[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
RENEGOTIATING THE SOUTH PACIFIC TUNA
TREATY: CLOSING LOOPHOLES AND
PROTECTING U.S. INTERESTS
=======================================================================
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
SECOND SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 22, 2010
__________
Serial No. 111-133
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
58-429PDF WASHINGTON : 2010
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 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
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois
BILL DELAHUNT, Massachusetts EDWARD R. ROYCE, California
GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York RON PAUL, Texas
DIANE E. WATSON, California JEFF FLAKE, Arizona
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri MIKE PENCE, Indiana
ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey JOE WILSON, South Carolina
GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
MICHAEL E. McMAHON, New York J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina
THEODORE E. DEUTCH, CONNIE MACK, Florida
FloridaAs of 5/6/ JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska
10 deg. MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas
JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee TED POE, Texas
GENE GREEN, Texas BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
LYNN WOOLSEY, California GUS BILIRAKIS, Florida
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
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
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
WITNESSES
Mr. William Gibbons-Fly, Director, Office of Marine Conservation,
Bureau of Oceans and International Environment and Scientific
Affairs, U.S. Department of State.............................. 2
Mr. Russell Smith, III, Deputy Assistant Secretary for
International Fisheries, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.................... 18
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
Mr. William Gibbons-Fly: Prepared statement...................... 5
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......... 16
Mr. Russell Smith, III: Prepared statement....................... 20
APPENDIX
Hearing notice................................................... 58
Hearing minutes.................................................. 59
The Honorable Diane E. Watson, a Representative in Congress from
the State of California: Prepared statement.................... 60
RENEGOTIATING THE SOUTH PACIFIC TUNA TREATY: CLOSING LOOPHOLES AND
PROTECTING U.S. INTERESTS
----------
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 2010
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 1:40 p.m., in
room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Eni F.H.
Faleomavaega (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Faleomavaega. The hearing will come to order. This is
the hearing of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, specifically
the Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific and the Global
Environment. The topic for discussion this afternoon is
Renegotiating the South Pacific Tuna Treaty: Closing Loopholes
and Protecting U.S. Interests.
I am very, very pleased and honored to have two gentlemen
who, in my humble opinion, are very much familiar with the
issue that we are going to be discussing this afternoon, and I
do want to recognize them before they give their testimony. My
good friend, the ranking member, unfortunately, is tied up with
other hearings and commitments. So we are going to go ahead and
push on.
Our first witness that we have this afternoon is Mr.
William Gibbons-Fly, the Director of the Office of Marine
Conservation, in the Bureau of Oceans and International
Environment and Scientific Affairs at the Department of State.
Mr. Gibbons-Fly has 25 years of direct involvement in the
development, negotiation, and implementation of international
environmental and oceans policy. His previous positions
included 4 years as Deputy Counsel for Environment, Science and
Technology at the U.S. Embassy in Mexico City; 5 years dealing
with issues at the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, where he coordinated all NOAA participation in
a wide range of international scientific, technical and
organizational agreements.
Over the past 20 years, Mr. Gibbons-Fly has been at the
forefront of discussions and negotiations for international
fisheries management in the Pacific Ocean. He previously served
as a U.S. Commissioner of the Western and Central Pacific
Fisheries Commission; past chairman of the Inter-American
Tropical Tuna Commission, or IATTC; and representative of the
State Department at the Western Pacific Regional Fishery
Management Council. He is currently leading the U.S.
negotiating effort to extend the Multilateral Treaty on
Fisheries between the governments of certain Pacific Island
States and the Government of the United States, commonly known
as the South Pacific Tuna Treaty.
Mr. Gibbons-Fly holds a master's of international affairs
from George Washington University and a bachelor's degree with
honors from the University of California in Santa Barbara. He
is a career executive with the Senior Foreign Service. He is
the recipient of numerous honors and awards. And I am very,
very happy to have him join us at this hearing.
Also with us this afternoon is Mr. Smith, who was formerly
with the Office of U.S. Trade Representative, USTR, where he
was the Director for International Environmental Policy and
Multilateral Environmental Agreements some 4 years ago. He
joined the USTR in 2002 as Deputy Director of the Office of the
Americas. Prior to that he had many years of experience at the
Department of Justice and in private practice. He has led
various U.S. delegations in negotiating international
negotiations, including, for example, the U.S.-China Bilateral
Agreement on Combating Illegal Logging and the environmental
chapter of the Free Trade Agreement between the U.S. and the
Republic of Korea. His particular talent is to develop creative
strategies for making U.S. trade and environmental policies
mutually supportive and to work with U.S. trade partners.
Mr. Smith holds a bachelor's degree from Yale University
and also a juris doctorate from the University of Michigan.
Gentlemen, welcome to the hearing. And I would like at this
time for Mr. Gibbons-Fly to start our hearing. And, without
objection, both of your statements will be made a part of the
record, and any other extraneous materials that you wish to be
added will be made a part of the record as well. You are more
than welcome.
Mr. Gibbons-Fly.
STATEMENT OF MR. WILLIAM GIBBONS-FLY, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF
MARINE CONSERVATION, BUREAU OF OCEANS AND INTERNATIONAL
ENVIRONMENT AND SCIENTIFIC AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Mr. Gibbons-Fly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And it is a great
pleasure to be here to see you again to testify before this
committee and to have the opportunity to update you on the
status of our ongoing efforts to extend the South Pacific Tuna
Treaty, along with some related issues.
Before I begin, let me say, I am very pleased to be joined
by Mr. Smith this afternoon from NOAA. The Department of State
works closely with a number of NOAA offices in the
implementation of the treaty. In particular, the NOAA
fisheries' Pacific Islands regional office in Honolulu and its
field station in your district, Mr. Chairman, in Pango Pango
work closely with us, and they manage the day-to-day
implementation of the treaty. And the implementation of this
treaty would simply not be possible without support that we get
from NOAA on an ongoing basis, and we very much appreciate
that. Nor would the implementation of the treaty be possible
without the support and participation of the American Tuna Boat
Association and the U.S. vessel owners and operators that
comprise the U.S. tuna purse seine fleet. So I want to
recognize them at the outset.
Since my last testimony, Mr. Chairman, we have had two
negotiating sessions with the Pacific Island parties. October
of last year in Honiara, Solomon Islands, and in July of this
year in Honolulu. Our annual treaty consultations, which took
place on the island of Niue in March of this year, also
provided an opportunity to exchange views on issues related to
the treaty negotiations.
Even so, Mr. Chairman, I need to report to you that the
status of these negotiations is much the same as it was when I
last testified before you in April 2009. The negotiations are
complicated by a number of issues which I will touch on, and
the outcome of those negotiations at this time remains
uncertain.
To begin, Mr. Chairman, there is still a question as to
whether the Pacific Island States continue to attach the same
value to the treaty as they have in the past. Right now the
industry licensing fees paid under the treaty and the
associated U.S. Government economic assistance provide
approximately $25 million a year to the Pacific Island parties.
There is a sense among the Pacific Island parties that this
figure is too low, given the value of the resources and the
increasing level of fees and assistance provided by other
states with fleets operating in the region.
It is important to the United States that the Pacific
Island parties get fair value for these resources. Throughout
its history the treaty has provided a higher economic return to
the Pacific Island States than any other agreement in the
region. We expect this to continue to be the case, should the
treaty be extended. If the Pacific Island States believe the
current level of compensation under the treaty is not
sufficient, we have requested that they provide us with their
estimate of today's value of the treaty, should it be extended
at something close to the current terms and conditions. But to
date, Mr. Chairman, we have received no such proposal from
their side, but we are hopeful that something might be
forthcoming.
Another key issue, Mr. Chairman, is the extent to which
under an extended treaty the U.S. fleet would operate under the
Vessel Day Scheme developed by the parties to the Nauru
Agreement. We have sought to make clear that the United States
is not opposed to considering the application of the Vessel Day
Scheme to the U.S. fleet, but before proceeding, we need a
better explanation of the scheme than we have received to date.
For example, we have asked for an up-to-date document that
reflects the rules of the Vessel Day Scheme as it is currently
being implemented. There is no document that can currently be
shared with us; nothing, in fact, in writing to tell us what
the rules of this program are at the present time. We have
asked if any of the PNA member countries have published
regulations or guidelines describing how the scheme is being
implemented in their own countries. And again, the answer is
``no.'' We are told that all PNA members are implementing the
Vessel Day Scheme through their bilateral agreements; but these
agreements are not available, so there is no way to confirm
this. The only bilateral agreement that, to our knowledge, is
in the public domain is the agreement between the European
community and the Solomon Islands. That agreement, Mr.
Chairman, contains no reference to the Vessel Day Scheme or to
any related concept. Further discussions with representatives
in other countries have confirmed that there is no uniform or
consistent application of the Vessel Day Scheme across
countries and fleets.
So as you can imagine, Mr. Chairman, it is almost
impossible for us to negotiate under these circumstances when
we don't know what we are being asked to agree to. If the PNA
and the FFA more broadly are interested in working
cooperatively with the United States to develop a workable,
well-defined and transparent Vessel Day Scheme to be applied to
all fleets seeking access to fish in the region, we have been
and continue to be open to those discussions. But, Mr.
Chairman, those discussions would require a somewhat different
approach on the part of the PNA members than we have seen to
date.
A third key issue, Mr. Chairman, is the aspirations of
these small island developing states to gain benefits from the
fishery resources under their jurisdiction and the industries
that they support. This is an issue to which the United States
attaches significant importance, and we will be seeking to
learn more about the specific proposals from the FFA members on
these matters as our discussions continue.
My written testimony, Mr. Chairman, notes some additional
issues that I will not mention here in the interest of time,
but they are reflected in the written testimony.
With the remainder of my time, I would like to take just a
minute to discuss the very critical issue of conservation of
tuna resources in the Pacific and how the treaty relates to
those efforts.
Mr. Chairman, as you well know, there are very strong
indications that the level of fishing efforts on some species
of tunas in the western and central Pacific exceeds levels that
are sustainable in the long term. This is particularly true for
bigeye tuna and, to a lesser extent, yellowfin tuna as well. If
we are to address the issues of long-term conservation and
sustainability of the region's fish stocks, we must find a way
to limit and eventually reduce the number of vessels operating
in the region.
Our longstanding position has been that when the coastal
states and the fishing states of the region are prepared to
enter into serious negotiations to achieve a real reduction in
the level of the fishing effort in the region, the United
States will not only participate in that effort, but will work
actively to bring such negotiations to a successful conclusion.
In doing so we have made clear that we will be prepared to
accept a fair and equitable share of any reduction in fishing
effort, including by the U.S. tuna purse seine fleet.
And yet, Mr. Chairman, this is not what we see happening.
The number of purse seine vessels continues to increase each
year, seemingly without limit. We understand there are plans to
bring up to an additional 40 vessels into the fishery in the
next 3 to 4 years, and as a result, we see little to be gained
if any reductions that would accrue as part of the U.S. fleet
would simply be offset or more than offset by this continuing
increase in the level of our efforts, especially when many of
those vessels coming into the fishery would be from states with
no previous history of fishing in the region, no record of
compliance with agreed measures, and no history of cooperation
to conserve and manage the region's fisheries resources.
So in very short terms, Mr. Chairman, those are some of the
challenges we face. I will stop there in the interest of time.
I would be happy to respond to any questions you may have.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gibbons-Fly follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Faleomavaega. My sincere apologies. I kind of jumped
the gun on the hearing this afternoon. I have not even offered
my opening statement. But be that as it may, I would like to
give my opening statement now, after Mr. Gibbons-Fly had
already given his statement. But this may be beneficial to Mr.
Smith. You might want to make some added notes about some of
the concerns I raised concerning the tuna treaty.
This is the third in a series of hearings the subcommittee
has held on the fisheries agreements of U.S. interests in Asia
and the Pacific, the two previous having been held in July 2007
and April 2009. The purpose of this hearing is to determine the
Obama administration's views on the status of negotiations over
the extension of the current South Pacific Tuna Treaty which
expires on June 14, 2013, and on such issues as revenue
sharing, conservation, linkages between the treaty and the
Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Convention, the Nauru
Agreement, and impacts on U.S. interests.
Of particular concern is the practice of transshipment of
tuna caught under the auspices of the South Pacific Tuna
Treaty. Under the terms of the treaty, the U.S. Government pays
out about $18 million of the $25 million total that is given to
the island nations. This amount is given to the Pacific Island
parties in return for the right of our U.S. tuna boats, limited
to about 40 licenses, to fish in the Exclusive Economic Zone of
the 16 Pacific Island nations which are party to the treaty.
The U.S. tuna boats also pay the Pacific Island parties
about $3 million to $5 million or more per year, depending on
the amount of tuna caught. According to the Congressional
Research Service, the U.S. tuna boats harvest about $250
million worth of tuna annually. But the value of the tuna as it
moves through the processing and distribution chain may be as
much as $500 million or more.
Of the approximately 300,000 metric tons of tuna that is
caught by the U.S. tuna fishing fleet, more than 180,000 metric
tons is transshipped and outsourced to foreign nations such as
Thailand, which has become the world's largest canned tuna
producer and processes a large percentage of tuna caught in the
Pacific region. This practice of outsourcing U.S.-caught
resources has led to an offshoring of American jobs. Thailand's
fish cleaners, who are paid 75 cents or less per hour, directly
compete against the workers in the United States who are paid
in accordance with Federal minimum wage laws. And I am making
reference specifically to my own district. American Samoa's
economy, which is more than 80 percent dependent either
directly or indirectly on the U.S. tuna fishing and processing
industries, has been adversely affected with more than 2,000
workers now displaced. Puerto Rico and California have also
suffered job losses as Thailand's private-label business
currently accounts for almost 30 percent of the market for tuna
consumed in the United States. This subcommittee is interested
in the administration's views about how we can close these
loopholes and more fully protect U.S. interests.
The subcommittee is also concerned about the environmental
impact of overfishing. According to the Congressional Research
Service, the western Pacific is, and I quote, ``home to half of
the world's tuna stocks and some of the few remaining
sustainable fishing areas in the world.'' But in the time it
takes for the older U.S.-built tuna boats to make three direct
deliveries to a U.S. port, like American Samoa, the newest
boats in the U.S. fishing fleet, which are foreign built and
account for more than half of the available licenses, can make
five transshipment deliveries. They offload their catch to a
big mother ship, a reefer, making it possible for these boats
to return more quickly to the South Pacific Tuna Treaty fishing
grounds where they can catch more and more tuna at a more and
more maddening pace.
And this is only the story of the U.S. tuna fishing fleet.
Asian countries account for an estimated 80 percent of tuna
caught in the Pacific, according to Greenpeace, which means we
must get serious about making modifications to the South
Pacific Tuna Treaty to seriously address the issue of
overfishing and outsourcing.
I am pleased that in 2007, 3 years ago, modifications were
made to allow U.S. longline vessels, along with purse seine and
albacore troll vessels, to fish in the treaty area. And I am
hopeful that other concerns I have also raised will be
addressed.
The South Pacific Tuna Treaty, which has been in place
since 1988, was renewed in 1993 and again in 2003. The regional
fishing tuna treaty--and I just want to comment--came as a
result. The problems that we have had when our American tuna
boat owners held the belief that since tuna is a highly
migratory fish, they can fish anywhere they want regardless of
the Exclusive Economic Zones that these countries claim,
especially in Latin America. And what happened was that when
these fellows went over there, their ships ended up getting
confiscated, and eventually they decided to leave the coastline
in the Americas and come to the western Pacific to fish. And
here again, with that philosophical outlook, because tuna is a
highly migratory fish, they continued doing this fishing
anywhere they wanted because they felt that tuna is a migratory
fish, and therefore there are no boundaries extending in terms
of their limitations on how they can fish.
Well, one of our purse seiners ended up being confiscated
by the Solomon Islands Government, and that created an
international uproar. This resulted in Secretary of State
Shultz and Mr. Negroponte, also with the State Department,
negotiating and establishing this regional fishing treaty
allowing our tuna purse seiners to fish these island countries
in their Exclusive Economic Zones. And I just wanted to share
that with Mr. Smith and Mr. Gibbons-Fly about how this treaty
came about.
The treaty has served to reduce tensions between the U.S.
and Pacific Island nations, which, prior to the agreement,
regarded U.S. purse seiners' vessels as operating illegally.
But new concerns have arisen, and Pacific Island nations
rightfully want their fair share of the profits, too.
His Excellency, President Johnson Toribiong, the President
of the Republic of Palau, called for a Pacific Islands summit
recently to develop an OPEC-type organization of cartels to
control the tuna industry, which generates about $4 billion
annually. I support the efforts of the parties to the Nauru
Agreement because for too long, Pacific Island countries,
including my own little district, have not received a fair
share of these revenues. Instead, our resources are being
siphoned off by Thailand and other countries that are making
billions of dollars at our expense.
I believe if we will pull together, we might be able to
level the playing field for all Pacific Islanders as well as
for our U.S. tuna fishing fleet and processing industries. But
any forthcoming agreement or treaty will need to make certain
that the same monitoring and control and surveillance
requirements imposed upon U.S. vessels are also applied to
major fleets that are non-U.S.-owned.
So with that opening statement for both of you gentlemen,
at this time, I would like to ask Mr. Smith for his statement.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Faleomavaega follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
STATEMENT OF MR. RUSSELL SMITH, III, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY
FOR INTERNATIONAL FISHERIES, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC
ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chair Faleomavaega and members of
the subcommittee. Thank you for that warm welcome and for
inviting me to testify here today on the South Pacific Tuna
Treaty, the U.S. interests and the changing nature of this
fishery.
As you know, NOAA shares responsibility for implementing
the South Pacific Tuna Treaty with the Department of State.
U.S. involvement in the purse seine fishery under the treaty
has fluctuated since it went into force in 1988. The number of
licensed U.S. Vessels operating in the treaty area reached a
high of 49 in 1994 and generally declined over the next decade.
The declining price of raw tuna product and significant
increases in fuel and insurance costs affected the
profitability of the purse seine fishing, and by 2007, only 11
U.S. vessels were licensed under the treaty.
Following the addition of new Taiwanese-built purse seine
vessels to the U.S. fleet, passage of legislation to allow
employment of internationally licensed officers on these
vessels, and a shift away from American Samoa-based operations,
the U.S. fleet began to rebound. Currently there are 36 U.S.
purse seine vessels licensed under the treaty. As the U.S.
purse seine fishery first developed in the western central
Pacific back in the late 1970s, many operators delivered to the
two canneries in your district and used Pango Pango as a base
of operation. Those vessels would take four to six trips a
year, spending roughly 200 days per year at sea fishing, and
the remainder in port unloading or maintaining their vessels
and gear.
While it is unclear why so many vessel owners left the
fishery in the 1990s and in the early 2000s, some have
attributed the position to a general lack of profitability,
given the large capital investment and risks associated with
the operation of purse seine vessels.
In 2007, a component of the industry developed an
alternative business model after building new vessels that were
equipped to efficiently transship fish, a model that you have
referenced, Mr. Chair. This alternative business model
attracted about 20 vessels to join the U.S. fleet in 2007 and
2008, with some of the new vessels initially basing their
operations in Pango Pango. However, the closure of one cannery
has caused at least a few of these vessels to turn to
transship, given the reduced demand for tuna in Pango Pango.
The U.S. territories in the Pacific have seen direct
economic benefits at one time or another as a result of the
treaty. Vessels continue to supply tuna to the remaining
cannery in American Samoa, and the territory enjoys other
benefits associated with vessel support, such as provisioning
and crewing, albeit at a reduced level from the past.
The treaty has mitigated some of the economic uncertainty
for U.S. participants in the purse seine fishery by providing a
stable operating environment, but it seems that changes in the
business model have been driven by the need to be competitive
in the face of foreign competition. Preliminary figures for
2009 show that the western and central Pacific Ocean fishing
area, approximately 250 large purse seine vessels from several
nations landed a record 1.9 million metric tons of
predominantly skipjack tuna. Of this amount, the U.S. purse
seine fleet landed about 260,000 metric tons, or roughly 14
percent of the WCPO purse seine total, worth approximately $300
million. The U.S. purse seine fleet operating under the treaty
is the greatest revenue-producing U.S. fishing fleet operating
outside of U.S. waters.
Skipjack tuna is the predominant target species in the U.S.
Purse seine fishery in the WCPO followed by yellowfin. Bigeye
tuna, although not a target species in the purse seine fishery,
is caught mostly as juveniles in quantities equal to the
region's longline fishery, an issue of great concern to NOAA,
given that bigeye is currently subject to overfishing.
NOAA has a number of administrative and operational roles
with respect to the treaty as well as enforcement
responsibilities. NOAA provides technical and fisheries policy
support to the Department of State during treaty negotiations
and issues the domestic regulations necessary to carry out the
terms of the treaty and the objectives of the South Pacific
Tuna Act of 1988. These regulations include requirements
related to vessel licensing, reporting on fishing activities,
carrying vessel observers and operating satellite-based vessel-
monitoring systems.
NOAA staff from Pango Pango provide essential tuna stock
assessment and vessel-monitoring data to the Pacific Islands
Forum Fisheries Agency as the treaty administrator for the
Pacific Island parties.
U.S. negotiating positions developed for the treaty are
consistent with and support NOAA's position in the Western and
Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, the regional fisheries
management authority that sets the tuna targets for the purse
seine and longline fisheries industries in this region,
including the vessels from other countries. As both a coastal
state with a significant amount of EEZ waters and a major
fishing state primarily due to our purse seine fleet, NOAA has
been able to achieve strong measures for conservation as well
as successfully preserve fair and equitable access for U.S.
fishing activities.
The Commission has implemented a number of conservation and
management measures for purse seine vessels that NOAA has
implemented domestically, such as restrictions on the use of
fish aggregation devices, or FADS, and other efforts to limit
bycatch, high seas closures, 100 percent observed coverage, and
effort limits.
In summary, NOAA is committed to supporting the renewal of
the treaty and working within the Commission to ensure the
long-term health of the WCPO tuna stocks to maintain a
beneficial economic return on the U.S. investment. Without
significant U.S. participation in this fishery, NOAA's ability
to influence decisionmaking in the Western and Central Pacific
Fisheries Commission would be diminished.
Thank you again for the opportunity to address the
committee. I hope I have touched on some of the issues that are
of interest, and I would be happy to answer any questions that
you might have.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you very much. I appreciate your
statements. As I said earlier, without objection, your
statements will be made part of the record.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Faleomavaega. I do have a couple of questions that I
wanted to ask so that we can dialogue on this issue.
We did extend an invitation to the American Tuna Boat
Association and its affiliates and someone representing the
U.S. fishing fleet to come and testify; but unfortunately I
think they were tied up with the current fisheries conference
being held in Bangkok. I think that is one of the reasons why
some of their chief officers were not able to attend. But I
wanted to ask Mr. Gibbons-Fly, do you know what the official
position of the Tuna Boat Association is concerning the current
negotiations that are going on right now over the treaty?
Mr. Gibbons-Fly. Yes, Mr. Chairman. We work very closely
with the American Tuna Boat Association, their executive
director Paul Krampe and many of their members. Because we
hosted the last session of the negotiations in Honolulu, a
number of the U.S. vessel owners were able to come and
participate actively on the U.S. delegation in a way that has
not been possible when we have held them in more far-flung
corners of the Pacific.
I think I can say confidently that the American Tuna Boat
Association members, the vessel owners and operators share the
concerns that have been laid out in my testimony, both in the
oral testimony and the written testimony. I hesitate to speak
for them, but I feel like I can say a couple of things. I think
they feel very strongly that they have been very good actors
over the life of the treaty. They have set the standard for
compliance. They have taken on responsibilities, such as
vessel-monitoring systems, observer programs, and other things
that then allowed--because the U.S. fleet set the example--then
allowed the Pacific Island States to hold other foreign fleets
to that same standard. So I think it comes as some surprise to
them, as it does to us, that we now see this shift in the
position of some of the island states that really has tended to
be somewhat critical, highly critical in some cases, of the
operations of the U.S. fleet and the U.S. Government in the way
that the treaty has been implemented.
We are surprised by that, and we think that--you know, I am
hoping that it is largely part of any ongoing negotiation that
we will be able to work through. Obviously they want to get the
best deal that they can, and we want to make sure that we
provide a fair and equitable return in response to--in return
for the access that our vessels are afforded.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Faleomavaega. You mentioned that it is difficult right
now for the administration to determine what will be considered
a reasonable price tag on the funding that the U.S. Government
will provide to implement or enforce a new treaty with these
island nations. As you mentioned in your statement, the island
countries are saying the current funding is not enough. And you
rightly pointed out that it was difficult for your office to
determine what is considered the right amount when they have
not been forthcoming in giving you the specific data and
information that really is giving us a better sense of value.
Has there been any information from the office in terms of
these bilateral agreements that these island countries made
with other countries? For example, I think Spain currently has
about 14 purse seiners operating in the waters off the Republic
of Kiribati. Do you know how much Kiribati is currently getting
as a result of allowing some 14 Spanish purse seiners to fish
in their fishing grounds?
Mr. Gibbons-Fly. No, Mr. Chairman. We do not have that
information as to what the level of return is. The Asian
Development Bank reports cumulative totals in terms of what
their return on access fees are to various Pacific Island
States and what percentage that constitutes in terms of the
value of the resource or the overall percentage of each
country's budget.
I am confident in saying that over the life of the treaty,
and even today currently, that the treaty--the cumulative total
of the licensing fees paid by the industry and the economic
assistance provided by the government represent a higher rate
of return on the value of the resource than any of these
agreements in the region. At least to this date, no one has
been able to contradict us when we made that statement. So
until someone does, we are confident that that continues to be
the case.
That said, Mr. Chairman, if you will allow me, we have not
been able to come up with an exact figure; but we have been
able to--we have sought to convey to the Pacific Island States
that each time this treaty has been negotiated, the level of
overall return to them, both through the license fees and from
the U.S. Government assistance package, has increased. And this
is now our third effort to renegotiate this extension, so we
have every expectation, and it would certainly be reasonable to
expect, that they would come to us and make a proposal for some
higher level of compensation. But it is up to them to determine
what level of compensation they determine to be appropriate.
And then once we have that figure, we can begin the
negotiations; and more importantly, we can begin to seek
whatever budget authority we would need to be able to determine
whether or not we could agree to that figure or not. Thank you.
Mr. Faleomavaega. It is my understanding that the total
cumulative value of the entire tuna industry, processing,
fishing and everything related to the tuna industry, is
somewhere around $4 billion. And I am curious, just catching
the fish alone--catching the tuna alone in the Pacific, I am
also informed that it is valued well over $1 billion in terms
of how much is being caught in the western and central Pacific
Ocean.
And I am just curious, $25 million in payments, and the
value is some $500 million worth of tuna that our fishing boats
catch. I am not a mathematician, but I am just figuring that
$25 million is a pittance compared to the value of how much
tuna that our tuna boats harvest in the Pacific waters. And if
you go to the processing plant, the value comes to about $500
million. So would you say that there is some concern, rightly
so, the fact that $25 million out of $500 million worth of tuna
caught by our own fishing boats is a little low? Can you
comment on that?
Mr. Gibbons-Fly. Yes. Well, only to repeat that if it is
the view of the Pacific Island States that the level of
compensation is not sufficient, we would hope that they would
come to us with a proposal as to what they think an appropriate
level of fees are. The treaty, as I said, has always provided--
the U.S. Government values the treaty as more than just an
access arrangement. They are of significant value to us in
having this relationship with the FFA and the Pacific Island
States as a whole. And so in terms of the economic assistance
that is provided, there has always been a premium built in to
reflect the value of the treaty to the United States above and
beyond anything that might be expected as a payment for
straight access fees, which are covered by the industry
payment.
We would like to see that relationship continue, but I
can't name a figure for two reasons. One, I don't want to be in
the position of negotiating against ourselves. And two, I have
no budget authority to be able to say we can provide anything
more than the amount we are currently providing. But if there
is a proposal on the table from the other side, then that gives
me the possibility to go back through our budget process and
say, here is what we are being requested, and try to get
authority within my department to agree to that number.
I can't make any guarantees until I go up--I certainly
don't have the decisionmaking authority on multimillion-dollar
decisions, but certainly I think there is a strong argument
that can be made, such as you have articulated, Mr. Chairman,
that the United States might look for some additional funds to
raise. I mean, it has been 10 years since we negotiated the
treaty. So even in terms of just an inflation adjustment, one
might expect there could be some increase over what was
provided in 2000 and 2003.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Please, Mr. Smith, jump in if you think
you might want to add some more points on this on behalf of
NOAA.
Mr. Smith. No. I agree with my colleague from State. I
think he has articulated this very well. Thank you.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I was recently in Vanuatu attending the
Pacific Island Forum's conference, and in talking to some of
the leaders of the Pacific Island countries, another issue that
I want to raise with you, Mr. Gibbons-Fly, is--you may want to
talk to your principals about this. One of the things the
island nations are complaining about is the fact that this fish
has been caught in their waters, being transshipped to a major
port like Thailand. And what they are saying is, why don't you
transship it to the island ports so that the benefit will
continue to be part of the economic needs of the Pacific Island
nations, rather than giving it to the world's largest tuna-
processing country, mainly Thailand? And I said, ``Well, why
not transship it to my port, too, for that matter?''
But this was a very serious issue. They say, hey, these
300,000 metric tons harvested by American ships, they just ship
it to Thailand. Why don't they ship it to some of the island
countries for transshipment and even for processing?
So I just wanted to raise that issue as maybe another thing
that you may want to look at in your negotiations with the
island countries.
Are both the Forum Fisheries Agency and the Nauru Agreement
countries, the PNA group, are they working together in this
negotiation? Or is it just primarily the FFA representatives
representing the island nations in this negotiation?
Mr. Gibbons-Fly. Yes. Well, I don't mean to monopolize all
of the time, Mr. Chairman, so I will make some comments, and
Mr. Smith should feel free to jump in whenever he feels it is
appropriate.
Our treaty is with the FFA members. All 16 members of the
Forum Fisheries Agency are party to the treaty, and our primary
negotiating forum is with the FFA members. Having said that,
the PNA has been within the FFA emerging as a more independent
voice, and their interests are very much front and center in
this negotiation. And so apart from the discussions that we
have had with the FFA as a whole, we have also had informal
discussions with the PNA members individually and collectively
to try to get a sense of their interests and the manner in
which they would like to see these negotiations proceed. And
those negotiations, those discussions have centered to this
point on the Vessel Day Scheme.
And it comes back to the point that I made in both my oral
testimony and in which is explained in more detail--excuse me,
in my written statement--that they very much want the U.S. to
participate under the Vessel Day Scheme. But our concern is
that we have not been able to receive one--as of today, there
is no single piece of paper anywhere that can tell us what the
rules of that program are. And, you know, we are talking about
negotiating a legally binding agreement, and once we get done
with that agreement, our colleagues in NOAA are going to need
to write some very strict regulations to ensure that when U.S.
vessels don't follow the rules, they can be hit with sanctions
and penalties. But NOAA can't write those regulations and
decide what rules are going to apply to U.S. vessels if we
don't know what those rules are.
And at the same time, if I am going to be asked to go back
into my Department and justify an increase in the level of
economic support funding for the economic assistance associated
with the treaty, I need to be able to explain in pretty
considerable detail what it is we have agreed to. And I can't
do that right now because we just don't know what we are being
asked to sign on to. So until we get some clarity in these
issues, it is very difficult to make progress in these
negotiations, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Smith?
The Vessel Day Scheme, as you had indicated earlier, Mr.
Gibbons-Fly is that you come and fish in the Exclusive Economic
Zone of any country that is a member of the treaty. Whatever
number of days you spend in that EEZ zone, regardless of how
much you catch, you will pay kind of like a standard fee. So in
other words, even if I spend 10 days in that EEZ zone, if I
don't catch anything, I still have to pay. Is that basically
the problem that we have with the Vessel Day Scheme they are
advocating on this issue?
Mr. Gibbons-Fly. Well, the answer is we don't know because
we don't know what the rules of the program are. The way it is
supposed to work is that a country or a fleet is assigned a
specific number of days. So let us say, you know, a fleet gets
3,000 days. Then there has to be a way of counting which of
those days--when vessels are at sea, which of those days count
against that total. And so there are what are called fishing
days. All the fishing days are then subtracted against the
total, except when they are determined to be nonfishing days.
So if a vessel is at sea and meets certain requirements, then
it counts as a fishing day. But if it meets the requirements
for that to be a nonfishing day, then that is not counted
against the total.
But we have asked for a definition of a fishing day. We
have asked for a definition of a nonfishing day, so that we
will know how to count against whatever total is assigned.
There is no definition that can be provided to either of these
terms, Mr. Chairman, which just complicates the things even
further. Thank you.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I want to ask you, Mr. Smith, I guess, in
the process of monitoring and collecting data--I think that is
where NOAA comes into the picture. Does our Government provide
any service to these island nations through our--and I don't
even know if I am saying this correctly--GPS system? Do we help
in tracking some of the poachers that come into the EEZ zones
of some of these island nations and catch them so they are
fined extensively? Is our Government providing some kind of
service to these island nations about tracking poachers or
ships that are illegally fishing on these grounds, their
grounds?
Mr. Smith. Well, I know our Government provides services in
terms of tracking our own vessels both in terms of locations of
vessels, and when they are fishing, and ensuring that reports
on levels of activity and levels of catch are being transmitted
to the FFA, and that the information that is being transmitted
is correct.
On the question of providing assistance with respect to
combating illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing in
general, I know that we do do some work with them, but I am not
sure of the nature, and I would be happy to provide you with
some additional information perhaps as a supplement.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Yes, I would very much appreciate that,
if you could give me exactly what the current status of our
monitoring system is to help these island countries.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Smith. If I could just, a little bit more on this and
on a related point. As you know, our Government is very
concerned about protecting, among other things, the health of
the fisheries in which we are fishing. In this particular area,
one of the ways we do this is through our work in the Western
and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, which covers much of
the same area as the treaty, but where we come together with
all of the nations that are fishing in the region, not only the
parties to the SPTT, but the other countries that are fishing
in these same waters, in order to set measures that, in part,
protect the resources.
Our participation in the SPTT is in part important to us
because, as a significant fishing nation in this region, it
gives us a greater voice, a greater voice to not only argue for
reduced catches and other measures to protect the stock, but
also to argue for ventures that help combat things like IU,
illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing. It also gives us a
vehicle for working with other nations to enforce against those
sorts of activities and we think in general works to the
benefit of everybody because it helps to preserve the fish
stocks.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Let me rephrase my question. Maybe I am
not getting through. I am not a member of the Intelligence
Committee, but I think our satellite system is sophisticated
enough to know just about every ant and fly that goes under the
ocean and on the surface of the ocean throughout the entire
Pacific Ocean, both North and South. And I was just wondering
whether in the process of getting assistance--because they
don't have airplanes, they don't have resources to monitor
illegal fishing in their Exclusive Economic Zone, and I was
just wondering if the U.S. is giving some kind of assistance in
that respect.
I realize that we have security, strategic and military
interests as well, and this is more than just fishing, but I
just wanted to know if we can do the same service. I mean, we
have got satellites over there that can pinpoint just about
every ant or spider that goes around in the Pacific. And I was
wondering, as a real help to these island countries that don't
have airplanes, don't have ships--if they do, it is so bare
that it is very, very difficult for them to monitor illegal
fishing, especially from the Taiwanese boats. They are the
biggest culprits in this poaching that is going on, and I
imagine the hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of fish that
has been taken illegally because of this. And I was just
wondering, that would be such a tremendous help to these island
nations to culture this resource that is so important to them.
You know, I always say, the ocean is their farm. They have
limited land resources for agricultural or commercial
productions. But they certainly have Exclusive Economic Zones
in the oceans and perhaps this is maybe something where our
Government could give assistance.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, yes, I do
understand your question, and I think that--I need to go back
and seek further information for you, although I do know that,
for example, Coast Guard has some programs. And perhaps Mr.
Gibbons-Fly can provide a little further background on those
programs.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Please.
Mr. Gibbons-Fly. Yes, Mr. Chairman. There is a great deal
of assistance that the United States Government is providing to
the island states to help them defend and enforce their EEZs
against incursions by foreign fishing. The large majority of
that comes from the U.S. Coast Guard, which regularly patrols
wide areas of the western and central Pacific and over the last
few years has negotiated a number of what are called ship rider
agreements with the Pacific Islands, whereby enforcement
authorities from the Pacific Island States are able to ride
along on these Coast Guard cutters when they are in waters
under the jurisdiction of the coastal states and therefore
provide a platform. So when they encounter a vessel that is
fishing illegally, it is not the Coast Guard taking action
because they don't have jurisdiction in those waters, but the
enforcement authority from the coastal state then is able to
exercise his or her enforcement authority over the vessel. And
there have been a number of cases of vessels found illegally
fishing, brought into port, that have resulted in fines against
these vessels and very significant numbers that have accrued to
some of the Pacific Island States.
The Coast Guard is currently--and I think there are six or
seven of these agreements. I don't have all of it, but I think
the compact states, I believe, Kiribati--the compact states,
Palau, Marshall Islands, FSM, Kiribati, there are others. And
the Coast Guard is actually even now looking to expand those
with other States in the region.
But I do want to emphasize that it is the treaty that
provides the foundation, the cooperation under the treaty that
provides the foundation for that kind of activity by the Coast
Guard. We have under the treaty an agreed enforcement minute
that says, we shall cooperate on enforcement across--and the
Coast Guard has used that as the basis for a lot of this work.
So the treaty underpins our cooperation, the U.S.-Pacific
island cooperation, that has been established under the treaty.
It underpins a lot of that work.
Mr. Faleomavaega. So you are saying that that is part of
the treaty agreement process where we give assistance to these
island countries for the Coast Guard to monitor illegal fishing
in their grounds. Am I correct in this? Or was that a separate
issue that is not included in the treaty?
Mr. Gibbons-Fly. Well, it is not part of the treaty itself,
but the treaty does establish the foundation for us to
cooperate on other issues. And in particular there is--as I
said, there is an agreement enforcement minute. And it is a
very simple document. It is very possible that the Coast Guard
could have gone ahead and negotiated these agreements even in
the absence of that minute. But some of the relationships that
were built by the Coast Guard representatives with the island
states were built as a result of their participation on the
delegations to the treaty consultations and things like that.
So I wouldn't say that this is part of the treaty. Coast
Guard is operating under its own authority in conducting these
agreements and implements and operates them under their own
authority. But the treaty has certainly provided a lot of--kind
of the underpinnings under which this relationship was able to
evolve to get to these broader agreements.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I realize that this issue is outside the
parameters of our discussion concerning the regional tuna
treaty. But it also touches on the fact that it is in reference
to the same region, and that is the Pacific region composed of
all these island countries that is part of the Pacific.
I want to raise the issue that beyond just fishing for
tuna, one of the things that I have always advocated strongly
in terms of our Government's involvement where it should be
involved are the seabed minerals that are contained in the
Exclusive Economic Zones of these island nations. A couple of
years ago, I think it was a Norwegian company that did a
feasibility study on the Cook Islands. The Cook Islands only
have about 20,000 people, but their Exclusive Economic Zone in
the ocean is about 3 million square miles. And this company
estimates that the Cook Islands' seabed has an amount of
manganese nodules valued well over $200 billion. If there was
some harvest procedure going on on the bottom seabeds of these
islands, and that is just the Cook Islands alone. I even
understand in the Samoan Islands there is cobalt found there.
So not just fishing, tuna, but on a more long-term vision
in terms of looking at these island countries, as small as they
may be, beyond just fishing for tuna. The wealth that these
island countries possess potentially as far as seabed minerals
are contained. As you well know, there are nodules that grow
naturally in the bottom of the ocean which produce manganese,
nickel, copper. I think two other elements are also there. That
is why there is tremendous, tremendous wealth or value in the
seabeds.
Does our Government have any interest in this area besides
just tuna, the worth of manganese nodules in the seabeds of
these island countries throughout the Pacific?
Mr. Gibbons-Fly. Mr. Chairman, you have ventured outside my
area of expertise, but if you have a specific question, I would
be happy to take it for the record and get you a response.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Can you please? I would be very
interested to know what the State Department's position is on
this. I know it is not about tuna. But I said seabed minerals
are even more valued, more valued than tuna in that respect.
Mr. Smith, do you think maybe NOAA might have some ships
going around sensing how many submarines are going through our
waters there?
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am relatively sure
that we don't.
Mr. Faleomavaega. You don't have any understanding?
Mr. Smith. That is not within sort of the work that we are
doing right now.
Mr. Faleomavaega. So are you saying perhaps the Department
of the Navy or the Department of Defense might have that
information in that regard?
Mr. Smith. We would be happy to get back to you and provide
you with some additional information.
[The information referred to follows:]
Written Response Received from Mr. Russell Smith, III, to Question
Asked During the Hearing by the Honorable Eni F.H. Faleomavaega
NOAA does not maintain these types of records. We encourage the
Committee to ask the Department of Defense, specifically the Navy, for
this information.
Mr. Faleomavaega. All right. You have both given an
indication about the question of conservation issues. And this
has always been one of my pet peeves in terms of the process of
fishing, especially the process of purse seining, supposedly a
more high-technology development in how these ships go out and
like little purses get all the fish. What comes around as a
result of that is not so much the tuna that they catch, but it
is the discarding of miscellaneous or bycatch that I would
venture to say that we don't even have the slightest notion of
how much this value of the fish, miscellaneous fish, that is
being discarded and not even utilized for consumption purposes,
and the fact that a swordfish or bass or other forms of marine
life has just as much protein as tuna.
Do you have any concerns about bycatch and miscellaneous
catch as part of the negotiations with the island countries?
Has this issue ever been raised by NOAA as well as by our State
Department?
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In fact, bycatch is a
concern. As I mentioned earlier, the general issue of
protecting the resources, and part of protecting the resources
is looking at the impact that the fishing activities have on
stocks and on fish and on marine mammals that are not the
target of the fishing.
One of the things that working both within the SPTT and
within the WCPFC has allowed us to do is to develop measures
that both collect information on the impact of fishing on both
targets and nontarget species and then take measures that are
designed to address the impact on nontarget species.
As I mentioned in my testimony, the U.S. under the SPTT has
100 percent observer coverage on the vessels, on the purse
seine vessels that are fishing in this fishery, and as a
result, we have recently good data. I guess I should say that
this is only as of 2010 that we have had 100 percent coverage.
But we have good data, and we are getting better data on what
the incidence of bycatch is.
Mr. Faleomavaega. When you say ``data,'' what data and
information have you been able to compile over a series of
years on the amount of bycatch that has been discarded
discriminately or indiscriminately by fishing vessels?
Mr. Smith. Well, with respect to the U.S. purse seine
fleet, which is where we have the best information, during 2008
and 2009, discarded bycatch--so these are--this is the product
that is just thrown away--has been about between 0.4 and 0.9
percent by weight of the total catch. So by weight it is a
relatively small percentage of the product caught.
I will note that our fishers go after yellowtail and
skipjack tuna. They also catch bigeye as bycatch, but that
bigeye, for the most part, is utilized. It goes into canneries
and is retained.
So by some definitions, the bycatch is higher, but I think
the concern that you expressed was about discards, and with
respect to discards, it is the 0.4.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Can you submit something for the record,
the data that NOAA has collected in terms of how much bycatch
has really been taken as a matter of record? Because I can't
believe it is only 0.4 percent. It has got to be a lot more
than that.
Mr. Smith. I would be happy to.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Please, if you could submit that for the
record.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[Note: The remainder of this document is not reprinted here but
is available in committee records.]
Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Gibbons-Fly.
Mr. Gibbons-Fly. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Just to add a couple of points, this issue has been
discussed within the WCPFC, and the issue of bycatch, in
particular the juvenile bigeye, has been a source of continuing
concern. And the WCPFC has adopted at least two measures to get
to this question. One is the WCPFC now requires all purse seine
vessels to retain all fish that is caught; no discards unless a
vessel is absolutely full on its last set and has no more room
in its hold. But other than that, all fish is to be retained.
The idea is to--because the juvenile tuna, the smaller
tuna, has less value, if the vessels are required to take that
into port where they are going to get less money for it, in
theory it provides an incentive to avoid those areas where they
are catching a lot of small fish.
The second thing that the WCPFC has done is most of the
catches of juvenile bigeye tuna are caught in association with
fish-aggregating devices, the floating aggregated devices, the
FADS. Last year there was a 60-day closure of the FAD fishery,
and that will expand to a 90-day closure of the FAD fishery,
particularly to decrease the amount of small bigeye that is
caught.
And third, this continues to be an issue. And a number of
governments and private sector groups are looking at ways to
mitigate bycatch or catch of juvenile tuna, juvenile bigeye
tuna, in purse seine fisheries. In particular, a group called
the International Seafood Sustainability Foundation has
undertaken a major research project in all the oceans of the
world to look at ways--chartering vessels to look at what
technological solutions might be available in terms of fishing
gear and techniques that would mitigate catch of the bigeye
tuna. It is my view that the U.S. should be a major contributor
to that effort, and we are looking for ways to do that in
cooperation with NOAA.
So these issues are very much on the radar screen, Mr.
Chairman. I don't think we are where we want or need to be yet,
but we are working very hard to try to get there. Thank you.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I realize that this is not related to
tuna, but it does have issues as far as conservation is
concerned as well. Years ago we passed a law on restricting the
killing of sharks for the purpose of the fishermen just simply
cutting off the fins and discarding the rest of the body of the
shark for the only reason because shark fin soup happens to be
the most expensive soup in Asia. And I remember going to Tokyo.
A little bowl of shark fin soup like this was $100.
I wanted to know, Mr. Smith, conservationwise, are we being
successful in really cutting down the situation dealing with
shark finning? I suppose it is not part of the tuna fishing
treaty, right? Nothing to do with sharks? Mr. Gibbons-Fly.
Mr. Gibbons-Fly. Well, I will let Mr. Smith be the one to
address this.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you.
Mr. Smith. In fact, as you may know, there are several tuna
treaties or treaties under which we address tuna and other
highly migratory species. And in each of those, sharks has come
up as an issue in one way or another, often as bycatch.
Yes, we continue to aggressively look for ways to reduce
the mortality of sharks, in particular reduce the mortality of
sharks that are taken just for purposes of finning. And we do
it through these organizations, working with our partners. Our
vessels are subjected to the legislation that you referred to,
and NOAA actively and the U.S. Coast Guard actively enforce
those provisions.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I think we have pretty much covered our
bases on some of the issues that have been raised in the
hearing this afternoon. I make this presumption: Assuming that
I get reelected in November, you will see my ugly face again.
But otherwise, I do deeply appreciate both of you for your
involvement in the negotiations on the regional tuna treaty.
I notice my good friend Dave Whaley is back there on behalf
of my colleague; and a real dear friend who knows very much
about fishing industries, that would be Congressman Don Young
from Alaska. And I am very happy that he is here just to
observe and hear what we are talking about.
But, gentlemen, I do want to say that we have got to be in
a better competitive edge in terms of how we are dealing with
the tuna industry. Competition coming from foreign countries
has been very stiff, and I don't know how much longer we are
going to be able to continue to compete in this industry. And I
sincerely hope that our tuna boat owners will also be
forthcoming.
The problem that I have had over the years, Mr. Gibbons-
Fly, is that our tuna boat owners are so independent of one
another. It is very difficult to really get a sense of unity of
organization, really given the issues of what would be in the
best interests of our tuna industry; no less also to suggest
that our canneries are not also united in that respect in terms
of what should be the concerns and how the future of our tuna
industry should be brought about in a more positive way.
Before I close, did you have any more additional statements
you wanted to submit for the record?
Mr. Gibbons-Fly. No, Mr. Chairman, only to say we wish you
well on your upcoming election, and we look forward to being
back here before you to keep you updated on our progress in
these negotiations and other related issues.
On your last issue about the U.S. tuna fishermen, I think
my general assessment over three decades--and I think it
relates to all fishermen that I have encountered--is that
individuals become fishermen precisely because they don't want
other people to tell them what to do, and that presents a
number of challenges for us in the government. But I have found
our fishing industry to be--despite the fact that they have
very varied interests, for me it has always been a pleasure to
work with them, and it has been an honor to represent them in
the international arena because I think our fishermen do have
the best record, and we should be proud of that record and seek
to see that as the standard that is set for other parts of the
world.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I might also note for the record, before
Mr. Smith gives his statement, I had about a 5-hour dialogue
with Mr. Jeff Pike, representing our tuna boat owners, given
the fact that one of our laws has expired, in terms of the
requirement of licensing offices to man these fishing boats. My
understanding is that it is necessary that we give our tuna
boat owners another 2 years' extension to have this waiver,
this extension.
But my concern, as part of the equation, what are they
doing to help my little tuna industry in American Samoa? And
that has not been forthcoming. And I sincerely hope that we are
going to come up with some more positive results in terms of
this law that gives a waiver for foreign offices to man our
tuna boats.
Mr. Smith?
Mr. Smith. I just wanted to take this opportunity to say
thank you for the hearing and for giving us the chance to
testify, and I do hope that we will have this opportunity to
visit this way again. Your support in this area has been very
important. It is a difficult area because of the economics and
because of the needs of the islands and the fish and the tuna
boats, and I think it is only through this dialogue that we are
going to be able to come to a solution on how to get all of
these interests balanced out. But thank you very much.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Well, gentlemen, with that, I am going to
use this mallet and say the hearing is adjourned. Thank you
very much.
[Whereupon, at 2:50 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
