U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

91–389 PDF 2014

S. HRG. 113–482 

FISHERIES TREATIES AND PORT 

STATE MEASURES AGREEMENTS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

FEBRUARY 12, 2014 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/ 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey, Chairman

BARBARA BOXER, California 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire 

CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

CHRISTOPHER MURPHY, Connecticut 

TIM KAINE, Virginia 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

BOB CORKER, Tennessee 

JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho 

MARCO RUBIO, Florida 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

JOHN McCAIN, Arizona 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

DANIEL E. O’BRIEN, Staff Director

LESTER E. MUNSON III, Republican Staff Director

(II)

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Balton, Hon. David A., Deputy Assistant Secretary for Oceans and Fisheries, Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific 

Affairs, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC ......................................... 6 

Prepared statement ...................................................................................... 8 

Gleason, Mark, Executive Director, Alaska Bering Sea Crabbers, Seattle, 

WA ......................................................................................................................... 37 

Prepared statement ...................................................................................... 39 

Kane, Raymond, Outreach Coordinator, Cape Cod Fishermen’s Alliance, 

Chatham, MA ....................................................................................................... 28 

Prepared statement ...................................................................................... 30 

Kenney, Hon. Admiral Frederick J., Judge Advocate General and Chief 

Counsel, U.S. Coast Guard, Washington, DC .................................................... 23 

Prepared statement ...................................................................................... 25 

Lagon, Hon. Mark P., Global Politics and Security Chair, Master of 

Science in Foreign Service Program, Georgetown University, and Adjunct 

Senior Fellow for Human Rights, Council on Foreign Relations, Washington, DC ............................................................................................................. 31 

Prepared statement ...................................................................................... 33 

Markey, Hon. Edward J., U.S. Senator From Massachusetts, opening 

statement .............................................................................................................. 1 

Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, U.S. Senator From Alaska ....................................... 20 

Prepared statement ...................................................................................... 22 

Smith, Russell F. III, Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Fisheries, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, Washington, DC ........................................................................... 12 

Prepared statement ...................................................................................... 13 

Whitehouse, Hon. Sheldon, U.S. Senator From Rhode Island ...................... 3 

Prepared statement ...................................................................................... 4 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

Response of Deputy Assistant Secretary David Balton to Question Submitted by Senator Robert Menendez .................................................................. 43 

Responses of Russell Smith III to Questions Submitted by Senator Marco 

Rubio ..................................................................................................................... 45 

Responses of Adm. Frederick J. Kenney to Questions Submitted by Senator Marco Rubio .................................................................................................. 46 

Responses of Ambassador Mark Lagon to Questions Submitted by Senator Marco Rubio .................................................................................................. 47 

Letter Submitted on Behalf of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers 

Association ............................................................................................................ 50 

Letter Submitted on Behalf of the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative ....... 52 

Letter Submitted on Behalf of Various Stakeholders Urging Ratification 

of the Treaties ...................................................................................................... 54 

(III)

(1) 

FISHERIES TREATIES AND PORT STATE 

MEASURES AGREEMENTS 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 2014 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, Washington, DC 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:38 p.m., in room 

SD–419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Edward J. Markey 

presiding. 

Present: Senators Markey and Rubio. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD J. MARKEY, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS 

Senator MARKEY. Welcome. Good afternoon. The committee will 

come to order. Today we will hear testimony on the Port State 

Measures Agreement and three regional fishing management organization agreements. All of them will help combat illegal fishing 

and improve the management of fisheries in international waters, 

to the benefit of U.S. fishermen, our seafood industry, and U.S. security interests. 

The ocean is vast. From the land it is hard to contemplate its 

limits or how illegal fishing in distant waters might impact the 

United States. But like dropping a pebble in a pond, the ripple effects of illegal fishing expand to all shores. The impact of illegal 

fishing has already reached Cape Cod and the ports of New England, where commercial fishing has been the lifeblood of communities for centuries. Our small boat fishermen have always supplemented their cod catches with a variety of fish. Bluefin tuna and 

swordfish have been especially important. Landing one can mean 

the difference between a profitable fishing season or not, between 

the paying of the mortgage on time or not, between helping with 

a daughter’s college bills or not. With our cod stocks struggling and 

facing the ongoing impacts of climate change, revenue from other 

fish becomes even more important. 

But there is not enough American tuna or European tuna or African tuna. There is Atlantic tuna, and what happens in the Atlantic beyond any country’s control can impact fishermen in every 

country. 

Today we will hear from a 40-year fishing veteran, Captain Ray 

Kane, about how illegal fishing far from our shores has an impact 

on the fishing lines and business bottom lines of the fishermen 

from his home port of Chatham, MA, and across New England. 

But this is not just an Atlantic problem. We will also hear about 

the challenges facing American crabbers in the Bering Sea. And it 

2 

is not just American fishermen that suffer. If you watched the recent movie ‘‘Captain Phillips’’ about the Somali pirates hijacking 

the Maersk Alabama in 2009, you heard the pirates’ leader mention foreign vessels taking away the Somali fish. As Somalia descended into chaos in the 1990s, they lost the ability to police their 

national waters. Foreign vessels moved in and depleted fish stocks 

that helped support coastal communities, increasing the incentive 

for Somalis to take up piracy. 

Sadly, their story has now come full circle. As the United States 

and our allies have increased efforts to protect shipping off the 

Horn of Africa, Somali pirates are now providing protection to the 

vessels engaged in illegal fishing. Of course, unscrupulous captains 

willing to harvest fish illegally are also willing to partake in other 

illegal activities. 

We will also hear testimony today about the connection between 

illegal fishing and human trafficking. 

The high seas will never be 100 percent secure, but the agreements that are the subject of this hearing will help. A fish is 

worthless unless it is sold at a dock. The Port State Measures 

Agreement will shrink the number of ports where illegal fishing 

boats can find safe harbor and the economic incentive to engage in 

illegal fishing. It will bring the rest of the world up to the standards of the United States and ensure fairness for our fishermen in 

the global market. 

The other three agreements will create and strengthen the rules 

for fishing in international waters that will improve conservation 

efforts and support sustainable management of important fish 

stocks. 

Our domestic fishermen are the first to feel the impacts of illegal 

fishing, both from reduction in fish to catch and reduction in the 

price they get when they can take fish to market. But illegal fishing and seafood fraud ripples through the entire seafood industry, 

from processors to restaurant owners to seafood lovers looking for 

a delicious meal. 

That is why organizations from the National Fisheries Institute 

to the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association to conservation groups have written in support of the agreements we have before us today. I ask that these letters and statements be included 

in the record. 

Today’s four agreements are important. I look forward to working 

with Chairman Menendez and Ranking Member Corker to move 

these through our committee quickly, to benefit our American fishermen and the seafood industry. U.S. fishery management is the 

most rigorous in the world. Our domestic laws already accomplish 

much of what is required under these agreements. But I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Commerce Committee 

to move any additional legislation necessary to ensure the full participation of the United States. 

Because of the rollcall confusion on the Senate floor at this particular point in time, Senator Rubio is a little bit delayed and requests that we proceed without him, and we will continue this 

hearing, although there are at least six additional rollcalls that are 

pending on the Senate floor. 

So bear with us in the course of this afternoon. 

3 

Our first witness, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse from Rhode Island, is one of the cochairs of the Senate Ocean Caucus along with 

Senator Murkowski, and he has been working to educate the Senate and the public about the importance of these agreements that 

come before the committee today. We welcome you, Senator 

Whitehouse. Whenever you are ready, please begin. 

STATEMENT OF HON. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM RHODE ISLAND 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Senator Markey, for having 

me here this afternoon for this hearing on international fisheries. 

As you mentioned, I serve as a cochair of the Senate Oceans Caucus along with my colleague, Senator Murkowski. For similar reasons to those that detain Senator Rubio, she is not here presently 

either, and I ask unanimous consent that whatever statement she 

may submit be incorporated into the record as if she were here 

with me now. 

Senator MARKEY. Without objection, so ordered. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. She and Senator Begich and Senator 

Wicker are the four cochairs of our Senate Oceans Caucus, which 

works to find bipartisan common ground on issues that affect our 

oceans and coasts. One area that we all agree deserves our attention is illegal, unregulated, and unreported fishing, commonly referred to as ‘‘pirate fishing.’’ 

The work of our caucus on this issue builds on the bipartisan tradition in the Senate of support for international fisheries management. Since the 1950s, the Senate has ratified at least 15 international fisheries treaties with bipartisan support, not to mention 

additional amendments to existing treaties. 

Fishing industries, as the Senator from Massachusetts well 

knows, are integral to coastal economies. Indeed, in 2011 U.S. commercial fish landings generated $5.3 billion and recreational anglers spent $26.8 billion. 

At the same time, however, we are seeing estimated worldwide 

losses due to pirate fishing between 10 and $23.5 billion annually. 

Pirate fishing puts fishermen and processors in our home States 

who are playing by the rules at an unfair disadvantage. Pirate fishing is conducted outside laws that protect the fishery, and by 

cheating they can operate at a lower cost and undercut the prices 

U.S. fishermen must set following the rules. 

The problem is not just local. Fish migrate. Pirate fishing in foreign countries, on the high seas, and of course in our own backyard, can jeopardize migratory fish stocks that our domestic fishermen rely on. Quite simply, this is a problem we cannot afford to 

ignore. 

The agreement on Port State Measures to prevent, deter, and 

eliminate illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing was adopted 

in response to this issue. It will allow the United States and other 

countries to bar pirate fishing vessels from entering ports and 

bringing their goods to market. Information-sharing networks to 

track offenders and a compliance structure are also established 

under the agreement. 

The agreement has strong support outside of this Chamber. Here 

is what Chris Lischewski, President and CEO of Bumble Bee 

4 

Foods, has said, ‘‘IUU fishing is a multibillion dollar industry that 

undermines our global conservation and sustainability efforts. Illegal fishing penalizes legitimate fishermen and processors and it 

must be stopped. While the United States has done a good job at 

developing laws to detect and deter IUU fishing, other nations have 

not. We strongly support the agreement on Port State Measures to 

prevent, deter, and eliminate illegal, unreported, and unregulated 

fishing because it creates an obligation for other nations to take action against IUU fishing.’’ 

That is the President of Bumble Bee Foods. 

Literally billions of dollars that could have gone into the hands 

of law-abiding fishermen and responsible seafood companies are 

lost every year. The Port State Measures Agreement gives us and 

others new tools to stop this thievery. 

Three other treaty documents have also been received in the Senate during the 113th Congress relating to high seas fisheries. Fair 

control measures and enforcement at this scale allows us to protect 

our fishermen by ensuring the longevity of the fish stocks on which 

they depend. 

The United States includes over 4 million square miles of the Pacific, Atlantic, and Arctic Oceans, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Caribbean Sea. Our fishermen and their industry partners can benefit 

from well-managed resources. Bill Ruckelshaus and Norm Mineta, 

both previously high-level political appointees in Republican and 

Democratic administrations respectively, cochair the Joint Ocean 

Commission Initiative. They offer this thought in a letter that I 

would like to submit for the record: ‘‘Sustainable management of 

our ocean resources for current and future generations requires an 

international framework and a consistently applied rule of law 

across nations. Ratification of these treaties taken as a whole is an 

important step in this direction and helps affirm the role of the 

United States as a leader in protecting our global commons for the 

benefit and use of our citizens.’’ 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. As cochairs of the Senate Oceans Caucus, 

Senator Murkowski and I express bipartisan support for the four 

pending international fisheries management treaties. We are now 

collecting signatures on a letter of support to Senate leadership. 

The Senate should ratify these treaties, which are supported by the 

Alaska Bering Sea Crabbers, National Fisheries Institute, Ocean 

Champions, World Wildlife Fund, Pew Charitable Trusts, and Environmental Defense Fund, among others. 

I thank you, chairman, for entertaining my thoughts here today. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Whitehouse follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR SHELDON WHITEHOUSE

Thank you Senator Markey, Chairman Menendez, and Ranking Member Corker, 

for having me this afternoon and for holding this hearing on international fisheries. 

I am privileged to serve, along with Senators Murkowski, Begich, and Wicker, as 

a cochair of the Senate Oceans Caucus, which works to find bipartisan common 

ground on issues affecting our oceans and coasts, and the people and communities 

that rely on them. 

One area we all agree deserves our attention is illegal, unregulated, and unreported fishing; commonly referred to as pirate fishing. The work of our Caucus on 

this issue builds on the bipartisan tradition in the Senate of support for international fisheries management. Since the 1950s, the Senate has ratified at least 15 

5 

international fisheries treaties with bipartisan support, not to mention additional 

amendments to existing treaties. 

Fishing industries are integral to coastal economies. Indeed, in 2011, U.S. commercial fish landings generated $5.3 billion and recreational anglers spent $26.8 billion. At the same time, however, we are seeing estimated worldwide losses due to 

pirate fishing between $10 and $23.5 billion annually. 

Pirate fishing puts fishermen and processors in our home States who are playing 

by the rules at an unfair disadvantage. Pirate fishing is conducted outside laws that 

protect the fishery, and by cheating they can operate at a lower cost and undercut 

the prices U.S. fishermen must set following the rules. 

The problem isn’t just local. Fish migrate. Pirate fishing in foreign countries, on 

the high seas, and even in our own backyard can jeopardize migratory fish stocks 

that our domestic fishermen rely on. 

Quite simply, this is a problem we can’t afford to ignore. 

The ‘‘Agreement on Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, 

Unreported and Unregulated Fishing’’ was adopted in response to this issue. It will 

allow the U.S. and other countries to bar pirate fishing vessels from entering ports 

and bringing their goods to market. Information-sharing networks to track offenders 

and a compliance structure are also established under the agreement. 

The agreement has strong support outside of this chamber. Here’s what Chris 

Lischewski, CEO and President of Bumble Bee Foods, has said: ‘‘IUU fishing is a 

multibillion dollar industry that undermines our global conservation and sustainability efforts. Illegal fishing penalizes legitimate fishermen and processors and it 

must be stopped. While the United States has done a good job at developing laws 

to detect and deter IUU fishing, other nations have not. We strongly support the 

‘Agreement on Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter, and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated Fishing’ because it creates an obligation for other nations 

to take action against IUU fishing.’’ 

Literally billions of dollars that could have gone into the hands of law-abiding 

fishermen and responsible seafood companies are lost every year. The Port States 

Measures Agreement gives us and others new tools to stop this thievery. 

Three other treaty documents have also been received in the Senate during the 

113th Congress relating to managing high seas fisheries. Fair control measures and 

enforcement at this scale allows us to protect our fishermen by ensuring the longevity of fish stocks. 

The United States includes over 4 million square miles of the Pacific, Atlantic, 

and Arctic Oceans, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Caribbean Sea. Our fishermen and 

their industry partners can benefit from well-managed resources. 

Bill Ruckelshaus and Norm Mineta, both previously high-level political appointees 

in Republican and Democratic administrations respectively, cochair the Joint Ocean 

Commission Initiative. They offer this thought in a letter I would like to submit for 

the record: ‘‘Sustainable management of our ocean resources for current and future 

generations requires an international framework and a consistently applied rule of 

law across nations. Ratification of these treaties, taken as a whole, is an important 

step in this direction and helps affirm the role of the United States as a leader in 

protecting our global commons for the benefit and use of our citizens.’’ 

As cochairs of the Senate Oceans Caucus we express bipartisan support for the 

four pending international fisheries management treaties. We are now collecting signatures on a letter of support to Senate leadership. 

The Senate should ratify these treaties, which are supported by the Alaska Bering 

Sea Crabbers, National Fisheries Institute, Ocean Champions, World Wildlife Fund, 

The Pew Charitable Trusts, and Environmental Defense Fund. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you, Senator, very much, and thank you 

for the organizing around this very important issue which you are 

leading. We thank you and we thank Senator Murkowski. 

Now we are going to turn to our second panel: the Honorable 

David Balton, Mr. Russell Smith, and Rear Admiral Frederick 

Kenney. If you could each come up and sit at the panel, we can 

begin. 

[Pause.] 

Senator MARKEY. I would like to thank the witnesses and their 

colleagues for their hard work in bringing the agreements before us 

6 

today. I will briefly introduce them all and then we can hear their 

testimony. 

Our first witness is Ambassador David Balton. He is the Deputy 

Assistant Secretary for Oceans and Fisheries in the Bureau of 

Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs at 

the U.S. Department of State. He has served in that position since 

February of 2009. 

Our second witness is Russell Smith. He is the Deputy Assistant 

Secretary for International Fisheries at the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration. He is currently serving as the Acting 

United States Federal Commissioner for both the Western and 

Central Pacific Fisheries Commissions and the International Convention for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas. 

Our third witness is Rear Admiral Frederick J. Kenney. He is 

the Judge Advocate General and Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard. 

His responsibilities include delivering legal services in support of 

Coast Guard missions. 

Ambassador Balton, we will begin with you and then we will go 

down the table in the order of the seating arrangement. So welcome, sir. Whenever you feel comfortable, please begin. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID A. BALTON, DEPUTY ASSISTANT 

SECRETARY FOR OCEANS AND FISHERIES, BUREAU OF 

OCEANS AND INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL AND SCIENTIFIC AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WASHINGTON, DC 

Ambassador BALTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am 

pleased to testify today in support of the four international fisheries agreements pending before the committee. With your permission, I would like my written statement submitted for the record. 

Senator MARKEY. Without objection, so ordered. 

Ambassador BALTON. These four agreements address critical 

fisheries resources. Two new regional agreements cover high seas 

fisheries in the North Pacific and South Pacific Oceans respectively. The third agreement amends a treaty that created the 

Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, of which the United 

States is already a member. The fourth agreement, on Port State 

Measures, is global in nature and, as you said, it addresses what 

is commonly referred to as pirate fishing or illegal, unreported, and 

unregulated fishing. 

We commend the committee for considering these agreements. 

U.S. ratification will allow our Nation to reinforce its leadership 

role on oceans issues and to advance U.S. interests in marine fisheries. Each of these agreements has strong support from a broad 

range of stakeholders, including the U.S. fishing industry, the environmental and scientific communities. Representatives of these 

communities participated actively in the negotiations of these 

agreements. Let me say just a word or two about each of them. 

The first agreement—and I think you will see a chart on the 

easel there—is the Convention on Fisheries Resources of the North 

Pacific Ocean. This treaty will establish the North Pacific Fisheries 

Commission, through which parties will cooperate to manage fisheries across an enormous expanse of high seas in the North Pacific 

Ocean. This area includes areas immediately adjacent to the U.S. 

7 

Exclusive Economic Zone off Alaska, the Pacific West Coast, Hawaii, and other U.S. territories and possessions in the North Pacific. 

U.S. ratification would give the United States a strong voice in 

managing fishing activities just outside the U.S. EEZ that could 

have a direct impact on resources within our EEZ. Ratification will 

also ensure that U.S. vessels will have a legitimate right to participate in fisheries in this area. 

The second agreement covers high seas fisheries resources in the 

South Pacific region. The high seas areas covered here are near 

American Samoa and a number of other U.S. islands in this part 

of the world. The convention provides for proper management of 

fisheries in this region. Of particular importance is the fishery for 

jack mackerel off the coast of Chile, Peru, and Ecuador. 

The South Pacific Fisheries Convention has already entered into 

force and now has 12 contracting parties. Ratification will enable 

the United States to take its seat at the table and have an equal 

voice in managing these fisheries. 

As for the amendments to the Northwest Atlantic Convention, 

while the United States has already ratified the original convention 

in 1995 and has participated actively in the Northwest Atlantic 

Fisheries Organization, NAFO, ever since, the area covered by this 

agreement actually includes waters of the U.S. EEZ from Cape 

Hatteras to Maine. The original convention dates back to 1980 before the emergence of a number of key concepts in fisheries management. The amendments before the committee today essentially 

bring NAFO up to date. They will add rigor and transparency to 

NAFO’s decisionmaking process, strengthen procedures for allocating catches, restraint overfishing, and adjust the formula for calculating dues. 

The final agreement, on Port State Measures, is the first binding 

global agreement specifically intended to combat illegal, unreported, and unregulated, or IUU, fishing. The United States was 

among the first nations that signed the agreement when it was 

adopted in 2009. As we have already heard, IUU fishing undermines efforts to conserve and manage shared fish stocks and 

threatens the sustainability of all fisheries. Estimated global losses 

range from $10 to $23.5 billion each year. 

Moreover, illegal fishing activities are often intertwined with 

drug trafficking, labor exploitation, environmental degradation, and 

organized crime. U.S. ratification will give us additional tools to address these problems. 

Detecting IUU fishing at sea is difficult and expensive, but all 

fish caught at sea must ultimately come to port somewhere. The 

Port State Measures Agreement establishes standards for states to 

ensure that IUU-caught fish will not be landed, transshipped, 

packaged, or processed in their ports. 

The United States took a leadership role in the development of 

this agreement. Timely ratification would again underscore the 

commitment of our Nation to strengthening efforts at the global 

and national level to deter, detect, and eliminate IUU fishing. 

In closing, I would reiterate the importance of each of these 

agreements to the United States. Each one addresses a specific set 

of issues that, if not addressed, would threaten the sustainability 

8 

of fisheries. Each has strong support from a broad and diverse 

range of U.S. stakeholders. We seek timely action by the Senate to 

provide its advice and consent to ratification. 

Thank you very much. I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Ambassador Balton follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF AMBASSADOR DAVID A. BALTON

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Ambassador David Balton, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans and Fisheries. I am pleased to testify before you today in support of the four international agreements being considered by the committee: 

• The Convention on the Conservation and Management of High Seas Fisheries 

Resources of the North Pacific Ocean (hereinafter ‘‘NPFC Convention’’); • The Convention on the Conservation and Management of High Seas Fishery 

Resources of the South Pacific Ocean (hereinafter ‘‘SPRFMO Convention’’); • Amendments to the Convention on Future Multilateral Cooperation in the 

Northwest Atlantic Fisheries (hereinafter ‘‘NAFO Amendments’’); and • The FAO Agreement on Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate 

Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing (hereinafter the ‘‘Port State Measures Agreement’’ or ‘‘PSMA’’). 

Individually and collectively, these four agreements represent significant progress 

in protecting U.S. interests, advancing our international policies and priorities to 

conserve and manage shared-living marine resources, to protect the broader marine 

environment from the effects of destructive fishing practices, and to prevent illegal 

fishing activities from undermining our global and regional efforts toward these 

ends. Each of these agreements has strong support from a broad range of stakeholders, including representatives of the U.S. fishing industry and the environmental and scientific communities, many of whom participated actively in the negotiations. For these reasons, we seek timely action by the Senate to provide its advice 

and consent to ratification. 

The United States has a strong record of international leadership to conserve and 

manage shared fishery resources in a sustainable way. In fact, doing so is vitally 

important to our efforts to manage resources in waters under United States jurisdiction. The United States is already a party to more than a dozen such regional agreements governing such diverse resources as tunas in the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, 

groundfish in the North Atlantic Ocean and the Bering Sea, salmon in the North 

Pacific and North Atlantic Oceans, among others. We are also a party to the two 

most significant fisheries agreements adopted at the global level—the 1993 FAO 

High Seas Fisheries Compliance Agreement and the 1995 U.N. Fish Stocks Agreement. Because activities that take place on the high seas and in waters under the 

jurisdiction of other countries can have a direct impact on important U.S. fisheries, 

being a member of these regimes—and especially having a seat at the table in these 

organizations—is imperative. 

My colleague, Russell Smith, Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Fisheries at NOAA, will discuss the substance of these agreements from a conservation 

and management perspective and how their provisions support and enhance U.S. 

domestic fisheries management, while protecting the marine ecosystem. The remainder of my testimony will focus on how each of these agreements advances our international goals and objectives, including broad foreign policy objectives, and promotes 

responsible and sustainable use of our oceans resources. 

NPFC CONVENTION

The NPFC Convention was adopted on February 24, 2012, signed by the United 

States on May 2, 2012, and transmitted to the Senate on April 22, 2013. Once in 

force, the Convention will establish the North Pacific Fisheries Commission (NPFC) 

through which the Parties will cooperate to ensure the long-term and sustainable 

use of fisheries in the Convention Area. U.S. accession to the Convention will protect and advance important and significant U.S. interests. In particular, the Convention Area includes areas of the high seas immediately adjacent to the U.S. 

exclusive economic zone (EEZ) off Alaska, the Pacific west coast, Hawaii, and other 

U.S. territories and possessions in the North Pacific. Thus, U.S. accession is vital 

to ensuring that the United States has a strong voice in managing fishing activities 

outside the U.S. EEZ that could have a direct impact on resources within waters 

under U.S. jurisdiction. U.S. accession will also ensure that U.S. fisherman will 

9 

have a legitimate right to participate in fisheries within the Convention Area on an 

equitable basis. 

As with the SPRFMO Convention, discussed below, negotiations toward the NPFC 

Convention were initiated in response to the growing concern of the international 

community toward the impacts of certain deep sea fishing practices, taking place 

outside areas of national jurisdiction, on a range of unique and endemic deep sea 

marine ecosystems including sea mounts, hydrothermal vents, deep sea and cold 

water coral communities, sponge fields, etc., collectively referred to as ‘‘vulnerable 

marine ecosystems.’’ 

This growing international concern was reflected most clearly in United Nations 

General Assembly (UNGA) Resolution 59/25, adopted on November 17, 2004, in 

which the UNGA: ‘‘[Called] upon States urgently to cooperate in the establishment 

of new regional fisheries management organizations or arrangements, where necessary and appropriate, with the competence to regulate bottom fisheries and the 

impacts of fishing on vulnerable marine ecosystems in areas where no such relevant 

organization or arrangement exists.’’ 

In response to this call, delegations from Japan, Korea, Russia, and the United 

States met in Tokyo, Japan, in August 2006, to begin negotiations that led to the 

2012 adoption of the NPFC Convention. Initially, the negotiations had a much narrower focus than the Convention that is before you for consideration today. Between 

2006 and 2008, the negotiations focused exclusively on bottom fisheries in the 

Northwest Pacific Ocean In particular, the discussions focused on bottom fisheries 

conducted by Japan, Korea, and Russia on the Emperor Seamounts, a chain of 

seamounts that extends from the North Hawaiian Ridge in the south, almost to the 

Aleutian Islands in the north. 

As the discussions continued, the United States pressed, against some resistance, 

to expand the scope of the negotiations in two ways. First, our delegation pressed 

to expand the geographic scope of the Convention to ensure that the waters adjacent 

to the U.S. exclusive economic zone of Alaska and the Pacific west coast (Washington, Oregon, and California) were included within the Convention Area. Second, 

we pressed to ensure that the Convention established management authority not 

only for bottom fisheries, but for all high seas fishery resources not covered by an 

existing international management regime. Other than the bottom fisheries on the 

Emperor Seamounts, the primary pelagic fisheries included under this expanded 

scope include the fisheries for Pacific saury and squid. This expansion of the scope 

of the negotiations brought Canada, China, and Taiwan (which participated as the 

fishing entity of Chinese Taipei) into the negotiations, in addition to the original 

four States listed above. 

The Convention will enter into force 180 days after receipt by the Depositary (the 

Government of Korea) of the fourth instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval, 

or accession. Japan was the first State to ratify the Convention. Canada, China, 

Korea, and Russia are all actively working to conclude their domestic procedures for 

ratification. As a result, there is a strong chance the Convention could enter into 

force in 2014 or early 2015. 

Finally, Mr. Chairman, the United States has played an active and significant 

role in the development of the Convention and the preparations for its entry into 

force. At the request of the participating delegations, I was honored to chair the last 

several sessions of the negotiations that led to the adoption of the Convention in 

2012. Since that time, one of my colleagues at the State Department has chaired 

the Preparatory Conference which has conducted the vital work to prepare for the 

entry into force of the Convention and the establishment of the new Commission. 

In order to continue to play such a leadership role, the United States must be at 

the table as a member of the Commission at its first meeting. 

SPRFMO CONVENTION

The SPRFMO Convention was adopted on November 14, 2009, signed by the 

United States on January 31, 2011, and transmitted to the Senate on April 22, 

2013. The Convention establishes the South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management 

Organization (SPRFMO) through which the Parties will cooperate to ensure the 

long-term and sustainable use of fisheries in the Convention Area. Although the 

United States currently has no fishing activity for fish stocks covered by the Convention, accession to the Convention will yield significant benefits to U.S. interests. 

The Convention Area includes areas of the high seas closest to the U.S. territory 

of American Samoa, and immediately adjacent to the U.S. exclusive economic zone 

off a number of U.S. Pacific possessions including Jarvis, Howland and Baker 

Islands, Kingman Reef and Palmyra Atoll. Here again, U.S. accession is vital to 

ensuring that the United States has a strong voice in managing fishing activities 

10 

outside the U.S. EEZ that could have a direct impact on resources within waters 

under U.S. jurisdiction. 

Moreover, to the extent that the NPFC and SPRFMO have comparable mandates 

for the North Pacific and South Pacific, respectively, the policies, practices, and 

agreements established under SPRFMO may well find resonance in the NPFC. As 

a result, active U.S. participation in SPRFMO will ensure that the work of SPRFMO 

results in such policies, practices, and agreements that would be acceptable to the 

United States in a broader context, including in the NPFC. Finally, as in the NPFC, 

U.S. accession to the SPRFMO Convention will ensure participatory rights for U.S. 

fishermen in fisheries within the Convention Area. 

As with the NPFC Convention discussed above, negotiations for the SPRFMO 

Convention were initiated in response to the call by the UNGA for States to cooperate to establish new agreements related to bottom fishing and the impacts of fishing 

on vulnerable marine ecosystems in area where no such relevant organization or 

arrangement existed at the time. 

Initial discussions on the establishment of such an organization took place 

between the Governments of Australia, Chile, and New Zealand in 2005. The discussions were quickly joined by a number of other countries and entities, including the 

United States, Belize, China, Denmark (in respect of the Faroe Islands), Ecuador, 

the European Union, Korea, Russia, Peru, several Pacific Island States, and Taiwan 

(again as the fishing entity of Chinese Taipei). As in the North Pacific negotiations, 

the scope of the negotiations expanded to include not only bottom fisheries but 

pelagic fish stocks not otherwise subject to management, the most significant of 

which is the fishery for jack mackerel off the coast of Chile, Peru, and Ecuador. 

The SPRFMO Convention entered into force on August 24, 2012, and currently 

has 12 Contracting Parties. The Commission has met twice, in January 2013 and 

January 2014, and has adopted measures for the management of jack mackerel and 

bottom fishing. The United States has participated in the first two meetings of the 

Commission as an observer. As a result, our ability to influence any decisions taken 

is significantly less than would be the case if the United States were a full member 

of the Commission. Ratification of the Convention will allow the United States to 

take its seat at the table with the other members of the Commission and have an 

equal voice in matters before the Commission. 

NAFO AMENDMENTS

The NAFO Amendments were adopted by the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) September 28, 2007, and transmitted to the Senate on April 22, 

2013. NAFO is charged with coordinating scientific study and cooperative management of the fisheries resources of the Northwest Atlantic Ocean, excluding salmon, 

tunas, and sedentary species of the Continental Shelf. The NAFO Convention Area 

includes the waters of the U.S. EEZ from Cape Hatteras to Maine, although NAFO 

management measures apply primarily in the high seas portion of the Convention 

Area. 

The United States joined NAFO in 1995, and has participated actively since, 

assuming leadership positions and working to advance key principles of sustainable 

fisheries management. Although many NAFO stocks remain at levels too low to support fishing, others are finally showing signs of rebuilding under NAFO management. After working for many years to secure viable allocations, last year the 

United States was able to begin fisheries for some of these NAFO-managed high 

seas stocks. 

Following international calls for regional fisheries management organizations to 

strengthen their effectiveness, NAFO launched a comprehensive reform process in 

2005 intended to improve the way conservation and management measures are 

adopted, strengthen compliance and enforcement provisions, and revise its establishing Convention. The United States participated actively in this effort. Through 

it, we pushed to bring NAFO more in line with the principles of modern fisheries 

management and to address our particular concerns about catch allocations and fair 

participation. 

The resulting comprehensive amendments met all of our priorities. They add additional rigor and transparency to the decisionmaking process, establish a dispute settlement procedure, improve the guiding language for allocating catches, formally 

incorporate key concepts including transparency and broader ecosystem considerations, and make the basis for calculating Contracting Parties’ budget contributions 

more equitable. 

The last point was a major U.S. priority. Under the Convention, part of the NAFO 

budget is divided equally among all Contracting Parties and the rest is split according to Parties’ catches of certain species in the Convention Area, including within 

11 

coastal States EEZs. As a result, coastal States such as the United States pay a 

disproportionately high share of NAFO’s budget. The United States pushed to rebalance the dues to better match the benefits Parties receive. The amendments do not 

change the basic formula, but they amend the list of stocks used to calculate Parties’ 

respective catches to include only species under NAFO management or for which 

NAFO provides scientific advice, and remove those fished exclusively in waters 

under a coastal State’s jurisdiction. This change is expected to reduce U.S. dues by 

almost one-third. 

The NAFO Amendments will take effect 120 days after Canada, as Depositary, 

receives notification of approval from nine Contracting Parties. To date five—Canada, Cuba, the European Union, Norway, and the Russian Federation—have deposited instruments of approval. We understand one other is imminent, and two others 

are expected by this fall. Speedy ratification may enable the United States to provide the last approval needed for the NAFO Amendments to take effect. 

PORT STATE MEASURES AGREEMENT

The last Agreement I will discuss, Mr. Chairman, is different from the others. It 

is a global agreement, and is, in fact, the first binding global agreement specifically 

intended to combat illegal, unreported, and unregulated—or IUU—fishing. The 

United States signed the Port State Measures Agreement on November 22, 2009, 

and it was transmitted to the Senate November 14, 2011. 

IUU fishing undermines efforts to conserve and manage shared fish stocks and 

threatens the sustainability of all fisheries. Estimates of global losses due to IUU 

fishing range from $10 to $23 billion each year. The large number of developing 

States that depend on fisheries for food security and export income are particularly 

vulnerable. A secondary benefit to ratification of the Port State Measures Agreement and the other treaties under consideration is that it will give the United 

States additional tools to address illegal activities that are often intertwined with 

IUU fishing, including drug trafficking, labor exploitation, environmental degradation, and organized crime. 

Since IUU fishers can operate anywhere, detecting activities at sea is difficult and 

expensive. But, in order to sell or trade their illegal catch, they ultimately need to 

ensure that it is brought to a port for landing or transshipment. The Port State 

Measures Agreement establishes standards and requirements for port States to 

ensure IUU-caught fish will not be landed, transshipped, packaged, or processed in 

their ports. 

Here again, the United States took a leadership role in the development of this 

agreement, hosting and Chairing the initial informal meetings that led to the agreement to engage in formal negotiations toward a legally binding instrument. Timely 

ratification would again underscore the commitment of the United States to 

strengthening efforts at the global and national levels to detect, deter, and eliminate 

IUU fishing. 

CONCLUSION

In closing, I would simply reiterate the importance of each of these agreements 

to advancing U.S. economic interests and management objectives at the international level. Each of the agreements is crafted to address a specific set of issues 

that, if not addressed, threaten the sustainability of the fisheries resources in question. Each of them has strong support from a broad and diverse range of U.S. stakeholders from both the fishing industry and conservation community. 

Senator RUBIO [presiding]. Thank you. 

Before we move to Mr. Smith’s testimony, just briefly to give you 

an insight to what is happening, there are all these important 

votes going on on the floor, so we are doing a relay race here. So 

Senator Markey has gone to cast his vote. When he returns, we 

will continue with the hearing. At some point it is possible we may 

have to have a short recess if we do not have enough members, because these are very important votes. 

But, Mr. Smith, thank you for joining us. 

12 

STATEMENT OF RUSSELL F. SMITH III, DEPUTY ASSISTANT 

SECRETARY FOR INTERNATIONAL FISHERIES, NATIONAL 

OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Ranking Member Rubio, and 

I really appreciate the opportunity to testify here today on these 

important issues. I would ask that my testimony be included in the 

record of this hearing. 

My name is Russell Smith and I am NOAA’s Deputy Assistant 

Secretary for International Fisheries. Marine fish and fisheries, 

such as salmon in the Pacific Northwest, red snapper in the gulf, 

and cod in New England have long been vital to the economic 

strength and cultural identity of coastal communities in the United 

States. To ensure the long-term benefits of these resources, NOAA 

relies on clear, science-based rules, fair, effective, and consistent 

enforcement, and a shared commitment to sustainable management. The application of these standards has resulted in a Federal 

fishery management system that has made significant progress in 

ending overfishing and rebuilding our Nation’s fisheries. 

As a global leader in sustainably managing fisheries, the United 

States works to translate our domestic fishery management practices into international practices. The United States engages in 

international fisheries fora with the goal of ensuring that globally 

all fish stocks are sustainably managed. 

One of the greatest challenges is combating illegal, unreported, 

and unregulated fishing. IUU is a global problem that threatens 

ocean ecosystems and the sustainable management of fisheries, as 

well as food security in coastal communities around the world. The 

economic losses resulting from IUU fishing are enormous. Experts 

estimate that they range from $10 to $23.5 billion per year. 

U.S. accession to the four agreements that are the subject of today’s hearing will directly benefit U.S. interests, fisheries-related 

and beyond. For example, the North Pacific and South Pacific and 

NAFO agreements manage fisheries in which U.S. vessels fish or 

areas adjacent to areas in which U.S. vessels fish. Some of the 

stocks managed under these agreements are also fished in U.S. waters. 

Accession to these treaties will help level the playing field for 

U.S. fishers by allowing the United States to argue for foreign fishing fleets to be subject to the same high standards in international 

waters as our fleets adhere to in domestic waters. If our fleet ever 

wants the ability to fish in the areas managed by the new RFMOs, 

accession will put us in a better place to advocate for access to the 

international fishery. 

The treaties also support the U.S. seafood industry and consumers by keeping illegal fisheries products out of U.S. and global 

markets, reducing competition with legal and sustainable American 

products. 

These treaties will also support international sustainable fisheries management and thereby improve food security globally. As 

the United States imports more than 90 percent of its seafood, ensuring the sustainable management of global seafood fisheries 

stocks, including those in the North and South Pacific, helps to protect U.S. food security. 

13 

Let me briefly describe these treaties for you. The North Pacific 

and South Pacific Conventions establish commissions that are responsible for the long-term conservation and management of fisheries resources not covered under preexisting international agreements. They are also responsible for the protection of marine ecosystems in the convention area from fishing activities. Both agreements are based on modern principles of fisheries management establishing the use of a science-based and precautionary approach 

for developing conservation and management measures and a 

strong monitoring, control, and surveillance regime. In addition, 

the commission created under both agreements will establish mechanisms for monitoring compliance and responding to noncompliance. 

NAFO is charged with coordinating scientific study and cooperative management of the fisheries resources of the Northwest Atlantic Ocean except for salmon, tuna, and sedentary species of the continental shelf. The updates to the NAFO convention put the organization in a better position to develop and implement measures 

based on sound advice, to use an ecosystem approach to fisheries 

management, and thereby to sustainably manage the stocks for 

which it is responsible. Additionally, the new convention strengthens NAFO’s ability to combat IUU fishing. 

Finally, the Port State Measures Agreement is the first binding 

global instrument focused specifically on combating IUU fishing. 

The agreement will help to keep IUU fish products from entering 

the stream of commerce by requiring port states to exercise better 

control over their ports. Port states will be required, with some limited exceptions, to keep IUU fishing vessels out of their ports and 

to deny them port services and to inspect a percentage of the fishing vessels that enter their ports. 

With some of the largest and most successful fisheries in the 

world, the United States has become a global leader in the sustainable management of fisheries. These agreements allow us to advance those efforts. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify before you today. 

I would be happy to take any questions that you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RUSSELL F. SMITH III 

INTRODUCTION

Good morning Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I am Russell Smith, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Fisheries, National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce. Thank you very 

much for the opportunity to come before you today to discuss four international fisheries agreements intended to improve the conservation and management of specific 

international fisheries and to combat illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) 

fishing. 

Before I address the four treaties, I wish to provide some context about why they 

are important to U.S. national interest. Marine fish and fisheries, such as salmon 

in the Pacific Northwest and cod in New England, have been vital to the prosperity 

and cultural identity of coastal communities in the United States. U.S. fisheries play 

an enormous role in the U.S. economy. Commercial fishing supports fishers and 

fishing communities, and provides Americans with a sustainable, healthy food 

source. The seafood industry in the U.S.—harvesters, seafood processors and dealers, seafood wholesalers and seafood retailers, including imports and multiplier 

effects—generated $129 billion in sales impacts and $37 billion in income impacts, 

and supported 1.2 million jobs in 2011.1 Recreational fishing also makes significant 

14 

contributions to employment and the economy in the United States. Recreational 

fishing generated an estimated $56 billion in sales impacts, $18 billion in income 

impacts, and supported 364,000 jobs in 2011.2 Subsistence fishing provides an 

essential food source and is culturally significant for indigenous peoples. 

To ensure the long-term benefits of these resources to the American people, NOAA 

relies on clear, science-based rules, fair, effective and consistent enforcement, and 

a shared commitment to sustainable management. Much of this work occurs under 

the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MagnusonStevens Act), which sets forth standards for the conservation, management, and sustainable use of our Nation’s fisheries resources. The application of these standards 

has resulted in a federal fishery management system that has made very significant 

progress in ending overfishing and rebuilding our Nation’s fisheries. 

The United States is also one of the world’s largest importers and consumers of seafood. In 2011, seafood imports contributed 176,000 jobs, $48.4 billion in sales 

impacts, and $14.8 billion in value added impacts.3 As such, the United States is 

in a unique position to support sustainable fisheries around the world while providing a level playing field for our domestic fishermen. Working in collaboration 

with the Department of State and the U.S. Coast Guard, NOAA engages in international fisheries fora, such as Regional Fisheries Management Organizations 

(RFMOs), to ensure that global fish stocks are sustainably managed, including by 

ensuring that management is based on the best available science. As the United 

States is a leader in sustainably managing fisheries, often we seek to draw from 

our experience and convince RFMOs to apply, in the waters under their jurisdiction, 

management measures comparable to those applied in U.S. waters. 

One of the greatest challenges to our international efforts to ensure the sustainable management of global fisheries is combating illegal, unreported, or unregulated 

(IUU) fishing. IUU fishing is a global problem that threatens ocean ecosystems and 

impacts fisheries, food security, and coastal communities around the world. Experts 

estimate the global value of economic losses from IUU fishing range between $10 

and $23.5 billion.4 By circumventing conservation and management measures, companies and individuals engaging in IUU fishing cut corners and lower their operating costs. As a result, their illegally caught products provide unfair competition 

for law-abiding fishermen and seafood industries in the marketplace, and can undercut the sustainability of international and U.S. fisheries.5

U.S. accession to the four agreements before you today would greatly strengthen 

our ability to sustainably manage fisheries resources globally and combat IUU fishing. The agreements are: the Convention on the Conservation and Management of 

High Seas Fisheries Resources in the North Pacific Ocean (or North Pacific Convention); the Convention on the Conservation and Management of High Seas Fishery 

Resources in the South Pacific Ocean (or South Pacific Convention); the Amendment 

to the Convention on Future Multilateral Cooperation in the Northwest Atlantic 

Fisheries (or NAFO Convention Amendment); and the Agreement on Port State 

Measures to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated 

Fishing (or Port States Agreement). 

These four treaties will directly benefit U.S. interests. The new RFMOs in the 

North and South Pacific and the existing RFMO in the Northwest Atlantic (NAFO) 

will have management authority for target stocks and bycatch species that straddle 

U.S. waters. By joining these organizations and strengthening their management 

regimes, the United States can promote the use of our strong fishery management 

principles internationally so that foreign fishing fleets abide by the same standards 

as our industry. In joining the new North and South Pacific RFMOs, we are also 

ensuring future economic opportunities for our domestic fishing interests. Although 

there is currently no U.S. industry operating within the North or South Pacific 

RFMOs, our membership will allow for the possibility of future engagement and provide the opportunity for the U.S. to influence the management and compliance monitoring measures adopted by these organizations. 

The treaties also support the U.S. seafood industry and consumers by keeping illegal fisheries product out of U.S. and global markets. The North and South Pacific 

RFMOs and NAFO will implement new and strengthen existing management tools 

to combat IUU fishing within their areas. Moreover, the Port States Agreement will 

help to keep IUU fishing products from entering the market, and keep them from 

competing with U.S. caught, sustainably harvested, legal seafood. Denying port 

entry and access to port services, and consequently preventing illegal seafood from 

entering trade, increases the costs associated with IUU fishing operations and 

removes the financial incentives for engaging in IUU fishing. 

Lastly, these treaties will support international sustainable fisheries management 

and thereby improve food security globally. Seafood is a significant source of protein 

for nearly 3 billion people and is the planet’s most highly traded food commodity, 

15 

contributing to the livelihoods of more than 560 million people.6 IUU fishing threatens food security and socioeconomic stability in many parts of the world by reducing 

the productivity and profitability of legitimate fisheries, including artisanal fisheries 

in coastal areas. By improving the management of fisheries through these new or 

updated RFMOs, coupled with the IUU fishing-combating Port States Agreement, 

the four treaties address food security in developing coastal states, in the United 

States and globally; and thereby support the political stability of U.S. interests 

worldwide. 

I now will describe each of the four agreements and the benefits they would provide in more detail. 

NORTH PACIFIC AND SOUTH PACIFIC FISHERIES CONVENTIONS

The United States has worked for many years with other nations to improve the 

management of fisheries at the international level and to protect vulnerable marine 

ecosystems from the impacts of certain fishing practices on the high seas. The North 

Pacific and South Pacific Conventions will advance U.S. interests in the effective 

management of high seas fisheries. U.S. participation in the Commissions established under the North Pacific and South Pacific Conventions will facilitate development of measures adopted for fisheries on the high seas of the Pacific Ocean that 

are compatible with measures adopted by the United States with respect to fisheries 

in adjacent waters under the fisheries jurisdiction of the United States. In addition, 

U.S. participation will ensure that future U.S. fishing interests subject to the North 

Pacific and South Pacific Conventions can be factored into allocation decisions. Furthermore, as both the South Pacific Convention area and the North Pacific Convention areas overlap with that of other Pacific RFMOs in which the United States is 

a party, U.S. participation will help to ensure a consistent approach to conservation 

and management among these RFMOs and across the Pacific. 

North Pacific Convention 

The North Pacific Convention establishes a new regional fisheries management 

organization, the North Pacific Fisheries Commission (NPFC), through which Parties will cooperate to ensure the long-term conservation and sustainable use of fisheries resources in the Convention Area while protecting the marine ecosystems of 

the North Pacific Ocean in which these resources occur. The North Pacific Convention Area is the high seas area (i.e., outside of 200-mile EEZs) roughly north of 

20-degrees North latitude and south of the Aleutians. The specific geographic coordinates of the North Pacific Convention Area are delineated in Article 4 of the Convention. Cooperation under the North Pacific Convention will address fisheries 

resources not covered under preexisting international fisheries management instruments and will help to prevent significant adverse impacts on vulnerable marine 

ecosystems on the high seas that may have impacts on fisheries resources in areas 

subject to U.S. jurisdiction. One of the general principles of the North Pacific Convention is that conservation and management measures established for straddling 

fish stocks on the high seas and those adopted for areas under national jurisdiction 

should be compatible to ensure conservation and management of these fisheries 

resources in their entirety. 

The North Pacific Convention calls for a science-based and precautionary 

approach to the management of fisheries resources and a strong monitoring, control, 

and surveillance regime. It also will establish two committees, a Scientific Committee and a Technical and Compliance Committee, to carry out its functions. The 

North Pacific Convention will also allow for the meaningful participation of Taiwan 

as a fishing entity in the NPFC. 

Of particular concern to the NPFC are bottom fisheries over seamounts that could 

have significant adverse impacts on vulnerable marine ecosystems. The participants 

to the negotiations of the North Pacific Convention have already agreed to interim 

measures to protect vulnerable marine ecosystems and the sustainable management 

of high seas bottom fisheries in the North Pacific Convention Area. The interim 

measures include requiring assessments prior to any fishing that demonstrate that 

contemplated fishing activities would not have significant adverse impacts on vulnerable marine ecosystems and sustainability of the fishery resources. 

While there are presently no U.S. vessels fishing whose activities would be covered by the North Pacific Convention, there have been in the past and may be in 

the future. The United States is a coastal State with fisheries and marine habitats 

adjacent to the North Pacific Convention Area. Those fisheries can be impacted by 

management measures adopted by the North Pacific Commission. 

For example, since 1986, NMFS has prohibited fishing in the U.S. EEZ for Pacific 

armorhead, one of the groundfish species that will be managed in the Convention 

area. Armorhead are overfished as a result of past over-exploitation by foreign vesVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:30 Nov 21, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 2ND SESSION\2014 ISSUE T
16 

sels in international waters dating back to the 1970s or earlier. NMFS believes that 

continued exploitation outside our EEZ by foreign fleets has kept the stock in an 

overfished condition. The Hancock Seamounts are the only known armorhead habitat within our EEZ. These seamounts lie west of 180° W. and north of 28° N., to 

the northwest of Kure Atoll in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. The Western 

Pacific Fishery Management Council and NMFS have responded to the overfished 

condition of armorhead by implementing a moratorium on catching armorhead and 

related seamount groundfish. The Council and NMFS recognize that, because less 

than 5 percent of the armorhead habitat lies within U.S. jurisdiction, rebuilding of 

the stock must be accomplished through coordinated international management. 

The North Pacific Convention is an important vehicle to achieve such coordinated 

international management. 

The United States also has fleets operating in the North Pacific Convention Area 

that are fishing for tunas, swordfish, and other species that are subject to the jurisdiction of other RFMOs which could cooperate with the NPFC. 

South Pacific Convention 

The South Pacific Convention establishes a new regional fisheries management 

organization, the South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organization 

(SPRFMO) through which Parties will cooperate in the conservation and sustainable 

use of the high seas fishery resources in the South Pacific Ocean and safeguard the 

marine ecosystems in which these resources occur. 

The South Pacific Convention applies to areas of the South Pacific outside 

national jurisdiction from Australia to South America. Some of these areas abut the 

U.S. EEZ. The initial objectives of the negotiators were to develop a management 

framework to control bottom fishing in the western Pacific, primarily by New Zealand, Australia, and Taiwan, and the jack mackerel fishery in the eastern Pacific, 

primarily by Chile, Peru, and the European Union. The United States was a primary participant in the negotiation of the South Pacific Convention. SPRFMO will 

address fisheries resources not currently under management by preexisting agreements, such as new pelagic fisheries or expanded fisheries for stocks that straddle 

one or more exclusive economic zones and high seas areas beyond them. 

The South Pacific Convention requires Parties to apply specific conservation and 

management principles and approaches in giving effect to the objective of the South 

Pacific Convention. These principles and approaches are enshrined in existing international instruments to which the United States is a party, such as the 1995 Fish 

Stocks Agreement. These standards highlight the importance of using the best-available science and applying an ecosystem approach to fisheries management. In addition, the South Pacific Convention requires that Parties design and adopt specific 

conservation and management measures such as limitations on catch or effort, time 

or area closures, and gear restrictions. 

While there are presently no U.S. vessels fishing in the high seas areas of the 

South Pacific whose activities would be covered by the South Pacific Convention, 

U.S. membership within the Commission would allow for the potential participation 

of future fishing interests and enable the U.S. to influence the development of new 

and amended conservation and management measures. 

NAFO Convention Amendment 

The Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) is charged with coordinating scientific study and cooperative management of the fisheries resources of the 

Northwest Atlantic Ocean, excluding salmon, tuna, and sedentary species of the 

Continental Shelf. It was established in 1979 by the Convention on Future Multilateral Cooperation in the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries (the ‘‘Convention’’). The United 

States acceded to the Convention in 1995 and has participated actively in NAFO 

since that time, often assuming leadership positions and working to advance key 

principles of sustainable fisheries management. 

In 2005, NAFO launched a reform effort designed to streamline the Organization 

and bring it more in line with the principles of modern fisheries management. In 

2007, NAFO members adopted the NAFO Convention Amendment, which is comprehensive, touching on every element of the Convention. It addresses specific U.S. 

concerns and incorporates key international fisheries governance approaches, as 

found in the 1995 Fish Stocks Agreement, the 1993 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) Compliance Agreement, and more recent regional 

fisheries management agreements. The NAFO Convention Amendment vastly 

improves the ability of NAFO and its membership to effectively manage the 

resources under its purview and the ecosystems associated with those resources. 

Key elements of the NAFO Convention Amendment include provisions that detail 

NAFO’s objectives, including long-term conservation and sustainable use of fishery 

17 

resources and safeguarding of marine ecosystems in the convention area. The agreement also outlines general principles that include (among many others) promoting 

optimum use and long-term sustainability of fishery resources, adopting management measures based on the best scientific advice available, applying the precautionary approach when there is scientific uncertainty, taking into account the 

effect of fishing on the marine ecosystem, and highlighting the need to preserve biodiversity. This language reflects a modernized approach to fisheries management. 

Furthermore, the amendment simplifies the structure of NAFO, which will now 

consist of a Commission, a Scientific Council, and a Secretariat. This new structure 

combines the current General Council and Fisheries Commission into a single Commission and reorganizes a number of the subbodies. These changes will streamline 

NAFO considerably and result in increased efficiency, more effective conservation 

and management, and reduced costs. The NAFO Convention Amendment enables 

the Commission to take action, including nondiscriminatory trade-related measures, 

against any State or fishing entity whose fishing vessels undermine the effectiveness of NAFO measures. It also requires the Scientific Council to advise the Commission on the impacts of fishing on the marine ecosystem as a whole within the 

Convention Area. Finally, the amendment describes the formulation of the Organization’s budget and the calculation of the contributions due by each Contracting 

Party. One important result of changes to the amendment is that U.S. costs associated with membership in NAFO will be considerably reduced. 

The NAFO Convention Amendment also describes Contracting Party duties, flag 

State duties, and port State duties, respectively. These provisions are noteworthy 

because they draw on international fisheries governance approaches found in the 

most important and innovative international agreements on fisheries management 

including the 1995 Fish Stocks Agreement, the 1993 FAO Compliance Agreement, 

and more recent regional fisheries management agreements. The language primarily 

focuses on effective implementation of measures adopted by NAFO, reporting 

requirements, inspections, and compliance and enforcement obligations. 

The NAFO Convention Amendment rewrites the old provisions for decisionmaking, implementation, and settlement of disputes. It modifies the current general 

rule for decisionmaking within the Commission from a simple majority to consensus 

and outlines voting rules to be applied, namely a two-thirds majority, if consensus 

is not possible. The process for implementation of Commission decisions is also substantially modified, and the NAFO Convention Amendment details how and when 

decisions become binding and introduces changes to the existing objection procedure. 

The revised objection procedure is an improvement as it, among other things, 

requires a detailed explanation from the objecting Contracting Party and a declaration of the actions (including alternative measures) to be taken. Objecting Parties 

or the Commission may also now submit matters to an ad hoc panel and/or invoke 

the new dispute settlement procedures, which provide the choice of a number of fora 

in which to seek resolutions through peaceful means. The process also requires Contracting Parties to submit disputes to compulsory proceedings pursuant to the 1995 

Fish Stocks Agreement. 

The NAFO Convention Amendment addresses cooperation with non-Contracting 

Parties and with other organizations. These new provisions are designed to ensure 

that non-Contracting flag State vessels abide by NAFO measures when fishing in 

the NAFO Regulatory Area. They call for exchange of information on fishing activities of non-Contracting Parties and measures to deter activities (such as IUU fishing) that may undermine the measures adopted by the Commission. The new text 

further calls on NAFO to cooperate with the FAO and other relevant organizations, 

including RFMOs. This is particularly important with respect to the success of 

regional and global efforts relating to IUU fishing, trade tracking, and even for 

implementing the ecosystem management of fisheries. 

Other amendment provisions are administrative in nature (e.g., establishing procedures for review and amendment of the Convention and its Annexes). Annex I to 

the Convention, ‘‘Scientific and Statistical Subareas, Divisions and Subdivisions,’’ 

provides the coordinates of the scientific and statistical subareas, divisions and subdivisions of the Convention Area. Annex II to the Convention, ‘‘Rules Concerning the 

Ad Hoc Panel Procedure pursuant to Article XV,’’ is a new Annex describing the procedure for the ad hoc panels, one method available to settle disputes between Contracting Parties. 

Port States Agreement 

The Agreement on Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter, and Eliminate Illegal, 

Unreported and Unregulated Fishing is the first binding global instrument focused 

specifically to combat IUU fishing. It recognizes that all fish must pass through a 

port to get to market and that port States can take cost-effective measures to comVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:30 Nov 21, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 2ND SESSION\2014 ISSUE T
18 

bat IUU fishing. IUU fishing deprives law-abiding fishermen and coastal communities around the world of up to an estimated $23.5 billion of seafood and seafood 

products every year,7 and undermines efforts to monitor and sustainably manage 

fisheries. It also threatens the food security in some of the poorest countries in the 

world as well as in the United States and interferes with the livelihood of legitimate 

fishers around the world. Seafood caught through IUU fishing enters the global 

marketplace through ports all around the world. Preventing that fish from entering 

the global market requires an international solution and the cooperation of countries throughout the world. 

The Port States Agreement is recognized within the international community as 

a landmark in the effort to combat IUU fishing. The United States was a primary 

participant in its negotiation and was one of the first countries to sign it. We took 

a leadership role because we recognized how important taking these measures is for 

nations that want to ensure that product entering their ports has been legally harvested and is safe for consumers. We have had experience with the implementation 

of most of the substantive measures in the agreement as most of these measures 

are already contained in U.S. law. 

The agreement has already had significant impact on efforts to combat IUU fishing, influencing the adoption of similar measures by various RFMOs and providing 

a model for nations, developing nations in particular, to follow in establishing or 

strengthening dockside inspection programs. However, the full effect of the Port 

States Agreement as a tool to combat IUU fishing will not be realized until its entry 

into force, which requires ratification by 25 nations or regional economic integration 

organizations. So far, nine have done so. Ratification of the Port States Agreement 

by the United States will demonstrate strong leadership in the global battle against 

IUU fishing and will position the United States to encourage ratification by other 

countries. 

The agreement sets forth minimum standards for the conduct of dockside inspections and training of inspectors and, most significantly, requires parties to restrict 

port entry and port services for foreign vessels known or suspected of having been 

involved in IUU fishing, particularly those on a RFMO IUU fishing vessel list. 

These minimum standards would increase the risks and costs associated with IUU 

fishing activities and help to ensure that IUU fish and fish products do not enter 

into global trade. Senate advice and consent to ratification of the Port States Agreement will ultimately benefit U.S. fishermen, seafood buyers, and consumers by preventing IUU vessels from entering our ports and diluting the market with illegal 

product. 

The Port States Agreement has four primary sets of obligations that Parties are 

required to apply vis-a-vis foreign flagged fishing vessels (including support vessels) 

seeking entry to a Party’s port: 

• Parties are required to designate ports to which foreign-flagged vessels may 

seek entry, to require that certain information be collected and considered, and 

to establish a process for granting or denying port entry and/or the use of port 

services to foreign-flagged fishing vessels; 

• Parties must maintain the capacity to conduct dockside vessel inspections in the 

designated ports and adhere to minimum standards for the conduct of inspections and the training of inspectors. A sufficient number of inspections must be 

conducted to satisfy the objective of the agreement; 

• Subject to certain limited exceptions, Parties must deny port entry and the use 

of port services to vessels that have been engaged in IUU fishing, including as 

indicated by inclusion of the vessel on an RFMO IUU Vessel list. Importantly, 

the limited exceptions include allowing port entry exclusively for enforcement 

purposes or in the event of force majeure; and, 

• Parties are required to share information, including inspection results, with the 

flag States and, as appropriate, other relevant Parties and entities, as well as 

to take followup actions as requested by the flag State when evidence of IUU 

fishing is found during the course of an inspection. 

NOAA would be the lead agency for U.S. implementation of the Port States Agreement. Primary responsibility to carry out its obligations, particularly those related 

to vessel inspections, will fall on NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service 

(NMFS), Office of Law Enforcement, in collaboration with the U.S. Coast Guard, 

which has Captain of the Port authority for the United States. Importantly, the 

minimum standards set by the Port States Agreement track closely to what the 

United States already does. Under the Port States Agreement, these best practices 

would become common practice around the world, thereby effectively closing the socalled ports of convenience that IUU fishing operators use to land their fish and 

support their activities. As a global leader in sustainable fishing practices, and the 

19 

third-largest importer of seafood in the world, the United States has a responsibility 

to ensure the fish we import is caught legally. The United States also has a responsibility to protect our domestic fishermen from unfair competition and ensure consumer confidence in the seafood supply by keeping illegal product out of the market. 

The Port State Measures Agreement marks a significant step forward on both of 

these counts. 

The United States, with our strong legal frameworks, experience in effective port 

management and robust fisheries law enforcement, has been assisting developing 

nations in their preparations for implementation of the agreement. NOAA has most 

recently assisted Indonesia in its development of training curriculum for fisheries 

inspectors who will carry out inspections under the agreement. Additionally, the 

United States has strongly promoted the adoption of measures in RFMOs that 

strengthen port related measures, in accordance with the agreement. These efforts 

promote the success of the agreement and thereby reduce the amount of IUU product entering our domestic markets. 

CONCLUSION

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, the Department of State, the 

Department of Commerce, the U.S. Coast Guard, and U.S. stakeholders strongly 

support these four international fisheries agreements. All of these agreements will 

contribute to the sustainable management of internationally shared fisheries 

resources and directly impact U.S. interests. The four agreements promote U.S. interests by (1) leveling the playing field for U.S. fishing industry by bringing foreign 

fishers up to the standards applied to U.S. fishers, (2) keeping illegal product from 

entering the U.S. and global markets and thereby supporting legal, sustainably harvested U.S. seafood products, and (3) promoting sustainable fisheries internationally 

which supports food security and political stability globally. U.S. accession will allow 

us to be at the table to further those interests. 

———————— 

End Notes 

1See Fisheries Economics of the U.S. 2011. NMFS Office of Science & Technology, available 

at:http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/economics/publications/feus/fisheriesleconomicsl2011. 2Sabrina J. Lovell, Scott Steinback, and James Hilger. 2013. The Economic Contribution of 

Marine Angler Expenditures in the United States, 2011. U.S. Dep. Commerce, NOAA Tech. 

Memo. NMFS–F/SPO–134, 188 p. 3See Fisheries Economics of the U.S. 2011, at 7. 

4 Agnew DJ, J. Pearce, G. Pramod, T. Peatman, R. Watson, et al. (2009). Estimating the 

worldwide extent of illegal fishing. PLoS ONE, 4(2): e4570. 5 United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime. ‘‘Issue Paper—Transnational Organized Crime 

in the Fishing Industry’’ http://www.unodc.org/documents/human-trafficking/IssuelPaperllTOClinlthelFishinglIndustry.pdf. 2011. 6 United Nations Interagency Framework Team for Preventive Action. ‘‘Renewable Resources 

and Confict.’’ http://www.un.org/en/events/environmentconflictday/pdf/GNlRenewablel 

Consultation.pdf. 2012. 7 Agnew DJ, J. Pearce, G. Pramod, T. Peatman, R. Watson, et al. (2009). Estimating the 

worldwide extent of illegal fishing. PLoS ONE, 4(2): e4570. 

Senator RUBIO. Thank you, Mr. Smith. I would just note, without 

objection, that your full comments will be included in the committee’s record. 

Admiral, I hate to do this to you. We are going to have to take 

a brief, 10-minute recess while I go vote, because the majority leader is pushing these through pretty quickly. I anticipate that the 

chairman will be back here in a moment so we can continue. So 

if you would just give us about 10 minutes, I think, and we will 

be back. 

The committee stands in recess for 10 minutes. 

[Recess from 3:05 p.m. to 3:10 p.m.] 

Senator MARKEY [presiding]. The committee will come to order, 

and we are now joined by Senator Murkowski, who is the cochair 

of the Oceans Caucus. Her cochair, Sheldon Whitehouse, has already testified. We welcome you, Senator. 

Whenever you are comfortable, please begin. 

20 

STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Rubio, and to other members of the committee who are not 

here today, but who hopefully have an opportunity to view the testimony, thank you for the opportunity to speak today on some very 

important treaties facing the U.S. Senate and before your committee here at Foreign Relations. 

Taking the time to address these fisheries treaties is critically 

important, particularly the effects of IUU fishing and activities on 

U.S. interests. Senator Whitehouse and I have been working as cochairs of the Senate Oceans Caucus to be strong advocates for our 

Nation’s oceans and fisheries. I think it is critically important that 

as we look to protect the strength of our fisheries, the strength of 

our oceans, that we understand that our oceans know no boundaries, in the sense that we know where the borders are of our 

States, we know where the borders are of our countries, but we 

need to ensure that as we are working with other nations as it relates to our fisheries that we have some common framework. 

I am here today because the fishing and the seafood industries 

are vital economic drivers in my State. Alaska’s fisheries are the 

most abundant and sustainably managed in the Nation and we are 

quite proud of that. We lead all States in terms of both volume and 

value of commercial fisheries, with approximately 1.84 million metric tons, worth $1.3 billion. We account for over 52 percent of the 

Nation’s commercial seafood harvest. Alaska’s commercial, sport, 

and subsistence fisheries are at the heart of coastal Alaska. They 

are the economic livelihood for more than 80,000 Alaskans who are 

either directly or indirectly employed in the industry. 

The witnesses that you have today will give great overview of 

these important issues. They can address the international and the 

domestic implications of the treaties that you have before you. You 

do have an individual on the third panel, Mark Gleason, who is 

with the Alaska Bering Sea Crabbers. I appreciate the fact that he 

has traveled to D.C. today to testify on behalf of the organization. 

You might not have heard of the Bering Sea Crabbers, but most 

people are at least familiar with ‘‘The Deadliest Catch.’’ All you 

need to do is think of ‘‘Deadliest Catch’’ and it takes you into the 

activities of the Bering Sea. 

Some of you may not know that I have a little bit of an interest 

in not only the crab fishery, but safety at sea. My son just finished 

up a season in the Bering Sea crabbing. They left last night 

through Unimak Pass to travel across the Gulf of Alaska. He is 

headed back home and he is probably going to have some Bering 

Sea crab stories that I am not sure that his mother is really ready 

to hear yet, but I am bracing myself. 

But as I think about the experience that my son has had as a 

Bering Sea crab fishermen, given what we have put in place with 

safeties and precautions and protocols, it is a much better world 

now for our crabbers and our fishermen than it was just a few 

years ago. 

It is important, however, that Alaska and U.S. fishermen have 

a level playing field when it comes to our harvesting opportunities. 

Russian IUU crab has been a serious problem for Alaska since at 

21 

least 1990. As is true for most commodity markets, crab prices of 

course are driven by supply. IUU crab lowers the market price to 

fishermen and processors and tax revenues to our State. 

The estimated impacts of IUU crab to harvesters since the year 

2000 is about $560 million, with an additional cost to crab processing ports of over a million dollars in lost landing revenues. 

These are real dollars that we are talking about. This is real impact to a State. 

As recently as 2011, NOAA law enforcement seized 112 metric 

tons of illegally harvested Russian king crab that was being 

shipped to United States markets through the port of Seattle. So 

I am pleased to be followed by representatives from the Coast 

Guard, NOAA, and the State Department who will speak in more 

detail on their efforts to prevent IUU seafood from entering the 

United States. These three agencies, with assistance from the U.S. 

Customs and Border Patrol, and the FDA, successfully prosecuted 

the case and helped shut down one avenue for illegal imports. I 

think this is a positive example and I believe the treaties before 

you will enhance the effectiveness of U.S. authority to deter IUU 

activities. 

Two of the treaties that you have, the Port State Measures 

Agreement and the Convention on the Conservation and Management of High Seas Fisheries Resources in the North Pacific, are 

very important to my State’s fishermen. The first sets global standards to combat IUU fishing. It will help to protect U.S. fishermen 

by keeping foreign illegally caught fish from entering the global 

stream of commerce. Specifically, it establishes global port restrictions designed to catch vessels engaged in illegal fishing activities 

when they attempt to offload the fish in port. 

The second will establish a new regional fishery management organization for fisheries resources located near the North Pacific 

and not currently addressed through preexisting international fisheries management bodies. 

I would like to comment, Mr. Chairman, on the fact that IUU 

vessels can also be some pretty bad actors beyond the world of fishing. You are going to be hearing testimony from the third panel on 

the role that IUU vessels are playing in the context of human trafficking and drug smuggling. While these particular fishing treaties 

are not focused on these issues specifically, it is my understanding 

that they will provide additional tools that can help U.S. law enforcement officials crack down on them as well. 

Again, I truly appreciate, and I know that my colleague Senator 

Whitehouse does as well, the efforts of this committee to look into 

these issues, to discuss them thoroughly, to advance these treaties 

through the Senate, and help to level the playing field for U.S. fisheries. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I am happy to take any questions that 

you might briefly have. I appreciate the allowance and indulgence 

of your time in allowing me to pop in as we juggle votes. Thank 

you. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Murkowski follows:] 

22 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR LISA MURKOWSKI

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Rubio, other members of the committee who were 

not able to make it here today, but who hopefully will have an opportunity to review 

this testimony, thank you for this opportunity to speak today on some very important treaties in front of the U.S. Senate and before the Foreign Relations Committee. Taking the time to address these fisheries treaties is critically important, 

particularly with regard to the effects of IUU fishing activities on U.S. interests. 

Senator Whitehouse and I have been working as cochairs of the Senate Oceans Caucus to be strong advocates for our Nation’s oceans and fisheries. I think it is critically important that as we look to protect the strength of our fisheries, the strength 

of our oceans, that we understand that our oceans know no boundaries. I mean this 

in the sense that we know where the borders are for our states, where the borders 

are for countries, but we need to ensure that as we work with other nations to protect our fisheries outside our national jurisdiction, that we work within the common 

framework of international agreements. 

I am here because the fishing and seafood industries are vital economic drivers 

in my home State. Alaska’s fisheries are the most abundant and sustainably managed in the Nation, and we are quite proud of that fact. Alaska leads all States in 

terms of both volume and value of commercial fisheries with approximately 1.84 

million metric tons worth $1.3 billion—accounting for over 52 percent of the 

Nation’s commercial seafood harvests. Alaska’s commercial, sport, and subsistence 

fisheries are at the heart of coastal Alaska and they are the source of economic livelihood for more than 80,000 Alaskans who are directly or indirectly employed in the 

industry. 

The witnesses you have assembled for today’s hearing will provide an excellent 

overview of this important issue, and can address the international and domestic 

implications of the treaties before you. You do have an individual on the third panel, 

Mark Gleason, who is with the Alaska Bering Sea Crabbers, and I appreciate the 

fact that he has traveled to D.C. to testify on behalf of his organization. Now you 

may not have heard of the Alaska Bering Sea Crabbers, but most people are at least 

familiar with the Deadliest Catch. All you need to do is think of Deadliest Catch 

and it takes you into the activities out in the Bering Sea. Some of you may not know 

that I have a little bit of an interest not only in the crab fishery, but in the safety 

of fishing vessels out in the Bering Sea. My son just finished up a season crabbing 

in the Bering Sea, and they left last night through Unimak Pass to travel across 

the Gulf of Alaska. He is headed back home and he probably is going to have some 

Bering Sea crab stories that I am not sure his mother is really ready to hear yet, 

but I am bracing myself. As I think about the experience my son has had as a Bering Sea crab fisherman, given what we in the U.S. have put in place for safety, it 

is a much better situation out there for our crabbers and our fishermen. The same 

is true in terms of the fisheries management regimes we have in place in the U.S., 

and it is important that Alaskan and U.S. fishermen have a level playing field as 

they compete in the global seafood market. 

Russian IUU crab has been a serious problem for Alaska since at least 1990. As 

is true for most commodity markets, crab prices are driven by supply. IUU crab lowers the market price to fishermen and processors, and tax revenues to the State of 

Alaska. The estimated impacts of IUU crab to harvesters since 2000 is about $560 

million, with an additional cost to crab processing ports of over $11 million in lost 

landing tax revenues. These are real dollars we are talking about, this has a real 

impact on my State. 

As recently as 2011, NOAA law enforcement seized 112 metric tons of illegally 

harvested Russian king crab that was being shipped to U.S. markets through the 

Port of Seattle. I am pleased to be followed by representatives from the U.S. Coast 

Guard, NOAA, and the State Department who will speak in more detail on their 

efforts to prevent IUU seafood from entering the U.S. These three agencies, with 

assistance from U.S Customs and Border Patrol and the FDA, successfully prosecuted this case and helped shut down one avenue for illegal imports. This is one 

positive example, and I believe the treaties before you will enhance the effectiveness 

of U.S. authority to deter IUU activities. 

Two of the treaties you have before you today, the Port State Measures Agreement and the Convention on the Conservation and Management of High Seas Fisheries Resources in the North Pacific Ocean, are of particular interest to my State’s 

fishermen. The first will set global standards to combat IUU fishing. We have high 

standards in the U.S., and this treaty will help to protect U.S. fishermen by keeping 

foreign illegally caught fish from entering the global stream of commerce. Specifically, it will establish global port restrictions designed to catch vessels engaged in 

illegal fishing activities when they attempt to offload fish in port. 

23 

The second will establish a new Regional Fishery Management Organization 

(RFMO), the North Pacific Fisheries Commission, for fisheries resources located 

near the North Pacific Ocean, and not currently addressed through preexisting 

international fisheries management bodies. This region is adjacent to Alaska, and 

the west coast, and it is important to ensure that there is a fisheries management 

regime in place to deter IUU fishing activities. 

Before concluding, I would like to comment on the fact that IUU vessels also can 

be pretty bad actors beyond the world of fishing. You will be hearing testimony from 

the third panel on the role that IUU vessels are playing in the context of human 

trafficking and drug smuggling. While these fisheries treaties are not focused on 

these issues specifically, it is my understanding that they will provide additional 

tools that can help U.S. law enforcement officials crack down on them as well. 

Again, I truly appreciate, and I know that my colleague, Senator Whitehouse, 

does as well, the efforts of this committee to look into these issues, to discuss them 

thoroughly, and to advance these treaties to level the playing field for U.S. fishermen. 

I encourage the committee to consider these treaties favorably, and to move them 

forward for consideration by the full Senate. 

Senator MARKEY. We appreciate your leadership, Senator Murkowski, on this set of critical issues, and we intend on acting, and 

your leadership has played a big role in bringing us to this space. 

So we thank you so much for your service. 

We would ask the second panel to come back up and we will 

move to Admiral Kenney, although your nameplate says ‘‘Kennedy.’’ In Massachusetts that is not a bad thing, not a bad thing. 

Most people would not change their name from Kennedy to Kenney 

in Massachusetts, the way we just did for you. 

STATEMENT OF REAR ADMIRAL FREDERICK J. KENNEY, 

JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL AND CHIEF COUNSEL, U.S. 

COAST GUARD, WASHINGTON, DC 

Admiral KENNEY. Well, thank you, Senator. I am from Massachusetts and—— 

Senator MARKEY. Really? What high school? 

Admiral KENNEY [continuing]. What is that? 

Senator MARKEY. What high school? 

Admiral KENNEY. I went to Rossview Latin School. 

Senator MARKEY. Really? A very well educated witness before us. 

[Laughter.] 

So whenever you are ready, Admiral, please begin. 

Admiral KENNEY. But it is an honor to be confused with that 

other illustrious Massachusetts family. 

Well, good afternoon, Chairman Markey. It is a pleasure to appear before you to discuss how the international fisheries treaties 

before you today will improve the Coast Guard’s ability to deter illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing both within areas of 

U.S. jurisdiction and on the high seas. I ask that my written statement be submitted for the record. 

Senator MARKEY. Without objection, so ordered. 

Admiral KENNEY. Before I begin, on behalf of the Commandant 

I would like to thank the members of the committee for their support in passing the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2014. This 

act will help relieve the erosive effects of sequestration on the 

Coast Guard. It will restore frontline operations, such as fisheries 

enforcement, and badly needed training hours. It will ease many of 

the personnel management restrictions we have faced over the past 

year. 

24 

Safeguarding living marine resources is a longstanding Coast 

Guard mission and it remains a vital U.S. economic interest today. 

The Coast Guard embraces its role as the principal Federal at-sea 

enforcement agency for the protection of living marine resources 

within the U.S. EEZ and on the high seas. The Coast Guard supports the State Department and NOAA in their efforts to combat 

IUU fishing. Actors engaged in this illicit activity often exploit the 

gaps between governance structures and operate in areas where 

there is little or no effective enforcement presence. 

The four international treaties under consideration by the committee will significantly shrink those areas most vulnerable to IUU 

fishing and will enhance the Coast Guard’s ability to provide at-sea 

enforcement for the conservation of precious living marine resources. 

Since 2008, the Coast Guard has conducted over 100 high seas 

boardings and issued violations to over 20 vessels. These enforcement efforts enabled recent seizures of stateless vessels, such as 

the fishing vessel DA CHENG and its illegally taken catch from 

high seas driftnet fishing. Notably, the Coast Guard cooperated 

closely with Chinese officials to turn over the vessel, crew, and 

catch for Chinese enforcement efforts, which resulted in forfeiture 

of the catch, destruction of the IUU vessel, and a significant fine 

for the master. 

The Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization Convention 

Amendment will help to align treaty activities with contemporary 

enforcement practices within the convention area. Both the North 

Pacific and South Pacific conventions will establish a modern governance mechanism to provide a stronger at-sea enforcement regime on the high seas of the Pacific Ocean. The Port State Measures Agreement will address illegal fishing activity by establishing 

economic disincentives for those who violate the law. 

Together, these four treaties will facilitate joint efforts between 

the Coast Guard, NOAA, the State Department, and our international partners to preserve and protect valuable living marine resources that are critical to the United States and world economies. 

These treaties and other international instruments that address 

fisheries governance also have a secondary benefit of facilitating efforts to identify and counter other maritime security threats. 

Groups or individuals involved in illegal fishing may also be engaged in other crimes. In carrying out the provision of these treaties, the Coast Guard can promote maritime governments and increase maritime domain awareness on the high seas, thus enabling 

the service to respond to a range of transnational threats. 

Enforcement of both the outer reaches of the U.S. EEZ and international fisheries management schemes is largely a mission conducted by Coast Guard offshore assets. The Coast Guard remains 

steadfast in its commitment to recapitalizing its offshore fleet to 

ensure it is capable of addressing these threats, such as illegal fishing on the high seas and in our sovereign waters. 

The capabilities of new assets, such as the National Security 

Cutter, one of which is on patrol in the Pacific as I speak, and the 

Offshore Patrol Cutter, which is in the preliminary and contract 

design phase, will maintain our ability to conduct Coast Guard 

missions in the distant reaches of the U.S. EEZ and on the high 

25 

seas. These replacement platforms for our aging offshore fleet, 

some of which are nearly 50 years old, will make the Coast Guard 

better able to close those awareness and presence gaps that allow 

IUU fishing to occur undetected. 

In conclusion, the Coast Guard strongly supports these four 

international fisheries treaties. We will continue to work closely 

with the State Department, NOAA, and our international partners 

to achieve national and international objectives to address IUU 

fishing. Such cooperation is a critical step in sustaining marine ecosystems worldwide and to address threats that impact the U.S. 

economy and global food security. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. I 

would be happy to answer any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Admiral Kenney follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REAR ADMIRAL FREDERICK J. KENNEY

Good afternoon, Chairman Markey, Ranking Member Rubio, and distinguished 

members of the committee. It is a pleasure to appear before you today in support 

of four international fisheries agreements that will improve the Coast Guard’s ability to deter, prevent, and enforce rules against Illegal, Unregulated, and Unreported 

(IUU) fishing both within areas of U.S. jurisdiction and on the high seas. 

Safeguarding living marine resources is a longstanding Coast Guard mission and 

it remains a vital U.S. economic interest today. Beginning with 19th century protection of the Bering Sea fur seal herds and continuing through the post-World War 

II expansion in the size and efficiency of global fishing fleets, the Coast Guard has 

embraced its role as the principal, federal, on-scene law enforcement agency for the 

protection of U.S. living marine resources. Today, the Coast Guard maintains a law 

enforcement presence within the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), which is the 

largest in the world. 

IUU fishing activity is global in reach, and it adversely affects marine ecosystems 

by distorting competition and jeopardizing the economic survival of coastal communities whose livelihoods depend upon local fisheries. The Coast Guard supports the 

State Department and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA) in their efforts to combat IUU. Actors engaged in IUU fishing often exploit 

the gaps between governance structures and operate in areas where there is little 

or no effective enforcement presence. These four international fisheries agreements 

will significantly shrink those gaps utilized by IUU fishing and will improve the 

United States deterrence efforts, thus promoting the optimal management and protection of vital living marine resources and their environments. 

Coast Guard efforts to deter and combat IUU fishing span both domestic and 

internationalfisheries, and they bridge the Service’s maritime security and maritime 

stewardship goals. 

These goals, outlined in the ‘‘U.S. Coast Guard Strategy for Maritime Safety, 

Security, and Stewardship,’’ are driven by national policy including ‘‘Presidential 

Decision Directive 36: Protecting the Ocean Environment,’’ laws such as the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, and international ocean 

governance structures, such as U.S. membership within international Regional Fishery Management Organizations (RFMOs). Each of the four fisheries agreements 

being considered by the Senate will enhance the Coast Guard’s ability to provide 

at-sea enforcement for the conservation and management of living marine resources 

and their environments. 

Effective enforcement requires a clear understanding of the Northwest Atlantic 

Fisheries Organization (NAFO) Convention’s goals and objectives. The NAFO Convention Amendment accomplishes this through modernization of the Convention 

text that has been in force since 1979. The changes will help align Coast Guard 

enforcement with contemporary practices within the Convention area. 

The North and South Pacific Conventions will establish a modern governance 

mechanism that will enable a stronger at-sea enforcement regime on the high seas 

of the Pacific and facilitate more effective Coast Guard enforcement efforts in the 

region. To further achieve this goal, the Coast Guard will continue to work closely 

with the State Department and NOAA to ensure the conventions include a high-seas 

boarding and inspection regime in line with Articles 21 and 22 of the 1995 U.N. 

Fish Stock Agreement. 

26 

The Port State Measures Agreement is another tool to combat IUU fishing by 

addressing the problem through economic disincentives. Without access to ports of 

convenience, vessels engaged in IUU fishing will be unable to sell their product or 

receive logistical support for operations. Forcing these vessels into ports further 

away from commerce centers and fishing grounds will increase their operating costs 

and diminish economic gains for illegally caught fish or fish product. Limiting the 

ports available to these vessels would also simplify enforcement by targeting investigations of illicit activity in ports known to support IUU fishing. 

Regional Fishery Management Organizations (RFMOs) have proven to be highly 

effective in managing fisheries resources beyond areas of national jurisdiction. For 

example, the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC), one of 

the first in the world to employ a fully developed boarding and inspection protocol 

for high seas enforcement based on the U.N. Fish Stocks Agreement, has produced 

a level of governance and cooperation for long-term resource management that was 

previously not feasible. The Coast Guard is proud to have been involved in its development and negotiation, and as a leader in its enforcement. Under the WCPFC 

since 2008, the Coast Guard has conducted over 100 high seas boardings and inspections, issuing violations to over 20 vessels. Likewise, Coast Guard cutter patrols in 

support of these enforcement efforts have also enabled recent seizures of stateless 

vessels such as the fishing vessel DA CHENG and its illegally taken catch resulting 

from high-seas drift-net fishing. Notably, the Coast Guard cooperated closely with 

Chinese officials to turn over the vessel, crew, and catch for Chinese enforcement 

efforts. The Coast Guard looks forward to continuing to provide leadership in the 

global fight against IUU fishing in these new RFMOs. 

Enforcement at the outer reaches of the U.S. EEZ and within high-sea areas managed by RFMOs is a mission largely conducted by Coast Guard off-shore assets. Cutter transit to most of the eight noncontiguous U.S. EEZs in the Western and Central 

Pacific takes several days (and more than a week in some cases) from the nearest 

Coast Guard facility. The Coast Guard’s offshore recapitalization program ensures 

that these critical missions will have the organic capabilities necessary to meet the 

extreme demands of time, distance, and weather these operations entail. 

As a secondary benefit, carrying out the provisions of these Conventions enables 

the Coast Guard to increase Maritime Domain Awareness on the high seas and 

more effectively respond to a range of transnational threats. 

In conclusion, the Coast Guard strongly supports these four international fisheries 

agreements and will continue to work closely with the State Department, NOAA, 

and our international partners to achieve national and international objectives for 

managing sustainable fisheries worldwide and to address IUU fishing. The world’s 

oceans are truly a global commons, requiring a global approach toward their conservation and management. In the face of an increasing need for food security and 

the increasing scarcity of marine resources, the U.S. Coast Guard stands ready to 

confront IUU fishing to preserve the long-term viability of migratory fish stocks that 

affect U.S. fisheries. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. I would be happy to 

answer any questions you may have. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you, Admiral, very much. Again, we 

thank all of the witnesses. 

Another rollcall has gone off on the Senate floor, so we will have 

to once again stand in a brief recess. 

[Recess from 3:23 p.m. to 3:43 p.m.] 

Senator MARKEY. The committee will reconvene and the Chair 

will recognize himself for a round of questions. 

Mr. Smith, the United States is already a member of a number 

of regional fisheries management organizations. Can you provide 

examples of how membership in those organizations has benefited 

U.S. fisheries? 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Senator Markey. You are correct, we are 

a member of a number of regional fisheries management organizations and we have seen that our work within those organizations 

has directly benefited our fisheries, including for example the 

swordfish fishery in the North Atlantic, a fishery that was in great 

trouble not too long ago. It was overfished and subject to overVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:30 Nov 21, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 2ND SESSION\2014 ISSUE T
27 

fishing. The stock had crashed. The United States had taken some 

steps to better manage the fishery, to close some areas, to do some 

things to help the fishery recover. 

But our taking those actions alone would not be sufficient because other countries were fishing on the same stocks. We were 

able to go to ICAT, the International Convention for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna, and we were able to work with them to develop management measures that have worked, have resulted in 

the application of quotas that are science-based and precautionary, 

the application of other management measures that have led to the 

stock now having recovered, being managed in a fully sustainable 

fashion, and allowing our fleet to rely on it as an important source 

of fish for our markets and for our food security. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you. 

Admiral Kenney, the Coast Guard is already taking steps to combat illegal fishing in both the United States EEZ and on the high 

seas. For example, in seizing the fishing vessel DA CHENG the 

Coast Guard found 30 metric tons of albacore tuna and 6 metric 

tons of shark fins and bodies. What role do you see these treaties 

playing in enhancing your ability to do your work? 

Admiral KENNEY. Thank you for that question, Mr. Chairman. 

These treaties will enhance the Coast Guard’s ability to detect and 

enforce IUU fishing laws, regulations, and treaties. Under the 

NAFO amendments, the Coast Guard will be able to continue conducting joint patrols with the Canadian Department of Fisheries 

and Oceans, as we do. For example, in 2012 we conducted the very 

successful Operation Nanook with the Canadians, which did result 

in some boardings, although no violations were found. 

The Port State Measures Agreement will enable us to work closely with NOAA to prevent IUU fishing vessels from entering U.S. 

ports. The Coast Guard can add to that effort significantly through 

our Advanced Notice of Arrival System and allow NOAA to take action as vessels enter port. 

With respect to the North Pacific and South Pacific treaties, allowing the Coast Guard to have presence and domain awareness in 

these areas will also allow us to take effective enforcement action. 

A good example of that type of cooperative effort is the Oceana 

Maritime Security Initiative, which is an initiative that is led by 

the U.S. Pacific Command and has allowed Coast Guard boarding 

teams to ride along U.S. naval vessels to conduct fisheries 

boardings in conjunction with Pacific Island nations to help them 

preserve their fish stocks. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you. 

Ambassador Balton, developing nations are impacted by illegal 

fishing in a number of ways. Somalia, for example, loses $300 million a year because of illegal fishing. In addition to direct economic 

impacts, many developing nations depend on fisheries products for 

subsistence purposes. How will these agreements help to address 

the impact of illegal fishing and environmental degradation on developing nations? 

Ambassador BALTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You are exactly 

right, developing countries bear the brunt of the problem with respect to IUU fishing. I would note that for the Port State Measures 

Agreement a number of them have already ratified, recognizing 

28 

that that instrument will help them. I will mention now: Angola, 

Benin, Brazil, Ghana, Indonesia, Kenya, Mozambique, Peru, 

Samoa, Sierra Leone, among others. 

The Port State Measures Agreement is a great example of a cooperative effort to crack down on IUU fishing. It is cost effective. 

It would also allow us and other developed countries and multilateral donors to provide assistance to developing countries to help 

them implement relatively inexpensive measures in port to prevent 

illegally harvested fish from being offloaded there. 

The other agreements, too, by cracking down on IUU fishing and 

having science-based management should allow for sustainability 

of fisheries, also to the betterment of the economy of developing 

countries. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you. 

We thank each of the witnesses for your expert testimony. It is 

going to go a long way toward our ability to be able to move this 

treaty through the committee and out onto the Senate floor. We 

thank you for all of your excellent work. 

Now I would ask the second panel to please come up and sit in 

front of your names. Then we will begin the testimony. 

[Pause.] 

Senator MARKEY. Our final panel will illustrate some of the real 

world consequences of illegal fishing. I will briefly introduce our 

witnesses and then we can hear their testimony. 

Captain Ray Kane is the outreach coordinator for the Cape Cod 

Commercial Fishermen’s Alliance. He is the owner and operator of 

F/V FRENZY and has been a Cape Cod fishermen for nearly 40 

years. 

Mark Gleason is the executive director of the Alaska Bering Sea 

Crabbers, an association of crab fishermen, primarily based out of 

Alaska, Washington, and Oregon. 

Ambassador Mark Lagon is global politics and security chair at 

the Master of Science in Foreign Service Program at Georgetown 

University and adjunct senior fellow for Human Rights at the 

Council on Foreign Relations. He was an Ambassador at Large and 

directed the U.S. Department of State Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons from 2007 to 2009, and he is, most importantly, a former member of the staff of this committee, and I am 

told also a native of Massachusetts. So we are keeping the panels 

balanced in that sense. 

So we will begin with you, Mr. Kane. Whenever you are ready, 

please begin. 

STATEMENT OF RAYMOND KANE, OUTREACH COORDINATOR, 

CAPE COD FISHERMEN’S ALLIANCE, CHATHAM, MA 

Mr. KANE. Good afternoon, Chairman Markey. My name is Capt. 

Ray Kane. I appreciate your invitation to testify at this important 

hearing. By way of background, I have been actively involved in 

the Massachusetts commercial fishing industry for over 40 years, 

and I have participated in virtually every New England fishery, including tuna, lobster, scallops, and groundfish. 

In addition to being the owner and operator of the fishing vessel 

FRENZY, I also serve as the Fishery Advocate for the Cape Code 

29 

Commercial Fishermen’s Alliance. Today I am testifying on behalf 

of the hardworking small boat fishermen from both Cape Cod and 

the islands. That comprises the alliance. 

As an organization dedicated to sustainable fisheries, we support 

the establishment and strengthening of effective regional fisheries 

management organizations, also known as RFMOs. Effective multilateral RFMOs are the only way to manage and conserve fisheries 

on the high seas and as such we firmly support their creation in 

the North and South Pacific Ocean. 

Because our Cape Cod fishermen are not involved in the Pacific 

fisheries, nor do they fish in the NAFO area, my testimony today 

will focus on the Port State Measures Agreement aimed at deterring and eliminating illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing, 

referred to as ‘‘IUU fishing.’’ IUU fishing is a multibillion dollar industry, and it is growing. IUU fishing is fueled by the overall increase in fish prices and dwindling global fish stocks. Recent studies suggest that foreign illegal fishing is a worldwide business that 

accounts for up to $23.5 billion worth of seafood annually, or 25 

million tons of fish and, even better, Senator Markey, six times 

more fish than the entire U.S. commercial fishing industry annual 

landings. 

The Port State Measures Agreement is built on the promise that 

IUU fishing can be reduced if IUU fish can be prevented from entering the global commerce. The most effective way of accomplishing this is to make it extremely difficult for IUU fish to be 

offloaded in a port. In this regard, the agreement establishes the 

first global standards to control port access from foreign fishing 

vessels that engage in IUU fishing. These standards include mandating parties, port states, to require prior notice of a foreign fishing vessel’s arrival in their port, restricting port entry and services 

to foreign vessels known or suspected of IUU fishing, adopting minimum dockside inspection and training standards, and the sharing 

of information about IUU vessels with the appropriate RFMOs. 

But what is most critical about the agreement is that it creates 

an obligation of the signatory nations to apply and implement 

these measures. In other words, these measures are to be enforceable, not merely aspirational. The truth is many coastal nations 

are simply not as rigorous in their enforcement as is the United 

States. What is worse is that it is widely understood that around 

the world the illegal sale of additional fish quotas and fishing licenses is extremely lucrative, which fuels the IUU epidemic. 

So why is this agreement important to the small day boat fishermen on Cape Cod, my fellow fishermen from Gloucester, Boston, 

New Bedford, and all the New England coast, and for that matter 

the entire East Coast? The answer is simple. For too many years, 

New England fishermen have sacrificed to rebuild highly migratory 

stocks while foreign fishermen engaged in IUU fishing are reaping 

the benefits of our efforts by targeting those very same fish. This 

is particularly true for tuna and swordfish fishermen along the 

New England coast. 

Mr. Chairman, American fishermen and especially Massachusetts fishermen have had enough of IUU fishing. We need to level 

the playing field in order to make sure that we have an equal footing in the marketplace and to ensure that our conservation efforts 

30 

and sacrifices are not undone by IUU fishing. We believe the Port 

State Measures Agreement is a good place to start and we strongly 

encourage this committee and the entire Senate to approve the 

agreement as soon as possible. 

Thank you and I would be happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kane follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CAPT. RAYMOND KANE

Good afternoon, Senators Markey and Rubio. My name is Captain Ray Kane and 

I appreciate your invitation to testify at this important hearing. By way of background, I have been actively involved in the Massachusetts commercial fishing industry for over 40 years, and I have participated in virtually every fishery including 

tuna, lobster, scallops, and groundfish. In addition to being the owner and operator 

of the F/V Frenzy, I also serve as the fishery advocate for the Cape Cod Commercial 

Fishermen’s Alliance (Alliance). Today I am testifying on behalf of the hard working, 

small boat fishermen from Cape Cod and the Islands that comprise the Alliance. 

The subject of today’s hearing is the consideration of four fisheries agreements 

including an Amendment to the Convention of Future Multilateral Cooperation in 

the Northwest Atlantic (NAFO); the Convention on the Conservation and Management of High Seas Fisheries Resources in the North Pacific Ocean; the Convention 

on the Conservation and Management of High Seas Fishery Resources in the South 

Pacific Ocean (SPRFMO); and the Agreement on Port State Measures to Prevent, 

Deter, and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated Fishing (PSMA). 

As an organization dedicated to sustainable fisheries, we support the establishment and strengthening of effective regional fishery management organizations, also 

known as RFMOs. RFMOs for high-seas areas are especially important as by their 

very nature, high-seas areas are under the control of no one single nation. As we 

painfully learned from high-seas fishing in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean, when 

there are no rules and no enforcement, there is also no conservation. Effective multilateral RFMO’s are the only way to manage and conserve fisheries on the high 

seas and as such we firmly support their creation in the North and South Pacific 

Ocean. Because our Cape Cod fishermen are not involved in the Pacific fisheries nor 

do they fish in the NAFO area, my testimony today will focus on the Port State 

Measures Agreement aimed at deterring and eliminating IUU fishing. 

Make no mistake about it. Illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing—IUU fishing—is a multibillion dollar industry and it is growing. IUU fishing is fueled by the 

overall increase in fish prices and dwindling global fish stocks. Recent studies suggest that foreign illegal fishing is a worldwide business that accounts for up to $23.5 

billion worth of seafood annually, or 26 million tons of fish—six times more fish 

than the entire U.S. commercial fishing industry annual catch. Some of the biggest 

culprits involve fishing vessels flagged from EU and Asian nations including 

Korean, Taiwan, and China. Recent research by Daniel Pauly, a scientist at the 

University of British Columbia, found that even though China claims to have the 

biggest distant-water fishing fleet in the world, it only reported 386,000 tons of fish 

caught per year between 2000 and 2011. This same research also estimated China 

was catching more than 12 times the amount of fish it reported. 

The United States has been a global leader in fighting IUU fishing. Domestically, 

we have some of the strongest laws aimed at curtailing IUU fishing and ensuring 

that IUU fish does not enter our markets. Under the High Seas Driftnet Fishing 

Moratorium Protection Act, as amended, the United States lists nations identified 

as having vessels engaged in IUU fishing and can both deny port privileges to IUU 

vessels and prohibit the import of fish products from IUU nations into the U.S. 

Additionally, the Magnuson-Stevens Act includes some of the strictest enforcement 

measures and penalties to deter U.S. fishermen from engaging in IUU fishing. 

Believe me, the United States Coast Guard, the National Marine Fisheries Service 

and the Department of Homeland Security do an excellent job enforcing a whole 

suite of conservation, safety, and security laws on American fishermen. 

Internationally, the U.S. has also taken a leadership role. Through the various 

RFMOs, the United States has pushed for stronger measures to deter and detect 

IUU fishing, including adoption of IUU vessel lists, market-related measures, vessel 

monitoring and surveillance programs and prohibiting the transfer of catch at sea. 

Unfortunately, as is the case with most international fishery organizations, application and enforcement of these measures remains mixed at best. 

The Port State Measures Agreement is built on the premise that IUU fishing can 

be reduced if IUU fish can be prevented from entering global commerce, and the 

most effective way of accomplishing this is to make it extremely difficult for IUU 

31 

fish to be offloaded in a port. In this regard, the Agreement establishes the first 

global standards to control port access from foreign illegal fishing vessels that 

engage in IUU fishing. These standards include mandating parties (port states) to 

require prior notice of a foreign fishing vessel’s arrival in their port, restricting port 

entry and port services to foreign vessels known or suspected of IUU fishing, adopting minimum dockside inspection and training standards, and the sharing of information about IUU vessels with the appropriate RFMOs. But what is most critical 

about the Agreement is that it creates an obligation of the signatory nations to 

apply and implement these measures; in other words, these measures are to be 

enforceable, not merely aspirational. The truth is, many coastal nations are simply 

not as rigorous in their enforcement as the United States. What’s worse is that it 

is widely understood that around the world the illegal sale of additional fish quotas 

and fishing licenses is extremely lucrative which fuels the IUU epidemic. 

So why is this Agreement important to the small, day boat fishermen on Cape 

Cod and, for that matter, my fellow fishermen from Gloucester, Boston, New Bedford, and all along the New England coast? The answer is simple: for too many 

years, New England fishermen have sacrificed to rebuild highly migratory stocks, 

while foreign fishermen engaged in IUU fishing reap the benefits of our efforts by 

targeting those very same fish. This is particularly true for tuna and swordfish fishermen along the New England coast. 

For decades, Atlantic tuna and swordfish quotas for American fishermen were significantly reduced for conservation reasons while foreign IUU fishing persisted and 

undermined those attempts at sustainability. Unlike inshore fish stocks where the 

United States can exert effective unilateral management within our 200 mile exclusive economic zone, highly migratory stocks like tuna and swordfish swim throughout the Atlantic Ocean and are therefore susceptible to overexploitation by foreign 

fishermen in international waters. In addition to undermining conservation efforts, 

IUU fish depresses the market for American harvested fish both in terms of demand 

and price. In sum, IUU fish undermines our businesses as well as our stock rebuilding efforts. Thus, our fishermen feel the double whammy: fish that we abstain from 

harvesting to ensure a sustainable stock are harvested instead through IUU fishing, 

and yet when we do harvest our quota, the markets and prices for our fish are 

depressed because of the presence of IUU fish in the marketplace. 

Mr. Chairman, American fishermen and especially Massachusetts fishermen have 

had enough of IUU fishing! We need to level the playing field in order to make sure 

that we have an equal footing in the marketplace and to ensure that our conservation efforts and sacrifices are not undone by IUU fishing. We believe the Port State 

Measures Agreement is a good place to start and we strongly encourage this committee and the entire Senate to approve the Agreement as soon as possible. 

Senator MARKEY. And what high school did you go to? 

Mr. KANE. Actually, I grew up in Yonkers, NY, Senator, Yonkers. 

Senator MARKEY. I can hear that. I can hear it. 

Mr. KANE. But I am a wash-ashore and I have been fishing since 

I have been 23, post-college. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you. 

What high school did you go to, Ambassador? 

Ambassador LAGON. I went to Middlesex School in Concord. 

Senator MARKEY. Right in Concord, beautiful. Welcome, Ambassador. Whenever you are ready, please begin. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARK P. LAGON, GLOBAL POLITICS AND 

SECURITY CHAIR, MASTER OF SCIENCE IN FOREIGN SERVICE PROGRAM, GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY, AND ADJUNCT 

SENIOR FELLOW FOR HUMAN RIGHTS, COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, WASHINGTON, DC 

Ambassador LAGON Great. Chairman Markey, it is a privilege to 

testify here. I did serve the committee as a staffer. It is great to 

be back. The committee also supported my confirmation to become 

Ambassador at Large to combat human trafficking. 

Somewhat more recently, I have become an uncompensated 

board member of something called the Global Business Coalition 

Against Human Trafficking, that includes some star players like 

32 

Coca-Cola, Delta, Ford, Hilton, and Microsoft. They, as a coalition, 

try to promote measures to shut windows of vulnerability to human 

trafficking that taint vital and legitimate business, like some of the 

measures I want to talk about today, if I might. 

I would like to speak on how human trafficking, netting people, 

is intermingled with IUU fishing. I would ask that my written testimony be entered into the record, please. 

Increasingly, evidence indicates that labor and even sexual exploitation occurs on fishing vessels that exists largely unnoticed. In 

2013 the Maritime Labor Convention came into force to protect the 

rights of those working on merchant and passenger ships, but unfortunately no comparable legal measures exist for workers’ rights 

on fishing vessels. Fishing vessels are exempt from safety standards and monitoring requirements of the International Maritime 

Organization. 

So fishing vessels of all sizes are regulated solely by the country 

from which they are registered, or, the ‘‘flag’’ state, rather than 

‘‘port’’ states where they bring in their cargo and would be more 

likely to get caught doing something illegal. This all amounts to a 

kind of governance ‘‘black hole.’’ Leading observers in our society, 

like the Pew Charitable Trusts, with great expertise on IUU and 

enforcement challenges, have been focused on exposing this weak 

regulatory environment. 

It impacts a global fishing industry where the annual revenues 

are somewhere between $80 and $85 billion, and that industry is 

trying to meet increasing demand for seafood. That context creates 

an opportunity for human traffickers to seek maximum gain with 

little risk. 

I would like to quote a 2011 U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime report on this territory. It said: ‘‘The most disturbing finding about 

IUU fishing was the severity of the abuse of fishers trafficked for 

the purpose of forced labor. It is cruel and inhuman treatment in 

the extreme. Disturbing in particular is the frequency of trafficking 

in children.’’ 

So let us take a particular example. Thailand’s fishing fleet is 

chronically short on fishermen, short by maybe 60,000 fishermen a 

year, and foreign labor makes up 40 percent of that gap. Traffickers travel inland in countries like Cambodia and Myanmar and 

recruit men who, with the help of corrupt border police, get sold 

into bondage at sea. 

Some texture comes from an NPR story in 2012 that followed a 

man named Vannak Prum. He looked for a fishing job to help pay 

for his pregnant wife’s hospital bills and was sold to a Thai fishing 

vessel, subject to 20-hour work days in dangerous and unsanitary 

conditions, and was held without pay for 3 years at sea, including 

fishing illegally in Indonesian waters. 

A 2009 survey by the U.N. found that 59 percent of migrants 

trafficked aboard Thai fishing vessels witnessed the murder of a 

fellow worker. A nonprofit in 2013 interviewed 14 men from 

Myanmar rescued from Thai fishing vessels and they reported seeing beatings, a crew member tortured or executed, and 5 murdered. 

In 2013 150 Cambodian and Burmese victims were rescued from 

Thai fishing vessels. 

33 

But it is not just in that region of the world. The State Department’s Trafficking in Persons Report links trafficking to the fishing 

industry in numerous examples—including women and children 

trafficked for prostitution—in places across the Pacific, Asia, and 

Africa. A nonprofit actually indicated evidence in 2013 that a fishing firm in Sierra Leone was trafficking girls for sex purposes. 

The U.S. fishing fleet is highly compliant with domestic and 

international laws, while illegal fishing by foreign vessels poses 

real problems for the United States, particularly along the U.S.- 

Mexico border, where there has been a drastic increase of incursions of illegal Mexican fishing vessels. Recent reports suggest that 

these same vessels are used to smuggle drugs and humans from 

Northeast Mexico into Texas. 

So the Port State Measures Agreement will strengthen port inspections, enhance communications, and deny port entry to illegal 

fishing vessels. It is cost effective, has an enforcement mechanism, 

and is going to increase the cost to illegal fishing operations. Increasing accountability and economic incentives brought about by 

the PSMA would help erode various criminal activities associated 

with illegal fishing, including human trafficking. 

Twenty-five nations need to ratify the PSMA to come into force 

and the world is waiting for the United States to act as an example. 

The Trafficking Victims Protection Act, to conclude, was reauthorized in March 2013 with strong bipartisan support, bipartisan 

support as strong as I witnessed as a Senate Foreign Relations 

Committee staffer responsible for helping move through the original legislation in 2000. The PSMA complements that law and institutes standards consistent with already existing U.S. practice and 

can pay big dividends through enhanced accountability. 

I strongly urge the Senate to ratify and implement it and send 

a message to the world that it will not tolerate either illegal fishing 

or gross human rights abuses. All the treaties and agreements 

under consideration today would shed sunshine on illegal fishing. 

They would advance the stewardship of marine ecosystems. They 

would advance fairness to businesses playing by the rules, as reflected by my fellow panelists. But they would also prevent vulnerable people from being utterly dehumanized, violated, and even 

killed at sea. 

Thank you for inviting me. 

[The prepared statement of Ambassador Lagon follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF AMBASSADOR MARK P. LAGON

Chairman Markey, Senator Rubio, members of the committee, it is a privilege to 

testify here. I served at the committee as a staffer, assisting then Senator Sam 

Brownback and the late Senator Paul Wellstone in finalizing the Trafficking Victims 

Protection Act of 2000. The committee 7 years later supported my confirmation to 

serve as Ambassdor at Large directing the Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking 

in Persons the Act created, where I named the State Department’s annual award 

for the U.S. bilateral ambassador doing the most to combat trafficking after Senator 

Wellstone. 

Thereafter, I became CEO of the leading U.S. antitrafficking nonprofit, Polaris 

Project, and in 2012 Founding Board Member (uncompensated, to be clear) of the 

Global Business Coalition Against Human Trafficking (gbcat.org), which includes 

Carlson, Coca Cola, Delta Airlines, Ford Motor Company, Hilton Hotels, Microsoft, 

and NXP Semiconductor among its members. This coalition of thought leaders proVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:30 Nov 21, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 2ND SESSION\2014 ISSUE T
34 

motes best practices to shut the windows of vulnerability to human trafficking tainting vital, legitimate business—through means like those I will recommend today. 

My tenure from 2007 to 2009 as Ambassador at Large involved rebalancing the 

focus on human trafficking toward that based on exploitation for labor—in addition 

to that horrifically based on commoditized sex. Labor trafficking is a broader phenomenon, yet still prosecuted today globally less than one-sixth as often as sex trafficking, according to the 2013 Department of State ‘‘Trafficking in Persons Report.’’ 1

That tenure also witnessed the revelation of how often human trafficking occurs in 

the seafood sector—from the victims of forced labor in seafood processing I met in 

Thailand in 2007, to boys fishing in Ghana’s Lake Volta so vividly depicted in the 

documentary film on child trafficking, ‘‘Not My Life,’’ 2 which we at the State 

Department Office lent advice to get made. 

The focus of today’s hearing is on illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing, the Port States Measures Agreement (PSMA), as well as three other international fisheries agreements. My testimony will center on human trafficking as it 

relates to fishing vessels and illegal fishing worldwide. I ask that my written testimony please be entered into the hearing record. 

It is important to state from the outset that there is limited information available 

on the relationship between illegal fishing, human trafficking, and other criminal 

activities. These activities can occur independently. Obviously only some fishing vessels are engaged in illegal fishing, and human trafficking. However, the available 

data suggests that the confluence of these activities at sea does occur all too often, 

requiring a strong response from the United States. These illicit activities impact 

economically disadvantaged and vulnerable people, global commerce, and the health 

of our ocean environment, and merits your action. I strongly urge this committee 

to support and advance the Port States Measures Agreement in particular as soon 

as possible. 

Human trafficking is not limited to activities on land, and increasingly evidence 

indicates that labor and even sexual exploitation are occurring at sea, and particularly on fishing vessels that exist largely unnoticed by the rest of the world. In 2013, 

the Maritime Labor Convention (MLC) came into force to protect the rights of seafarers on merchant vessels and passenger ships, but unfortunately, no comparable 

legal measures exist for workers rights aboard fishing vessels worldwide. Further, 

fishing vessels are generally exempt from the vessel safety standards and monitoring requirements of the International Maritime Organization (IMO). As a result, 

a range of fishing vessels of all sizes and seaworthiness are regulated solely by the 

country from which the vessel is registered, the vessel’s ‘‘flag’’ state, and they can 

operate across wide swaths of the ocean for months or years at a time with relative 

autonomy. Enforcement actions have traditionally been left to the states where the 

boats are registered, or ‘‘flagged,’’ rather than the ‘‘port’’ states where they bring 

their cargo to shore, where they would be more likely to be caught doing something 

illegal. 

Moreover, fishing boats are much less carefully regulated than other ships. 

Because fishing vessels are not required to have identification numbers, enormous 

ships are known to change names and flags of registration to stay a step ahead of 

authorities. Interpol issued two worldwide alerts last year for vessels that had done 

just that.3 Fishing vessels are not required to carry satellite transponders, which 

makes it easy for them to evade surveillance. This all amounts to a governance 

‘‘black hole.’’ 

This weak regulatory environment impacts a global fishing industry with annual 

revenues of $80–$85 billion that seeks to meet the increasing demand for seafood.4

These financial and regulatory conditions create an opportunity for traffickers to 

seize maximum gain with little risk, at the expense of fellow human beings who 

they in effect enslave. A 2011 report of the United Nations Office on Drugs and 

Crime (UNODC), ‘‘Transnational Organized Crime in the Fishing Industry,’’ concluded: ‘‘Perhaps the most disturbing finding of the study was the severity of the 

abuse of fishers trafficked for the purpose of forced labour on board fishing vessels. 

These practices can only be described as cruel and inhumane treatment in the 

extreme . . . A particularly disturbing facet of this form of exploitation is the frequency of trafficking in children in the fishing industry.’’ 5

We lack robust statistics of the full extent of human trafficking abuses associated 

with the global fishing industry, but a growing list of examples highlights the severity of the problem. Bloomberg Businessweek conducted a 6-month investigation into 

debt bondage schemes in Indonesia where men, desperate for work, were exploited 

on Korean-flagged fishing vessels operating off the coast of New Zealand. Fishing 

company agents rushed men into signing misleading contracts that allowed the fishing company to withhold salaries, and they collected collateral assets from workers’ 

families. Further, crewmembers were required to work to the company’s loosely 

35 

defined ‘‘satisfaction,’’ or be sent home without pay and charged $1,000 for airfare.6

Though the crew lived in cramped, unsanitary conditions with the daily threat of 

physical violence and rape, the contract terms assessed fines for any worker who 

ran away from the job. Workers were forced to work, knowing their families would 

ultimately be held responsible. 

A 2011 report from the International Organization for Migration (IOM) entitled 

‘‘Trafficking of Fishermen in Thailand’’ provides detailed information on the scale 

and scope of the human trafficking in the Thai fishing industry.7 Citizens of Southeast Asian countries are subjected to human trafficking on Thai vessels that fish 

on longer voyages in foreign waters far from enforcement (as compared to vessels 

that fish in their exclusive economic zone, or EEZ, waters and return to port frequently). Workers are vulnerable due to their limited potential to leave the ship. In 

2012, National Public Radio produced a special report 8 exposing significant human 

trafficking of men from Cambodia and Myanmar on Thai fishing vessels. Thailand 

has a large fishing fleet but is chronically short on fishermen—short by up to 60,000 

per year—and foreign labor makes up 40 percent of the men working at sea. The 

report indicates that human traffickers travel inland to remote villages in Cambodia 

and Myanmar and recruit men who they move with the complicity of corrupt border 

police to be sold into bondage at sea. 

The NPR story follows a man named Vannak Prum as he looked for a short-term 

fishing job to pay for his pregnant wife’s hospital bills, but was sold to a Thai fishing vessel, subject to 20-hour work days in dangerous and unsanitary conditions, 

and held without pay for 3 years at sea. Prum’s account documents illegal fishing 

inside of Indonesian waters and his vessel evading gunfire before slipping into 

Malaysian waters. Prum eventually escaped by jumping overboard while fishing 

near an island off Malaysia, but once ashore, he was sold into indentured servitude 

on a palm oil plantation by a local police officer. This case reflects archetypical 

human trafficking: vulnerable groups of people robbed of their autonomy because 

they lack any access to justice. 

Fishermen trapped at sea are subjected to violent, and sometimes deadly, abuse 

while aboard Thai vessels. A 2009 survey by the United Nations Inter-Agency 

Project on Human Trafficking (UNIAP) found that 59 percent of interviewed 

migrants trafficked aboard Thai fishing boats reported witnessing the murder of a 

fellow worker.9 Accidents, dangerous working conditions and the fear of being physically abused are common, but reports suggest that most vessels had little to no 

medical supplies and would not stop work to seek medical attention for the crew.10

In 2013, the Environmental Justice Foundation (EJF) interviewed 14 Myanmar men 

rescued from Thai fishing vessels who reported beatings by the senior crew, and in 

two cases, the victims reported seeing a fellow crewmember tortured and executed 

for trying to escape, as well as the murder of five others.11 Further, EJF interviews 

with rescued victims confirmed that the vessels often fished illegally in foreign 

waters.12 In 2013, 150 Cambodian and Burmese victims were rescued from Thai 

fishing vessels in ports around the world, but the U.S. State Department reports 

that this is likely only a fraction of the total number of Asian men victimized by 

trafficking on fishing boats.13

The State Department’s ‘‘Trafficking in Persons Report for 2013’’ suggests that the 

connection between human trafficking and the fishing industry is not limited to 

Thailand, and there are numerous examples involving victims—including woman 

and children trafficked for prostitution—from poor and developing countries across 

the Pacific, Asia, and Africa.14 In July 2013, a humanitarian organization reported 

that a foreign fishing firm based in Sierra Leone trafficked girls for purposes of sex, 

leaving port with the girls onboard before they were rescued by the local authorities.15 Many other woman and children are not as fortunate. 

The same circumstances that make fishing vessels opportune for human trafficking also make them susceptible to other forms of transnational organized crime, 

including drug trafficking. For instance, a State Department report notes that drug 

smuggling is often aided by fishing boats moving drugs through the Bahamas, 

Jamaica, and Florida.16 The 2011 UNODC report Transnational Organized Crime 

in the Fishing Industry that I previously mentioned addressed the extent to which 

criminal activities within the fishing industry were a threat to the law-abiding and 

legitimate fishing industry, local fishing communities, and the public at large. The 

study confirmed labor abuses aboard fishing vessels, as well as the links between 

illegal fishing, and transnational organized crime, and drug trafficking. Specifically, 

it found that fishing vessels are used for smuggling migrants, drugs (primarily 

cocaine), and weapons, and committing acts of terrorism. Fishing vessels are used 

as ‘‘mother ships’’ serving as base stations from which criminal activities are coordinated, as supply vessels for other vessels engaged in criminal activities, or simply 

as cover for clandestine activities at sea and in port. The study also found that some 

36 

transnational fishing operators are engaged in marine living resource crime. These 

fishing operations are highly sophisticated and employ complex incorporation and 

vessel registration strategies to avoid tracking. They coordinate at-sea vessel support services to aid in moving illegally caught fish to market, often supported by 

fraudulent catch documentation.17

As stated at the outset, the data that explicitly connects illegal fishing, human 

trafficking, and other criminal activities is limited, but mounting evidence suggests 

that fishing vessels engaged in one of these illicit activities are likely to also engage 

in the others. There is evidence of widespread IUU fishing occurring in the AsiaPacific region, estimated at 3.4–8.1 million tons per year,18 costing countries in that region significant annual revenue losses (losses estimated, for instance, at $2.5 billion in 2007 19) and resulting in overexploited fisheries. The presence of IUU activity 

overlaps with human trafficking abuses aboard fishing vessels and also within communities that service the fishing vessels in port. The coincidence of these activities 

indicates that these problems are related, and are being driven by the global 

demand for fish and fish products. 

There is a significant variation of compliance and enforcement, as with many 

issues, within national fishing fleets, with the U.S. fleet generally considered highly 

compliant with domestic and international laws, while others, such as Thailand 

have a poor record, implicated in cases of illegal fishing, human trafficking abuses, 

and human smuggling. Despite the high compliance rates within the U.S. fleet, illegal fishing by foreign vessels poses problems for the United States, particularly 

along the U.S.-Mexico border where there has been a drastic increase in recent 

years in the number of incursions of illegal Mexican fishing vessels called ‘‘lanchas’’ 

into U.S. waters. Local U.S. Coast Guard officials describe these illegal Mexican 

fishing vessels as a ‘‘persistent challenge to U.S. sovereignty,’’ 20 and recent reports 

suggest that these same vessels are also used to smuggle drugs and humans from 

northeast Mexico into Texas.21 Likewise, small boats that would typically be used 

for fishing are a common mode of transport for undocumented migrants attempting 

to enter the United States, using California beaches as a landing point. Smugglers 

are paid up to $9,000 per person for these dangerous voyages that often end in 

deaths.22

Human trafficking in particular is a complex, international problem that must be 

addressed through a variety of legal and diplomatic channels. Once entered into 

force, the Port State Measures Agreement will strengthen port inspections, enhance 

communications, and deny port entry—including port services and supplies—to suspected illegal fishing vessels. The PSMA is a cost-effective enforcement mechanism 

that will begin to change the economic incentives—increasing the cost associated 

with illegal fishing because it will be more difficult for illegal vessels to access global 

markets. Once a suspected illegal fishing vessel is identified, countries will coordinate enforcement efforts to ensure that the suspected vessel is refused entry at 

other ports until the vessel agrees to be inspected or is prosecuted. The increased 

accountability and economic incentives in the PSMA could help to erode other criminal activities that are often associated with illegal fishing, including human trafficking. Currently, the European Union and 8 other nations have ratified the agreement, and 25 nations must ratify for the instrument to go into force. The world is 

waiting for the United States to act, and many nations will undoubtedly follow. 

In 2000, Congress enacted the Trafficking Victims Protection Act which defined 

trafficking for the purposes of labor or sex and provided critical measures to protect 

human trafficking victims. This law was reauthorized for the fourth time in March 

2013 with bipartisan support as strong as I witnessed as a staff member of this 

committee in 2000. The Port State Measures Agreement in particular complements 

this widely supported law, and institutes standards that are consistent with existing 

U.S. practice, and could pay big dividends globally through enhanced accountability, 

monitoring, communication, and enforcement of suspect fishing vessels that may be 

engaged in human trafficking or other criminal activities. The Port States Measures 

Agreement provides a pathway to beginning to address the complicated problem of 

human trafficking on the high seas. I strongly urge the U.S. Senate to demonstrate 

leadership and immediately ratify and implement the Port State Measures Agreement, sending a message to the world that we will not tolerate illegal fishing and 

its associated human rights violations. 

A 2009 peer-reviewed scientific study estimated that the worldwide annual value 

of losses from illegal and unreported fishing could reach $23.5 billion.23 Yet, vessels 

engaged in illegal, unregulated fishing not only steal precious food resources off the 

coasts of poor countries and damage marine ecosystems. They engage in drug smuggling. Most serious, they also prey on human beings. Illicit fishing worldwide 

appears to be rife with human trafficking. All the treaties and agreements under 

consideration at this hearing would regularize and shed sunshine on that fishing. 

37 

As a result they would not only prove more stewardly for marine econsystems, and 

more fair to businesses playing by the rules—as reflected by my fellow panelists— 

but helpful to prevent vulnerable people from being utterly dehumanized, violated, 

and even killed in that illicit fishing. 

———————— 

End Notes 

1 U.S. Department of State. (2013). ‘‘Trafficking in Persons Report—June 2013.’’ See http:// 

www.state.gov/j/tip/rls/tiprpt/2013/. 2See http://notmylife.org/fishing-boys-lake-volta. 

3See http://news.msn.co.nz/nationalnews/8767033/nz-goes-to-interpol-over-rogue-trawler. 

4Dyck, A.J. and Sumaila, U.R. (2010). ‘‘Economic Impact of Ocean Fish Populations in the 

Global Fishery.’’ Journal of Bioeconomics, DOI: 10.1007/s10818-010-9088-3. 5 United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). ‘‘Transnational Organized Crime in 

the Fishing Industry—Focus on: Trafficking in Persons, Smuggling of Migrants, and Illicit 

Drugs Trafficking.’’ (2011). See http://www.unodc.org/documents/human-trafficking/Issuel Paperl-lTOClinlthelFishinglIndustry.pdf. 6Skinner, E. Benjamin. (February 23, 2012). ‘‘The Fishing Industry’s Cruelest Catch,’’ 

Bloomberg Businessweek. See http://www.businessweek.com/printer/articles/22538-the-fishingindustrys-cruelest-catch. 7 International Organization for Migration (IOM). (2011). Trafficking of Fishermen in Thailand. See https://www.iom.int/jahia/webdav/shared/shared/mainsite/activities/countries/docs/thailand/Trafficking-of-Fishermen-Thailand.pdf. 8Service, Shannon, and Palmstrom, Becky. (June 19, 2012). ‘‘Confined to a Thai Fishing Boat, 

For Three Years.’’ NPR. See http://www.npr.org/2012/06/19/155045295/confined-to-a-thai-fishingboat-for-three-years. 9 United Nations Inter-Agency Project on Human Trafficking (UNIAP). (2009). ‘‘Exploitation 

of Cambodian Men at Sea.’’ See http://www.no-trafficking.org/reportsldocs/siren/sirenlcb3.pdf. 10 International Organization for Migration (IOM). (2011). ‘‘Trafficking of Fishermen in 

Thailand.’’ See https://www.iom.int/jahia/webdav/shared/shared/mainsite/activities/countries/ 

docs/thailand/Trafficking-of-Fishermen-Thailand.pdf. 11 Environmental Justice Foundation. (2013). ‘‘Sold to the Sea—Human Trafficking in Thailand’s Fishing Industry.’’See http://ejfoundation.org/sites/default/files/public/Soldltolthel 

Sealreportllo-res-v2.pdf. 12 Ibid. 13 U.S. Department of State. (2013). Trafficking in Persons Report—June 2013. See http:// 

www.state.gov/j/tip/rls/tiprpt/2013/. 14 Ibid. 15 Voice of America. (July 19, 2013). ‘‘Sierra Leone: Government Targets Human Trafficking.’’ 

Voice of America. See http://allafrica.com/stories/201307200024.html. 16 U.S. Department of State. (2012). International Narcotics Control Strategy Report (INCSR). 

See http://www.state.gov/j/inl/rls/nrcrpt/2012/vol1/184098.htm. 17 United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). (2011). Transnational Organized 

Crime in the Fishing Industry—Focus on: Trafficking in Persons, Smuggling of Migrants, and 

Illicit Drugs Trafficking. See http://www.unodc.org/documents/human-trafficking/IssuelPaperllTOClinlthelFishinglIndustry.pdf. 18 Asian-Pacific Economic Cooperation Fisheries Working Group. (2008). ‘‘Assessment of 

Impacts of Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) Fishing in the Asia-Pacific.’’ APEC Singapore. See http://www.imcsnet.org/imcs/docs/apecl2008liuulfishinglassessmtlselasia.pdf. 19 United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). (2007) ‘‘Fishing Capacity Management and IUU Fishing in Asia.’’ Bangkok. 20Mendoza, Jesse. (September 6, 2013). ‘‘U.S. Coast Guard Seizes 1,000 Pounds of Illegally 

Caught Fish.’’ Valley Morning Star. See http://www.valleymorningstar.com/news/locallnews/ 

articlela1a39b6a-1772-11e3-a961-001a4bcf6878.html. 21Tompkins, Shannon. (June 11, 2013). ‘‘Gulf Poachers Threaten to deplete Fisheries.’’ Houston Chronicle. See http://www.houstonchronicle.com/sports/outdoors/article/Gulf-poachers-threaten-to-deplete-fisheries-4589290.php. 22 Carcamo, Cindy. (September 14, 2012). ‘‘For Illegal Immigrants, Ocean is the New Desert.’’ 

Orange County Register. See http://www.ocregister.com/articles/san-371399-people-smuggling.html. 23 Agnew, David J., et al. (February 25, 2009). ‘‘Estimating the Worldwide Extent of Illegal 

Fishing.’’ PLOS ONE. See http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0004570. 

Senator MARKEY. Beautiful. Thank you, Mr. Ambassador. 

Now we will hear from you, Mr. Gleason. 

STATEMENT OF MARK GLEASON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

ALASKA BERING SEA CRABBERS, SEATTLE, WA 

Mr. GLEASON. Good afternoon, Mr. Markey and members—well, 

no members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to 

testify at today’s hearing. My name is Mark Gleason and I am the 

executive director of the Alaska Bering Sea Crabbers. We are a Seattle-based trade association representing 70 percent of the crab 

38 

fishermen in the Bering Sea. Our members are small independently owned family businesses providing living wage jobs to thousands of Americans. These jobs include not just fishing jobs, but 

also jobs in the seafood processing sector, transportation and logistics, restaurant workers, and those in the retail trade. We brave 

the waters of the Bering Sea to produce the highest quality crab 

for our domestic and international customers. 

I am here today, like the other panelists, to discuss the issue of 

illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing. As you have heard, 

globally the IUU seafood trade results in economic losses of between $10 and $23 billion annually. Here in the United States, the 

Bering Sea crab fishery illustrates a prime example of what can 

happen to the market when it is flooded with IUU product. 

In 2011, the Alaskan fishery brought in roughly 80 million 

pounds of live crab. The official Russian harvest in that year was 

about 91 million pounds. However, upon further examination of 

Russian trade data it appears that Russia actually exported closer 

to 189 million pounds in 2011. This 98-million-pound discrepancy 

can certainly be attributed to IUU production. Not surprisingly, in 

Alaska we experienced a 25-percent decline in the price we received 

for our crab as this pulse of illegal Russian crab entered not only 

the United States market, but the global supply chain as well. 

Unfortunately, 2011 was not unique. A recent article in the Wall 

Street Journal noted that illegal Russian crab on the world market 

increased by an additional 36 percent between 2011 and 2012. That 

same article cited statistics from NOAA indicating that illegal Russian crab has cost U.S. fishermen $560 million since 2000. As you 

heard from Senator Murkowski, this also cost Alaskan coastal communities millions in lost tax revenue. Clearly, we must take action 

to prevent further harm to U.S. fishermen and fishing-dependent 

coastal communities. 

As a globally traded seafood commodity, the supply chain for 

Russian crab from the point of harvest to the point of consumption 

is exceedingly complex. Initially the crab is harvested illegally in 

Russian waters by vessels flying flags of convenience. Although 

these vessels are not flying the Russian flag, they are oftentimes 

crewed and controlled by Russian nationals, in violation of Russian 

law. 

The crab is then offloaded to transport vessels at sea. This practice is known as transshipment. These transshipment vessels then 

deliver the crab to ports in either Japan or South Korea, where it 

is processed and integrated into the supply chain. Along the way 

there are multiple opportunities to obscure the origin of this illegal 

product, either through misrepresentation involving fraudulent paperwork or by commingling the illegal product with legal product. 

This makes it nearly impossible for the end user to distinguish between legally and illegally caught crab. This illegal supply chain is 

driven by highly motivated and sophisticated international criminal 

conspiracies operating in multiple countries. 

My association is under no illusion that there is a single silver 

bullet that will remedy this situation. We understand that it will 

take a combination of intergovernmental cooperation, private sector 

initiatives in both the United States and Russia, and a robust reguVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:30 Nov 21, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 2ND SESSION\2014 ISSUE T
39 

1 Agnew DJ, Pearce J, Pramod G, Peatman T, Watson R, et al. (2009) ‘‘Estimating the Worldwide Extent of Illegal Fishing.’’ PLoS ONE 4(2); e4570. 

latory regime with adequate enforcement capacity to put a dent in 

this illicit trade. 

Operating under the assumption that all seafood products must 

eventually come to port, the Agreement on Port State Measures is 

a major achievement in the global fight against IUU. This agreement requires nations to effectively police their ports and ensure 

that illegally harvested seafood products are not able to enter global trade. The United States was a leader in drafting this agreement. In order for us to continue to demonstrate our leadership, we 

must act now to ratify the agreement and then pass domestic legislation to fully implement the agreement here at home. 

I urge the committee to take the first step and report this agreement favorably. 

The Bering Sea crab fishery is a recognized model for sustainability. The fishery is prosecuted under stringent scientifically informed catch limits. Our fishing gear is environmentally sensitive 

and has a minimal impact on the sea floor. We have a transparent 

management process guided by science and stakeholder involvement. We have spent considerable time and effort to fully develop 

our markets, both here and abroad. We are proud of the product 

we bring to market and we welcome fair competition. 

But the playing field must be level. As long as illegal Russian 

crab is afforded unfettered access to the world market, the playing 

field will not be level. 

The agreement before you today is a significant step in the right 

direction. The choice is clear. We can support U.S. fishermen and 

coastal communities or we can continue to allow pirates and international criminals to profit from the illicit trade in IUU Russian 

crab. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gleason follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARK H. GLEASON

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. Thank you for the 

opportunity to testify at today’s hearing. My name is Mark Gleason and I am the 

Executive Director of the Alaska Bering Sea Crabbers. We are a Seattle-based trade 

association representing 70 percent of the crab fishermen in the Bering Sea. Our 

members are small, independently owned family businesses providing living wage 

jobs to thousands of Americans. These jobs include not just fishing jobs, but also 

jobs in the seafood processing sector, transportation and logistics, restaurant workers and those in the retail trade. We brave the waters of the Bering Sea to produce 

the highest quality crab for our domestic and international customers. 

I am here today to discuss the issue of Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated fishing. For the remainder of my testimony I will refer to this as ‘‘IUU.’’ Globally the 

IUU seafood trade results in economic losses of between $10–$23 billion annually.1

Here in the U.S., the Bering Sea crab fishery illustrates a prime example of what 

can happen to the market when it is flooded with IUU product. In 2011 the Alaskan 

fishery brought roughly 80 million pounds of live crab to market. The ‘‘official’’ Russian harvest was about 91 million pounds that year. However, upon further examination of Russian trade data, it appears that Russia actually exported closer to 189 

million pounds in 2011. This 98 million pound discrepancy is attributed to IUU production. Not surprisingly, in Alaska we experienced a 25 percent decline in the price 

we received for our crab as this pulse of illegal Russian crab entered not only the 

U.S. market, but the global supply chain as well. 

40 

2 Carlton, Jim. ‘‘Alaska Crabbers Get Pinched by Poachers.’’ Wall Street Journal. 3 April 2013. 

Unfortunately, 2011 was not unique. A recent article in the Wall Street Journal 2

noted that illegal Russian crab on the world market increased by an additional 36 

percent between 2011 and 2012. That same article cited statistics from the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration indicating that illegal Russian crab has 

cost U.S. fishermen $560 million since 2000. Alaskan coastal communities have also 

lost out on roughly $11 million in tax revenue during this same period. Clearly we 

must take action to prevent further harm to U.S. fishermen and fishing dependent 

coastal communities. 

As a globally traded seafood commodity, the supply chain for Russian crab from 

the point of harvest to the point of consumption is exceedingly complex. Initially, 

the crab is illegally harvested in Russian waters by vessels flying what are known 

as ‘‘flags of convenience.’’ Cambodia and Sierra Leone are two of the most common 

flags of convenience. Although these vessels are not flying the Russian flag, they 

are often times crewed and controlled by Russian nationals, in violation of Russian 

law. The crab is then off-loaded to transport vessels at sea. This practice is known 

as transshipment. These transshipment vessels then deliver the crab to ports in 

either Japan or South Korea where it is processed and integrated into the supply 

chain. Along the way there are multiple opportunities to obscure the origin of this 

illegal product either through misrepresentation involving fraudulent paperwork or 

by comingling the illegal product with legal product. This makes it nearly impossible 

for the end user to distinguish between legally and illegally caught crab. This illegal 

supply chain is driven by highly motivated and sophisticated international criminal 

conspiracies operating in multiple countries. 

My association is under no illusion that there is a single ‘‘silver bullet’’ that will 

remedy this situation. We understand it will take a combination of intergovernmental cooperation, private sector initiatives in both the U.S. and Russia, and a 

robust regulatory regime with adequate enforcement capacity to put a dent in this 

illicit trade. 

Operating under the assumption that all seafood products must eventually come 

to port, the Agreement on Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter, and Eliminate 

Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated Fishing is a major achievement in the global 

fight against IUU. This Agreement requires Nations to effectively police their ports 

and ensure that illegally harvested seafood products are not able to enter global 

trade. The United States was a leader in drafting this Agreement. In order for us 

to continue to demonstrate our leadership we must act now to ratify the Agreement 

and then pass domestic legislation to fully implement the Agreement here at home. 

I urge the committee to take the first step and report this Agreement favorably. 

The Bering Sea crab fishery is a recognized model for sustainability. The fishery 

is prosecuted under stringent, scientifically informed catch limits. Our fishing gear 

is environmentally sensitive and has a minimal impact on the seafloor. We have a 

transparent management process guided by science and stakeholder involvement. 

We have spent considerable time and effort to fully develop our markets, both here 

and abroad. We are proud of the product we bring to market and welcome fair competition. But the playing field must be level. As long as illegal Russian crab is 

afforded unfettered access to the world market, the playing field will not be level. 

The Agreement before you today is a significant step in the right direction. The 

choice is clear. We can support U.S. fishermen and coastal communities or we can 

continue to allow pirates and international criminals to profit from the illicit trade 

in IUU Russian crab. 

Thank you once again for the opportunity to testify and I would be happy to 

answer any questions. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Gleason, very much. 

Captain Kane, you testified about your extensive experience as 

a fishermen. In your experience, do American fishermen engage in 

illegal fishing? 

Mr. KANE. You know, Senator, as constrained as all U.S. fisheries have become, as you well know, you always get a couple of 

bad apples in the barrel, but over the years, with National Marine 

Fisheries, electronic vessel trip reports, vessel monitoring systems—think of 1984, satellites in the sky—we know where our 

boats are. So, as I said, you might get a couple of bad apples. 

Senator MARKEY. You are saying compliance, though. 

41 

Mr. KANE. Yes. Yes, over the years National Marine Fisheries, 

NOAA, Coast Guard, we have gotten much better compliance here 

in the States. 

Senator MARKEY. So you are saying it is a vast difference between out on the open sea in terms of enforcement of illegal fishing? 

Mr. KANE. Well, there is no enforcement on the open sea, Senator. 

Senator MARKEY. I know that. I am trying to make it—it is a 

leading question in the courtroom. I am trying to give you an opening. 

Mr. KANE. Okay. Well, you know, take for example Cape Cod. 

You only have so many ports where you can land and enforcement 

is standing at the dock, whether it be State enforcement, Coast 

Guard, Federal enforcement. That is why I believe with foreign 

fishing vessels coming into the Nation you need stated ports where 

they have to call in before they land so you can send an inspection 

team down there to inspect cargo. 

Senator MARKEY. To you, Mr. Gleason. You testified about the 

economic impact of illegal fishing on fishermen in your region. How 

will the Port State Measures Agreement help mitigate that problem? 

Mr. GLEASON. Well, as other folks have testified, it will raise the 

cost of doing business for pirate fishermen, reducing the economic 

incentives and hopefully reducing the supply that is available on 

the market. 

Senator MARKEY. Captain Kane, how will it impact yours? 

Mr. KANE. Our fishing? 

Senator MARKEY. How does the impact of illegal fishing affect 

your industry and how will this agreement help to mitigate the 

problems? 

Mr. KANE. Well, for instance, bluefin tuna, which is a precious 

and desired fish in Japan, you have got a lot of piracy going on on 

the high seas, fish being shipped directly to Japan, and we are in 

convention—as the gentleman from NOAA was speaking about 

ICCAT, the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna, and if we can eliminate the high piracy at sea our 

fishermen will benefit in price on the Japanese market. 

Senator MARKEY. What kind of benefits would American fishermen receive? What does it mean financially to them? 

Mr. KANE. Well, first and foremost, you would save the species, 

because undocumented fish—once again, Senator, bad numbers 

into a computer model, no matter how many sensitivity runs you 

make you are going to get bad data out, and then management has 

to make decisions. So if you do not know what is being taken from 

the ocean, first and foremost the sustainability of the stock, that 

particular stock. 

If you could stop the piracy—once again, it is supply and demand 

on the fresh Japanese fish market. Fewer fish on the market, 

tattooed fish, allocated fish, fish that we know were taken from the 

high seas, legal fish, will return a better price. 

Senator MARKEY. Ambassador Lagon, can you discuss the role 

that international governmental communication plays in combating 

42 

human trafficking and what role the Port State Measures Agreement could play in increasing that communication? 

Ambassador LAGON Thanks for the question. Human trafficking 

is fundamentally a human rights issue. But to the degree that it 

is a law enforcement issue, the increased capacity of nations to 

communicate with each other about patterns makes great sense. 

The PSMA and the other agreements that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee are looking at would facilitate the ability of states 

to share information when there is a tip, including the ability of 

a flag state of a vessel to talk to a port state. This business of now 

essentially leaving the regulation of vessels entirely to the flag 

state, not being able to catch them where it would be easiest to 

spot—in ports—would be ameliorated. 

All sorts of examples of human trafficking that I saw in the State 

Department role I played from 2007 to 2009 involve cooperation between law enforcement, immigration officials, and others. So the 

treaties will shine a light on this this problem and better permit 

that coordination. 

Senator MARKEY. You testified that there is a governance black 

hole. As we heard in the testimony today, participation in regional 

fisheries organizations like the ones under consideration today increase governance and law enforcement presence on the high seas. 

In your work have you come across a connection between organizations like these and reductions in illegal fishing, human trafficking, 

other criminal activities such as that which you described in your 

testimony? 

Ambassador LAGON Well, the empirical data on the extent of 

human trafficking is as hard to pin down as the data on the extent 

of illegal fishing. But these regional organizations and the commissions that have been created by the three regional agreements will 

facilitate an enforcement capacity of nations. I think one of the best 

bargains is, in fact, the technical assistance they would give to 

smaller, poorer states to be able to develop that capacity. That is 

a pretty small investment for the United States to make in something that will serve the interests of business, serve the interests 

of preserving biodiversity, and especially serve the goal of being 

able to catch people who would enslave other human beings at sea. 

Senator MARKEY. Let me finish up the hearing this way. Let me 

give each one of you, in reverse order of recognition for the opening 

statement, an opportunity to just tell us the key thing, couple of 

things, you want this committee to remember, you want the Senate 

to remember as we consider whether or not to ratify these treaties. 

So we will begin with you, Mr. Gleason. 

Mr. GLEASON. Well, as I mentioned in my testimony, I represent 

many hardworking American fishermen and we provide jobs up 

and down the supply chain. We play by the rules. We are fully engaged in the management process. We support the science that 

goes into that. We play by the rules, and we just want a level playing field. The Port State Measures Agreement will help to get us 

that level playing field. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Gleason. 

Ambassador. 

Ambassador LAGON Thank you. As far as human trafficking goes 

and how these agreements and the PSMA would affect it, there are 

43 

two key messages, I believe. First, human trafficking is always 

about some group of people—women, children, migrants, people of 

less privileged castes in India—not having access to justice. In 

these areas where there is a grey zone, where there is no governance, where there are no eyes monitoring, those people who may 

have rights on paper, in treaties, or in laws, are not getting protected. These agreements would help with that. 

Then secondly, human trafficking is about bad people, 

transnational criminals, having an incentive of profit and very little risk. The PSMA in particular would change that incentive structure, would make it more economically costly for people to pursue 

IUU fishing and in turn costly to be able to pursue forced labor or 

even sexual exploitation, by removing this ‘‘black hole’’ of governance. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you. 

Mr. Kane. 

Mr. KANE. I can sum it up in probably three: It would be good 

for U.S. fishermen, east coast, west coast, nationally; it would be 

good for the fish stocks, all these fish we are trying to save so we 

can fish them at a sustainable rate; it would be good for the United 

States monetarily. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you, and we thank each of you. I would 

like to wrap up the hearing by reiterating a statement that Captain Kane has in his written testimony: ‘‘Fishermen feel the double 

whammy of the fish, that we abstain from harvesting to ensure a 

sustainable stock, are harvested through illegal fishing, and yet 

when we do harvest our quota the markets and prices for our fish 

are depressed because of the presence of that illegal catch in the 

marketplace.’’ 

So I think that we have our work cut out for us, but I think it 

is imperative that we pass this treaty, that we pass all the treaties, 

and we do so this year, and we send a signal to the world, we send 

a signal to all of these pirates, all of these criminals, that finally 

the United States is going to be a cop on the beat enforcing these 

laws. Finally, we are going to be protecting our fishermen and protecting these species. I think it is imperative that, going forth from 

this committee today, that they hear this message and get ready 

for these treaties to be ratified. 

We thank each one of you for your testimony. We thank you for 

your work on this issue. The record will remain open until February 21 for additional information to be included within it. 

With that, this hearing is adjourned. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 4:19 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

RESPONSE OF DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY DAVID BALTON TO QUESTION

SUBMITTED BY SENATOR ROBERT MENENDEZ

Question. What is the administration’s position on whether the four agreements 

considered at the hearing on February 12, 2014, are self-executing in the United 

States? 

Answer. It is the administration’s position that none of the four agreements considered at the hearing on February 12, 2014, are self-executing. 

44 

RESPONSES OF DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY DAVID BALTON TO QUESTIONS

SUBMITTED BY SENATOR MARCO RUBIO

Question. If the U.S. ratifies the South Pacific Convention, what is our estimated 

budget obligation? 

Answer. Under current conditions, the U.S. assessed contribution to the South 

Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organization is estimated at $65,000 annually. Exact costs are variable, based on the overall budget level of the Commission, 

foreign exchange rates, and the extent of U.S. catches in the Convention Area. 

Question. In your testimony you state that the Northwest Atlantic Convention 

Amendments under consideration would reduce the U.S. budgetary contributions by 

one-third. 

♦ Do you have an exact estimate of the amount that would be due? 

♦ Would this increase the contributions of other countries and, if so, do you foresee other convention countries opposing this amendment? 

Answer. Our current assessed contribution to NAFO is approximately $295K 

annually. Costs are variable based on foreign exchange rates and the level of U.S. 

catches but, under current conditions, this would be reduced to approximately 

$200K. 

Yes, this would increase the contributions of other nations accordingly, but the 

increased cost would be spread across the other 11 members of the Commission. The 

amended budget formula corrects a recognized and unintended anomaly that 

resulted in the overcounting of U.S. harvest for the purposes of the budget calculation. As a result, all members of the Commission have supported this amendment 

without objection. 

Question. In your testimony you describe other illegal activities which are often 

intertwined with illegal, unreported, unregulated fishing (IUU) including organized 

crime and labor exploitation but fail to name human trafficking. There have been 

numerous report of human trafficking has been linked to IUU fishing. 

♦ Can you go into more detail about how the tools of the IUU Agreement will combat organized crime, labor exploitation, and human trafficking? 

Answer. The Port State Measures Agreement will help combat IUU fishing and 

the associated activities identified above in a number of ways. First and foremost, 

the agreement will establish new rules and requirements for vessels entering the 

ports of States party to the agreement, provide heightened authority for port inspectors to board and inspect fishing vessels entering their ports, and allow them to 

deny entry into ports for vessels identified as having engaged in IUU fishing. Collectively, the measures will make it easier to detect and take action against such activities, raise the costs to those engaged in illegal activities, and take some of these 

vessels off the water. To be clear, the agreement is focused on combating IUU fishing, but to the extent that it constrains this illegal activity, it will have ancillary 

benefits in these other areas. 

Question. As you know, Cuba and China are Contracting Parties to the South 

Pacific Convention. Under the Convention’s Article 19, Contracting Parties must 

cooperate with developing Contracting Parties by providing: 

i. Financial assistance; 

ii. Technical assistance relating to human resources development; 

iii. Technical assistance; 

iv. Transfer of technology; and 

v. Advisory and consultative services. 

♦ What are the implications of Art. 19 of this Convention with respect to U.S. policy on Cuba? What are the implications of Art. 19 with respect to U.S. policy 

on China? 

Answer. Article 19 will not result in any change in U.S. policy with respect either 

to Cuba or China. Among other things, Article 19 notes that, ‘‘in giving effect to the 

duty to cooperate, . . . members of the Commission shall take into account the special requirements of developing coastal State Contracting Parties in the region, in 

particular, the least developed among them and small island developing States 

(emphasis added). 

To the extent the U.S. becomes a party to the Convention, it would not hamper 

our ability to adhere to all existing provisions of law prohibiting assistance to Cuba. 

China, which is Party to other fisheries Conventions with similar provisions, has 

never sought any of this kind of assistance for itself, and we would not expect it 

to do so under the South Pacific Convention. More important Article 19(4) is clear 

45 

that cooperation activities ‘‘may include’’ provision of the types of assistance listed 

in the question above, but creates no obligation on any Party to do so. 

Question. How does U.S. ratification of any of these Conventions affect current 

U.S. policy regarding UNCLOS? 

Answer. U.S. ratification of these Conventions will not affect current United 

States policy regarding the Law of the Sea Convention. The United States is already 

a Party to several regional fisheries management organizations for which the underlying Conventions contain provisions comparable to those in the current agreements. 

Question. Can the U.S. indefinitely and effectively protect its interests and discharge its obligations under any of these Conventions without ratification of 

UNCLOS? 

Answer. As noted in the previous response, the United States is a Party to several 

regional fisheries management organizations whose underlying Conventions contain 

provisions based on the same principles as the four agreements currently pending 

before the Senate. U.S. ratification of the Law of the Sea Convention would 

strengthen our ability to advance U.S. objectives in a wide range of areas, but would 

not prevent us from protecting U.S. interests and discharging our obligations under 

these four Conventions. 

RESPONSES OF RUSSELL SMITH III TO QUESTIONS

SUBMITTED BY SENATOR MARCO RUBIO

Question. In your testimony, you state that the minimum standards set by Port 

States Agreement track closely to what the United States already does. What are 

the differences between current U.S. standards and the Port States Agreement’s 

minimum standards? 

Answer. The minimum standards for the training of inspectors and conduct of 

inspections contained in the Port State Measures Agreement, once broadly implemented, will have a significant impact on the global effort to combat illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing. Those minimum standards were drafted with 

significant participation from NOAA and the U.S. Coast Guard, and they are consistent with current U.S. practice. 

Apart from the establishment of minimum standards for inspections, the most significant binding obligation in the Port State Measures Agreement is the obligations 

to deny listed IUU fishing vessels port entry unless they are being allowed to enter 

for the purpose of inspection or enforcement. When this obligation is implemented 

NOAA anticipates an active role, along with the U.S. Coast Guard, in the screening 

of vessels seeking entry into U.S. ports to assess their listed status or, for vessels 

that are not included on a Regional Fishery Management Organization’s IUU vessel 

list, respond to evidence of IUU fishing or activities in support of IUU fishing. Specifically, the U.S. Coast Guard and NOAA will continue to improve cooperation on 

the Advance Notice of Arrival process for foreign vessels entering U.S. ports for the 

purposes of implementing the agreement and the two agencies have already had discussions on developing the needed level of collaboration in order to carry out the 

requirements of restricting port access when needed. 

Question. What budgetary impacts, if any, will result from NOAA’s implementation of the Port States Agreement as the primary agency? Does this in any way expand NOAA’s role beyond activities already being conducted at the agency? 

Answer. NOAA is not seeking specific funding increases to carry out its responsibilities in the agreement beyond what has been included to support a broader 

array of international enforcement activities in the FY 2015 Budget request. 

As discussed above, NOAA will have an increased role in coordinating with the 

U.S. Coast Guard on the evaluation of foreign fishing vessels seeking entry to U.S. 

ports to determine if there is evidence of IUU fishing or support of IUU fishing. 

NOAA will also have an increased role, again in coordination with the U.S. Coast 

Guard, in restricting access to port services for IUU fishing vessels detected within 

a U.S. port. 

Finally, the Port State Measures Agreement has information-sharing requirements that require the sharing of inspection results and actions taken with flag 

states, relevant coastal states, Regional Fishery Management Organizations and 

other relevant international bodies. This will be a new process that will require 

NOAA to develop a communications mechanism to share the information. 

Question. Do you anticipate any additional economic burden at ports in the United 

States as a result of the Port States Agreement? 

46 

Answer. Because there are a relatively small number of known IUU fishing vessels, and only two such vessels have ever entered a U.S. port, impacts are likely 

to be negligible. However, there could be negative economic impacts on U.S. companies providing port services as a result of lost business if a fishing vessel is denied 

port entry or access to port services. There may also be some costs to state, local 

and territorial authorities in coordinating with NOAA to implement the obligations 

under the Port States Measures Agreement regarding the denial of access to port 

services to IUU fishing vessels determined to be in a U.S. port. 

For example, the Port State Measures Agreement creates the potential to avoid economic loss from a repeat of the Polestar situation in which $9 million of 

sustainably caught Pollock from Alaska was denied port entry in the European 

Union and Morocco because it was carried on an IUU fishing-listed cargo vessel that 

had come into port in Dutch Harbor, AK, because NOAA didn’t have the authority 

to deny the IUU fishing-listed cargo vessel port entry. 

Question. A common theme we hear from fishermen as we work to reauthorize 

the Magnuson-Stevens Act is the economic hardships they experience when their 

days on the water are limited due to factors beyond their control. How will these 

agreements help address that issue? 

Answer. The North Pacific and South Pacific Conventions, the Northwest Atlantic 

Fisheries Organization Convention Amendment and the Port State Measures Agreement will not have an immediate impact on fisheries management within the U.S. 

Exclusive Economic Zone. These agreements will provide the United States new 

tools to improve global fisheries governance and management that will ultimately 

benefit U.S. fishers and others working in the fisheries sector by raising the standards applied to foreign fishers and markets to those already applied in the United 

States. The Port State Measures Agreement does not regulate any fishing at sea 

but, by requiring parties to conduct some level of port inspections, provides a mechanism for monitoring compliance with conservation and management measures 

adopted by coastal states and regional fisheries management organizations. 

We have no fishers operating at present in the Convention Areas of either the 

North Pacific Convention or the South Pacific Convention. We do have one fishing 

vessel that operated in the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization Convention 

Area in 2012 and 2013, and two fishing vessels have applied to fish in 2014. The 

Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization does not regulate fisheries by limiting 

days at sea. Rather, it establishes a total allowable catch for a fish stock and then 

allocates national quotas to its members from the total amount. Thus, the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization does not regulate fisheries through effort controls such as a limit on days at sea. 

RESPONSES OF ADM. FREDERICK J. KENNEY TO QUESTIONS

SUBMITTED BY SENATOR MARCO RUBIO

Question. With the ratifications of the four treaties, the ‘‘Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization’’ Convention, the ‘‘North Pacific’’ and ‘‘South Pacific’’ Conventions, and the ‘‘Port State Measures’’ Agreement, what specific steps would the 

Coast Guard be able to take to combat Illegal, Unregulated, and Unreported (IUU) 

fishing? 

Answer. General.—International mechanisms, such as these four treaties, 

strengthen governance over fishing activity on the high seas assist the Coast Guard 

by extending authority to board and inspect fishing vessels covered by the relevant 

Convention. Boardings increase maritime domain awareness and act to deter illicit 

behavior through fear of being caught. 

NAFO Amendment.—Under the NAFO Amendments the Coast Guard will continue to facilitate joint boardings/inspections with Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans officials as opportunities present. These compliance inspections 

will help to discourage IUU fishing in the North Atlantic and ensure the U.S. is 

meeting enforcement obligations under the Convention. 

Port State Measures.—Port State Measures will facilitate close coordination 

between NOAA and the Coast Guard to stem IUU fishing activities. These measures 

will deny access to U.S. ports by vessels engaged in IUU fishing except for the 

exclusive purpose of conducting inspections or engaging in other enforcement activities. While the implementing legislation seeks to provide NOAA organic authority 

to deny port access, the Coast Guard will be instrumental in facilitating U.S. 

actions. This may include providing advance notice of arrival information, tracking 

vessels of interest or assisting with boardings. Without access to ports, vessels 

engaged in IUU fishing will not be able to sell their product or receive logistical supVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:30 Nov 21, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 2ND SESSION\2014 ISSUE T
47 

port for operations. This will force these vessels into ports farther from commerce 

centers and lucrative fishing grounds, and, as a result, will likely increase their 

operating costs. Limiting the ports available to these vessels would simplify enforcement by targeting investigations of illicit activity in ports known to support IUU 

fishing. 

North and South Pacific RFMOs.—The Coast Guard will work with partners at 

Department of State and NOAA to ensure the inclusion of robust boarding and 

inspection procedures within both the North and South Pacific Regional Fisheries 

Management Organizations that will increase opportunities to board and inspect 

fishing vessels on the high seas, throughout the Pacific Ocean. The establishment 

of a governance scheme in this remote region provides oversight of fishing activity 

in an area not previously covered. The Coast Guard will leverage available patrol 

assets and, to the extent practical, utilize naval vessels of opportunity through the 

Oceana Maritime Security Initiative (OMSI) to track and board fishing vessels to 

combat IUU fishing. 

Question. If the Coast Guard boards a ship which is suspected of IUU and finds 

evidence of human trafficking, what steps can the Coast Guard take? 

Answer. The Coast Guard team will investigate, collect evidence, and report their 

findings through the chain-of-command to interagency partners, including the 

Department of State, Department of Justice, and other applicable U.S. agencies in 

accordance with the Maritime Operational Threat Response (MOTR) plan. The flag 

state of the vessel has exclusive jurisdiction over offenses committed on board. If 

the vessel is flagged in the United States or is a vessel without nationality, the 

Coast Guard could seize the vessel and coordinate with the Department of Justice 

for prosecution of the offender under domestic human trafficking laws. If the vessel 

is foreign-flagged, jurisdiction to seize and prosecute would have to be coordinated 

with the flag state; exceptions include foreign flagged vessels located within the U.S. 

territorial sea or the offense is committed by a U.S. national or person with status 

in the U.S. Exercising jurisdiction over a U.S person on board a foreign flagged ship 

on the high seas would still involve consultation with interagency partners through 

the MOTR process. Interagency consultation provides the ability to determine 

whether the United States has an independent basis to exercise jurisdiction (e.g., 

the vessel is in the U.S. territorial sea, it is a U.S. vessel or a vessel without nationality, or the offender is a U.S. national) or whether the matter will be referred to 

the vessel’s cognizant Flag State for action based on exclusive flag state jurisdiction 

over its vessels. 

Question. With the ratification of these treaties, would the Coast Guard need 

additional resources or personnel to assist with U.S compliance? 

Answer. Ratification of these four treaties will not require the Coast Guard to 

seek additional resources or personnel to ensure U.S. compliance. Enforcement of 

these treaties will primarily be conducted as part of existing efforts on the high seas 

and outer reaches of the U.S. Economic Exclusive Zone (EEZ) by Coast Guard offshore patrol assets. 

RESPONSES OF AMBASSADOR MARK LAGON TO QUESTIONS

SUBMITTED BY SENATOR MARCO RUBIO

Question. What current work is being done by the U.S. Government to combat 

human trafficking on fishing vessels? 

Answer. The U.S. Coast Guard and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) show an acute awareness of criminal and inhumane activities in 

fishing on the high seas, as reflected in their testimony in the hearing. For this reason, they join the State Department in endorsing the ratification of the Port States 

Measures Agreement, the Conventions on the North and South Pacific Fisheries 

Resources, and the Amendment to the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Convention the 

hearing addresses—legal instruments the State Department helped negotiate. 

As I spoke to in my written testimony, the Department of State’s Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons (TIP) under my leadership from 2007 to 

2009 and that of the estimable Ambassador CdeBaca since 2009, have increasingly 

focused on human trafficking in the fishing sector. In my testimony, I highlight how 

Thailand represents a special hazard zone for human trafficking in illegal fishing. 

Well, during my tenure it became apparent that human trafficking was flourishing 

in the seafood processing sector on Thailand’s soil; I met female victims from 

Myanmar in person near Samut Sakhon. I surprised my fellow Republicans by 

standing with the leader of the Solidarity Center, the AFL–CIO affiliated democVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:30 Nov 21, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 2ND SESSION\2014 ISSUE T
48 

racy-promotion organization funded by the National Endowment for Democracy, at 

the public release of their report on forced labor in the seafood sectors of Thailand 

and Bangladesh. The TIP Office between 2007 and 2009 also helped highlight boys 

trafficked in fishing in the Great Lakes of Africa. Ambassador CdeBaca’s team has 

taken this focus on fishing farther, including that on the high seas, as seen in 

annual ‘‘Trafficking in Persons (TIP) Reports’’ in his tenure. 

By highlighting this issue in the TIP Report, in what happens to be the most successful public diplomacy instrument in the State Department’s toolbox today, thanks 

to the Congress handing the Department that tool, the concern of states about what 

I call in my testimony ‘‘governance black holes’’ has increased. The TIP Report is 

just the beginning of the TIP Office’s work, as it is followed by quiet, intense diplomacy to urge governments to take the steps needed to objectively merit a higher 

ranking. What the U.S. urges in that diplomacy is plainly spelled out in a paragraph labeled ‘‘Recommendations’’ in each country profile in the TIP Report. As 

important as this public and traditional diplomacy is the assistance the U.S. gives 

to NGOs and international organization agencies to build nations’ will and capacity 

to fight trafficking. 

Trafficking on the high seas is not so easy to combat, nor to underwrite the work 

of NGOs and international organizations to combat, absent treaties placing more 

responsibility on port states and also of to-date rather hands-off flagging states of 

fishing vessels. U.S. public and traditional diplomacy has boosted the potential for 

international support for these treaties. U.S. ratification would be an even more 

powerful symbolic measure to encourage other nations to become parties, and in the 

most important case of the PSMA, allow it to reach the threshold of parties needed 

to come into force. 

Question. Your testimony highlights a few countries which have had evidence of 

human trafficking in the illegal fishing industry. 

♦ Are there certain hot spots for this specific type of trafficking? 

Answer. The Conventions on the North and South Pacific Fisheries Resources, as 

two instruments the hearing addresses, highlight two such hot spots. My testimony 

alludes to a Korean vessel in Northeast Asia. Yet, the South Pacific and the region 

nearby Southeast Asia are particularly problematic. This is the reason for special 

focus in my written testimony on Thailand, and the trafficking of Thai, Cambodian, 

and Burmese workers. (And please note that Thailand this year faces the time limit 

on a Tier 2 Watch List ranking under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act as 

amended in 2009, just as Russia, China, and Uzbekistan did last year. Thailand 

would be a worthy focus of the committee’s oversight this spring and summer.) The 

combination of economic desperation, migrant workers’ ambitions to send remittances back to their family, corruption, greedy ship proprietors sneaking into other 

nations’ territorial waters, and the ungoverned space of the high seas make Southeast Asia a breeding ground for netting people for slavery as well as netting sealife 

with no regard for sustainability. 

Another large region with pronounced problems is the African Continent. I have 

spoken of boys fishing on Lake Volta. But beyond inland bodies of water, off the 

shores of much of western and eastern Africa, thriving corruption and piracy and 

lacking governance and monitoring make them hot spots too. 

It is important to recall that much of the fishing industry is decent and aboveboard, as represented by those testifying beside me. It is for this very reason that 

those playing by the rules ought not have their reputations and competitiveness 

undercut by illicit fishing vessels who also dehumanize fisherman. 

♦ Is there a ‘‘typical’’ type of trafficking victim for this crime? 

Answer. There are three categories of ‘‘targets’’ for human trafficking: (1) migrant 

workers who are undocumented, and through force, fraud, and coercion become victims; (2) migrant workers who are legal guest workers lied to about the work they 

will get, purposefully put deeply into debt, and relieved of their passport and 

papers; and (3) those victimized in their own nation or by their own nationals. It 

was a priority of my time as Ambassador at Large to Combat Trafficking in Persons 

that the Office I supervised would call attention to just how much of human trafficking counterintuitively is in the latter two categories. 

Human trafficking in legal fishing appears to occur most in Group #1 and Group 

#3. U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), International Organization for 

Migration (IOM) and press reports I highlight in my testimony give an accounting 

of exploited workers desperate for better lives for themselves and their families, but 

just risk-taking enough to be lured into illegal fishing. Some cases involve fisherman 

being violently exploited by nationals of their own country. 

49 

Most significant in the profile of a ‘‘typical’’ victim are (1) his or her needs and 

dreams to which a trafficker appeals, (2) methods of recruitment, and (3) means of 

exploitation and abuse. 

First, the victims are impoverished, and willing to take on dirty and dangerous 

work in order to make a living for themselves and relatives. 

Second, unregulated recruiters lie about the pay, safety of the fishing conditions, 

legality of standards and location of fishing, and the ability to leave the job. 

Third, exploitation sometimes involves debt bondage (an insurmountable debt 

owed to a recruiter or to the fishing ‘‘enterprise’’ for the privilege of being placed 

in work which will amount to forced labor). Victims interviewed in Southeast Asia 

note being caught on boats unmonitored by any law enforcement or labor inspectors 

for up to 2–3 years, excruciating hours, lack of medical care, ill fisherman thrown 

overboard, and punitive beatings and even murder. 

If the treaties this hearing addresses could shed sunlight on this ungoverned 

zone, and even marginally reduce this dehumanization, it is well worth the minimal 

cost to the United States to ratify them. I surmise they will actually do a good 

amount to reduce this dehumanization. 

50 

LETTER SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE FEDERAL

LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS ASSOCIATION

51 

52 

LETTER SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE JOINT OCEAN COMMISSION INITIATIVE

53 

54 

LETTER SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF VARIOUS STAKEHOLDERS

URGING RATIFICATION OF THE TREATIES

55 

56 

Æ