[Senate Hearing 113-482]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 113-482
FISHERIES TREATIES AND PORT STATE MEASURES AGREEMENTS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 12, 2014
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
91-389 PDF WASHINGTON : 2014
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey, Chairman
BARBARA BOXER, California BOB CORKER, Tennessee
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire MARCO RUBIO, Florida
CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois JEFF FLAKE, Arizona
TOM UDALL, New Mexico JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
CHRISTOPHER MURPHY, Connecticut JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
TIM KAINE, Virginia RAND PAUL, Kentucky
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
Daniel E. O'Brien, Staff Director
Lester E. Munson III, Republican Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Balton, Hon. David A., Deputy Assistant Secretary for Oceans
and Fisheries, Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental
and Scientific Affairs, U.S. Department of State, Washington,
DC............................................................. 6
Prepared statement......................................... 8
Gleason, Mark, Executive Director, Alaska Bering Sea
Crabbers, Seattle, WA.......................................... 37
Prepared statement......................................... 39
Kane, Raymond, Outreach Coordinator, Cape Cod Fishermen's
Alliance, Chatham, MA.......................................... 28
Prepared statement......................................... 30
Kenney, Hon. Admiral Frederick J., Judge Advocate General and
Chief Counsel, U.S. Coast Guard, Washington, DC................ 23
Prepared statement......................................... 25
Lagon, Hon. Mark P., Global Politics and Security Chair,
Master of Science in Foreign Service Program, Georgetown
University, and Adjunct Senior Fellow for Human Rights, Council
on Foreign Relations, Washington, DC........................... 31
Prepared statement......................................... 33
Markey, Hon. Edward J., U.S. Senator From Massachusetts,
opening statement.............................................. 1
Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, U.S. Senator From Alaska............... 20
Prepared statement......................................... 22
Smith, Russell F. III, Deputy Assistant Secretary for
International Fisheries, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC.... 12
Prepared statement......................................... 13
Whitehouse, Hon. Sheldon, U.S. Senator From Rhode Island..... 3
Prepared statement......................................... 4
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
Response of Deputy Assistant Secretary David Balton to
Question Submitted by Senator Robert Menendez.................. 43
Responses of Russell Smith III to Questions Submitted by
Senator Marco Rubio............................................ 45
Responses of Adm. Frederick J. Kenney to Questions Submitted
by Senator Marco Rubio......................................... 46
Responses of Ambassador Mark Lagon to Questions Submitted by
Senator Marco Rubio............................................ 47
Letter Submitted on Behalf of the Federal Law Enforcement
Officers Association........................................... 50
Letter Submitted on Behalf of the Joint Ocean Commission
Initiative..................................................... 52
Letter Submitted on Behalf of Various Stakeholders Urging
Ratification of the Treaties................................... 54
(iii)
FISHERIES TREATIES AND PORT STATE MEASURES AGREEMENTS
----------
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 2014
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:38 p.m., in
room SD-419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Edward J.
Markey presiding.
Present: Senators Markey and Rubio.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD J. MARKEY,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS
Senator Markey. Welcome. Good afternoon. The committee will
come to order. Today we will hear testimony on the Port State
Measures Agreement and three regional fishing management
organization agreements. All of them will help combat illegal
fishing and improve the management of fisheries in
international waters, to the benefit of U.S. fishermen, our
seafood industry, and U.S. security interests.
The ocean is vast. From the land it is hard to contemplate
its limits or how illegal fishing in distant waters might
impact the United States. But like dropping a pebble in a pond,
the ripple effects of illegal fishing expand to all shores. The
impact of illegal fishing has already reached Cape Cod and the
ports of New England, where commercial fishing has been the
lifeblood of communities for centuries. Our small boat
fishermen have always supplemented their cod catches with a
variety of fish. Bluefin tuna and swordfish have been
especially important. Landing one can mean the difference
between a profitable fishing season or not, between the paying
of the mortgage on time or not, between helping with a
daughter's college bills or not. With our cod stocks struggling
and facing the ongoing impacts of climate change, revenue from
other fish becomes even more important.
But there is not enough American tuna or European tuna or
African tuna. There is Atlantic tuna, and what happens in the
Atlantic beyond any country's control can impact fishermen in
every country.
Today we will hear from a 40-year fishing veteran, Captain
Ray Kane, about how illegal fishing far from our shores has an
impact on the fishing lines and business bottom lines of the
fishermen from his home port of Chatham, MA, and across New
England.
But this is not just an Atlantic problem. We will also hear
about the challenges facing American crabbers in the Bering
Sea. And it is not just American fishermen that suffer. If you
watched the recent movie ``Captain Phillips'' about the Somali
pirates hijacking the Maersk Alabama in 2009, you heard the
pirates' leader mention foreign vessels taking away the Somali
fish. As Somalia descended into chaos in the 1990s, they lost
the ability to police their national waters. Foreign vessels
moved in and depleted fish stocks that helped support coastal
communities, increasing the incentive for Somalis to take up
piracy.
Sadly, their story has now come full circle. As the United
States and our allies have increased efforts to protect
shipping off the Horn of Africa, Somali pirates are now
providing protection to the vessels engaged in illegal fishing.
Of course, unscrupulous captains willing to harvest fish
illegally are also willing to partake in other illegal
activities.
We will also hear testimony today about the connection
between illegal fishing and human trafficking.
The high seas will never be 100 percent secure, but the
agreements that are the subject of this hearing will help. A
fish is worthless unless it is sold at a dock. The Port State
Measures Agreement will shrink the number of ports where
illegal fishing boats can find safe harbor and the economic
incentive to engage in illegal fishing. It will bring the rest
of the world up to the standards of the United States and
ensure fairness for our fishermen in the global market.
The other three agreements will create and strengthen the
rules for fishing in international waters that will improve
conservation efforts and support sustainable management of
important fish stocks.
Our domestic fishermen are the first to feel the impacts of
illegal fishing, both from reduction in fish to catch and
reduction in the price they get when they can take fish to
market. But illegal fishing and seafood fraud ripples through
the entire seafood industry, from processors to restaurant
owners to seafood lovers looking for a delicious meal.
That is why organizations from the National Fisheries
Institute to the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association
to conservation groups have written in support of the
agreements we have before us today. I ask that these letters
and statements be included in the record.
Today's four agreements are important. I look forward to
working with Chairman Menendez and Ranking Member Corker to
move these through our committee quickly, to benefit our
American fishermen and the seafood industry. U.S. fishery
management is the most rigorous in the world. Our domestic laws
already accomplish much of what is required under these
agreements. But I look forward to working with my colleagues on
the Commerce Committee to move any additional legislation
necessary to ensure the full participation of the United
States.
Because of the rollcall confusion on the Senate floor at
this particular point in time, Senator Rubio is a little bit
delayed and requests that we proceed without him, and we will
continue this hearing, although there are at least six
additional rollcalls that are pending on the Senate floor.
So bear with us in the course of this afternoon.
Our first witness, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse from Rhode
Island, is one of the cochairs of the Senate Ocean Caucus along
with Senator Murkowski, and he has been working to educate the
Senate and the public about the importance of these agreements
that come before the committee today. We welcome you, Senator
Whitehouse. Whenever you are ready, please begin.
STATEMENT OF HON. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM RHODE ISLAND
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Senator Markey, for having
me here this afternoon for this hearing on international
fisheries. As you mentioned, I serve as a cochair of the Senate
Oceans Caucus along with my colleague, Senator Murkowski. For
similar reasons to those that detain Senator Rubio, she is not
here presently either, and I ask unanimous consent that
whatever statement she may submit be incorporated into the
record as if she were here with me now.
Senator Markey. Without objection, so ordered.
Senator Whitehouse. She and Senator Begich and Senator
Wicker are the four cochairs of our Senate Oceans Caucus, which
works to find bipartisan common ground on issues that affect
our oceans and coasts. One area that we all agree deserves our
attention is illegal, unregulated, and unreported fishing,
commonly referred to as ``pirate fishing.''
The work of our caucus on this issue builds on the
bipartisan tradition in the Senate of support for international
fisheries management. Since the 1950s, the Senate has ratified
at least 15 international fisheries treaties with bipartisan
support, not to mention additional amendments to existing
treaties.
Fishing industries, as the Senator from Massachusetts well
knows, are integral to coastal economies. Indeed, in 2011 U.S.
commercial fish landings generated $5.3 billion and
recreational anglers spent $26.8 billion.
At the same time, however, we are seeing estimated
worldwide losses due to pirate fishing between 10 and $23.5
billion annually. Pirate fishing puts fishermen and processors
in our home States who are playing by the rules at an unfair
disadvantage. Pirate fishing is conducted outside laws that
protect the fishery, and by cheating they can operate at a
lower cost and undercut the prices U.S. fishermen must set
following the rules.
The problem is not just local. Fish migrate. Pirate fishing
in foreign countries, on the high seas, and of course in our
own backyard, can jeopardize migratory fish stocks that our
domestic fishermen rely on. Quite simply, this is a problem we
cannot afford to ignore.
The agreement on Port State Measures to prevent, deter, and
eliminate illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing was
adopted in response to this issue. It will allow the United
States and other countries to bar pirate fishing vessels from
entering ports and bringing their goods to market. Information-
sharing networks to track offenders and a compliance structure
are also established under the agreement.
The agreement has strong support outside of this Chamber.
Here is what Chris Lischewski, President and CEO of Bumble Bee
Foods, has said, ``IUU fishing is a multibillion dollar
industry that undermines our global conservation and
sustainability efforts. Illegal fishing penalizes legitimate
fishermen and processors and it must be stopped. While the
United States has done a good job at developing laws to detect
and deter IUU fishing, other nations have not. We strongly
support the agreement on Port State Measures to prevent, deter,
and eliminate illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing
because it creates an obligation for other nations to take
action against IUU fishing.''
That is the President of Bumble Bee Foods.
Literally billions of dollars that could have gone into the
hands of law-abiding fishermen and responsible seafood
companies are lost every year. The Port State Measures
Agreement gives us and others new tools to stop this thievery.
Three other treaty documents have also been received in the
Senate during the 113th Congress relating to high seas
fisheries. Fair control measures and enforcement at this scale
allows us to protect our fishermen by ensuring the longevity of
the fish stocks on which they depend.
The United States includes over 4 million square miles of
the Pacific, Atlantic, and Arctic Oceans, the Gulf of Mexico,
and the Caribbean Sea. Our fishermen and their industry
partners can benefit from well-managed resources. Bill
Ruckelshaus and Norm Mineta, both previously high-level
political appointees in Republican and Democratic
administrations respectively, cochair the Joint Ocean
Commission Initiative. They offer this thought in a letter that
I would like to submit for the record: ``Sustainable management
of our ocean resources for current and future generations
requires an international framework and a consistently applied
rule of law across nations. Ratification of these treaties
taken as a whole is an important step in this direction and
helps affirm the role of the United States as a leader in
protecting our global commons for the benefit and use of our
citizens.''
Senator Whitehouse. As cochairs of the Senate Oceans
Caucus, Senator Murkowski and I express bipartisan support for
the four pending international fisheries management treaties.
We are now collecting signatures on a letter of support to
Senate leadership. The Senate should ratify these treaties,
which are supported by the Alaska Bering Sea Crabbers, National
Fisheries Institute, Ocean Champions, World Wildlife Fund, Pew
Charitable Trusts, and Environmental Defense Fund, among
others.
I thank you, chairman, for entertaining my thoughts here
today.
[The prepared statement of Senator Whitehouse follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Sheldon Whitehouse
Thank you Senator Markey, Chairman Menendez, and Ranking Member
Corker, for having me this afternoon and for holding this hearing on
international fisheries. I am privileged to serve, along with Senators
Murkowski, Begich, and Wicker, as a cochair of the Senate Oceans
Caucus, which works to find bipartisan common ground on issues
affecting our oceans and coasts, and the people and communities that
rely on them.
One area we all agree deserves our attention is illegal,
unregulated, and unreported fishing; commonly referred to as pirate
fishing. The work of our Caucus on this issue builds on the bipartisan
tradition in the Senate of support for international fisheries
management. Since the 1950s, the Senate has ratified at least 15
international fisheries treaties with bipartisan support, not to
mention additional amendments to existing treaties.
Fishing industries are integral to coastal economies. Indeed, in
2011, U.S. commercial fish landings generated $5.3 billion and
recreational anglers spent $26.8 billion. At the same time, however, we
are seeing estimated worldwide losses due to pirate fishing between $10
and $23.5 billion annually.
Pirate fishing puts fishermen and processors in our home States who
are playing by the rules at an unfair disadvantage. Pirate fishing is
conducted outside laws that protect the fishery, and by cheating they
can operate at a lower cost and undercut the prices U.S. fishermen must
set following the rules.
The problem isn't just local. Fish migrate. Pirate fishing in
foreign countries, on the high seas, and even in our own backyard can
jeopardize migratory fish stocks that our domestic fishermen rely on.
Quite simply, this is a problem we can't afford to ignore.
The ``Agreement on Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter and
Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing'' was adopted in
response to this issue. It will allow the U.S. and other countries to
bar pirate fishing vessels from entering ports and bringing their goods
to market. Information-sharing networks to track offenders and a
compliance structure are also established under the agreement.
The agreement has strong support outside of this chamber. Here's
what Chris Lischewski, CEO and President of Bumble Bee Foods, has said:
``IUU fishing is a multibillion dollar industry that undermines our
global conservation and sustainability efforts. Illegal fishing
penalizes legitimate fishermen and processors and it must be stopped.
While the United States has done a good job at developing laws to
detect and deter IUU fishing, other nations have not. We strongly
support the `Agreement on Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter, and
Eliminate Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated Fishing' because it
creates an obligation for other nations to take action against IUU
fishing.''
Literally billions of dollars that could have gone into the hands
of law-abiding fishermen and responsible seafood companies are lost
every year. The Port States Measures Agreement gives us and others new
tools to stop this thievery.
Three other treaty documents have also been received in the Senate
during the 113th Congress relating to managing high seas fisheries.
Fair control measures and enforcement at this scale allows us to
protect our fishermen by ensuring the longevity of fish stocks.
The United States includes over 4 million square miles of the
Pacific, Atlantic, and Arctic Oceans, the Gulf of Mexico, and the
Caribbean Sea. Our fishermen and their industry partners can benefit
from well-managed resources.
Bill Ruckelshaus and Norm Mineta, both previously high-level
political appointees in Republican and Democratic administrations
respectively, cochair the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative. They offer
this thought in a letter I would like to submit for the record:
``Sustainable management of our ocean resources for current and future
generations requires an international framework and a consistently
applied rule of law across nations. Ratification of these treaties,
taken as a whole, is an important step in this direction and helps
affirm the role of the United States as a leader in protecting our
global commons for the benefit and use of our citizens.''
As cochairs of the Senate Oceans Caucus we express bipartisan
support for the four pending international fisheries management
treaties. We are now collecting signatures on a letter of support to
Senate leadership.
The Senate should ratify these treaties, which are supported by the
Alaska Bering Sea Crabbers, National Fisheries Institute, Ocean
Champions, World Wildlife Fund, The Pew Charitable Trusts, and
Environmental Defense Fund.
Senator Markey. Thank you, Senator, very much, and thank
you for the organizing around this very important issue which
you are leading. We thank you and we thank Senator Murkowski.
Now we are going to turn to our second panel: the Honorable
David Balton, Mr. Russell Smith, and Rear Admiral Frederick
Kenney. If you could each come up and sit at the panel, we can
begin.
[Pause.]
Senator Markey. I would like to thank the witnesses and
their colleagues for their hard work in bringing the agreements
before us today. I will briefly introduce them all and then we
can hear their testimony.
Our first witness is Ambassador David Balton. He is the
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Oceans and Fisheries in the
Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific
Affairs at the U.S. Department of State. He has served in that
position since February of 2009.
Our second witness is Russell Smith. He is the Deputy
Assistant Secretary for International Fisheries at the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. He is currently serving
as the Acting United States Federal Commissioner for both the
Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commissions and the
International Convention for the Conservation of Atlantic
Tunas.
Our third witness is Rear Admiral Frederick J. Kenney. He
is the Judge Advocate General and Chief Counsel of the Coast
Guard. His responsibilities include delivering legal services
in support of Coast Guard missions.
Ambassador Balton, we will begin with you and then we will
go down the table in the order of the seating arrangement. So
welcome, sir. Whenever you feel comfortable, please begin.
STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID A. BALTON, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY
FOR OCEANS AND FISHERIES, BUREAU OF OCEANS AND INTERNATIONAL
ENVIRONMENTAL AND SCIENTIFIC AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
WASHINGTON, DC
Ambassador Balton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am
pleased to testify today in support of the four international
fisheries agreements pending before the committee. With your
permission, I would like my written statement submitted for the
record.
Senator Markey. Without objection, so ordered.
Ambassador Balton. These four agreements address critical
fisheries resources. Two new regional agreements cover high
seas fisheries in the North Pacific and South Pacific Oceans
respectively. The third agreement amends a treaty that created
the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, of which the
United States is already a member. The fourth agreement, on
Port State Measures, is global in nature and, as you said, it
addresses what is commonly referred to as pirate fishing or
illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing.
We commend the committee for considering these agreements.
U.S. ratification will allow our Nation to reinforce its
leadership role on oceans issues and to advance U.S. interests
in marine fisheries. Each of these agreements has strong
support from a broad range of stakeholders, including the U.S.
fishing industry, the environmental and scientific communities.
Representatives of these communities participated actively in
the negotiations of these agreements. Let me say just a word or
two about each of them.
The first agreement--and I think you will see a chart on
the easel there--is the Convention on Fisheries Resources of
the North Pacific Ocean. This treaty will establish the North
Pacific Fisheries Commission, through which parties will
cooperate to manage fisheries across an enormous expanse of
high seas in the North Pacific Ocean. This area includes areas
immediately adjacent to the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone off
Alaska, the Pacific West Coast, Hawaii, and other U.S.
territories and possessions in the North Pacific.
U.S. ratification would give the United States a strong
voice in managing fishing activities just outside the U.S. EEZ
that could have a direct impact on resources within our EEZ.
Ratification will also ensure that U.S. vessels will have a
legitimate right to participate in fisheries in this area.
The second agreement covers high seas fisheries resources
in the South Pacific region. The high seas areas covered here
are near American Samoa and a number of other U.S. islands in
this part of the world. The convention provides for proper
management of fisheries in this region. Of particular
importance is the fishery for jack mackerel off the coast of
Chile, Peru, and Ecuador.
The South Pacific Fisheries Convention has already entered
into force and now has 12 contracting parties. Ratification
will enable the United States to take its seat at the table and
have an equal voice in managing these fisheries.
As for the amendments to the Northwest Atlantic Convention,
while the United States has already ratified the original
convention in 1995 and has participated actively in the
Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, NAFO, ever since,
the area covered by this agreement actually includes waters of
the U.S. EEZ from Cape Hatteras to Maine. The original
convention dates back to 1980 before the emergence of a number
of key concepts in fisheries management. The amendments before
the committee today essentially bring NAFO up to date. They
will add rigor and transparency to NAFO's decisionmaking
process, strengthen procedures for allocating catches,
restraint overfishing, and adjust the formula for calculating
dues.
The final agreement, on Port State Measures, is the first
binding global agreement specifically intended to combat
illegal, unreported, and unregulated, or IUU, fishing. The
United States was among the first nations that signed the
agreement when it was adopted in 2009. As we have already
heard, IUU fishing undermines efforts to conserve and manage
shared fish stocks and threatens the sustainability of all
fisheries. Estimated global losses range from $10 to $23.5
billion each year.
Moreover, illegal fishing activities are often intertwined
with drug trafficking, labor exploitation, environmental
degradation, and organized crime. U.S. ratification will give
us additional tools to address these problems.
Detecting IUU fishing at sea is difficult and expensive,
but all fish caught at sea must ultimately come to port
somewhere. The Port State Measures Agreement establishes
standards for states to ensure that IUU-caught fish will not be
landed, transshipped, packaged, or processed in their ports.
The United States took a leadership role in the development
of this agreement. Timely ratification would again underscore
the commitment of our Nation to strengthening efforts at the
global and national level to deter, detect, and eliminate IUU
fishing.
In closing, I would reiterate the importance of each of
these agreements to the United States. Each one addresses a
specific set of issues that, if not addressed, would threaten
the sustainability of fisheries. Each has strong support from a
broad and diverse range of U.S. stakeholders. We seek timely
action by the Senate to provide its advice and consent to
ratification.
Thank you very much. I would be pleased to answer any
questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Ambassador Balton follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ambassador David A. Balton
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Ambassador David
Balton, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans and Fisheries. I
am pleased to testify before you today in support of the four
international agreements being considered by the committee:
The Convention on the Conservation and Management of High
Seas Fisheries Resources of the North Pacific Ocean
(hereinafter ``NPFC Convention'');
The Convention on the Conservation and Management of High
Seas Fishery Resources of the South Pacific Ocean (hereinafter
``SPRFMO Convention'');
Amendments to the Convention on Future Multilateral
Cooperation in the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries (hereinafter
``NAFO Amendments''); and
The FAO Agreement on Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter
and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing
(hereinafter the ``Port State Measures Agreement'' or
``PSMA'').
Individually and collectively, these four agreements represent
significant progress in protecting U.S. interests, advancing our
international policies and priorities to conserve and manage shared-
living marine resources, to protect the broader marine environment from
the effects of destructive fishing practices, and to prevent illegal
fishing activities from undermining our global and regional efforts
toward these ends. Each of these agreements has strong support from a
broad range of stakeholders, including representatives of the U.S.
fishing industry and the environmental and scientific communities, many
of whom participated actively in the negotiations. For these reasons,
we seek timely action by the Senate to provide its advice and consent
to ratification.
The United States has a strong record of international leadership
to conserve and manage shared fishery resources in a sustainable way.
In fact, doing so is vitally important to our efforts to manage
resources in waters under United States jurisdiction. The United States
is already a party to more than a dozen such regional agreements
governing such diverse resources as tunas in the Pacific and Atlantic
Oceans, groundfish in the North Atlantic Ocean and the Bering Sea,
salmon in the North Pacific and North Atlantic Oceans, among others. We
are also a party to the two most significant fisheries agreements
adopted at the global level--the 1993 FAO High Seas Fisheries
Compliance Agreement and the 1995 U.N. Fish Stocks Agreement. Because
activities that take place on the high seas and in waters under the
jurisdiction of other countries can have a direct impact on important
U.S. fisheries, being a member of these regimes--and especially having
a seat at the table in these organizations--is imperative.
My colleague, Russell Smith, Deputy Assistant Secretary for
International Fisheries at NOAA, will discuss the substance of these
agreements from a conservation and management perspective and how their
provisions support and enhance U.S. domestic fisheries management,
while protecting the marine ecosystem. The remainder of my testimony
will focus on how each of these agreements advances our international
goals and objectives, including broad foreign policy objectives, and
promotes responsible and sustainable use of our oceans resources.
npfc convention
The NPFC Convention was adopted on February 24, 2012, signed by the
United States on May 2, 2012, and transmitted to the Senate on April
22, 2013. Once in force, the Convention will establish the North
Pacific Fisheries Commission (NPFC) through which the Parties will
cooperate to ensure the long-term and sustainable use of fisheries in
the Convention Area. U.S. accession to the Convention will protect and
advance important and significant U.S. interests. In particular, the
Convention Area includes areas of the high seas immediately adjacent to
the U.S. exclusive economic zone (EEZ) off Alaska, the Pacific west
coast, Hawaii, and other U.S. territories and possessions in the North
Pacific. Thus, U.S. accession is vital to ensuring that the United
States has a strong voice in managing fishing activities outside the
U.S. EEZ that could have a direct impact on resources within waters
under U.S. jurisdiction. U.S. accession will also ensure that U.S.
fisherman will have a legitimate right to participate in fisheries
within the Convention Area on an equitable basis.
As with the SPRFMO Convention, discussed below, negotiations toward
the NPFC Convention were initiated in response to the growing concern
of the international community toward the impacts of certain deep sea
fishing practices, taking place outside areas of national jurisdiction,
on a range of unique and endemic deep sea marine ecosystems including
sea mounts, hydrothermal vents, deep sea and cold water coral
communities, sponge fields, etc., collectively referred to as
``vulnerable marine ecosystems.''
This growing international concern was reflected most clearly in
United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) Resolution 59/25, adopted on
November 17, 2004, in which the UNGA: ``[Called] upon States urgently
to cooperate in the establishment of new regional fisheries management
organizations or arrangements, where necessary and appropriate, with
the competence to regulate bottom fisheries and the impacts of fishing
on vulnerable marine ecosystems in areas where no such relevant
organization or arrangement exists.''
In response to this call, delegations from Japan, Korea, Russia,
and the United States met in Tokyo, Japan, in August 2006, to begin
negotiations that led to the 2012 adoption of the NPFC Convention.
Initially, the negotiations had a much narrower focus than the
Convention that is before you for consideration today. Between 2006 and
2008, the negotiations focused exclusively on bottom fisheries in the
Northwest Pacific Ocean In particular, the discussions focused on
bottom fisheries conducted by Japan, Korea, and Russia on the Emperor
Seamounts, a chain of seamounts that extends from the North Hawaiian
Ridge in the south, almost to the Aleutian Islands in the north.
As the discussions continued, the United States pressed, against
some resistance, to expand the scope of the negotiations in two ways.
First, our delegation pressed to expand the geographic scope of the
Convention to ensure that the waters adjacent to the U.S. exclusive
economic zone of Alaska and the Pacific west coast (Washington, Oregon,
and California) were included within the Convention Area. Second, we
pressed to ensure that the Convention established management authority
not only for bottom fisheries, but for all high seas fishery resources
not covered by an existing international management regime. Other than
the bottom fisheries on the Emperor Seamounts, the primary pelagic
fisheries included under this expanded scope include the fisheries for
Pacific saury and squid. This expansion of the scope of the
negotiations brought Canada, China, and Taiwan (which participated as
the fishing entity of Chinese Taipei) into the negotiations, in
addition to the original four States listed above.
The Convention will enter into force 180 days after receipt by the
Depositary (the Government of Korea) of the fourth instrument of
ratification, acceptance, approval, or accession. Japan was the first
State to ratify the Convention. Canada, China, Korea, and Russia are
all actively working to conclude their domestic procedures for
ratification. As a result, there is a strong chance the Convention
could enter into force in 2014 or early 2015.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, the United States has played an active and
significant role in the development of the Convention and the
preparations for its entry into force. At the request of the
participating delegations, I was honored to chair the last several
sessions of the negotiations that led to the adoption of the Convention
in 2012. Since that time, one of my colleagues at the State Department
has chaired the Preparatory Conference which has conducted the vital
work to prepare for the entry into force of the Convention and the
establishment of the new Commission. In order to continue to play such
a leadership role, the United States must be at the table as a member
of the Commission at its first meeting.
sprfmo convention
The SPRFMO Convention was adopted on November 14, 2009, signed by
the United States on January 31, 2011, and transmitted to the Senate on
April 22, 2013. The Convention establishes the South Pacific Regional
Fisheries Management Organization (SPRFMO) through which the Parties
will cooperate to ensure the long-term and sustainable use of fisheries
in the Convention Area. Although the United States currently has no
fishing activity for fish stocks covered by the Convention, accession
to the Convention will yield significant benefits to U.S. interests.
The Convention Area includes areas of the high seas closest to the U.S.
territory of American Samoa, and immediately adjacent to the U.S.
exclusive economic zone off a number of U.S. Pacific possessions
including Jarvis, Howland and Baker Islands, Kingman Reef and Palmyra
Atoll. Here again, U.S. accession is vital to ensuring that the United
States has a strong voice in managing fishing activities outside the
U.S. EEZ that could have a direct impact on resources within waters
under U.S. jurisdiction.
Moreover, to the extent that the NPFC and SPRFMO have comparable
mandates for the North Pacific and South Pacific, respectively, the
policies, practices, and agreements established under SPRFMO may well
find resonance in the NPFC. As a result, active U.S. participation in
SPRFMO will ensure that the work of SPRFMO results in such policies,
practices, and agreements that would be acceptable to the United States
in a broader context, including in the NPFC. Finally, as in the NPFC,
U.S. accession to the SPRFMO Convention will ensure participatory
rights for U.S. fishermen in fisheries within the Convention Area.
As with the NPFC Convention discussed above, negotiations for the
SPRFMO Convention were initiated in response to the call by the UNGA
for States to cooperate to establish new agreements related to bottom
fishing and the impacts of fishing on vulnerable marine ecosystems in
area where no such relevant organization or arrangement existed at the
time.
Initial discussions on the establishment of such an organization
took place between the Governments of Australia, Chile, and New Zealand
in 2005. The discussions were quickly joined by a number of other
countries and entities, including the United States, Belize, China,
Denmark (in respect of the Faroe Islands), Ecuador, the European Union,
Korea, Russia, Peru, several Pacific Island States, and Taiwan (again
as the fishing entity of Chinese Taipei). As in the North Pacific
negotiations, the scope of the negotiations expanded to include not
only bottom fisheries but pelagic fish stocks not otherwise subject to
management, the most significant of which is the fishery for jack
mackerel off the coast of Chile, Peru, and Ecuador.
The SPRFMO Convention entered into force on August 24, 2012, and
currently has 12 Contracting Parties. The Commission has met twice, in
January 2013 and January 2014, and has adopted measures for the
management of jack mackerel and bottom fishing. The United States has
participated in the first two meetings of the Commission as an
observer. As a result, our ability to influence any decisions taken is
significantly less than would be the case if the United States were a
full member of the Commission. Ratification of the Convention will
allow the United States to take its seat at the table with the other
members of the Commission and have an equal voice in matters before the
Commission.
nafo amendments
The NAFO Amendments were adopted by the Northwest Atlantic
Fisheries Organization (NAFO) September 28, 2007, and transmitted to
the Senate on April 22, 2013. NAFO is charged with coordinating
scientific study and cooperative management of the fisheries resources
of the Northwest Atlantic Ocean, excluding salmon, tunas, and sedentary
species of the Continental Shelf. The NAFO Convention Area includes the
waters of the U.S. EEZ from Cape Hatteras to Maine, although NAFO
management measures apply primarily in the high seas portion of the
Convention Area.
The United States joined NAFO in 1995, and has participated
actively since, assuming leadership positions and working to advance
key principles of sustainable fisheries management. Although many NAFO
stocks remain at levels too low to support fishing, others are finally
showing signs of rebuilding under NAFO management. After working for
many years to secure viable allocations, last year the United States
was able to begin fisheries for some of these NAFO-managed high seas
stocks.
Following international calls for regional fisheries management
organizations to strengthen their effectiveness, NAFO launched a
comprehensive reform process in 2005 intended to improve the way
conservation and management measures are adopted, strengthen compliance
and enforcement provisions, and revise its establishing Convention. The
United States participated actively in this effort. Through it, we
pushed to bring NAFO more in line with the principles of modern
fisheries management and to address our particular concerns about catch
allocations and fair participation.
The resulting comprehensive amendments met all of our priorities.
They add additional rigor and transparency to the decisionmaking
process, establish a dispute settlement procedure, improve the guiding
language for allocating catches, formally incorporate key concepts
including transparency and broader ecosystem considerations, and make
the basis for calculating Contracting Parties' budget contributions
more equitable.
The last point was a major U.S. priority. Under the Convention,
part of the NAFO budget is divided equally among all Contracting
Parties and the rest is split according to Parties' catches of certain
species in the Convention Area, including within coastal States EEZs.
As a result, coastal States such as the United States pay a
disproportionately high share of NAFO's budget. The United States
pushed to rebalance the dues to better match the benefits Parties
receive. The amendments do not change the basic formula, but they amend
the list of stocks used to calculate Parties' respective catches to
include only species under NAFO management or for which NAFO provides
scientific advice, and remove those fished exclusively in waters under
a coastal State's jurisdiction. This change is expected to reduce U.S.
dues by almost one-third.
The NAFO Amendments will take effect 120 days after Canada, as
Depositary, receives notification of approval from nine Contracting
Parties. To date five--Canada, Cuba, the European Union, Norway, and
the Russian Federation--have deposited instruments of approval. We
understand one other is imminent, and two others are expected by this
fall. Speedy ratification may enable the United States to provide the
last approval needed for the NAFO Amendments to take effect.
port state measures agreement
The last Agreement I will discuss, Mr. Chairman, is different from
the others. It is a global agreement, and is, in fact, the first
binding global agreement specifically intended to combat illegal,
unreported, and unregulated--or IUU--fishing. The United States signed
the Port State Measures Agreement on November 22, 2009, and it was
transmitted to the Senate November 14, 2011.
IUU fishing undermines efforts to conserve and manage shared fish
stocks and threatens the sustainability of all fisheries. Estimates of
global losses due to IUU fishing range from $10 to $23 billion each
year. The large number of developing States that depend on fisheries
for food security and export income are particularly vulnerable. A
secondary benefit to ratification of the Port State Measures Agreement
and the other treaties under consideration is that it will give the
United States additional tools to address illegal activities that are
often intertwined with IUU fishing, including drug trafficking, labor
exploitation, environmental degradation, and organized crime.
Since IUU fishers can operate anywhere, detecting activities at sea
is difficult and expensive. But, in order to sell or trade their
illegal catch, they ultimately need to ensure that it is brought to a
port for landing or transshipment. The Port State Measures Agreement
establishes standards and requirements for port States to ensure IUU-
caught fish will not be landed, transshipped, packaged, or processed in
their ports.
Here again, the United States took a leadership role in the
development of this agreement, hosting and Chairing the initial
informal meetings that led to the agreement to engage in formal
negotiations toward a legally binding instrument. Timely ratification
would again underscore the commitment of the United States to
strengthening efforts at the global and national levels to detect,
deter, and eliminate IUU fishing.
conclusion
In closing, I would simply reiterate the importance of each of
these agreements to advancing U.S. economic interests and management
objectives at the international level. Each of the agreements is
crafted to address a specific set of issues that, if not addressed,
threaten the sustainability of the fisheries resources in question.
Each of them has strong support from a broad and diverse range of U.S.
stakeholders from both the fishing industry and conservation community.
Senator Rubio [presiding]. Thank you.
Before we move to Mr. Smith's testimony, just briefly to
give you an insight to what is happening, there are all these
important votes going on on the floor, so we are doing a relay
race here. So Senator Markey has gone to cast his vote. When he
returns, we will continue with the hearing. At some point it is
possible we may have to have a short recess if we do not have
enough members, because these are very important votes.
But, Mr. Smith, thank you for joining us.
STATEMENT OF RUSSELL F. SMITH III, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY
FOR INTERNATIONAL FISHERIES, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC
ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Ranking Member Rubio, and I
really appreciate the opportunity to testify here today on
these important issues. I would ask that my testimony be
included in the record of this hearing.
My name is Russell Smith and I am NOAA's Deputy Assistant
Secretary for International Fisheries. Marine fish and
fisheries, such as salmon in the Pacific Northwest, red snapper
in the gulf, and cod in New England have long been vital to the
economic strength and cultural identity of coastal communities
in the United States. To ensure the long-term benefits of these
resources, NOAA relies on clear, science-based rules, fair,
effective, and consistent enforcement, and a shared commitment
to sustainable management. The application of these standards
has resulted in a Federal fishery management system that has
made significant progress in ending overfishing and rebuilding
our Nation's fisheries.
As a global leader in sustainably managing fisheries, the
United States works to translate our domestic fishery
management practices into international practices. The United
States engages in international fisheries fora with the goal of
ensuring that globally all fish stocks are sustainably managed.
One of the greatest challenges is combating illegal,
unreported, and unregulated fishing. IUU is a global problem
that threatens ocean ecosystems and the sustainable management
of fisheries, as well as food security in coastal communities
around the world. The economic losses resulting from IUU
fishing are enormous. Experts estimate that they range from $10
to $23.5 billion per year.
U.S. accession to the four agreements that are the subject
of today's hearing will directly benefit U.S. interests,
fisheries-related and beyond. For example, the North Pacific
and South Pacific and NAFO agreements manage fisheries in which
U.S. vessels fish or areas adjacent to areas in which U.S.
vessels fish. Some of the stocks managed under these agreements
are also fished in U.S. waters.
Accession to these treaties will help level the playing
field for U.S. fishers by allowing the United States to argue
for foreign fishing fleets to be subject to the same high
standards in international waters as our fleets adhere to in
domestic waters. If our fleet ever wants the ability to fish in
the areas managed by the new RFMOs, accession will put us in a
better place to advocate for access to the international
fishery.
The treaties also support the U.S. seafood industry and
consumers by keeping illegal fisheries products out of U.S. and
global markets, reducing competition with legal and sustainable
American products.
These treaties will also support international sustainable
fisheries management and thereby improve food security
globally. As the United States imports more than 90 percent of
its seafood, ensuring the sustainable management of global
seafood fisheries stocks, including those in the North and
South Pacific, helps to protect U.S. food security.
Let me briefly describe these treaties for you. The North
Pacific and South Pacific Conventions establish commissions
that are responsible for the long-term conservation and
management of fisheries resources not covered under preexisting
international agreements. They are also responsible for the
protection of marine ecosystems in the convention area from
fishing activities. Both agreements are based on modern
principles of fisheries management establishing the use of a
science-based and precautionary approach for developing
conservation and management measures and a strong monitoring,
control, and surveillance regime. In addition, the commission
created under both agreements will establish mechanisms for
monitoring compliance and responding to noncompliance.
NAFO is charged with coordinating scientific study and
cooperative management of the fisheries resources of the
Northwest Atlantic Ocean except for salmon, tuna, and sedentary
species of the continental shelf. The updates to the NAFO
convention put the organization in a better position to develop
and implement measures based on sound advice, to use an
ecosystem approach to fisheries management, and thereby to
sustainably manage the stocks for which it is responsible.
Additionally, the new convention strengthens NAFO's ability to
combat IUU fishing.
Finally, the Port State Measures Agreement is the first
binding global instrument focused specifically on combating IUU
fishing. The agreement will help to keep IUU fish products from
entering the stream of commerce by requiring port states to
exercise better control over their ports. Port states will be
required, with some limited exceptions, to keep IUU fishing
vessels out of their ports and to deny them port services and
to inspect a percentage of the fishing vessels that enter their
ports.
With some of the largest and most successful fisheries in
the world, the United States has become a global leader in the
sustainable management of fisheries. These agreements allow us
to advance those efforts.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify before you
today. I would be happy to take any questions that you may
have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:]
Prepared Statement of Russell F. Smith III
introduction
Good morning Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I am
Russell Smith, Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Fisheries,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of
Commerce. Thank you very much for the opportunity to come before you
today to discuss four international fisheries agreements intended to
improve the conservation and management of specific international
fisheries and to combat illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU)
fishing.
Before I address the four treaties, I wish to provide some context
about why they are important to U.S. national interest. Marine fish and
fisheries, such as salmon in the Pacific Northwest and cod in New
England, have been vital to the prosperity and cultural identity of
coastal communities in the United States. U.S. fisheries play an
enormous role in the U.S. economy. Commercial fishing supports fishers
and fishing communities, and provides Americans with a sustainable,
healthy food source. The seafood industry in the U.S.--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.\1\ Recreational fishing also makes
significant contributions to employment and the economy in the United
States. Recreational fishing generated an estimated $56 billion in
sales impacts, $18 billion in income impacts, and supported 364,000
jobs in 2011.\2\ Subsistence fishing provides an essential food source
and is culturally significant for indigenous peoples.
To ensure the long-term benefits of these resources to the American
people, NOAA relies on clear, science-based rules, fair, effective and
consistent enforcement, and a shared commitment to sustainable
management. Much of this work occurs under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), which sets
forth standards for the conservation, management, and sustainable use
of our Nation's fisheries resources. The application of these standards
has resulted in a federal fishery management system that has made very
significant progress in ending overfishing and rebuilding our Nation's
fisheries.
The United States is also one of the world's largest importers and
consumers of seafood. In 2011, seafood imports contributed 176,000
jobs, $48.4 billion in sales impacts, and $14.8 billion in value added
impacts.\3\ As such, the United States is in a unique position to
support sustainable fisheries around the world while providing a level
playing field for our domestic fishermen. Working in collaboration with
the Department of State and the U.S. Coast Guard, NOAA engages in
international fisheries fora, such as Regional Fisheries Management
Organizations (RFMOs), to ensure that global fish stocks are
sustainably managed, including by ensuring that management is based on
the best available science. As the United States is a leader in
sustainably managing fisheries, often we seek to draw from our
experience and convince RFMOs to apply, in the waters under their
jurisdiction, management measures comparable to those applied in U.S.
waters.
One of the greatest challenges to our international efforts to
ensure the sustainable management of global fisheries is combating
illegal, unreported, or unregulated (IUU) fishing. IUU fishing is a
global problem that threatens ocean ecosystems and impacts fisheries,
food security, and coastal communities around the world. Experts
estimate the global value of economic losses from IUU fishing range
between $10 and $23.5 billion.\4\ By circumventing conservation and
management measures, companies and individuals 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.\5\
U.S. accession to the four agreements before you today would
greatly strengthen our ability to sustainably manage fisheries
resources globally and combat IUU fishing. The agreements are: the
Convention on the Conservation and Management of High Seas Fisheries
Resources in the North Pacific Ocean (or North Pacific Convention); the
Convention on the Conservation and Management of High Seas Fishery
Resources in the South Pacific Ocean (or South Pacific Convention); the
Amendment to the Convention on Future Multilateral Cooperation in the
Northwest Atlantic Fisheries (or NAFO Convention Amendment); and the
Agreement on Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate
Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing (or Port States Agreement).
These four treaties will directly benefit U.S. interests. The new
RFMOs in the North and South Pacific and the existing RFMO in the
Northwest Atlantic (NAFO) will have management authority for target
stocks and bycatch species that straddle U.S. waters. By joining these
organizations and strengthening their management regimes, the United
States can promote the use of our strong fishery management principles
internationally so that foreign fishing fleets abide by the same
standards as our industry. In joining the new North and South Pacific
RFMOs, we are also ensuring future economic opportunities for our
domestic fishing interests. Although there is currently no U.S.
industry operating within the North or South Pacific RFMOs, our
membership will allow for the possibility of future engagement and
provide the opportunity for the U.S. to influence the management and
compliance monitoring measures adopted by these organizations.
The treaties also support the U.S. seafood industry and consumers
by keeping illegal fisheries product out of U.S. and global markets.
The North and South Pacific RFMOs and NAFO will implement new and
strengthen existing management tools to combat IUU fishing within their
areas. Moreover, the Port States Agreement will help to keep IUU
fishing products from entering the market, and keep them from competing
with U.S. caught, sustainably harvested, legal seafood. Denying port
entry and access to port services, and consequently preventing illegal
seafood from entering trade, increases the costs associated with IUU
fishing operations and removes the financial incentives for engaging in
IUU fishing.
Lastly, these treaties will support international sustainable
fisheries management and thereby improve food security globally.
Seafood is a significant source of protein for nearly 3 billion people
and is the planet's most highly traded food commodity, contributing to
the livelihoods of more than 560 million people.\6\ IUU fishing
threatens food security and socioeconomic stability in many parts of
the world by reducing the productivity and profitability of legitimate
fisheries, including artisanal fisheries in coastal areas. By improving
the management of fisheries through these new or updated RFMOs, coupled
with the IUU fishing-combating Port States Agreement, the four treaties
address food security in developing coastal states, in the United
States and globally; and thereby support the political stability of
U.S. interests worldwide.
I now will describe each of the four agreements and the benefits
they would provide in more detail.
north pacific and south pacific fisheries conventions
The United States has worked for many years with other nations to
improve the management of fisheries at the international level and to
protect vulnerable marine ecosystems from the impacts of certain
fishing practices on the high seas. The North Pacific and South Pacific
Conventions will advance U.S. interests in the effective management of
high seas fisheries. U.S. participation in the Commissions established
under the North Pacific and South Pacific Conventions will facilitate
development of measures adopted for fisheries on the high seas of the
Pacific Ocean that are compatible with measures adopted by the United
States with respect to fisheries in adjacent waters under the fisheries
jurisdiction of the United States. In addition, U.S. participation will
ensure that future U.S. fishing interests subject to the North Pacific
and South Pacific Conventions can be factored into allocation
decisions. Furthermore, as both the South Pacific Convention area and
the North Pacific Convention areas overlap with that of other Pacific
RFMOs in which the United States is a party, U.S. participation will
help to ensure a consistent approach to conservation and management
among these RFMOs and across the Pacific.
North Pacific Convention
The North Pacific Convention establishes a new regional fisheries
management organization, the North Pacific Fisheries Commission (NPFC),
through which Parties will cooperate to ensure the long-term
conservation and sustainable use of fisheries resources in the
Convention Area while protecting the marine ecosystems of the North
Pacific Ocean in which these resources occur. The North Pacific
Convention Area is the high seas area (i.e., outside of 200-mile EEZs)
roughly north of 20-degrees North latitude and south of the Aleutians.
The specific geographic coordinates of the North Pacific Convention
Area are delineated in Article 4 of the Convention. Cooperation under
the North Pacific Convention will address fisheries resources not
covered under preexisting international fisheries management
instruments and will help to prevent significant adverse impacts on
vulnerable marine ecosystems on the high seas that may have impacts on
fisheries resources in areas subject to U.S. jurisdiction. One of the
general principles of the North Pacific Convention is that conservation
and management measures established for straddling fish stocks on the
high seas and those adopted for areas under national jurisdiction
should be compatible to ensure conservation and management of these
fisheries resources in their entirety.
The North Pacific Convention calls for a science-based and
precautionary approach to the management of fisheries resources and a
strong monitoring, control, and surveillance regime. It also will
establish two committees, a Scientific Committee and a Technical and
Compliance Committee, to carry out its functions. The North Pacific
Convention will also allow for the meaningful participation of Taiwan
as a fishing entity in the NPFC.
Of particular concern to the NPFC are bottom fisheries over
seamounts that could have significant adverse impacts on vulnerable
marine ecosystems. The participants to the negotiations of the North
Pacific Convention have already agreed to interim measures to protect
vulnerable marine ecosystems and the sustainable management of high
seas bottom fisheries in the North Pacific Convention Area. The interim
measures include requiring assessments prior to any fishing that
demonstrate that contemplated fishing activities would not have
significant adverse impacts on vulnerable marine ecosystems and
sustainability of the fishery resources.
While there are presently no U.S. vessels fishing whose activities
would be covered by the North Pacific Convention, there have been in
the past and may be in the future. The United States is a coastal State
with fisheries and marine habitats adjacent to the North Pacific
Convention Area. Those fisheries can be impacted by management measures
adopted by the North Pacific Commission.
For example, since 1986, NMFS has prohibited fishing in the U.S.
EEZ for Pacific armorhead, one of the groundfish species that will be
managed in the Convention area. Armorhead are overfished as a result of
past over-exploitation by foreign vessels in international waters
dating back to the 1970s or earlier. NMFS believes that continued
exploitation outside our EEZ by foreign fleets has kept the stock in an
overfished condition. The Hancock Seamounts are the only known
armorhead habitat within our EEZ. These seamounts lie west of 180 W.
and north of 28 N., to the northwest of Kure Atoll in the Northwestern
Hawaiian Islands. The Western Pacific Fishery Management Council and
NMFS have responded to the overfished condition of armorhead by
implementing a moratorium on catching armorhead and related seamount
groundfish. The Council and NMFS recognize that, because less than 5
percent of the armorhead habitat lies within U.S. jurisdiction,
rebuilding of the stock must be accomplished through coordinated
international management. The North Pacific Convention is an important
vehicle to achieve such coordinated international management.
The United States also has fleets operating in the North Pacific
Convention Area that are fishing for tunas, swordfish, and other
species that are subject to the jurisdiction of other RFMOs which could
cooperate with the NPFC.
South Pacific Convention
The South Pacific Convention establishes a new regional fisheries
management organization, the South Pacific Regional Fisheries
Management Organization (SPRFMO) through which Parties will cooperate
in the conservation and sustainable use of the high seas fishery
resources in the South Pacific Ocean and safeguard the marine
ecosystems in which these resources occur.
The South Pacific Convention applies to areas of the South Pacific
outside national jurisdiction from Australia to South America. Some of
these areas abut the U.S. EEZ. The initial objectives of the
negotiators were to develop a management framework to control bottom
fishing in the western Pacific, primarily by New Zealand, Australia,
and Taiwan, and the jack mackerel fishery in the eastern Pacific,
primarily by Chile, Peru, and the European Union. The United States was
a primary participant in the negotiation of the South Pacific
Convention. SPRFMO will address fisheries resources not currently under
management by preexisting agreements, such as new pelagic fisheries or
expanded fisheries for stocks that straddle one or more exclusive
economic zones and high seas areas beyond them.
The South Pacific Convention requires Parties to apply specific
conservation and management principles and approaches in giving effect
to the objective of the South Pacific Convention. These principles and
approaches are enshrined in existing international instruments to which
the United States is a party, such as the 1995 Fish Stocks Agreement.
These standards highlight the importance of using the best-available
science and applying an ecosystem approach to fisheries management. In
addition, the South Pacific Convention requires that Parties design and
adopt specific conservation and management measures such as limitations
on catch or effort, time or area closures, and gear restrictions.
While there are presently no U.S. vessels fishing in the high seas
areas of the South Pacific whose activities would be covered by the
South Pacific Convention, U.S. membership within the Commission would
allow for the potential participation of future fishing interests and
enable the U.S. to influence the development of new and amended
conservation and management measures.
NAFO Convention Amendment
The Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) is charged
with coordinating scientific study and cooperative management of the
fisheries resources of the Northwest Atlantic Ocean, excluding salmon,
tuna, and sedentary species of the Continental Shelf. It was
established in 1979 by the Convention on Future Multilateral
Cooperation in the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries (the ``Convention'').
The United States acceded to the Convention in 1995 and has
participated actively in NAFO since that time, often assuming
leadership positions and working to advance key principles of
sustainable fisheries management.
In 2005, NAFO launched a reform effort designed to streamline the
Organization and bring it more in line with the principles of modern
fisheries management. In 2007, NAFO members adopted the NAFO Convention
Amendment, which is comprehensive, touching on every element of the
Convention. It addresses specific U.S. concerns and incorporates key
international fisheries governance approaches, as found in the 1995
Fish Stocks Agreement, the 1993 Food and Agriculture Organization of
the United Nations (FAO) Compliance Agreement, and more recent regional
fisheries management agreements. The NAFO Convention Amendment vastly
improves the ability of NAFO and its membership to effectively manage
the resources under its purview and the ecosystems associated with
those resources.
Key elements of the NAFO Convention Amendment include provisions
that detail NAFO's objectives, including long-term conservation and
sustainable use of fishery resources and safeguarding of marine
ecosystems in the convention area. The agreement also outlines general
principles that include (among many others) promoting optimum use and
long-term sustainability of fishery resources, adopting management
measures based on the best scientific advice available, applying the
precautionary approach when there is scientific uncertainty, taking
into account the effect of fishing on the marine ecosystem, and
highlighting the need to preserve biodiversity. This language reflects
a modernized approach to fisheries management.
Furthermore, the amendment simplifies the structure of NAFO, which
will now consist of a Commission, a Scientific Council, and a
Secretariat. This new structure combines the current General Council
and Fisheries Commission into a single Commission and reorganizes a
number of the subbodies. These changes will streamline NAFO
considerably and result in increased efficiency, more effective
conservation and management, and reduced costs. The NAFO Convention
Amendment enables the Commission to take action, including
nondiscriminatory trade-related measures, against any State or fishing
entity whose fishing vessels undermine the effectiveness of NAFO
measures. It also requires the Scientific Council to advise the
Commission on the impacts of fishing on the marine ecosystem as a whole
within the Convention Area. Finally, the amendment describes the
formulation of the Organization's budget and the calculation of the
contributions due by each Contracting Party. One important result of
changes to the amendment is that U.S. costs associated with membership
in NAFO will be considerably reduced.
The NAFO Convention Amendment also describes Contracting Party
duties, flag State duties, and port State duties, respectively. These
provisions are noteworthy because they draw on international fisheries
governance approaches found in the most important and innovative
international agreements on fisheries management including the 1995
Fish Stocks Agreement, the 1993 FAO Compliance Agreement, and more
recent regional fisheries management agreements. The language primarily
focuses on effective implementation of measures adopted by NAFO,
reporting requirements, inspections, and compliance and enforcement
obligations.
The NAFO Convention Amendment rewrites the old provisions for
decisionmaking, implementation, and settlement of disputes. It modifies
the current general rule for decisionmaking within the Commission from
a simple majority to consensus and outlines voting rules to be applied,
namely a two-thirds majority, if consensus is not possible. The process
for implementation of Commission decisions is also substantially
modified, and the NAFO Convention Amendment details how and when
decisions become binding and introduces changes to the existing
objection procedure. The revised objection procedure is an improvement
as it, among other things, requires a detailed explanation from the
objecting Contracting Party and a declaration of the actions (including
alternative measures) to be taken. Objecting Parties or the Commission
may also now submit matters to an ad hoc panel and/or invoke the new
dispute settlement procedures, which provide the choice of a number of
fora in which to seek resolutions through peaceful means. The process
also requires Contracting Parties to submit disputes to compulsory
proceedings pursuant to the 1995 Fish Stocks Agreement.
The NAFO Convention Amendment addresses cooperation with non-
Contracting Parties and with other organizations. These new provisions
are designed to ensure that non-Contracting flag State vessels abide by
NAFO measures when fishing in the NAFO Regulatory Area. They call for
exchange of information on fishing activities of non-Contracting
Parties and measures to deter activities (such as IUU fishing) that may
undermine the measures adopted by the Commission. The new text further
calls on NAFO to cooperate with the FAO and other relevant
organizations, including RFMOs. This is particularly important with
respect to the success of regional and global efforts relating to IUU
fishing, trade tracking, and even for implementing the ecosystem
management of fisheries.
Other amendment provisions are administrative in nature (e.g.,
establishing procedures for review and amendment of the Convention and
its Annexes). Annex I to the Convention, ``Scientific and Statistical
Subareas, Divisions and Subdivisions,'' provides the coordinates of the
scientific and statistical subareas, divisions and subdivisions of the
Convention Area. Annex II to the Convention, ``Rules Concerning the Ad
Hoc Panel Procedure pursuant to Article XV,'' is a new Annex describing
the procedure for the ad hoc panels, one method available to settle
disputes between Contracting Parties.
Port States Agreement
The Agreement on Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter, and
Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing is the first
binding global instrument focused specifically to combat IUU fishing.
It recognizes that all fish must pass through a port to get to market
and that port States can take cost-effective measures to combat IUU
fishing. IUU fishing deprives law-abiding fishermen and coastal
communities around the world of up to an estimated $23.5 billion of
seafood and seafood products every year,\7\ and undermines efforts to
monitor and sustainably manage fisheries. It also threatens the food
security in some of the poorest countries in the world as well as in
the United States and interferes with the livelihood of legitimate
fishers around the world. Seafood caught through IUU fishing enters the
global marketplace through ports all around the world. Preventing that
fish from entering the global market requires an international solution
and the cooperation of countries throughout the world.
The Port States Agreement is recognized within the international
community as a landmark in the effort to combat IUU fishing. The United
States was a primary participant in its negotiation and was one of the
first countries to sign it. We took a leadership role because we
recognized how important taking these measures is for nations that want
to ensure that product entering their ports has been legally harvested
and is safe for consumers. We have had experience with the
implementation of most of the substantive measures in the agreement as
most of these measures are already contained in U.S. law.
The agreement has already had significant impact on efforts to
combat IUU fishing, influencing the adoption of similar measures by
various RFMOs and providing a model for nations, developing nations in
particular, to follow in establishing or strengthening dockside
inspection programs. However, the full effect of the Port States
Agreement as a tool to combat IUU fishing will not be realized until
its entry into force, which requires ratification by 25 nations or
regional economic integration organizations. So far, nine have done so.
Ratification of the Port States Agreement by the United States will
demonstrate strong leadership in the global battle against IUU fishing
and will position the United States to encourage ratification by other
countries.
The agreement sets forth minimum standards for the conduct of
dockside inspections and training of inspectors and, most
significantly, requires parties to restrict port entry and port
services for foreign vessels known or suspected of having been involved
in IUU fishing, particularly those on a RFMO IUU fishing vessel list.
These minimum standards would increase the risks and costs associated
with IUU fishing activities and help to ensure that IUU fish and fish
products do not enter into global trade. Senate advice and consent to
ratification of the Port States Agreement will ultimately benefit U.S.
fishermen, seafood buyers, and consumers by preventing IUU vessels from
entering our ports and diluting the market with illegal product.
The Port States Agreement has four primary sets of obligations that
Parties are required to apply vis-a-vis foreign flagged fishing vessels
(including support vessels) seeking entry to a Party's port:
Parties are required to designate ports to which foreign-
flagged vessels may seek entry, to require that certain
information be collected and considered, and to establish a
process for granting or denying port entry and/or the use of
port services to foreign-flagged fishing vessels;
Parties must maintain the capacity to conduct dockside
vessel inspections in the designated ports and adhere to
minimum standards for the conduct of inspections and the
training of inspectors. A sufficient number of inspections must
be conducted to satisfy the objective of the agreement;
Subject to certain limited exceptions, Parties must deny
port entry and the use of port services to vessels that have
been engaged in IUU fishing, including as indicated by
inclusion of the vessel on an RFMO IUU Vessel list.
Importantly, the limited exceptions include allowing port entry
exclusively for enforcement purposes or in the event of force
majeure; and,
Parties are required to share information, including
inspection results, with the flag States and, as appropriate,
other relevant Parties and entities, as well as to take
followup actions as requested by the flag State when evidence
of IUU fishing is found during the course of an inspection.
NOAA would be the lead agency for U.S. implementation of the Port
States Agreement. Primary responsibility to carry out its obligations,
particularly those related to vessel inspections, will fall on NOAA's
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Office of Law Enforcement, in
collaboration with the U.S. Coast Guard, which has Captain of the Port
authority for the United States. Importantly, the minimum standards set
by the Port States Agreement track closely to what the United States
already does. Under the Port States Agreement, these best practices
would become common practice around the world, thereby effectively
closing the so-called ports of convenience that IUU fishing operators
use to land their fish and support their activities. As a global leader
in sustainable fishing practices, and the third-largest importer of
seafood in the world, the United States has a responsibility to ensure
the fish we import is caught legally. The United States also has a
responsibility to protect our domestic fishermen from unfair
competition and ensure consumer confidence in the seafood supply by
keeping illegal product out of the market. The Port State Measures
Agreement marks a significant step forward on both of these counts.
The United States, with our strong legal frameworks, experience in
effective port management and robust fisheries law enforcement, has
been assisting developing nations in their preparations for
implementation of the agreement. NOAA has most recently assisted
Indonesia in its development of training curriculum for fisheries
inspectors who will carry out inspections under the agreement.
Additionally, the United States has strongly promoted the adoption of
measures in RFMOs that strengthen port related measures, in accordance
with the agreement. These efforts promote the success of the agreement
and thereby reduce the amount of IUU product entering our domestic
markets.
conclusion
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, the Department of State,
the Department of Commerce, the U.S. Coast Guard, and U.S. stakeholders
strongly support these four international fisheries agreements. All of
these agreements will contribute to the sustainable management of
internationally shared fisheries resources and directly impact U.S.
interests. The four agreements promote U.S. interests by (1) leveling
the playing field for U.S. fishing industry by bringing foreign fishers
up to the standards applied to U.S. fishers, (2) keeping illegal
product from entering the U.S. and global markets and thereby
supporting legal, sustainably harvested U.S. seafood products, and (3)
promoting sustainable fisheries internationally which supports food
security and political stability globally. U.S. accession will allow us
to be at the table to further those interests.
----------------
End Notes
\1\ See Fisheries Economics of the U.S. 2011. NMFS Office of
Science & Technology, available at:http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/
economics/publications/feus/fisheries_economics_2011.
\2\ Sabrina J. Lovell, Scott Steinback, and James Hilger. 2013. The
Economic Contribution of Marine Angler Expenditures in the United
States, 2011. U.S. Dep. Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-F/SPO-134, 188
p.
\3\ See Fisheries Economics of the U.S. 2011, at 7.
\4\ Agnew DJ, J. Pearce, G. Pramod, T. Peatman, R. Watson, et al.
(2009). Estimating the worldwide extent of illegal fishing. PLoS ONE,
4(2): e4570.
\5\ United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime. ``Issue Paper--
Transnational Organized Crime in the Fishing Industry'' http://
www.unodc.org/documents/human-trafficking/Issue_Paper_-
_TOC_in_the_Fishing_Industry.pdf. 2011.
\6\ United Nations Interagency Framework Team for Preventive
Action. ``Renewable Resources and Confict.'' http://www.un.org/en/
events/environmentconflictday/pdf/GN_Renewable_
Consultation.pdf. 2012.
\7\ Agnew DJ, J. Pearce, G. Pramod, T. Peatman, R. Watson, et al.
(2009). Estimating the worldwide extent of illegal fishing. PLoS ONE,
4(2): e4570.
Senator Rubio. Thank you, Mr. Smith. I would just note,
without objection, that your full comments will be included in
the committee's record.
Admiral, I hate to do this to you. We are going to have to
take a brief, 10-minute recess while I go vote, because the
majority leader is pushing these through pretty quickly. I
anticipate that the chairman will be back here in a moment so
we can continue. So if you would just give us about 10 minutes,
I think, and we will be back.
The committee stands in recess for 10 minutes.
[Recess from 3:05 p.m. to 3:10 p.m.]
Senator Markey [presiding]. The committee will come to
order, and we are now joined by Senator Murkowski, who is the
cochair of the Oceans Caucus. Her cochair, Sheldon Whitehouse,
has already testified. We welcome you, Senator.
Whenever you are comfortable, please begin.
STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Rubio, and to other members of the committee who are not here
today, but who hopefully have an opportunity to view the
testimony, thank you for the opportunity to speak today on some
very important treaties facing the U.S. Senate and before your
committee here at Foreign Relations.
Taking the time to address these fisheries treaties is
critically important, particularly the effects of IUU fishing
and activities on U.S. interests. Senator Whitehouse and I have
been working as cochairs of the Senate Oceans Caucus to be
strong advocates for our Nation's oceans and fisheries. I think
it is critically important that as we look to protect the
strength of our fisheries, the strength of our oceans, that we
understand that our oceans know no boundaries, in the sense
that we know where the borders are of our States, we know where
the borders are of our countries, but we need to ensure that as
we are working with other nations as it relates to our
fisheries that we have some common framework.
I am here today because the fishing and the seafood
industries are vital economic drivers in my State. Alaska's
fisheries are the most abundant and sustainably managed in the
Nation and we are quite proud of that. We lead all States in
terms of both volume and value of commercial fisheries, with
approximately 1.84 million metric tons, worth $1.3 billion. We
account for over 52 percent of the Nation's commercial seafood
harvest. Alaska's commercial, sport, and subsistence fisheries
are at the heart of coastal Alaska. They are the economic
livelihood for more than 80,000 Alaskans who are either
directly or indirectly employed in the industry.
The witnesses that you have today will give great overview
of these important issues. They can address the international
and the domestic implications of the treaties that you have
before you. You do have an individual on the third panel, Mark
Gleason, who is with the Alaska Bering Sea Crabbers. I
appreciate the fact that he has traveled to D.C. today to
testify on behalf of the organization.
You might not have heard of the Bering Sea Crabbers, but
most people are at least familiar with ``The Deadliest Catch.''
All you need to do is think of ``Deadliest Catch'' and it takes
you into the activities of the Bering Sea.
Some of you may not know that I have a little bit of an
interest in not only the crab fishery, but safety at sea. My
son just finished up a season in the Bering Sea crabbing. They
left last night through Unimak Pass to travel across the Gulf
of Alaska. He is headed back home and he is probably going to
have some Bering Sea crab stories that I am not sure that his
mother is really ready to hear yet, but I am bracing myself.
But as I think about the experience that my son has had as
a Bering Sea crab fishermen, given what we have put in place
with safeties and precautions and protocols, it is a much
better world now for our crabbers and our fishermen than it was
just a few years ago.
It is important, however, that Alaska and U.S. fishermen
have a level playing field when it comes to our harvesting
opportunities. Russian IUU crab has been a serious problem for
Alaska since at least 1990. As is true for most commodity
markets, crab prices of course are driven by supply. IUU crab
lowers the market price to fishermen and processors and tax
revenues to our State.
The estimated impacts of IUU crab to harvesters since the
year 2000 is about $560 million, with an additional cost to
crab processing ports of over a million dollars in lost landing
revenues. These are real dollars that we are talking about.
This is real impact to a State.
As recently as 2011, NOAA law enforcement seized 112 metric
tons of illegally harvested Russian king crab that was being
shipped to United States markets through the port of Seattle.
So I am pleased to be followed by representatives from the
Coast Guard, NOAA, and the State Department who will speak in
more detail on their efforts to prevent IUU seafood from
entering the United States. These three agencies, with
assistance from the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol, and the
FDA, successfully prosecuted the case and helped shut down one
avenue for illegal imports. I think this is a positive example
and I believe the treaties before you will enhance the
effectiveness of U.S. authority to deter IUU activities.
Two of the treaties that you have, the Port State Measures
Agreement and the Convention on the Conservation and Management
of High Seas Fisheries Resources in the North Pacific, are very
important to my State's fishermen. The first sets global
standards to combat IUU fishing. It will help to protect U.S.
fishermen by keeping foreign illegally caught fish from
entering the global stream of commerce. Specifically, it
establishes global port restrictions designed to catch vessels
engaged in illegal fishing activities when they attempt to
offload the fish in port.
The second will establish a new regional fishery management
organization for fisheries resources located near the North
Pacific and not currently addressed through preexisting
international fisheries management bodies.
I would like to comment, Mr. Chairman, on the fact that IUU
vessels can also be some pretty bad actors beyond the world of
fishing. You are going to be hearing testimony from the third
panel on the role that IUU vessels are playing in the context
of human trafficking and drug smuggling. While these particular
fishing treaties are not focused on these issues specifically,
it is my understanding that they will provide additional tools
that can help U.S. law enforcement officials crack down on them
as well.
Again, I truly appreciate, and I know that my colleague
Senator Whitehouse does as well, the efforts of this committee
to look into these issues, to discuss them thoroughly, to
advance these treaties through the Senate, and help to level
the playing field for U.S. fisheries.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I am happy to take any questions
that you might briefly have. I appreciate the allowance and
indulgence of your time in allowing me to pop in as we juggle
votes. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Senator Murkowski follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Lisa Murkowski
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Rubio, other members of the committee who
were not able to make it here today, but who hopefully will have an
opportunity to review this testimony, thank you for this opportunity to
speak today on some very important treaties in front of the U.S. Senate
and before the Foreign Relations Committee. Taking the time to address
these fisheries treaties is critically important, particularly with
regard to the effects of IUU fishing activities on U.S. interests.
Senator Whitehouse and I have been working as cochairs of the Senate
Oceans Caucus to be strong advocates for our Nation's oceans and
fisheries. I think it is critically important that as we look to
protect the strength of our fisheries, the strength of our oceans, that
we understand that our oceans know no boundaries. I mean this in the
sense that we know where the borders are for our states, where the
borders are for countries, but we need to ensure that as we work with
other nations to protect our fisheries outside our national
jurisdiction, that we work within the common framework of international
agreements.
I am here because the fishing and seafood industries are vital
economic drivers in my home State. Alaska's fisheries are the most
abundant and sustainably managed in the Nation, and we are quite proud
of that fact. Alaska leads all States in terms of both volume and value
of commercial fisheries with approximately 1.84 million metric tons
worth $1.3 billion--accounting for over 52 percent of the Nation's
commercial seafood harvests. Alaska's commercial, sport, and
subsistence fisheries are at the heart of coastal Alaska and they are
the source of economic livelihood for more than 80,000 Alaskans who are
directly or indirectly employed in the industry.
The witnesses you have assembled for today's hearing will provide
an excellent overview of this important issue, and can address the
international and domestic implications of the treaties before you. You
do have an individual on the third panel, Mark Gleason, who is with the
Alaska Bering Sea Crabbers, and I appreciate the fact that he has
traveled to D.C. to testify on behalf of his organization. Now you may
not have heard of the Alaska Bering Sea Crabbers, but most people are
at least familiar with the Deadliest Catch. All you need to do is think
of Deadliest Catch and it takes you into the activities out in the
Bering Sea. Some of you may not know that I have a little bit of an
interest not only in the crab fishery, but in the safety of fishing
vessels out in the Bering Sea. My son just finished up a season
crabbing in the Bering Sea, and they left last night through Unimak
Pass to travel across the Gulf of Alaska. He is headed back home and he
probably is going to have some Bering Sea crab stories that I am not
sure his mother is really ready to hear yet, but I am bracing myself.
As I think about the experience my son has had as a Bering Sea crab
fisherman, given what we in the U.S. have put in place for safety, it
is a much better situation out there for our crabbers and our
fishermen. The same is true in terms of the fisheries management
regimes we have in place in the U.S., and it is important that Alaskan
and U.S. fishermen have a level playing field as they compete in the
global seafood market.
Russian IUU crab has been a serious problem for Alaska since at
least 1990. As is true for most commodity markets, crab prices are
driven by supply. IUU crab lowers the market price to fishermen and
processors, and tax revenues to the State of Alaska. The estimated
impacts of IUU crab to harvesters since 2000 is about $560 million,
with an additional cost to crab processing ports of over $11 million in
lost landing tax revenues. These are real dollars we are talking about,
this has a real impact on my State.
As recently as 2011, NOAA law enforcement seized 112 metric tons of
illegally harvested Russian king crab that was being shipped to U.S.
markets through the Port of Seattle. I am pleased to be followed by
representatives from the U.S. Coast Guard, NOAA, and the State
Department who will speak in more detail on their efforts to prevent
IUU seafood from entering the U.S. These three agencies, with
assistance from U.S Customs and Border Patrol and the FDA, successfully
prosecuted this case and helped shut down one avenue for illegal
imports. This is one positive example, and I believe the treaties
before you will enhance the effectiveness of U.S. authority to deter
IUU activities.
Two of the treaties you have before you today, the Port State
Measures Agreement and the Convention on the Conservation and
Management of High Seas Fisheries Resources in the North Pacific Ocean,
are of particular interest to my State's fishermen. The first will set
global standards to combat IUU fishing. We have high standards in the
U.S., and this treaty will help to protect U.S. fishermen by keeping
foreign illegally caught fish from entering the global stream of
commerce. Specifically, it will establish global port restrictions
designed to catch vessels engaged in illegal fishing activities when
they attempt to offload fish in port.
The second will establish a new Regional Fishery Management
Organization (RFMO), the North Pacific Fisheries Commission, for
fisheries resources located near the North Pacific Ocean, and not
currently addressed through preexisting international fisheries
management bodies. This region is adjacent to Alaska, and the west
coast, and it is important to ensure that there is a fisheries
management regime in place to deter IUU fishing activities.
Before concluding, I would like to comment on the fact that IUU
vessels also can be pretty bad actors beyond the world of fishing. You
will be hearing testimony from the third panel on the role that IUU
vessels are playing in the context of human trafficking and drug
smuggling. While these fisheries treaties are not focused on these
issues specifically, it is my understanding that they will provide
additional tools that can help U.S. law enforcement officials crack
down on them as well.
Again, I truly appreciate, and I know that my colleague, Senator
Whitehouse, does as well, the efforts of this committee to look into
these issues, to discuss them thoroughly, and to advance these treaties
to level the playing field for U.S. fishermen.
I encourage the committee to consider these treaties favorably, and
to move them forward for consideration by the full Senate.
Senator Markey. We appreciate your leadership, Senator
Murkowski, on this set of critical issues, and we intend on
acting, and your leadership has played a big role in bringing
us to this space. So we thank you so much for your service.
We would ask the second panel to come back up and we will
move to Admiral Kenney, although your nameplate says
``Kennedy.'' In Massachusetts that is not a bad thing, not a
bad thing. Most people would not change their name from Kennedy
to Kenney in Massachusetts, the way we just did for you.
STATEMENT OF REAR ADMIRAL FREDERICK J. KENNEY, JUDGE ADVOCATE
GENERAL AND CHIEF COUNSEL, U.S. COAST GUARD, WASHINGTON, DC
Admiral Kenney. Well, thank you, Senator. I am from
Massachusetts and----
Senator Markey. Really? What high school?
Admiral Kenney [continuing]. What is that?
Senator Markey. What high school?
Admiral Kenney. I went to Rossview Latin School.
Senator Markey. Really? A very well educated witness before
us. [Laughter.]
So whenever you are ready, Admiral, please begin.
Admiral Kenney. But it is an honor to be confused with that
other illustrious Massachusetts family.
Well, good afternoon, Chairman Markey. It is a pleasure to
appear before you to discuss how the international fisheries
treaties before you today will improve the Coast Guard's
ability to deter illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing
both within areas of U.S. jurisdiction and on the high seas. I
ask that my written statement be submitted for the record.
Senator Markey. Without objection, so ordered.
Admiral Kenney. Before I begin, on behalf of the Commandant
I would like to thank the members of the committee for their
support in passing the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2014.
This act will help relieve the erosive effects of sequestration
on the Coast Guard. It will restore frontline operations, such
as fisheries enforcement, and badly needed training hours. It
will ease many of the personnel management restrictions we have
faced over the past year.
Safeguarding living marine resources is a longstanding
Coast Guard mission and it remains a vital U.S. economic
interest today. The Coast Guard embraces its role as the
principal Federal at-sea enforcement agency for the protection
of living marine resources within the U.S. EEZ and on the high
seas. The Coast Guard supports the State Department and NOAA in
their efforts to combat IUU fishing. Actors engaged in this
illicit activity often exploit the gaps between governance
structures and operate in areas where there is little or no
effective enforcement presence.
The four international treaties under consideration by the
committee will significantly shrink those areas most vulnerable
to IUU fishing and will enhance the Coast Guard's ability to
provide at-sea enforcement for the conservation of precious
living marine resources.
Since 2008, the Coast Guard has conducted over 100 high
seas boardings and issued violations to over 20 vessels. These
enforcement efforts enabled recent seizures of stateless
vessels, such as the fishing vessel DA CHENG and its illegally
taken catch from high seas driftnet fishing. Notably, the Coast
Guard cooperated closely with Chinese officials to turn over
the vessel, crew, and catch for Chinese enforcement efforts,
which resulted in forfeiture of the catch, destruction of the
IUU vessel, and a significant fine for the master.
The Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization Convention
Amendment will help to align treaty activities with
contemporary enforcement practices within the convention area.
Both the North Pacific and South Pacific conventions will
establish a modern governance mechanism to provide a stronger
at-sea enforcement regime on the high seas of the Pacific
Ocean. The Port State Measures Agreement will address illegal
fishing activity by establishing economic disincentives for
those who violate the law.
Together, these four treaties will facilitate joint efforts
between the Coast Guard, NOAA, the State Department, and our
international partners to preserve and protect valuable living
marine resources that are critical to the United States and
world economies.
These treaties and other international instruments that
address fisheries governance also have a secondary benefit of
facilitating efforts to identify and counter other maritime
security threats. Groups or individuals involved in illegal
fishing may also be engaged in other crimes. In carrying out
the provision of these treaties, the Coast Guard can promote
maritime governments and increase maritime domain awareness on
the high seas, thus enabling the service to respond to a range
of transnational threats.
Enforcement of both the outer reaches of the U.S. EEZ and
international fisheries management schemes is largely a mission
conducted by Coast Guard offshore assets. The Coast Guard
remains steadfast in its commitment to recapitalizing its
offshore fleet to ensure it is capable of addressing these
threats, such as illegal fishing on the high seas and in our
sovereign waters.
The capabilities of new assets, such as the National
Security Cutter, one of which is on patrol in the Pacific as I
speak, and the Offshore Patrol Cutter, which is in the
preliminary and contract design phase, will maintain our
ability to conduct Coast Guard missions in the distant reaches
of the U.S. EEZ and on the high seas. These replacement
platforms for our aging offshore fleet, some of which are
nearly 50 years old, will make the Coast Guard better able to
close those awareness and presence gaps that allow IUU fishing
to occur undetected.
In conclusion, the Coast Guard strongly supports these four
international fisheries treaties. We will continue to work
closely with the State Department, NOAA, and our international
partners to achieve national and international objectives to
address IUU fishing. Such cooperation is a critical step in
sustaining marine ecosystems worldwide and to address threats
that impact the U.S. economy and global food security.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today.
I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Admiral Kenney follows:]
Prepared Statement of Rear Admiral Frederick J. Kenney
Good afternoon, Chairman Markey, Ranking Member Rubio, and
distinguished members of the committee. It is a pleasure to appear
before you today in support of four international fisheries agreements
that will improve the Coast Guard's ability to deter, prevent, and
enforce rules against Illegal, Unregulated, and Unreported (IUU)
fishing both within areas of U.S. jurisdiction and on the high seas.
Safeguarding living marine resources is a longstanding Coast Guard
mission and it remains a vital U.S. economic interest today. Beginning
with 19th century protection of the Bering Sea fur seal herds and
continuing through the post-World War II expansion in the size and
efficiency of global fishing fleets, the Coast Guard has embraced its
role as the principal, federal, on-scene law enforcement agency for the
protection of U.S. living marine resources. Today, the Coast Guard
maintains a law enforcement presence within the U.S. Exclusive Economic
Zone (EEZ), which is the largest in the world.
IUU fishing activity is global in reach, and it adversely affects
marine ecosystems by distorting competition and jeopardizing the
economic survival of coastal communities whose livelihoods depend upon
local fisheries. The Coast Guard supports the State Department and the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in their efforts
to combat IUU. Actors engaged in IUU fishing often exploit the gaps
between governance structures and operate in areas where there is
little or no effective enforcement presence. These four international
fisheries agreements will significantly shrink those gaps utilized by
IUU fishing and will improve the United States deterrence efforts, thus
promoting the optimal management and protection of vital living marine
resources and their environments.
Coast Guard efforts to deter and combat IUU fishing span both
domestic and internationalfisheries, and they bridge the Service's
maritime security and maritime stewardship goals.
These goals, outlined in the ``U.S. Coast Guard Strategy for
Maritime Safety, Security, and Stewardship,'' are driven by national
policy including ``Presidential Decision Directive 36: Protecting the
Ocean Environment,'' laws such as the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act, and international ocean governance
structures, such as U.S. membership within international Regional
Fishery Management Organizations (RFMOs). Each of the four fisheries
agreements being considered by the Senate will enhance the Coast
Guard's ability to provide at-sea enforcement for the conservation and
management of living marine resources and their environments.
Effective enforcement requires a clear understanding of the
Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) Convention's goals and
objectives. The NAFO Convention Amendment accomplishes this through
modernization of the Convention text that has been in force since 1979.
The changes will help align Coast Guard enforcement with contemporary
practices within the Convention area.
The North and South Pacific Conventions will establish a modern
governance mechanism that will enable a stronger at-sea enforcement
regime on the high seas of the Pacific and facilitate more effective
Coast Guard enforcement efforts in the region. To further achieve this
goal, the Coast Guard will continue to work closely with the State
Department and NOAA to ensure the conventions include a high-seas
boarding and inspection regime in line with Articles 21 and 22 of the
1995 U.N. Fish Stock Agreement.
The Port State Measures Agreement is another tool to combat IUU
fishing by addressing the problem through economic disincentives.
Without access to ports of convenience, vessels engaged in IUU fishing
will be unable to sell their product or receive logistical support for
operations. Forcing these vessels into ports further away from commerce
centers and fishing grounds will increase their operating costs and
diminish economic gains for illegally caught fish or fish product.
Limiting the ports available to these vessels would also simplify
enforcement by targeting investigations of illicit activity in ports
known to support IUU fishing.
Regional Fishery Management Organizations (RFMOs) have proven to be
highly effective in managing fisheries resources beyond areas of
national jurisdiction. For example, the Western and Central Pacific
Fisheries Commission (WCPFC), one of the first in the world to employ a
fully developed boarding and inspection protocol for high seas
enforcement based on the U.N. Fish Stocks Agreement, has produced a
level of governance and cooperation for long-term resource management
that was previously not feasible. The Coast Guard is proud to have been
involved in its development and negotiation, and as a leader in its
enforcement. Under the WCPFC since 2008, the Coast Guard has conducted
over 100 high seas boardings and inspections, issuing violations to
over 20 vessels. Likewise, Coast Guard cutter patrols in support of
these enforcement efforts have also enabled recent seizures of
stateless vessels such as the fishing vessel DA CHENG and its illegally
taken catch resulting from high-seas drift-net fishing. Notably, the
Coast Guard cooperated closely with Chinese officials to turn over the
vessel, crew, and catch for Chinese enforcement efforts. The Coast
Guard looks forward to continuing to provide leadership in the global
fight against IUU fishing in these new RFMOs.
Enforcement at the outer reaches of the U.S. EEZ and within high-
sea areas managed by RFMOs is a mission largely conducted by Coast
Guard off-shore assets. Cutter transit to most of the eight
noncontiguous U.S. EEZs in the Western and Central Pacific takes
several days (and more than a week in some cases) from the nearest
Coast Guard facility. The Coast Guard's offshore recapitalization
program ensures that these critical missions will have the organic
capabilities necessary to meet the extreme demands of time, distance,
and weather these operations entail.
As a secondary benefit, carrying out the provisions of these
Conventions enables the Coast Guard to increase Maritime Domain
Awareness on the high seas and more effectively respond to a range of
transnational threats.
In conclusion, the Coast Guard strongly supports these four
international fisheries agreements and will continue to work closely
with the State Department, NOAA, and our international partners to
achieve national and international objectives for managing sustainable
fisheries worldwide and to address IUU fishing. The world's oceans are
truly a global commons, requiring a global approach toward their
conservation and management. In the face of an increasing need for food
security and the increasing scarcity of marine resources, the U.S.
Coast Guard stands ready to confront IUU fishing to preserve the long-
term viability of migratory fish stocks that affect U.S. fisheries.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. I would
be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Senator Markey. Thank you, Admiral, very much. Again, we
thank all of the witnesses.
Another rollcall has gone off on the Senate floor, so we
will have to once again stand in a brief recess.
[Recess from 3:23 p.m. to 3:43 p.m.]
Senator Markey. The committee will reconvene and the Chair
will recognize himself for a round of questions.
Mr. Smith, the United States is already a member of a
number of regional fisheries management organizations. Can you
provide examples of how membership in those organizations has
benefited U.S. fisheries?
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Senator Markey. You are correct, we
are a member of a number of regional fisheries management
organizations and we have seen that our work within those
organizations has directly benefited our fisheries, including
for example the swordfish fishery in the North Atlantic, a
fishery that was in great trouble not too long ago. It was
overfished and subject to overfishing. The stock had crashed.
The United States had taken some steps to better manage the
fishery, to close some areas, to do some things to help the
fishery recover.
But our taking those actions alone would not be sufficient
because other countries were fishing on the same stocks. We
were able to go to ICAT, the International Convention for the
Conservation of Atlantic Tuna, and we were able to work with
them to develop management measures that have worked, have
resulted in the application of quotas that are science-based
and precautionary, the application of other management measures
that have led to the stock now having recovered, being managed
in a fully sustainable fashion, and allowing our fleet to rely
on it as an important source of fish for our markets and for
our food security.
Senator Markey. Thank you.
Admiral Kenney, the Coast Guard is already taking steps to
combat illegal fishing in both the United States EEZ and on the
high seas. For example, in seizing the fishing vessel DA CHENG
the Coast Guard found 30 metric tons of albacore tuna and 6
metric tons of shark fins and bodies. What role do you see
these treaties playing in enhancing your ability to do your
work?
Admiral Kenney. Thank you for that question, Mr. Chairman.
These treaties will enhance the Coast Guard's ability to detect
and enforce IUU fishing laws, regulations, and treaties. Under
the NAFO amendments, the Coast Guard will be able to continue
conducting joint patrols with the Canadian Department of
Fisheries and Oceans, as we do. For example, in 2012 we
conducted the very successful Operation Nanook with the
Canadians, which did result in some boardings, although no
violations were found.
The Port State Measures Agreement will enable us to work
closely with NOAA to prevent IUU fishing vessels from entering
U.S. ports. The Coast Guard can add to that effort
significantly through our Advanced Notice of Arrival System and
allow NOAA to take action as vessels enter port.
With respect to the North Pacific and South Pacific
treaties, allowing the Coast Guard to have presence and domain
awareness in these areas will also allow us to take effective
enforcement action. A good example of that type of cooperative
effort is the Oceana Maritime Security Initiative, which is an
initiative that is led by the U.S. Pacific Command and has
allowed Coast Guard boarding teams to ride along U.S. naval
vessels to conduct fisheries boardings in conjunction with
Pacific Island nations to help them preserve their fish stocks.
Senator Markey. Thank you.
Ambassador Balton, developing nations are impacted by
illegal fishing in a number of ways. Somalia, for example,
loses $300 million a year because of illegal fishing. In
addition to direct economic impacts, many developing nations
depend on fisheries products for subsistence purposes. How will
these agreements help to address the impact of illegal fishing
and environmental degradation on developing nations?
Ambassador Balton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You are exactly
right, developing countries bear the brunt of the problem with
respect to IUU fishing. I would note that for the Port State
Measures Agreement a number of them have already ratified,
recognizing that that instrument will help them. I will mention
now: Angola, Benin, Brazil, Ghana, Indonesia, Kenya,
Mozambique, Peru, Samoa, Sierra Leone, among others.
The Port State Measures Agreement is a great example of a
cooperative effort to crack down on IUU fishing. It is cost
effective. It would also allow us and other developed countries
and multilateral donors to provide assistance to developing
countries to help them implement relatively inexpensive
measures in port to prevent illegally harvested fish from being
offloaded there.
The other agreements, too, by cracking down on IUU fishing
and having science-based management should allow for
sustainability of fisheries, also to the betterment of the
economy of developing countries.
Senator Markey. Thank you.
We thank each of the witnesses for your expert testimony.
It is going to go a long way toward our ability to be able to
move this treaty through the committee and out onto the Senate
floor. We thank you for all of your excellent work.
Now I would ask the second panel to please come up and sit
in front of your names. Then we will begin the testimony.
[Pause.]
Senator Markey. Our final panel will illustrate some of the
real world consequences of illegal fishing. I will briefly
introduce our witnesses and then we can hear their testimony.
Captain Ray Kane is the outreach coordinator for the Cape
Cod Commercial Fishermen's Alliance. He is the owner and
operator of F/V FRENZY and has been a Cape Cod fishermen for
nearly 40 years.
Mark Gleason is the executive director of the Alaska Bering
Sea Crabbers, an association of crab fishermen, primarily based
out of Alaska, Washington, and Oregon.
Ambassador Mark Lagon is global politics and security chair
at the Master of Science in Foreign Service Program at
Georgetown University and adjunct senior fellow for Human
Rights at the Council on Foreign Relations. He was an
Ambassador at Large and directed the U.S. Department of State
Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons from 2007
to 2009, and he is, most importantly, a former member of the
staff of this committee, and I am told also a native of
Massachusetts. So we are keeping the panels balanced in that
sense.
So we will begin with you, Mr. Kane. Whenever you are
ready, please begin.
STATEMENT OF RAYMOND KANE, OUTREACH COORDINATOR, CAPE COD
FISHERMEN'S ALLIANCE, CHATHAM, MA
Mr. Kane. Good afternoon, Chairman Markey. My name is Capt.
Ray Kane. I appreciate your invitation to testify at this
important hearing. By way of background, I have been actively
involved in the Massachusetts commercial fishing industry for
over 40 years, and I have participated in virtually every New
England fishery, including tuna, lobster, scallops, and
groundfish.
In addition to being the owner and operator of the fishing
vessel FRENZY, I also serve as the Fishery Advocate for the
Cape Code Commercial Fishermen's Alliance. Today I am
testifying on behalf of the hardworking small boat fishermen
from both Cape Cod and the islands. That comprises the
alliance.
As an organization dedicated to sustainable fisheries, we
support the establishment and strengthening of effective
regional fisheries management organizations, also known as
RFMOs. Effective multilateral RFMOs are the only way to manage
and conserve fisheries on the high seas and as such we firmly
support their creation in the North and South Pacific Ocean.
Because our Cape Cod fishermen are not involved in the
Pacific fisheries, nor do they fish in the NAFO area, my
testimony today will focus on the Port State Measures Agreement
aimed at deterring and eliminating illegal, unreported, and
unregulated fishing, referred to as ``IUU fishing.'' IUU
fishing is a multibillion dollar industry, and it is growing.
IUU fishing is fueled by the overall increase in fish prices
and dwindling global fish stocks. Recent studies suggest that
foreign illegal fishing is a worldwide business that accounts
for up to $23.5 billion worth of seafood annually, or 25
million tons of fish and, even better, Senator Markey, six
times more fish than the entire U.S. commercial fishing
industry annual landings.
The Port State Measures Agreement is built on the promise
that IUU fishing can be reduced if IUU fish can be prevented
from entering the global commerce. The most effective way of
accomplishing this is to make it extremely difficult for IUU
fish to be offloaded in a port. In this regard, the agreement
establishes the first global standards to control port access
from foreign fishing vessels that engage in IUU fishing. These
standards include mandating parties, port states, to require
prior notice of a foreign fishing vessel's arrival in their
port, restricting port entry and services to foreign vessels
known or suspected of IUU fishing, adopting minimum dockside
inspection and training standards, and the sharing of
information about IUU vessels with the appropriate RFMOs.
But what is most critical about the agreement is that it
creates an obligation of the signatory nations to apply and
implement these measures. In other words, these measures are to
be enforceable, not merely aspirational. The truth is many
coastal nations are simply not as rigorous in their enforcement
as is the United States. What is worse is that it is widely
understood that around the world the illegal sale of additional
fish quotas and fishing licenses is extremely lucrative, which
fuels the IUU epidemic.
So why is this agreement important to the small day boat
fishermen on Cape Cod, my fellow fishermen from Gloucester,
Boston, New Bedford, and all the New England coast, and for
that matter the entire East Coast? The answer is simple. For
too many years, New England fishermen have sacrificed to
rebuild highly migratory stocks while foreign fishermen engaged
in IUU fishing are reaping the benefits of our efforts by
targeting those very same fish. This is particularly true for
tuna and swordfish fishermen along the New England coast.
Mr. Chairman, American fishermen and especially
Massachusetts fishermen have had enough of IUU fishing. We need
to level the playing field in order to make sure that we have
an equal footing in the marketplace and to ensure that our
conservation efforts and sacrifices are not undone by IUU
fishing. We believe the Port State Measures Agreement is a good
place to start and we strongly encourage this committee and the
entire Senate to approve the agreement as soon as possible.
Thank you and I would be happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kane follows:]
Prepared Statement of Capt. Raymond Kane
Good afternoon, Senators Markey and Rubio. My name is Captain Ray
Kane and I appreciate your invitation to testify at this important
hearing. By way of background, I have been actively involved in the
Massachusetts commercial fishing industry for over 40 years, and I have
participated in virtually every fishery including tuna, lobster,
scallops, and groundfish. In addition to being the owner and operator
of the F/V Frenzy, I also serve as the fishery advocate for the Cape
Cod Commercial Fishermen's Alliance (Alliance). Today I am testifying
on behalf of the hard working, small boat fishermen from Cape Cod and
the Islands that comprise the Alliance.
The subject of today's hearing is the consideration of four
fisheries agreements including an Amendment to the Convention of Future
Multilateral Cooperation in the Northwest Atlantic (NAFO); the
Convention on the Conservation and Management of High Seas Fisheries
Resources in the North Pacific Ocean; the Convention on the
Conservation and Management of High Seas Fishery Resources in the South
Pacific Ocean (SPRFMO); and the Agreement on Port State Measures to
Prevent, Deter, and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated
Fishing (PSMA).
As an organization dedicated to sustainable fisheries, we support
the establishment and strengthening of effective regional fishery
management organizations, also known as RFMOs. RFMOs for high-seas
areas are especially important as by their very nature, high-seas areas
are under the control of no one single nation. As we painfully learned
from high-seas fishing in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean, when there are
no rules and no enforcement, there is also no conservation. Effective
multilateral RFMO's are the only way to manage and conserve fisheries
on the high seas and as such we firmly support their creation in the
North and South Pacific Ocean. Because our Cape Cod fishermen are not
involved in the Pacific fisheries nor do they fish in the NAFO area, my
testimony today will focus on the Port State Measures Agreement aimed
at deterring and eliminating IUU fishing.
Make no mistake about it. Illegal, unreported and unregulated
fishing--IUU fishing--is a multibillion dollar industry and it is
growing. IUU fishing is fueled by the overall increase in fish prices
and dwindling global fish stocks. Recent studies suggest that foreign
illegal fishing is a worldwide business that accounts for up to $23.5
billion worth of seafood annually, or 26 million tons of fish--six
times more fish than the entire U.S. commercial fishing industry annual
catch. Some of the biggest culprits involve fishing vessels flagged
from EU and Asian nations including Korean, Taiwan, and China. Recent
research by Daniel Pauly, a scientist at the University of British
Columbia, found that even though China claims to have the biggest
distant-water fishing fleet in the world, it only reported 386,000 tons
of fish caught per year between 2000 and 2011. This same research also
estimated China was catching more than 12 times the amount of fish it
reported.
The United States has been a global leader in fighting IUU fishing.
Domestically, we have some of the strongest laws aimed at curtailing
IUU fishing and ensuring that IUU fish does not enter our markets.
Under the High Seas Driftnet Fishing Moratorium Protection Act, as
amended, the United States lists nations identified as having vessels
engaged in IUU fishing and can both deny port privileges to IUU vessels
and prohibit the import of fish products from IUU nations into the U.S.
Additionally, the Magnuson-Stevens Act includes some of the strictest
enforcement measures and penalties to deter U.S. fishermen from
engaging in IUU fishing. Believe me, the United States Coast Guard, the
National Marine Fisheries Service and the Department of Homeland
Security do an excellent job enforcing a whole suite of conservation,
safety, and security laws on American fishermen.
Internationally, the U.S. has also taken a leadership role. Through
the various RFMOs, the United States has pushed for stronger measures
to deter and detect IUU fishing, including adoption of IUU vessel
lists, market-related measures, vessel monitoring and surveillance
programs and prohibiting the transfer of catch at sea. Unfortunately,
as is the case with most international fishery organizations,
application and enforcement of these measures remains mixed at best.
The Port State Measures Agreement is built on the premise that IUU
fishing can be reduced if IUU fish can be prevented from entering
global commerce, and the most effective way of accomplishing this is to
make it extremely difficult for IUU fish to be offloaded in a port. In
this regard, the Agreement establishes the first global standards to
control port access from foreign illegal fishing vessels that engage in
IUU fishing. These standards include mandating parties (port states) to
require prior notice of a foreign fishing vessel's arrival in their
port, restricting port entry and port services to foreign vessels known
or suspected of IUU fishing, adopting minimum dockside inspection and
training standards, and the sharing of information about IUU vessels
with the appropriate RFMOs. But what is most critical about the
Agreement is that it creates an obligation of the signatory nations to
apply and implement these measures; in other words, these measures are
to be enforceable, not merely aspirational. The truth is, many coastal
nations are simply not as rigorous in their enforcement as the United
States. What's worse is that it is widely understood that around the
world the illegal sale of additional fish quotas and fishing licenses
is extremely lucrative which fuels the IUU epidemic.
So why is this Agreement important to the small, day boat fishermen
on Cape Cod and, for that matter, my fellow fishermen from Gloucester,
Boston, New Bedford, and all along the New England coast? The answer is
simple: for too many years, New England fishermen have sacrificed to
rebuild highly migratory stocks, while foreign fishermen engaged in IUU
fishing reap the benefits of our efforts by targeting those very same
fish. This is particularly true for tuna and swordfish fishermen along
the New England coast.
For decades, Atlantic tuna and swordfish quotas for American
fishermen were significantly reduced for conservation reasons while
foreign IUU fishing persisted and undermined those attempts at
sustainability. Unlike inshore fish stocks where the United States can
exert effective unilateral management within our 200 mile exclusive
economic zone, highly migratory stocks like tuna and swordfish swim
throughout the Atlantic Ocean and are therefore susceptible to
overexploitation by foreign fishermen in international waters. In
addition to undermining conservation efforts, IUU fish depresses the
market for American harvested fish both in terms of demand and price.
In sum, IUU fish undermines our businesses as well as our stock
rebuilding efforts. Thus, our fishermen feel the double whammy: fish
that we abstain from harvesting to ensure a sustainable stock are
harvested instead through IUU fishing, and yet when we do harvest our
quota, the markets and prices for our fish are depressed because of the
presence of IUU fish in the marketplace.
Mr. Chairman, American fishermen and especially Massachusetts
fishermen have had enough of IUU fishing! We need to level the playing
field in order to make sure that we have an equal footing in the
marketplace and to ensure that our conservation efforts and sacrifices
are not undone by IUU fishing. We believe the Port State Measures
Agreement is a good place to start and we strongly encourage this
committee and the entire Senate to approve the Agreement as soon as
possible.
Senator Markey. And what high school did you go to?
Mr. Kane. Actually, I grew up in Yonkers, NY, Senator,
Yonkers.
Senator Markey. I can hear that. I can hear it.
Mr. Kane. But I am a wash-ashore and I have been fishing
since I have been 23, post-college.
Senator Markey. Thank you.
What high school did you go to, Ambassador?
Ambassador Lagon. I went to Middlesex School in Concord.
Senator Markey. Right in Concord, beautiful. Welcome,
Ambassador. Whenever you are ready, please begin.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARK P. LAGON, GLOBAL POLITICS AND SECURITY
CHAIR, MASTER OF SCIENCE IN FOREIGN SERVICE PROGRAM, GEORGETOWN
UNIVERSITY, AND ADJUNCT SENIOR FELLOW FOR HUMAN RIGHTS, COUNCIL
ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, WASHINGTON, DC
Ambassador Lagon Great. Chairman Markey, it is a privilege
to testify here. I did serve the committee as a staffer. It is
great to be back. The committee also supported my confirmation
to become Ambassador at Large to combat human trafficking.
Somewhat more recently, I have become an uncompensated
board member of something called the Global Business Coalition
Against Human Trafficking, that includes some star players like
Coca-Cola, Delta, Ford, Hilton, and Microsoft. They, as a
coalition, try to promote measures to shut windows of
vulnerability to human trafficking that taint vital and
legitimate business, like some of the measures I want to talk
about today, if I might.
I would like to speak on how human trafficking, netting
people, is intermingled with IUU fishing. I would ask that my
written testimony be entered into the record, please.
Increasingly, evidence indicates that labor and even sexual
exploitation occurs on fishing vessels that exists largely
unnoticed. In 2013 the Maritime Labor Convention came into
force to protect the rights of those working on merchant and
passenger ships, but unfortunately no comparable legal measures
exist for workers' rights on fishing vessels. Fishing vessels
are exempt from safety standards and monitoring requirements of
the International Maritime Organization.
So fishing vessels of all sizes are regulated solely by the
country from which they are registered, or, the ``flag'' state,
rather than ``port'' states where they bring in their cargo and
would be more likely to get caught doing something illegal.
This all amounts to a kind of governance ``black hole.''
Leading observers in our society, like the Pew Charitable
Trusts, with great expertise on IUU and enforcement challenges,
have been focused on exposing this weak regulatory environment.
It impacts a global fishing industry where the annual
revenues are somewhere between $80 and $85 billion, and that
industry is trying to meet increasing demand for seafood. That
context creates an opportunity for human traffickers to seek
maximum gain with little risk.
I would like to quote a 2011 U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime
report on this territory. It said: ``The most disturbing
finding about IUU fishing was the severity of the abuse of
fishers trafficked for the purpose of forced labor. It is cruel
and inhuman treatment in the extreme. Disturbing in particular
is the frequency of trafficking in children.''
So let us take a particular example. Thailand's fishing
fleet is chronically short on fishermen, short by maybe 60,000
fishermen a year, and foreign labor makes up 40 percent of that
gap. Traffickers travel inland in countries like Cambodia and
Myanmar and recruit men who, with the help of corrupt border
police, get sold into bondage at sea.
Some texture comes from an NPR story in 2012 that followed
a man named Vannak Prum. He looked for a fishing job to help
pay for his pregnant wife's hospital bills and was sold to a
Thai fishing vessel, subject to 20-hour work days in dangerous
and unsanitary conditions, and was held without pay for 3 years
at sea, including fishing illegally in Indonesian waters.
A 2009 survey by the U.N. found that 59 percent of migrants
trafficked aboard Thai fishing vessels witnessed the murder of
a fellow worker. A nonprofit in 2013 interviewed 14 men from
Myanmar rescued from Thai fishing vessels and they reported
seeing beatings, a crew member tortured or executed, and 5
murdered. In 2013 150 Cambodian and Burmese victims were
rescued from Thai fishing vessels.
But it is not just in that region of the world. The State
Department's Trafficking in Persons Report links trafficking to
the fishing industry in numerous examples--including women and
children trafficked for prostitution--in places across the
Pacific, Asia, and Africa. A nonprofit actually indicated
evidence in 2013 that a fishing firm in Sierra Leone was
trafficking girls for sex purposes.
The U.S. fishing fleet is highly compliant with domestic
and international laws, while illegal fishing by foreign
vessels poses real problems for the United States, particularly
along the U.S.-Mexico border, where there has been a drastic
increase of incursions of illegal Mexican fishing vessels.
Recent reports suggest that these same vessels are used to
smuggle drugs and humans from Northeast Mexico into Texas.
So the Port State Measures Agreement will strengthen port
inspections, enhance communications, and deny port entry to
illegal fishing vessels. It is cost effective, has an
enforcement mechanism, and is going to increase the cost to
illegal fishing operations. Increasing accountability and
economic incentives brought about by the PSMA would help erode
various criminal activities associated with illegal fishing,
including human trafficking.
Twenty-five nations need to ratify the PSMA to come into
force and the world is waiting for the United States to act as
an example.
The Trafficking Victims Protection Act, to conclude, was
reauthorized in March 2013 with strong bipartisan support,
bipartisan support as strong as I witnessed as a Senate Foreign
Relations Committee staffer responsible for helping move
through the original legislation in 2000. The PSMA complements
that law and institutes standards consistent with already
existing U.S. practice and can pay big dividends through
enhanced accountability.
I strongly urge the Senate to ratify and implement it and
send a message to the world that it will not tolerate either
illegal fishing or gross human rights abuses. All the treaties
and agreements under consideration today would shed sunshine on
illegal fishing. They would advance the stewardship of marine
ecosystems. They would advance fairness to businesses playing
by the rules, as reflected by my fellow panelists. But they
would also prevent vulnerable people from being utterly
dehumanized, violated, and even killed at sea.
Thank you for inviting me.
[The prepared statement of Ambassador Lagon follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ambassador Mark P. Lagon
Chairman Markey, Senator Rubio, members of the committee, it is a
privilege to testify here. I served at the committee as a staffer,
assisting then Senator Sam Brownback and the late Senator Paul
Wellstone in finalizing the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000.
The committee 7 years later supported my confirmation to serve as
Ambassdor at Large directing the Office to Monitor and Combat
Trafficking in Persons the Act created, where I named the State
Department's annual award for the U.S. bilateral ambassador doing the
most to combat trafficking after Senator Wellstone.
Thereafter, I became CEO of the leading U.S. antitrafficking
nonprofit, Polaris Project, and in 2012 Founding Board Member
(uncompensated, to be clear) of the Global Business Coalition Against
Human Trafficking (gbcat.org), which includes Carlson, Coca Cola, Delta
Airlines, Ford Motor Company, Hilton Hotels, Microsoft, and NXP
Semiconductor among its members. This coalition of thought leaders
promotes best practices to shut the windows of vulnerability to human
trafficking tainting vital, legitimate business--through means like
those I will recommend today.
My tenure from 2007 to 2009 as Ambassador at Large involved
rebalancing the focus on human trafficking toward that based on
exploitation for labor--in addition to that horrifically based on
commoditized sex. Labor trafficking is a broader phenomenon, yet still
prosecuted today globally less than one-sixth as often as sex
trafficking, according to the 2013 Department of State ``Trafficking in
Persons Report.'' \1\ That tenure also witnessed the revelation of how
often human trafficking occurs in the seafood sector--from the victims
of forced labor in seafood processing I met in Thailand in 2007, to
boys fishing in Ghana's Lake Volta so vividly depicted in the
documentary film on child trafficking, ``Not My Life,'' \2\ which we at
the State Department Office lent advice to get made.
The focus of today's hearing is on illegal, unreported and
unregulated (IUU) fishing, the Port States Measures Agreement (PSMA),
as well as three other international fisheries agreements. My testimony
will center on human trafficking as it relates to fishing vessels and
illegal fishing worldwide. I ask that my written testimony please be
entered into the hearing record.
It is important to state from the outset that there is limited
information available on the relationship between illegal fishing,
human trafficking, and other criminal activities. These activities can
occur independently. Obviously only some fishing vessels are engaged in
illegal fishing, and human trafficking. However, the available data
suggests that the confluence of these activities at sea does occur all
too often, requiring a strong response from the United States. These
illicit activities impact economically disadvantaged and vulnerable
people, global commerce, and the health of our ocean environment, and
merits your action. I strongly urge this committee to support and
advance the Port States Measures Agreement in particular as soon as
possible.
Human trafficking is not limited to activities on land, and
increasingly evidence indicates that labor and even sexual exploitation
are occurring at sea, and particularly on fishing vessels that exist
largely unnoticed by the rest of the world. In 2013, the Maritime Labor
Convention (MLC) came into force to protect the rights of seafarers on
merchant vessels and passenger ships, but unfortunately, no comparable
legal measures exist for workers rights aboard fishing vessels
worldwide. Further, fishing vessels are generally exempt from the
vessel safety standards and monitoring requirements of the
International Maritime Organization (IMO). As a result, a range of
fishing vessels of all sizes and seaworthiness are regulated solely by
the country from which the vessel is registered, the vessel's ``flag''
state, and they can operate across wide swaths of the ocean for months
or years at a time with relative autonomy. Enforcement actions have
traditionally been left to the states where the boats are registered,
or ``flagged,'' rather than the ``port'' states where they bring their
cargo to shore, where they would be more likely to be caught doing
something illegal.
Moreover, fishing boats are much less carefully regulated than
other ships. Because fishing vessels are not required to have
identification numbers, enormous ships are known to change names and
flags of registration to stay a step ahead of authorities. Interpol
issued two worldwide alerts last year for vessels that had done just
that.\3\ Fishing vessels are not required to carry satellite
transponders, which makes it easy for them to evade surveillance. This
all amounts to a governance ``black hole.''
This weak regulatory environment impacts a global fishing industry
with annual revenues of $80-$85 billion that seeks to meet the
increasing demand for seafood.\4\ These financial and regulatory
conditions create an opportunity for traffickers to seize maximum gain
with little risk, at the expense of fellow human beings who they in
effect enslave. A 2011 report of the United Nations Office on Drugs and
Crime (UNODC), ``Transnational Organized Crime in the Fishing
Industry,'' concluded: ``Perhaps the most disturbing finding of the
study was the severity of the abuse of fishers trafficked for the
purpose of forced labour on board fishing vessels. These practices can
only be described as cruel and inhumane treatment in the extreme . . .
A particularly disturbing facet of this form of exploitation is the
frequency of trafficking in children in the fishing industry.'' \5\
We lack robust statistics of the full extent of human trafficking
abuses associated with the global fishing industry, but a growing list
of examples highlights the severity of the problem. Bloomberg
Businessweek conducted a 6-month investigation into debt bondage
schemes in Indonesia where men, desperate for work, were exploited on
Korean-flagged fishing vessels operating off the coast of New Zealand.
Fishing company agents rushed men into signing misleading contracts
that allowed the fishing company to withhold salaries, and they
collected collateral assets from workers' families. Further,
crewmembers were required to work to the company's loosely defined
``satisfaction,'' or be sent home without pay and charged $1,000 for
airfare.\6\ Though the crew lived in cramped, unsanitary conditions
with the daily threat of physical violence and rape, the contract terms
assessed fines for any worker who ran away from the job. Workers were
forced to work, knowing their families would ultimately be held
responsible.
A 2011 report from the International Organization for Migration
(IOM) entitled ``Trafficking of Fishermen in Thailand'' provides
detailed information on the scale and scope of the human trafficking in
the Thai fishing industry.\7\ Citizens of Southeast Asian countries are
subjected to human trafficking on Thai vessels that fish on longer
voyages in foreign waters far from enforcement (as compared to vessels
that fish in their exclusive economic zone, or EEZ, waters and return
to port frequently). Workers are vulnerable due to their limited
potential to leave the ship. In 2012, National Public Radio produced a
special report \8\ exposing significant human trafficking of men from
Cambodia and Myanmar on Thai fishing vessels. Thailand has a large
fishing fleet but is chronically short on fishermen--short by up to
60,000 per year--and foreign labor makes up 40 percent of the men
working at sea. The report indicates that human traffickers travel
inland to remote villages in Cambodia and Myanmar and recruit men who
they move with the complicity of corrupt border police to be sold into
bondage at sea.
The NPR story follows a man named Vannak Prum as he looked for a
short-term fishing job to pay for his pregnant wife's hospital bills,
but was sold to a Thai fishing vessel, subject to 20-hour work days in
dangerous and unsanitary conditions, and held without pay for 3 years
at sea. Prum's account documents illegal fishing inside of Indonesian
waters and his vessel evading gunfire before slipping into Malaysian
waters. Prum eventually escaped by jumping overboard while fishing near
an island off Malaysia, but once ashore, he was sold into indentured
servitude on a palm oil plantation by a local police officer. This case
reflects archetypical human trafficking: vulnerable groups of people
robbed of their autonomy because they lack any access to justice.
Fishermen trapped at sea are subjected to violent, and sometimes
deadly, abuse while aboard Thai vessels. A 2009 survey by the United
Nations Inter-Agency Project on Human Trafficking (UNIAP) found that 59
percent of interviewed migrants trafficked aboard Thai fishing boats
reported witnessing the murder of a fellow worker.\9\ Accidents,
dangerous working conditions and the fear of being physically abused
are common, but reports suggest that most vessels had little to no
medical supplies and would not stop work to seek medical attention for
the crew.\10\ In 2013, the Environmental Justice Foundation (EJF)
interviewed 14 Myanmar men rescued from Thai fishing vessels who
reported beatings by the senior crew, and in two cases, the victims
reported seeing a fellow crewmember tortured and executed for trying to
escape, as well as the murder of five others.\11\ Further, EJF
interviews with rescued victims confirmed that the vessels often fished
illegally in foreign waters.\12\ In 2013, 150 Cambodian and Burmese
victims were rescued from Thai fishing vessels in ports around the
world, but the U.S. State Department reports that this is likely only a
fraction of the total number of Asian men victimized by trafficking on
fishing boats.\13\
The State Department's ``Trafficking in Persons Report for 2013''
suggests that the connection between human trafficking and the fishing
industry is not limited to Thailand, and there are numerous examples
involving victims--including woman and children trafficked for
prostitution--from poor and developing countries across the Pacific,
Asia, and Africa.\14\ In July 2013, a humanitarian organization
reported that a foreign fishing firm based in Sierra Leone trafficked
girls for purposes of sex, leaving port with the girls onboard before
they were rescued by the local authorities.\15\ Many other woman and
children are not as fortunate.
The same circumstances that make fishing vessels opportune for
human trafficking also make them susceptible to other forms of
transnational organized crime, including drug trafficking. For
instance, a State Department report notes that drug smuggling is often
aided by fishing boats moving drugs through the Bahamas, Jamaica, and
Florida.\16\ The 2011 UNODC report Transnational Organized Crime in the
Fishing Industry that I previously mentioned addressed the extent to
which criminal activities within the fishing industry were a threat to
the law-abiding and legitimate fishing industry, local fishing
communities, and the public at large. The study confirmed labor abuses
aboard fishing vessels, as well as the links between illegal fishing,
and transnational organized crime, and drug trafficking. Specifically,
it found that fishing vessels are used for smuggling migrants, drugs
(primarily cocaine), and weapons, and committing acts of terrorism.
Fishing vessels are used as ``mother ships'' serving as base stations
from which criminal activities are coordinated, as supply vessels for
other vessels engaged in criminal activities, or simply as cover for
clandestine activities at sea and in port. The study also found that
some transnational fishing operators are engaged in marine living
resource crime. These fishing operations are highly sophisticated and
employ complex incorporation and vessel registration strategies to
avoid tracking. They coordinate at-sea vessel support services to aid
in moving illegally caught fish to market, often supported by
fraudulent catch documentation.\17\
As stated at the outset, the data that explicitly connects illegal
fishing, human trafficking, and other criminal activities is limited,
but mounting evidence suggests that fishing vessels engaged in one of
these illicit activities are likely to also engage in the others. There
is evidence of widespread IUU fishing occurring in the Asia-Pacific
region, estimated at 3.4-8.1 million tons per year,\18\ costing
countries in that region significant annual revenue losses (losses
estimated, for instance, at $2.5 billion in 2007 \19\) and resulting in
overexploited fisheries. The presence of IUU activity overlaps with
human trafficking abuses aboard fishing vessels and also within
communities that service the fishing vessels in port. The coincidence
of these activities indicates that these problems are related, and are
being driven by the global demand for fish and fish products.
There is a significant variation of compliance and enforcement, as
with many issues, within national fishing fleets, with the U.S. fleet
generally considered highly compliant with domestic and international
laws, while others, such as Thailand have a poor record, implicated in
cases of illegal fishing, human trafficking abuses, and human
smuggling. Despite the high compliance rates within the U.S. fleet,
illegal fishing by foreign vessels poses problems for the United
States, particularly along the U.S.-Mexico border where there has been
a drastic increase in recent years in the number of incursions of
illegal Mexican fishing vessels called ``lanchas'' into U.S. waters.
Local U.S. Coast Guard officials describe these illegal Mexican fishing
vessels as a ``persistent challenge to U.S. sovereignty,'' \20\ and
recent reports suggest that these same vessels are also used to smuggle
drugs and humans from northeast Mexico into Texas.\21\ Likewise, small
boats that would typically be used for fishing are a common mode of
transport for undocumented migrants attempting to enter the United
States, using California beaches as a landing point. Smugglers are paid
up to $9,000 per person for these dangerous voyages that often end in
deaths.\22\
Human trafficking in particular is a complex, international problem
that must be addressed through a variety of legal and diplomatic
channels. Once entered into force, the Port State Measures Agreement
will strengthen port inspections, enhance communications, and deny port
entry--including port services and supplies--to suspected illegal
fishing vessels. The PSMA is a cost-effective enforcement mechanism
that will begin to change the economic incentives--increasing the cost
associated with illegal fishing because it will be more difficult for
illegal vessels to access global markets. Once a suspected illegal
fishing vessel is identified, countries will coordinate enforcement
efforts to ensure that the suspected vessel is refused entry at other
ports until the vessel agrees to be inspected or is prosecuted. The
increased accountability and economic incentives in the PSMA could help
to erode other criminal activities that are often associated with
illegal fishing, including human trafficking. Currently, the European
Union and 8 other nations have ratified the agreement, and 25 nations
must ratify for the instrument to go into force. The world is waiting
for the United States to act, and many nations will undoubtedly follow.
In 2000, Congress enacted the Trafficking Victims Protection Act
which defined trafficking for the purposes of labor or sex and provided
critical measures to protect human trafficking victims. This law was
reauthorized for the fourth time in March 2013 with bipartisan support
as strong as I witnessed as a staff member of this committee in 2000.
The Port State Measures Agreement in particular complements this widely
supported law, and institutes standards that are consistent with
existing U.S. practice, and could pay big dividends globally through
enhanced accountability, monitoring, communication, and enforcement of
suspect fishing vessels that may be engaged in human trafficking or
other criminal activities. The Port States Measures Agreement provides
a pathway to beginning to address the complicated problem of human
trafficking on the high seas. I strongly urge the U.S. Senate to
demonstrate leadership and immediately ratify and implement the Port
State Measures Agreement, sending a message to the world that we will
not tolerate illegal fishing and its associated human rights
violations.
A 2009 peer-reviewed scientific study estimated that the worldwide
annual value of losses from illegal and unreported fishing could reach
$23.5 billion.\23\ Yet, vessels engaged in illegal, unregulated fishing
not only steal precious food resources off the coasts of poor countries
and damage marine ecosystems. They engage in drug smuggling. Most
serious, they also prey on human beings. Illicit fishing worldwide
appears to be rife with human trafficking. All the treaties and
agreements under consideration at this hearing would regularize and
shed sunshine on that fishing. As a result they would not only prove
more stewardly for marine econsystems, and more fair to businesses
playing by the rules--as reflected by my fellow panelists--but helpful
to prevent vulnerable people from being utterly dehumanized, violated,
and even killed in that illicit fishing.
----------------
End Notes
\1\ U.S. Department of State. (2013). ``Trafficking in Persons
Report--June 2013.'' See http://www.state.gov/j/tip/rls/tiprpt/2013/.
\2\ See http://notmylife.org/fishing-boys-lake-volta.
\3\ See http://news.msn.co.nz/nationalnews/8767033/nz-goes-to-
interpol-over-rogue-trawler.
\4\ Dyck, A.J. and Sumaila, U.R. (2010). ``Economic Impact of Ocean
Fish Populations in the Global Fishery.'' Journal of Bioeconomics, DOI:
10.1007/s10818-010-9088-3.
\5\ United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC).
``Transnational Organized Crime in the Fishing Industry--Focus on:
Trafficking in Persons, Smuggling of Migrants, and Illicit Drugs
Trafficking.'' (2011). See http://www.unodc.org/documents/human-
trafficking/Issue_
Paper_-_TOC_in_the_Fishing_Industry.pdf.
\6\ Skinner, E. Benjamin. (February 23, 2012). ``The Fishing
Industry's Cruelest Catch,'' Bloomberg Businessweek. See http://
www.businessweek.com/printer/articles/22538-the-fishing-industrys-
cruelest-catch.
\7\ International Organization for Migration (IOM). (2011).
Trafficking of Fishermen in Thailand. See https://www.iom.int/jahia/
webdav/shared/shared/mainsite/activities/countries/docs/thailand/
Trafficking-of-Fishermen-Thailand.pdf.
\8\ Service, Shannon, and Palmstrom, Becky. (June 19, 2012).
``Confined to a Thai Fishing Boat, For Three Years.'' NPR. See http://
www.npr.org/2012/06/19/155045295/confined-to-a-thai-fishing-boat-for-
three-years.
\9\ United Nations Inter-Agency Project on Human Trafficking
(UNIAP). (2009). ``Exploitation of Cambodian Men at Sea.'' See http://
www.no-trafficking.org/reports_docs/siren/siren_cb3.pdf.
\10\ International Organization for Migration (IOM). (2011).
``Trafficking of Fishermen in Thailand.'' See https://www.iom.int/
jahia/webdav/shared/shared/mainsite/activities/countries/docs/thailand/
Trafficking-of-Fishermen-Thailand.pdf.
\11\ Environmental Justice Foundation. (2013). ``Sold to the Sea--
Human Trafficking in Thailand's Fishing Industry.''See http://
ejfoundation.org/sites/default/files/public/Sold_to_the_
Sea_report_lo-res-v2.pdf.
\12\ Ibid.
\13\ U.S. Department of State. (2013). Trafficking in Persons
Report--June 2013. See http://www.state.gov/j/tip/rls/tiprpt/2013/.
\14\ Ibid.
\15\ Voice of America. (July 19, 2013). ``Sierra Leone: Government
Targets Human Trafficking.'' Voice of America. See http://
allafrica.com/stories/201307200024.html.
\16\ U.S. Department of State. (2012). International Narcotics
Control Strategy Report (INCSR). See http://www.state.gov/j/inl/rls/
nrcrpt/2012/vol1/184098.htm.
\17\ United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). (2011).
Transnational Organized Crime in the Fishing Industry--Focus on:
Trafficking in Persons, Smuggling of Migrants, and Illicit Drugs
Trafficking. See http://www.unodc.org/documents/human-trafficking/
Issue_Paper_-_TOC_in_the_Fishing_Industry.pdf.
\18\ Asian-Pacific Economic Cooperation Fisheries Working Group.
(2008). ``Assessment of Impacts of Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated
(IUU) Fishing in the Asia-Pacific.'' APEC Singapore. See http://
www.imcsnet.org/imcs/docs/apec_2008_iuu_fishing_assessmt_se_asia.pdf.
\19\ United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). (2007)
``Fishing Capacity Management and IUU Fishing in Asia.'' Bangkok.
\20\ Mendoza, Jesse. (September 6, 2013). ``U.S. Coast Guard Seizes
1,000 Pounds of Illegally Caught Fish.'' Valley Morning Star. See
http://www.valleymorningstar.com/news/local_news/article_a1a39b6a-1772-
11e3-a961-001a4bcf6878.html.
\21\ Tompkins, Shannon. (June 11, 2013). ``Gulf Poachers Threaten
to deplete Fisheries.'' Houston Chronicle. See http://
www.houstonchronicle.com/sports/outdoors/article/Gulf-poachers-
threaten-to-deplete-fisheries-4589290.php.
\22\ Carcamo, Cindy. (September 14, 2012). ``For Illegal
Immigrants, Ocean is the New Desert.'' Orange County Register. See
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/san-371399-people-smuggling.html.
\23\ Agnew, David J., et al. (February 25, 2009). ``Estimating the
Worldwide Extent of Illegal Fishing.'' PLOS ONE. See http://
www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0004570.
Senator Markey. Beautiful. Thank you, Mr. Ambassador.
Now we will hear from you, Mr. Gleason.
STATEMENT OF MARK GLEASON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA BERING
SEA CRABBERS, SEATTLE, WA
Mr. Gleason. Good afternoon, Mr. Markey and members--well,
no members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to
testify at today's hearing. My name is Mark Gleason and I am
the executive director of the Alaska Bering Sea Crabbers. We
are a Seattle-based trade association representing 70 percent
of the crab fishermen in the Bering Sea. Our members are small
independently owned family businesses providing living wage
jobs to thousands of Americans. These jobs include not just
fishing jobs, but also jobs in the seafood processing sector,
transportation and logistics, restaurant workers, and those in
the retail trade. We brave the waters of the Bering Sea to
produce the highest quality crab for our domestic and
international customers.
I am here today, like the other panelists, to discuss the
issue of illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing. As you
have heard, globally the IUU seafood trade results in economic
losses of between $10 and $23 billion annually. Here in the
United States, the Bering Sea crab fishery illustrates a prime
example of what can happen to the market when it is flooded
with IUU product.
In 2011, the Alaskan fishery brought in roughly 80 million
pounds of live crab. The official Russian harvest in that year
was about 91 million pounds. However, upon further examination
of Russian trade data it appears that Russia actually exported
closer to 189 million pounds in 2011. This 98-million-pound
discrepancy can certainly be attributed to IUU production. Not
surprisingly, in Alaska we experienced a 25-percent decline in
the price we received for our crab as this pulse of illegal
Russian crab entered not only the United States market, but the
global supply chain as well.
Unfortunately, 2011 was not unique. A recent article in the
Wall Street Journal noted that illegal Russian crab on the
world market increased by an additional 36 percent between 2011
and 2012. That same article cited statistics from NOAA
indicating that illegal Russian crab has cost U.S. fishermen
$560 million since 2000. As you heard from Senator Murkowski,
this also cost Alaskan coastal communities millions in lost tax
revenue. Clearly, we must take action to prevent further harm
to U.S. fishermen and fishing-dependent coastal communities.
As a globally traded seafood commodity, the supply chain
for Russian crab from the point of harvest to the point of
consumption is exceedingly complex. Initially the crab is
harvested illegally in Russian waters by vessels flying flags
of convenience. Although these vessels are not flying the
Russian flag, they are oftentimes crewed and controlled by
Russian nationals, in violation of Russian law.
The crab is then offloaded to transport vessels at sea.
This practice is known as transshipment. These transshipment
vessels then deliver the crab to ports in either Japan or South
Korea, where it is processed and integrated into the supply
chain. Along the way there are multiple opportunities to
obscure the origin of this illegal product, either through
misrepresentation involving fraudulent paperwork or by
commingling the illegal product with legal product. This makes
it nearly impossible for the end user to distinguish between
legally and illegally caught crab. This illegal supply chain is
driven by highly motivated and sophisticated international
criminal conspiracies operating in multiple countries.
My association is under no illusion that there is a single
silver bullet that will remedy this situation. We understand
that it will take a combination of intergovernmental
cooperation, private sector initiatives in both the United
States and Russia, and a robust regulatory regime with adequate
enforcement capacity to put a dent in this illicit trade.
Operating under the assumption that all seafood products
must eventually come to port, the Agreement on Port State
Measures is a major achievement in the global fight against
IUU. This agreement requires nations to effectively police
their ports and ensure that illegally harvested seafood
products are not able to enter global trade. The United States
was a leader in drafting this agreement. In order for us to
continue to demonstrate our leadership, we must act now to
ratify the agreement and then pass domestic legislation to
fully implement the agreement here at home.
I urge the committee to take the first step and report this
agreement favorably.
The Bering Sea crab fishery is a recognized model for
sustainability. The fishery is prosecuted under stringent
scientifically informed catch limits. Our fishing gear is
environmentally sensitive and has a minimal impact on the sea
floor. We have a transparent management process guided by
science and stakeholder involvement. We have spent considerable
time and effort to fully develop our markets, both here and
abroad. We are proud of the product we bring to market and we
welcome fair competition.
But the playing field must be level. As long as illegal
Russian crab is afforded unfettered access to the world market,
the playing field will not be level.
The agreement before you today is a significant step in the
right direction. The choice is clear. We can support U.S.
fishermen and coastal communities or we can continue to allow
pirates and international criminals to profit from the illicit
trade in IUU Russian crab.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gleason follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mark H. Gleason
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. Thank
you for the opportunity to testify at today's hearing. My name is Mark
Gleason and I am the Executive Director of the Alaska Bering Sea
Crabbers. We are a Seattle-based trade association representing 70
percent of the crab fishermen in the Bering Sea. Our members are small,
independently owned family businesses providing living wage jobs to
thousands of Americans. These jobs include not just fishing jobs, but
also jobs in the seafood processing sector, transportation and
logistics, restaurant workers and those in the retail trade. We brave
the waters of the Bering Sea to produce the highest quality crab for
our domestic and international customers.
I am here today to discuss the issue of Illegal, Unreported, and
Unregulated fishing. For the remainder of my testimony I will refer to
this as ``IUU.'' Globally the IUU seafood trade results in economic
losses of between $10-$23 billion annually.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Agnew DJ, Pearce J, Pramod G, Peatman T, Watson R, et al.
(2009) ``Estimating the Worldwide Extent of Illegal Fishing.'' PLoS ONE
4(2); e4570.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here in the U.S., the Bering Sea crab fishery illustrates a prime
example of what can happen to the market when it is flooded with IUU
product. In 2011 the Alaskan fishery brought roughly 80 million pounds
of live crab to market. The ``official'' Russian harvest was about 91
million pounds that year. However, upon further examination of Russian
trade data, it appears that Russia actually exported closer to 189
million pounds in 2011. This 98 million pound discrepancy is attributed
to IUU production. Not surprisingly, in Alaska we experienced a 25
percent decline in the price we received for our crab as this pulse of
illegal Russian crab entered not only the U.S. market, but the global
supply chain as well.
Unfortunately, 2011 was not unique. A recent article in the Wall
Street Journal \2\ noted that illegal Russian crab on the world market
increased by an additional 36 percent between 2011 and 2012. That same
article cited statistics from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration indicating that illegal Russian crab has cost U.S.
fishermen $560 million since 2000. Alaskan coastal communities have
also lost out on roughly $11 million in tax revenue during this same
period. Clearly we must take action to prevent further harm to U.S.
fishermen and fishing dependent coastal communities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Carlton, Jim. ``Alaska Crabbers Get Pinched by Poachers.'' Wall
Street Journal. 3 April 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a globally traded seafood commodity, the supply chain for
Russian crab from the point of harvest to the point of consumption is
exceedingly complex. Initially, the crab is illegally harvested in
Russian waters by vessels flying what are known as ``flags of
convenience.'' Cambodia and Sierra Leone are two of the most common
flags of convenience. Although these vessels are not flying the Russian
flag, they are often times crewed and controlled by Russian nationals,
in violation of Russian law. The crab is then off-loaded to transport
vessels at sea. This practice is known as transshipment. These
transshipment vessels then deliver the crab to ports in either Japan or
South Korea where it is processed and integrated into the supply chain.
Along the way there are multiple opportunities to obscure the origin of
this illegal product either through misrepresentation involving
fraudulent paperwork or by comingling the illegal product with legal
product. This makes it nearly impossible for the end user to
distinguish between legally and illegally caught crab. This illegal
supply chain is driven by highly motivated and sophisticated
international criminal conspiracies operating in multiple countries.
My association is under no illusion that there is a single ``silver
bullet'' that will remedy this situation. We understand it will take a
combination of intergovernmental cooperation, private sector
initiatives in both the U.S. and Russia, and a robust regulatory regime
with adequate enforcement capacity to put a dent in this illicit trade.
Operating under the assumption that all seafood products must
eventually come to port, the Agreement on Port State Measures to
Prevent, Deter, and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated
Fishing is a major achievement in the global fight against IUU. This
Agreement requires Nations to effectively police their ports and ensure
that illegally harvested seafood products are not able to enter global
trade. The United States was a leader in drafting this Agreement. In
order for us to continue to demonstrate our leadership we must act now
to ratify the Agreement and then pass domestic legislation to fully
implement the Agreement here at home. I urge the committee to take the
first step and report this Agreement favorably.
The Bering Sea crab fishery is a recognized model for
sustainability. The fishery is prosecuted under stringent,
scientifically informed catch limits. Our fishing gear is
environmentally sensitive and has a minimal impact on the seafloor. We
have a transparent management process guided by science and stakeholder
involvement. We have spent considerable time and effort to fully
develop our markets, both here and abroad. We are proud of the product
we bring to market and welcome fair competition. But the playing field
must be level. As long as illegal Russian crab is afforded unfettered
access to the world market, the playing field will not be level. The
Agreement before you today is a significant step in the right
direction. The choice is clear. We can support U.S. fishermen and
coastal communities or we can continue to allow pirates and
international criminals to profit from the illicit trade in IUU Russian
crab.
Thank you once again for the opportunity to testify and I would be
happy to answer any questions.
Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Gleason, very much.
Captain Kane, you testified about your extensive experience
as a fishermen. In your experience, do American fishermen
engage in illegal fishing?
Mr. Kane. You know, Senator, as constrained as all U.S.
fisheries have become, as you well know, you always get a
couple of bad apples in the barrel, but over the years, with
National Marine Fisheries, electronic vessel trip reports,
vessel monitoring systems--think of 1984, satellites in the
sky--we know where our boats are. So, as I said, you might get
a couple of bad apples.
Senator Markey. You are saying compliance, though.
Mr. Kane. Yes. Yes, over the years National Marine
Fisheries, NOAA, Coast Guard, we have gotten much better
compliance here in the States.
Senator Markey. So you are saying it is a vast difference
between out on the open sea in terms of enforcement of illegal
fishing?
Mr. Kane. Well, there is no enforcement on the open sea,
Senator.
Senator Markey. I know that. I am trying to make it--it is
a leading question in the courtroom. I am trying to give you an
opening.
Mr. Kane. Okay. Well, you know, take for example Cape Cod.
You only have so many ports where you can land and enforcement
is standing at the dock, whether it be State enforcement, Coast
Guard, Federal enforcement. That is why I believe with foreign
fishing vessels coming into the Nation you need stated ports
where they have to call in before they land so you can send an
inspection team down there to inspect cargo.
Senator Markey. To you, Mr. Gleason. You testified about
the economic impact of illegal fishing on fishermen in your
region. How will the Port State Measures Agreement help
mitigate that problem?
Mr. Gleason. Well, as other folks have testified, it will
raise the cost of doing business for pirate fishermen, reducing
the economic incentives and hopefully reducing the supply that
is available on the market.
Senator Markey. Captain Kane, how will it impact yours?
Mr. Kane. Our fishing?
Senator Markey. How does the impact of illegal fishing
affect your industry and how will this agreement help to
mitigate the problems?
Mr. Kane. Well, for instance, bluefin tuna, which is a
precious and desired fish in Japan, you have got a lot of
piracy going on on the high seas, fish being shipped directly
to Japan, and we are in convention--as the gentleman from NOAA
was speaking about ICCAT, the International Commission for the
Conservation of Atlantic Tuna, and if we can eliminate the high
piracy at sea our fishermen will benefit in price on the
Japanese market.
Senator Markey. What kind of benefits would American
fishermen receive? What does it mean financially to them?
Mr. Kane. Well, first and foremost, you would save the
species, because undocumented fish--once again, Senator, bad
numbers into a computer model, no matter how many sensitivity
runs you make you are going to get bad data out, and then
management has to make decisions. So if you do not know what is
being taken from the ocean, first and foremost the
sustainability of the stock, that particular stock.
If you could stop the piracy--once again, it is supply and
demand on the fresh Japanese fish market. Fewer fish on the
market, tattooed fish, allocated fish, fish that we know were
taken from the high seas, legal fish, will return a better
price.
Senator Markey. Ambassador Lagon, can you discuss the role
that international governmental communication plays in
combating human trafficking and what role the Port State
Measures Agreement could play in increasing that communication?
Ambassador Lagon Thanks for the question. Human trafficking
is fundamentally a human rights issue. But to the degree that
it is a law enforcement issue, the increased capacity of
nations to communicate with each other about patterns makes
great sense. The PSMA and the other agreements that the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee are looking at would facilitate the
ability of states to share information when there is a tip,
including the ability of a flag state of a vessel to talk to a
port state. This business of now essentially leaving the
regulation of vessels entirely to the flag state, not being
able to catch them where it would be easiest to spot--in
ports--would be ameliorated.
All sorts of examples of human trafficking that I saw in
the State Department role I played from 2007 to 2009 involve
cooperation between law enforcement, immigration officials, and
others. So the treaties will shine a light on this this problem
and better permit that coordination.
Senator Markey. You testified that there is a governance
black hole. As we heard in the testimony today, participation
in regional fisheries organizations like the ones under
consideration today increase governance and law enforcement
presence on the high seas. In your work have you come across a
connection between organizations like these and reductions in
illegal fishing, human trafficking, other criminal activities
such as that which you described in your testimony?
Ambassador Lagon Well, the empirical data on the extent of
human trafficking is as hard to pin down as the data on the
extent of illegal fishing. But these regional organizations and
the commissions that have been created by the three regional
agreements will facilitate an enforcement capacity of nations.
I think one of the best bargains is, in fact, the technical
assistance they would give to smaller, poorer states to be able
to develop that capacity. That is a pretty small investment for
the United States to make in something that will serve the
interests of business, serve the interests of preserving
biodiversity, and especially serve the goal of being able to
catch people who would enslave other human beings at sea.
Senator Markey. Let me finish up the hearing this way. Let
me give each one of you, in reverse order of recognition for
the opening statement, an opportunity to just tell us the key
thing, couple of things, you want this committee to remember,
you want the Senate to remember as we consider whether or not
to ratify these treaties. So we will begin with you, Mr.
Gleason.
Mr. Gleason. Well, as I mentioned in my testimony, I
represent many hardworking American fishermen and we provide
jobs up and down the supply chain. We play by the rules. We are
fully engaged in the management process. We support the science
that goes into that. We play by the rules, and we just want a
level playing field. The Port State Measures Agreement will
help to get us that level playing field.
Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Gleason.
Ambassador.
Ambassador Lagon Thank you. As far as human trafficking
goes and how these agreements and the PSMA would affect it,
there are two key messages, I believe. First, human trafficking
is always about some group of people--women, children,
migrants, people of less privileged castes in India--not having
access to justice. In these areas where there is a grey zone,
where there is no governance, where there are no eyes
monitoring, those people who may have rights on paper, in
treaties, or in laws, are not getting protected. These
agreements would help with that.
Then secondly, human trafficking is about bad people,
transnational criminals, having an incentive of profit and very
little risk. The PSMA in particular would change that incentive
structure, would make it more economically costly for people to
pursue IUU fishing and in turn costly to be able to pursue
forced labor or even sexual exploitation, by removing this
``black hole'' of governance.
Senator Markey. Thank you.
Mr. Kane.
Mr. Kane. I can sum it up in probably three: It would be
good for U.S. fishermen, east coast, west coast, nationally; it
would be good for the fish stocks, all these fish we are trying
to save so we can fish them at a sustainable rate; it would be
good for the United States monetarily.
Senator Markey. Thank you, and we thank each of you. I
would like to wrap up the hearing by reiterating a statement
that Captain Kane has in his written testimony: ``Fishermen
feel the double whammy of the fish, that we abstain from
harvesting to ensure a sustainable stock, are harvested through
illegal fishing, and yet when we do harvest our quota the
markets and prices for our fish are depressed because of the
presence of that illegal catch in the marketplace.''
So I think that we have our work cut out for us, but I
think it is imperative that we pass this treaty, that we pass
all the treaties, and we do so this year, and we send a signal
to the world, we send a signal to all of these pirates, all of
these criminals, that finally the United States is going to be
a cop on the beat enforcing these laws. Finally, we are going
to be protecting our fishermen and protecting these species. I
think it is imperative that, going forth from this committee
today, that they hear this message and get ready for these
treaties to be ratified.
We thank each one of you for your testimony. We thank you
for your work on this issue. The record will remain open until
February 21 for additional information to be included within
it.
With that, this hearing is adjourned. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 4:19 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
----------
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
Response of Deputy Assistant Secretary David Balton to Question
Submitted by Senator Robert Menendez
Question. What is the administration's position on whether the four
agreements considered at the hearing on February 12, 2014, are self-
executing in the United States?
Answer. It is the administration's position that none of the four
agreements considered at the hearing on February 12, 2014, are self-
executing.
______
Responses of Deputy Assistant Secretary David Balton to Questions
Submitted by Senator Marco Rubio
Question. If the U.S. ratifies the South Pacific Convention, what
is our estimated budget obligation?
Answer. Under current conditions, the U.S. assessed contribution to
the South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organization is
estimated at $65,000 annually. Exact costs are variable, based on the
overall budget level of the Commission, foreign exchange rates, and the
extent of U.S. catches in the Convention Area.
Question. In your testimony you state that the Northwest Atlantic
Convention Amendments under consideration would reduce the U.S.
budgetary contributions by one-third.
Do you have an exact estimate of the amount that would be
due?
Would this increase the contributions of other countries
and, if so, do you foresee other convention countries opposing
this amendment?
Answer. Our current assessed contribution to NAFO is approximately
$295K annually. Costs are variable based on foreign exchange rates and
the level of U.S. catches but, under current conditions, this would be
reduced to approximately $200K.
Yes, this would increase the contributions of other nations
accordingly, but the increased cost would be spread across the other 11
members of the Commission. The amended budget formula corrects a
recognized and unintended anomaly that resulted in the overcounting of
U.S. harvest for the purposes of the budget calculation. As a result,
all members of the Commission have supported this amendment without
objection.
Question. In your testimony you describe other illegal activities
which are often intertwined with illegal, unreported, unregulated
fishing (IUU) including organized crime and labor exploitation but fail
to name human trafficking. There have been numerous report of human
trafficking has been linked to IUU fishing.
Can you go into more detail about how the tools of the IUU
Agreement will combat organized crime, labor exploitation, and
human trafficking?
Answer. The Port State Measures Agreement will help combat IUU
fishing and the associated activities identified above in a number of
ways. First and foremost, the agreement will establish new rules and
requirements for vessels entering the ports of States party to the
agreement, provide heightened authority for port inspectors to board
and inspect fishing vessels entering their ports, and allow them to
deny entry into ports for vessels identified as having engaged in IUU
fishing. Collectively, the measures will make it easier to detect and
take action against such activities, raise the costs to those engaged
in illegal activities, and take some of these vessels off the water. To
be clear, the agreement is focused on combating IUU fishing, but to the
extent that it constrains this illegal activity, it will have ancillary
benefits in these other areas.
Question. As you know, Cuba and China are Contracting Parties to
the South
Pacific Convention. Under the Convention's Article 19, Contracting
Parties must cooperate with developing Contracting Parties by
providing:
i. Financial assistance;
ii. Technical assistance relating to human resources development;
iii. Technical assistance;
iv. Transfer of technology; and
v. Advisory and consultative services.
What are the implications of Art. 19 of this Convention
with respect to U.S. policy on Cuba? What are the implications
of Art. 19 with respect to U.S. policy on China?
Answer. Article 19 will not result in any change in U.S. policy
with respect either to Cuba or China. Among other things, Article 19
notes that, ``in giving effect to the duty to cooperate, . . . members
of the Commission shall take into account the special requirements of
developing coastal State Contracting Parties in the region, in
particular, the least developed among them and small island developing
States (emphasis added).
To the extent the U.S. becomes a party to the Convention, it would
not hamper our ability to adhere to all existing provisions of law
prohibiting assistance to Cuba.
China, which is Party to other fisheries Conventions with similar
provisions, has never sought any of this kind of assistance for itself,
and we would not expect it to do so under the South Pacific Convention.
More important Article 19(4) is clear that cooperation activities ``may
include'' provision of the types of assistance listed in the question
above, but creates no obligation on any Party to do so.
Question. How does U.S. ratification of any of these Conventions
affect current U.S. policy regarding UNCLOS?
Answer. U.S. ratification of these Conventions will not affect
current United States policy regarding the Law of the Sea Convention.
The United States is already a Party to several regional fisheries
management organizations for which the underlying Conventions contain
provisions comparable to those in the current agreements.
Question. Can the U.S. indefinitely and effectively protect its
interests and discharge its obligations under any of these Conventions
without ratification of UNCLOS?
Answer. As noted in the previous response, the United States is a
Party to several regional fisheries management organizations whose
underlying Conventions contain provisions based on the same principles
as the four agreements currently pending before the Senate. U.S.
ratification of the Law of the Sea Convention would strengthen our
ability to advance U.S. objectives in a wide range of areas, but would
not prevent us from protecting U.S. interests and discharging our
obligations under these four Conventions.
______
Responses of Russell Smith III to Questions
Submitted by Senator Marco Rubio
Question. In your testimony, you state that the minimum standards
set by Port States Agreement track closely to what the United States
already does. What are the differences between current U.S. standards
and the Port States Agreement's minimum standards?
Answer. The minimum standards for the training of inspectors and
conduct of inspections contained in the Port State Measures Agreement,
once broadly implemented, will have a significant impact on the global
effort to combat illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing.
Those minimum standards were drafted with significant participation
from NOAA and the U.S. Coast Guard, and they are consistent with
current U.S. practice.
Apart from the establishment of minimum standards for inspections,
the most significant binding obligation in the Port State Measures
Agreement is the obligations to deny listed IUU fishing vessels port
entry unless they are being allowed to enter for the purpose of
inspection or enforcement. When this obligation is implemented NOAA
anticipates an active role, along with the U.S. Coast Guard, in the
screening of vessels seeking entry into U.S. ports to assess their
listed status or, for vessels that are not included on a Regional
Fishery Management Organization's IUU vessel list, respond to evidence
of IUU fishing or activities in support of IUU fishing. Specifically,
the U.S. Coast Guard and NOAA will continue to improve cooperation on
the Advance Notice of Arrival process for foreign vessels entering U.S.
ports for the purposes of implementing the agreement and the two
agencies have already had discussions on developing the needed level of
collaboration in order to carry out the requirements of restricting
port access when needed.
Question. What budgetary impacts, if any, will result from NOAA's
implementation of the Port States Agreement as the primary agency? Does
this in any way expand NOAA's role beyond activities already being
conducted at the agency?
Answer. NOAA is not seeking specific funding increases to carry out
its responsibilities in the agreement beyond what has been included to
support a broader array of international enforcement activities in the
FY 2015 Budget request.
As discussed above, NOAA will have an increased role in
coordinating with the U.S. Coast Guard on the evaluation of foreign
fishing vessels seeking entry to U.S. ports to determine if there is
evidence of IUU fishing or support of IUU fishing. NOAA will also have
an increased role, again in coordination with the U.S. Coast Guard, in
restricting access to port services for IUU fishing vessels detected
within a U.S. port.
Finally, the Port State Measures Agreement has information-sharing
requirements that require the sharing of inspection results and actions
taken with flag states, relevant coastal states, Regional Fishery
Management Organizations and other relevant international bodies. This
will be a new process that will require NOAA to develop a
communications mechanism to share the information.
Question. Do you anticipate any additional economic burden at ports
in the United States as a result of the Port States Agreement?
Answer. Because there are a relatively small number of known IUU
fishing vessels, and only two such vessels have ever entered a U.S.
port, impacts are likely to be negligible. However, there could be
negative economic impacts on U.S. companies providing port services as
a result of lost business if a fishing vessel is denied port entry or
access to port services. There may also be some costs to state, local
and territorial authorities in coordinating with NOAA to implement the
obligations under the Port States Measures Agreement regarding the
denial of access to port services to IUU fishing vessels determined to
be in a U.S. port.
For example, the Port State Measures Agreement creates the
potential to avoid economic loss from a repeat of the Polestar
situation in which $9 million of sustainably caught Pollock from Alaska
was denied port entry in the European Union and Morocco because it was
carried on an IUU fishing-listed cargo vessel that had come into port
in Dutch Harbor, AK, because NOAA didn't have the authority to deny the
IUU fishing-listed cargo vessel port entry.
Question. A common theme we hear from fishermen as we work to
reauthorize the Magnuson-Stevens Act is the economic hardships they
experience when their days on the water are limited due to factors
beyond their control. How will these agreements help address that
issue?
Answer. The North Pacific and South Pacific Conventions, the
Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization Convention Amendment and the
Port State Measures Agreement will not have an immediate impact on
fisheries management within the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone. These
agreements will provide the United States new tools to improve global
fisheries governance and management that will ultimately benefit U.S.
fishers and others working in the fisheries sector by raising the
standards applied to foreign fishers and markets to those already
applied in the United States. The Port State Measures Agreement does
not regulate any fishing at sea but, by requiring parties to conduct
some level of port inspections, provides a mechanism for monitoring
compliance with conservation and management measures adopted by coastal
states and regional fisheries management organizations.
We have no fishers operating at present in the Convention Areas of
either the North Pacific Convention or the South Pacific Convention. We
do have one fishing vessel that operated in the Northwest Atlantic
Fisheries Organization Convention Area in 2012 and 2013, and two
fishing vessels have applied to fish in 2014. The Northwest Atlantic
Fisheries Organization does not regulate fisheries by limiting days at
sea. Rather, it establishes a total allowable catch for a fish stock
and then allocates national quotas to its members from the total
amount. Thus, the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization does not
regulate fisheries through effort controls such as a limit on days at
sea.
______
Responses of Adm. Frederick J. Kenney to Questions
Submitted by Senator Marco Rubio
Question. With the ratifications of the four treaties, the
``Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization'' Convention, the ``North
Pacific'' and ``South Pacific'' Conventions, and the ``Port State
Measures'' Agreement, what specific steps would the Coast Guard be able
to take to combat Illegal, Unregulated, and Unreported (IUU) fishing?
Answer. General.--International mechanisms, such as these four
treaties, strengthen governance over fishing activity on the high seas
assist the Coast Guard by extending authority to board and inspect
fishing vessels covered by the relevant Convention. Boardings increase
maritime domain awareness and act to deter illicit behavior through
fear of being caught.
NAFO Amendment.--Under the NAFO Amendments the Coast Guard will
continue to facilitate joint boardings/inspections with Canadian
Department of Fisheries and Oceans officials as opportunities present.
These compliance inspections will help to discourage IUU fishing in the
North Atlantic and ensure the U.S. is meeting enforcement obligations
under the Convention.
Port State Measures.--Port State Measures will facilitate close
coordination between NOAA and the Coast Guard to stem IUU fishing
activities. These measures will deny access to U.S. ports by vessels
engaged in IUU fishing except for the exclusive purpose of conducting
inspections or engaging in other enforcement activities. While the
implementing legislation seeks to provide NOAA organic authority to
deny port access, the Coast Guard will be instrumental in facilitating
U.S. actions. This may include providing advance notice of arrival
information, tracking vessels of interest or assisting with boardings.
Without access to ports, vessels engaged in IUU fishing will not be
able to sell their product or receive logistical support for
operations. This will force these vessels into ports farther from
commerce centers and lucrative fishing grounds, and, as a result, will
likely increase their operating costs. Limiting the ports available to
these vessels would simplify enforcement by targeting investigations of
illicit activity in ports known to support IUU fishing.
North and South Pacific RFMOs.--The Coast Guard will work with
partners at Department of State and NOAA to ensure the inclusion of
robust boarding and inspection procedures within both the North and
South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organizations that will
increase opportunities to board and inspect fishing vessels on the high
seas, throughout the Pacific Ocean. The establishment of a governance
scheme in this remote region provides oversight of fishing activity in
an area not previously covered. The Coast Guard will leverage available
patrol assets and, to the extent practical, utilize naval vessels of
opportunity through the Oceana Maritime Security Initiative (OMSI) to
track and board fishing vessels to combat IUU fishing.
Question. If the Coast Guard boards a ship which is suspected of
IUU and finds evidence of human trafficking, what steps can the Coast
Guard take?
Answer. The Coast Guard team will investigate, collect evidence,
and report their findings through the chain-of-command to interagency
partners, including the Department of State, Department of Justice, and
other applicable U.S. agencies in accordance with the Maritime
Operational Threat Response (MOTR) plan. The flag state of the vessel
has exclusive jurisdiction over offenses committed on board. If the
vessel is flagged in the United States or is a vessel without
nationality, the Coast Guard could seize the vessel and coordinate with
the Department of Justice for prosecution of the offender under
domestic human trafficking laws. If the vessel is foreign-flagged,
jurisdiction to seize and prosecute would have to be coordinated with
the flag state; exceptions include foreign flagged vessels located
within the U.S. territorial sea or the offense is committed by a U.S.
national or person with status in the U.S. Exercising jurisdiction over
a U.S person on board a foreign flagged ship on the high seas would
still involve consultation with interagency partners through the MOTR
process. Interagency consultation provides the ability to determine
whether the United States has an independent basis to exercise
jurisdiction (e.g., the vessel is in the U.S. territorial sea, it is a
U.S. vessel or a vessel without nationality, or the offender is a U.S.
national) or whether the matter will be referred to the vessel's
cognizant Flag State for action based on exclusive flag state
jurisdiction over its vessels.
Question. With the ratification of these treaties, would the Coast
Guard need additional resources or personnel to assist with U.S
compliance?
Answer. Ratification of these four treaties will not require the
Coast Guard to seek additional resources or personnel to ensure U.S.
compliance. Enforcement of these treaties will primarily be conducted
as part of existing efforts on the high seas and outer reaches of the
U.S. Economic Exclusive Zone (EEZ) by Coast Guard offshore patrol
assets.
______
Responses of Ambassador Mark Lagon to Questions
Submitted by Senator Marco Rubio
Question. What current work is being done by the U.S. Government to
combat human trafficking on fishing vessels?
Answer. The U.S. Coast Guard and National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) show an acute awareness of criminal and inhumane
activities in fishing on the high seas, as reflected in their testimony
in the hearing. For this reason, they join the State Department in
endorsing the ratification of the Port States Measures Agreement, the
Conventions on the North and South Pacific Fisheries Resources, and the
Amendment to the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Convention the hearing
addresses--legal instruments the State Department helped negotiate.
As I spoke to in my written testimony, the Department of State's
Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons (TIP) under my
leadership from 2007 to 2009 and that of the estimable Ambassador
CdeBaca since 2009, have increasingly focused on human trafficking in
the fishing sector. In my testimony, I highlight how Thailand
represents a special hazard zone for human trafficking in illegal
fishing. Well, during my tenure it became apparent that human
trafficking was flourishing in the seafood processing sector on
Thailand's soil; I met female victims from Myanmar in person near Samut
Sakhon. I surprised my fellow Republicans by standing with the leader
of the Solidarity Center, the AFL-CIO affiliated democracy-promotion
organization funded by the National Endowment for Democracy, at the
public release of their report on forced labor in the seafood sectors
of Thailand and Bangladesh. The TIP Office between 2007 and 2009 also
helped highlight boys trafficked in fishing in the Great Lakes of
Africa. Ambassador CdeBaca's team has taken this focus on fishing
farther, including that on the high seas, as seen in annual
``Trafficking in Persons (TIP) Reports'' in his tenure.
By highlighting this issue in the TIP Report, in what happens to be
the most successful public diplomacy instrument in the State
Department's toolbox today, thanks to the Congress handing the
Department that tool, the concern of states about what I call in my
testimony ``governance black holes'' has increased. The TIP Report is
just the beginning of the TIP Office's work, as it is followed by
quiet, intense diplomacy to urge governments to take the steps needed
to objectively merit a higher ranking. What the U.S. urges in that
diplomacy is plainly spelled out in a paragraph labeled
``Recommendations'' in each country profile in the TIP Report. As
important as this public and traditional diplomacy is the assistance
the U.S. gives to NGOs and international organization agencies to build
nations' will and capacity to fight trafficking.
Trafficking on the high seas is not so easy to combat, nor to
underwrite the work of NGOs and international organizations to combat,
absent treaties placing more responsibility on port states and also of
to-date rather hands-off flagging states of fishing vessels. U.S.
public and traditional diplomacy has boosted the potential for
international support for these treaties. U.S. ratification would be an
even more powerful symbolic measure to encourage other nations to
become parties, and in the most important case of the PSMA, allow it to
reach the threshold of parties needed to come into force.
Question. Your testimony highlights a few countries which have had
evidence of human trafficking in the illegal fishing industry.
Are there certain hot spots for this specific type of
trafficking?
Answer. The Conventions on the North and South Pacific Fisheries
Resources, as two instruments the hearing addresses, highlight two such
hot spots. My testimony alludes to a Korean vessel in Northeast Asia.
Yet, the South Pacific and the region nearby Southeast Asia are
particularly problematic. This is the reason for special focus in my
written testimony on Thailand, and the trafficking of Thai, Cambodian,
and Burmese workers. (And please note that Thailand this year faces the
time limit on a Tier 2 Watch List ranking under the Trafficking Victims
Protection Act as amended in 2009, just as Russia, China, and
Uzbekistan did last year. Thailand would be a worthy focus of the
committee's oversight this spring and summer.) The combination of
economic desperation, migrant workers' ambitions to send remittances
back to their family, corruption, greedy ship proprietors sneaking into
other nations' territorial waters, and the ungoverned space of the high
seas make Southeast Asia a breeding ground for netting people for
slavery as well as netting sealife with no regard for sustainability.
Another large region with pronounced problems is the African
Continent. I have spoken of boys fishing on Lake Volta. But beyond
inland bodies of water, off the shores of much of western and eastern
Africa, thriving corruption and piracy and lacking governance and
monitoring make them hot spots too.
It is important to recall that much of the fishing industry is
decent and above-board, as represented by those testifying beside me.
It is for this very reason that those playing by the rules ought not
have their reputations and competitiveness undercut by illicit fishing
vessels who also dehumanize fisherman.
Is there a ``typical'' type of trafficking victim for this
crime?
Answer. There are three categories of ``targets'' for human
trafficking: (1) migrant workers who are undocumented, and through
force, fraud, and coercion become victims; (2) migrant workers who are
legal guest workers lied to about the work they will get, purposefully
put deeply into debt, and relieved of their passport and papers; and
(3) those victimized in their own nation or by their own nationals. It
was a priority of my time as Ambassador at Large to Combat Trafficking
in Persons that the Office I supervised would call attention to just
how much of human trafficking counterintuitively is in the latter two
categories.
Human trafficking in legal fishing appears to occur most in Group
#1 and Group #3. U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), International
Organization for Migration (IOM) and press reports I highlight in my
testimony give an accounting of exploited workers desperate for better
lives for themselves and their families, but just risk-taking enough to
be lured into illegal fishing. Some cases involve fisherman being
violently exploited by nationals of their own country.
Most significant in the profile of a ``typical'' victim are (1) his
or her needs and dreams to which a trafficker appeals, (2) methods of
recruitment, and (3) means of exploitation and abuse.
First, the victims are impoverished, and willing to take on dirty
and dangerous work in order to make a living for themselves and
relatives.
Second, unregulated recruiters lie about the pay, safety of the
fishing conditions, legality of standards and location of fishing, and
the ability to leave the job.
Third, exploitation sometimes involves debt bondage (an
insurmountable debt owed to a recruiter or to the fishing
``enterprise'' for the privilege of being placed in work which will
amount to forced labor). Victims interviewed in Southeast Asia note
being caught on boats unmonitored by any law enforcement or labor
inspectors for up to 2-3 years, excruciating hours, lack of medical
care, ill fisherman thrown overboard, and punitive beatings and even
murder.
If the treaties this hearing addresses could shed sunlight on this
ungoverned zone, and even marginally reduce this dehumanization, it is
well worth the minimal cost to the United States to ratify them. I
surmise they will actually do a good amount to reduce this
dehumanization.
______
Letter Submitted on Behalf of the Federal
Law Enforcement Officers Association
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Letter Submitted on Behalf of the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Letter Submitted on Behalf of Various Stakeholders
Urging Ratification of the Treaties
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]