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

58–429PDF 2010

RENEGOTIATING THE SOUTH PACIFIC TUNA

TREATY: CLOSING LOOPHOLES AND

PROTECTING U.S. INTERESTS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA, THE PACIFIC AND 

THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

SEPTEMBER 22, 2010

Serial No. 111–133

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/

(II)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California, Chairman 

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

BILL DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

DIANE E. WATSON, California 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

MICHAEL E. MCMAHON, New York 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

LYNN WOOLSEY, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

BARBARA LEE, California 

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada 

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina 

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia 

JIM COSTA, California 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona 

RON KLEIN, Florida 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

DAN BURTON, Indiana 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

RON PAUL, Texas 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina 

GUS BILIRAKIS, Florida 

RICHARD J. KESSLER, Staff Director 

YLEEM POBLETE, Republican Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA, THE PACIFIC AND THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American Samoa, Chairman 

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York 

DIANE E. WATSON, California 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois 

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES 

Mr. William Gibbons-Fly, Director, Office of Marine Conservation, Bureau 

of Oceans and International Environment and Scientific Affairs, U.S. Department of State ................................................................................................. 2

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

of Commerce ......................................................................................................... 18

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Mr. William Gibbons-Fly: Prepared statement ..................................................... 5

The Honorable Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, a Representative in Congress from 

American Samoa, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific and 

the Global Environment: Prepared statement ................................................... 16

Mr. Russell Smith, III: Prepared statement .......................................................... 20

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 58

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 59

The Honorable Diane E. Watson, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of California: Prepared statement ............................................................ 60

(1)

RENEGOTIATING THE SOUTH PACIFIC TUNA 

TREATY: CLOSING LOOPHOLES AND PROTECTING U.S. INTERESTS 

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 2010

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA, THE PACIFIC

AND THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT,

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:40 p.m., in room 

2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Eni F.H. Faleomavaega 

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. The hearing will come to order. This is the 

hearing of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, specifically the Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific and the Global Environment. The 

topic for discussion this afternoon is Renegotiating the South Pacific Tuna Treaty: Closing Loopholes and Protecting U.S. Interests. 

I am very, very pleased and honored to have two gentlemen who, 

in my humble opinion, are very much familiar with the issue that 

we are going to be discussing this afternoon, and I do want to recognize them before they give their testimony. My good friend, the 

ranking member, unfortunately, is tied up with other hearings and 

commitments. So we are going to go ahead and push on. 

Our first witness that we have this afternoon is Mr. William Gibbons-Fly, the Director of the Office of Marine Conservation, in the 

Bureau of Oceans and International Environment and Scientific Affairs at the Department of State. Mr. Gibbons-Fly has 25 years of 

direct involvement in the development, negotiation, and implementation of international environmental and oceans policy. His previous positions included 4 years as Deputy Counsel for Environment, Science and Technology at the U.S. Embassy in Mexico City; 

5 years dealing with issues at the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, where he coordinated all NOAA participation in a wide range of international scientific, technical and organizational agreements. 

Over the past 20 years, Mr. Gibbons-Fly has been at the forefront of discussions and negotiations for international fisheries 

management in the Pacific Ocean. He previously served as a U.S. 

Commissioner of the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission; past chairman of the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission, or IATTC; and representative of the State Department at 

the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council. He is 

currently leading the U.S. negotiating effort to extend the MultilatVerDate 0ct 09 2002 21:27 Dec 23, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\APGE\092210A\58429 HFA PsN: SHIRL
2

eral Treaty on Fisheries between the governments of certain Pacific 

Island States and the Government of the United States, commonly 

known as the South Pacific Tuna Treaty. 

Mr. Gibbons-Fly holds a master’s of international affairs from 

George Washington University and a bachelor’s degree with honors 

from the University of California in Santa Barbara. He is a career 

executive with the Senior Foreign Service. He is the recipient of 

numerous honors and awards. And I am very, very happy to have 

him join us at this hearing. 

Also with us this afternoon is Mr. Smith, who was formerly with 

the Office of U.S. Trade Representative, USTR, where he was the 

Director for International Environmental Policy and Multilateral 

Environmental Agreements some 4 years ago. He joined the USTR 

in 2002 as Deputy Director of the Office of the Americas. Prior to 

that he had many years of experience at the Department of Justice 

and in private practice. He has led various U.S. delegations in negotiating international negotiations, including, for example, the 

U.S.-China Bilateral Agreement on Combating Illegal Logging and 

the environmental chapter of the Free Trade Agreement between 

the U.S. and the Republic of Korea. His particular talent is to develop creative strategies for making U.S. trade and environmental 

policies mutually supportive and to work with U.S. trade partners. 

Mr. Smith holds a bachelor’s degree from Yale University and 

also a juris doctorate from the University of Michigan. 

Gentlemen, welcome to the hearing. And I would like at this time 

for Mr. Gibbons-Fly to start our hearing. And, without objection, 

both of your statements will be made a part of the record, and any 

other extraneous materials that you wish to be added will be made 

a part of the record as well. You are more than welcome. 

Mr. Gibbons-Fly. 

STATEMENT OF MR. WILLIAM GIBBONS-FLY, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF MARINE CONSERVATION, BUREAU OF OCEANS AND 

INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENT AND SCIENTIFIC AFFAIRS, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

Mr. GIBBONS-FLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And it is a great 

pleasure to be here to see you again to testify before this committee 

and to have the opportunity to update you on the status of our ongoing efforts to extend the South Pacific Tuna Treaty, along with 

some related issues. 

Before I begin, let me say, I am very pleased to be joined by Mr. 

Smith this afternoon from NOAA. The Department of State works 

closely with a number of NOAA offices in the implementation of 

the treaty. In particular, the NOAA fisheries’ Pacific Islands regional office in Honolulu and its field station in your district, Mr. 

Chairman, in Pango Pango work closely with us, and they manage 

the day-to-day implementation of the treaty. And the implementation of this treaty would simply not be possible without support 

that we get from NOAA on an ongoing basis, and we very much 

appreciate that. Nor would the implementation of the treaty be 

possible without the support and participation of the American 

Tuna Boat Association and the U.S. vessel owners and operators 

that comprise the U.S. tuna purse seine fleet. So I want to recognize them at the outset. 

3

Since my last testimony, Mr. Chairman, we have had two negotiating sessions with the Pacific Island parties. October of last year 

in Honiara, Solomon Islands, and in July of this year in Honolulu. 

Our annual treaty consultations, which took place on the island of 

Niue in March of this year, also provided an opportunity to exchange views on issues related to the treaty negotiations. 

Even so, Mr. Chairman, I need to report to you that the status 

of these negotiations is much the same as it was when I last testified before you in April 2009. The negotiations are complicated by 

a number of issues which I will touch on, and the outcome of those 

negotiations at this time remains uncertain. 

To begin, Mr. Chairman, there is still a question as to whether 

the Pacific Island States continue to attach the same value to the 

treaty as they have in the past. Right now the industry licensing 

fees paid under the treaty and the associated U.S. Government economic assistance provide approximately $25 million a year to the 

Pacific Island parties. There is a sense among the Pacific Island 

parties that this figure is too low, given the value of the resources 

and the increasing level of fees and assistance provided by other 

states with fleets operating in the region. 

It is important to the United States that the Pacific Island parties get fair value for these resources. Throughout its history the 

treaty has provided a higher economic return to the Pacific Island 

States than any other agreement in the region. We expect this to 

continue to be the case, should the treaty be extended. If the Pacific Island States believe the current level of compensation under 

the treaty is not sufficient, we have requested that they provide us 

with their estimate of today’s value of the treaty, should it be extended at something close to the current terms and conditions. But 

to date, Mr. Chairman, we have received no such proposal from 

their side, but we are hopeful that something might be forthcoming. 

Another key issue, Mr. Chairman, is the extent to which under 

an extended treaty the U.S. fleet would operate under the Vessel 

Day Scheme developed by the parties to the Nauru Agreement. We 

have sought to make clear that the United States is not opposed 

to considering the application of the Vessel Day Scheme to the U.S. 

fleet, but before proceeding, we need a better explanation of the 

scheme than we have received to date. 

For example, we have asked for an up-to-date document that reflects the rules of the Vessel Day Scheme as it is currently being 

implemented. There is no document that can currently be shared 

with us; nothing, in fact, in writing to tell us what the rules of this 

program are at the present time. We have asked if any of the PNA 

member countries have published regulations or guidelines describing how the scheme is being implemented in their own countries. 

And again, the answer is ‘‘no.’’ We are told that all PNA members 

are implementing the Vessel Day Scheme through their bilateral 

agreements; but these agreements are not available, so there is no 

way to confirm this. The only bilateral agreement that, to our 

knowledge, is in the public domain is the agreement between the 

European community and the Solomon Islands. That agreement, 

Mr. Chairman, contains no reference to the Vessel Day Scheme or 

to any related concept. Further discussions with representatives in 

4

other countries have confirmed that there is no uniform or consistent application of the Vessel Day Scheme across countries and 

fleets. 

So as you can imagine, Mr. Chairman, it is almost impossible for 

us to negotiate under these circumstances when we don’t know 

what we are being asked to agree to. If the PNA and the FFA more 

broadly are interested in working cooperatively with the United 

States to develop a workable, well-defined and transparent Vessel 

Day Scheme to be applied to all fleets seeking access to fish in the 

region, we have been and continue to be open to those discussions. 

But, Mr. Chairman, those discussions would require a somewhat 

different approach on the part of the PNA members than we have 

seen to date. 

A third key issue, Mr. Chairman, is the aspirations of these 

small island developing states to gain benefits from the fishery resources under their jurisdiction and the industries that they support. This is an issue to which the United States attaches significant importance, and we will be seeking to learn more about the 

specific proposals from the FFA members on these matters as our 

discussions continue. 

My written testimony, Mr. Chairman, notes some additional 

issues that I will not mention here in the interest of time, but they 

are reflected in the written testimony. 

With the remainder of my time, I would like to take just a 

minute to discuss the very critical issue of conservation of tuna resources in the Pacific and how the treaty relates to those efforts. 

Mr. Chairman, as you well know, there are very strong indications that the level of fishing efforts on some species of tunas in 

the western and central Pacific exceeds levels that are sustainable 

in the long term. This is particularly true for bigeye tuna and, to 

a lesser extent, yellowfin tuna as well. If we are to address the 

issues of long-term conservation and sustainability of the region’s 

fish stocks, we must find a way to limit and eventually reduce the 

number of vessels operating in the region. 

Our longstanding position has been that when the coastal states 

and the fishing states of the region are prepared to enter into serious negotiations to achieve a real reduction in the level of the fishing effort in the region, the United States will not only participate 

in that effort, but will work actively to bring such negotiations to 

a successful conclusion. In doing so we have made clear that we 

will be prepared to accept a fair and equitable share of any reduction in fishing effort, including by the U.S. tuna purse seine fleet. 

And yet, Mr. Chairman, this is not what we see happening. The 

number of purse seine vessels continues to increase each year, 

seemingly without limit. We understand there are plans to bring 

up to an additional 40 vessels into the fishery in the next 3 to 4 

years, and as a result, we see little to be gained if any reductions 

that would accrue as part of the U.S. fleet would simply be offset 

or more than offset by this continuing increase in the level of our 

efforts, especially when many of those vessels coming into the fishery would be from states with no previous history of fishing in the 

region, no record of compliance with agreed measures, and no history of cooperation to conserve and manage the region’s fisheries 

resources. 

5

So in very short terms, Mr. Chairman, those are some of the 

challenges we face. I will stop there in the interest of time. I would 

be happy to respond to any questions you may have. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gibbons-Fly follows:]


58429a-1.eps
6


58429a-2.eps
7


58429a-3.eps
8


58429a-4.eps
9


58429a-5.eps
10


58429a-6.eps
11


58429a-7.eps
12


58429a-8.eps
13

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. My sincere apologies. I kind of jumped the 

gun on the hearing this afternoon. I have not even offered my opening statement. But be that as it may, I would like to give my opening statement now, after Mr. Gibbons-Fly had already given his 

statement. But this may be beneficial to Mr. Smith. You might 

want to make some added notes about some of the concerns I 

raised concerning the tuna treaty. 

This is the third in a series of hearings the subcommittee has 

held on the fisheries agreements of U.S. interests in Asia and the 

Pacific, the two previous having been held in July 2007 and April 

2009. The purpose of this hearing is to determine the Obama administration’s views on the status of negotiations over the extension of the current South Pacific Tuna Treaty which expires on 

June 14, 2013, and on such issues as revenue sharing, conservation, linkages between the treaty and the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Convention, the Nauru Agreement, and impacts on 

U.S. interests. 

Of particular concern is the practice of transshipment of tuna 

caught under the auspices of the South Pacific Tuna Treaty. Under 

the terms of the treaty, the U.S. Government pays out about $18 

million of the $25 million total that is given to the island nations. 

This amount is given to the Pacific Island parties in return for the 

right of our U.S. tuna boats, limited to about 40 licenses, to fish 

in the Exclusive Economic Zone of the 16 Pacific Island nations 

which are party to the treaty. The U.S. tuna boats also pay the Pacific Island parties about $3 million to $5 million or more per year, depending on the amount 

of tuna caught. According to the Congressional Research Service, 

the U.S. tuna boats harvest about $250 million worth of tuna annually. But the value of the tuna as it moves through the processing 

and distribution chain may be as much as $500 million or more. 

Of the approximately 300,000 metric tons of tuna that is caught 

by the U.S. tuna fishing fleet, more than 180,000 metric tons is 

transshipped and outsourced to foreign nations such as Thailand, 

which has become the world’s largest canned tuna producer and 

processes a large percentage of tuna caught in the Pacific region. 

This practice of outsourcing U.S.-caught resources has led to an 

offshoring of American jobs. Thailand’s fish cleaners, who are paid 

75 cents or less per hour, directly compete against the workers in 

the United States who are paid in accordance with Federal minimum wage laws. And I am making reference specifically to my 

own district. American Samoa’s economy, which is more than 80 

percent dependent either directly or indirectly on the U.S. tuna 

fishing and processing industries, has been adversely affected with 

more than 2,000 workers now displaced. Puerto Rico and California 

have also suffered job losses as Thailand’s private-label business 

currently accounts for almost 30 percent of the market for tuna 

consumed in the United States. This subcommittee is interested in 

the administration’s views about how we can close these loopholes 

and more fully protect U.S. interests. 

The subcommittee is also concerned about the environmental impact of overfishing. According to the Congressional Research Service, the western Pacific is, and I quote, ‘‘home to half of the world’s 

tuna stocks and some of the few remaining sustainable fishing 

14

areas in the world.’’ But in the time it takes for the older U.S.-built 

tuna boats to make three direct deliveries to a U.S. port, like 

American Samoa, the newest boats in the U.S. fishing fleet, which 

are foreign built and account for more than half of the available licenses, can make five transshipment deliveries. They offload their 

catch to a big mother ship, a reefer, making it possible for these 

boats to return more quickly to the South Pacific Tuna Treaty fishing grounds where they can catch more and more tuna at a more 

and more maddening pace. 

And this is only the story of the U.S. tuna fishing fleet. Asian 

countries account for an estimated 80 percent of tuna caught in the 

Pacific, according to Greenpeace, which means we must get serious 

about making modifications to the South Pacific Tuna Treaty to seriously address the issue of overfishing and outsourcing. 

I am pleased that in 2007, 3 years ago, modifications were made 

to allow U.S. longline vessels, along with purse seine and albacore 

troll vessels, to fish in the treaty area. And I am hopeful that other 

concerns I have also raised will be addressed. 

The South Pacific Tuna Treaty, which has been in place since 

1988, was renewed in 1993 and again in 2003. The regional fishing 

tuna treaty—and I just want to comment—came as a result. The 

problems that we have had when our American tuna boat owners 

held the belief that since tuna is a highly migratory fish, they can 

fish anywhere they want regardless of the Exclusive Economic 

Zones that these countries claim, especially in Latin America. And 

what happened was that when these fellows went over there, their 

ships ended up getting confiscated, and eventually they decided to 

leave the coastline in the Americas and come to the western Pacific 

to fish. And here again, with that philosophical outlook, because 

tuna is a highly migratory fish, they continued doing this fishing 

anywhere they wanted because they felt that tuna is a migratory 

fish, and therefore there are no boundaries extending in terms of 

their limitations on how they can fish. 

Well, one of our purse seiners ended up being confiscated by the 

Solomon Islands Government, and that created an international 

uproar. This resulted in Secretary of State Shultz and Mr. 

Negroponte, also with the State Department, negotiating and establishing this regional fishing treaty allowing our tuna purse seiners to fish these island countries in their Exclusive Economic 

Zones. And I just wanted to share that with Mr. Smith and Mr. 

Gibbons-Fly about how this treaty came about. 

The treaty has served to reduce tensions between the U.S. and 

Pacific Island nations, which, prior to the agreement, regarded U.S. 

purse seiners’ vessels as operating illegally. But new concerns have 

arisen, and Pacific Island nations rightfully want their fair share 

of the profits, too. 

His Excellency, President Johnson Toribiong, the President of the 

Republic of Palau, called for a Pacific Islands summit recently to 

develop an OPEC-type organization of cartels to control the tuna 

industry, which generates about $4 billion annually. I support the 

efforts of the parties to the Nauru Agreement because for too long, 

Pacific Island countries, including my own little district, have not 

received a fair share of these revenues. Instead, our resources are 

15

being siphoned off by Thailand and other countries that are making billions of dollars at our expense. 

I believe if we will pull together, we might be able to level the 

playing field for all Pacific Islanders as well as for our U.S. tuna 

fishing fleet and processing industries. But any forthcoming agreement or treaty will need to make certain that the same monitoring 

and control and surveillance requirements imposed upon U.S. vessels are also applied to major fleets that are non-U.S.-owned. 

So with that opening statement for both of you gentlemen, at this 

time, I would like to ask Mr. Smith for his statement. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Faleomavaega follows:]

16


58429c-1.eps
17


58429c-2.eps
18

STATEMENT OF MR. RUSSELL SMITH, III, DEPUTY ASSISTANT 

SECRETARY FOR INTERNATIONAL FISHERIES, NATIONAL 

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

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chair Faleomavaega and members of 

the subcommittee. Thank you for that warm welcome and for inviting me to testify here today on the South Pacific Tuna Treaty, the 

U.S. interests and the changing nature of this fishery. 

As you know, NOAA shares responsibility for implementing the 

South Pacific Tuna Treaty with the Department of State. U.S. involvement in the purse seine fishery under the treaty has fluctuated since it went into force in 1988. The number of licensed U.S. 

Vessels operating in the treaty area reached a high of 49 in 1994 

and generally declined over the next decade. The declining price of 

raw tuna product and significant increases in fuel and insurance 

costs affected the profitability of the purse seine fishing, and by 

2007, only 11 U.S. vessels were licensed under the treaty. 

Following the addition of new Taiwanese-built purse seine vessels to the U.S. fleet, passage of legislation to allow employment of 

internationally licensed officers on these vessels, and a shift away 

from American Samoa-based operations, the U.S. fleet began to rebound. Currently there are 36 U.S. purse seine vessels licensed 

under the treaty. As the U.S. purse seine fishery first developed in 

the western central Pacific back in the late 1970s, many operators 

delivered to the two canneries in your district and used Pango 

Pango as a base of operation. Those vessels would take four to six 

trips a year, spending roughly 200 days per year at sea fishing, and 

the remainder in port unloading or maintaining their vessels and 

gear. 

While it is unclear why so many vessel owners left the fishery 

in the 1990s and in the early 2000s, some have attributed the position to a general lack of profitability, given the large capital investment and risks associated with the operation of purse seine vessels. 

In 2007, a component of the industry developed an alternative 

business model after building new vessels that were equipped to efficiently transship fish, a model that you have referenced, Mr. 

Chair. This alternative business model attracted about 20 vessels 

to join the U.S. fleet in 2007 and 2008, with some of the new vessels initially basing their operations in Pango Pango. However, the 

closure of one cannery has caused at least a few of these vessels 

to turn to transship, given the reduced demand for tuna in Pango 

Pango. 

The U.S. territories in the Pacific have seen direct economic benefits at one time or another as a result of the treaty. Vessels continue to supply tuna to the remaining cannery in American Samoa, 

and the territory enjoys other benefits associated with vessel support, such as provisioning and crewing, albeit at a reduced level 

from the past. 

The treaty has mitigated some of the economic uncertainty for 

U.S. participants in the purse seine fishery by providing a stable 

operating environment, but it seems that changes in the business 

model have been driven by the need to be competitive in the face 

of foreign competition. Preliminary figures for 2009 show that the 

western and central Pacific Ocean fishing area, approximately 250 

19

large purse seine vessels from several nations landed a record 1.9 

million metric tons of predominantly skipjack tuna. Of this 

amount, the U.S. purse seine fleet landed about 260,000 metric 

tons, or roughly 14 percent of the WCPO purse seine total, worth 

approximately $300 million. The U.S. purse seine fleet operating 

under the treaty is the greatest revenue-producing U.S. fishing 

fleet operating outside of U.S. waters. 

Skipjack tuna is the predominant target species in the U.S. 

Purse seine fishery in the WCPO followed by yellowfin. Bigeye 

tuna, although not a target species in the purse seine fishery, is 

caught mostly as juveniles in quantities equal to the region’s 

longline fishery, an issue of great concern to NOAA, given that bigeye is currently subject to overfishing. 

NOAA has a number of administrative and operational roles with 

respect to the treaty as well as enforcement responsibilities. NOAA 

provides technical and fisheries policy support to the Department 

of State during treaty negotiations and issues the domestic regulations necessary to carry out the terms of the treaty and the objectives of the South Pacific Tuna Act of 1988. These regulations include requirements related to vessel licensing, reporting on fishing 

activities, carrying vessel observers and operating satellite-based 

vessel-monitoring systems. 

NOAA staff from Pango Pango provide essential tuna stock assessment and vessel-monitoring data to the Pacific Islands Forum 

Fisheries Agency as the treaty administrator for the Pacific Island 

parties. 

U.S. negotiating positions developed for the treaty are consistent 

with and support NOAA’s position in the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, the regional fisheries management authority that sets the tuna targets for the purse seine and longline 

fisheries industries in this region, including the vessels from other 

countries. As both a coastal state with a significant amount of EEZ 

waters and a major fishing state primarily due to our purse seine 

fleet, NOAA has been able to achieve strong measures for conservation as well as successfully preserve fair and equitable access for 

U.S. fishing activities. 

The Commission has implemented a number of conservation and 

management measures for purse seine vessels that NOAA has implemented domestically, such as restrictions on the use of fish aggregation devices, or FADS, and other efforts to limit bycatch, high 

seas closures, 100 percent observed coverage, and effort limits. 

In summary, NOAA is committed to supporting the renewal of 

the treaty and working within the Commission to ensure the longterm health of the WCPO tuna stocks to maintain a beneficial economic return on the U.S. investment. Without significant U.S. participation in this fishery, NOAA’s ability to influence decisionmaking in the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission 

would be diminished. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to address the committee. 

I hope I have touched on some of the issues that are of interest, 

and I would be happy to answer any questions that you might 

have. 

20

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you very much. I appreciate your 

statements. As I said earlier, without objection, your statements 

will be made part of the record. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:]


58429b-1.eps
21


58429b-2.eps
22


58429b-3.eps
23


58429b-4.eps
24


58429b-5.eps
25

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I do have a couple of questions that I wanted to ask so that we can dialogue on this issue. 

We did extend an invitation to the American Tuna Boat Association and its affiliates and someone representing the U.S. fishing 

fleet to come and testify; but unfortunately I think they were tied 

up with the current fisheries conference being held in Bangkok. I 

think that is one of the reasons why some of their chief officers 

were not able to attend. But I wanted to ask Mr. Gibbons-Fly, do 

you know what the official position of the Tuna Boat Association 

is concerning the current negotiations that are going on right now 

over the treaty? 

Mr. GIBBONS-FLY. Yes, Mr. Chairman. We work very closely with 

the American Tuna Boat Association, their executive director Paul 

Krampe and many of their members. Because we hosted the last 

session of the negotiations in Honolulu, a number of the U.S. vessel 

owners were able to come and participate actively on the U.S. delegation in a way that has not been possible when we have held 

them in more far-flung corners of the Pacific. 

I think I can say confidently that the American Tuna Boat Association members, the vessel owners and operators share the concerns that have been laid out in my testimony, both in the oral testimony and the written testimony. I hesitate to speak for them, but 

I feel like I can say a couple of things. I think they feel very strongly that they have been very good actors over the life of the treaty. 

They have set the standard for compliance. They have taken on responsibilities, such as vessel-monitoring systems, observer programs, and other things that then allowed—because the U.S. fleet 

set the example—then allowed the Pacific Island States to hold 

other foreign fleets to that same standard. So I think it comes as 

some surprise to them, as it does to us, that we now see this shift 

in the position of some of the island states that really has tended 

to be somewhat critical, highly critical in some cases, of the operations of the U.S. fleet and the U.S. Government in the way that 

the treaty has been implemented. 

We are surprised by that, and we think that—you know, I am 

hoping that it is largely part of any ongoing negotiation that we 

will be able to work through. Obviously they want to get the best 

deal that they can, and we want to make sure that we provide a 

fair and equitable return in response to—in return for the access 

that our vessels are afforded. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. You mentioned that it is difficult right now 

for the administration to determine what will be considered a reasonable price tag on the funding that the U.S. Government will 

provide to implement or enforce a new treaty with these island nations. As you mentioned in your statement, the island countries are 

saying the current funding is not enough. And you rightly pointed 

out that it was difficult for your office to determine what is considered the right amount when they have not been forthcoming in giving you the specific data and information that really is giving us 

a better sense of value. 

Has there been any information from the office in terms of these 

bilateral agreements that these island countries made with other 

countries? For example, I think Spain currently has about 14 purse 

26

seiners operating in the waters off the Republic of Kiribati. Do you 

know how much Kiribati is currently getting as a result of allowing 

some 14 Spanish purse seiners to fish in their fishing grounds? 

Mr. GIBBONS-FLY. No, Mr. Chairman. We do not have that information as to what the level of return is. The Asian Development 

Bank reports cumulative totals in terms of what their return on access fees are to various Pacific Island States and what percentage 

that constitutes in terms of the value of the resource or the overall 

percentage of each country’s budget. 

I am confident in saying that over the life of the treaty, and even 

today currently, that the treaty—the cumulative total of the licensing fees paid by the industry and the economic assistance provided 

by the government represent a higher rate of return on the value 

of the resource than any of these agreements in the region. At least 

to this date, no one has been able to contradict us when we made 

that statement. So until someone does, we are confident that that 

continues to be the case. 

That said, Mr. Chairman, if you will allow me, we have not been 

able to come up with an exact figure; but we have been able to—

we have sought to convey to the Pacific Island States that each 

time this treaty has been negotiated, the level of overall return to 

them, both through the license fees and from the U.S. Government 

assistance package, has increased. And this is now our third effort 

to renegotiate this extension, so we have every expectation, and it 

would certainly be reasonable to expect, that they would come to 

us and make a proposal for some higher level of compensation. But 

it is up to them to determine what level of compensation they determine to be appropriate. And then once we have that figure, we 

can begin the negotiations; and more importantly, we can begin to 

seek whatever budget authority we would need to be able to determine whether or not we could agree to that figure or not. Thank 

you. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. It is my understanding that the total cumulative value of the entire tuna industry, processing, fishing and everything related to the tuna industry, is somewhere around $4 billion. And I am curious, just catching the fish alone—catching the 

tuna alone in the Pacific, I am also informed that it is valued well 

over $1 billion in terms of how much is being caught in the western 

and central Pacific Ocean. 

And I am just curious, $25 million in payments, and the value 

is some $500 million worth of tuna that our fishing boats catch. I 

am not a mathematician, but I am just figuring that $25 million 

is a pittance compared to the value of how much tuna that our 

tuna boats harvest in the Pacific waters. And if you go to the processing plant, the value comes to about $500 million. So would you 

say that there is some concern, rightly so, the fact that $25 million 

out of $500 million worth of tuna caught by our own fishing boats 

is a little low? Can you comment on that? 

Mr. GIBBONS-FLY. Yes. Well, only to repeat that if it is the view 

of the Pacific Island States that the level of compensation is not 

sufficient, we would hope that they would come to us with a proposal as to what they think an appropriate level of fees are. The 

treaty, as I said, has always provided—the U.S. Government values 

the treaty as more than just an access arrangement. They are of 

27

significant value to us in having this relationship with the FFA 

and the Pacific Island States as a whole. And so in terms of the 

economic assistance that is provided, there has always been a premium built in to reflect the value of the treaty to the United States 

above and beyond anything that might be expected as a payment 

for straight access fees, which are covered by the industry payment. 

We would like to see that relationship continue, but I can’t name 

a figure for two reasons. One, I don’t want to be in the position of 

negotiating against ourselves. And two, I have no budget authority 

to be able to say we can provide anything more than the amount 

we are currently providing. But if there is a proposal on the table 

from the other side, then that gives me the possibility to go back 

through our budget process and say, here is what we are being requested, and try to get authority within my department to agree 

to that number. 

I can’t make any guarantees until I go up—I certainly don’t have 

the decisionmaking authority on multimillion-dollar decisions, but 

certainly I think there is a strong argument that can be made, such 

as you have articulated, Mr. Chairman, that the United States 

might look for some additional funds to raise. I mean, it has been 

10 years since we negotiated the treaty. So even in terms of just 

an inflation adjustment, one might expect there could be some increase over what was provided in 2000 and 2003. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Please, Mr. Smith, jump in if you think you 

might want to add some more points on this on behalf of NOAA. 

Mr. SMITH. No. I agree with my colleague from State. I think he 

has articulated this very well. Thank you. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I was recently in Vanuatu attending the Pacific Island Forum’s conference, and in talking to some of the leaders of the Pacific Island countries, another issue that I want to 

raise with you, Mr. Gibbons-Fly, is—you may want to talk to your 

principals about this. One of the things the island nations are complaining about is the fact that this fish has been caught in their 

waters, being transshipped to a major port like Thailand. And what 

they are saying is, why don’t you transship it to the island ports 

so that the benefit will continue to be part of the economic needs 

of the Pacific Island nations, rather than giving it to the world’s 

largest tuna-processing country, mainly Thailand? And I said, 

‘‘Well, why not transship it to my port, too, for that matter?’’

But this was a very serious issue. They say, hey, these 300,000 

metric tons harvested by American ships, they just ship it to Thailand. Why don’t they ship it to some of the island countries for 

transshipment and even for processing? 

So I just wanted to raise that issue as maybe another thing that 

you may want to look at in your negotiations with the island countries. 

Are both the Forum Fisheries Agency and the Nauru Agreement 

countries, the PNA group, are they working together in this negotiation? Or is it just primarily the FFA representatives representing the island nations in this negotiation? 

Mr. GIBBONS-FLY. Yes. Well, I don’t mean to monopolize all of 

the time, Mr. Chairman, so I will make some comments, and Mr. 

28

Smith should feel free to jump in whenever he feels it is appropriate. 

Our treaty is with the FFA members. All 16 members of the 

Forum Fisheries Agency are party to the treaty, and our primary 

negotiating forum is with the FFA members. Having said that, the 

PNA has been within the FFA emerging as a more independent 

voice, and their interests are very much front and center in this negotiation. And so apart from the discussions that we have had with 

the FFA as a whole, we have also had informal discussions with 

the PNA members individually and collectively to try to get a sense 

of their interests and the manner in which they would like to see 

these negotiations proceed. And those negotiations, those discussions have centered to this point on the Vessel Day Scheme. 

And it comes back to the point that I made in both my oral testimony and in which is explained in more detail—excuse me, in my 

written statement—that they very much want the U.S. to participate under the Vessel Day Scheme. But our concern is that we 

have not been able to receive one—as of today, there is no single 

piece of paper anywhere that can tell us what the rules of that program are. And, you know, we are talking about negotiating a legally binding agreement, and once we get done with that agreement, our colleagues in NOAA are going to need to write some very 

strict regulations to ensure that when U.S. vessels don’t follow the 

rules, they can be hit with sanctions and penalties. But NOAA 

can’t write those regulations and decide what rules are going to 

apply to U.S. vessels if we don’t know what those rules are. 

And at the same time, if I am going to be asked to go back into 

my Department and justify an increase in the level of economic 

support funding for the economic assistance associated with the 

treaty, I need to be able to explain in pretty considerable detail 

what it is we have agreed to. And I can’t do that right now because 

we just don’t know what we are being asked to sign on to. So until 

we get some clarity in these issues, it is very difficult to make 

progress in these negotiations, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Smith? 

The Vessel Day Scheme, as you had indicated earlier, Mr. Gibbons-Fly is that you come and fish in the Exclusive Economic Zone 

of any country that is a member of the treaty. Whatever number 

of days you spend in that EEZ zone, regardless of how much you 

catch, you will pay kind of like a standard fee. So in other words, 

even if I spend 10 days in that EEZ zone, if I don’t catch anything, 

I still have to pay. Is that basically the problem that we have with 

the Vessel Day Scheme they are advocating on this issue? 

Mr. GIBBONS-FLY. Well, the answer is we don’t know because we 

don’t know what the rules of the program are. The way it is supposed to work is that a country or a fleet is assigned a specific 

number of days. So let us say, you know, a fleet gets 3,000 days. 

Then there has to be a way of counting which of those days—when 

vessels are at sea, which of those days count against that total. 

And so there are what are called fishing days. All the fishing days 

are then subtracted against the total, except when they are determined to be nonfishing days. So if a vessel is at sea and meets certain requirements, then it counts as a fishing day. But if it meets 

29

the requirements for that to be a nonfishing day, then that is not 

counted against the total. 

But we have asked for a definition of a fishing day. We have 

asked for a definition of a nonfishing day, so that we will know how 

to count against whatever total is assigned. There is no definition 

that can be provided to either of these terms, Mr. Chairman, which 

just complicates the things even further. Thank you. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I want to ask you, Mr. Smith, I guess, in the 

process of monitoring and collecting data—I think that is where 

NOAA comes into the picture. Does our Government provide any 

service to these island nations through our—and I don’t even know 

if I am saying this correctly—GPS system? Do we help in tracking 

some of the poachers that come into the EEZ zones of some of these 

island nations and catch them so they are fined extensively? Is our 

Government providing some kind of service to these island nations 

about tracking poachers or ships that are illegally fishing on these 

grounds, their grounds? 

Mr. SMITH. Well, I know our Government provides services in 

terms of tracking our own vessels both in terms of locations of vessels, and when they are fishing, and ensuring that reports on levels 

of activity and levels of catch are being transmitted to the FFA, 

and that the information that is being transmitted is correct. 

On the question of providing assistance with respect to combating illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing in general, I 

know that we do do some work with them, but I am not sure of 

the nature, and I would be happy to provide you with some additional information perhaps as a supplement. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Yes, I would very much appreciate that, if 

you could give me exactly what the current status of our monitoring system is to help these island countries. 

[The information referred to follows:]

30


58429e-1.eps
31


58429e-2.eps
32


58429e-3.eps
33


58429f-1.eps
34


58429f-2.eps
35


58429g-1.eps
36


58429g-2.eps
37


58429g-3.eps
38


58429h.eps
39

Mr. SMITH. If I could just, a little bit more on this and on a related point. As you know, our Government is very concerned about 

protecting, among other things, the health of the fisheries in which 

we are fishing. In this particular area, one of the ways we do this 

is through our work in the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries 

Commission, which covers much of the same area as the treaty, but 

where we come together with all of the nations that are fishing in 

the region, not only the parties to the SPTT, but the other countries that are fishing in these same waters, in order to set measures that, in part, protect the resources. 

Our participation in the SPTT is in part important to us because, 

as a significant fishing nation in this region, it gives us a greater 

voice, a greater voice to not only argue for reduced catches and 

other measures to protect the stock, but also to argue for ventures 

that help combat things like IU, illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing. It also gives us a vehicle for working with other nations to enforce against those sorts of activities and we think in 

general works to the benefit of everybody because it helps to preserve the fish stocks. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Let me rephrase my question. Maybe I am 

not getting through. I am not a member of the Intelligence Committee, but I think our satellite system is sophisticated enough to 

know just about every ant and fly that goes under the ocean and 

on the surface of the ocean throughout the entire Pacific Ocean, 

both North and South. And I was just wondering whether in the 

process of getting assistance—because they don’t have airplanes, 

they don’t have resources to monitor illegal fishing in their Exclusive Economic Zone, and I was just wondering if the U.S. is giving 

some kind of assistance in that respect. 

I realize that we have security, strategic and military interests 

as well, and this is more than just fishing, but I just wanted to 

know if we can do the same service. I mean, we have got satellites 

over there that can pinpoint just about every ant or spider that 

goes around in the Pacific. And I was wondering, as a real help to 

these island countries that don’t have airplanes, don’t have ships—

if they do, it is so bare that it is very, very difficult for them to 

monitor illegal fishing, especially from the Taiwanese boats. They 

are the biggest culprits in this poaching that is going on, and I 

imagine the hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of fish that has 

been taken illegally because of this. And I was just wondering, that 

would be such a tremendous help to these island nations to culture 

this resource that is so important to them. 

You know, I always say, the ocean is their farm. They have limited land resources for agricultural or commercial productions. But 

they certainly have Exclusive Economic Zones in the oceans and 

perhaps this is maybe something where our Government could give 

assistance. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, yes, I do understand 

your question, and I think that—I need to go back and seek further 

information for you, although I do know that, for example, Coast 

Guard has some programs. And perhaps Mr. Gibbons-Fly can provide a little further background on those programs. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Please. 

40

Mr. GIBBONS-FLY. Yes, Mr. Chairman. There is a great deal of 

assistance that the United States Government is providing to the 

island states to help them defend and enforce their EEZs against 

incursions by foreign fishing. The large majority of that comes from 

the U.S. Coast Guard, which regularly patrols wide areas of the 

western and central Pacific and over the last few years has negotiated a number of what are called ship rider agreements with the 

Pacific Islands, whereby enforcement authorities from the Pacific 

Island States are able to ride along on these Coast Guard cutters 

when they are in waters under the jurisdiction of the coastal states 

and therefore provide a platform. So when they encounter a vessel 

that is fishing illegally, it is not the Coast Guard taking action because they don’t have jurisdiction in those waters, but the enforcement authority from the coastal state then is able to exercise his 

or her enforcement authority over the vessel. And there have been 

a number of cases of vessels found illegally fishing, brought into 

port, that have resulted in fines against these vessels and very significant numbers that have accrued to some of the Pacific Island 

States. 

The Coast Guard is currently—and I think there are six or seven 

of these agreements. I don’t have all of it, but I think the compact 

states, I believe, Kiribati—the compact states, Palau, Marshall Islands, FSM, Kiribati, there are others. And the Coast Guard is actually even now looking to expand those with other States in the 

region. 

But I do want to emphasize that it is the treaty that provides 

the foundation, the cooperation under the treaty that provides the 

foundation for that kind of activity by the Coast Guard. We have 

under the treaty an agreed enforcement minute that says, we shall 

cooperate on enforcement across—and the Coast Guard has used 

that as the basis for a lot of this work. So the treaty underpins our 

cooperation, the U.S.-Pacific island cooperation, that has been established under the treaty. It underpins a lot of that work. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. So you are saying that that is part of the 

treaty agreement process where we give assistance to these island 

countries for the Coast Guard to monitor illegal fishing in their 

grounds. Am I correct in this? Or was that a separate issue that 

is not included in the treaty? 

Mr. GIBBONS-FLY. Well, it is not part of the treaty itself, but the 

treaty does establish the foundation for us to cooperate on other 

issues. And in particular there is—as I said, there is an agreement 

enforcement minute. And it is a very simple document. It is very 

possible that the Coast Guard could have gone ahead and negotiated these agreements even in the absence of that minute. But 

some of the relationships that were built by the Coast Guard representatives with the island states were built as a result of their 

participation on the delegations to the treaty consultations and 

things like that. 

So I wouldn’t say that this is part of the treaty. Coast Guard is 

operating under its own authority in conducting these agreements 

and implements and operates them under their own authority. But 

the treaty has certainly provided a lot of—kind of the 

underpinnings under which this relationship was able to evolve to 

get to these broader agreements. 

41

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I realize that this issue is outside the parameters of our discussion concerning the regional tuna treaty. But 

it also touches on the fact that it is in reference to the same region, 

and that is the Pacific region composed of all these island countries 

that is part of the Pacific. 

I want to raise the issue that beyond just fishing for tuna, one 

of the things that I have always advocated strongly in terms of our 

Government’s involvement where it should be involved are the seabed minerals that are contained in the Exclusive Economic Zones 

of these island nations. A couple of years ago, I think it was a Norwegian company that did a feasibility study on the Cook Islands. 

The Cook Islands only have about 20,000 people, but their Exclusive Economic Zone in the ocean is about 3 million square miles. 

And this company estimates that the Cook Islands’ seabed has an 

amount of manganese nodules valued well over $200 billion. If 

there was some harvest procedure going on on the bottom seabeds 

of these islands, and that is just the Cook Islands alone. I even understand in the Samoan Islands there is cobalt found there. 

So not just fishing, tuna, but on a more long-term vision in terms 

of looking at these island countries, as small as they may be, beyond just fishing for tuna. The wealth that these island countries 

possess potentially as far as seabed minerals are contained. As you 

well know, there are nodules that grow naturally in the bottom of 

the ocean which produce manganese, nickel, copper. I think two 

other elements are also there. That is why there is tremendous, 

tremendous wealth or value in the seabeds. 

Does our Government have any interest in this area besides just 

tuna, the worth of manganese nodules in the seabeds of these island countries throughout the Pacific? 

Mr. GIBBONS-FLY. Mr. Chairman, you have ventured outside my 

area of expertise, but if you have a specific question, I would be 

happy to take it for the record and get you a response. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Can you please? I would be very interested 

to know what the State Department’s position is on this. I know 

it is not about tuna. But I said seabed minerals are even more valued, more valued than tuna in that respect. 

Mr. Smith, do you think maybe NOAA might have some ships 

going around sensing how many submarines are going through our 

waters there? 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am relatively sure that 

we don’t. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. You don’t have any understanding? 

Mr. SMITH. That is not within sort of the work that we are doing 

right now. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. So are you saying perhaps the Department 

of the Navy or the Department of Defense might have that information in that regard? 

Mr. SMITH. We would be happy to get back to you and provide 

you with some additional information. 

[The information referred to follows:]

WRITTEN RESPONSE RECEIVED FROM MR. RUSSELL SMITH, III, TO QUESTION ASKED

DURING THE HEARING BY THE HONORABLE ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA

NOAA does not maintain these types of records. We encourage the Committee to 

ask the Department of Defense, specifically the Navy, for this information.

42

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. All right. You have both given an indication 

about the question of conservation issues. And this has always 

been one of my pet peeves in terms of the process of fishing, especially the process of purse seining, supposedly a more high-technology development in how these ships go out and like little purses 

get all the fish. What comes around as a result of that is not so 

much the tuna that they catch, but it is the discarding of miscellaneous or bycatch that I would venture to say that we don’t even 

have the slightest notion of how much this value of the fish, miscellaneous fish, that is being discarded and not even utilized for 

consumption purposes, and the fact that a swordfish or bass or 

other forms of marine life has just as much protein as tuna. 

Do you have any concerns about bycatch and miscellaneous catch 

as part of the negotiations with the island countries? Has this issue 

ever been raised by NOAA as well as by our State Department? 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In fact, bycatch is a concern. As I mentioned earlier, the general issue of protecting the resources, and part of protecting the resources is looking at the impact that the fishing activities have on stocks and on fish and on 

marine mammals that are not the target of the fishing. 

One of the things that working both within the SPTT and within 

the WCPFC has allowed us to do is to develop measures that both 

collect information on the impact of fishing on both targets and 

nontarget species and then take measures that are designed to address the impact on nontarget species. 

As I mentioned in my testimony, the U.S. under the SPTT has 

100 percent observer coverage on the vessels, on the purse seine 

vessels that are fishing in this fishery, and as a result, we have recently good data. I guess I should say that this is only as of 2010 

that we have had 100 percent coverage. But we have good data, 

and we are getting better data on what the incidence of bycatch is. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. When you say ‘‘data,’’ what data and information have you been able to compile over a series of years on the 

amount of bycatch that has been discarded discriminately or indiscriminately by fishing vessels? 

Mr. SMITH. Well, with respect to the U.S. purse seine fleet, which 

is where we have the best information, during 2008 and 2009, discarded bycatch—so these are—this is the product that is just 

thrown away—has been about between 0.4 and 0.9 percent by 

weight of the total catch. So by weight it is a relatively small percentage of the product caught. 

I will note that our fishers go after yellowtail and skipjack tuna. 

They also catch bigeye as bycatch, but that bigeye, for the most 

part, is utilized. It goes into canneries and is retained. 

So by some definitions, the bycatch is higher, but I think the concern that you expressed was about discards, and with respect to 

discards, it is the 0.4. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Can you submit something for the record, 

the data that NOAA has collected in terms of how much bycatch 

has really been taken as a matter of record? Because I can’t believe 

it is only 0.4 percent. It has got to be a lot more than that. 

Mr. SMITH. I would be happy to. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Please, if you could submit that for the 

record. 

43

[The information referred to follows:]


58429i-1.eps
44


58429i-2.eps
45


58429i-3.eps
46


58429j-1.eps
47


58429j-2.eps
48


58429j-3.eps
49


58429j-4.eps
50


58429j-5.eps
51


58429j-6.eps
52


58429j-7.eps
53

[NOTE: The remainder of this document is not reprinted here but 

is available in committee records.]


58429j-8.eps
54

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Gibbons-Fly. 

Mr. GIBBONS-FLY. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Just to add a couple of points, this issue has been discussed within the WCPFC, and the issue of bycatch, in particular the juvenile 

bigeye, has been a source of continuing concern. And the WCPFC 

has adopted at least two measures to get to this question. One is 

the WCPFC now requires all purse seine vessels to retain all fish 

that is caught; no discards unless a vessel is absolutely full on its 

last set and has no more room in its hold. But other than that, all 

fish is to be retained. 

The idea is to—because the juvenile tuna, the smaller tuna, has 

less value, if the vessels are required to take that into port where 

they are going to get less money for it, in theory it provides an incentive to avoid those areas where they are catching a lot of small 

fish. 

The second thing that the WCPFC has done is most of the 

catches of juvenile bigeye tuna are caught in association with fishaggregating devices, the floating aggregated devices, the FADS. 

Last year there was a 60-day closure of the FAD fishery, and that 

will expand to a 90-day closure of the FAD fishery, particularly to 

decrease the amount of small bigeye that is caught. 

And third, this continues to be an issue. And a number of governments and private sector groups are looking at ways to mitigate 

bycatch or catch of juvenile tuna, juvenile bigeye tuna, in purse 

seine fisheries. In particular, a group called the International Seafood Sustainability Foundation has undertaken a major research 

project in all the oceans of the world to look at ways—chartering 

vessels to look at what technological solutions might be available 

in terms of fishing gear and techniques that would mitigate catch 

of the bigeye tuna. It is my view that the U.S. should be a major 

contributor to that effort, and we are looking for ways to do that 

in cooperation with NOAA. 

So these issues are very much on the radar screen, Mr. Chairman. I don’t think we are where we want or need to be yet, but 

we are working very hard to try to get there. Thank you. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I realize that this is not related to tuna, but 

it does have issues as far as conservation is concerned as well. 

Years ago we passed a law on restricting the killing of sharks for 

the purpose of the fishermen just simply cutting off the fins and 

discarding the rest of the body of the shark for the only reason because shark fin soup happens to be the most expensive soup in 

Asia. And I remember going to Tokyo. A little bowl of shark fin 

soup like this was $100. 

I wanted to know, Mr. Smith, conservationwise, are we being 

successful in really cutting down the situation dealing with shark 

finning? I suppose it is not part of the tuna fishing treaty, right? 

Nothing to do with sharks? Mr. Gibbons-Fly. 

Mr. GIBBONS-FLY. Well, I will let Mr. Smith be the one to address this. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you. 

Mr. SMITH. In fact, as you may know, there are several tuna 

treaties or treaties under which we address tuna and other highly 

migratory species. And in each of those, sharks has come up as an 

issue in one way or another, often as bycatch. 

55

Yes, we continue to aggressively look for ways to reduce the mortality of sharks, in particular reduce the mortality of sharks that 

are taken just for purposes of finning. And we do it through these 

organizations, working with our partners. Our vessels are subjected 

to the legislation that you referred to, and NOAA actively and the 

U.S. Coast Guard actively enforce those provisions. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I think we have pretty much covered our 

bases on some of the issues that have been raised in the hearing 

this afternoon. I make this presumption: Assuming that I get reelected in November, you will see my ugly face again. But otherwise, I do deeply appreciate both of you for your involvement in the 

negotiations on the regional tuna treaty. 

I notice my good friend Dave Whaley is back there on behalf of 

my colleague; and a real dear friend who knows very much about 

fishing industries, that would be Congressman Don Young from 

Alaska. And I am very happy that he is here just to observe and 

hear what we are talking about. 

But, gentlemen, I do want to say that we have got to be in a better competitive edge in terms of how we are dealing with the tuna 

industry. Competition coming from foreign countries has been very 

stiff, and I don’t know how much longer we are going to be able 

to continue to compete in this industry. And I sincerely hope that 

our tuna boat owners will also be forthcoming. 

The problem that I have had over the years, Mr. Gibbons-Fly, is 

that our tuna boat owners are so independent of one another. It is 

very difficult to really get a sense of unity of organization, really 

given the issues of what would be in the best interests of our tuna 

industry; no less also to suggest that our canneries are not also 

united in that respect in terms of what should be the concerns and 

how the future of our tuna industry should be brought about in a 

more positive way. 

Before I close, did you have any more additional statements you 

wanted to submit for the record? 

Mr. GIBBONS-FLY. No, Mr. Chairman, only to say we wish you 

well on your upcoming election, and we look forward to being back 

here before you to keep you updated on our progress in these negotiations and other related issues. 

On your last issue about the U.S. tuna fishermen, I think my 

general assessment over three decades—and I think it relates to all 

fishermen that I have encountered—is that individuals become 

fishermen precisely because they don’t want other people to tell 

them what to do, and that presents a number of challenges for us 

in the government. But I have found our fishing industry to be—

despite the fact that they have very varied interests, for me it has 

always been a pleasure to work with them, and it has been an 

honor to represent them in the international arena because I think 

our fishermen do have the best record, and we should be proud of 

that record and seek to see that as the standard that is set for 

other parts of the world. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I might also note for the record, before Mr. 

Smith gives his statement, I had about a 5-hour dialogue with Mr. 

Jeff Pike, representing our tuna boat owners, given the fact that 

one of our laws has expired, in terms of the requirement of licensVerDate 0ct 09 2002 21:27 Dec 23, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\APGE\092210A\58429 HFA PsN: SHIRL
56

ing offices to man these fishing boats. My understanding is that it 

is necessary that we give our tuna boat owners another 2 years’ extension to have this waiver, this extension. 

But my concern, as part of the equation, what are they doing to 

help my little tuna industry in American Samoa? And that has not 

been forthcoming. And I sincerely hope that we are going to come 

up with some more positive results in terms of this law that gives 

a waiver for foreign offices to man our tuna boats. 

Mr. Smith? 

Mr. SMITH. I just wanted to take this opportunity to say thank 

you for the hearing and for giving us the chance to testify, and I 

do hope that we will have this opportunity to visit this way again. 

Your support in this area has been very important. It is a difficult 

area because of the economics and because of the needs of the islands and the fish and the tuna boats, and I think it is only 

through this dialogue that we are going to be able to come to a solution on how to get all of these interests balanced out. But thank 

you very much. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Well, gentlemen, with that, I am going to 

use this mallet and say the hearing is adjourned. Thank you very 

much. 

[Whereupon, at 2:50 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(57)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

58


58429n.eps
59


58429m.eps
60

Æ


58429d.eps