--their
successes are rewarded in the marketplace. Despite the globally
recognized strength of U.S. fisheries management, U.S. seafood
is often perceived as operating under the same ineffective
management plaguing many global--global fisheries. This is
simply not true.
Still, many U.S. wholesalers, processors, retailers,
vendors and consumers are unaware of the sustainability of U.S.
fisheries. So the agency is taking a proactive role in telling
the story of the success and sustainability of U.S. fisheries.
FishWatch is the website the agency uses to educate consumers
of the responsible management of U.S. fisheries.
FishWatch develops neutral, regularly updated information
on seafood harveted--harvested in the U.S. and provides factual
information about the biological and ecological status of a
fishery to let users draw their own conclusions when making
purchases. We continue to improve this content of FishWatch and
explore the opportunities for expanding its reach.
In addition, to assist sellers, the agency, at its
discretion, issue letters in response to requests from harvest
sector groups on whether a particular fishery is sustainably
managed based on the Magnuson-Stevens Act's national standards.
In those letters, we highlight the fact that, in the U.S., we
have virtually eliminated overfishing and rebuilding--and are
rebuilding overfished stocks to sustainable levels in all
federally-managed fisheries.
And, last year, we asked our Marine Fisheries Advisory
Committee to conduct a policy study of whether the agency's
role in seafood certification should go beyond this status quo.
MAFAC has been seeking input from buyers and sellers of seafood
and gathering information from existing certification
organizations to see what an appropriate role for NMFS would
and should be.
Perspectives span widely, so far, ranging from a desire for
the Federal Government to remain uninvolved to requests for
NMFS to regulate the use of sustainability in the same or
similar way that U.S. Department of Agriculture regulates the
term organic. Different options are being evaluated and a
report is due next month.
In summary, achieving sustainability in U.S. Marine
Fisheries is a continuous process. To maintain our role as a
world leader in fisheries management, we use the best available
science and apply adaptive management strategies subject to
public accountability and enforcement. We want to ensure that
our fishermen and fishing industries are rewarded for their
investment in and commitment to the participations process.
Thank you, again, for the opportunity to discuss the
sustainability of U.S. fisheries under the Magnuson Act and I
welcome your questions.
Senator Begich. Thank you very much for your testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rauch follows:]
Prepared Statement of Samuel D. Rauch III, Acting Assistant
Administrator, National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce
Introduction
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. Thank you
for the opportunity to testify before you today. My name is Samuel D.
Rauch and I am the Acting Assistant Administrator for the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) in the Department of Commerce. NMFS is
dedicated to the stewardship of living marine resources through
science-based conservation and management. Much of this work occurs
under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), which sets forth standards for
conservation, management, and the sustainable use of our Nation's
fisheries resources.
The fisheries management process established under the Magnuson-
Stevens Act has established the United States (U.S.) as a recognized
global leader in responsibly managed fisheries and sustainable seafood.
My testimony today will focus on the progress we have made, together
with our partners, in implementing the Magnuson-Stevens Act to end
overfishing in the U.S. and ensure our Nation's fisheries are
sustainable.
Success under the Magnuson-Stevens Act
In the U.S., we manage to Maximum Sustainable Yield, which makes
sustainability our standard. We manage 446 stocks and stock complexes
under 46 fishery management plans that are monitored to ensure their
effectiveness and adjusted as needed. Fishery management plans are
dynamic, science-based strategies for stewardship. They are developed
through a highly participatory and public process that ensures the
standards of sustainability established by the Magnuson-Stevens Act are
met, while satisfying the needs of stakeholders for access to fishery
resources. This process and system is successful. We have rebuilt 33
stocks since 2000. In our most recent annual report to Congress on the
Status of Stocks, we reported that the number of stocks subject to
overfishing and the number of overfished stocks were at an all-time
low--for stocks with known status, 79 percent were not overfished and
87 percent were not experiencing overfishing. Sustainable fisheries
provide economic, social, and cultural opportunities for commercial,
recreational, and subsistence fishermen, and serve as an economic
engine for fishing-related businesses and coastal communities. The
quantity and value of commercial U.S. wild-caught fisheries was up in
2011 while recreational catch remained stable. U.S. commercial
fishermen landed 9.9 billion pounds of seafood valued at $5.3 billion
in 2011, which reflects an increase of 1.6 billion pounds (20 percent)
and $827 million (18 percent) over 2010 figures. 2011 saw the highest
landings volume since 1997 and highest value in nominal terms ever
recorded.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ National Marine Fisheries Service. 2012. Fisheries Economics of
the United States, 2011. U.S. Dept. Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-F/
SPO-118, 175p. Available at: https://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st5/
publication/index
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The seafood industry--harvesters, seafood processors and dealers,
seafood wholesalers and seafood retailers, including imports and
multiplier effects--generated $129 billion in sales impacts and $37
billion in income impacts, and supported 1.2 million jobs in 2011.
Recreational fishing generated $70 billion in sales impacts, $21
billion in income impacts, and supported 455,000 jobs in 2011. Jobs
supported by commercial businesses held steady from the previous year,
while jobs generated by the recreational fishing industry represented a
40 percent increase over 2010.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This success did not happen overnight. Our Nation's journey toward
sustainable fisheries has evolved over the past 37 years, starting in
earnest when Congress first passed the Magnuson-Stevens Act. With that
visionary law and the public process of accountability it established,
Congress set a legislative standard for U.S. fisheries that led to the
level of sustainability we see in our fisheries today. The Magnuson-
Stevens Act galvanized the commitment of the U.S. to conservation and
management of our fisheries that has evolved into the dynamic,
adaptable process currently at work.
We are also a model for other nations. In 2008, the Fisheries
Centre at the University of British Columbia spearheaded an extensive
analysis of the most active fishing countries in the world.\3\ They
evaluated the published and unpublished literature, and probed expert
opinion to answer questions about adherence to Article 7 of the United
Nation's Food and Agriculture Organization's Code of Conduct for
Responsible Fisheries, which covers fisheries management. The purpose
of the Code of Conduct is to facilitate comprehensive and balanced
development of fisheries and aquaculture, encompassing the long-term
sustainable utilization of fishery resources in harmony with the
environment and the use of capture and aquaculture practices that are
not harmful to ecosystems, resources or their quality. The U.S. ranked
number 2 overall out of 53 countries, second only to Norway, which
manages substantially fewer stocks than the U.S.: 15 stocks of marine
fish, 4 stocks of shellfish, and 5 aquaculture stocks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Pitcher, T.J., Pramod, G., Kalikoski, D. and Short, K. 2008.
Safe Conduct? Twelve Years Fishing under the. UN Code. WWF, Gland,
Switzerland. 66pp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The National Standards for Conservation and Management
The U.S. model of fisheries management I've described does not have
an end-point. Rather, it is a science-based, public, and transparent
process designed to prevent and stop overfishing. It is based on
continuous monitoring and enforcement. Since 1976 when Congress first
passed the Magnuson-Stevens Act, through the most recent
reauthorization of the Act in 2007, the National Standards for
Conservation and Management have been the statutory benchmarks for
responsible management and sustainable fisheries in the U.S. Fisheries
meeting these standards have successfully undergone the public process
and accountability procedures established by Congress for stewardship
of our Nation's fisheries resources. The 2007 reauthorization of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act provided a clear mandate, new authority, and new
tools to achieve the goal of sustainable fisheries within measurable
timeframes. Notable among these were the requirements for annual catch
limits and accountability measures to prevent, respond to, and end
overfishing. These are among the strictest standards in the world, and
our approach is being emulated by other countries.
The Magnuson-Stevens Act created a unique, highly participatory
management structure centered on the eight Regional Fishery Management
Councils to meet these sustainability goals. This structure ensures
that input and decisions about how to manage U.S. fisheries develops
through a ``bottom up'' process that includes fishermen, other fishery
stakeholders, affected States, tribal governments, and the Federal
Government.
Our progress in achieving the goal of sustainable fisheries is
founded on the principle that management is based on sound science.
National Standard 2 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act mandates that all
fisheries conservation and management measures must be based upon ``the
best scientific information available.'' NMFS management targets are
set through science-based standards, and our extensive science program
includes well-integrated data collection and cooperative research
programs that feed into the process for setting these targets. This
has, in turn, led to improved productivity and sustainability of
fisheries and fishery-dependent businesses.
In addition to the 10 National Standards, under which each
federally managed fishery must operate, every Magnuson-Stevens Act
fishery complies with the protection and conservation requirements of
the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the Endangered Species Act, and
are managed using the holistic environmental planning requirements of
the National Environmental Policy Act. The result: domestic fisheries
that are among the most sustainably managed in the world, taking into
account target catch, bycatch, and other ecosystem impacts.
IUU Fishing is a Global Problem
The stability of our fisheries and the livelihoods of U.S.
fishermen are challenged every day by activities on the international
front. For instance, illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing, also
called IUU or pirate fishing, is a global problem that threatens ocean
ecosystems and impacts fisheries, food security, and coastal
communities around the world. Experts estimate that the global value of
economic losses from IUU fishing range between $10 billion and $23.5
billion annually, representing between 11 and 26 million tons.\4\ By
dodging conservation and management measures, companies engaging in IUU
fishing cut corners and lower their operating costs. As a result, their
illegally caught products provide unfair competition for law-abiding
fishermen and seafood industries in the marketplace, and can undercut
the sustainability of international and U.S. fisheries. NMFS is working
to ensure that high demand for seafood does not create incentives for
illegal fishing activity. Working in partnership with other Federal
agencies, foreign governments and entities, international
organizations, non-government organizations, and the private sector is
crucial to effectively combating IUU fishing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ MRAG and Fisheries Ecosystems Restoration Research, Fisheries
Centre, University of British Columbia, 2008. The Global Extent of
Illegal Fishing. Available at: http://www.mrag.co.uk/Documents/
ExtentGlobalIllegalFishing.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recognizing the Sacrifices and Commitment of U.S. Fishermen
In the U.S., our fishermen's commitment to and investment in
stewardship and sustainable resources has not come without sacrifice.
We need to build on their commitment and ensure these successes are
rewarded in the marketplace. Despite the globally recognized strength
of U.S. fisheries management, U.S. seafood is often perceived as
operating under the same ineffective management plaguing many global
fisheries. This is simply not true.
Moreover, many U.S. wholesalers, processors, retailers, vendors,
and consumers are unaware of the sustainability of U.S. fisheries. The
agency is taking a proactive role in telling the story of the success
of U.S. fisheries, using a variety of approaches to highlight the
value, quality, and sustainability of U.S. harvested and farmed
seafood. FishWatch is the Internet-based informational platform the
agency uses to educate consumers on the responsible management of U.S.
fisheries under the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the dynamic, science-based
process behind sustainability. FishWatch delivers neutral, regularly
updated information on seafood harvested in the U.S. The page
introduces consumers to the dynamic process of sustainably managing
living resources in an ever-changing ocean environment. This tool also
provides factual information about the biological and ecological status
of a fishery and lets users draw their own conclusions relative to
satisfying a purchasing standard, based on science provided by NMFS. We
continue to improve the content of FishWatch and explore opportunities
for expanding its reach.
To assist sellers, the agency, at its discretion, issues
declarative public statements in the form of letters in response to
requests from harvest sector groups on whether a particular fishery is
``sustainably managed'' based on the Magnuson-Stevens Act National
Standards. In those letters, we highlight the fact that, in the U.S.,
we have virtually eliminated overfishing and are rebuilding overfished
stocks to sustainable levels in all federally managed fisheries.
And, last year, we asked the Marine Fisheries Advisory Committee
(MAFAC) to conduct a policy study of whether the agency's role in
seafood certification should go beyond this status quo. MAFAC has been
seeking input from buyers and sellers of seafood and gathering
information from existing certification organizations to see what an
appropriate role for NMFS would be. One of the objectives is to collect
information from stakeholders who are directly involved in the
purchasing of seafood for restaurants, supermarkets, and other retail,
food service, and institutions to get their views on certification and
the preferred role of the Federal Government. Perspectives span widely
so far, ranging from a desire for the Federal Government to remain
uninvolved to requests for NMFS to regulate the use of
``sustainability'' in the same or similar way the U.S. Department of
Agriculture regulates the term ``organic.'' Different options are being
evaluated including the relative benefits and costs, and whether
taxpayers or the industry should bear them. The MAFAC report is due
next month.
Conclusion
Achieving sustainability in U.S. marine fisheries is a continuous
process governed by congressionally defined National Standards. To
maintain our role as a world leader in fisheries management, we use the
best available science and apply adaptive management strategies subject
to public accountability and enforce those strategies. We want to
ensure that our fishermen and fishing industries are rewarded for their
investment in and commitment to participation in this process. Thank
you again for the opportunity to discuss the sustainability of U.S.
fisheries under the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
Senator Begich. Mr. Blue.
STATEMENT OF DARREN BLUE, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
OFFICE OF FACILITIES MANAGEMENT AND SERVICES
PROGRAMS, PUBLIC BUILDINGS SERVICE, GENERAL
SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Blue. Good morning, Chairman Begich, Ranking Member
Rubio and other members of the Subcommittee. My name is Darren
Blue. I am the Assistant Commissioner for Facilities Management
within GSA's Public Building Service.
I appreciate being invited here today to discuss GSA's role
in developing guidelines for healthy and sustainable food
services within Federal facilities.
First, I'd like to establish GSA's view that U.S.-managed
fisheries do not require third-party certification to
demonstrate responsible practices. GSA has worked with HHS,
NOAA and other agencies to revise our health and sustainability
guidelines for Federal concessions and vending operations to
ensure that they provide absolute clarity on this matter.
Chairman Begich, I'm pleased to report that in the days
since we provided you with our written statement, GSA and HHS
have finalized the revised guidelines and they no longer
reference a third-party certification requirement.
I'd like to provide some background on how we developed the
original guidelines. From 2009 to 2011, GSA and HHS jointly
developed the guidelines with a working group that included
health and sustainability experts from Federal agencies. GSA
and HHS co-released these guidelines in March 2011. NOAA did
not participate in the development of the original guidelines,
but GSA and HHS have since been working with NOAA to develop
the now published revised guidelines.
As written, the original guidelines were designed to make
healthy choices more accessible and appealing while serving as
a practical guide for vendors crafting proposals to provide
concessions or vending services within Federal facilities. Our
intent was to broaden, not to restrict, choices.
GSA worked extensively with private industry in developing
these guidelines. In October 2009, prior to beginning our
partnership with HHS, GSA released a request for information to
gain valuable feedback and insight from concessions and
environmental stakeholders on wellness and sustainability
practices in food service delivery and concessions contracting.
Some of the responses suggested the idea of third-party
sustainable fishing certification programs as a guide for--for
responsible seafood procurement. GSA confirmed the
recommendations generated through the RFI process with industry
experts and our partner Federal agencies. As a result, we
developed guidelines that cited a pair of third-party entities
for sustainable certification.
Specifically, the guidelines encouraged vendors to refer to
the Monterey Bay Aquarium and Marine Stewardship Council or
other equivalent systems when developing proposals.
GSA and HHS intended the third-party groups cited in the
guidelines to be helpful examples for vendors, not eliminating
factors. We now understand that the references have caused some
confusion. GSA and HHS have worked with NOAA to develop the
revisions consistent with our intent to issue helpful,
inclusive guidelines that reflect current Federal Fisheries
Management policy. We have finalized these revised guidelines
and they no longer include references to third-party
certification systems.
Thank you for inviting me to appear before you today. Given
GSA's role, in supporting sustainable workplaces, we look
forward to continuing this dialogue and we appreciate the
Subcommittee's oversight on this issue. I am honored to take
your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Blue follows:]
Prepared Statement of Darren Blue, Assistant Commissioner, Office of
Facilities Management and Services Programs, Public Buildings
Service, General Services Administration
Introduction
Good morning Chairman Begich, Ranking Member Rubio, and members of
the Subcommittee. I am Darren Blue, Assistant Commissioner for
Facilities Management and Services Programs in GSA's Public Buildings
Service. I appreciate being invited here today to discuss GSA's role in
developing guidelines for healthy and sustainable food services in
Federal facilities.
Today I will speak to the GSA's support of health and
sustainability policies and practices within our inventory of Federal
office space.
First and foremost, I'd like to establish GSA's view that U.S.-
managed fisheries do not require third-party certification to
demonstrate responsible practices. GSA is working with the Department
of Health and Human Services (HHS), the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and other agencies to revise our
Health and Sustainability Guidelines for Federal Concessions and
Vending Operations to ensure they provide absolute clarity on this
matter.
Development of GSA-HHS Health and Sustainability Guidelines for Federal
Concessions and Vending Operations
In 2009, President Obama issued Executive Order 13514, ``Federal
Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance,''
directing Federal agencies to leverage acquisitions to encourage
markets for sustainable products and services. As the Federal
Government's landlord, GSA is well positioned to drive change by
supporting sustainability in Federal facilities and encouraging health
and wellness among Federal employees.
From 2009 to 2011, GSA and HHS jointly developed the Health and
Sustainability Guidelines with a working group that included health and
sustainability experts from several Federal agencies. GSA and HHS co-
released the Guidelines in March 2011. NOAA did not participate in the
development of the original Guidelines, but GSA and HHS have since been
working with NOAA to develop revisions.
We designed the Guidelines to make healthy choices more accessible
and appealing. As written, they serve as a practical guide and resource
for vendors crafting proposals to provide concessions or vending
services in Federal facilities. Our intent was to broaden choices, not
restrict choices.
GSA worked extensively with private industry in developing the
Guidelines. In October 2009, prior to beginning our partnership with
HHS, GSA released a Request for Information to gain valuable feedback
and insight from concessions and environmental stakeholders on wellness
and sustainability practices in food service delivery and concessions
contracting. Some of the responses suggested the idea of third-party
sustainable fishing certification programs as a guide for responsible
seafood procurement.
GSA confirmed the recommendations generated through the RFI
process, and during a subsequent industry roundtable with industry
experts and our other Federal agency partners, we developed Guidelines
that cited a pair of third-party entities for sustainability
certification. Specifically, the guidelines encouraged vendors to refer
to the Monterey Bay Aquarium and the Marine Stewardship Council or
other equivalent systems when developing proposals.
GSA and HHS intended the third-party groups cited in the Guidelines
to be helpful examples for vendors, not eliminating factors. We now
understand that these references have caused some confusion. GSA and
HHS are now working with NOAA to develop revisions consistent with our
intent to issue helpful, inclusive Guidelines that reflect Federal
fisheries management policy and practices. We expect to release the
revised Guidelines in the coming weeks, and GSA anticipates that they
will not include references to third-party certification systems.
Conclusion
Thank you for inviting me to appear before you today. Given GSA's
role in supporting sustainable workplaces and the health and wellness
of Federal employees across the country, we look forward to continuing
this dialogue and updating the Subcommittee on the issuance of updated
Guidelines. I am pleased to take your questions.
Senator Begich. Thank you very much, Mr. Blue, and I will
have some for you in a moment. But first, thank you for the
announcement. We appreciate it and we'll--I'll have some
further follow-up here in a second. First, Mr. Rauch--I say Mr.
Rauch, but it's Mr.----
Mr. Rauch. Rauch.
Senator Begich. Rauch. OK. I have a friend that has the
exact same spelling, that's why--Rauch.
Let me ask you--and I was again pleased to hear Mr. Blue
consulted with NOAA, GSA. Can you tell me how your agency
interacts with GSA in these regulation rewrites and kind of
give me a sense of how your engagement----
Mr. Rauch. As Mr. Blue said, we were not originally
involved in the process. For the past few months, we have been
in consultation with GSA working with them on the revision and
I think we are excited about working with GSA more in the
future as we continue to monitor this active process. I think
it's a partnership that is--is going to grow, but we were not
originally involved in that----
Senator Begich. Were you aware when GSA was developing
their guidelines, were you guy--were you folks aware that they
were doing it and did--there was just no engagement from you,
or were you not aware of that?
Mr. Rauch. I was not aware. We were not aware.
Senator Begich. OK.
Let me ask you the broader step. As you know, we're in the
reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. At this time,
we're starting hearings and we're doing listening sessions. It
seems, you know, and I--and I understand these--like MSC,
they're mad at me and I get that. They're mad at Alaska, I get
that. You know, they don't like the fact that we don't want to
use their certification because, honestly, they charge a lot of
money and I'm not sure what the full value is. And there's
inconsistency. We have different organizations. Monterey Bay is
another one, and we can kind of go through the list. Doesn't it
make sen--doesn't it make sense that as we re-draft and tweak
the Magnuson-Stevens Act and Reauthorization Act, we--if
fisheries meet the sustainability level by our standards and
they rebuild stocks and they're sustainable--we'd classify
them--isn't that the ultimate test of sustainability rather
than these third-party NGOs.
Why would they trump everything we do, or should they?
Mr. Rauch. Well first, let me agree with your statement
that we--we are required to manage to sustainability. When
people ask me, why is it sustainable, I can tell them why. It
is a transparent process that is adaptive. It's not a point in
time you have to have a system that will constantly evaluate
the fishery and adjust as appropriate. That's what we have with
the Federal system. That's what the State of Alaska has for
salmon.
So we would--I would agree with you that federally-managed
and in certain cases, state-managed fisheries, are the pinnacle
of sustainability. That being said, private industries can
market their product as they see fit in this country under
certain laws and the Federal Government. I currently do not
have the authority to weigh in that balance. I can articulate
that----
Senator Begich. I understand that, but in your testimony
you had indicated that there were, for example, times when
industry comes to you and they ask for a letter of probably a
certain type of fish stock, I'm assuming.
Mr. Rauch. Yes.
Senator Begich. And is it sustainable--or, how do you
declare and you respond? Correct?
Mr. Rauch. Correct.
Senator Begich. So in an indirect way, I don't want to call
out certification, but you are identifying which stocks are
sustainable by actions that you can show by scientific
evidence, not just in that moment in time, but over time.
Right?
Mr. Rauch. Correct.
Senator Begich. And so if in the Magnuson-Stevens Act--I
get that, you know, private sectoring, go get the Good
Housekeeping seal and all that and stuff, but the consumers,
they demand more and more what their product is; where it comes
from. They want to at least understand it. They don't
necessarily want us to restrict the purchase of it because they
want those choices and I totally agree with that, but doesn't
it make sense if you're already doing some letters that just
making it more clear in the legislation or reauthorization that
when that request is made and you say it, then it is
sustainable. Now there are some stocks that someone might send
a letter to or ask you and you might say, well, they're not
sustainable yet. They are in a rebuilding status; right? That
maybe one of the situations that might occur.
Mr. Rauch. Well we would argue that even a rebuilding
fishery is sustainable because they catch that we allow----
Senator Begich. That's right, because you have a scientific
level of catch.
Mr. Rauch. Right.
And I want to be respectful toward the two Senators to your
side, because Red Snapper is in, technically, rebuilding mode
and we would argue that it is very sustainable and you can have
harvest and sale of that and people should be eating Red
Snapper.
Senator Begich. Right. And long-term rebuilding.
Mr. Rauch. Yes.
Senator Begich. OK.
Let me pause you, because my time is about to run out. I
want to make sure everyone has time here. Mr. Blue, first--
always give you the pause in before I kind of give you a little
push here.
Thank you for the announcement today. Timing is everything.
We appreciate that more than you can imagine. But honestly, it
shouldn't have taken this hearing or as well as letters that
we've sent and conversations been out in the press on this
issue.
How did GSA fail in this effort to connect with Federal
agencies that manage fisheries when you're developing standards
for our contractors to purchase, or our agencies, to purchase
fisheries that are sustainable? How did that happen? I mean it
just----
Mr. Blue. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Begich. And I don't want you know, I want to move
forward, but I want to understand this, because this is a huge
issue that has caused a huge stir, as you can imagine, my state
especially, I'm sure, and my friends from Florida in the sense
of what is sustainable now. How do you define it? So how did
that happen?
Mr. Blue. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We share the concern of
the Subcommittee; we've reviewed our policy process and our
interagency coordination process. The fact that NOAA was not
coordinated during the development of these guidelines. They
were not policy, they were guidelines, intended to be helpful--
was an oversight on our part. We've recognized that and we are
in the process of correcting our interagency coordination with
partner agencies for the issuance of such guidelines in the
future.
Senator Begich. Let me ask--how will you--and again, I--the
guideline, with this revision, is important because you've
taken out the third-party certification reference in any form
and as well as making it clear.
How will you make sure that the agencies that do the
contracted--maybe the Park Service, or maybe any other agency
that is doing contracted services--understand when they write
these RFPs, this is the standard that they should use? How are
you doing that now to make sure, as we know, and I think I've
just heard the Park Services now can follow your guideline
which is also good news we hear today. So--but tell me how
you're going to ensure that happens, because, I mean, I can
tell you how they know it's happening now because we've made it
very public. And I'm sure they read the papers and realize, oh,
my gosh, what's this all about. Now they're doing it because
you've changed the guidelines. But how are we going to make
sure every agency understands these guidelines for contracting
of their services?
Mr. Blue. Just so I understand the question, you mean
getting the word out about the----
Senator Begich. Yes.
Mr. Blue [continuing]. Changed guidelines?
Senator Begich. Yes.
So they don't put into their RFPs suddenly third-party
certification requirements because that's--they remember from
the old RFPs or the guidelines. How are they going to know what
the new guidelines are and make sure that they follow them?
Mr. Blue. It's important to note that they--the third-party
certification, they were not requirements, but they were
reference material for the vendors as they were crafting their
proposals.
Senator Begich. Right.
Mr. Blue. But we can make it, and will make clear, through
various channels that we have, as the leader in the Federal
acquisition workforce to Federal departments and agencies what
the new guidelines say. We can also make it clear to our vendor
community, when they submit their proposals that these
guidelines have been changed.
Senator Begich. OK. Let me pause there and I'll turn to
Senator Rubio for his questions.
Senator Rubio. Well, Mr. Blue, in Executive Order 13514,
which from now on that's the one I'm talking about when I'm
asking you about it, were you required to take into account the
economic costs of the regulations?
Mr. Blue. Thank you, Senator Rubio.
I cannot speak to the original intent given to the team
that developed the guidelines. However, I can--I can display
the appreciation that we now have based on the Subcommittee's
concerns to take into account the economic----
Senator Rubio. But you can't--you don't know if there was
any sort of economic or employment impact taken into account as
the guidelines were being produced?
Mr. Blue. I am not aware of any economic impact that was
discussed as the guidelines were being produced.
Senator Rubio. OK.
So as far as you know, no one looked at what impact is this
going to have on people who are out there working in this
industry?
Mr. Blue. As far as I know, that's correct.
Senator Rubio. OK.
Which seafood or fishing industry representatives were
consulted as this was developed?
Mr. Blue. We--as mentioned in my statement, we had an RFI
and received numerous responses. We would like to take it, for
the record, to submit all of those participants in that RFI
process and also the list of industry roundtable participants.
Senator Rubio. So, for the record I'd like--we'd like to
see the list of both the industry representatives, but also the
environmental stakeholders, do you know, off the top of your
head, who are the environmental stakeholders that weighed in?
Mr. Blue. Not off the top of my head; however, we'll make
sure that that list is inclusive.
Senator Rubio. Do you know what other activities the GSA
has been conducting as a result of that executive order?
Mr. Blue. I do not, Senator.
Senator Rubio. OK.
Can I get an answer to that as well, at some point, for the
record after the hearing?
Mr. Blue. Absolutely.
[The information follows:]
U.S. General Services Administration
Washington, DC, December 6, 2013
Hon. Marco Rubio,
Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard,
Committee on Science, Commerce, and Transportation,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Rubio:
Thank you for your interest in sustainable fisheries. This is a
follow up to the hearing held by the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on
Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard on Sept 24, 2013, ``The
Role of Certification in Rewarding Sustainable Fishing''.
During the hearing you requested a list of seafood or fishing
industry representatives who were consulted during the development of
the guidelines on sustainable fisheries. Enclosed is a list of those
roundtable participants.
If you have any additional questions or concerns, please feel free
to contact me at (202) 501-0563.
Sincerely,
Lisa A. Austin,
GSA Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs.
Enclosure
Enclosure: Roundtable Attendees
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title Company/Agency/Organization
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sr. Director of Nutrition Program Aramark
Development
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Director of Business Development Aramark
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vice President Business Development Aramark
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Director of Reporting, Corporate Aramark
Social Responsibility
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vice President--Nutrition & Compass Group
Wellness
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eastern Division President Eurest Dining Services
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regional Vice President Eurest Dining Services
------------------------------------------------------------------------
District Manager FAME Food Management Service
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Executive Director Green Restaurant Association
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corporate Executive Chef Guest Services, Inc
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Division Executive Chef Guest Services, Inc
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corporate Director,Systems and Guest Services, Inc
Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senior Vice President I.L. Creations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vice President of Procurement I.L. Creations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nutrition and Wellness Program I.L. Creations
Manager
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Director of Organizational I.L. Creations
Development
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manager of Communications and IT I.L. Creations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senior Associate McManis & Monsalve Associates
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wellness Consultant Plated Concepts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vice President of Operations Sodexo
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senior Vice President-Marketing and Southern Foodservice Management
Administration
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senior Vice President--Operations Southern Foodservice Management
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corporate Services Manager Southern Foodservice Management
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Government
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title Company/ Agency/Organization
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facility Services Director Department of Education
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facility A Management Services Department of Education
Director
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agency Representative Department of Education
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Human Department of Interior
Capital,
Performance and Partnerships
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senior Executive Department of Labor
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deputy Asst Secretary Health and Human Services
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deputy Regional Commissioner General Services Administration
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regional Concessions Specialist, General Services Administration
NCR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Health and Wellness Specialist General Services Administration
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assistant Commissioner, FMSP General Services Administration
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Health and Wellness Specialist/ General Services Administration
Registered Dietician
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acting Occupancy Administration General Services Administration
Director
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regional Concessions Specialist, R6 General Services Administration
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry Relations Team General Services Administration
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry Relations Team General Services Administration
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry Relations Team General Services Administration
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Concessions Program Manager General Services Administration
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Registered Dietician USDA Center for Nutrition Policy
and Promotion
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, the following companies or organizations submitted an
official response to the November 2009 RFI.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aramark
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compass Group
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DART Container Corporation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAME Corporation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Green Seal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guest Services
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IL Creations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sodexo
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Southern Food Service
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Valley Services
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following companies or organizations submitted feedback and
input to GSA through various industry outreach vehicles. This input was
unofficial and submitted via e-mail during meetings and conferences.
This list is not inclusive of all the input we received over the last
four years, but it represents the major organizations that contributed
to the shaping of the Guidelines.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Canteen Services
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cornyn Fasano Group
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Green Seal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Institutes of Health
------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Restaurant Association
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Health Service
------------------------------------------------------------------------
USDA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Veterans Health Administration
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Rubio. Thank you.
And then--Mr. Rauch, right?
Am I saying that right? I missed the clarification.
Mr. Rauch. I will answer to whatever you call me.
[Laughter.]
Senator Rubio. OK.
Well what do you want me to call you?
Mr. Rubio. Rauch.
Senator Rubio. Ra--I'm sorry.
Mr. Rauch. Rauch.
Senator Rubio. Rauch, OK.
Senator Begich. I said Rauch; he corrected me.
[Laughter.]
Senator Rubio. Rauch.
Senator Begich. But if you want us to call you something
else, just let us know. We're flexible here.
Senator Rubio. Your eminence, let me ask you----
[Laughter.]
Senator Rubio. I think you've answered this before, but
just for the record, were you or anyone at NOAA aware of the
GSA's health and sustainability guidelines before they were
issued?
Mr. Rauch. I was not aware. I do not believe the National
Marine Fisheries Services were aware. I do not believe that
anyone else in NOAA was aware.
Senator Rubio. OK.
And again, if, in fact, you learn that someone was aware,
you would clarify that for the record after the hearing?
Mr. Rauch. If we learn that, yes.
Senator Rubio. OK.
That's my questions. Thank you.
Senator Begich. Thank you very much.
Let me go to Senator Nelson.
Senator Nelson. The pirate fishing.
Senator Begich. Can I interrupt you for just one second?
Senator Nelson. Certainly.
Senator Begich. I want to say thank you for calling it
pirate fishing. I have spent four and a half years; people kept
calling IUU, blah, blah, blah. No one was sure what it was.
Pirate fishing is theft from the oceans.
Thank you, Mr. Nelson.
[Laughter.]
Senator Begich. I get very excited about that definition.
Senator Rubio. Down in Florida, we know what pirates are.
[Laughter.]
Senator Begich. Good point.
Senator Nelson. OK.
How are we going to eliminate pirate fishing?
Mr. Rauch. Thank you, Senator Nelson.
Pirate fishing is a difficult problem to deal with because
it is, in large measure, allowed. It's an international issue
and so our tools for dealing with it are more limited than
dealing with sustainable fisheries in the United States.
We engage in a number of forums currently through our
international forum to try and encourage our international
partners to better manage and control the fishing fleets that
arise out of their ports. We are engaged with the international
law enforcement community to try to better deal with wildlife
trafficking and pirate fishing as a form of wildlife
trafficking. We are currently the Vice Chair of the Interpol
working group on wildlife trafficking because of this issue.
We are aware that Congress has a number of bills. Senator
Begich's bill being one, on pirate fishing, which we are
working to help with that. But it is a difficult issue. It's
hard to get at this because fisheries is a very lucrative
business and the United States is a very lucrative market.
So we--we struggle at times with dealing with these foreign
issues, but we do have an enforcement program on that. The
President just issued, in July, an Executive Order on wildlife
trafficking; creating a wildlife trafficking task force, which
we are a part of, that we are trying to make sure that illegal
fishing is appropriately considered illegal wildlife
trafficking.
So it is a difficult issue and we are addressing it on a
number of fronts in conjunction with the State Department,
trade representatives and others.
Senator Nelson. Well--now, we're talking about U.S. waters.
So, why--well what--what other tools do you need?
Mr. Rauch. In U.S. waters I think we have the tools that we
need. We have an active enforcement program that deals with
U.S. fishermen who violate the laws and there are not many of
them but a few on occasion do. So we have an active enforcement
program there that I think----
Senator Nelson. How about non-U.S.?
Mr. Rauch. We have a program that deals with incursions by
foreign fishermen----
Senator Nelson. Describe that.
Mr. Rauch. We--on occasion, a foreign fishing vessel will
come into U.S. waters without authority to do so. When that
happens, the Coast Guard--to the extent that we are aware of
that--the Coast Guard will find those vessels, stop the--
interdict those vessels, the vessels are often forfeited and
the crew are repatriated to their country of origin.
So we work with the Coast Guard and State Department when
those kind of events happen. They don't happen all that
frequently, though they used to be much more frequent. We do
that. We also work with the governments of the originating
vessels to try to get them to control their activities.
So there is an established process in the United States for
dealing with foreign incursion into our waters. It doesn't
happen very often, but it does happen on occasion.
Senator Nelson. Do we have enough Coast Guard?
Mr. Rauch. I can't speak to that. Our partnership with the
Coast Guard seems adequate for these purposes. I can't speak
for the Coast Guard and what other missions that they have, but
we have a long partnership with the Coast Guard. We recognize
that both they and us are dealing with our resource constraints
as every other Federal agency, but I think that we try to
prioritize the missions that are important to all of us.
Senator Nelson. Other than contacting the countries outside
of U.S. waters, describe what are the tools that you're using.
Mr. Rauch. So outside of the U.S. waters we are working
with the international law enforcement agency, Interpol, on
wildlife trafficking.
As I said, we're the Vice Chair of the Interpol working
group on that. So there's information sharing that we use with
other countries. The Coast Guard does occasionally go outside
of U.S. waters to assist with non-flagged vessels. A true
pirate vessel is a vessel that doesn't have a flag of any
country, although we consider it --the term broader in the
fishing context.
So we do work with other countries to deal with that when
we find a vessel on the high seas. We also are trying to work
with other countries when illegal fishing is goes on in their
waters but the product is coming into the United States. Our
fishermen, who have taken all these sacrifices, often have to
compete on the same grocery store shelf with the fishermen that
is it, a product that was harvested illegally. And that is a
difficult thing for our fishermen to deal with. So we deal with
it both in the law enforcement context and through a domestic
negotiation context.
Senator Nelson. And, can you identify that fish on the
grocery store shelves to prevent it from ever getting there in
the first place?
Mr. Rauch. In some fisheries we can. In some--in many
fisheries we cannot.
Senator Nelson. How do you do that?
Mr. Rauch. Some fisheries have traceability requirements in
which they trace it from the vessel all the way to the market,
the grocery store. Other fisheries, we require our seafood
inspection and the customs--the Customs and Border Patrol to
interdict illegal product coming in and there is enormous
amount of product coming in and we can only sample a certain
substance of that.
Senator Nelson. What fishery traces it all the way from the
boat into the shore?
Mr. Rauch. So I believe the Chilean sea bass does that. I
believe there are certain tuna stocks in the Western Pacific
that do that as well. I could get you a list of all those that
do. Not many--not very many do that. In addition to our
government-sponsored, a number of U.S. fishing industries like
this there's a Wild Gulf Shrimp fishery which does it on its
own without government involvement. They will--as a marketing
tool, they have a system where they can trace from their boat
to the plate and that they will market. So that when a consumer
wants to buy it they can scan the barcode and they can find the
boat the day it was caught. We don't run that system but the
industry does on its own.
Senator Nelson. And that's--the shrimping industry does
that? It's----
Mr. Rauch. Wild Gulf Shrimp.
And I believe there's a similar system in Alaska for one of
the products up there.
Senator Nelson. Is that a similar system in the Atlantic
shrimp?
Mr. Rauch. I'm not aware.
These are privately-run marketing or--privately-run
enterprises.
Senator Nelson. I see. Thank you, Mr. Rauch.
Senator Begich. Thank you very much.
And if I can add to that, we have a piece of legislation
ending on--called Safe Seafood Bill which does exactly what
you're talking about, because customers today want really to
understand what they're buying, where it's coming from and I
know in Alaska we have over $500 million worth of Russian crab
they call Alaska crab, and it's impacted our industry
dramatically in a negative way.
So you're absolutely right. So we do have a bill pending on
that. We also have two other bills that passed out of this
committee we are very excited about, S. 269 and S. 267, which
is all about pirate fishing and in honor of Senator Inouye who
led that charge when I got here before. So we're--hopefully,
maybe Senator Nelson will put a little push on you who know we
need to push on to get this to the table. So we'll look forward
to that.
Senator Heinrich.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARTIN HEINRICH,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO
Senator Heinrich. Thank you, Chairman. I look forward to
working with both of you on pirate fishing. I will bring up the
fact that my kids, the other day, were using my iPhone to
translate things in the pirate language. We should try that in
the Committee sometime.
[Laughter.]
Senator Heinrich. I want to talk to Mr. Rauch just about
some definitions to kind of get a handle on why I think there
is a consumer value in third-party certification. And why, if
everything is by definition sustainable, then you see why
third-party certification exists in the first place. And we
define or you define sustainable in such a way that even a
rebuilding stock is sustainable. And that may well be true for
the purpose of--of harvesting numbers, but I think for the
purpose of the average consumer, if they're looking at Western
Atlantic bluefin tuna, and they believe stocks to be down 80
percent from where they were historically or any other heavily
impacted species that is at the bottom of that rebuilding
curve, they don't feel like that is a wise choice, a
sustainable choice, even if you by our definition it is
sustainable. So how do you reconcile that and do you have
something on FishWatch where people can see that what the
actual health of the stock overall in gross terms is, versus
the idea that, OK, hopefully we'll have a little more of these
fish next year than we had last year?
Mr. Rauch. Yes. So, on FishWatch we do try to present the
full picture of the health of the stock. The idea is to let the
consumer choose for themselves what they do or do not want to
buy. And you're absolutely correct. Different consumers will
approach purchasing decisions in different ways and they will
value different things.
The role of the National Fishery Services is just to
provide the information, not to make those choices for them or
to recommend one way or the other. So we do present what's
called the data from the stock assessment. For all of these
stocks, we have stock assessments which outline not only the
current health of the stock, but also the trajectory. So you
can look over time and see whether--where it's been caught,
where it is going and where we predict it to go. So that's
what's on our FishWatch.
You are correct that we would view a rebuilding fishery as
sustainable in that the population is not declining, the
population is growing. Red Snapper is a very good example. The
population has been far exceeding its rebuilding targets. It is
growing bigger than we ever expected. In that situation, a
rebuilding stock, you can--you can have harvest on that stock
and it's sustainable. It's not true for every fishery.
In the United States, we have a process that we can
guarantee that we're going to respond and manage the
sustainable levels. That's not true everywhere else. So there
is a difference, but when you buy into sustainability, you're
buying into the process under which it's managed. And you
either support that process or not, because fish stocks are
going to vary in any given year. There are going to be more or
less, and you can't ever predict exactly how many fish there
are going to be, but you can have some assurance that the
government or the regulating industry is going to take that
into account and set a scientifically-based quota.
Senator Heinrich. And, when you mention scientifically-
based quotas, one of the things that comes to mind is when I
was--I had the unfortunate experience of having to take almost
30 hours of math in college. And one of the things that we
learned about were these equations that define a species, you
know, take what happened with the passenger pigeon and it's
happened to certain cod stocks and other things where you have
an absolute line where as long as you're above that line, the
fish stock will grow and you will slowly but surely move your
way back to a healthy stock at a much higher level. But if you
dip below that line you can, actually, the equation sort of
flips and you go to zero. In other words, next year there will
be less and the next year there will be less until there's
nothing left based on--how do you incorporate those kinds of
models into your ability to make sure stock never reaches that
point?
Mr. Rauch. Well, we do manage to ensure the stocks never
reach that point. Our sustain--our level of overfished fishing
is far above the level in which we would have an endangered
species concern. The--it is conceivable you could fish a
species all the way to extinction if you didn't manage it well.
And so we ensure----
Senator Heinrich. Or at least functional extinction where
you have----
Mr. Rauch. Functional extinction. Exactly.
Senator Heinrich. You know, you still have the fish but it
never regains its prominence in the ecosystem and as a fishable
large scale part of that system.
Mr. Rauch. Right.
So we're managing to economic sustainability. We're
managing to ensure that the fishery not only to--that the fish
still exist, but they exist in marketable, harvestable
quantities which is a much higher level.
So those are--all those equations are built into our stock
assessments; they are built into our targets for what we are
trying to achieve. Now we the vast majority of those 446 stocks
we manage are well over those lines. There are a number of them
in the tens that are under rebuilding plans that we are
concerned about. But we--but none of them are in any danger of
an endangered species act listing.
Senator Heinrich. OK. Thank you, Mr. Rauch.
Senator Begich. Thank you very much, Senator.
Next, Senator Markey, thank you for attending. And I know
this probably is a good subject, because you introduced a
companion bill on some legislation. So now you're here. So you
get to be part of the bill here.
So, welcome and, please, you have--we have five minutes and
then we do have a vote, just to make sure people know. I think
it's still scheduled for 11:45. We'll wait to see and then
we'll have another panel coming up right after this.
STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD MARKEY,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS
Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. And I
just want to associate myself with your comments on the
importance of being able to trace fish from bait to the plate.
And, as you were saying, I have been able to introduce the Safe
Seafood Act in the House and in the Senate. And I think it's
important for us to be able to move that forward to protect
American fishermen from being exploited by this rampant fraud
which is taking place with the mislabeling of fish in a way
that undermines the good-faith effort of American fishermen to
provide high-quality food for Americans.
And let me begin with Mr. Blue. The U.S. Atlantic's spiny
dogfish population is certified as sustainable under the Marine
Stewardship Council. Yet prices remain extremely low, less than
15 cents a pound. Dogfish are tasty, sustainable, abundant and
yet our Massachusetts fishermen can't make a living catching
them.
Isn't it correct that dogfish qualify as sustainable under
the purchasing guidelines? Is that--in that case, why isn't the
U.S. Government buying more dogfish?
Mr. Blue. Thank you, Senator.
I am, honestly, going to have to take that for the record
and come back to you. I don't have the data on how much or any
dogfish that's been purchased.
Senator Markey. Well, it's very important for us in
Massachusetts, in New England, to have that issue addressed.
Dogfish are clearly something that can play a big role in the
revitalization of the Massachusetts and New England fishermen.
Mr. Rauch, times are very hard in New England fisheries.
The entire Massachusetts delegation is working together to
encourage the Small Business Administration to help our
fishermen, and we're looking at ways to market other stocks
like dogfish. What is your view on the New England fisheries?
How can we preserve that 300-year history of fishing?
Mr. Rauch. Thank you, Senator.
I think some aspects of the New England fisheries are quite
vibrant. The scallop industry is the most--one of the most
lucrative fisheries in the country. But, it is clear that the
groundfish portion of that fishery is facing difficult times.
There are less fish. The Gulf of Maine was the warmest on
record last year. That seems to be having an effect on the
juvenile cod, which is the iconic species of groundfish, and
the cod just aren't there. We have cut the quota, but they're
still not catching even the reduced quota that we've cut. So
they're having difficult times. We are aware of that.
We have tried to do a number of things to try to compensate
for the lack of fish. We have made--there are a number of
healthy stocks that we have tried to make more accessible;
raising the limits on healthy stocks, allowing change to the
regulatory burdens so that they can better access that.
Some of the problems are outside of the fisheries direct
regulatory control. So we've tried to host discussions with
Labor, Small Business Administration. For instance, on October
1, we are hosting a webinar with the Small Business
Administration and agriculture department to help work through
this loan issue with them so that fishermen are better able and
know how to apply for these small business loans and those kind
of issues. We've talked with the Labor Department about things
that they may be able to do to bring on there.
This is a very difficult issue and we are very concerned
about the future of that fishing industry. And we're trying to
do all that we can to assist in this process. The biggest
problem; however, is there are no fish. And, until we can solve
that problem, we're going to have this long term problem with
the fishermen.
Senator Markey. So which healthy stocks have you raised the
limits for?
Mr. Rauch. We can get you the exact answer, but I believe
we have raised the limits for pollock, for red fish, for
dogfish and others.
Senator Markey. OK.
And, on the issue of the Gulf of Maine being the warmest
recorded temperatures----
Mr. Rauch. Yes.
Senator Markey.--in history. Can you just briefly elaborate
on that.
Mr. Rauch. So----
Senator Markey. And the impact that it has on the juvenile
cod----
Mr. Rauch. And so, my understanding is that the--the
surface temperature of the Gulf of Maine, they've measured it
for the last 150 years, and last year was the warmest in the
summer that it has ever been. We have seen--we used to believe
that there was a very direct correlation between fishing
pressure and stocks. So that if you cut--if you cut fishing,
you lower the quota, the stocks will recover. The fishermen for
cod have been facing lower and lower quotas throughout the
2000s. We expected the cod to recover and, in 2008, we saw
signs of juvenile cod which we thought were going to recover,
but they never grew up into big cod. We don't know what
happened to them.
One theory, which is the subject of a peer review study
came out, is that because of the changing temperature in the
Gulf of Maine that changed the phytoplankton composition that
they eat and they're better--and they--they're subject to more
mortality to get the new kind of phytoplankton.
So the temperature change may have caused the cod to be
less survivable in the Gulf of Maine, which would explain why
the juvenile cod never grew up. So it may be a contributing
factor to the decline in cod that we are seeing. We can't
predict conclusively, but there was a peer-reviewed study that
last summer that indicated that is a likely contributing
factor.
Senator Markey. OK, great. Thank you. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much.
And to the panels, and first, Senator Markey, thank you for
your last question, because I know one of the issues that we
are struggling with here in Congress is the issue of
acknowledging, by some in Congress, that actually climate
change is occurring. It's impacting--warming of the waters,
acidification of the waters--it's impacting industry all across
this country. That is dramatic job creator and important for
our food supply and food chain and yet it is impacting us. And
that last comment was a very important point to remind people
that all the great science that we're doing is fantastic, but
there is something else happening that we have to be aware of,
and I know that you've been a leader, in the House side
especially and a leader here in the Senate, on this issue. So--
and Alaska is ground zero when it comes to climate change
issues. I know when you say climate change some bolt of
lightning strikes you around here by some, but you can argue
into science all you want, but you just gave an additional fact
and I'm sure in Alaska waters we would give additional facts of
where there are impacts. And you know them.
And so we have to ensure that as we work down the road on
fishery issues and these broad issues, there's the broader
issue of climate change. We have to acknowledge it, figure out
the right approach. We may differ on some of our approaches,
but we believe in the same thing. That it's happening. And we
have to find that common ground and get there because we are
seeing impacts right now in our fisheries.
So, thank you for that last comment that you made. That was
very important.
Senator Markey. If I may----
Senator Begich. Sure.
Senator Markey. Mr. Chairman, yes. And again, it's called
Cape Cod.
[Laughter.]
Senator Markey. And the sacred cod is the symbol of the
State of Massachusetts.
Senator Begich. Yes.
Senator Markey. It hangs in the State legislature. So this
testimony helps us to understand a little bit about what's
going on. And we have to explore, more fully, because if you're
linking the warming of the waters to historically warm waters
to a decline in juvenile cod then, again, that goes right to
the heart of the iconic symbol of the state.
So I thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much.
Senator Begich. Thank you very much. To the panel, thank
you very much.
Mr. Blue, especially thank you, for--I know you were
thinking, why do I have to come to this, it's going to be not
fun. But your announcement this morning is very helpful.
As we know--also the Parks Services contacted us today,
also indicated to us clearly that they're going to follow this
guideline which is one of the agencies that kind of stirred
this whole issue up in a way that was not the right approach
that they were taking.
So thank you for your new guidelines. Thank you for your
follow-up you will be doing. And we will, as you can imagine as
an oversight committee, working with you to make sure that
happens and how that response is from agencies.
Mr. Rauch, thank you for all your testimony and all the
information you've laid on the table. Thank you very much.
We'll now have the next panel come forward. Panel two; I'll
start introducing them as they come forward. We'll have:
Stefanie Moreland, Special Assistant, Office of Governor Sean
Parnell, State of Alaska; Mr. Jeffrey Rice, Senior Director,
Sustainability, Wal-Mart Stores; Mr. Michael Montelongo, Senior
Vice President for Public Policy Corporate Affairs with Sodexo;
and Mr. John Connelly, President of National Fisheries
Institute.
We'll take people in that order, so folks know. We
appreciate your attendance here today.
Again, we'll have to vote at 11:45, but we'll continue the
meeting as long as I can afford--I become the last vote of the
tally.
If folks can grab their chairs and come forward.
Stef, good to see you. And Stefanie, we're going to start
with you once everyone is settled.
Again, thank you all very much for your attendance.
I see four and I have five names on my list. No, I have
four. What am I thinking? Bad eyes. See what happens when you
get over 50. It's all going downhill.
Stefanie, thank you very much for being here. Thank you for
representing the State of Alaska. And, thank you for your
participation down at a couple of events we've been at in
Alaska on some issues around fisheries.
So let me start with you and then we'll just kind of go
right down the row, if that's OK.
STATEMENT OF STEFANIE MORELAND, FISHERIES POLICY
ADVISOR TO GOVERNOR SEAN PARNELL, ON BEHALF OF THE STATE OF
ALASKA
Ms. Moreland. Thank you and good morning, Chairman Begich,
and distinguished members of the Committee.
My name is Stefanie Moreland. I am the Policy Advisor for
Fisheries to Alaska Governor Sean Parnell. And I'm honored to
be here today representing the State of Alaska and the 63,000
hardworking men and women in our seafood industry, and the many
communities that depend upon our fishery resources.
I am here to share Alaska's experience with sustainable
fisheries management and our concerns over seafood
certification undermining good governance and public processes
established by the State of Alaska and by Congress. I also
support your attention to the need for Congressional direction
to Federal agencies to support responsibly managed U.S.
fisheries through their purchasing policies.
In Alaska, we have strong state and Federal fisheries
management programs. Sustainability is not a trend or a market
ploy, it's a way of life and law of the land. The fishing
industry is our largest private sector employer. And as you
know, Alaska mandates sustainability of fisheries and its
constitution.
We put fish first in our management practices. This means
fishermen are often called upon to make short-term sacrifices
for the long-term health of the resource. In our Federal
fisheries, no species of Alaska seafood is listed as
overfished. And the North Pacific Fishery Management Council
has never set a catch limit above the level recommended by
science advisors.
In many cases, Alaska has pioneered management initiatives
that have been adapted nationwide. The State of Alaska manages
salmon to ensure a stock not only survives but thrives. Our
state's commitment to the sustainability of Alaska salmon
resources codified in regulation, and in our sustainable salmon
fisheries policy and companion policy for escapement goals. Our
policies and management plans are backed by investment in
science and research and management staff across the state with
authority to act on the best available information.
Sustainability is also mandated by U.S. law in the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, or
MSA. The most recent comprehensive MSA amendments mandated the
adherence to scientific catch limits, applying nationwide
policies that had been in place in the North Pacific region for
decades.
Both Alaska and the U.S. have been held up as models of
responsible management and have some of the best managed
fisheries in the world. This globally-recognized success has
been achieved through transparent, science-based, and
participatory fisheries governance structures; not in response
to a private sustainability standard.
Alaska operates in a global marketplace, exporting fish
products to over a hundred countries. Despite our decades-old
track record, a recent movement has gained momentum though
requires third-party certification of sustainability as a
precursor or qualification to maintain market access. We
believe this is unnecessary for Alaska or U.S. fisheries, but
recognize the reality that certification has become important
in some markets to provide outside independent verification of
sustainability.
Just over 10 years ago, Alaska salmon was the first major
fishery certified by the private London-based Marine
Stewardship Council, or MSC. The MSC touted Alaska salmon as a
pioneer in sustainability and best available choice in seafood.
We believe this high praise is still well deserved. But over
the years, we found that eco-label movement has become more
about brand protection and restricting market access than
sustainability. In 2011, Alaska's leading salmon producers
decided to withdraw from the MSC program. They saw the Alaska
brand being eroded and replaced by a generic eco-label.
Also, the MSC model allows for conditional certification,
providing equivalent market access and credentials for lower-
achieving fisheries. Responsibly-managed fisheries are
disadvantaged by this approach and consumers are unable to
distinguish a truly sustainable fishery from one that has been
granted a heavily-conditioned certification.
As a result, Alaska, in collaboration with other high-
achieving fisheries, advanced an alternative certification
model, robust enough to satisfy any responsibly corporate
social responsibility policy. This alternative, called
Responsible Fisheries Management, or RFM Certification Program,
is ISO accredited. It's the only one to achieve this standard.
No single eco-label label should serve, or should--should
strive to serve as the only litmus test for sustainability.
This undermines the U.S. system of fisheries governance and
Alaska's world-class fisheries management program.
Finally, we were troubled to recently learn that some U.S.
Federal agencies have relied upon MSC certification as an
indicator of sustainable--of seafood sustainability in their
policies regarding procurement and sale of seafood. This
disadvantages Alaska and allows other seafood from around the
country. We understand that Senator Murkowski has recently
introduced legislation to address the issue and to address the
current misguided Federal policies and request your attention
to the issue.
We will continue our efforts to ensure that American and
international consumers have access to the quality sustainable
seafood that we produce and the information to make informed
choice. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Moreland follows:]
Prepared Statement of Stefanie Moreland, Fisheries Policy Advisor to
Governor Sean Parnell, on behalf of the State of Alaska
Good morning, Chairman Begich, Ranking Member Rubio, and
distinguished members of the Committee.
My name is Stefanie Moreland, and I am the Policy Advisor for
Fisheries to Alaska Governor Sean Parnell. I am honored to be here
today representing the State of Alaska, the 63,000 hard-working men and
women in our seafood industry, and the many communities that depend
upon our fishery resources.
To Alaskans across our state, fish are not only an economically and
socially significant source of food, but a vital and integral mainstay
to our economy as a renewable natural resource. The fishing industry is
our largest private sector employer, providing gainful employment to
tens of thousands of residents and non-residents alike each year in
both the harvesting and processing sectors. Alaska is home to four of
the Nation's top ten fishing ports when measured by volume of landings,
and six of the top ten when measured by value.\1\ If Alaska were a
nation, it would rank among the top ten in the world for seafood
production. The seafood industry is second only to the Alaska oil
industry in generating State revenue. At the same time, fish support
customary and traditional subsistence needs for Alaska Natives,
supplement the food needs of thousands of Alaskans, and provide
recreational opportunities for Alaskans as well as for hundreds of
thousands of Americans who visit our state, bringing income to
businesses and communities of all sizes. It is no exaggeration to say
that fishing touches the life of every single Alaskan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ State of Alaska, Department of Labor and Workforce Development,
Alaska's Fishermen: Harvests, Earnings, and Their Other Jobs, by Jack
Cannon and Josh Warren (Alaska Economic Trends, November 2012), 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska is home to fisheries managed by the State and Federal
governments, jointly. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game, under
regulations crafted by the Alaska Board of Fisheries, manages about 750
distinct fisheries within State waters that extend to three miles from
Alaska's shoreline. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), a
branch of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, manages
fisheries outside of State waters and within the 200 mile U.S.
exclusive economic zone (EEZ), which comprises roughly 842,000 square
nautical miles around Alaska. The North Pacific Fisheries Management
Council is the regulatory body tasked with creating the programs,
conservation, and fishery objectives that NMFS implements.
In Alaska, sustainability is not a trend, a movement, a fad, a
marketing ploy, or a label; it is a way of life and the law of the
land. It is an industry and scientific imperative. Alaska is the only
state which mandates the sustainability of fisheries in its
Constitution, which states in Article 8, Section 4 that ``Fish . . .
and all other replenishable resources belonging to the state shall be
utilized, developed, and maintained on the sustained yield principle. .
. .'' We put fish first in our management practices, and fishermen are
often called upon to make short term sacrifices for the long term
health of the resource. During the last two summers, for example,
multiple fisheries in Upper Cook Inlet, targeting a variety of species,
endured severe restrictions in order to ensure adequate spawning
escapement for one specific salmon species migrating through the area
to spawn in streams. No species of Alaska seafood is listed as over-
fished and the North Pacific Fishery Management Council has never set a
catch limit above the level recommended by our scientists. In many
cases, Alaska has pioneered management initiatives that have been
adopted nationwide.
Alaska's first Department of Fisheries was created in 1949--a full
decade before Alaska gained statehood. The goal of the Territorial
Legislature in instituting the Department was to ``overcome the present
depleted condition of the salmon runs,'' strengthen Alaskan control of
Alaskan fisheries, and coordinate with Federal fisheries management.\2\
Challenges at the time included salmon stocks devastated by the use of
fish traps, which essentially created local monopolies over fish runs,
and foreign encroachment into Alaskan fishing waters. Shortly
thereafter, in accordance with a vote of the people, fish traps were
removed across the state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ State of Alaska, Department of Fish and Game, Sustaining
Alaska's Fisheries: Fifty Years of Statehood, by Bob King (January
2009), 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department worked in ensuing years to protect the fishing
rights of Alaskans and gain a stronger voice for individual fishermen
in the creation of regulations over their livelihoods. Alaska's
independent ability to manage its own fisheries was seen as
inextricably linked to another issue under debate--statehood. Bill
Egan, our first State Governor, stated shortly after the passage of
Alaska statehood, ``it is a requirement toward remolding the shattered
remnants of a once unparalleled fishery which, under distant
bureaucratic control, has been in sharp decline for more than two
decades. Now for the first time, Alaskans are free to exercise their
own judgment on a course of action to rebuild this resource in the
common good to its earlier position of eminence.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Ibid., 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska's efforts to return depleted salmon runs to sustainable
levels centered around scientific understanding, conservation, and
rehabilitation. In the early 1970s, salmon levels were alarmingly low,
and a hatchery program was introduced by the State Legislature to
augment salmon production.
The Department manages salmon fisheries strictly to meet a stock's
escapement goal--the number of fish needed to migrate upriver and spawn
to ensure a stock not only survives, but thrives. This means fishermen
are often denied the opportunity to fish if necessary to ensure
adequate escapement and robust future yields. Alaska's efforts to
conserve wild salmon runs paid off richly in the early 1980s, which saw
record returns in historic Bristol Bay fisheries and on the Kuskokwim,
and strong runs throughout other regions of the state. While salmon
continued to dominate Alaska fisheries policy, other fisheries
developed under State management. King crab, shrimp, herring roe, and
other species types gained new prominence as species sought across the
world, and the state took on the responsibility for managing these for
sustainable yield as well. The 2013 salmon season saw the highest
overall salmon harvest in recorded history, with a record 269 million
salmon harvest to date in the waters off Alaska.
Our state's commitment to the sustainability of Alaska's salmon
resources is further codified in regulation with the policy for the
management of sustainable salmon fisheries and the companion policy for
statewide salmon escapement goals. The sustainable salmon fisheries
policy was a comprehensive effort on behalf of the Alaska Department of
Fish and Game and the Alaska Board of Fisheries, with unparalleled
public and user group input conducted from 1996-1999. This policy was
the first of its kind for Pacific salmon and preceded policies from
both national and international agencies.
The success of our management and regulatory framework as it
pertains to the present health and vitality of Alaska's salmon resource
is directly linked to: the health of our salmon spawning and rearing
environments; the application of sound, responsible, conservative
management practices; and our observation and application of lessons
learned in other jurisdictions regarding what wild Pacific salmon need
to sustain healthy productive populations. The aforementioned policies
in concert offer direct instruction on all aspects of salmon life
history, what processes must be followed if a particular salmon stock
is challenged at maintaining sustained yield and finally, that defined
escapement goals are the underpinning of our management responsibility.
Sustainability is also mandated by U.S. law in the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA). With the passage of the
MSA in 1976, the United States EEZ limit was extended to 200-miles
offshore, and foreign overfishing was banned. The Act also created
regional councils to oversee management of fisheries within the EEZ and
outside of state waters, with Alaska alone constituting a single region
due to the tremendous range and size of its fisheries. Comprehensive
amendments in 2006 mandated adherence to scientific catch limits and
rebuilding timeframes for overfished stocks, codifying nationwide
policies that had been in place in the North Pacific region for
decades.
Both Alaska and the U.S. have been held up as models of responsible
management and have some of the best-managed fisheries in the world.
This globally recognized success has been achieved through a
transparent, science-based, and participatory fisheries governance
structure, and not because of any private, changeable environmental NGO
sustainability standard. Recently, European Union Commissioner for
Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, Oceans, and Seas, now faced with
righting a failed common fishery policy in Europe, remarked that ``I
want to pay tribute to the U.S. for their great achievements in
managing fisheries in accordance with the best available science and
ending overfishing. . . . The U.S. has shown us the way on
sustainability. . . .'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ PECH Committee of the European Parliament, Our Common Future
Hearing, 30 May 2012, http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-12-
398_en.htm?locale=en.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Pew Charitable Trust and Ocean Conservancy just released a
report stating ``success in managing and rebuilding America's fisheries
ranks among the leading achievements of marine resource management in
the world.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The Law That's Saving American Fisheries: The Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The Pew Charitable Trusts, and
Ocean Conservancy Washington (May 6, 2013), http://
www.pewenvironment.org/news-room/reports/the-law-thats-saving-american-
fisheries-the-magnuson-stevens-fishery-conservation-and-management-act-
85899472108.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska operates in a global marketplace exporting fish products to
over 100 countries. Despite our decades old track record of
sustainable, science-based management, a recent movement has gained
momentum that requires third-party certification of sustainability as a
precursor or qualification to maintain market access. We believe this
is completely unnecessary for Alaska or U.S. fisheries, but the reality
is that certification has become important in some markets as the only
way to provide outside verification of sustainability.
Just over ten years ago, Alaska salmon was the first major fishery
certified by the private London-based Marine Stewardship Council (MSC).
The MSC touted Alaska salmon as a ``pioneer in sustainability,'' a
``very special and iconic fishery'' and a ``best environmental choice
in seafood.'' They stated ``Alaska's fishery management system is among
the most comprehensive and intensive of any fishery in the world.'' \6\
We believe this high praise was and is still well-deserved. Alaska's
fisheries have thrived under a system of local management and world
class research embraced in Alaska since the formation of the first
Department of Fisheries, and are still known today for cutting-edge
expertise in genetics, pathology, and population abundance modeling
that informs management decisions on a day-to-day basis during busy
fishing seasons and in the crafting of regulations. Regulations
pertaining to overall management schemes for all fisheries are
developed and regularly reviewed in a process that was designed to keep
management apolitical, public, and accessible to stakeholders. This
management model is respected worldwide and was the original example of
what a fishery certified by the MSC should look like.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ http://www.msc.org/get-certified/news/newsitem/alaska-salmon-
re-certified-for-sustainable-fishing; http://www.msc.org/track-a-
fishery/fisheries-in-the-program/in-assessment/pacific/tem
plate-fishery-in-assessment/sustainability-notes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, over the years, we have found that the eco-label movement
has become more about brand protection and restricting market access
than sustainability. In 2011, Alaska's leading salmon producers decided
to withdraw from the MSC program. They saw the Alaska brand being
eroded and replaced by a generic eco-label. They were frustrated with
increased fees and most of all with the fact that the conditions for
maintaining certification were continually changing, despite the fact
that the fishery management system has maintained the same high
standards. This certification model effectively undermines the
management of our authority over our fisheries governance process and
structure by threatening to restrict access to markets based on our
adherence to the changing standards of an entity completely unconnected
and unaccountable to our state or nation.
Furthermore, the MSC model allows for conditional certification,
thus providing equivalent market access and credentials for lower-
achieving fisheries. For example, the Russian pollock fishery has just
achieved MSC certification despite some very significant conditional
requirements for future improvement, providing it with the same market
credentials as the much higher-achieving Alaska pollock fishery.
Responsibly managed fisheries are disadvantaged by this approach and
consumers are unable to distinguish a truly sustainable fishery from
one that has been granted heavily conditioned certification.
As a result, Alaska, in collaboration with other high-achieving
fisheries like those in Iceland, advanced an alternative certification
model. We undertook this effort in order to provide a business to
business certification that does not impart labeling fees on the
industry and one robust enough to satisfy any reasonable Corporate
Social Responsibility policy. This alternative, called the Responsible
Fishery Management (RFM) certification program, is directly based on
the United Nations (U.N.) Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Code
of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, and assesses whether or not a
fishery is conforming to criteria and principles set forth in the
following FAO documents:
The FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, 1995
The FAO Guidelines for Eco-labeling of Fish and Fishery
Products from Marine Capture Fisheries, 2005/2009
The FAO Fisheries Circular No. 917, J. Caddy, October 1996
These guiding documents are considered the best globally acceptable
and balanced framework for fisheries certification, and were developed
through the U.N.'s Committee on Fisheries and a multi-stakeholder
process which involved relevant U.N. agencies and international
government and non-governmental organizations. The Code itself was the
subject of a technical consultation open to the involvement of all FAO
members, intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations, and
interested non-FAO members, in order to gain the broadest possible
range of stakeholder input. They are publicly owned and utilized by
many certification schemes and fisheries managers. An International
Organization for Standardization (ISO) accredited Certification Body
(Global Trust) simply took the FAO documents that were created through
a multi-stakeholder process, and put them into an auditable format.
The RFM program has achieved ISO 65 accreditation, ensuring that it
is an objective third-party process. ISO is a global standards setting
organization founded in 1947 that promotes worldwide proprietary,
industrial and commercial standards. Strong stakeholder engagement and
access is a hallmark of ISO certification. The ISO process includes
site visits by the Assessment Team at the validation and assessment
stages to meet with the applicant and the fishery's scientific,
enforcement, and management entities.
Opportunity for independent public stakeholder input is provided
for both during the assessment process, and on an ongoing basis
throughout the annual surveillance audit process. The State of Alaska's
Seafood Marketing Institute, for example, has conducted extensive
stakeholder outreach, meetings, and publicized information online in
order to assist the Alaska seafood industry and other interested
stakeholders in understanding and engaging in the new certification
process.
In reviewing how the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries
is referenced as a standard, it is clear that RFM Certification honors
the intentions of FAO:
The Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries was approved in
1995 by the Twenty-eighth session of the Committee on Fisheries
of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
as a suitable basis for judging whether living aquatic
resources are being harvested in a way which is compatible with
sustainable development. . .. Which can be used for an
evaluation by the managers themselves or those involved in
certification of a fishery as `responsible' as defined under
the Code. (FAO Circular #917).
In this way, RFM provides independent verification that a fishery
is managed in accordance with these respected international norms
agreed to by the 194 member nations of the FAO. No other fishery
certification has achieved the ISO's rigorous, high level of
accreditation.
Alaska has led the way in promoting choice in seafood certification
to ensure a monopolistic private eco-labelling scheme does not block
market access for responsible fisheries. No single eco-label should
serve, or should strive to serve, as the only litmus test for
sustainability. This monopolistic situation only harms seafood
producers, wholesalers, retailers, and consumers who deserve an
objective evaluation of fisheries sustainability and a choice in who
they do business with.
As evidenced by our record salmon returns this year, Alaska's
science-based approach to fishery management works. But despite our
collective efforts we have experienced a restriction to market access
due to environmental NGO pressure on global retail, foodservice, and
seafood distributors to subscribe to only one third-party certification
program. This undermines the U.S. system of fishery governance, and a
world-class fisheries management system responsible for making Alaska
renowned as the source of some of the world's best seafood. Ultimately,
it undermines thousands of Alaskans working some of the hardest jobs,
from those working entire days hauling crab pots or seine nets, to
those carefully processing seafood, to the communities that live around
the cycles of the fishing seasons.
We were particularly troubled to learn that some U.S. Federal
agencies have relied upon MSC certification as an indicator of seafood
sustainability in their policies regarding procurement and sale of
seafood on Federal property. This disadvantages Alaska and other
seafood from around the country. We understand Senator Murkowski has
recently introduced legislation to address these current misguided
Federal policies and request your attention to the issue.
While it is outside the scope of this committee, continued funding
for the Farm Bill's Market Access Program is also important. This
program is an essential funding source which helps us promote Alaska
seafood and the RFM alternative certification program internationally.
We will continue our efforts to ensure that Alaskan fishermen and
processors have access to markets for their products and American and
international consumers have access to the quality, sustainable seafood
we produce along with the information to make an informed choice. Thank
you.
Senator Begich. Thank you very much.
Mr. Rice.
STATEMENT OF JEFFREY RICE, SENIOR DIRECTOR,
SUSTAINABILITY, WAL-MART STORES, INC.
Mr. Rice. Chairman Begich----
Senator Begich. Is your microphone on there?
Mr. Rice. It is now.
Senator Begich. There we go.
Mr. Rice. Chairman Begich, thank you for the opportunity to
join you today and explain the sustainability and seafood
procurement at Wal-Mart.
Because of the recent developments, my comments today will
focus mostly on Alaska and our recent engagement with the
Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute. However, we expect that the
thoughtful process to address the issue with Alaskan salmon
will help solve potential issues with other species and other
fisheries.
We understand the importance of this issue to you and
particularly to our many customers employed in the seafood
industry. Our customers have high expectations of us and they
should. They expect that we will sell safe, affordable and
healthy food and that we'll work with our suppliers to ensure
products they provide from us are produced, man--manufactured
and harvested responsibly.
Let me provide a little background on Wal-Mart's strong
commitment to sustainability. In 2005, we announced three broad
goals toward becoming a more sustainable business. These
include a commitment to be supplied 100 percent by renewable
energy; to create zero waste from our operations; and to sell
products that sustain people and the environment.
We have made significant progress on these areas. Our
U.S.--excuse me our U.S. stores now divert over 80 percent of
our waste from landfill. We now receive 21 percent of our
energy from renewable sources globally. And we've improved the
efficiency of our U.S. truck fleet by 80 percent since 2005.
We also have made significant progress on product
sustainability through our partnership with the sustainability
consortium and our development of the sustainability index. TSC
is a university-led, science-based, multi-stakeholder
organization that is developing tools that allow retailers and
suppliers to understand, measure and improve the sustainability
of their products.
As part of this initiative, we've committed to promote
seafood sustainability worldwide. Wal-Mart implemented a policy
in 2006, and updated it in 2011, which requires that all fresh
and frozen, farmed and wild-caught seafood products we sell
meet one of the following points: To become certified by an
independent third-party as sustainable using Marine Stewardship
Council or Best Aquaculture Practices; to become certified by
an independent third-party under standards that equivalently
lead to sustainable fisheries; to be currently under assessment
for such certification; or to be part of a credible fisheries
improvement project or fishery management program.
Alaskan fisheries have been meeting our sustainable seafood
policies and have demonstrated a strong commitment to ensuring
the viability of the fishery. We're very pleased that, over the
past 2 years, Wal-Mart and Sam's Club have purchased well over
50 million pounds of fresh and frozen seafood from Alaska that
meets these commitments. And we're confident that we'll be able
to continue to purchase seafood from Alaska that meets these
requirements.
Recently, the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute engaged an
external party to develop a new sustainability seafood
certification called the Responsible Fisheries Management, and
to move away Marine Stewardship Council. We respect ASMI's
decision to take this step. Our goal is to ensure, in a
credible way, that we're sourcing from sustainable fisheries.
As outlined in our policy, we believe strongly that there can
and should be multiple standards and certifications that
demonstrate sustainable fisheries.
We are not experts on sustainability and we are certainly
not experts on fisheries management. Because of the emergence
of these new certification schemes, including the ASMI
initiated Responsible Fisheries Management Certification; we
have asked the Sustainability Consortium to lead an open
process to develop criteria and principles to evaluate new
standards that are emerging. The principles and criteria
developed through this process will allow us to know with
confidence which standards lead to sustainable fisheries and
will identify opportunities for improvement in those standards
that don't.
For standards that don't yet meet the principles and
criteria, we're committed to working with them in good faith to
address what gaps exist.
We encourage ASMI and the Responsible Fisheries Management
Program, as well as other certifications, to engage in the open
process with TSC to develop principles and criteria to evaluate
sustainable fisheries program. Wal-Mart expects to continue
selling our customers Alaskan seafood for decades to come.
After all, our goals are shared goals: To continue to provide
customers with delicious and sustainable seafood.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rice follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jeffrey Rice, Senior Director, Sustainability,
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
On behalf of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (Walmart), thank you for the
opportunity to join you today and talk about sustainability and seafood
procurement at Walmart.
We understand the importance of this issue and the impact it has on
all of us--on our customers, suppliers, partners, and particularly our
many Alaskan customers employed in the seafood industry.
Our customers depend on us for safe, affordable and healthy seafood
for their families. They love Alaskan seafood, and so do we. We plan on
selling Alaskan seafood to our customers this year, next year, and far
into the future.
Our customers have high expectations of us, and they should. They
expect that we will work together with our suppliers to ensure that all
of the products they buy from us are produced, manufactured and
harvested responsibly.
Sustainability at Walmart
Walmart maintains a strong commitment to sustainability. In 2005,
we announced three broad goals toward becoming a more sustainable
business. These include a commitment to be supplied 100 percent by
renewable energy; to create zero waste from our operations; and to sell
products that sustain people and the environment.
We have made significant progress in these areas. Our U.S. Stores
now divert over 80 percent of their waste from landfills through
recycling, donations and composting programs. We now receive 21 percent
of our energy from renewable sources globally, and we've improved the
efficiency of our U.S. truck fleet by 80 percent since 2005.
We've also worked with suppliers to improve the sustainability of
our products across our business. From reducing packaging in toys to
spreading best practices in agriculture and improving energy efficiency
in factories, we're committed to collaborating with our suppliers to
improve the sustainability of the products we sell. We believe
customers shouldn't have to choose between products they can afford and
products that are good for their families and the environment.
We have made significant progress on product sustainability through
our partnership with The Sustainability Consortium (TSC) and our
development of The Sustainability Index. TSC is a university-led,
science-based, multi-stakeholder organization that is developing
science based tools that allow retailers and suppliers to understand,
measure and improve sustainability in their products.
Administered by the University of Arkansas and Arizona State
University, there are currently over 100 member organizations involved
in TSC's work. These include retailers such as Walmart and Kroger, as
well as restaurant chains like McDonald's and Darden, and suppliers
like Coca Cola, Tyson Foods, Dell, and others.
In addition, several agricultural producer groups are members of
TSC, including the National Cattleman's Beef Association, Dairy
Management Inc. and Cotton, Inc. TSC membership also includes over a
dozen academic institutions, civil society organizations, and
government agencies.
Together, members of TSC and other invited experts take the best
science and input to develop practical tools to inform decision makers
and improve sustainability across the supply chain.
These tools form the basis for Walmart's Sustainability Index,
which allow our product buyers to evaluate how their suppliers are
performing on sustainability, and also gives buyers and suppliers key
recommendations for how they can work together to improve the
sustainability of the products our customers buy. From electronics to
shampoo, from cereal to holiday toys, TSC and the Index are helping us
deliver on our commitment to sell products that sustain people and the
environment.
Requirements of Fresh Seafood Suppliers
As part of this initiative, we are committed to promoting seafood
sustainability worldwide. Walmart implemented a policy in 2006 and
updated it in 2011, which requires all fresh and frozen, wild and
farmed seafood products we sell:
become third-party certified as sustainable using Marine
Stewardship Council (MSC) or Best Aquaculture Practices (BAP);
become third-party certified under standards that
equivalently lead to sustainable fisheries;
be currently under assessment for such certification; or
be part of a credible fishery improvement project (FIP) or
fishery management program.
We're very pleased that over the last two years, Walmart and Sam's
Club have purchased well over 50 million pounds of fresh and frozen
seafood from Alaska that meets these commitments, and we're confident
that we'll be able to continue to purchase seafood from Alaska that
meets these requirements well into the future. After all, our goals are
shared goals: to continue to provide our customers with delicious and
sustainable Alaskan seafood for years to come.
Where We Have Been and Our Path Forward
Alaskan fisheries have been meeting our sustainable seafood
policies and have demonstrated a strong commitment to ensuring the
viability of the fishery. Recently, the Alaska Seafood Marketing
Institute (ASMI) engaged an external party to develop a new sustainable
seafood standard and certification. The Alaskan seafood industry has
also taken steps to move away from Marine Stewardship Council toward
this new standard.
We respect ASMI's decision to take this step. Our goal is to
ensure, in a credible way, that we're sourcing from sustainable
fisheries. As outlined in our policy, we believe strongly that there
can and should be multiple standards and certifications that
demonstrate sustainable fisheries.
We are committed to an open and transparent dialogue with our
suppliers and other stakeholders about the standards and policies that
govern our sustainable sourcing programs. We are not experts on
sustainability, however, and we are certainly not experts on fisheries
management.
Because of the emergence of the new certification schemes,
including the ASMI initiated Responsible Fisheries Management
certification, we have identified the need to engage a third-party to
develop the principles and criteria that standards must meet to
demonstrate that they lead to sustainable fisheries.
To this end, we have asked The Sustainability Consortium to lead an
open process to develop these criteria and principles that will give us
the confidence we need that standards and certifications lead to
sustainable fisheries. We'll work with the TSC to build these into the
sustainability index.
Our Ask of Certification Systems (ASMI, MSC and Others)
We will continue the dialogue with ASMI on how we meet our shared
goal of selling sustainable Alaskan fish to our customers.
We encourage ASMI and the Responsible Fisheries Management program,
as well as other certifications, to engage in the open process with The
Sustainability Consortium to develop principles and criteria to
evaluate sustainable fisheries. ASMI has received an invitation to
participate in a TSC workshop to develop these criteria in October. We
hope they will attend.
If through that process there are areas where the Responsible
Fisheries Management certification used by ASMI can be improved, we are
committed to working in good faith with ASMI to address those
opportunities.
Together, we can meet our shared goals and the expectations of our
shared customers for sustainable fisheries. We expect to continue
selling our customers the Alaskan seafood for decades to come.
Senator Begich. Thank you very much.
Next, I have Mr. Montelongo. Please.
STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL MONTELONGO,
SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, SODEXO, INC.
Mr. Montelongo. Good morning, Chairman Begich.
I am Michael Montelongo, Senior Vice President--I'm sorry.
Excuse me. Now I think I have it on.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Montelongo. Excuse me.
As I said, I'm Senior Vice President for Public Policy and
Corporate Affairs at Sodexo and I am responsible for our
government affairs and public policy activities at Sodexo.
On behalf of my 125,000 colleagues who live and work in the
U.S. and the states that you represent, I am honored to testify
before you today on how Sodexo is playing an important role in
marine sustainability.
We believe sustainability impacts the quality of life for
people every day and we'll continue to do so well into the
future. So thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership on this
very important matter.
Sodexo is the global leader in services that improve
quality of life. In North America alone, our 125,000 employees
serve more than 15 million consumers daily at 9,000 client
sites across Canada, Mexico and the U.S., headquartered in
Gaithersburg, Maryland, not very far from here. We are experts
at helping our clients improve their performance and well-being
of their people and their customers.
As one of the largest integrated services companies in the
world, providing more than 100 types of services, we serve a
wide variety of customer segments including hospitals, senior
living communities, colleges and universities, school
districts, corporate environments, Federal Government
facilities and military bases. At the University of Tampa, for
example, Sodexo is helping students and administrators create a
carbon-neutral campus; designing LEED-certified buildings and
implementing renewal energy and water conservation strategies.
Sodexo also cares about its local communities and ending
childhood hunger in America. The Sodexo foundation, an
independent charitable organization, has made more than $20
million in grants toward this cause since its founding in 1999.
Sodexo further supports local community development in other
ways, including our focus on increasing locally sourced,
community-based purchases and programs like our joint venture
in Alaska with NANA Management Services which creates business
and job opportunities in Native Alaskan communities.
As a corporate leader in nutrition, health and wellness, we
are proud to partner with First Lady Michelle Obama in her
``Let's Move!'' campaign. In addition, as a top employer
seeking top talent, we are also honored to partner with the
First Lady's ``Joining Forces'' initiative to hire veterans,
especially those returning from recent conflicts abroad.
All this is about improving quality of life. And we believe
that by improving the quality of life for organizations and
people, we help our clients, their customers and the
communities where we live and serve to grow and succeed.
So, adopting and incorporating the best thinking about
sustainability into our procurement practices is aligned with
that mission. In fact, Sodexo just received a 2013 best-in-
class ranking for social and environmental and economic
responsibility from the Dow-Jones Sustainability Indexes for
the ninth straight year. Sodexo's Better Tomorrow Plan codifies
our approach to sustainability. And guided by this strategic
road map, we operate in a manner that treats sustainability not
as a separate business offer, special program or a stand-alone
marketing campaign, but rather as a key element woven into the
very fabric of our business. Included in our Better Tomorrow
Plan, is a very specific commitment by Sodexo to source 100
percent sustainable seafood in North America by 2015.
Sodexo's commitment to sustainable seafood purchases is
manifest through our buying power and our reach with millions
of individuals we serve every day. We purchase over $200
million in seafood each year, spanning a wide variety of both
wild caught and aquaculture fisheries. For each fishery and
fishing community that we support, our purchasing decisions are
chiefly guided by our customers' demands and our principles.
While we source seafood from a number of states, Sodexo has,
and continues to make, considerable purchases of seafood from
the state of Alaska. In fact, in 2012 Sodexo purchased more--
more than $22 million in seafood from the last frontier state.
That's 6 million pounds of seafood, including nearly 119 tons
of Alaska salmon.
It's important to note that Sodexo's expertise is not is in
seafood certification, excuse me, seafood certification or
fishery management practices, but in delivering the best
quality food service to our discerning customers. For this
reason, we consult and engage with several third-parties and
certifying bodies to inform our strategy around sustainable
seafood. We also work with a variety of advisory bodies to help
us determine which species and fisheries are considered at risk
and should be considered for controls such as certification.
In that regard, we view our sustainability criteria--or I
should say, we review our sustainability criteria for each
species on an annual basis and make determinations about
whether or not we serve those species, if they should be
certified or if there should be other types of controls in
place. To that end, Sodexo is very willing to consider
alternative strategies in conjunction with other external
organizations that help ensure our commitment to sustainability
is based on robust science and addresses consumer demands.
In closing, I would like to reiterate that through our
comprehensive Better Tomorrow Plan, we at Sodexo, see
sustainability, not as a programmatic undertaking, but as a key
element woven into the fabric of our business and mission to
improve the quality of life for our clients, customers and
communities we serve. We remain committed to 100 percent
sustainable seafood in North America by 2015.
We clearly recognize that the way we source seafood plays
an important role in the health of our oceans, the survival of
our fish stocks and impacts all those we serve and the lives of
those working in the seafood industry. Given these facts, our
ongoing support for local fishing communities requires us to be
responsible stewards of the nation's resources and oceans.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership on this
important issue and we look forward to working more with you on
this in the future. And I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Montelongo follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Michael Montelongo, Senior Vice President,
Sodexo, Inc.
Introduction
Good morning Chairman Begich and members of the Subcommittee. I am
Michael Montelongo, Senior Vice President for Public Policy and
Corporate Affairs at Sodexo. I am responsible for our government
affairs and public policy activities at Sodexo. On behalf of our
125,000 employees who live and work in the U.S. and the states you
represent, I am honored to testify before you today on how Sodexo is
playing an important role in marine sustainability. While I regret that
our subject matter expert could not be here with us today, I will do my
best to address this esteemed committee and provide a general overview
of our comprehensive sustainability efforts, guided by what we call the
Better Tomorrow Plan and how it plays a role in promoting sustainable
seafood. We believe sustainability impacts the quality of life for
people every day, and will continue to do so well into the future, so
thank you, Mr. Chairman for your leadership on this important matter.
About Sodexo
Sodexo is the global leader in services that improve quality of
life. As one of the largest integrated services companies in the world,
providing more than 100 types of services, Sodexo touches the lives of
75 million consumers in 80 countries every day. In North America alone,
our 125,000 employees serve more than 15 million consumers daily at
9,000 client sites across Canada, Mexico and all 50 states in the U.S.
Headquartered in Gaithersburg, MD, we at Sodexo see ourselves as
strategic partners with our clients--and we are experts at helping our
clients improve their performance and the well-being of their people
and their customers.
Our range of diversified quality of life services spans facilities
management--from building design, space planning and construction, to
energy management and waste water treatment--and also includes
integrated business strategy development, employee benefits and rewards
solutions, in-home services and our traditional on-site foodservice
operations.
We serve a wide variety of customer segments including hospitals,
senior living communities, colleges and universities, school districts,
corporate environments, Federal Government facilities, and military
bases. At the University of Tampa, for example, Sodexo is helping
students and administrators create a carbon-neutral campus--designing
LEED-certified buildings, implementing renewable energy and water
conservation strategies. Similar work led by Sodexo takes place at
thousands of the sites where we operate all over the U.S.
Sodexo also cares about its local communities and ending childhood
hunger in America. The company fully funds all administrative costs for
Sodexo Foundation, an independent charitable organization that, since
its founding in 1999, has made more than $20 million in grants toward
this cause, mainly funded by the efforts and donations of the company,
its employees and other stakeholders. Sodexo further supports local
community development in other ways including our focus on increasing
locally-sourced, community-based purchases and programs like our joint
venture with NANA Management Services which creates business and job
opportunities in native Alaskan communities.
As a corporate leader in nutrition, health and wellness, we are
proud to partner with First Lady Michelle Obama in her ``Let's Move
Initiative.'' In addition, as a top employer seeking top talent, we are
also honored to partner with the First Lady's ``Joining Forces
Initiative'' to hire veterans, especially those returning from recent
conflicts abroad.
We believe that by improving the quality of life for organizations
and people, we help our clients, their customers and the communities
where we live and serve to grow and succeed.
Sodexo's Better Tomorrow Plan
Adopting and incorporating the best thinking about sustainability
into our procurement practices is consistent with that mission. In
fact, Sodexo just received a 2013 best-in-class ranking for social,
environmental, and economic responsibility from the Dow Jones
Sustainability Indexes (DJSI) for the 9th straight year. A common theme
in our approach to sustainability is our Better Tomorrow Plan. We
operate in a manner that treats sustainability, not as a separate
business offer, special program, or a stand-alone marketing campaign,
but rather as a key element woven into the very fabric of our business.
Included in our Better Tomorrow Plan is a very specific commitment by
Sodexo to source 100 percent sustainable seafood in North America by
2015.
As seafood consumption significantly increases, Sodexo's clients
and customers are also increasingly demanding assurances that their
seafood is sustainable. Seafood consumption worldwide has doubled since
1973; by 2020 it is estimated there will be an additional need of 32
million tons. In the United States alone, per capita consumption of
seafood has increased over 26 percent since 1980. This tremendous
increase in seafood consumption is placing a major stress on our
oceans' natural resources.
Seafood is also an important component of a healthy diet. In fact,
according to the USDA's 2010 Dietary Guidelines and MyPlate, fish and
shellfish should be the main protein on our plates twice a week.
The way we source this seafood has an important impact on the
health of our oceans, the survival of our fish stocks, our clients,
customers, and communities, as well as the livelihoods of those working
in the seafood industry. Our ongoing support for local communities,
including fishing communities, compels us to be better stewards of the
oceans' resources. We know the challenge is a tremendous one that we
cannot solve alone and are therefore committed to working with a
variety of well-respected organizations to best define and enact our
policies.
Sodexo's Seafood Purchasing
Sodexo's commitment to sustainable seafood purchases is manifest
through our buying power and our reach with the millions of individuals
we serve each day. We purchase over $200 million in seafood each year
spanning a wide variety of both wild-caught and aquaculture fisheries.
For each fishery and fishing community that we support, our purchasing
decisions are guided by our customers' demands and our principles.
While we source seafood from a number of states, Sodexo has and
continues to make considerable purchases of seafood from the state of
Alaska. In fact, in 2012 Sodexo purchased more than $22 million in
seafood from ``The Last Frontier'' state. That's 6 million pounds of
seafood, including nearly 119 tons of Alaska Salmon.
Delivering Sustainable Seafood
Sodexo's expertise is not in seafood certification or fishery
management practices, but in delivering the best quality food service
to our discerning customers. For this reason, we rely on, and engage
with several third parties and certifying bodies to inform our strategy
around sustainable seafood. We also work with a variety of advisory
bodies to help us determine which species and fisheries are considered
at risk and should be considered for controls such as certification.
In North America we continue to advance Sodexo's global sustainable
seafood initiative to protect our seafood supply and ocean ecosystems
for future generations. In 2011, we removed 15 ``at risk'' species from
our catalogues and menus. In addition, over the last two years we made
a number of enhancements to our sustainable seafood initiative,
including bringing new supplier partners on board. Sustainable seafood
will continue to be a focus of our sustainability effort in North
America and we expect to see total sustainable seafood purchases,
including certified fish and seafood, increase significantly through
2015.
Validating Sustainable Seafood
As noted previously, Sodexo works with third parties and certifying
organizations to advise us and help us meet our sustainability
commitments. We work globally with a consortium of stakeholders to get
the best practices and developments in the industry to better inform
our sustainability and purchasing policies. Sodexo is a founding
partner and has active representation on the Board of Directors of the
recently launched Global Sustainable Seafood Initiative (GSSI). GSSI is
a strategic alliance of businesses, government bodies and NGOs that
work to improve clarity and transparency around the issue of
sustainable seafood. GSSI's primary objectives aim to: (1) create
flexibility in the use and re-combination of different standards and
verification schemes in the different stages of the supply chain; (2)
create flexibility in the use of different standards and verifications
for meeting different market requirements, and (3) mobilize synergies
among compliance standards and improve the overall standards system. We
understand the goals of this initiative are well-aligned with the
concerns of this subcommittee--to improve the overall system of
standards.
Sodexo recognizes that the needs of its clients and customers vary
and it has always made every effort to accommodate those needs without
straying from its sustainability objectives. We review our
sustainability criteria for each species on an annual basis and make
determinations about whether or not we serve those species; if they
should be certified; or if there should be other types of controls in
place. To that end, Sodexo is willing to consider alternative
strategies in conjunction with other external organizations that help
ensure our commitment to sustainability is based on robust science and
addresses customer demands.
Closing
In closing, I would like to reiterate that through our
comprehensive Better Tomorrow Plan we, at Sodexo, see sustainability
not as a programmatic undertaking, but as a key element woven into the
fabric of our business and mission to improve the quality of daily life
of our clients, customers, and the communities where we live and serve;
we remain committed to sourcing 100 percent sustainable seafood in
North America by 2015.
We clearly recognize that the way we source seafood plays an
important role in the health of our oceans, the survival of our fish
stocks, and impacts all those we serve and the lives of those working
in the seafood industry. Given these facts, our ongoing support for
local fishing communities requires us to be responsible stewards of the
oceans' resources. Thank you again for your leadership on this
important issue and we look forward to working more with you on this in
the future.
Senator Begich. Thank you very much.
Mr. Connelly.
STATEMENT OF JOHN CONNELLY, PRESIDENT,
NATIONAL FISHERIES INSTITUTE
Mr. Connelly. Chairman Begich, Senator Blumenthal, the
National Fisheries Institute, the Nation's largest seafood
trade organization is pleased to present our thoughts on U.S.
Government's actions on third-party seafood certification.
Sustainability is a key component, identifies work and we
rely on a long-term availability of seafood resources, because
obviously no fish means no jobs in the future. Because of this
commitment to the seafood community, I am on the boards of
several global sustainability organizations, but for this
testimony I speak solely as NFI.
Fisheries management must reside with governments where the
state, Federal or intergovernmental. The management of a common
resource while often aided by property rights and meets the
under painting of government oversight. And for that reasons,
NFI is strongly a proponent of NOAA Fisheries and the council
system.
For market reasons, some of our members, especially those
who export seafood, have engaged in certification programs such
as MSC. NFI is unfamiliar with any major changes to U.S.
fishery as a result of these certifications; however, seafood
companies earn continued market access to American and European
market retailers by going through steps beyond what is required
by MSA in getting this third-party certification.
Private sector transactions are based business decisions
that Senator Rubio mentioned in his opening remarks. However,
NFI is concerned when U.S. Government actions require third-
party certifications for the ten reasons outlined in our
written testimony.
It does appear, yesterday, that GSA modified its policies
to reflect the preeminent role that NOAA fisheries should play
in government procurement policy for seafood. NFI supports
these policies and thanks all the senators that were engaged in
helping guide that policy change.
We strongly urge the Department of Interior and the
National Park Service to now follow suit. NPS based their June
guidelines on the GSA policy. And now that GSA has shifted, we
ask NPS to publicly modify its requirements for vendors.
We further urge DOD to make clear that it accepts NOAA
fisheries determinations as sufficient documentation for
sustainability. The Pentagon should make clear to its vendors,
to Navy and Marine mess halls, Army chow lines, or the Air
Force's fine dining establishments that they should not require
third-party certifications to sell American fish to American
sailors, soldiers, Marines and Airmen.
A last point about the root cause of this situation: even
with the change in policy, NFI remains confused about the
singular focus of seafood sustainability. Seafood remains a
well-managed global resource. Seafood uses less water in its
processing and production than other protein. Seafood has a
much better feed conversion ratio than any other protein. And
seafood generates a much lower nutrient load on the environment
than other proteins. So why the focus on seafood sustainability
solely? NFI believes much of this is a communications
challenge. The best way to address the question of NOAA and
sustainability is for NOAA to buy a printing press and develop
a robust Twitter account.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Connelly. NOAA's fishery management is generally
excellent. That's been a common theme throughout this morning.
Yet few in government or the public know this. The fact that
GA--GSA, HHS, and the Park Service develop their policies with
coordinating with NOAA suggests that NOAA is too quiet, even
within the Federal family. This has left others to define what
sustainability is and what it's not.
Congress should require NOAA to develop an integrated
communications strategy that explains, in lay terms, how the
government manages our Nation's fisheries' resources. Part of
that strategy should target institutional buyers of seafood.
You and I, when we go to the grocer or restaurant, do not
really decide among the variety of seafood options available.
Rather, a few buyers at supermarkets decide for us. And too
often, they have pulled seafood from their counters, under
pressure from activist groups, even though NOAA reports the
fish are managed sustainably. NOAA and Congress need to do a
much better and much more aggressive job in explaining to
stores that U.S. fish is caught sustainably.
Most of us don't like to hear the boastful parent on the
soccer field or the co-worker that grabs the credit. But in
this case, it is exactly what NOAA fisheries must do. In a
budget of close to a billion dollars, it is incumbent that NOAA
not just continue to excel technically, but to also explain the
good that they do. NFI appreciates the opportunity to
communicate or share these thoughts with committee.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Connelly follows:]
Prepared Statement of John Connelly, President,
National Fisheries Institute
The National Fisheries Institute (NFI) is pleased to present to the
Senate Commerce Committee Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere,
Fisheries, and Coast Guard our views on ``The Role of Certification in
Rewarding Sustainable Fishing.''
National Fisheries Institute and Its Engagement in Sustainability
The National Fisheries Institute is America's largest seafood trade
association. Its membership includes the entire seafood value chain:
vessels at sea, importers, processing companies, exporters,
distributors, retailers and restaurant groups. The issue of
sustainability is fundamental to the Institute's program because well-
managed fisheries are the life blood of the seafood supply chain.
Without fish there are no warehousemen storing seafood, no workers
cutting fish early in the morning, and no chefs and wait staff
providing diners a nutritious and delicious meal.
NFI's President, John Connelly, serves on several global
sustainability organizations' Board of Directors, including: The World
Bank's ALLFISH program, the tuna-focused International Seafood
Sustainability Foundation (ISSF), and the Marine Stewardship Council
(MSC). NFI also was instrumental in developing the concept of the
Global Seafood Sustainability Initiative (GSSI). The comments submitted
reflect NFI's views and not necessarily the views of ALLFISH, ISSF,
GSSI, or MSC.
National Fisheries Institute Sustainability Policy
NFI's policy is that fisheries management is a fundamental
government function. That is, decisions about fisheries management
should be made through appropriate government decision bodies. In the
case of the United States, fisheries decisions are made through the
Fisheries Management Council system and the implementation of the
Magnuson Stevens Act (MSA). NFI joins with global fisheries experts in
recognizing the NOAA Fisheries-led Council system as robust,
transparent, participatory, and science-based. If a seafood company,
academic, researcher or conservation group wants to influence U.S.
fisheries, they have every opportunity and should engage fully in the
Council system.
Because this peer-reviewed system of U.S. management is so robust,
NFI believes that any fish managed under MSA's 10 National Standards
are sustainable. We acknowledge that some fisheries are still in
rebuilding, but the Councils, NOAA Fisheries, and ultimately the
Secretary of Commerce have the authority to stop harvesting if the
system falters and a fishery becomes in danger.
European Market Demand for Third-Party Certification
NFI also recognizes that some markets, especially in Northern
Europe, seek a third-party certification of sustainability, primarily
MSC. There are a number of theories why European markets demand such
certifications, the most common being the struggles of the European
Union to develop and implement a fisheries policy that protects fish
stocks for the future while maintaining the fishing fleets culturally
and economically important to many European nations. This challenge has
led to concerns about fisheries management in European waters and a
conviction that retailers needed to address the situation. The step
retailers have taken is third-party certification.
Regardless of the rationale, American fisheries are required by
European markets to engage in these third-party certifications. U.S.
fish and fishmeal exports to EU nations totaled nearly $1.2 billion in
2012--21 percent of an overall $5.7 billion export industry. New
England and Alaskan fish exporters in particular cannot ignore their
customers' requests for certification. To do so would be to risk losing
share to foreign competitors that have submitted to the certification
demand.
U.S. Government Policies and Actions Requiring Third-Party
Certification
In the past few years, in an effort to promote healthy food choices
among vendors, the General Services Administration (GSA), with the
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), developed guidelines for
good eating options. NFI welcomes that development, because U.S.
Government policy, promulgated through the Dietary Guidelines for
Americans, encourages Americans to eat seafood at least twice weekly.
However, for seafood and no other protein, GSA and HHS went beyond
healthy eating options and delved into sustainability by requiring
third-party certification.
The GSA serves as the Federal Government's ``chief procurement
officer'' and sets policies that other agencies must adhere to in
buying decisions. The policy GSA establishes impacts the hundreds of
billions of purchases made by the United States Government every year--
and has the potential to spill over into private sector purchasing
decisions as well.
The Department of the Interior and the National Park Service in
June 2013 announced an implementation of GSA policy and that vendors of
seafood at Parks must meet the following:
Sustainable Where seafood options are offered, provide only
Fisheries those that are ``Best Choices'' or ``Good
Alternatives'' on the Monterey Bay Aquarium
Seafood Watch list, certified sustainable by the
Marine Stewardship Council (MSC), or identified
by an equivalent program that has been approved
by the NPS.
The Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) is a London-based organization
that establishes standards for sustainable fisheries. Fisheries seeking
certification retain accredited third parties to review the fisheries
stock status, environmental impacts, and management controls. Fisheries
or consumer products companies wishing to display a logo of
certification pay MSC a fee.
The Monterey Bay Aquarium, a private organization in California,
has established a list of fish it considers a best environmental choice
or an adequate alternative. For graphic balance on handout cards, it
has also compiled a long list of fish that it tells consumers to avoid.
The Aquarium's rating system is not transparent, and most U.S.
fisheries strongly object to how the Aquarium goes about making its
recommendations. In fact, some iconic seafood, such as nearly all
canned tuna, is characterized as ``avoid.''
In addition to the GSA and NPS actions, there are reports that some
vendors to the Department of Defense require suppliers to only source
third party certified seafood for Navy and Marine Corps mess halls,
Army chow lines, or Air Force restaurants.
National Fisheries Institute's Concerns with U.S. Government Policies
and Actions Requiring Third-Party Certification
NFI is deeply concerned about the GSA policy for at least the
following ten reasons:
1. GSA's Policy Questions the Competence of NOAA Fisheries: NOAA
Fisheries is regarded as overseeing a world class fisheries
management system. The GSA policy to require a third party to
certify that seafood caught under the MSA, the 10 National
Standards, and the Councils, calls into question the competence
of NOAA Fisheries. If NOAA Fisheries is doing its job, as
overseen by Congress and the Subcommittee on Oceans,
Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard, why is a third party
necessary? Conversely, if a third party is necessary, then NOAA
must be incompetent.
It is one thing for the private sector to require a third-party
certification as the price of a sale. But it is quite another
for one Federal agency to conclude in effect that its sister
agency is incompetent at carrying out that agency's core
mission.
2. GSA's Policy Reinterprets What is ``Sustainable Seafood'': GSA
policy outlines ``standard criteria'' as requiring contractors
to ``Only offer fish/seafood identified as ``Best Choices'' or
``Good Alternatives'' on the Monterey Bay Aquarium's Seafood
Watch list or certified by Marine Stewardship Council (or
equivalent program).''
GSA has not provided a clear rationale for why NOAA-managed
fisheries, implementing the MSA law that Congress debated and
passed, is an insufficient definition of ``sustainability.''
Rather, GSA is--without analysis or inquiry of its own--ceding
the definition of ``sustainability'' to groups outside
government.
3. GSA's Policy Confuses Which Government Agencies are Responsible
for Food Safety and Sustainability: In a footnote (44) to its
policy, GSA states, ``Examples of ``Best Choices'' do not imply
government endorsement of these standards. Only endorsements
made directly by governing agencies (e.g., USDA, FDA) should be
considered government endorsements.''
NOAA is responsible for fisheries management. FDA is responsible
for seafood safety. A reference to FDA as a ``governing
agency'' that could ``endorse'' a standard on sustainability
reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of GSA's
sister agencies in sustainability decisions.
4. GSA's Policy Questions the $800,000,000 Federal Investment in
Research and NOAA Fisheries Operations: NOAA Fisheries budget
is about $880 million. Much of that spending is on research
that serves as the foundation of Council decisions. Requiring
third-party certification calls into question the value of that
Federal investment in such research.
5. GSA's Policy Increases Costs to Federal Government or Vendors'
Customers: By limiting choices to only fish certified by a
single sustainability group or aquarium's rankings, the GSA
policy is limiting supply. Simple economics suggests that
restrained supplies will increase prices.
In internal NPS communications, NPS Director Jarvis acknowledges,
``sustainable food choices tend to be more expensive.'' This
statement is troubling because there is no indication that
NOAA-managed fisheries are not already sustainable and no
support for why fisheries, and ultimately, GSA's Federal agency
``customers'' must absorb the extra costs to certify their
sustainability.
In the tight fiscal environment, is it appropriate that GSA would
develop and other agencies implement a policy that increases
costs for the government?
6. GSA's Policy, with Its Singular Focus on Fish Sustainability,
Disadvantages Seafood in the Market: The GSA policy only
requires third-party certification or aquarium approval for
seafood. The Department of Interior and NPS implementation of
the GSA policy only references certification requirements for
seafood. There is no indication of why seafood solely is
singled out for this requirement.
GSA oversees procurement policy for paper plates and paper clips,
office supplies and office buildings. Yet GSA has not developed
a policy that requires third party review of those products.
The NPS vendors sell hot dogs on buns and lettuce, tomatoes,
and carrots in salads. Yet NPS does not require the hot dog
maker, the bread maker or the fruit and vegetable farmer to
prove the sustainability of their products.
By requiring seafood to undergo third-party certification, GSA and
implementing agencies are increasing seafood's costs, putting
that healthy protein at a competitive price disadvantage to
other foods. This is particularly troubling as Federal policy,
as described in the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, is for
Federal agencies to encourage increased seafood consumption due
to its health benefits.
7. GSA's Policy Reduces Accountability to Congress: One of the
reasons the U.S. fisheries management system is a success is
that this and other Congressional Committees provide
appropriate oversight of MSA implementation and NOAA Fisheries
operations. The GSA policy and its implementation, though,
begin to cede responsibility for fisheries management to third
party groups. Those groups are not accountable to Congressional
oversight.
As an example, some third parties grant certification with
``conditions.'' These conditions are changes the fishery must
make over a five year period. Several of the conditions may
require action by the government in whose waters the harvest
occurs. In at least some cases, this means that NOAA Fisheries
will be pressured to expend resources to address one fishery's
``condition'' when NOAA feels another fishery's situation
requires more attention and resources. This means that the
third-party certification process, required to maintain markets
in Europe, can and does trump the priorities that Congress and
NOAA have identified as more important.
8. GSA's Policy Provides an Unexplained Preference for One Third-
Party Certification and Aquarium over Others: The GSA policy
states it will accept only MSC certifications or Monterey Bay
Aquarium rankings. NFI questions the technical expertise of HHS
and GSA staff in selecting only these groups for approval.
While both organizations may provide value to some groups, GSA
and HHS have provided no basis for their decisions in selecting
them.
Further, NPS implementation states it will accept an ``equivalent
program that has been approved by the NPS.'' NFI is unaware of
NPS' technical expertise in selecting other programs that it
would deem ``equivalent.''
In response to an NFI letter to Secretary Jewell about the
program, Lena McDowall, DOI Associate Director of Business
Services, wrote to NFI on September 5, 2013, that a revision to
the guidelines ``will no longer endorse a particular certifying
body.'' Even if this change takes place at NPS, it does not
change the underlying GSA policy.
9. GSA's Policy Was Developed Without Consultation with the Impacted
Seafood Community: In an undated memo to ``Associate and
Assistant Directors; Regional Directors'' with ``Subject:
National Park Service Healthy Food Choice Standards and
Sustainable Food Choice Guidelines for Front Country
Operations'' NPS Director Jarvis states, ``collaboration
between NPS, concessioners, and industry and government experts
has produced standards and guidelines that will be practical
and effective.''
Further, in an exchange with Senator Murkowski during a July 25,
2013 Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing,
when asked who was involved in the NPS self-described
``yearlong consultation process,'' Director Jarvis stated,
``With the concessioners. With every one of the concessioners.
Our food service providers.''
Neither NFI nor any other seafood organization was contacted by
NPS in development of this policy. As the food sector singled
out in the GSA and NPS policies and guidelines, the seafood
community would have been able to provide an important
perspective to these government deliberations and decisions.
10. NPS Has Expressed A Willingness to Adjust Its Policy, But for
Only One Region: In another exchange with Senator Murkowski
when pressed, NPS Director Jarvis stated, ``What I am willing
to do is to change the guidelines so it includes Alaska wild
caught fish. I think that's the simple fix here.''
The State of Alaska operates an excellent fisheries management
system for state waters--one with foundations in the state
constitution. In Federal waters off Alaska, the Council system
ensures a sustainable supply of fish for Americans and global
export markets. However, the MSA is a national law. The Council
system, while reflecting regional differences, operates in
similar fashion in waters off Florida, off New Jersey, and off
New Hampshire. An exception to the GSA or NPS policy for a
single region is an inadequate and unjust response to the
issue.
National Fisheries Institute Recommendations
NFI recommends the following:
1. Congress Should Clarify that NOAA is the Arbiter of
Sustainability of U.S. Caught Fish: Congress should enact
legislation that clarifies for Executive Branch agencies that
NOAA Fisheries, through its implementation of the
Congressionally-debated and enacted Magnuson Stevens Act,
establishes what sustainable seafood for U.S. Government
purchases is.
2. NOAA Should Buy a Printing Press and Develop a Robust Twitter
Account: NOAA Fisheries oversees a world class fisheries
management system, with most stocks in excellent shape. NOAA
Fisheries scientists report overfishing has ended due to the
requirements of the MSA. Despite that fact, many Americans
question the state of the Nation's fisheries.
NOAA Fisheries budget is about $880 million, yet its
communications program is limited. The average American hears
little from NOAA Fisheries, and often only in response to some
report about a supposedly imminent ocean resource calamity. The
fact that GSA and HHS developed a policy and NPS began
implementation without conferring with NOAA Fisheries is
troubling. This lack of consultation suggests that Americans,
including officials at NOAA's sister agencies, do not know how
the Nation's ocean resources are managed. NOAA Fisheries, to a
great extent, is a government success story---yet few know that
story.
Congress should require NOAA Fisheries to develop a robust
communications strategy that explains, in lay terms, how the
government manages its fisheries resources, the opportunities
available for all Americans to engage in the Council system,
and the success NOAA Fisheries has had in ensuring an abundance
of fish now and for the future.
The communications program need not go to formation of a NOAA eco-
label. Labels require an extensive and expensive system behind
it that can communicate to the nearly 320 million Americans or
more than 500 million Europeans. A major part of that
background support system would be communications about why an
eco-label can be trusted. So, rather than expend money on an
eco-label, NOAA Fisheries should spend a portion of its budget
explaining the robustness and success of its management system.
NGOs long ago determined that a broad advertising program is not
as effective as a strategy of finding choke points in the
supply chain as the best means to impact consumer choices. That
is why so few NGOs advertise widely.
While the NOAA communications strategy should include appropriate
tools to inform the general public, a focus should be on
communicating to the 350 institutional buyers of fish in the
United States. These grocery store and restaurant buyers
determine what we are offered on the menu or at fish counter.
Many of them have developed relationships with various
sustainability partners. Few buyers, though, have regular
interaction with the appropriate level of Department of
Commerce or NOAA staff that can explain that fish caught in
U.S. waters is sustainable. Fewer still corporate
communications and marketing staff understand the political
impacts of their decision to move to a third-party
certification system.
NFI feels strongly that if retail and restaurant corporate
leaders, their communications and public affairs staff, and
their buyers in the U.S. and Europe better understood how
American fisheries are managed, the demand for third-party
certifications would be reduced. Absent that communications
effort, neither Congress nor NOAA Fisheries should be surprised
if third-party certification or private groups' ranking
dominates buyers' decisions.
The National Fisheries Institute appreciates the opportunity to
provide information to the Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere,
Fisheries, and Coast Guard regarding U.S. Government policies and
actions and third-party certifications of fisheries.
Senator Begich. Thank you very much. Thanks for that good
testimony.
Let me--a vote has been called, but we have time for a
round of questions, so we'll go through those. I'll do five-
minute rounds.
And first, let me start with Ms. Moreland.
Stefanie, thank you for being here. Thank you for talking
about ASMI's Responsible Fisheries Management Program. Let me
ask you, as that program gets finalized and developed, how
would you compare that to MSC's process? In other words, is it
equal in ensuring what standards they're looking for? Is it
more robust? Is it, you know, kind of--how do you measure the
two if someone was to say, you know, I want that labeling or
that certification? How would we compare?
Ms. Moreland. Senator Begich, thank you for the question,
and I just want to, first, clarify that we're not just getting
the program up and running; it is running. It's ready to go.
Senator Begich. Right.
Ms. Moreland. And we even have Scott, who--new news, as of
this week, that chain of custody process is also now ISO
accredited and ASMI will be rolling out information on that. So
we have a full program that's ready to go and being used now.
And, relative to MSC, I think we have just a fundamental
difference in view of what the appropriate role of a
certification body is. We see certification and verification,
that sustainability criteria are being met as different than
governing fisheries. And, as you know, in Alaska, we have a
very robust, transparent public process informed by science.
That----
Senator Begich. Go ahead.
Ms. Moreland. That process, we feel, is being undermined by
a separate certification body that continues to change what
expectations are for defining sustainability.
And one last point: the Program, RFM, that ASMI helped put
up, is actually a measure of sustainability. So it uses third-
party process to verify that sustainability criteria are being
met. MSC will issue conditional certification so that a fishery
may not be performing at a sustainable level today, but puts in
place a plan to get there. MSC label may be used in that case;
our system would not do that.
Senator Begich. So let me make sure I'm clear on that.
So, if you have a fisheries within Alaska, in our state,
that is not--it's on a plan, but not yet clear if it's going to
be sustainable, because not all plans come out becoming
sustainable. You could have failure in the plan over a period
of years. That would not meet the standard that you're now--
have in place?
Ms. Moreland. Correct.
Senator Begich. MSC, it would meet the standard?
Ms. Moreland. I can't speak for how or whether it would
meet the standard, but I am aware that they issue conditional
certification, meaning that there need to be changes to the
fishery to achieve sustainability.
Senator Begich. Got you. Thank you very much.
Let me, if I can Mr. Rice, thank you very much for being
here. Thank you for all the conversations I've had with Wal-
Mart and, not only me personally, but my staff and the work,
and I do agree that there's a lot of effort you have done from
a variety of efforts in renewable energy and LEED standards,
and just all of the things trying to make your operation
better, because every business achieves and tries to achieve.
So thank you for doing that.
But, you know, one area I want to and follow up on--and you
made the comment, and that is, you're open for looking at these
issues. I guess my question is--you just heard a brief
description, not only in the testimony, but also in the
question for Ms. Moreland on what we're doing in Alaska. The
question I always have is, especially with government agencies
and with private sector is, when people make those statements,
what's the timed--how do you measure when you can get to that
decision to say, yes, we're still buying Alaska seafood, but
also, we now accept or reject, depending on the outcome, this
new standard that Alaska's using for their fisheries? How do
you--how will you have a definitive timetable to get there? And
then I have another quick question.
Mr. Rice. Well, Thank you. Thank you so much for the
question.
We`ve actually engaged the sustainability consortium, as we
said in our testimony. In working through them, we understand
that they're on a timeline, but we will get to an answer very
quickly. This is not re-doing work; it's not developing a new
standard. It's really giving a lot of organizations, but Wal-
Mart also, the confidence and comfort to know that--what
standards and certifications lead to sustainable fisheries and
what don't. That process has kicked off and is underway. And we
believe that they will have a set of principles and criteria
that can be used to evaluate those standards by the end of this
calendar year, so by the end of December. In the meantime, we
continue to source seafood from Alaska and we're confident that
we'll be able to continue to source seafood from Alaska in the
years ahead.
Senator Begich. Do you feel the conversations have been
productive in helping Wal-Mart understand, kind of, our process
in Alaska and the more exhausted process that we utilize?
Mr. Rice. Absolutely.
It's been extremely helpful, the engagement and the
dialogue we've been in. And again, we encourage ASMI and other
experts from certification standards, bodies and industry to
engage in this process to make sure that the criteria and
principles that are developed are robust and do lead to
sustainable fisheries.
Senator Begich. Let me ask you one other quick one. I have
one other one, then I'll turn right quickly to Senator
Blumenthal. And that is, I know, and it sounds like, you know,
we have a challenge between--and we always seem to bring up
Russia here, but Russia's snow crab versus Alaska's snow crab,
you know, we don't have the MSC, but actually, Russian snow
crab is in, kind of--in a fishery improvement project and we
have some issues with illegal fishing and some other things.
Do you see, down the road, when you look at Alaska snow
crab, because we don't get an MSC certification, but if it
falls under this other certification, it may then qualify
within your sustainability list? Even though I would tell you
that Russian snow crabs shouldn't qualify based on what we know
about it, but we'll pause and give you a second here.
Mr. Rice. Sure. Well, we----
Senator Begich. I love my Russian friends, but----
Mr. Rice. But----
Senator Begich.--when they have crab that is caught
illegally or low-quality, then we're going to have a response
to them.
Mr. Rice. Sure. No, absolutely.
We make every effort to provide the broadest assortment of
seafood to our customers and--but all of the seafood that we
procure have to meet our sustainability requirements.
As we said in our opening statements, we believe fully that
there can and should be multiple standards and certifications
that demonstrate sustainable fisheries. And so, we're confident
that--that Alaskan crab will do that. But any seafood we source
from anywhere around the world must meet those same criteria.
Senator Begich. Understood, thank you.
Mr.--Senator Blumenthal.
STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL,
U.S. SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT
Senator Blumenthal. Appreciate all of you being here today.
And let me say to Mr. Montelongo, I am very interested in
the Global Sustainable Seafood Initiative and in the work that
Sodexo has been doing, as well as Wal-Mart, to improve
sustainability.
Let me ask both of you: how good is the information that we
have on the sources of seafood that you actually purchase? Do
you have total trust? Are you confident that the information is
reliable and accurate? Maybe begin with you, Mr. Montelongo.
Mr. Montelongo. I thank you for your questions, Senator.
I must tell you that I don't have an expertise in our
sustainability or purchasing practices, but what I will tell
you is that since you brought up the GSSI, we happen to be a
founding partner and board member of that initiative. And that
particular initiative is focusing on creating flexibility in
the use and recombination of standards and verification methods
in the different stages of the supply chain. That's very
critical, because we're not just talking about focusing on
solely the fishery component, but also downstream into the
processing component as well. It's also focusing on creating
flexibility and the use of different standards and verification
methods for meeting different market requirements, something
that Mr. Rice had just brought up that I would concur with. And
then, finally, mobilizing synergies among compliance standards
and improving the overall standard system, which I believe,
frankly, is consistent with what this Subcommittee is concerned
with--making sure that we have some consistency among all the
different standards and certifications out there.
Senator Blumenthal. And are you confident that, so far as
the information on the fisheries are concerned, that the
information you're receiving, either through the global
sustainable seafood initiative or any other source, is
accurate, or do you think there is a need for more oversight
and scrutiny?
Mr. Montelongo. I can't speak to the entire waterfront of
all of the----
Senator Blumenthal. And if you like, you know, I'm happy to
receive a supplemental response from Sodexo, if you would----
Mr. Montelongo. Let me do that, Senator, if you don't mind.
Senator Blumenthal. Sure.
Mr. Montelongo. Thank you.
Senator Blumenthal. Sure. Yes, sir.
Mr. Rice. Thank you so much for the question, and I agree
with my colleague up here that, you know, we're encouraged by
the GSSI process and--and also the process that we have kicked
off in the shorter term within the sustainability consortium.
There is a need for better coordination in collaboration
among standards organizations and a way to--again, our goal,
and I think the Committee's goal and fishermen's goal, is to
continue recognizing and selling seafood that's sustainable,
healthy, and affordable to our customers. So we're encouraged
by these initiatives. We are confident in the information we're
getting, but we do recognize the need for better transparency
and better chain of custody programs. We think that these are
evolving and improving over time and so we think the
information is getting better and we're becoming more
confident. Thank you.
Senator Blumenthal. Well, again, I want to thank you, all
of the panelists, for being here.
I'm going to have to go vote. I'm going to ask you to
remain in place. I understand that Senator Begich is on his way
back and he may have some additional questions.
I want to say how much I appreciate Sodexo's work for our
military. I know, as a member of the Armed Services Committee
and also having recently been honored along with Sodexo by the
Marine Corps Scholarship Foundation, of the outstanding work
that your company does and want to express my appreciation.
Thank you.
Mr. Monelongo. Thank you very much, Senator. I'll be
certain to pass that along to our colleagues.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you.
Mr. Montelongo. Thank you.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you all. And if you could just
remain here. I really do apologize, but I'm going to have to go
vote. Thank you.
[Recess.]
Senator Begich. Thank you all very much; appreciate it.
The one thing you get around here is, you don't need to go
to aerobics, you just need to go to votes every day.
[Laughter.]
Senator Begich. It's not only walking or running there, but
battling the press as they try to go after you on issues. Thank
you for being patient.
I just have a couple quick questions, I know Senator
Blumenthal finished with his line of questioning. If I can, to
Mr. Connelly, if I can just ask you a quick question. I'm going
to have a couple for you, Mr. Montelongo. And I apologize, I'm
catching my breath here.
You had mentioned and you triggered something I thought was
very important. I want to re-mention, or restate it. And they
should do it publicly, and we'll ask them to do that, but the
Park Service did contact us this morning and recognize now
we're going--they're going to follow the new guidelines, which
is good news, I think. And--but your point about DOD is a very
good one. And we intend to send a letter to them today, if not
by tomorrow, to the Secretary making sure it's very clear to
these new guidelines will--we will assist the efforts of GSA
making sure, because they do a lot of outsourcing. And matter
of fact, one of the conversations I'll have next is with Sodexo
because of their work with our military. So that's a really
good comment.
Let me ask you a little bit on NOAA again, a good point
that maybe NOAA doesn't do enough in explaining to not only
their Federal agencies, but to maybe even some other agencies
in state governments, local governments, the value of their
science and information they provide.
Is that kind of what you were hinting at, that they do a
lot of great internal work--we see it here, you might see it in
your organization, but they're not really boasting about it.
Mr. Connelly. Right.
Senator Begich. Is that a fair----
Mr. Connelly. That's exactly the point, Senator. That NOAA
does great work, but they are a--sometimes, the science-based
organizations in government just want to do their science.
Senator Begich. Right.
Mr. Connelly. And they don't feel the responsibility, or
they may feel the responsibility, but they don't carve out
enough resources to actually go communicate all the good that
they do.
Senator Begich. Right.
Mr. Connelly. In this case, we--you would have another
hearing in 5 years, I would suspect, unless the Federal
Government, through NOAA, begins to more forcefully communicate
how well they do things.
Senator Begich. Right.
Mr. Connelly. Because we--they have left the field open to
others to define what sustainability is.
Senator Begich. Do you think one of the issues--and I know
as the Chair of the Committee here, I'm spending time now
getting ready for the Magnuson-Stevens Act reauthorization--you
know, and having listening sessions, hearings. And I'll be up
in the Northeast again, the New England states, in a week or
so, talking to fishermen. And there are a lot of different
views about NOAA there among the fishermen versus Alaska. I
think that in Alaska, we've spent a lot of time in that
communication realm to make sure--we may disagree with the
outcome sometimes, but we recognize that the science is there
in creating better fisheries for us over time.
Do you think, and I don't necessarily want to get you in
the middle of this one, but do you think that is an effort,
too, that NOAA needs to do with regards to these fishing
communities to make sure they understand the science? They
don't have to agree with it, but just the process, how they get
there. And I sense, in the New England states, this is one of
the problems. There are some enforcement issues, too, that
brood, but on this other piece, it seems like there's a gap
here. Is that----
Mr. Connelly. Well, you might have guessed from my accent
that I have some allegiance or alliance to the Northeast, so--
--
Senator Begich. That's why I wanted to easily slide it in
here.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Connelly. I actually find it interesting. New England
is considered the great progressive area of the country and yet
my sister-in-law and brother-in-law are park rangers up at
Wrangell-St. Elias. The last--Alaska's the last place where
rugged individualism, and yet there's such a collaborative
effort between industry, government, academics, researchers in
the areas of seafood management. So it's a--it's an odd mix.
And, we feel strongly that communications both in lay terms
out in the science--the lay science magazines Nature Science,
Scientific America are important, because that's where the
general press is getting their information. If we just--if NOAA
just goes to American Fishery Biology Magazine----
Senator Begich. It goes----
Mr. Connelly. It might be--might be a very interesting
magazine article, but not many people are going to read it.
Senator Begich. Right.
Mr. Connelly. And so, I think that getting communication at
the fishing community level to the lay public. But I feel very
strongly that in a way, we have left the institutional buyers
naked because we don't give them enough information about how
well fisheries are run, and so they have to go someplace else
when they're attacked.
Senator Begich. Right.
Mr. Connelly. So when activist groups come in and says, you
need--you're not doing an appropriate level of protection of
the resource, so you need to go get a third party to do this
work.
Well, government should go in and help those institutional
buyers understand all the good that, through Magnuson and the
oversight of this Subcommittee and the full committee, NOAA is
doing. And so that's really the point, is to get out there and
communicate.
Senator Begich. And I think that's, and I'll use Mr. Rice
here as a prop here for a second and say that--I mean, one of
the comments you, Mr. Rice, said earlier was in my questioning,
was it gave him more information when he met with our Alaskan
folks on how we're doing sustainability. And I think that both
of the industry folks acknowledged that they're not in the
sustainability business of understanding all of the details or
of fisheries management. But they want to create a product--buy
a product that the consumer wants that is sustainable that they
require. And so what--there may be a linkage that we have to
have better--maybe NOAA has to have a relationship with the
industry on a more ad hoc and advisory basis to say, here's
some stuff we're doing, rather than moments like this where
we--no disrespect to the two industry--we drag them in here and
have to, you know, say, what the heck's going on? Maybe that is
a piece of the equation.
Mr. Connelly. Right. FishWatch is a great start.
Senator Begich. Right.
Mr. Connelly. However, it's not the end. I really think----
Senator Begich. It's the beginning.
Mr. Connelly. The people in Bentonville, I think, would
welcome conversations about how well things are done. I think
the people in Gaithersburg would welcome those conversations.
But it needs to be at the right level from NOAA fisheries
to go down and explain fully, and I think you'd find a welcome
audience, because it's more information--allows them to make a
better decision.
Senator Begich. Let me, if I can, Mr. Montelongo, let me
ask you--and first, thank you very much for being here. And I
know everybody's schedule is always tight, so I appreciate you
being here and being part of this and same as with the Wal-Mart
representative. Thank you for taking our calls and our
harassment. I know sometimes when you have someone from a
Congressional office or government calling you, it's the last
thing really on your list of today. I recognize that.
But being here is important and you are a large supplier.
We're one--the U.S. Government is one of your customers in a
variety of ways as well as other governments, local governments
and so forth.
So I speak to you as, maybe if I can put it in a business
term, as someone from the business world, I'm one of the board
of directors of a company that does business with you. And we
want to make sure that our customers are heard, too.
And so, you've heard some of the discussion. Let me, maybe,
if you could respond very quickly to maybe Mr. Connelly's
comments about, and my comment about this NOAA education
opportunity, making sure more industry is connected to what
NOAA's trying to do so you have more information advantage.
Does that make sense? Or is that something that, Sodexo
would embrace that, knowing that we have a government agency
that does a lot around fisheries management, obviously. And
more of their information would be helpful as you make your
decisions down the road as a company. Is that a--can I assume
that, or is that a----
Mr. Montelongo. Mr. Chairman, that's a fair statement.
Obviously----
Senator Begich. Is your microphone on? I'm sorry.
Mr. Montelongo. I keep forgetting that----
Senator Begich. I do that for this gentleman here because
he will tell me later, we didn't catch their testimony.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Montelongo. My apologies, and thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Begich. Sure.
Mr. Montelongo. As I mentioned in my testimony earlier, we
do consult with and engage with a number of very well-respected
organizations to include NOAA. And I would tell you that we
very much would welcome even widening the aperture of
individuals that we would be speaking to include AMSI, as Mr.
Rice had indicated. And we had indicated to your staff that
we're very open to, essentially, having those conversations.
But certainly, engaging in an education process, we would
absolutely welcome, because I think the more that we're
involved in hearing what experts have to say, in particular,
would inform and help with our purchasing decisions.
Senator Begich. In your third-party certification process
you acquire, are you, as a company, limiting yourself to one
type, and again, I lean back over to the state of Alaska's
efforts through ASMI. Are you open as Wal-Mart is in what
they're doing in trying to understand that, and then if that
meets their criteria, to accept that as a certification?
Mr. Montelongo. Mr. Chairman, just to directly respond to
your question, yes, we're open to looking at what other avenues
or what other chains of custody certification methods are out
there, what other regimens, what other frameworks are available
to get us to the endpoint. And the endpoint, really, is about
satisfying what our customers' needs are and being consistent
to our principles of being a socially responsible company.
Senator Begich. Do you think that the time--tell me, kind
of, again, I know I asked Wal-Mart this question, but from
Sodexo's standpoint, what kind of time-frame and engagement do
you need to make a determination of if the Responsible
Fisheries Management Program, RFM, is acceptable or not
acceptable to your company as an alternative, or an additional,
however you want to phrase it, certification?
Mr. Montelongo. Senator, I must confess that I don't know
exactly what our timeframe is. I can certainly confer with my
experts and my colleagues who are experts in that area and come
back to you with a specific answer on that. I don't suspect,
though, that once we engage in the conversations and find out
what the standards are, and if the standards, certainly, are
meeting marketplace demands and so forth and are consistent
with our principles, that that would necessarily take an
inordinate amount or time. But I want to be responsive to your
request and get you something a bit more accurate.
Senator Begich. I would appreciate that. Let me say to both
the private sector companies here: first, I do thank you for
taking my impromptu calls and your willingness to listen to my
rant when I was on the phone or my staff was on the phone to
your companies. But I think you recognize this is something
this committee's trying to do on a regular basis. You know, we
battle over this issue, over the Farm Bill right now. You know,
if we had a Fish Bill, the same criteria, it'd be unbelievable.
The only difference is we harvest from the water, not the land.
That's the only difference. Seafood is always kind of like a
second-class food product, it seems, in this country, but yet
it employs, in Alaska, 40,000 plus people, as one example. But
it is an industry that is really American, when you think about
it. It is capital-intensive, it is risk, it is entrepreneurs.
It is what this country is all about. And yet, we sometimes
kind of throw it off to the side.
So you, hopefully, recognize the sensitivity, may they be
from Florida or from the New England states, or especially from
Alaska, how we feel when people say, well, we may not--and
it's, to be frank with you, a foreign country certification
program--that without us, they wouldn't exist today. Because we
were the first to be certified under them and gave them, kind
of, the juice to be where they are.
It is aggravating in some ways now seeing this new video
that I just saw of this new piece they put on the line, which
is outrageous, especially when they've certified some of those
same organizations that fish that, which is amazing to me. You
can understand the sensitivity here, and for our jobs in
Alaska, it is huge. And we're very excited about our robust
year of this so far on some of our species. But we, like you,
have built-in--I think we might be the only state that has it
built into our Constitution--sustainability.
So we take it seriously. It's real business for us, because
for a long time, Alaska has been exploited by many other
states. They come in, extract, and then leave us with nothing.
And maybe--the fur industry, the gold industry, the fish
industry--I can go through the list. And so when we built our
Constitution, we wanted to make sure we developed it for
Alaskans; sustainable, long-term, generational.
And so, hopefully you're understanding of those calls and
why we called this meeting to really, kind of, get people
thinking about it.
I don't know if either one of you have additional comments.
I see Mr. Rice's hand, it's like one of those quiz shows. I can
feel him about to tap the button. But please, Mr. Rice.
Mr. Rice. No, no, I again, thank you so much for the
opportunity to come and share our views. And we would
definitely, at Wal-Mart, welcome more engagement by NOAA and
ongoing conversations with ASMI.
We're excited about moving forward in the process we've
outlined. We would welcome Sodexo, in that process, to help us
over the coming weeks and months. So, just, thank you so much.
And again, we're--we have shared goals. We want to continue
selling our customers in the U.S. and around the world safe,
affordable, sustainable, delicious seafood from Alaska and
around the world.
So thank you so much.
Senator Begich. Thank you.
Mr. Montelongo. Mr. Chairman, I would just add to that to
say that we do, indeed, share those very same goals and we're
very much looking forward to expanding the dialogue, as we've
shared with your staff and with you, and look forward to that
very much. And certainly, with our colleagues at Wal-Mart and
other folks who really can help inform the debate and the
dialogue so that we can, in fact, get to the end here, which is
that we do find that we're serving our customers and clients
the kind of sustainable seafood that they can be confident in
the authenticity of that product every day.
Senator Begich. Well, I appreciate both your comments. And
to the panel, thank you for being here this afternoon, this
morning. And thank you for letting us have that little break
while we do some business on the floor.
Again, we'll continue to have conversation, and I'm looking
forward to good results. And again, today, just having GSA
change their guidelines as well as the Park Service recognizing
they need to--to change up. But we'll be working with DOD next.
And from the private sector, thank you for your
willingness--I know Senate hearings are not something that is
on the top of your list to attend. But, it is helpful, because
I think you all know, as large employers in this country, that
if we can continue to build our economy, and this is one
component of it, we should do it in every way that we can. And
you are big drivers in that because of your power of ability to
move the markets based on your product selections. And that is
recognized by, I think, a lot of it and that's why you saw a
fairly good attendance that came through today, because they
recognized your market power is pretty significant.
And we want to make sure that in your decision, you have
all the information possible to make, hopefully, the right
decisions at the end of the day. Of course, being biased, I
would say Alaska seafood is the right decision, but I'll leave
that for judgment as we work on certification issues.
Let me make sure on the record--how long?
Two weeks. We'll keep the record open for 2 weeks, allowing
time for some of the comments from this panel and last panel,
who have information to present to the Committee, as well as
other committee members who have questions for the record.
At this time, we'll adjourn the meeting. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 12:25 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Prepared Statement of the Gulf Seafood Institute
The Gulf Seafood Institute is pleased to present the following
written testimony on third-party sustainability certification of U.S.
seafood and its impact on the seafood community, consumers and the
marketplace. As a voice for the Gulf seafood communities in Texas,
Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida, the GSI maintains that the
Federal Government, primarily the U.S. Department of Commerce and the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) under the
Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, must have the
loudest voice and the final say when determining the sustainability of
our fisheries and when communicating that message with consumers.
The mission of the Gulf Seafood Institute (GSI) is to protect the
Gulf's unique culture and environment while elevating the Gulf seafood
brand with consumers, customers and policy leaders through advocacy,
education and science. The GSI's board of directors represents every
Gulf state as well as every aspect of the industry--both commercial and
recreational--and is positioned to be a leading voice on key issues
including sustainability, seafood safety, disaster mitigation and
recovery, and data collection. Additionally, GSI will seek to bolster
fisheries science and research that will help preserve the Gulf seafood
resource and contribute to the longevity of the industry overall. The
GSI came together in July 2013 and is currently taking the steps
necessary to organize under the laws of the state of Louisiana and will
then seek approval of the IRS for determination of approved 501(c)(6)
status.
When it comes to ensuring the sustainability of our Nation's
fisheries, GSI maintains that the process outlined under the Magnuson
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) is working. The
Department of Commerce, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
and the eight Regional Fishery Management Councils work together to
monitor, manage and enforce a program that has led the United States to
its position as a global leader in responsibly managed fisheries and
sustainable seafood. Guided by 10 National Standards of sustainability,
these agencies monitor, manage and legally enforce all marine fisheries
in the United States under the most restrictive regulations in the
world. As a result, U.S. fish populations are rebuilding and overall
fish abundance is improving. Since 2000, thirty-two fish stocks in the
U.S. have been rebuilt meaning that routine stock assessments conducted
by fishery scientists indicate that the abundance of the stock is above
the maximum sustainable yield.
While protecting our fisheries and ocean ecosystems is imperative
in its own right, getting U.S. seafood on the plates of consumers is
equally important for both public health and for the economy of the
U.S. seafood community. In order to be comfortable choosing seafood
when making mealtime decisions, consumers must be confident in the
sustainability of our fisheries. Along these lines, NOAA has
implemented the FishWatch program as a primary tool to educate the
public about seafood sustainability. FishWatch was designed to provide
easy-to-understand, science-based facts to help consumers make smart,
sustainable seafood choices. According to NOAA, FishWatch does not
discriminate against one fishery or advocate for another, nor is it an
ecolabel or certification. Rather, FishWatch helps consumers understand
the science, laws and management processes working to protect our
seafood supply.
Despite NOAA's efforts to get out the message on sustainability,
perhaps not enough is being done as evidenced by an abundance of third-
party seafood certification programs competing for the public's trust
and attention. Market demands for more traceability have led to the
emergence of several Gulf-based programs including Gulf Seafood Trace
as well as state-sponsored programs in Alabama, Mississippi and
Louisiana. These programs are supported by many in the commercial
seafood community and are seen as a positive compliment to Federal data
on sustainability by telling consumers a bigger story about where their
seafood comes from. However, other programs that pit certain species
against one another based on various and sometimes arbitrary criteria
go beyond simple traceability and might lead to confusion rather than
clarity in the marketplace.
For example, the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) and the Monterey
Bay Aquarium have aggressive sustainability certification programs that
are increasingly being relied upon by consumers, retailers and
restaurants, oftentimes more than the U.S. Government's own FishWatch
program. The MSC, a London-based 501(c)(3) charity which sets standards
for sustainability and seafood traceability, has partnered with the
world's leading retailers to help promote certain seafood products that
meet their criteria. The Monterey Bay Aquarium's Seafood Watch program
makes recommendations regarding which seafood items are ``Best
Choices,'' ``Good Alternatives,'' and which ones you should ``Avoid.''
Monterey Bay Aquarium's process for ranking seafood is not transparent
(unlike NOAA's process which encourages public participation at every
level) which leads to concern from some in the seafood community.
Given the abundance of seafood labeling programs, oftentimes the
American public remains confused as to which products meet basic
sustainability criteria as defined by the Federal Government and
assured by the MSA process. Compounding this confusion is the fact that
third-party recommendations often run counter to recommendations
provided by FishWatch. For example, one prominent environmental
organization lists most canned tuna as something to ``Avoid'' while
FishWatch provides consumers much more detailed information on these
species, leading with the fact that if seafood is harvested in the
United States, it is inherently sustainable as a result of the rigorous
U.S. management process that ensures fisheries are continuously
monitored and improved. When one private third-party needlessly tells
consumers to ``avoid'' canned tuna, one of the least-expensive, readily
available sources of healthy seafood for families on a tight budget,
they make it very difficult for Americans to meet their recommended
three seafood meals per week per USDA's dietary guidelines.
NOAA has a responsibility to alleviate confusion and encourage
Americans to make more trips to the seafood counter by launching a
stronger communication and outreach program on seafood sustainability.
Consumers are actively seeking input on sustainability and they want
this information to come from the U.S. Government, not from privately
funded third parties. In a survey of nearly 2,000 consumers conducted
in 2011 by the Gulf Seafood Marketing Coalition, respondents stated
they were most comfortable with seafood data provided by the Federal
Government, over and above data from private industry and environmental
organizations. With the USDA pushing their updated seafood consumption
guidelines and clarifying guidance for pregnant women, now is an ideal
time for the Administration to marry the concepts of healthy and
sustainable seafood in their messaging materials.
No one understands the importance of robust communications better
than the Gulf seafood community. In the wake of the Deepwater Horizon
incident which gushed 200 million gallons of oil into the Gulf of
Mexico, overcoming public perception that our fisheries were somehow
``tainted'' became the biggest challenge to the fishing community's
economic recovery. Despite the fact that thousands of water samples
taken by FDA, state health agencies and NOAA tested as completely safe,
consumers avoided Gulf seafood on a massive scale for months. Following
multi-million dollar marketing campaigns undertaken by the Louisiana
Seafood Promotion and Marketing Board, the Gulf Seafood Marketing
Coalition and others, consumers are finally returning to Gulf seafood
three years after the oil spill. In addition, several letters went out
from numerous U.S. Senators to Federal agencies calling for support in
actively promoting the safety of Gulf seafood and asking for strong
refutation of unscientific claims stating otherwise. While the issue of
sustainability is separate and apart from seafood safety, there is
clearly a need for strong communications from NOAA and its partners on
both sides of the seafood coin.
In closing, the GSI is pleased to note that the General Service
Administration (GSA) recently rescinded their guidance that the
National Park Service look to independent third-parties for seafood
certifications. However, the fact that the misguided policy was issued
in the first place is cause for alarm. Further compounding this concern
is that NOAA was never even consulted prior to GSA issuing this
guidance. Clearly, NOAA's outreach team has their work cut out for
them. If the Administration's own personnel are not looking to NOAA for
the facts on sustainability, the American public certainly can't be
expected to. One way Congress can ensure this situation doesn't arise
again would be to pass S. 1521, the Responsible Seafood Certification
and Labeling Act, which prohibits Federal agencies from requiring
seafood to be certified as sustainable by a third-party nongovernmental
organization. GSI encourages members of this Committee to work with
your colleagues on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee
to move S. 1521 as quickly as possible.
The GSI stands ready to assist Congress, this Committee and the
Administration in any way possible to get out the positive story on
Gulf seafood sustainability. We look forward to working with you on
this and other important seafood issues moving forward. Thank you.
______
Sodexo
Gaithersburg, MD, October 3, 2013
Hon. Mark Begich,
U.S. Senator for the State of Alaska,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Richard Blumenthal,
U.S. Senator for the State of Connecticut,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Begich and Senator Blumenthal:
Thank you for your leadership on marine and seafood sustainability
in our Nation's waters and for conducting an important hearing on this
matter for the Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast
Guard on September 24, 2013. This letter is a follow-up that addresses
two outstanding questions posed during the hearing. Below are the
responses to the best of our knowledge and experience:
1. How long would it take Sodexo to work out a certification
agreement with a new certifying organization?
As part of Sodexo's Sustainable Seafood strategy, we do and will
continue to purchase salmon from Alaska whether or not it is
certified by one or several certification programs. While we
are open to meeting with certifying bodies/organizations and
reviewing other certification schemes, Sodexo does not make its
own assessment of any certification program. We are not experts
on seafood certification or fishery management practices, so
our practice is to seek and consider independent third party
advice from credible organizations. Sodexo is willing to work
with organizations in good faith and set reasonable timelines
mutually agreeable to the certifying organization, Sodexo, and
an independent third party advisor.
2. How does Sodexo gain confidence that seafood marked as
sustainable really is sustainable?
There have been instances of mislabeling of seafood products and
Sodexo believes that chain of custody certification is
currently the best way to improve the traceability of supply.
That is why Sodexo invests considerable time and resources to
ensuring that the partners we work with are reliable,
independent, and objective assessors of the various different
certifications programs. For this reason, Sodexo is working
with the Global Seafood Sustainability Initiative (GSSI) whose
mission is to deliver a common, consistent, and global
benchmarking tool for seafood certification and labeling
programs. This is the best way to ensure confidence in the
supply and promotion of sustainable seafood to consumers
worldwide, as well as promote integrity in the programs.
Thank you again for your dedication to this issue and giving Sodexo
an opportunity to share how our company is working toward the ``Better
Tomorrow'' that our sustainability strategy aspires to. I trust these
responses are helpful to you and your work in the Subcommittee. If
there is anything I can further assist you or the Subcommittee with,
please feel free to contact me or Jessica Montoya.
Sincerely,
Michael Montelongo,
Senior Vice President,
Public Policy and Corporate Affairs.
cc: Mr. Robert King, Legislative Assistant, Office of U.S. Senator Mark
Begich
Mr. Jeffrey H. Lewis, Counsel, Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Edward Markey to
Darren Blue
Question. At the hearing, I asked you why the U.S. Government is
not buying more MSC-certified Massachusetts dogfish. This fish is
sustainable and abundant, and would be a good addition to any seafood
menu. Could you please clarify if dogfish qualify as sustainable under
the new GSA purchasing guidelines?
Answer. The HHS/GSA Health & Sustainability Guidelines for Federal
Concessions and Vending Operations do not list specific species of fish
as sustainable. Instead, they provide a general instruction as follows:
``Where seafood options are offered, provide those procured from
responsibly managed, sustainable, healthy fisheries.'' GSA believes
that American-managed fisheries do not require third-party
certification to demonstrate responsible and sustainable practices. Any
seafood procured from a sustainable source can be offered on a vending
or concessions menu in a GSA-controlled facility. You can locate the
guidelines at www.cdc.gov/chron
icdisease/pdf/
guidelines_for_federal_concessions_and_vending_operations.pdf.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Edward Markey to
Hon. Michael Montelongo
Question. I appreciate Sodexo's philosophy of corporate
responsibility, such as your commitment to source local, seasonal or
sustainably grown or raised products by 2015. Under this policy, would
locally caught dogfish be an appropriate product for the 492 Sodexo
locations operating in Massachusetts?
Answer. Sodexo does not have any contracts for purchase of dogfish;
however, this does not preclude our local fresh suppliers from selling
it to our accounts.