[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
THE SOUTH PACIFIC TUNA TREATY:
NEXT STEPS FOR RENEWAL
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA, THE PACIFIC AND
THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
APRIL 2, 2009
__________
Serial No. 111-38
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
48-442 WASHINGTON : 2009
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office, http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the
GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office.
Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOWARD L. BERMAN, California, Chairman
GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida
ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey
Samoa DAN BURTON, Indiana
DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey ELTON GALLEGLY, California
BRAD SHERMAN, California DANA ROHRABACHER, California
ROBERT WEXLER, Florida DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York EDWARD R. ROYCE, California
BILL DELAHUNT, Massachusetts RON PAUL, Texas
GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York JEFF FLAKE, Arizona
DIANE E. WATSON, California MIKE PENCE, Indiana
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri JOE WILSON, South Carolina
ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina
MICHAEL E. McMAHON, New York CONNIE MACK, Florida
JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska
GENE GREEN, Texas MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas
LYNN WOOLSEY, CaliforniaAs TED POE, Texas
of 3/12/09 deg. BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas GUS BILIRAKIS, Florida
BARBARA LEE, California
SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada
JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
MIKE ROSS, Arkansas
BRAD MILLER, North Carolina
DAVID SCOTT, Georgia
JIM COSTA, California
KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota
GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona
RON KLEIN, Florida
Richard J. Kessler, Staff Director
Yleem Poblete, Republican Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific and the Global Environment
ENI F. H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American Samoa, Chairman
GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois
DIANE E. WATSON, California BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
MIKE ROSS, Arkansas DANA ROHRABACHER, California
BRAD SHERMAN, California EDWARD R. ROYCE, California
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York JEFF FLAKE, Arizona
GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
Lisa Williams, Subcommittee Staff Director
David Richmond, Subcommittee Professional Staff Member
Nien Su, Republican Professional Staff Member
Vili Lei, Staff Associate
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
WITNESS
Mr. William Gibbons-Fly, Director, Office of Marine Conservation,
Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific
Affairs, U.S. Department of State.............................. 6
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
The Honorable Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, a Representative in Congress
from American Samoa, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Asia, the
Pacific and the Global Environment: Prepared statement......... 4
Mr. William Gibbons-Fly:
Prepared statement............................................. 9
Chart titled ``The United States Tuna Imports in Airtight
Containers for 2008''........................................ 24
APPENDIX
Hearing notice................................................... 32
Hearing minutes.................................................. 33
The Honorable Donald A. Manzullo, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Illinois: Prepared statement................. 34
The Honorable Diane E. Watson, a Representative in Congress from
the State of California: Prepared statement.................... 35
THE SOUTH PACIFIC TUNA TREATY: NEXT STEPS FOR RENEWAL
----------
THURSDAY, APRIL 2, 2009
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific
and the Global Environment,
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 o'clock
a.m. in room 2200, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Eni F.H.
Faleomavaega (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Faleomavaega. The hearing of Foreign Affairs,
Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific, deg. and the Global
Environment, will now come to order.
I will first make my opening statement. As you know, we
have members coming in and out. This is how the system
operates. And so we will give each member an opportunity for
opening statements as well if they can make it to the hearing.
The hearing this morning encompasses the current status of the
South Pacific Tuna Treaty, and the question is, where are we
now with that treaty and the future of the treaty?
In 1988, the United States and 16 Pacific Island nations
ratified and entered into the Multilateral Treaty on Fisheries
between the governments of certain Pacific Island nations and
the Government of the United States--often referred to as the
South Pacific Tuna Treaty. Under the treaty, the United States
tuna industry pays for access to certain areas of the Western
and Central Pacific, including the exclusive economic zones of
these Pacific Island nations party to the treaty. The U.S.
Government also provides about $18 million annually to the
Pacific Island parties through the State Department's Bureau of
Oceans and International Environment and Scientific Affairs.
The treaty is important to the U.S. tuna industry and, of
course, especially to my own district as its private sector
economy is more than 80 percent dependent, directly or
indirectly, on the industry. It is very, very important. It not
only has ramifications for my own district but the entire tuna
industry as well.
The treaty is also important to the Pacific Island nations.
Papua New Guinea, the Federated States of Micronesia, the
Solomon Islands and Kiribati receive the greatest share of the
treaty funds.
But, as the Congressional Research Service has noted, and I
quote,
``The influence of the South Pacific Tuna Treaty in the
region may decline in the future as competition from
other fishing nations in the region grows, and at this
time it is not clear how this potential trend may
affect the negotiations for the renewal of the South
Pacific Tuna Treaty or efforts by parties to the treaty
to address issues of overcapacity.''
Also, adopted in the year 2000 and entered into force 5
years ago, a related agreement called the Western and Central
Pacific Fisheries Convention established a commission to
conserve and manage tuna and other highly migratory fish stocks
in the region. According to CRS,
``Over 30 countries, territories and other entities
participate in this organization. These include those
with major tuna fishing fleets, such as the United
States, Japan, Korea, China, Taiwan and the
Philippines.''
With the rising influence of other national fleets in the
Western and Central Pacific this may raise the profile of this
commission as the main system for monitoring and controlling
tuna fishing in the region.
How these factors will impact the South Pacific Tuna Treaty
remains to be seen. For now, given the treaty's importance to
the United States tuna industry and the Pacific Island parties,
the subcommittee has invited Mr. William Gibbons-Fly from the
U.S. Department of State to testify before us about what steps
the U.S. should take for renewal, since the treaty expires in
the year 2013.
Since the 2002 extension of the treaty provided licenses
for up to 40 U.S. purse seiners--with an option for five
additional licenses reserved for joint venture arrangements--to
fish for tuna in the EEZs of the Pacific Island nations, what
does the United States intend to do to make sure these licenses
are extended?
Secondly, are the Pacific Island parties supportive of this
renewal effort?
Third, are the United States and Pacific Island parties
supportive of general provisions regarding fishing capacity,
revenue sharing and linkages between the treaty and the Western
and Central Pacific Convention?
Fourth, what is the current U.S. thinking regarding the
amendments to the treaty and its annexes which were included in
the 2002 extension, such as revised procedures for amending the
annexes, a revised program fee formula, updating the methods
available for reporting, and provisions on the use of a vessel
monitoring system, or VMS?
Another question is what is the possibility of making the
treaty open to U.S. long-liners from the United States
territories such as American Samoa, as well as from the state
of Hawaii? What are the areas of concern, if any, if we so move
forward?
These are the questions, and of course I note that my good
ranking member and colleague, the gentleman from Illinois, is
not here with us. I am sure at some point he will join us later
at the hearing.
So at this time I want to introduce our witness now before
us. Mr. William Gibbons-Fly is director of the Office of Marine
Conservation at the Bureau of Oceans, Environment and Sciences
of the U.S. Department of State.
Mr. Gibbons-Fly has nearly 25 years of direct involvement
in the development and implementation of international
environmental and oceans policy. He is one of the Department of
State's most senior negotiators on oceans and fisheries issues.
He assumed his current positions after 4 years as deputy
director of the office he now heads.
Previous to that, for 4 years at the U.S. Embassy in Mexico
City, he served as deputy counselor for the environment,
science and technology, covering oceans and natural resources
issues, including fisheries, marine science, wildlife, forests,
national parks and protected areas, among others.
Mr. Gibbons-Fly holds a master's degree in international
affairs from George Washington University and a bachelor's with
honors from the University of California at Santa Barbara. He's
quite a senior career service gentleman, I must say.
He enjoys playing baseball. I haven't tried baseball as
often as I could, sir, but I am certainly hopeful that we could
get more baseball players out there. We have enough football
players and sumo wrestlers. We need something else that we do.
So I ask my good friend, my colleague and senior ranking
member of our subcommittee, Mr. Manzullo, if he has any opening
statement?
[The prepared statement of Mr. Faleomavaega
follows:]Chairman Faleomavaega deg.
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Manzullo. I will yield.
Mr. Faleomavaega. All right. We will now turn the time over
to our witness, Mr. Gibbons-Fly.
STATEMENT OF MR. WILLIAM GIBBONS-FLY, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF
MARINE CONSERVATION, BUREAU OF OCEANS AND INTERNATIONAL
ENVIRONMENTAL AND SCIENTIFIC AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Mr. Gibbons-Fly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
very much for the opportunity to be here today, and thank you
for those kind words. These days my baseball is pretty much
limited to watching my 14-year-old son, but that is just as
much fun as getting out there yourself at times.
Mr. Chairman, I have submitted a full written statement for
the record, and with your permission I will try to summarize
those remarks. I request that my full statement be included in
the record.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Without objection.
Mr. Gibbons-Fly. I beg your indulgence, Mr. Chairman. My
written statement may go over a 5-minute limit, but I will do
my best to keep myself within that time period.
Once again, thank you for the opportunity to be here today
to discuss the agreement that we commonly refer to as the South
Pacific Tuna Treaty. The treaty, which entered into force in
1988, continues to be a cornerstone of the economic and
political relationship between the United States and the 16
Pacific Island states that are party to it.
My written testimony contains significant background on the
treaty and the benefits to the United States, to the Pacific
Island parties and for the conservation and management of the
tuna resources of the Pacific as a whole. In summarizing that
background, I would like to mention very briefly a few key
points.
First, I would like to recognize right at the outset the
very strong support that we get from the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration in implementing this treaty.
In particular, the NOAA Fisheries Pacific Island Regional
Office in Honolulu and their field station in Pago Pago are
responsible for conducting the day-to-day operations of the
treaty on behalf of the U.S. Government, and the implementation
of this treaty would simply not be possible without the very
strong support we get from the entire crew out there.
Second, I would like to highlight the cooperation and the
leadership that has been shown by the U.S. tuna purse seine
industry and the U.S. fishing industry in general.
My written testimony again highlights in detail how the
United States industry has set the standard for responsible and
sustainable tuna fishing operations in the Pacific Ocean,
including with respect to observer coverage, satellite-based
vessel monitoring systems, detailed and extensive region-wide
reporting requirements and a record of compliance with agreed
measures.
In many cases the leadership shown by the U.S. fleet has
resulted in new international standards that now apply broadly
across the region. In other cases we must continue working to
level the playing field to ensure that all fleets operate
according to the same high standards of transparency and
accountability as the U.S. fleet.
The treaty has provided considerable benefits both to the
United States and to the Pacific Island parties. The landed
value of the catch in 2008 has been estimated at $250 million,
and the total annual contribution to the U.S. economy through
the processing and distribution chain, including through the
canneries in your district, Mr. Chairman, may be as much as
$400-$500 million a year.
Under a related economic assistance agreement, as you noted
in your opening statement, the United States provides $18
million annually in economic support funds to the Pacific
Island parties. The U.S. industry will contribute this year an
additional $5.7 million.
These funds make significant contributions to the economic
development and well-being of the Pacific Island parties, many
of which have few other natural resources or reliable sources
of income beyond those received from fisheries in waters under
their jurisdiction. Beyond the financial considerations, Mr.
Chairman, the treaty also provides the basis for cooperation
between the United States and the Pacific Island parties to
promote the long-term sustainability of the fishery resources
in the Pacific Ocean.
For all of these reasons, the treaty has been widely
recognized and praised by the international community. The
staff of the Forum Fisheries Agency based in Honiara, Solomon
Islands, which administers the treaty on behalf of the Pacific
Island parties, has praised the U.S. fleet as a model fleet in
terms of its record of reporting and compliance with regional
standards.
Nongovernmental conservation organizations such as the
World Wildlife Fund have recognized the treaty as a model for
fisheries access agreements negotiated between coastal states,
in particular developing coastal states, and distant water
fishing states. In other words, Mr. Chairman, the treaty
represents an unqualified success story.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, let me say a little bit about the
future of the treaty and related issues. The current extension
of the treaty, as you noted, continues through June 14, 2013.
If the treaty is to continue beyond that point, we will need to
reach agreement with the Pacific Island states on the terms and
conditions for extending the agreement.
At our most recent treaty consultation, which took place
just last month in Koror, Palau, the parties to the treaty
noted that we should begin our discussions to that end later
this year. These discussions will not be easy, and the outcome
is not certain. Conditions in the Western and Central Pacific
have changed from when we negotiated the previous extension in
2001 and 2002.
The interest of other fleets for fishing licenses in waters
under the jurisdiction of the Pacific Island states has
increased dramatically. At the same time, a subgroup of eight
countries within the FFA known as the Parties to the Nauru
Agreement or the PNA are implementing a new means of allocating
fishing effort in waters under their jurisdiction, which they
refer to as the Vessel Day Scheme.
The PNA wants to see the U.S. treaty vessels integrated
into this Vessel Day Scheme. We have a number of questions
regarding the operational details of this scheme, and we have
initiated a dialogue with the PNA members and the FFA staff to
better understand this system.
Additionally, Mr. Chairman, the Pacific Island parties have
their own development aspirations with respect to developing
locally based purse seine fleets that allow them to gain more
direct economic benefits from the fisheries in their waters.
For these and other reasons, it is possible that not all
the current parties to the treaty will see continuing as a
party as in their best interest. Some may decide they are
better off working to develop their domestic industries or to
negotiate additional bilateral arrangements with other
countries.
Having said all that, Mr. Chairman, and despite the
complexity of the issues, it is our strong hope that the 20-
plus year relationship established under the treaty and that
has worked so well for both sides will continue to be of value
to the Pacific Island parties in the same way that it is to the
United States.
Working with them, with you and the Congress and with the
United States fishing industry, we will seek to demonstrate
that a vibrant treaty can be a strong complementary element to
the Pacific Island parties' own development aspirations.
Thank you very much. That concludes my oral statement, and
I am happy to respond to any questions that any of you may
have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gibbons-Fly
follows:]William Gibbons-Fly deg.
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Faleomavaega. I just want to say that we are very happy
that we are also joined with us on the dais by the gentleman,
my colleague from Arizona, Mr. Jeff Flake, who is a member of
our subcommittee.
I will begin the list of questions. I am sure, Don, you
will join me later.
But at this point I want unanimous consent, Mr. Gibbons-
Fly, if you could submit for the record a copy of the South
Pacific Tuna Treaty itself; also a copy of the Treaty
Convention dealing with the commission that is now being set up
in Pohnpei. I would like to submit that for the record, and
also a copy of the Law of the Sea Convention itself, which I
will allude to later in my line of questions.
[Note: The information referred to is not reprinted here
but is available in committee records.]
Mr. Faleomavaega. I believe the U.S. is the largest
consumer country of tuna in the world. Am I correct on this?
Mr. Gibbons-Fly. It is certainly one of the top three. The
top three markets for tuna are generally considered to be the
United States, Europe and Japan. There are others in this room
who might know the exact order, but we are near the top, if not
at the top.
Mr. Faleomavaega. And one of the issues that I have always
raised--I also serve as a member of the Fisheries Subcommittee
on the Natural Resources Committee--is that I believe currently
we have to import over $10 billion worth of fish from foreign
countries because we don't produce enough of it domestically.
Isn't that kind of weird, somewhat ironic, that we have to
import fish, $9 billion that goes out that we have to purchase?
Why can't we have a thriving fishing industry ourselves for our
own consumer demand? I am very curious about this.
You had mentioned earlier about this PNA system, the Vessel
Day Scheme--whose bright idea was that?
Mr. Gibbons-Fly. Well, it originated within I believe the
staff of the Forum Fisheries Agency, and the intent, Mr.
Chairman, among the Pacific Island states, they are looking
through this and other means to maximize the revenues that they
get from their tuna, the tuna that incurs in the waters under
their jurisdiction.
One of the criticisms that you often hear about the
agreements that the Pacific Island states make with distant
water fishing states, or at least the Pacific Island states
will argue that they are not getting a sufficient level of
return on the fish. They want more direct involvement and would
like to increase the revenues that they gain from the resources
that they consider to be their fish in the waters under their
jurisdiction.
The Vessel Day Scheme is an effort to do that by creating a
cap on the number of fishing days that would be available and
then having those vessels that want to fish in the Pacific to
bid for that limited number of days with the idea that at some
point there would be a maximum revenue that would accrue from
the balance between the supply and demand of fishing days
available.
As I have said, we have a lot of questions about that, and
we are still trying to seek answers to a number of our
questions and so there are a lot of questions that even we are
not able to answer at this time about that scheme.
Mr. Faleomavaega. And one of the questions that comes to
mind: What if you are given 10 days to fish and you don't catch
anything? Do you still have to pay them?
Mr. Gibbons-Fly. You pay for the days, as I understand it,
but this represents a shift in the way that the Pacific Island
states have managed capacity in the region. The previous
mechanism that they had for managing fishing effort in the
region was a cap on the number of vessels that could fish.
The Parties to the Nauru Agreement, the PNA countries, had
a cap of 205 purse seine vessels that were allowed to fish.
That is now being replaced with this Vessel Day Scheme, but, as
I understand it, they are removing the cap so at some point
there is no limit on the number of purse seine vessels that
might be available to bid on those days.
As you can imagine, Mr. Chairman, we have some concerns
about that, and a number of others have concerns about that,
because if you have too many vessels purchasing those days not
all those vessels may be able to get a sufficient number of
days for them to operate profitably.
Mr. Faleomavaega. And not only that----
Mr. Gibbons-Fly. And then where do those vessels go and
what do they do? That is a significant concern. And what about
the investment of those who have been in the fishery, like the
U.S. industry, for 20-plus years that are now bidding against
an unlimited pool of bidders?
Those are the kinds of questions that we are seeking
answers to as we go into the negotiations on the extension.
Mr. Faleomavaega. If you were to make a comparison of our
regional tuna fishing treaty with the 16 island countries as
far as compliance with dolphin-safe standards, how do we
compare in terms of the standards that we put on our fishing
fleet to other nations?
Here is my problem. We currently have a regional fishing
treaty in place with the 16 island countries, and then they
turn around and conduct bilateral fishing agreements with other
countries that may not necessarily comply with the standards,
the high standards, that our fishing fleet has to abide by.
It also destroys the whole idea of conservation, it seems
to me, because where does conservation come in? If they don't
put on a cap, are you suggesting here that if they are allowing
over 200 purse seiners to fish in the waters that they will be
overfished in a very short time?
And it somewhat contradicts the whole concept of
conservation as outlined under the provisions of this
convention that we just have set up this monitoring committee
now based out of Pohnpei. Do you care to respond to that?
Mr. Gibbons-Fly. Yes. First, in response to your first
question of where the U.S. ranks in terms of compliance with
agreed measures, right at the very top.
As I mentioned in my statement, both my oral and written
statement, you don't have to take my word for that. The Forum
Fisheries Agency secretariat has repeatedly acknowledged to us
that the U.S. fleet sets the standard for compliance with
agreed measures for use of the vessel monitoring system.
The U.S. fleet was the first fleet that agreed to the
implementation of a vessel monitoring system in the Pacific at
a time when all the other fleets fishing out there resisted
that, and it was only because the U.S. fleet took on that
obligation that the Pacific Island states were then able to use
that as a basis to insist that other countries did the same.
And that same example can be repeated through the level of
observer coverage, through reporting requirements, through a
whole range of other requirements. The U.S. fleet sets the
standard and will continue to set the standard.
We are working now to level the playing field, as I
mentioned, and trying to get the Pacific Island states in their
negotiations of whatever other agreements they might negotiate
to hold other fleets to the same standard as the U.S. fleet.
We now have a second mechanism to do that, and that is
through the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission,
which is the region-wide body, as you mentioned, responsible
for the conservation and management of tunas in the region. We
have been working with the Pacific Island states in that forum
to do just that.
For example, the Parties to the Nauru Agreement through a
separate set of standards----
Mr. Faleomavaega. I am sorry. Which countries are parties
to the Nauru Agreement?
Mr. Gibbons-Fly. It is three compact states, Palau,
Micronesia and the Marshall Islands, as well as Papua New
Guinea, Kiribati, Nauru, Solomon Islands and Tuvalu. Those are
the states that straddle the equator.
Most purse seine fishing in the region takes place between
20 degrees north and 20 degrees south. Those are the states
located in that region, and the majority of fish caught by
purse seines in the Pacific, the Central and Western Pacific,
is caught in waters under the jurisdiction of those states so
they work together to try to set regional standards.
They last year adopted a set of standards in what they are
calling the Third Implementing Arrangement, which is an
implementing arrangement to a previous agreement to set these
kinds of standards, and they set standards such as 100 percent
observer coverage, 100 percent VMS coverage, closure of certain
areas to fishing, et cetera.
In the past what we have seen when these standards have
been set, they are not always effectively and faithfully
implemented in the negotiation of the bilateral agreements, and
there has been some scattered or uneven implementation of these
standards among the states.
So we worked with the Pacific Island states at the most
recent meeting of the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries
Commission to get these same measures adopted as measures under
the WCPFC, which means that now it is not up to the states to
negotiate these as part of their bilateral agreements. These
standards will now apply under the WCPFC to all the fleets
operating in the region.
So that was a successful effort to try to level the playing
field to some extent on some issues, but there are other areas
where we still have more work to do. There are still cases
where the U.S. fleet is operating at a higher standard than
some of these other states, and we will continue to work both
through WCPFC and with the island states to try to get
everybody operating at the same----
Mr. Faleomavaega. I think I have exhausted my 5 minutes.
Mr. Manzullo? I will wait for the second round.
Mr. Manzullo. Thank you. Now, as I understand the purpose
of the tuna treaty is to regulate the amount of fish to be
harvested. Would that be correct?
Mr. Gibbons-Fly. Well, the tuna treaty itself is primarily
an agreement by which U.S. vessels gain access. It is what is
known as a fishery access agreement, and it sets the terms and
conditions for access by vessels flying the U.S. flag to the
waters under the jurisdiction of the parties to the treaty.
Now, a quid pro quo for that is that those vessels abide by
a certain set of standards, but historically through the life
of the treaty there has not been really a need over the last 20
years up until the last 3, 4, 5 years to regulate the amount of
tuna being caught because none of the stocks of tuna in the
Pacific were considered to be fished at a level that was not
sustainable.
That has now changed, and I will get back to that in a
minute, but historically it has been an access agreement rather
than a vehicle through which catches were capped. It is the
WCPFC, the much broader, multilateral convention, that is the
conservation and management arrangement where the measures are
taken to limit the amount of fish that is being caught.
And that is the agreement and the meeting that I referred
to just recently where we were able to adopt a fairly strict
set of standards; not as strict as anyone would have liked, but
it was the first measure to get at regulation of catches of
bigeye tuna in the Pacific Ocean and bigeye----
Mr. Manzullo. That is not among all the members of the
South Pacific Tuna Treaty, is it?
Mr. Gibbons-Fly. All the members of the South Pacific Tuna
Treaty are members of the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries
Commission.
Mr. Manzullo. Okay.
Mr. Gibbons-Fly. As are a number of other countries,
including all the other distant water fishing states.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Manzullo. Of course.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I think maybe just a little background a
little further before that.
What happened was that our fishing fleet went all over the
Pacific fishing for tuna, declaring that since tuna is a highly
migratory fish, there are no restrictions in terms of the EEZs.
So we kept poaching into the EEZ zones of these other
countries, especially Latin America, and our boats ended up
getting confiscated. They got in some very serious problems.
So eventually they left the Eastern Pacific and decided to
come to the Western Pacific to do their fishing.
Mr. Manzullo. Do you mean the boats or the tuna?
Mr. Faleomavaega. The boats. Our boats. Our tuna boats went
down there, and one of them got seized in the Solomon Islands
and all hell broke loose.
George Shultz and our whole government got involved. It
caused an international incident because our boat owners said
that because tuna is a highly migratory fish there should be no
restrictions as to how far we can go and catch the fish.
Well, that didn't work very well, and as a result of that,
Secretary of State Shultz, and I think at that time also Mr.
Negroponte, initiated this idea with my good friend, Dave
Birney, who now has passed, to establish a regional fishing
treaty with these island nations. In that way we would have
better access going into the EEZ zones to conduct fishing
operations. That is how the fishing treaty came about.
Mr. Manzullo. I really know a lot more about cattle than I
do about fish, but I am intrigued over the fact that the last 3
or 4 years there haven't been enough tuna or there haven't been
as many tuna as there were prior to this. Is that correct? Did
I say that correctly?
Mr. Gibbons-Fly. Well, you know, it is a very broad
question. You did say that correctly, but it varies from region
to region, and the Pacific, especially the Western Pacific, the
Western and Central Pacific, is the area of the world where the
tuna stocks are considered to be in the best shape still.
There are three primary commercial species that are
harvested by purse seines, and I won't bore you with too many
of the details, but skipjack, yellowfin and bigeye tuna. The
primary targets are the yellowfin and the skipjack.
The bigeye tuna is caught in association with the other
species, and it is the bigeye tuna that is the one that is
currently considered to be at a level that is in technical
terms overfished or at very near an overfished state.
Mr. Manzullo. Do you have a theory on that as our chairman
as to----
Mr. Gibbons-Fly. Well, the theory is----
Mr. Manzullo. This is a red flag that there could be some
problems.
Mr. Gibbons-Fly. If it is a red flag, yes, and it is more
than a theory. The simply fact is they are catching tuna faster
than it can replace itself.
The bigeye tuna is caught both by long-line fisheries and
by purse seine fisheries, and the purse seine fisheries it is
the smaller bigeye that is caught. It is not a target of the
fishery, so there are efforts underway to try to find ways to
catch the target species of yellowfin and skipjack without
catching or minimizing the catch of the juvenile bigeye that is
usually found at a deeper depth, than the other two target
species.
It is a very complex technical question, but when good
minds have been put on these efforts in the past they have been
able to come up with solutions, and there may be a technical
solution. In the meantime, the solution is to reduce the level
of fishing effort so that there are fewer vessels fishing
during parts of the year.
Mr. Manzullo. Can countries that are not members of the
South Pacific Tuna Treaty such as South Korea and China get
access to that area?
Mr. Gibbons-Fly. Yes. Both those countries, as well as
Japan, Taiwan and the EU, are all parties to the Western and
Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, and each of them has
negotiated agreements, separate bilateral agreements, with
various Pacific Island states for access to fish in the waters
under their jurisdiction.
Mr. Manzullo. Is that working, or is that causing some
angst?
Mr. Gibbons-Fly. Well, right now I think the general
perception is that the level of fishing effort as a result of
the cumulative total of all these agreements is probably higher
than it needs to be or should be.
Mr. Manzullo. Mr. Chairman, do you want to comment on that?
I know this is an intimate area that is being overfished.
Mr. Faleomavaega. If the gentleman will yield? That is
exactly the trend, and this is the direction that we are headed
for.
You know, the Atlantic is already overfished, and there is
no question in my opinion that the time is going to come when
there will be overfishing even in the Pacific for tuna. The
demand obviously is going to be a lot greater than the supply.
This is causing a lot of concern about conservation efforts
being made seriously. As you know, the swordfish in the North
Atlantic were overfished. We have some 100 fishing vessels from
the New England states coming to Hawaii to do fishing there
simply because the swordfish was overfished.
That is exactly what we are headed for if we don't take
conservation measures. This is a concern that is very much in
the minds of these countries. The problem is that because these
island countries are so economically strapped, desperate if you
want to put it in those terms, they end up really for a
pittance, giving away these business licenses.
And these fishing vessels that come from foreign countries
that don't comply with the conservation standards that we have
applied in our regional fishing treaty, this is where the
problem is caused. I believe we are going to have some serious
situations in dealing with the fishing efforts.
Mr. Gibbons-Fly. I might add one thing, and that is that I
started to mention the measure that was adopted in December at
the WCPFC meeting which took place in Busan, Korea. One of the
elements of that measure was precisely to get at reducing the
catches of juvenile bigeye tuna.
Much of the catch of the juvenile bigeye tuna is caught
with vessels fishing in association with what are called fish
aggregating devices (FAD). These are floating rafts that are
put in the water that attract fish around them, and then the
vessel will set its net around the fish that have schooled
around that FAD.
In association with that, the catches of juvenile bigeye
are higher than they are when fishing on what are called free
swimming schools, which are schools that are just swimming in
the ocean not associated with these floating devices.
One of the elements of the measure that was adopted by the
Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission was to close
this year the fishery on floating objects for a period of 60
days in the area this fishing takes place. Next year that will
expand to 90 days.
So by reducing the level of fishing effort on these
floating devices there is an expectation that if these measures
are faithfully implemented that that will result in some fairly
significant reduction in bigeye tuna. Perhaps not up to the
level yet that the scientists are telling us that we need, but
at least it is a first start and first step.
One of the most significant accomplishments of that meeting
was that they adopted any measure at all. A number of people
are often frustrated with the progress made in RFMOs, regional
fisheries management organizations, but to get 26 countries
around that table to agree to a set of measures that actually
did make some progress in addressing the overfishing of bigeye
was a significant accomplishment in my view.
Although a number of people, and they are absolutely
correct in saying the Commission needs to do more. It needs to
go farther. This wasn't enough, but it was a good first step
and a good accomplishment to get this organization moving in
the right direction.
Mr. Faleomavaega. The gentleman from Arizona?
Mr. Flake. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gibbons-Fly, we have the tuna processing facility in
American Samoa, which I have had the opportunity to visit a
couple of times. Where else in the Central or Western Pacific
are there processing facilities at present?
Mr. Gibbons-Fly. There are different kinds of processing
facilities in different parts of the region. For tuna, for the
tuna that is being caught by purse seine vessels, there are two
main ways to process the fish in the region.
One is through the full plant where the fish comes off the
vessel and ends up right in the can. The only other place that
I am aware of that there are canneries really in the region are
in Papua New Guinea.
There have been efforts to establish canneries in other of
the Pacific Island states, but they have not been successful in
the long term for a variety of reasons, including lack of fresh
water and in some cases political stability or instability.
In some places like Marshall Islands and Fiji there is an
intermediary step, which is called a loining plant, where the
loins, which are really the meat that ends up in the can--it is
the most labor intensive part of the process--are taken out of
the tuna and then shipped to a canning facility.
The major canning facilities where a lot of this fish goes
is to Thailand, which is really the world's tuna canning
center. A lot of it is transhipped out of various ports in the
region to carrier vessels, which then go to Thailand. The
Philippines also has a significant canning industry down in the
Mindanao region, the General Santos region. Those are probably
the biggest centers I would say.
Mr. Flake. So in terms of distances that are traveled by
these vessels, as long as they can upload to a loining
facility, as you say, and tranship from there then there are
really no restrictions. They can go a long way.
It is not as if there has to be more canning facilities
there for overfishing to really occur. Under the current
infrastructure that we have, we can see significant
overfishing. Is that what you are saying?
Mr. Gibbons-Fly. If you are saying does the lack of
canneries serve as a check on the possibility of overfishing in
the region, no. That is not an obstacle or not a barrier.
Mr. Flake. That was my question, yes.
Mr. Gibbons-Fly. The level of fishing is not constrained
simply because the canneries aren't in the region.
Also, some of it actually comes east to canneries in
Ecuador where there is a significant canning capacity as well.
Mr. Flake. Thank you.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Can you provide for the record the list
of all the countries competing to export canned tuna to the
United States? I think there is a list.
Mr. Gibbons-Fly. I am sure we can find that list someplace,
Mr. Chairman.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Faleomavaega. Just a couple more questions, Mr.
Gibbons-Fly.
One of the problems, and this is not just because of the
presence of the tuna industry in my district, but looking at
the broad, overall situation of the entire Pacific region,
which I think impacts directly even our own economic interests
in our country. The reason for raising this issue is the whole
question of marine resources available to the Pacific region,
of which we are part.
I just wanted to raise the question if the State Department
is preparing any plans to conduct some kind of a working
partnership with these island countries to promote and to
enhance their fishing industries, and also as a way to examine
U.S. consumer demand to see what products or what marine
resources they can develop that could be part of our economic
partnership with these countries.
Mr. Gibbons-Fly. Well, one of the elements of the treaty
that is written into the treaty are provisions for what is
called broader cooperation to do exactly that and to provide
opportunities for enhanced economic cooperation to help develop
some of the domestic fisheries.
There have been some efforts to do that. Some U.S.
investment has gone into trying to set up some of these loining
plants in various places. Some of those have succeeded, and
some of those have failed.
The canning plant that is currently operating in a place
called Wewak, Papua New Guinea, was an initiative that was
originated by U.S. interests and U.S. capital, and it became so
complicated politically and economically that they withdrew.
Another set of investors came in, but the U.S. companies
continued to provide the technology and the expertise to help
get that plant up and running.
Developing tuna industries in many of these countries is a
very complicated task, and the island states want to explore
more of these opportunities. We are certainly open to
encouraging that, but at the end of the day those are all
decisions that are taken primarily by private sector
organizations based on a set of business criteria that they
need to decide for themselves.
The money that is set aside under the treaty, the $18
million in economic support funds, is provided to the Pacific
Island states for them to use in a manner they see fit, and
there was an early time during the treaty where a portion of
that money was set aside to fund fisheries development
projects. We have encouraged the Pacific Island states to think
about going back to that kind of model.
We don't have additional resources above the $18 million to
contribute from the government's side into those kinds of
activities, but if they wanted to use some of that $18 million
to foster some of these activities the government could provide
value added in terms of technical expertise and scientific
research.
Up to this point, Mr. Chairman, as you noted, the
countries, because of their----
Mr. Faleomavaega. But this is the basis of what I have
always said should be part of our foreign assistance program.
Rather than just feeding the people, teaching them how to fish
so they can eat forever according to the Chinese proverb.
Mr. Gibbons-Fly. Right.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Of course, I have always said this for
years. The ocean is the farm for these island countries. If we
give them the tools so they could better develop their own
industries and the resources that they have access to, isn't
that a better way to also offer some assistance in that regard?
Eighteen million dollars. I mean, we spend almost $1
billion in building our Embassy in Baghdad. I mean, I realize
you can't comment about the question of foreign assistance, but
it seems to me that this is certainly an area that we ought to
pursue, or the State Department ought to pursue, to see that
tools are provided so that these island countries could better
work out these issues.
As you know, the bottom line is that they just don't have
the resources to develop a fishing industry. They have the
fish, but then going about and catching it and setting up a
long-line fleet and all of that is difficult. Do you think that
somewhere our country could be of help to these countries?
Mr. Gibbons-Fly. I don't see why not. I will take your
comments, and we will take those under advisement and we will
report back your interest in seeing us work in that direction.
Mr. Faleomavaega. You know, I visited Taiwan. They have
tanks about as big as this room for fish farming. They don't
even go fishing. They just do the fish farming right there.
They catch the fingerlings. In a matter of months it is out in
the market all over Asia.
These island countries, if there is any way that we could
give them the proper technology. I would think that it would be
probably best if we could just work it some way or somehow just
to give these people the tools. They can become more self-
sufficient. That is really the bottom line.
The $18 million is nice to give, but I think we should
seriously consider other ways of giving the tools so that they
could better improve this industry because, like you said, it
is complicated and it is scattered all over in such a way that
they are never really given an opportunity to really come out
with a real serious effort.
More marine biologists trained in our universities, giving
them a better understanding on seamanship. I mean, it seems to
me that we do have the technology and the resources. I go back
to the Chinese proverb: Feed a man fish one day, he will
survive, but if you teach him how to fish he will eat forever.
I literally believe in that.
Do you think that this is possible? It doesn't take $1
billion to set up some kind of a training program so that these
countries could be self-sufficient in that regard.
Mr. Gibbons-Fly. Yes. I understand your concerns, Mr.
Chairman. As I said, I will report them back and clearly
reflect your interest in seeing us work in that direction. We
will keep you posted.
Mr. Faleomavaega. In comparison, we have got the Forum
Fisheries Agency out of the Forum countries, and then we have
the Pacific Community. It used to be the South Pacific
Commission. They have their fisheries program. Now we have the
Western Pacific Commission out of Pohnpei.
You don't see any problems with these three organizations
working? Are they working together? Are they somewhat
overlapping in terms of what they are doing?
Mr. Gibbons-Fly. They are working together, and one of our
challenges and one of our goals is to make sure that they
continue to work together and that the activities that are
taking place in one organization or under one agreement are not
in conflict with activities that are taking place in another.
In fact, this has been a key subject of discussion. We meet
each year with the parties to the treaty in an annual
consultation which, as I mentioned, takes place in March, and
we have added an item to the agenda that talks about
coordination between operations under the treaty and the way in
which we work together with the Pacific Island states and the
Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission.
Likewise, the Forum Fisheries Agency in Honiara serves as
the mechanism for coordinating the position of the Pacific
Island states not only with respect to discussions with us
under the treaty, but also within their participation under the
WCPFC.
So there is a very conscious understanding of the need to
ensure that all of these organizations are working together,
not working at cross purposes, but there is a great deal of
cross fertilization, and we need to continue to be vigilant in
this regard, but up to this point there seems to be a synergy
rather than discord in the way that these organizations are
working together.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I understand that there is a current
effort by the administration to reevaluate some of these
commissions that deal with tracking or monitoring the tuna
situation. ICCAT I think is one organization out of California.
How many other commissions are involved in doing this kind
of work dealing with marine resources? Just tuna?
Mr. Gibbons-Fly. Well, depending on how you count them,
there are a very large number. Dealing with tuna, there are
five principal organizations. The United States is a party to
three of them.
There is ICCAT in the Atlantic, there is the IATTC in the
Eastern Pacific, the WCPFC in the Central and Western Pacific.
Those are the three to which the United States is a party.
And then in addition to that there is the Indian Ocean Tuna
Commission, which manages tuna in that ocean, and then there is
the Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna,
which manage the bluefin tuna resource in the Southern Ocean.
And there are efforts underway to try to ensure that those
five organizations are at least conscious of what the others
are doing and if possible to try to harmonize some of the
things that they are doing.
The Japanese hosted a meeting of the five tuna RFMOs in
Kobe, Japan, 2 years ago to try to get that effort underway.
There is going to be another meeting along those lines in San
Sebastian, Spain. But it is very complicated because each of
these organizations has its own culture. It has its own
parties. It has its own way of doing things.
What works in one part of the world isn't always possible
in the other or isn't agreeable to another set of parties
operating in another part of the world, so trying to get them
all on the same page and moving in the same direction is a
challenge.
But there are some things perhaps where we might have some
success, and one of the areas is with respect to some of these
trade tracking schemes because these different organizations
are now trying to track the tuna that comes out of the areas
where they exercise jurisdiction. Different organizations are
adopting different schemes, and that gets very complicated if
you are purchasing tuna from several different parts of the
world.
So some effort to try to harmonize these schemes we think
is valuable, and then perhaps using that as a basis to see what
other things can be done to get all these organizations working
along the same lines.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I am sure that you have opportunities in
consulting with members of our tuna fishing fleet, and I was
just wondering if there have been any concerns expressed to you
about their capabilities and what they are doing right now as
it relates to the provisions of the Tuna Treaty.
Is there any area that you think there is something that
maybe we should address or look at?
Mr. Gibbons-Fly. Well, my understanding of where our
industry is, is that they are very supportive of the treaty as
currently formulated and would like to see it continue very
much along the same lines.
One of the things that we are wrestling with now is the
fact that we understand that the rules of the game that are
being set by the Pacific Island states are changing to this
Vessel Day Scheme, and we are engaging in discussions to try to
determine whether or not there are ways to make the future
operation of the treaty compatible with the Vessel Day Scheme.
That will be the great focus of our efforts over the next
year or two as we seek to negotiate an extension of the treaty
beyond 2013. As I said, because we have so many unanswered
questions about the Vessel Day Scheme we will need more time to
sort through that before I can give you a detailed answer as to
which way we see this going.
Mr. Faleomavaega. So the negotiations are ongoing now?
Mr. Gibbons-Fly. The first session of the negotiations will
take place in October. Well, the discussions. We don't yet have
authority to negotiate an extension. We need to seek that with
the Department of State under a formal process that we have.
But we will begin the first round of discussions later this
year in October, and that will take place in Port Vila,
Vanuatu.
Mr. Faleomavaega. What do you think will be the impact to
the U.S. tuna fishing industry or the tuna industry if this
treaty doesn't become reauthorized or is not given approval by
the island countries?
Mr. Gibbons-Fly. Well, as I say in my statement, we very
much hope that that will not be the case, Mr. Chairman, and we
don't have to look at that question.
I am optimistic that the Pacific Island states, even though
they are taking very--they are negotiators as well. They are
very good negotiators, and they are taking I think what I
understand to be a fairly tough negotiating position as we head
into these negotiations.
That is not unusual. We have faced that in the past, but at
the end of the day I am optimistic that they value the treaty
to the same extent that the United States values the treaty and
that we will be able to reach an accommodation that will allow
the treaty to continue to the benefit of all sides beyond 2013.
As I said, there are no guarantees, and I hope I am not
misreading that, but this treaty has worked very well for them.
It has very broad support throughout the Pacific. The support
for the treaty is not shared equally among all the parties.
Some are greater supporters and some are not as strong of
supporters these days, depending on a number of factors.
As my written testimony states, there may be some parties
to the treaty who decide that they will choose not to continue
with the treaty, but that is their right. There is no reason
for us to compel them to be part of an agreement that they are
not interested in being a part of, and if that is the case then
we would work to maintain the treaty with those parties that
continue to be interested in doing that.
Mr. Faleomavaega. To your knowledge, this is the only
regional fishing treaty that is in place between the United
States and these island countries? What I mean is do other
countries have a similar arrangement on a regional basis like
Korea or Japan?
These countries have huge fishing fleets, and I am just
curious if they also have regional fishing treaties with these
island countries.
Mr. Gibbons-Fly. No, they do not. They operate pretty much
on the basis of individual bilateral agreements with the
various countries.
We would very much like to see the Pacific Island states
reach a level of solidarity where they could insist among
themselves that all these countries participate in regional
agreements similar to the one that is negotiated with the
United States.
We think that is in the best interest of the Pacific Island
states, and it results in agreements that are more transparent.
We don't always know what the terms are of a bilateral
agreement between a Pacific Island state and a distant water
state and what the requirements are, whereas all the
requirements of our treaty are publicly available and everybody
knows what our VMS requirements are, what our observer
requirements are, what are reporting requirements are. It is
the most transparent agreement in the world, in addition to all
these other things.
We have encouraged the Pacific Island states to go along
those lines, and I know there has been strong interest in doing
so, but they have not been able to reach a state where, as I
say, they have been able to agree among themselves that that is
what they want to do.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Do you sense that sometimes some of these
island states, out of frustration, would rather deal with other
countries than the United States?
Mr. Gibbons-Fly. No. I have a strong sense that they
welcome our participation, and in fact as I have said, they
have valued the leadership that the U.S. fleet has provided in
terms of getting some of these other countries up to the same
standard.
As I said, they have not gone as far as we would like to
see in insisting that all of the other fleets operate at the
same standard, but they continue to tell us that if it were not
for the U.S. fleet they would have a much harder time. It would
be difficult, if not impossible, to insist that some of these
other fleets carry observers and carry VMS and those kinds of
things.
Our relationship is a very mature one. As with any mature
one, there are things on which we agree and things on which we
disagree. I think it is probably a lot easier for some of these
countries to deal individually with another state and reach a
very simple agreement than dealing not only with the United
States, but having to balance their individual interests with
the interests of the other 15 parties that are a party to this
multilateral treaty.
That is one of the things that makes this agreement so
complex, but it is also one of the things that I think adds to
its strength and makes it so valuable to both sides.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Without objection, I am going to keep the
record open. There may be some additional materials and
information that I will be requesting of your office, Mr.
Gibbons-Fly, to submit to be made part of our record.
Mr. Gibbons-Fly. We would be happy to provide additional
information that you request.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I do want to thank you very much for
coming this morning to testify before the subcommittee.
I hope that in the coming weeks and months we will continue
the dialogue, and hopefully we can resolve some of these issues
as far as our fisheries program not just in the Pacific, but in
other areas as well. But I do want to thank you for coming.
Mr. Gibbons-Fly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
your support. I very much have appreciated the opportunity to
be here today. As I said, we are happy to provide any
additional information that you request.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you very much. The hearing is
complete.
[Whereupon, at 10:56 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing RecordNotice deg.
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Minutes deg.
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Manzullo statement deg.
__________
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Watson statement deg.
__________
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
