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) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

87-232 PS 2003

H.R. 2048 and H.RES. 30

LEGISLATIVE HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES CONSERVATION,

WILDLIFE AND OCEANS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

May 22, 2003

Serial No. 108-22

Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house

or

Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov

(II)

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

RICHARD W. POMBO, California, Chairman

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member

Don Young, Alaska

W.J. ‘‘Billy’’ Tauzin, Louisiana

Jim Saxton, New Jersey

Elton Gallegly, California

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee

Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland

Ken Calvert, California

Scott McInnis, Colorado

Barbara Cubin, Wyoming

George Radanovich, California

Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Carolina

Chris Cannon, Utah

John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania

Jim Gibbons, Nevada,

Vice Chairman

Mark E. Souder, Indiana

Greg Walden, Oregon

Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado

J.D. Hayworth, Arizona

Tom Osborne, Nebraska

Jeff Flake, Arizona

Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana

Rick Renzi, Arizona

Tom Cole, Oklahoma

Stevan Pearce, New Mexico

Rob Bishop, Utah

Devin Nunes, California

VACANCY

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Samoa

Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii

Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas

Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey

Calvin M. Dooley, California

Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Islands

Ron Kind, Wisconsin

Jay Inslee, Washington

Grace F. Napolitano, California

Tom Udall, New Mexico

Mark Udall, Colorado

Anı ́bal Acevedo-Vila ́, Puerto Rico

Brad Carson, Oklahoma

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona

Dennis A. Cardoza, California

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam

George Miller, California

Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts

Rube ́n Hinojosa, Texas

Ciro D. Rodriguez, Texas

Joe Baca, California

Betty McCollum, Minnesota

Steven J. Ding, Chief of Staff

Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel

James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director

Jeffrey P. Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel

SUBCOMMITTE ON FISHERIES CONSERVATION, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland, Chairman

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey, Ranking Democrat Member

Don Young, Alaska

W.J. ‘‘Billy’’ Tauzin, Louisiana

Jim Saxton, New Jersey

Mark E. Souder, Indiana

Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Carolina

Richard W. Pombo, California, ex officio

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Samoa

Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii

Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam

Nick J. Rahall II, West Virginia, ex officio

(III)

CONTENTS

Page

Hearing held on May 22, 2003 ............................................................................... 1

Statement of Members:

Cunningham, Hon. Randy ‘‘Duke,’’ a Representative in Congress from

the State of California .................................................................................. 3

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 7

Letter to Secretary Evans submitted for the record ............................... 40

Letter to Robert Fletcher submitted for the record ................................ 6

Gilchrest, Hon. Wayne T., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Maryland ................................................................................................... 1

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 2

Pallone, Hon. Frank, a Representative in Congress from the State of

New Jersey .................................................................................................... 9

NATURE article entitled ‘‘Rapid worldwide depletion of predatory fish

communities’’ submitted for the record ................................................ 11

Statement of Witnesses:

Hogarth, Dr. William T., Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National

Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce ........................................ 23

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 26

Response to questions submitted for the record ..................................... 56

Jones, Marshall P., Jr., Deputy Director, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S.

Department of the Interior ........................................................................... 31

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

Response to questions submitted for the record ..................................... 61

West, Ambassador Mary Beth, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Oceans

and Fisheries, Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and

Scientific Affairs, U.S. Department of State ............................................... 15

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 17

Response to questions submitted for the record ..................................... 64

Additional materials supplied:

Fletcher, Robert C., President, Sportfishing Association of California,

Letters submitted for the record by Hon. Wayne Gilchrest ...................... 52

(1)

LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 2048, A BILL

TO EXTEND THE PERIOD FOR REIMBURSEMENT UNDER THE FISHERMEN’S PROTECTIVE ACT OF 1967, AND TO REAUTHORIZE

THE YUKON RIVER RESTORATION AND

ENHANCEMENT FUND; AND H.RES. 30, A

RESOLUTION CONCERNING THE SAN DIEGO

LONG-RANGE SPORTFISHING FLEET AND

RIGHTS TO FISH THE WATERS NEAR THE

REVILLAGIGEDO ISLANDS OF MEXICO.

Thursday, May 22, 2003

U.S. House of Representatives

Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans

Committee on Resources

Washington, DC

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in

room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Wayne T.

Gilchrest [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.

Present: Representatives Gilchrest, Pallone, Saxton, and

Cunningham.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. WAYNE T. GILCHREST, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF

MARYLAND

Mr. GILCHREST. The Subcommittee will come to order.

The Ranking Member, I understand, will be here in just a few

minutes.

Before I begin this morning, I would like to ask unanimous consent that our colleague Congressman Duke Cunningham be allowed to sit at the dais and participate in today’s hearing.

Hearing no objection, so ordered. Duke is not going to object.

I want to thank the witnesses for coming this morning. We look

forward to your testimony on a number of issues. We will review

two pieces of legislation: H.R. 2048 and H. Res. 30. In addition, we

have asked the witnesses to address issues of interest to the Subcommittee concerning our obligations under various international

fishery and marine mammal conservation management treaties.

2

The first bill is H.R. 2048, which authorizes two laws dealing

with international fisheries: The Fishermen’s Protective Act and

the Yukon River Salmon Act.

The second piece of legislation is H. Res. 30, introduced by my

friend and colleague, Congress Duke Cunningham. This resolution

calls on the Departments of State and Commerce, both of which are

represented on the panel before us, to work with their counterparts

in the Mexican Government to allow charter fishermen from San

Diego to regain access to a number of islands in Mexican waters

that these fishermen have had access to in the past.

Finally, we have asked our witnesses a number of questions regarding their activities on the international front. For instance, I

understand there are three new treaties that deal with either marine mammal management or cooperative fisheries management. I

also understand there have been a number of international fishery

management bodies that have met in the past year or will meet in

the near future, and some of the issues being discussed will affect

domestic management of our fishery resources.

One such issue is the management of the Patagonian Toothfish,

also known as Chilean Sea Bass, which was a topic of much debate

on the recent CITES meeting. I hope we will hear what the U.S.

is doing to implement a domestic catch verification scheme to ensure that what is on the market in the U.S. is coming from a country that is following the international rules. This fishery is a clear

case where illegal, unregulated, and unreported, or IUU fishing is

having a negative impact on a fishery that is under international

management.

As all of our members know, this Subcommittee has jurisdiction

over international fishery agreements, and while this hearing will

just scratch the surface of our jurisdiction, I hope it will highlight

some of the issues or international agreements upon which we

should spend some more time later on in this year.

We look forward to hearing from our witnesses this morning, and

I want to thank all of you for coming back so many times to Capitol

Hill. And when Mr. Pallone gets here, we will give him time for

his opening statement.

I will yield now for any time he may want to use to Mr.

Cunningham from California. Do you have any statement you want

to say up front?

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gilchrest follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Wayne T. Gilchrest, Chairman,

Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans

Today, the Subcommittee will review two pieces of legislation—H.R. 2048 and

H.Res. 30. In addition, we have asked the witnesses to address issues of interest

to the Subcommittee concerning our obligations under various international fishery

and marine mammal conservation and management treaties.

The first bill is H.R. 2048 which reauthorizes two laws dealing with international

fisheries—the Fishermen’s Protective Act and the Yukon River Salmon Act.

The second piece of legislation is H.Res. 30, introduced by my friend and colleague, Congressman Duke Cunningham. This resolution calls on the Departments

of State and Commerce, both of which are represented on the panel before us, to

work with their counterparts in the Mexican government to allow charter fishermen

from San Diego to regain access to a number of islands in Mexican waters that

these fishermen have had access to in the past.

Finally, we have asked our witnesses a number of questions regarding their activities on the international front. For instance, I understand there are three new

3

treaties that deal with either marine mammal management or cooperative fisheries

management. I also understand there have been a number of international fishery

management bodies that have met in the past year or will meet in the near future

and some of the issues being discussed will affect domestic management of our fishery resources.

One such issue is the management of Patagonian Toothfish, also known as Chilean Sea Bass, which was a topic of much debate at the recent CITES meeting. I

hope we will hear what the U.S. is doing to implement a domestic catch verification

scheme to ensure that what is on the market in the U.S. is coming from a country

that is following the international rules. This fishery is a clear case where illegal,

unregulated and unreported, or I.U.U., fishing is having a negative impact on a fishery that is under international management.

As all of our Members know, this Subcommittee has jurisdiction over international fishery agreements and while this hearing will just scratch the surface of

our jurisdiction, I hope it will highlight some of the issues or international agreements on which we should spend some more time later in the year.

I look forward to hearing from all of our witnesses today. I also ask unanimous

consent that the statement of Mr. Robert Fletcher, President of the California

Sportfishing Association, be entered into the record at the appropriate point.

I am pleased to recognize the Ranking Democratic Member of the Subcommittee,

The Honorable Frank Pallone.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Do you want me

to go through my resolution right now?

Mr. GILCHREST. You may. If you want to make a comment or

statement —

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Do you want me to wait for Mr. Pallone?

Mr. GILCHREST. I think you can begin, Mr. Cunningham.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. RANDY ‘‘DUKE’’ CUNNINGHAM, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, my classmate.

I sat there on that side when I first got here 12 years ago in Congress when the great Walter E. Jones was the Chairman. I want

to tell you he worked in a very bipartisan way. He was a great

man, and now his son sits right here in this position next to me

here. And since that time, I think we have done a lot of good. The

Chairman focuses on the environment, on wildlife and fisheries

management, and I have been proud to fly his wing on many, many

issues, and I want to thank you.

Mexico has allowed fishing in the Revillagigedo Islands since

1970, and in late 1994, Mexico declared that the islands would become part of a biosphere reserve and a closed area. I worked with

Secretary Comacho, who was then Secretary of Fisheries and a

great man, and again, in a very bipartisan way, we sat down for

almost a year going through Mexican law, environmental law, and

came up with a plan to where U.S. and Mexico could sportfish

within the islands and it was a good plan.

In 1995, Mexico reopened the islands to sportsfishing and said

they would allow it until a management plan was completed. To

date, Mexico announced that the management plan was due in

March, but we haven’t seen it yet, and most scientific studies point

out that sportsfishing’s impact on the ecosystem is positive. The

problem is commercial long-liners.

Are there certain fish species that have been depleted? I fish. As

a matter of fact, on the 30th of this month, I am going down yelVerDate 11-MAY-2000 16:20 Oct 10, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 87232.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
4

lowfin fishing with sportsfishermen, and I have been about four

times this year, and I have caught a record number in large mature fish every single time. I have caught wahoo. I have caught yellow tail and some good species.

But one long-line fishing vessel that comes in illegally catches

more than an entire season of every sportsfisherman’s take. They

deplete the resource. Now, you as citizens can go out for a weekend. You go down to a boat. You pay your money, and you go out

with a single line and catch fish. That doesn’t deplete the resource.

The real problem, we feel, are the long-liners and the commercial

fishermen.

The sportsfishermen, Mr. Chairman, actually turn away illegal

fishermen in the areas around the islands because that is where

the fish respond. The Mexican authorities do not adequately accomplish this function. You know, whether it is border control or fishing, they are just not as responsive—they have a law, but they just

don’t back it in up in many cases. And the ecosystem has actually

benefited from our sportsfishermen.

San Diego stands to lose literally thousands of jobs. We are talking mostly Portuguese families that have fished for hundreds of

years and had the right to do that, and they maintain those stocks.

If they deplete the stocks, their livelihood, they lose. So just as

farmers are, I think, the best managers of wildlife, our

sportfishermen are the best managers of our seas—the

sportsfishermen, not necessarily the commercial fishermen.

And I would say the fleet has already lost an entire season. If

fish disappear and the fleet loses their livelihood, they are not only

out of business, but the fisheries system, the ecosystem, is also

depleted.

Welcome, Mr. Pallone.

The fleet has offered to stop trolling in the area. Trolling is taking the boat with long lines in the back and fish. They have agreed

not to do that within six miles of the island, and most of the fish

are inside that level, to reduce the individual take of wahoo from

15 fish to personally 10 fish per season, to carry observers from

Mexico itself to make sure that they don’t violate the laws. Every

boat that goes out will have a Mexican observer on it to make sure

that this is done.

Secretary Evans and his staff have been quite helpful in trying

to resolve this issue, and I am proud of my record, not only on this

Committee, but for the last 12 years. The Tuna-Dolphin Bill was

mine in which we saved species, young species, and bycatch that

was being pulled up and discarded. The Shark Finning Bill was my

bill. As a sportsman, I found that fisherman were catching sharks,

cutting the fins off, and then dropping the carcass back. That is

just wrong. I am not and extreme environmentalist, but I am a conservationist, and I want the species for my children and for Mr.

Pallone’s children and our families to exist.

That goodwill is in jeopardy, Mr. Chairman. I have supported

NAFTA. I supported when the peso devaluation came forward,

working with our sister country in San Diego on immigration

issues and stuff, but I want to tell you there is a large group of

us, Republicans and Democrats that are not going to take this last

slap in the face from Mexico.

5

This resolution sends a strong message to the Mexican Government and Vincente Fox to help us resolve this issue, save the ecosystem, save jobs for Mexico all the way from Cabo San Lucas up

to northern San Diego and help us do that. It is a good resolution.

It is a bipartisan resolution.

There was a study done by free divers. This is about 15,000

hours of diving around the islands. Well, guess what. If I am hunting elk and I hunt elk the desert. I am going to tell you there aren’t

any elk in there and the species is depleted. Where I go up is

Montrose, Colorado to hunt elk or other areas which they have

been brought in, and the islands where these divers dive in this

study just isn’t where the species are. I mean, they are migratory

and they travel all over, but where the Wahoo, what the yellowfin,

and the fish are do not relate to this.

[The letter referred to follows:]

6

7

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I laud them for trying to do a study, but it is

just not accurate, and I would thank the Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cunningham follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Randy ‘‘Duke’’ Cunningham, a Representative

in Congress from the State of California

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be here today before the Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans to discuss my legislation, House Resolution

30. When I was first elected to the House of Representatives, I sat on the Merchant

Marine and Fisheries Committee. Since that time I have fought to protect our resources and I appreciate all that is done in this Subcommittee to ensure the safest

and most efficient methods overseeing our fisheries.

The long-range sportfishing fleet of San Diego has fished the waters off Mexico’s

Revillagigedo Islands (the Islands) since the early 1970s. This activity has occurred

under agreements with various agencies of the Mexican Government including the

Mexican Navy, the National Ecology Institute, and the Department of Environment,

Natural Resources, and Fisheries. These longstanding agreements made for a safe

8

business environment and resulted in major capital expenditures by the San Diego

sportfishing fleet, namely long-range sportfishing boats.

In 1994, the President of Mexico declared that the Islands would become part of

a biosphere reserve and ordered an overall management plan, to include fishing regulations, to be completed within one year. In late 1994, the Mexican Navy closed

the Islands to fishing until the management plan was complete.

After negotiations, in January of 1995, the Mexican Government agreed to issue

provisional permits to the San Diego sportfishing fleet to fish the waters more than

500 meters from the islands until such time as a management plan was completed.

It was understood that the final fishing regulations concerning the biosphere reserve

would be included in the management plan. To date the management plan has not

been completed.

On March 26th, 2002, without warning, the Mexican Government revoked all permits to fish within 6 nautical miles of the islands. This essentially closed the islands

to sportfishing, as the large tuna that are sought in these waters are not to be found

outside the six mile limit.

This action, in direct conflict with previous agreements, is having a devastating

impact on the San Diego long-range sportfishing fleet, its employees, and tourism

associated with the fleet. Mexico’s continued refusal to allow the sportfishing fleet

access to the islands’ waters will cause serious economic harm to this important San

Diego industry including lay-offs, loss of boat sales, bankruptcies, and a negative annual economic impact of $5,500,000.

The season runs from October through June, so the fleet has already lost one entire season. Their normal customers are not interested in fishing the local waters

for smaller fish and instead head to Hawaii or foreign countries to catch their world

class sportfish. Many companies will not be able to recover from this lost revenue.

While our efforts to convince Mexico to restore grant permits to the sportfishing

fleet in the nearshore waters around the four islands have been consistent, this

issue still remains unresolved, frustrating my constituents who have lost their livelihood.

I wish to commend the efforts of Commerce Secretary Donald Evans and his staff

in working with me to resolve this problem. Secretary Evans has initiated many

talks with Secretary Derbez, his counterpart in Mexico, to find a solution. The two

have developed an excellent relationship and were engaged in negotiations on the

Revillagigedo Archipelago issue throughout the past eight months. As you may

know, Secretary Derbez was appointed to the position of Foreign Minister earlier

this month. We have yet to see how this will effect Secretary Evans’ efforts and

hope that this will not be a setback to the resolution of this time sensitive issue.

The Sportfishing Association of California (SAC) also deserves to be recognized for

their dedication to resolution of this issue. Bob Fletcher, President of SAC, has traveled to Mexico on numerous occasions to meet with both U.S. and Mexican officials.

He keeps an open mind and works to educate Mexico on the adverse effects this

decisions has had on both countries. Earlier this year, he was present in La Paz

and Manzanillo and actively involved in the discussions of the management plan for

the Islands. He has worked to develop healthy relationships with Mexican officials

in order to find a resolution that will hopefully sustain the livelihood of this fishing

fleet. SAC has tried to sensitive to Mexico’s environmental concerns, offering to stop

trolling all together, reduce their yield of wahoo, carry Mexican observers, and other

actions as spelled out in my letter on their behalf to Secretary Evans, dated

December 19, 2002 (attached). They are willing to work with the Mexican government on this issue.

I am proud of my record of cooperation with Mexico in the trade arena and have

worked hard for years to sustain and improve the history of working together that

San Diego and Mexico enjoy. That goodwill is in jeopardy, however, as I watch my

constituents suffer tremendous losses with seeming indifference from the Mexican

Government. I am disheartened by delays of the Mexican Government to swiftly resolve this issue. The environmental enforcement agency of the Mexican Government, PROFEPA, has claimed that the failure to complete a management plan has

necessitated the revocation of permits. An objective review of the facts, however, will

clearly lay the blame for this crisis at the door of the Mexican Government, for failing to complete the management plan by June of 1995, as required by the Presidential Decree that created the Revillagigedo Archipelago Biosphere Reserve. A plan

was in fact completed in draft form and forwarded to the U.S. Embassy in mid–

1997, and that plan, a very acceptable document, was then left to gather dust for

years.

This issue can be easily resolved, if President Vicente Fox will amend the 1994

Presidential Decree that created the Biosphere Reserve of the Revillagigedo Archipelago. An amendment to the Presidential Decree would solve the issue once and

9

for all. At present, the Decree mandates a 6 nautical mile nucleus zone be in place

around all four islands in the Archipelago. If the Decree were amended to 500-meter

nucleus zones around each of the four islands, it would still protect the species of

concern and their habitats, while opening the waters outside 500-meters to limited

sportfishing use. The 1994 Decree intended for the allowance of sportfishing within

that area.

Mr. Chairman, House Resolution 30 sends a strong message to the Mexican government that reneging on this a long standing agreement will not go unnoticed. The

suspension of these fishing permits has caused hardship for both the U.S. and Mexican economies. While our fishing boats lose their livelihood, Cabo San Lucas loses

tourism revenue. This Resolution will hopefully prove to President Fox and the

Mexican government that resolution of this issue can be swift and beneficial to both

of our countries. We have sought to become better neighbors with our friends to the

South through trade agreements such as NAFTA and diplomatic efforts under this

administration. This Resolution will show them how they too can be better neighbors to the United States.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Cunningham, for your resolution

and your statement this morning.

I yield for an opening statement to Mr. Pallone.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR., A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF

NEW JERSEY

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and let me say on behalf of our colleague, Mr. Cunningham, I appreciate his input into

this, and with regard to House Resolution 30, I am interested to

hear testimony that might clarify the Mexican Government’s position on the islands in Mexico and the developments over the past

year leading to the Mexican Government’s decision to exclude San

Diego’s recreational fishing fleet.

I respect the sovereign right of every nation to manage their fisheries within their waters, but it appears in this situation we need

additional clarification. So hopefully we will get that during the

panel discussion.

Let me say, Mr. Chairman, I think this hearing is important,

particularly with regard to the international fisheries agreements

that are important, I think, for a variety of economic and ecological

reasons, not least of which is that the improper or unfair management of international fisheries costs our constituents millions of

dollars in lost revenues. Clearly global fisheries management is

vital not only to the livelihoods of commercial fisherman in our

nation and around the world, but also to the effect of conservation

of highly migratory species and the so-called straddling stocks,

those species that straddle borders of two or three nations.

I think that our efforts to guarantee international compliance

with fisheries agreements are not only justified, but crucial to

avoid seriously adverse economic impacts on our own fishermen

and to protect global fisheries in the long term. Illegal, unregulated, and unreported fishing is an enormous problem as the New

Jersey-based Bluewater Fishermen’s Association attested to in this

past Sunday’s Boston Globe. Poachers fishing in foreign waters sell

their catch at a much lower price than our law-abiding commercial

fishermen can afford. In addition, the decline of highly migratory

species such as Atlantic white marlin forces even non-commercial

fishermen to be stringently regulated.

10

I wanted to call attention: In last week’s issue of the scientific

journal ‘‘Nature’’, two scientists from Dalhousie University in Nova

Scotia addressed the problem of global overfishing. The authors

performed statistical analyses using global government and fishing

industry data from the past 50-plus years. They concluded that the

industrialization of the commercial fishing industry has obliterated

90 percent of each of the world’s large ocean fish species.

U.S. fishermen are expected to adhere to national and international laws that are in place to protect these highly migratory

fish species, but fish piracy resulting in illegal and unreported

catches around the world is a serious problem that needs to be addressed on a global scale.

These illegal fishing practices will result in fewer and smaller

fish for everyone unless we devote significant time and effort to

more effectively managing international fisheries. Clearly, the U.S.

cannot ignore the global fisheries crisis if it hopes to maintain a

sustainable domestic fishing industry. Furthermore, the U.S. needs

to take a much stronger position on international compliance with

these agreements. If all member nations in these agreements would

simply enforce the approved regulations, the over-fishing of highly

migratory fish species would undoubtedly be decreased to a large

degree. It is entirely unfair to our commercial fisherman that rogue

fishing vessels are allowed to get away with fishing illegally under

the flags of other nations.

I just wanted to say in conclusion that hopefully we will gain

greater insight today regarding the cooperation and effectiveness of

those international fisheries agreements to which the U.S. is a

party, and I am hopeful the U.S. will be able to convince our partner nations of the importance of increased cooperation in international fishery matters, and I am looking forward to hearing from

our witnesses about recent accomplishments and goals in these

international treaties.

If I could just submit the article that I mentioned, Mr. Chairman, from Nature, I would appreciate that.

Mr. GILCHREST. Without objection, so order.

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you.

[The NATURE article follows:]

11

12

13

14

15

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Pallone.

Mr. Saxton, any opening comment?

Mr. SAXTON. No.

Mr. GILCHREST. Our witnesses this morning: Ambassador Mary

Beth West, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Oceans and Fisheries,

Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific

Affairs, Department of State.

Welcome, Ambassador.

Dr. William T. Hogarth, Assistant Administrator of Fisheries,

National Marine Fisheries Service, has been with us many, many

times. Welcome back, Mr. Hogarth.

And Mr. Marshall Jones, who has also been here on a number

of occasions, Deputy Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior.

Again, welcome all of you, and we look forward to your testimony

this morning.

Ambassador West, you may begin.

STATEMENT OF AMBASSADOR MARY BETH WEST, DEPUTY

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR OCEANS AND FISHERIES,

BUREAU OF OCEANS AND INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL AND SCIENTIFIC AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF

STATE

Ambassador WEST. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate

the opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee today to talk

about international fisheries. My oral statement will cover a few

issues of particular interest to the Subcommittee. My written statement, which I would like to submit for the record, provides more

detail on these issues and reviews a number of other matters as

well.

Mr. GILCHREST. Without objection, your written testimony will be

submitted to the record.

Ambassador WEST. Thank you. First a bit of an overview: In general, profound changes have reshaped international fisheries in the

past decade. In many key areas, the fishing capacity of vessels has

outpaced the reproductive capacity of fish stocks. Many fishing vessels, particularly those flying flags of convenience, do not abide by

agreed rules. Concerns have also arisen about the effects of fishing

on other marine life and on the marine environment as a whole.

To confront these daunting challenges, the U.S. has negotiated a

wide range of international instruments designed to promote sustainable fisheries worldwide. Effective implementation of these instruments is critical to reaching this goal.

Turning to bilateral issues with Canada, let me say that relations with Canada on fisheries issues are better than they have

been in many years. The 1999 Pacific Salmon Agreement resolved

longstanding issues between the two sides and has allowed the Pacific Salmon Commission to function effectively once again.

We have also concluded three other bilateral fisheries agreements with Canada since 1999 that will help both of us, both the

U.S. and Canada, conserve and manage shared fish stocks. The

first is an agreement to manage salmon fisheries on the Yukon

River. This agreement was concluded by exchange of notes in

16

December of 2002. As envisioned in H.R. 2048, there is an ongoing

need for authorization and appropriation of funds to implement the

agreement. In that respect, I would note that the Administration

has some minor technical suggestions for that bill which we have

already provided to your staff.

Second, the U.S. and Canada have agreed to amend the 1981 Albacore Tuna Treaty to provide for limits on the level of fishing permitted by vessels of each country in the waters of the other country. Such changes are necessary to stem a growing Canadian fishery in U.S. waters and also to permit future management of the

stock by both sides. The Administration hopes that the Senate will

act favorably on the treaty amendment and that Congress as a

whole will enact implementing legislation in the very near future.

Third, we have concluded negotiations with Canada on a new

agreement to manage and share the valuable transboundary stock

of Pacific whiting, also known as Pacific hake. Disagreements over

this stock have led to overfishing in the past. The United States

was taking approximately 80 percent of the allowable catch while

Canada was taking more than 30 percent, meaning that we were

overfishing the stocks. This agreement, once it enters into force,

should remedy that problem effectively. We look forward to working with Congress in developing implementing legislation for this

agreement.

Regarding sportfishing around the islands off Mexico, the Department of State fully understands the concerns raised by Congressman Cunningham and others about permits for U.S.

sportfishing vessels to fish in the waters around those islands.

Over the past year, we have raised this issue to senior levels in the

Government of Mexico and we will certainly continue these efforts

in coordination with you, Congress Cunningham, with Congress,

and our colleagues in the Commerce Department.

I would now like to turn to two developments concerning tuna

fishing in the Pacific. These are both issues in which I have been

personally involved for a lot of my time over the last several years.

In 2000, the U.S. and 18 other nations signed a new treaty to manage tunas and other highly migratory species in the western and

central Pacific. The area covered by this convention produces more

than half of the world’s annual tuna catch. This treaty, which is

not yet in force, enjoys strong support from the U.S. tuna industry

and the conservation community. We are now actively participating

in the preparatory conference process to set up the commission that

will manage these stocks. Once the treaty is submitted for Senate

advice and consent, we will look forward to working with the Senate and also to working with both houses of Congress in developing

necessary implementing legislation.

We have also reached agreement with the Pacific island parties

to extend the South Pacific Tuna Treaty, the successful existing

treaty that allows U.S. vessels to fish for tuna in the waters of 16

Pacific island nations. This extension will run through June of

2013, in other words, 10 years from this coming June. Nearly all

of the tuna caught pursuant to this treaty, which has an estimated

value of between 250 and 40 million per year for the U.S., is landed

and canned in American Samoa.

17

In extending the treaty regime, the parties also adopted a number of amendments, including one that will allow U.S. long-line

vessels to operate in the high seas portion of the treaty area. A

minor amendment to the South Pacific Tuna Act of 1988 would be

necessary to take account of this.

Turning to the FA0, in the past decade, we have sought to reenergize the FAO as a forum for addressing international fisheries

policy issues. We believe that we have succeeded in good measure.

The FAO has adopted ground-breaking instruments to guide the

pursuit of sustainable fisheries, including the High Seas Fishing

Vessel Compliance Agreement which just entered into force in late

April, we are delighted to be able to report; the code of conduct for

responsible fisheries; and four international plans of action on specific topics, including fishing capacity and IUU, illegal, unreported,

and unregulated, fishing.

At the most recent meeting of the FAO Committee on Fisheries,

we made progress in addressing IUU fishing, in seeking to minimize the bycatch of sea turtles in fisheries, and improving the collection and dissemination of fisheries data. The future work program of FAO on these matters will include policy-level meetings to

promote implementation of the plans of action on fishing capacity

and on IUU fishing as well as a meeting to focus on reducing bycatch of sea turtles in fisheries. I would also note that FAO will

host a major conference on deep sea fisheries in New Zealand in

December of 2003.

Finally, in the interest of time, let me defer to Dr. Hogarth of the

National Marine Fisheries Service on matters concerning whaling

and the International Whaling Commission since the U.S. commissioners to that body are from the National Marine Fisheries Service.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to address the Subcommittee, and at the appropriate time, I would be pleased to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Ambassador West follows:]

Statement of Ambassador Mary Beth West, Deputy Assistant Secretary of

State for Oceans and Fisheries, Bureau of Oceans and International

Environmental and Scientific Affairs, U.S. Department of State

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

Today’s meeting is taking place against the backdrop of profound changes that

have reshaped international fisheries in the past decade. We face a world in which

the fishing capacity of the fleets operating in many key areas has outpaced the reproductive capacity of the fish stocks in those areas. The past decade has seen a

growing incidence of fishing vessels that do not abide by agreed rules. Serious concerns have also arisen about the effects of fishing operations on other marine life

and on the marine environment as a whole.

To confront these daunting challenges, the United States has negotiated, and is

working with others in the international community to implement, a wide range of

instruments designed to promote sustainable fisheries worldwide. Some of these are

global in scope, others are regional and still others are bilateral. Some have binding

legal force, others are voluntary in nature. Effective implementation of these agreements and arrangements presents the best chance of meeting the challenges we face

in the field of international fisheries.

My statement today begins with a brief summary of the general situation as we

see it and then reviews a number of more specific issues, with a particular focus

on those for which the Administration believes congressional action is necessary or

desirable. In some cases, the testimony of my colleagues from the Department of

Commerce and the Department of the Interior will elaborate on these specific issues.

18

GENERAL SITUATION

In 2002, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)

reported that global production from capture fisheries and aquaculture is currently

the highest on record. Worldwide, the tonnage of fish caught in the oceans and

inland areas has remained relatively stable in recent years, while the tonnage of

fish produced by aquaculture has continued to increase markedly. International

trade in fish products has also risen tremendously.

These trends mask a number of very serious problems, however. Many of the

world’s primary fishery resources are under stress. A number of key fish stocks have

collapsed from overfishing and environmental degradation (such as cod in the

Northwest Atlantic), while others have become depleted (such as Atlantic bluefin

tuna). While stocks in the Pacific Ocean are generally thought to be in somewhat

better shape, increasing fishing effort on a number of those stocks gives us reason

to be concerned.

In 2002, FAO estimated that, among the major marine fish stocks or groups of

stocks for which information is available, about 47 percent are fully exploited, while

another 18 percent are overexploited. An additional 10 percent of such stocks have

been depleted or are recovering from depletion. In short, there are relatively few

major fisheries that can absorb additional fishing effort. Meanwhile, we see a growing demand for fisheries products and many vessels looking for new places to fish.

Many factors have contributed to this situation. Most international management

of fisheries relies upon ‘‘open access’’ approaches that can create incentives toward

overfishing. Moreover, improvements in fishing technology, coupled with substantial

government subsidies to fishers, have greatly increased harvesting capacity worldwide. To make matters worse, environmental degradation has spoiled some fish

habitat. The ability of vessels to operate outside governmental controls, including

by adopting ‘‘flags of convenience,’’ has rendered fisheries enforcement less than effective in many circumstances. The use of certain kinds of fishing gear and fishing

techniques has also led to serious concerns about the ‘‘bycatch’’ of other species (including some endangered species) and harm to the marine environment.

Fortunately for the fish, and for the fishers whose livelihoods depend on them,

we have worked to create a network of agreements designed to address these critical

problems. Building on the general international law framework for these matters established in the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the past

decade has witnessed a veritable explosion of new agreements and standards for the

conservation and management of fisheries worldwide. Some of the important instruments are:

• The 1995 UN Fish Stocks Agreement

• The 1993 FAO Compliance Agreement

• The 1995 FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries

• Four FAO International Plans of Action on specific matters

• The 1996 Inter–American Sea Turtle Convention

• The 1999 Agreement on the International Dolphin Conservation Program

• The 2000 Central and Western Pacific Tuna Convention (not yet in force)

Much remains to be done to ensure effective implementation of the full range of

these instruments. Working with Congress, U.S. constituent groups and our partners in the international community, we hope to realize the goal of sustainable fisheries worldwide.

Now, I would like to turn to a number of specific issues that we are confronting:

SPECIFIC ISSUES

Bilateral Issues with Canada

Relations with Canada over fishery issues are better than they have been in many

years. The 1999 Pacific Salmon Agreement appears to have resolved long-standing

problems and has allowed the Pacific Salmon Commission to function effectively

once again. The agreements on Yukon River salmon, on the amendments to the

1981 Albacore Treaty and on managing the transboundary Pacific whiting stock, described below, are noteworthy achievements as well.

The 1981 U.S.–Canada Albacore Treaty allows vessels of each country to fish for

albacore, without limitation, in waters of the other country. In 2002, the United

States and Canada agreed to amend the Treaty to provide for limits on such fishing.

Such changes are necessary to limit a recently fast-growing Canadian fishery in

U.S. waters and also to permit future management of the stock by both sides. President Bush transmitted the amendment to the Treaty to the Senate in January 2003

and we are hopeful that the Senate will act favorably on this matter in the near

future. In addition, we need legislation to implement the Treaty, both in its existing

form and as revised. Such legislation was introduced in the 107th Congress

19

(H.R. 1989). The Senate passed this legislation in November 2002, but the House

did not take action on the bill before final adjournment. We hope that Congress will

pass the legislation in the very near future.

Most recently, U.S. and Canadian delegations have reached consensus on the text

of an agreement to manage and share the valuable transboundary stock of Pacific

whiting, also known as Pacific hake. Disagreements over sharing arrangements

have led to overfishing in the past, as the United States took 80 percent of the allowable harvest, while Canada took more than 30 percent. This agreement, once it

enters into force, should remedy that problem effectively. We look forward to working with Congress in developing implementing legislation for this agreement.

The United States and Canada reached agreement on a management regime for

salmon fisheries on the Yukon River in Alaska and the Yukon Territory in March

2001. U.S. and Canadian officials concluded the agreement through an exchange of

notes in December 2002. As this is an executive agreement, it did not require Senate advice and consent to ratification, nor was any additional legislation needed to

implement to agreement. However, as described in the testimony from the Department of the Interior, there is an on-going need for the authorization and appropriation of funds to implement the Agreement, including for the Restoration and Enhancement Fund established under the Agreement, as envisioned in H.R. 2048. In

that respect, I would note that the Administration has some minor technical suggestions on that bill, which we have already provided to the staff of this Subcommittee.

Finally, I would note that we are exploring ways to gain greater access for U.S.

vessels to ports in Atlantic Canada. We are also engaged in efforts to resolve a dispute over lobster fishing in waters around Machias Seal Island off the coast of

Maine.

Sport Fishing around the Revillagigedo Islands

We are very much aware of congressional interest in this issue, as reflected in

the draft Resolution introduced by Mr. Cunningham of California. That resolution

would urge the Administration to continue discussions with the Government of Mexico in order to obtain permits for the San Diego based long-range sportfishing fleet

to fish in the waters around the Revillagigedo Islands. In fact, over the past year,

the Department of State, through our Embassy in Mexico City, has raised this issue

to senior levels in the Government of Mexico, including with the Secretary of the

Environment and other senior officials in his Department and other agencies involved in this issue. Throughout this period, we have stressed our interest in seeking to obtain permits for these vessels in a manner consistent with applicable Mexican law. Our discussions with Mexico on this issue will continue. The Department

of Commerce will soon present a report requested by the Congress on the substance

of these discussions and the status of this issue.

Fishermen’s Protective Act Reauthorization

The Administration supports reauthorization of the Fishermen’s Protective Act, as

envisioned in H.R. 2048. This Act has provided compensation to owners of U.S. fishing vessels that have been seized by foreign governments on the basis of claims to

jurisdiction that the United States did not accept. Although there have not been

claims under the Act for several years, there is always the prospect that such situations could arise again in the future.

Bilateral Issues with Russia

Relations with the Russian Federation over fisheries issues in the North Pacific

Ocean and Bering Sea are contentious. The failure of Russia to ratify the 1990 Maritime Boundary Treaty continues to create uncertainty, while corruption and lack

of government resources have led to serious overfishing in Russian waters. A largescale overhaul by the Government of the Russian Federation of its bureaucratic

structure for managing fisheries is at present complicating efforts to address these

matters. We are nevertheless actively looking for new ways to cooperate with Russia

to improve this situation, including through the development of two new agreements, one on cooperation in marine science and the other on fisheries enforcement.

Regional Fishery Management Organizations

The United States is a member of more than a dozen international fisheries commissions and related organizations. These organizations adopt measures to conserve

and manage fisheries under their auspices, conduct related scientific research and

provide venues for undertaking new policy initiatives in the field of marine conservation.

Funding to support U.S. participation in these organizations comes from appropriations to the International Fisheries Commissions account. Specifically, this account covers the U.S. share of operating expenses of nine international fisheries

20

commissions and organizations, one sea turtle convention, the International Whaling Commission, two international marine science organizations, and travel and

other expenses for non–Federal U.S. Commissioners.

In recent years, Congress has appropriated roughly $20 million for this account

annually. For FY ’03, the Administration requested $19.78 million. Congress appropriated only $17.1 million. In the Conference Statement accompanying the Fiscal

Year 2003 Omnibus Appropriations Bill, no funding was allocated for the operating

expenses of the Pacific Salmon Commission and five other commissions. The Administration is in the process of submitting a notice to Congress on reprogramming

funds within the International Fisheries Commission. The reprogramming will allow

for the smallest feasible amount of funding so the Pacific Salmon Commission may

continue operations and full funding of the smaller commissions. The Great Lakes

Fisheries Commission and the International Pacific Halibut Commission will both

be taking reductions in order to have all fish commissions in this account operating

this fiscal year.

For Fiscal Year 2004, the Administration’s budget request for International Fisheries Commissions amounts to $20.04 million, which includes $75 thousand for the

Antarctic Treaty. We hope that Congress will appropriate the full amount.

International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT). This

commission manages tunas (and tuna-like species, such as swordfish) in the Atlantic

Ocean. Key conservation issues facing ICCAT include maintenance of rebuilding

programs for North Atlantic swordfish, pressing for greater compliance with ICCAT

rules, cracking down further on ‘‘IUU’’ fishing of ICCAT species, reviewing ICCAT’s

practice of managing eastern and western bluefin tuna as separate stocks, and

pressing for measures to conserve sea turtles and sharks incidentally captured in

these fisheries. Recent attention has been focused on the EU’s activities in ICCAT,

and in fact a coalition of environmental groups and several state governors submitted a request to certify the EU under the Pelly Amendment to the Fishermen’s

Protective Act of 1967 for diminishing the effectiveness of ICCAT. We are working

closely with the Department of Commerce on this issue.

Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO). This Commission manages a

wide variety of fisheries on the high seas of the northwest Atlantic Ocean, many

of which remain seriously depleted. Some stocks, however, are rebounding after

years of sharply restricted fishing, including yellowtail flounder. U.S. priorities in

NAFO include seeking greater access for U.S. vessels to such recovering stocks and

modifying the NAFO system for allocating quotas more generally. The United States

has taken an active role in NAFO and held many positions of leadership in the organization; however, we are considering the proper balance between our level of participation in NAFO and the benefits we accrue there. The Department of Commerce

witness will also address this issue in more detail.

Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC). Negotiations to establish a Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission concluded in September

2001. The United States and 18 other States have signed the Convention that will

create the WCPFC, but it has not yet entered into force. The area covered by this

Convention encompasses the last major area of the world’s oceans not covered by

a regional management regime for tunas and other highly migratory species. This

region produces more than half the world’s annual tuna catch. The United States

is actively participating in the WCPFC Preparatory Process.

One key issue that we hope to see addressed under this new Convention is that

of excess fishing capacity—too many vessels catching too many fish. While the

stocks of tuna in the Western and Central Pacific are not currently considered to

be over-fished, excess capacity complicates adoption and implementation of effective

conservation and management measures and has significant implications for the

economic viability of these fisheries in the longer term.

This Convention, which enjoys strong support from the tuna industry and conservation organizations, will require Senate advice and consent to ratification. New

legislation to implement the Convention will also be necessary before the United

States could become a party to it. We look forward to working with the Committee

on such legislation.

Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources

(CCAMLR). The 24-member Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine

Living Resources governs the harvesting of marine resources in the Southern Ocean.

Concern has grown over the illegal harvesting of Patagonian toothfish, a high-value,

long-lived fish species marketed in the U.S. as Chilean sea bass. CCAMLR designed

an innovative catch documentation system in 2000 and, at its last meeting in November, adopted changes to distinguish better between legal and illegal catches and

is instituting a list of fishing vessels which have engaged in IUU fishing. CCAMLR

21

also is moving towards an internet-based document and tracking system to reduce

the possibilities for fraud.

Other Commissions. The United States participates in a number of other international fisheries commissions as well. Two of them, the International Pacific Halibut Commission and the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, involve Canada as the

only other member. Two others, the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation

Organization and the North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission, have missions to

conserve salmon stocks in their respective regions, including by ensuring that such

stocks are not fished on the high seas. Finally, we are a longtime member of the

Inter–American Tropical Tuna Commission, which regulates tuna fishing in the

Eastern Pacific and is involved with our efforts to protect dolphin stocks in that region, as discussed below.

South Pacific Tuna Access Agreement

This Treaty, which allows U.S. vessels to fish for tuna in the waters of 16 Pacific

Island States, entered into force in 1988 and was amended and extended in 1993

for a ten-year period, through June 14 of this year. In 2002, the United States and

the Pacific Island Parties concluded negotiations to extend the operation of this

Treaty for an additional ten-year period, through June 14, 2013. The amendments

to the Treaty and its Annexes will, among other things, enable use of new technologies for enforcement, streamline the way amendments to the Annexes are

agreed, and modify the waters that are open and closed under the Treaty. President

Bush submitted the amendments to the Treaty to the Senate for advice and consent

in February 2003. Minor amendments to Section 6 of the South Pacific Tuna Act

of 1988, Public Law 100–330, will be necessary to take account of the Amendment

to paragraph 2 of Article 3, ‘‘Access to the Treaty Area,’’ which permits U.S. longline

vessels to fish on the high seas of the Treaty Area.

The Treaty provides considerable economic benefit to all parties, with the value

of landed tuna contributing between $250 and $400 million annually to the U.S.

economy. Nearly all of this fish is landed in American Samoa and processed in two

canneries located there, one of which is owned by U.S. interests. These canneries

provide more than 80 percent of private sector employment in that territory.

Issues Relating to Particular Species

Whales and International Whaling Commission (IWC) issues. The United States

supports the IWC’s commercial whaling moratorium, and opposes lethal scientific/

research whaling, whaling within the sanctuaries established by the IWC, and international trade in whale products. We continue to support aboriginal subsistence

whaling. In addition, we support active work on science and progress on the Revised

Management Scheme (the management scheme that would apply if the commercial

moratorium were ever lifted). In 2003, the United States will continue to monitor

the whaling activities of Japan and Norway. We will also monitor the activities of

Iceland, which is now a member of the IWC with a reservation to the moratorium

on commercial whaling. In particular, we are concerned that Iceland may begin a

research whaling program later this summer. The United States is disappointed

that Iceland has joined the IWC with a reservation to the moratorium, but we recognize Iceland as a party to the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling. We are also monitoring international trade in whale products since Norway resumed such trade during 2002, sending about 38,000 kilograms to Iceland. This year

Norway may export whale products to Japan and the Faroe Islands. The next IWC

meeting is scheduled for the week of June 16–19, 2003 in Berlin, Germany.

Sea turtles. Section 609 of Public Law 101–162 prohibits the importation of

shrimp and products of shrimp harvested in a manner that may adversely affect sea

turtle species. By May 1 of each year, the Department certifies to Congress those

nations meeting criteria set forth in the statute relating to the protection of sea turtles in the course of shrimp trawl fishing. In 2003, we certified 39 nations and one

economy (Hong Kong) as meeting the requirements of Section 609. Haiti did not

meet certification requirements for 2002 and Indonesia remained uncertified from

the previous year. Earlier in 2003, we removed Honduras and Venezuela from the

list of certified countries.

The United States is a leading participant in two groundbreaking international

agreements to protect sea turtles, one in the Americas and another in the Indian

Ocean region. Although both regimes are just getting off the ground, they hold considerable promise for reversing the declines of these endangered species. The Department of State leads the U.S. delegation to meetings held pursuant to these

agreements. Congress has supported these agreements through the appropriations

process.

22

We are also working with NOAA Fisheries and the international community in

a variety of fora to address the specific problem of the bycatch of sea turtles in

longline fisheries. In 2002, the Department participated in the Second International

Fishers’ Forum, hosted by the Western Pacific Fisheries Management Council in

Hawaii. The Department also helped sponsor and participated in the International

Technical Expert Workshop on Marine Turtle Bycatch in Longline Fisheries in

February 2003 in Seattle. In February 2003, we secured a commitment of FAO to

convene an international technical consultation among members of FAO on the bycatch of sea turtles in longline and other commercial fisheries. The Department

views this as the next step in a global campaign to seek solutions to this serious

problem. In advance of that meeting, however, we are considering ways to work

within some regional fisheries management organization (RFMOs), such as the

Inter–American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC), to provide input from those organizations into that process.

Tuna/dolphin. Following enactment of the 1997 International Dolphin Conservation Program Act, the United States and other countries whose vessels participate

in the purse seine tuna fishery of the Eastern Pacific Ocean entered into negotiations to create an effective, binding agreement to protect dolphins from harm in this

fishery. The resulting 1999 Agreement, which built on an earlier voluntary regime,

has been a solid success, bringing observed dolphin mortalities down to extremely

low levels through the use of proper incentives for vessel captains and a strong oversight program that includes mechanisms for transparency otherwise unknown in the

field of international fisheries. Under the resulting 1999 Agreement and the earlier

voluntary regime, dolphin mortalities have been reduced more than 98 percent from

as recently as 1987.

We are aware of concerns regarding the level of compliance with this Agreement

by some fishing countries. While the level of reported infractions represents a small

percentage of overall activity under the Agreement, the Departments of State and

Commerce are working with the other participants in the International Dolphin

Conservation Program to address these concerns and to ensure that compliance with

the Agreement is at the highest possible level. It should be noted, however, that the

other countries whose vessels operate in this fishery entered into the 1999 Agreement with the expectation that the United States would adopt a new definition of

‘‘dolphin-safe’’ tuna. However, the International Dolphin Conservation Program Act

made such a change in definition contingent on the outcome of certain studies and

a finding by the Secretary of Commerce, a matter that remains in litigation.

FAO Initiatives

The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Committee on

Fisheries (COFI) held its 25th meeting in Rome February 24–28, 2003. Major

achievements include a strong work program for the next biennium on illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing within FAO, agreement on the need for a government meeting on sea turtle interactions with fishing gear, and the adoption of

a strategy to improve fisheries data collection and reporting. In addition, FAO made

progress on the U.S. led initiative to foster cooperation between FAO and CITES,

though outstanding divisions led COFI to establish an open-ended informal group

to continue work on this issue.

The United States is leading an effort in FAO to strengthen implementation of

the four FAO International Plans of Action (IPAO), in particular the IUU and capacity reduction Plans. In support of the IPOA on IUU fishing, we are now in the process of finalizing the U.S. national plan of action on IUU, which will serve as a model

for other countries. We are also contributing resources and technical expertise to an

FAO conference on fisheries enforcement to be held in Malaysia in 2004, one goal

of which is to provide practical training for and increased cooperation between fisheries enforcement professionals in developing countries. Working through the U.S.

Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture, the United States will be actively engaged in

the new FAO work program on aquaculture with a view to improving the environmental and economic sustainability of the sector. Our colleagues in the Department

of Commerce will be discussing U.S. activities relating to capacity reduction efforts

in the FAO and elsewhere.

FAO will host a major conference on deep-sea fisheries in New Zealand in

December 2003. Deep-sea fisheries take place in some of the least understood ecosystems on the planet. Although available technology allows fishing vessels to operate around previously unreachable seamounts and oceanic ridges, very few international agreements are in place to provide a basis for managing these fisheries effectively, and very few if any management measures for these fisheries have been

adopted.

23

WTO and fish subsidies

The Administration is pleased with the progress being made at the WTO on reducing or eliminating subsidies that contribute to overfishing, given the correlation

between certain forms of subsidies to the fisheries sector and problems of overcapacity and IUU fishing. On the details of the negotiations and the U.S. strategy

for achieving our objectives in the Doha Development Agenda, we will defer to the

Department of Commerce.

White Water to Blue Water Initiative

This partnership initiative, launched in 2002 at the World Summit on Sustainable

Development, involves U.S. Federal agencies, the United Kingdom, France, Canada

and the Netherlands, Caribbean governments, the Caribbean Environment Program, CARICOM, other international organizations, non-governmental organizations and the private sector. The partnership initiative is designed to integrate the

management of watershed, coastal and marine resources in the Wider Caribbean region, beginning with upstream sectors (watersheds, inland forests, agricultural

areas and population centers) and extending through wetlands, mangrove swamps

and coral reefs into the ocean. It aims to improve capabilities of coastal States to

manage watershed and coastal-marine ecosystems for sustainable development. We

also seek to promote regional coordination among the partners to increase economies

and efficiencies. National teams from government, civil society and the private sector will participate in a March 2004 conference in Miami designed to identify new

partnerships and provide technical training. We hope that the initiative may later

be adapted for other regions, such as Africa and the South Pacific.

CONCLUSION

Thank you very much for this opportunity to address the Subcommittee. I would

be pleased to try to answer any questions that you may have.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Madam Ambassador.

Dr. Hogarth.

STATEMENT OF DR. WILLIAM T. HOGARTH, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR FISHERIES, NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES

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

Dr. HOGARTH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee. It is nice to be here again to present testimony on topic

related to international fishery conservation and management.

I do believe that NOAA Fisheries and their Federal partners at

the Department of Interior and the State Department, working in

concert with state, tribal, and other Native American groups, have

and continue to accomplish an impressive program of international

living marine resource conservation and management. I would like

to emphasize, however, that the problems and challenges we are

addressing in domestic fisheries management are the same ones

that we have to address internationally. Indeed, many of these

problems, including the management needs of highly migratory

species, salmonids, straddling and shared fish stocks, and many

protected species stocks cannot be effectively addressed here in the

U.S. in the absence of international cooperation.

These problems and challenges include: eliminating overfishing,

rebuilding overfish stocks, managing fisheries sustainably, recovering protected species, conserving habitats, improving the scientific basis of living marine resource management, working toward ecosystem-based management, and addressing problems of

bycatch and overharvesting.

I will provide an overview of our efforts to address these issues

in several international fora, including, one, ICCAT, which is the

24

International Commission for the Conservation of a Atlantic Tunas;

two, CCAMLR, which is the Convention for the Conservation of

Antarctic Marine Living Resources; three, IWC, which is International Whaling Commission; and four, NAFO, which is Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization; and five, we are going to talk

about international bycatch reduction initiatives. My written testimony provides greater detail for the topics listed above and includes information on other international conservation management issues that may be of interest to the Committee.

ICCAT coordinates the international management of tunas and

tuna-like species. The primary U.S. objections over the last several

years have included seeking measures to rebuild overfished stocks,

improving adherence to the ICCAT rules by members and non-embers nations and addressing bycatch issues. With regard to rebuilding, we have had a number of successes, including the adoption of

rebuilding plans of western blue fin tuna, North Atlantic swordfish,

and blue and white marlin. As you know, the sacrifices made to rebuild North Atlantic sword fish began to show results last year

with the significant increase in biomass which led to the increase

in quota allocations.

On the compliance front, ICCAT has adopted a variety of stateof-the-art measures. ICCAT can and has imposed penalties, for example, quota reductions, trade sanctions, against members for infractions. These measures have been successful in reducing illegal,

unregulated, and unreported fishing in the convention area. We are

in the process now of working on a positive list of fishing vessels

that will be made available so that the nations will only be buying

from those vessels who are on this positive list, to try to address

the problem with those unregulated vessels.

Despite the strides made at ICCAT, particularly over the last

decade, a number of difficult issues remain, one of which is data

collection for stock assessments, the stock structure of the Atlantic

blue fin tuna and ICCAT rebuilding plans, and the IUU issues.

CCAMLR: Due to the scale of IUU fishing for toothfish in and

beyond waters subject to CCAMLR, a catch documentation scheme

for toothfish was adopted in 1999. The document identifies the origin of toothfish imports, determines if the toothfish were harvested

consistent with CCAMLR convention measures, monitors international trade, and provides catch data for stock assessments in

the convention area. Although NOAA Fisheries have fully implemented the documentation scheme in the United States, we have

recently published final regulations streamlining the administration of the program and enhancing efforts to prevent the import of

illegal harvested toothfish.

Effective June 16, 2003, NOAA Fisheries will operate a pre-approval system for toothfish imports. Pre-approval will allow the

agency to review toothfish catch documents sufficiently in advance

of import to facilitate enforcement and provide additional economic

certainty to U.S. businesses in the toothfish trade.

IWC: NOAA Fisheries has currently preparing for the 55th annual meeting of the International Whaling Commission which will

be held in Berlin June 16th through 19th. The longstanding principles that guide U.S. policy at this meeting are that the United

States supports IWC’s commercial whaling moratorium, supports

25

aboriginal subsistence whaling, opposes lethal research whaling,

and opposes the international trade of whale products.

NAFO: NAFO manages groundfish, flatfish, and shellfish in the

waters of the northwest Atlantic beyond the areas of national jurisdiction, many of which are under zero directed take regimes. Some

of these stocks are rebuilding, and one, the yellowtail flounder, has

recovered sufficiently to re-establish a directed fishery. A U.S.

priority with NAFO was to reform allocation practices and obtaining greater access for U.S. vessels to fish for recovering stocks.

International bycatch activities: In the September 2000 Annual

Report to Congress on International Bycatch Agreements, required

by Section 202(h) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation

and Management Act, NOAA Fisheries concluded and the Department of State concurred that seeking international agreements

with foreign nations conducting pelagic long-line fishing operations

for Atlantic and Pacific highly migratory species was necessary and

appropriate to protect endangered and threatened sea turtles. An

international strategy was developed in detail in the June 2001 report to Congress.

In January 2002, I appointed an interagency International Bycatch Reduction Task Force to carry out this strategy. It has since

been fully integrated into our broader NOAA Fisheries National

Bycatch Strategy. The task force has prepared a report of its activities during the first year of operation. I will be happy to provide

copies of this report to you when completed.

H.R. 2048: NOAA Fisheries has no objection to this bill and feels

that it should be reauthorized.

H.Res. 30 concerning the San Diego long-range fishing fleet and

rights for the fishing near the islands in Mexico—I notice all of us

have avoided trying to say what the island really is. We just call

it the Mexican islands. I spent 10 minutes yesterday trying to get

the pronunciation right and decided we will just call it the Mexican

island.

The U.S. long-range sportfishing fleet has for nearly 30 years

fished in the waters of the Mexican Biosphere Reserve. The activity

has been estimated to provide about $5.5 million in benefits to the

U.S. economy annually and $2.9 million to the Mexican economy.

In addition, the U.S. fleet every Christmas will take a boat-load of

supplies down to the islands where they fish to the local community, such as food and Christmas gifts, in addition to the other

things that they do for fishing there.

In 1994, the Mexican president created by decree the Biosphere

Reserve, and this decree established a nucleus zone or core zone of

six nautical miles around the four islands of the reserve.

Sportfishing, as Congressman Cunningham said, was permitted to

continue in the reserve to within 500 meters. The 1994 decree also

provided for the development of a management plan. However, in

March 2002, the Federal Attorney’s Office for Environmental Protection in Mexico ruled that no fishing could take place in the biosphere reserve nucleus zone and noted that a December 1996

amendment to the Mexican environmental law prohibited fishing in

the nucleus zone of a biosphere reserve.

The Government of Mexico then revoked the permits that had

been issued to the U.S. sportfishing vessels to fish within the 500

26

meters of shore at the reserve. U.S. recreational operators claimed

that their fishing operations do not have a significant impact on

the species and habitats of concern to the reserve and have asked

the U.S. Government to help resolve the matter. As part of that effort and in compliance with a request for Congress, NOAA Fisheries is preparing a report to Congress that will address the issues

surrounding sportfishing in the reserve.

In addition, Secretary Evans has had several conversations with

the secretary in Mexico. We are aware of the correspondence, and

we are trying to work through it. The problem we are having there

is it has been taken away from fisheries, and our dealings with the

fishery agency of Mexico has now gone to the Navy for enforcement

basically. So we are trying to work with the State Department and

work with the Ambassador to see if we can work with Mexico on

the management plan, if we can support this or whatever needs to

be done to try to get this fishery open.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to review how

NOAA Fisheries is conducting the tasks assigned to it pursuant to

the many international fishery treaties and conventions in which

the United States is involved. We are committed to working with

our state and Federal partners for the effective management of our

Nation’s fishery resources.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony, and I will be happy

to respond to any questions.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Hogarth follows:]

Statement of William T. Hogarth, Ph.D., Assistant Administrator for

Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to

this hearing to present testimony on topics related to international fishery conservation and management. I am William T. Hogarth, the Assistant Administrator for

Fisheries in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of

Commerce.

I believe NOAA Fisheries and our Federal partners at the Department of the Interior and the State Department, working in concert with state, tribal, and other Native American groups, have and are continuing to accomplish an impressive program

of international living marine resource conservation and management.

I would like to emphasize, however, that the problems and challenges we are addressing in domestic fisheries management are the same ones we are addressing

internationally. Indeed, many of these problems, including the management needs

of highly migratory species, salmonid, straddling, and shared fish stocks and many

protected species stocks cannot be effectively addressed at home in the absence of

international cooperation. These problems and challenges include eliminating overfishing, rebuilding overfished stocks, managing fisheries sustainably, recovering protected species, conserving habitats, improving the scientific basis of living marine

resource management working toward ecosystem-based management, and addressing problems of bycatch and harvesting capacity. I will provide an overview of our

efforts to address these issues in several international fora including (1) ICCAT

(International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas), (2) CCAMLR

(Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources), (3) IWC

(International Whaling Commission), (4) NAFO (Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization), (5) FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations), (6)

WTO (World Trade Organization), and (7) CITES (Convention on International

Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora).

ICCAT (International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas)

ICCAT coordinates the international management of tunas and tuna-like species.

The organization currently has 35 members. Primary U.S. objectives over the last

several years have included seeking measures to rebuild overfished stocks and imVerDate 11-MAY-2000 16:20 Oct 10, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 87232.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
27

prove adherence to ICCAT rules by members and non-members. Seeking measures

to address bycatch issues has also been a focus of the United States.

With regard to rebuilding, we have had a number of successes, including the

adoption of rebuilding plans for western bluefin tuna (1998), North Atlantic swordfish (1999) and blue and white marlins (2000). As you may know, the sacrifices

made to rebuild North Atlantic swordfish began to show results last year with a significant increase in biomass which led to increases in quota allocations. On the compliance front, ICCAT has adopted a variety of state-of-the-art measures. ICCAT can

and has imposed penalties (e.g., quota reductions, trade sanctions) against members

for infractions. The Commission has also adopted action plans that contemplate the

use of trade sanctions against countries that diminish the effectiveness of ICCAT,

and sanctions have been imposed in several instances. These measures have been

successful in reducing illegal, unregulated, and unreported (IUU) fishing in the Convention area. Most recently in its fight against IUU fishing, ICCAT adopted a vessel

list program that provides a basis to limit market access to only those products

taken by authorized vessels.

Regarding bycatch issues, ICCAT has adopted proposals to improve data collection

and reporting on sharks and seabirds and is considering a similar proposal concerning sea turtles. The latter will be on the agenda for the 2003 ICCAT meeting.

Regarding sharks, an assessment is planned for 2004. The ICCAT measure also encourages releasing sharks taken as bycatch, and minimizing shark waste and discards.

Despite the strides made at ICCAT, particularly over the last decade, a number

of difficult issues remain. Data collection and reporting continue to be a challenge

for some parties, and a special meeting will be held in the fall 2003 to consider this

matter. Moreover, the stock structure of Atlantic bluefin tuna, currently managed

as two separate stocks, remains in question and ICCAT agreed to convene a meeting

of scientists and managers in November 2003 to look into this issue. In addition,

ensuring ICCAT rebuilding plans stay on course and that new programs are developed for other overfished stocks (such as bigeye tuna) will be important. Also, we

intend to ensure that ICCAT continues to make needed progress in improving member compliance and non-member cooperation, including addressing IUU issues.

With respect to compliance issues in ICCAT fisheries, the Secretary of Commerce

recently (April 25, 2003) sent letters to the European Commission (EC) [namely,

Commissioner for Trade Pascal Lamy and Commissioner for Agriculture, Rural Development, and Fisheries Franz Fischler]. Secretary Evans noted the importance of

the conservation of marine fisheries and expressed concern about actions and positions taken by the EC at ICCAT in 2002—particularly regarding EC support of an

eastern bluefin tuna total allowable catch far in excess of scientifically recommended, sustainable levels. Secretary Evans stated that positions such as these

have the potential to threaten the long-term future of shared resources and to lead

to serious friction in U.S.- EC trade relations. As an example, the Secretary pointed

to a petition filed by a recreational fishing organization under Section 301 of the

Trade Act of 1974 that sought relief from allegedly unjustifiable acts, policies, and

practices of the EC related to ICCAT. This petition was withdrawn. In his letter,

the Secretary urged the EC to take prompt action to improve EC compliance with

existing ICCAT measures and to reconsider accepting science-based conservation

measures in the future.

In addition to this action, NOAA Fisheries has received a request to certify the

EC pursuant to the Pelly Amendment to the Fishermen’s Protective Act of 1967 for

diminishing the effectiveness of ICCAT. The decision on certification has been left

open for the time being while we monitor the activities of the EC and its Member

States. In this regard, I recently sent a letter to the EC Director General for Fisheries explaining the request, noting its seriousness, and indicating that I intend to

investigate it fully. I have also been in contact with the head of the EC delegation

to ICCAT concerning this matter, and we will continue our dialogue at the upcoming ICCAT intersessional meetings in Madeira in late May 2003. I have been stressing the importance of EC implementation of its ICCAT commitments and will continue to do so.

CCAMLR (Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources)

Due to the scale of IUU fishing for toothfish in and beyond waters subject to

CCAMLR, a Catch Documentation Scheme (CDS) for toothfish was adopted in 1999.

The CDS identifies the origin of toothfish imports, determines if the toothfish were

harvested consistent with CCAMLR conservation measures, monitors international

trade, and provides catch data for stock assessments in the Convention Area. Although NOAA Fisheries has fully implemented the CDS in the United States, it recently published final regulations streamlining administration of the program and

28

enhancing efforts to prevent the import of illegally harvested toothfish. Effective

June 16, 2003, NOAA Fisheries will operate a pre-approval system for toothfish imports. Pre-approval will allow the agency to review toothfish catch documents sufficiently in advance of import to facilitate enforcement and provide additional economic certainty to U.S. businesses in the toothfish trade.

Scientific information provided to CCAMLR has indicated high levels of IUU fishing in the Convention Area. The majority of CCAMLR Members agreed that catches

reported as harvests from FAO Statistical Areas 51 and 57, high sea areas in the

Indian Ocean adjoining the Convention Area, were not credible and were in all likelihood fish pirated from within the Convention Area. They also expressed concerns,

shared by the United States, that information reported in catch documents did not

match scientific understanding of toothfish distribution and potential biomass of

toothfish on the high seas. Therefore, also as of June 16, 2003, no imports of fresh

or frozen toothfish represented as harvested within FAO Areas 51 or 57 will be allowed entry into the United States. Importers applying for a pre-approval certificate

for fish that has been harvested from either of these areas will be denied pre-approval.

IWC (International Whaling Commission)

The 55th Annual Meeting of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) will be

held in Berlin June 16th through 19th. The longstanding principles that will guide

United States policy at this meeting are that the United States supports the IWC’s

commercial whaling moratorium, supports aboriginal subsistence whaling, opposes

lethal research whaling, and opposes the international trade of whale products.

Iceland recently rejoined the IWC with a reservation to the commercial whaling

moratorium. The U.S. accepts Iceland as a member of the Commission, but is disappointed Iceland conditioned its membership with a reservation. In addition, Iceland recently submitted to the IWC a plan to conduct lethal research on whales. The

United States opposes lethal research and urge Iceland not to begin this program.

Likewise, Japan continues to conduct lethal research with the take of up to 700

whales per year. The United States continues to urge Japan to cease the killing of

whales under scientific permits. Germany will put forth a resolution on scientific

whaling that we intend to support.

In addition, Norway and Iceland have initiated the first international trade of

whale products in 14 years. The U.S. has urged both countries to halt this trade.

Last year, Japan submitted a resolution for the consideration of Japanese community-based whaling. This resolution contained a marked change from previous proposals whereby the quota would be non-commercial, and based on the advice of the

Scientific Committee. Japan is expected to present a proposal regarding this matter.

The U.S. has not yet seen this proposal, but will only consider supporting it if these

two criteria (non-commercial—i.e., the proposal would establish sufficient safeguards to ensure that whales that would be taken under the program are not used

for commercial purposes—and based upon the advice of the IWC Scientific Committee), at a minimum, are met.

Mexico plans to put forward a resolution to create a Conservation Committee that

is meant to reaffirm the conservation objective of the Convention. The U.S. intends

to support the creation of this committee as it would improve the governance of the

Commission’s conservation work.

Italy intends to put forth a resolution on bycatch of whales. The U.S. intends to

support this resolution since we recognize bycatch as a serious conservation issue

and it would be synergistic with the National Bycatch Strategy recently issued by

NOAA Fisheries.

The U.S. continues to work in good faith to establish a Revised Management

Scheme (RMS) for commercial whaling. However, the last round of working group

meetings were disappointing in that representatives of the whaling nations and

their supporters did not accept any compromise put forth by the United States and

others. The United States has repeatedly demonstrated its willingness to develop a

science-based and enforceable RMS. Our efforts, however, have been thwarted by

the pro-whaling nations, which, to date, have been unwilling to agree to the incorporation of adequate monitoring measures into the RMS. At the annual meeting,

Japan will likely put forth a proposal on the RMS. Japan’s proposal last year lacked

the necessary components for a credible scheme and would have eliminated the commercial whaling moratorium and whale sanctuaries.

Finally, the U.S. intends to support Australia and New Zealand in their proposal

to establish a South Pacific Sanctuary, and Brazil’s proposal to establish a South

Atlantic Sanctuary. Both of these sanctuary proposals are science-based and would

help the recovery of depleted whale stocks.

29

NAFO (Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization)

NAFO manages groundfish, flatfish, and shellfish in the waters of the northwest

Atlantic beyond areas of national jurisdiction, many of which are under zero directed take regimes. Some of these stocks are rebuilding and one, yellowtail flounder, has recovered sufficiently to reestablish a directed fishery. A U.S. priority within NAFO is to reform allocation practices and obtain greater access for U.S. vessels

to fish for recovering stocks. NOAA Fisheries hosted a NAFO Working Group meeting in Miami earlier this year to press for more progress in this area, but progress

has been slow. On the other hand, we have made considerable progress within

NAFO on transparency, implementing a risk-based approach, effectively dealing

with problems of fishing by non-members, and upgrading NAFO mechanisms and

processes for monitoring compliance by NAFO members. Nevertheless, the issue of

obtaining benefits for U.S. fishermen commensurate with the considerable financial

and other contributions the United States makes to NAFO has led us to begin a

reassessment of our proper role within NAFO.

NOAA has provided leadership on U.S. delegations to NAFO meetings since the

United States joined NAFO in 1996, and NOAA Fisheries provides a required annual report to Congress on U.S. activities concerning NAFO.

COFI/Capacity (Committee on Fisheries, Food and Agriculture Organization of the

United Nations)

A major and common problem that plagues a large number of domestic and world

fisheries is overcapacity in the harvesting sector. The United States has recognized

this global problem for more than a decade and has worked for years to address the

issue of overcapacity in the harvesting sector through technical and policy-level consultations held under the sponsorship of FAO. Accordingly, we agreed in 1997 to

consultations leading to an international plan of action for the management of fishing capacity (IPOA) and joined all the other FAO Members in approving the IPOA

on this subject in 1999. NOAA Fisheries played an active role in the technical and

policy-level meetings to bring these negotiations to a successful conclusion. In particular, I would like to single out the efforts of NOAA Fisheries technical experts

who developed definitions and measures of capacity and overcapacity for marine

capture fisheries that were later endorsed by FAO and have become the world

standards.

The IPOA for the management of fishing capacity included a provision calling on

all signatories to develop a national plan of action for the management of fishing

capacity, and NOAA Fisheries has been working on this task for the last few years.

Crafting a national plan of action for the management of fishing capacity has been

a challenge. The Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act

does not mandate the regulation of fishing capacity, and certain tools that would

enable the Councils and NOAA Fisheries to manage capacity were either legally unavailable—in the case of individual fishing quotas until October 2002—or were untried and therefore untested—in the case of Fishing Capacity Reduction Programs

under Section 312(b)–(e). Nevertheless, NOAA Fisheries has prepared a draft

national plan of action that we believe is consistent with our legal mandates and

authorities.

Our national plan of action has gone through internal and public review. We are

in the process of making changes in response to comments provided by our constituents through a Federal Register notice of availability. The comment period closed

in March of this year. We expect to send the final plan to FAO this year.

The United States, through the Committee on Fisheries (COFI), also provided

leadership in the development of IPOAs regarding seabirds, sharks, and IUU fishing. The United States has completed development of its NPOAs relative to seabirds

and sharks and has developed a draft NPOA on IUU fishing, which was presented

at COFI earlier this year.

CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna

and Flora)

The United States continues to believe that CITES can serve as a useful adjunct

to traditional fisheries management through its comprehensive permitting and trade

control protocols. Such systems can deter IUU fishing and assist in promoting domestic management programs for commercially exploited marine species. CITES

was designed to support sustainable international trade in fauna and flora, but is

not a substitute for complementary scientific management and domestic regulation

of fishery resources. In instances where no RFMO is in place (as is the case with

queen conch and sturgeon), a CITES listing can encourage the establishment of regional management mechanisms. In the case of queen conch (listed in 1992), since

1996, NOAA–Fisheries and the Caribbean Fishery Management Council have orgaVerDate 11-MAY-2000 16:20 Oct 10, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 87232.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
30

nized the International Queen Conch Initiative, which provides a forum for countries in the Wider Caribbean to develop coordinated approaches to regional management of the species. In the case of sturgeon (listed in 1997), regional cooperation

among range States has led to the setting of intergovernmental quotas for sturgeon

species in the Caspian Sea region. Closer cooperation between CITES and FAO

should further strengthen these efforts, as FAO is experienced in supporting regional fisheries management organizations in developing regions of the world.

The United States has also supported cooperative efforts between CITES and

CCAMLR to improve the management and enforcement of measures taken to conserve toothfish and potentially other Southern Ocean species. In addition, the

United States continues to advocate the continued linkage of CITES listings with

actions taken by the IWC to conserve whale stocks, such that the applicable trade

prohibitions under CITES reflect the decisions on commercial whaling established

by the recognized international management authority.

Fish Subsidies

Many commercially-traded fish stocks are fully exploited or over exploited. While

it is generally acknowledged that ineffective or poorly enforced management regimes

in global fisheries are the principal culprits in the decline of certain stocks, there

is reason to believe that global levels of subsidies (estimated at between $10–15 billion) have exacerbated the problem. For this reason, World Trade Organization

(WTO) Ministers agreed in Doha, Qatar in December 2001 to clarify and improve

existing WTO rules on fisheries subsidies. The World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD), held in Johannesburg South Africa in September 2002, further

committed the global community to reduce and eliminate subsidies that lead to overcapacity and overfishing.

The United States has actively supported and contributed to work on fisheries

subsidies in a variety of fora, and has long advocated WTO action on this issue. We

believe that the fisheries subsidies negotiations are an important part of the WTO’s

commitment to making trade, development, and environmental policies mutually

supportive: in other words, a demonstration that trade liberalization is a ‘‘win-winwin.’’ We have therefore been working hard in Geneva, along with a group of likeminded countries, known as the ‘‘friends of fish,’’ to fulfill the Doha mandate and

establish better disciplines on fisheries subsidies. Although a few countries (Japan

and Korea, most vocally) have slowed the negotiations somewhat, progress toward

a successful conclusion is being made.

International Bycatch Reduction Activities

In the September 2000 Annual Report to Congress on International Bycatch

Agreements, required by Section 202(h) of the Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, NOAA Fisheries concluded, and the Department of State

concurred, that seeking international agreements with foreign nations conducting

pelagic longline fishing operations for Atlantic and Pacific highly migratory species

was necessary and appropriate to protect endangered and threatened sea turtles. An

international strategy was developed and detailed in the June 2001 Report to

Congress.

In January 2002, I appointed an interagency International Bycatch Reduction

Task Force to carry out the strategy. Although the initial focus of this effort was

to reduce sea turtle bycatch in longline fisheries internationally, it also took on responsibilities relating to bycatch issues involving sharks and seabirds. It has since

been fully integrated into our broader NOAA Fisheries National Bycatch Strategy.

We continue to host and participate in international working groups in support of

bycatch mitigation. A few examples of these include:

• Participation and financial support for the Second International Fishermen’s

Forum in November 2002, which focused on sea turtle and seabird bycatch

mitigation;

• Planning and hosting an international technical workshop on reducing sea turtle interactions with longline gear in February 2003, in Seattle, Washington;

• Planning for an interdisciplinary workshop to be co-sponsored by the International Center for Living Aquatic Marine Resource Management and others on

the conservation needs of sea turtles in the Pacific Basin, planned for November

2003 in Bellagio, Italy;

• Participating in and financially supporting an Asia–Pacific Economic Forum

Fisheries Working Group Shark Workshop, which included bycatch issues, in

Huatulco, Mexico in December 2002; and

• Securing State Department funding to support the meeting of the Parties to the

First Inter–American Sea Turtle Convention, to be held in San Jose, Costa Rica,

in August 2003.

31

Mr. Chairman, the Task Force is preparing a report of its activities during the

first year of operation, and I would be happy to provide copies of it when completed.

H.R. 2048 (International Fisheries Reauthorization Act of 2003)

H.R. 2048 would extend the period for reimbursement under the Fishermen’s Protective Act and would reauthorize the Yukon River Restoration and Enhancement

Fund. NOAA Fisheries has no objection to the bill.

H.RES 30 (Concerning the San Diego long-range sportfishing fleet and rights to fish

the waters near the Revillagigedo Islands of Mexico)

The U.S. long-range sportfishing fleet has for at least the last thirty years fished

in the waters of the Revillagigedo Islands. This activity has been estimated to provide about $5.5 million in benefits to the U.S. economy and an additional $2.9 million to the Mexican economy annually.

In 1994, Mexico’s president created by decree the Revillagigedo Archipelago Biosphere Reserve. The decree established a ‘‘nucleus zone’’ or ‘‘core zone’’ of six nautical miles around the four islands in the Reserve. Sportfishing, however, was permitted to continue in the Reserve to within 500 meters. The 1994 decree also provided for the development of a management plan.

In March 2002, the Federal Attorney’s Office for Environmental Protection

(PROFEPA) in Mexico ruled that no fishing could take place in a biosphere reserve

‘‘nucleus zone,’’ noting a December 1996 amendment to Mexican environmental law

that prohibited fishing in ‘‘nucleus zones’’ of a biosphere reserve. The Government

of Mexico then revoked the permits that had been issued to U.S. sportfishing vessels

to fish to within 500 meters (m) of shore at the Reserve.

U.S. recreational operators claim that their fishing operations do not have a significant impact on the species and habitats of concern to the reserve and have asked

the U.S. government to help resolve the matter. As a part of that effort and in compliance with a request from Congress, NOAA Fisheries is preparing a Report to

Congress that will address the issues surrounding sportfishing in the reserve.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to review how NOAA Fisheries is

conducting the tasks assigned it pursuant to the many international fisheries’ treaties and conventions with which the United States is involved. We are committed

to working with our state and Federal partners for the effective management of our

Nation’s fisheries resources. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I am prepared to respond to any questions Members of the Subcommittee may have.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Dr. Hogarth.

Mr. Jones.

STATEMENT OF MARSHALL P. JONES, JR., DEPUTY DIRECTOR,

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE

INTERIOR

Mr. JONES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to be here with my colleagues from NOAA Fisheries and the Department of State to provide the testimony of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on

H.R. 2048 and also on the pending U.S.-Russia Polar Bear Agreement. I am Marshall Jones, the Deputy Director of the Fish and

Wildlife Service.

Mr. Chairman, salmon know no borders, not only in the open

ocean, but also when their spawning streams cross from the United

States into Canada. In March of 2001, after 16 years of sometimes

painful deliberations, the United States and Canada reached agreement on catch shares and conservation measures for Canadianorigin salmon harvested by both United States and Canadian fisherman in the Yukon River.

The Yukon River Salmon Agreement, which amended the Pacific

Salmon Treaty, was signed in December 2002. The agreement establishes a restoration and enhancement fund to support projects

conducted by residents and fishermen either in the United States

32

or in Canada that contribute to the restoration, conservation, enhancement, and stewardship of Canadian-origin salmon. The U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service participated in these negotiations and is

now working with the State of Alaska, the U.S. fishing community,

native organizations as well as the Department of Commerce,

Canada, Department of State to rebuild depressed Canadian-origin

salmon populations and to protect and restore spawning and

rearing habitats in Canada.

Mr. Chairman, as Ambassador West noted, we also have a technical correction that we would like to offer to H.R. 2048 which affects which agreement is referred to since there was both a 1995

interim agreement and legislation for that and then a subsequent

2000 legislation which addressed the final agreement. We look forward to working with you and this Committee as you work to reauthorize this important legislation.

Mr. Chairman, we also appreciate the opportunity to testify

today on the U.S.-Russia Polar Bear Agreement. The United States

and Russia share the Bering-Chukchi Sea Polar Bear population

which is now facing significant unregulated harvest. Although a

1956 ban on hunting polar bears in the former USSR is still in effect today in Russia, harvest is now occurring at a level that when

combined with the legal subsistence harvest in Alaska, may soon

deplete the shared polar bear population.

In recognition of the need for unified management of the BeringChukchi Sea polar bear population, the United States and representatives of the Russian Federation negotiated a bilateral agreement on the conservation and management of this population,

which was signed in Washington, D.C. in October of 2000. The primary purpose of the polar bear agreement is to ensure long-term

science-based conservation of this shared Alaska-Chukotka polar

bear population and particularly to reconcile the widely different

harvest management regimes and practices in the United States

and Russia. The agreement creates a management framework to

ensure a viable population in the future.

The Administration submitted this agreement to the U.S. Senate

for advice on consent in July of 2002. The Administration is now

considering draft legislation to implement the agreement which is

undergoing review by the various agencies within the Administration involved with the process. This agreement and the implementing legislation would represent a major step forward for polar

bear conservation and would enhance our collaborate efforts with

Russia to conserve our shared natural resources. We look forward

to working with this Subcommittee to ensure the introduction and

passage of the implementing legislation.

Mr. Chairman, in closing, I would like to state that this Administration is committed to conserving and managing salmon and polar

bears by working closely with our partners in a cooperative fashion.

In particular, I want to emphasize the commitment and the continued collaboration between U.S. and Canadian fishermen, the State

of Alaska, and especially our partners in the Alaska Native community to conserve and manage these species. We believe we can

be more effective at addressing our conservation responsibilities,

and we look forward to working with you, Members of the Subcommittee, to reauthorize the Yukon River Salmon Act and to imVerDate 11-MAY-2000 16:20 Oct 10, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 87232.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
33

plement the U.S.-Russia Polar Bear Agreement during this session

of Congress.

Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I would submit my written

testimony for the record, and I would be happy to answer any questions you have.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Jones follows:]

Statement of Marshall Jones, Deputy Director, Fish and Wildlife Service,

U.S. Department of the Interior

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity

to provide the testimony of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding H.R. 2048,

the ‘‘International Fisheries Reauthorization Act of 2003’’ and the U.S.-Russian

Polar Bear Agreement. I am Marshall Jones, Deputy Director of the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service.

We look forward to working with the Subcommittee to reauthorize the Yukon

River Salmon Act of 2000 and with regards to ratifying and developing implementing legislation for the U.S.-Russia Polar Bear Agreement.

H.R. 2048

After 16 years of deliberation between the U.S. and Canada, negotiators reached

an agreement in March 2001, on catch shares and conservation measures for Canadian-origin salmon harvested by U.S. and Canadian fishers. The Agreement, which

amends Annex I and IV of the Pacific Salmon Treaty, was signed as an Executive

Agreement at a ceremony in Washington D.C. in December 2002.

The Agreement establishes a Yukon River Panel, comprised of representatives

from the U.S. and Canada, to make recommendations to management entities on

both sides of the border concerning the conservation and management of salmon

originating in the Yukon River in Canada. In the U.S. the Panel consists of a representative of the State of Alaska (chair), the Federal Government, and four members from communities along the Yukon River. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

is currently the Federal Government’s representative and the alternate representative is from NOAA Fisheries. Technical support to the Panel is provided by the Joint

Technical Committee (JTC) on which the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has membership.

The Agreement also establishes the Yukon River Salmon Restoration and Enhancement Fund to support projects, on either side of the Alaska–Yukon border,

that contribute to the restoration, conservation, enhancement, and stewardship of

Canadian-origin salmon. The U.S. agreed to make annual contributions of $1.2 million to the Fund beginning in Fiscal Year 2002 subject to the availability of appropriations. About 60 projects are funded annually from this Fund. Projects are conducted by Yukon River drainage residents and fishers; agencies do not compete for

these funds.

A large portion of Canadian-origin salmon are harvested by U.S. fishers; U.S.-origin fish are also harvested by U.S. fishers. Fulfilling U.S. commitments of the

Agreement requires an enhanced understanding of Yukon River salmon stocks to

ensure that escapements to the Canadian border are achieved without unnecessarily

limiting harvests of U.S. and Canadian-origin salmon in U.S. waters. The Joint

Technical Committee is currently developing a joint research and monitoring plan

for Yukon River salmon stocks to address this need.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service participated in these negotiations and is now

working with the State of Alaska, U.S. fishers, Department of Commerce, and

Canada under the Agreement to rebuild depressed Canadian-origin salmon populations and to bolster efforts to protect and restore spawning and rearing habitats

in Canada.

The Yukon River Salmon Act of 2000 authorizes $4 million for implementing U.S.

obligations under the Agreement. We believe that this is an important measure and

support reauthorization of the Yukon River Salmon Act of 2000.

U.S.-Russia Polar Bear Agreement

Amendments to Section 113(d) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act enacted in

1994 authorize the Service, for the United States, to enter into negotiations with

Russia to enhance the conservation and management of polar bear stocks. We have

acted on this authorization. Since 1990, the Service has worked to improve cooperative research and management programs with Russia for the conservation of polar

bears. Significant progress has been made in this effort. Building on this progress,

United States and Russian representatives negotiated a bilateral agreement on the

34

conservation and management of the shared Chukchi/Bering Seas polar bear population in February 1998. That agreement was signed by the two nations in Washington, D.C., on October 16, 2000.

The proposed U.S.–Russia Agreement would establish a common legal, scientific,

and administrative framework for the conservation and management of the Alaska–

Chukotka polar bear population. A particular concern addressed by the agreement

is the widely different harvest provisions and practices of the U.S. and Russia. Despite the 1956 all-union ban on hunting polar bears in Russia, harvest is now occurring at levels that, combined with the legal subsistence harvest in Alaska, could

deplete the population. While lawful harvest by Alaska Natives for subsistence purposes occurs in Alaska, United States law does not allow restrictions of this harvest

unless a polar bear population becomes ‘‘depleted’’ under the MMPA. In Russia, the

Agreement has been approved through their political process; administrative steps

necessary prior to implementation are underway and will be completed soon. When

this happens, there will be a need for the coordination of harvest restrictions on

both sides of the border to prevent an unsustainable combined harvest that could

lead to the Alaska–Chukotka polar bear population becoming depleted under the

MMPA and listed under the Endangered Species Act. The Agreement will create a

management framework to prevent this from happening.

The Administration submitted the Agreement to the United States Senate for advice and consent on July 11, 2002, but additional steps may need to be taken before

the United States Government will proceed to bring the Agreement into force: enactment of necessary implementing legislation and promulgation of regulations.

The Administration is preparing draft legislation to implement the Agreement,

which is undergoing review by the various agencies involved with the process. The

implementing legislation will be fully consistent with the 1973 multilateral agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears and will further the goals of applicable

domestic legislation. The Agreement and its implementing legislation will represent

a major step forward for polar bear conservation, and will enhance our collaborative

efforts with Russia to conserve shared natural resources. We look forward to working with the Subcommittee to ensure introduction and passage of the implementing

legislation.

Conclusion

Mr. Chairman, in closing, I would like to state that this Administration is committed to conserving and managing salmon and polar bears by working with our

partners in a cooperative fashion. In particular, I want to emphasize the commitment to continued collaboration with U.S. and Canadian fishers, the State of

Alaska, and our partners in the Native community to conserve and manage these

species. We believe we can be more effective at addressing our conservation responsibilities, and look forward to working with you and members of the Subcommittee

and full Committee to reauthorize the Yukon River Salmon Act and legislation to

implement the U.S.-Russia Polar Bear Agreement during this Congress.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my remarks. I would be happy to answer any questions.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Jones. Without objection the rest

of your statement will be submitted to the record.

We, as I said in my earlier testimony, won’t scratch the surface

of the myriad of issues that are facing each one of your departments and agencies today, but I would hope that we could continue

to pursue this over the next coming months as some of these agreements come on line, some of them need more funding, and some of

them we will continue to ask how the U.S. Congress can be helpful

in implementing this and funding sources for this and leveraging

through public pronouncements that the Congress is angry about

this or that and we are going to do something about it or we are

going to cutoff trade or whatever it takes to continue to be an active relentless participant in all of these issues.

The first question I have, I know many members on the dais will

ask this in a similar or different fashion, and that deals with the

articles that recently appeared in the ‘‘New York Times’’, the

‘‘Washington Post’’, ‘‘Nature Magazine’’, and so on talking about

35

the huge depletion of a number of species in the world’s oceans,

and that seemingly runs counter to some of the rebuilding measures that we have heard over the last year or two. But I would like

to, instead of asking specific questions about the Canadian analysis

or specific species and their stock analysis, and I will leave that up

to my colleagues, I want to ask a little bit more of a conceptual

philosophical question as to our approach to fisheries management.

The Canadian analysis goes back to the 1950’s and they are basically saying that if we look at the 1950’s status of stock report and

then we look at the status of stock reports today, we are well below

what they were in the 1950’s, and that is an analysis, I guess, to

show how far away we are from really rebuilding the stock to a

sustainable level. Some years ago, I read a book by the now famous

or infamous, depending on your perspective, Farley Mowat, called

‘‘The Sea of Slaughter’’, in which he went back to the 1500’s,

1600’s, 1700’s, much in English or in Great Britain, to determine

what the status of stock reports were in those centuries based on

their observations from the fishermen, from the early scientists,

and so on. And if we went back 500 years ago or 400 or 300, we

can see that the number of fish species, shore birds, and so on was

huge compared to what we have today.

As you go through fisheries analysis and your relationship with

agreements with the international community, is there any baseline upon which you develop data to determine whether a stock is

sufficiently rebuilt enough or whether a stock is sufficiently

healthy, and upon which frame of reference do you base that or

make that decision? Is there some sense that the stock is a lot different today than it was in 1950’s or in the early 1600’s?

I guess if each of you could give a comment on that.

Dr. HOGARTH. I guess I will start. That is a very interesting

question. I don’t think there is any doubt that the fishery stocks

are probably lower than they were in the 1600’s or even 1940 or

1950. I think the question is, though, if you are going to manage

fisheries, you are going to expect a reduction in the stock, and if

you manage the optimum yield, 50 percent reduction in a population is sort of—it is accepted. I mean, you have got a spawning

stockpile mass there, and so you would not expect, you know,

stocks not to decrease.

The thing that you have to look at very carefully, though, is

when it goes below its optimum yield or its maximum, as we call

it the maximum sustained yield and optimum yield and look at the

spawning stock biomass, the problem on an international basis is

getting the data. A lot of these countries don’t have the expertise

or don’t have the finances to get data, and that is one of the things

that concerns me most, is that some of these stocks, like bluefin

tuna, some of the countries are not reporting their data in the

manner we think they need to report it.

I have offered and we will have a workshop for ICCAT species

to talk about data and the data needs to do the stock assessment.

On an international basis, we do stock assessments very similar to

the way we do stock assessments in the U.S. So we know at the

levels at which we should be fishing. For example, we put in a rebuilding plan for North Atlantic swordfish. They met those criteria.

36

Last year at ICCAT, we were able to increase the quota. We were

not really happy with that.

Mr. GILCHREST. If I could interrupt just for a second, Dr. Hogarth.

Dr. HOGARTH. Yes.

Mr. GILCHREST. Would you say—you based those fishing agreements with ICCAT on the data that was collected and you are dealing with maximum sustainable yield criteria. Would you say that

the Canadian analysis is a legitimate analysis and that some of

that needs to be taken into consideration?

Dr. HOGARTH. Well, I think it should be. I mean I think we have

not been able to look at all the background for which they make

the analysis, and I would say we do agree if you go unregulated,

then you are going to have a—we have the fishing power now that

is capable of rapidly depleting the stock. We do realize that on a

national basis, international, and even on a domestic basis, we

have too much capacity. We need to look at capacity. That is one

issue that even Japan is talking to us now about, wanting to know

if we will sponsor a workshop internationally to look at capacity.

There are too many longlines, to many purse seines, and we need

to be looking at the capacity both on an international basis as well

as a domestic basis.

So, you know, I think the point of the report is that what he said

is many of these declines occurred more than 50 years ago. A lot

of management has been in place, has really started—even looking

at the U.S., our Sustainable Fishery Act of 1996 with the

Magnuson-Stevens Act gave us rebuilding plans, gave us a 10-year.

So a lot of the fishery management has taken place over the last

10, 15 years, and this data was based on 50-years plus ago. So you

would expect, if you look at that, that the stocks are not—we now,

I think, have recognized the problem, which I don’t think the report gave us credit for, that we have to have, you know, scientific

surveys. We have to get the data on a national basis, which these

agreements are doing.

So I think, you know, the same issues that we are dealing with

domestically, we are dealing with internationally, and I think we

do need a stock assessment, but we have to have—many of these

developing countries, have nothing much but fisheries. So they

want to develop their fisheries, but they don’t have the infrastructure to then collect the data and things that you need to do.

We are doing more observers on these vessels now to get data.

We are trying to work with better resolutions to make countries

come into compliance.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you.

Ms. Ambassador.

Ambassador WEST. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me just pick

up on a couple of things that Dr. Hogarth has mentioned. I think

we clearly recognize that there is no doubt that many of the world’s

fish stocks are in serious condition, and as I said, we have developed a number of agreements to try to deal with it. Some are global. Some are regional.

The critical challenge facing us right now is to get these agreements implemented, to stop illegal fishing in violation of the agreements or by vessels of countries that are not party to the agreeVerDate 11-MAY-2000 16:20 Oct 10, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 87232.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
37

ments, and to reduce capacity overall in the world’s fishing fleets.

But another thing we need to remember is approximately 90 percent of the world’s fish catch is taken within 200-mile zones around

the world. Many of those zones, are off developing countries that

don’t have the capacity to manage and enforce their stocks.

One of the things we really need to concentrate on in addition

to making this framework of international agreements work, is to

help build capacity among developing countries to manage and,

even more so, to enforce management of the stocks in their own

zones.

Thank you.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you very much.

Mr. Jones, I was going to yield to Mr. Pallone, but if you had a

comment.

Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, just very briefly, obviously the Department of Interior and the Fish and Wildlife Service does not

have a responsibility for fish in the ocean, and we would defer to

NOAA and to the Department of State, expect except that we are

responsible for the implementation of CITES, Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, and fisheries issues such as

the bluefin tuna, more recently the Patagonian toothfish, have now

been introduced into the CITES debate. We have worked very

closely with the Department of State, with NOAA, in developing

U.S. positions on those issues, and it is still an open question about

whether CITES is a right vehicle, but the point is we think we

need consider the usefulness of every tool which is out there to help

us protect our population of fisheries, and CITES is one of those

tools that is still under consideration, though we have other instruments more directly focused on fishery resources that we hope can

do the job.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you very much.

The gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I could ask this, I guess, Mr. Hogarth or Ambassador West, you

could both answer it, but I know that Dr. Hogarth mentioned this

black list issued by ICCAT which lists vessels suspected of IUU

fishing as well as a white list which names those fishing vessels

that comply with the ICCAT regulations, and I am also told that

if Japan and the European Union and U.S. were to fully cooperate

on the implementation of these two lists, about 33,000 metric tons

of illegally caught fish would be off the market. And, of course, this

sounds to me like a really good idea.

So I want today ask either of you, start with Dr. Hogarth, does

NOAA fisheries intend to submit a proposed rule on this measure

so that your office and U.S. Customs can act cooperatively to stop

illegal catches from entering the U.S. market, and then maybe Ambassador West could tell us whether the State Department intends

to urge other ICCAT member nations to use these lists to stifle illegal catch.

Dr. HOGARTH. First of all, we do. We are in the process now of

trying to develop this list, and we want to make sure that we get

our list developed as quickly as, say, Japan or some other countries

do so that we don’t become sort of the country for dumping if they

38

get the list in place first. So we are work closely with Japan, the

EU, and we want to get this list out as quickly as possible. So we

are all working on it.

We are also working with the other countries. At the last ICCAT

meeting, we had—in fact, Japan asked us to work with the

Taiwanese particularly because of this same issue. There has been

240 vessels that have been identified, and we met with them and

tried to cut this list down of illegal boats. So, yes, we are working

on it.

Mr. PALLONE. Is it going to be like an agency rule, though, or

regulation?

Dr. HOGARTH. Yes. It will be a listing of those vessels by the U.S.

that are legal.

The question of what we would do on the negative list and the

black list is sort of being discussed now, because most countries felt

like it would be more positive and more important to get the list

of vessels that are legal that you should be buying from. It would

be easier to keep that list up than the other way. So we are putting

more emphasis now on the positive list.

Mr. PALLONE. And Ambassador?

Ambassador WEST. You asked if we would encourage other

ICCAT member nations to —

Mr. PALLONE. To use the list.

Ambassador WEST. Use the list and enforce it. Absolutely. And

let me also say that in this respect, as it has been in some other

respects, ICCAT is at the forefront of developing some of these new

tools to try to clamp down on illegal fishing, and so we are addressing the question of where else we might use things such as a positive list. Japan is very interested in talking with us and has already asked us to give some thought to what other fishery management organizations might benefit from similar kinds of management measures, and we are doing that.

Mr. PALLONE. OK. You know that several Atlantic coast states

along with the Recreational Fishing Alliance and the World Wildlife Fund wrote a letter to urge certification under the Pelly

Amendment to the Fishermen’s Protection Act last October outlining the failure of countries in the European Union to comply

with international regulations under ICCAT, and specifically these

regulations will provide for the protection and recovery of bluefin

tuna and white marlin, the very species that the Nature article

that I mentioned highlighted as being under severe fishing pressure. In response to the petition, the Secretary wrote a letter to the

EU trade minister raising these concerns, and I just wanted to

know what plans the Administration has at the upcoming annual

meeting of ICCAT to pressure the European Union to comply with

these international standards.

Dr. HOGARTH. Mr. Congressman, there are two avenues going on

now. One of them is the 301 trade issue which the Secretary wrote.

It has gotten a little confused, because under the Pelly certification,

I am the one that is handling that for the Secretary because it is

different from the 301 trade. What we have done, I have written

a letter to the EU and telling that we are in the process of evaluating their performance, so to speak, on ICCAT, that we know we

39

passed resolutions last year to prohibit the harvest of small fish,

that they signed on to this.

I met with them once already to see what progress they are making, and what we are doing now is following the progress they are

making with that resolution to reduce the small fish to fish under

3.2 kilograms or 6.4 kilograms and particularly for the bluefin. And

so we have the resolution. We are following them, and we will

make a determination under the Pelly probably after the next

year’s ICCAT meeting to see what data they have submitted and

what progress they have made.

So we meet with them on a regular basis. In fact, I am supposed

to leave tomorrow for an ICCAT meeting, and we will be talking

to EU about it, and we have a bilateral with the European Union

here in I think it is late June, and these issues are forefront and

we are following up on them. We take this very serious. I mean,

we have got to have compliance, and the EU is a big player and

the Mediterranean and the number of small fish being taken is crucial to the rebuilding of bluefin.

Mr. PALLONE. All right. Thank you, and I think that is probably

good. Right? We don’t need the Ambassador unless she wants to

respond.

Ambassador WEST. Well, I would just say that we agree that

these are serious concerns and we are certainly working with the

Commerce Department on them.

There is a kind of funny dichotomy on ICCAT. ICCAT, as I said

earlier, is at the absolute forefront of developing some of the most

creative measures to address illegal fishing. On the other hand, it

also has problems with compliance within its own ranks, and so we

need to try to work on that. We have raised these issues with the

EU at high levels, and we will continue to work them.

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Pallone.

Mr. Duke Cunningham.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. [Off mic.]—on a president-to-president level to

maybe resolve this issue, and I would like to thank the panel for

your efforts.

Mr. GILCHREST. We will submit the letter for the record.

[The letter referred to follows:]

40

41

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Duke.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Thank you.

Mr. GILCHREST. The gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Saxton.

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I don’t know quite where to start. I guess maybe—I brought Jennifer with me because she keeps me calm. She is a calm person,

and as Dr. Hogarth knows, when I get involved in these issues,

sometimes I don’t stay calm. So Jennifer promised me that I should

tell you that she is going to keep me calm when I talk about these

issues.

And I as you can tell, my voice is calm, at least for now, and I

would just like to proceed by saying that I think our international

fishery regulatory regime can only be described as a failure. I have

worked hard with you, Mr. Chairman, and with Mr. Pallone and

with Dave and other staff members. I even wore one staff member

out completely. He left the Fisheries Subcommittee because he

couldn’t take it anymore.

The international effort to regulate fisheries through ICCAT and

other organizations is a failure, and I think it is a failure for a

number of reasons, but I think that the biggest reason for our failure is the lack of U.S. Government leadership in international fisheries matters. As I was sitting here thinking about all the things

that we do on an international basis where we have been successful, we have got a great track record internationally. We lead the

way in taking down the Iron Curtain. We led the way internationally in putting in place international policies that provided for the

dissolution of the Soviet Union, and today we are leading the way

economically helping the former Soviet Republic to recover from

that terrible experience. We recently led the way in taking down

the Taliban—it was an international effort—and freeing the Iraqi

people.

They were difficult problems, a lot of international debate, and

the United States showed the leadership to solve these very difficult international problems or at least to take steps toward solving them. We played a major role in leading the world to establish

the United Nations, and we lead every day at the United Nations

in discussions to try to make the world a better place to live. It is

all because of the United States leadership.

We have built an economy based on a number of factors including international trade. International trade is the backbone to the

world economy. None of us are independent anymore. We are all

cooperative and make the international marketplace a place where

it makes life better in the world.

We have even lead the way in establishing an international

space station. Wow. We do impossible things. And we help underdeveloped countries as the leader and the No. 1 participant in the

International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, but we can’t

find the way to provide the leadership that it takes to solve these

international conservation, ocean conservation, problems. Somehow

there is something missing from our regime of regulatory leadership capability, and it frustrates the life out of me, as David knows.

He worked with me four or 5 years ago, and Rob Howarth, the guy

that we wore out, in trying to come to grips with some of the problems this Canadian study and report talk about.

42

And we failed. I failed. David failed. This Subcommittee failed.

The Resource Committee failed. You failed. We collectively failed to

provide the leadership that we needed to solve this terrible international problem, and the Canadians are very forthright. Let me

just read this.

Quote: ‘‘International fishing practices have decimated every one

of the world’s biggest and most economically important species of

fish according to a new and detailed global analysis that challenges

current fisheries protection policies. Fully ninety percent of each of

the world’s large ocean species, including cod, halibut, tuna, swordfish, marlin have disappeared from the world’s oceans in recent

decades according to the Canadian analysis, the first to use historical data dating to the beginning of the large-scale fishing in the

1950’s.’’

‘‘The new research found that fishing has become so efficient that

it typically takes 15 years to remove 80 percent or more of any species that becomes a focus of the fleet’s attention. If current fishing

practices continue,’’ Meyers said, ‘‘the world can expect serious

economic—this copy doesn’t include a word here. I think it is dislocations and shortages—’’ in seafood-dependant nations and a lasting damage to marine—again the word is blocked out—‘‘and shortsighted environmental policies.’’

If we can solve all these problems, all these other international

problems, why can’t we find the leadership ability to lead the way

in solving the problems this study talks about and the studies we

have talked about on this Subcommittee since at least 1994 when

this reconfiguration of the Subcommittee took place, or 1995 I

guess it was.

So I guess my question is this, very much like the question that

the Chairman asked in his opening question: What is it that we

need to do different? Do we need to have a special commission to

look at the way this Subcommittee is laid out and how NMFS is

laid out and how the Department of Commerce, which negotiates

international agreements, and the State Department carries out

the international agreements? There is something terribly wrong

with our ability to do this job, because it can only be characterized

as failure.

I would just like to hear your perspective on this.

Ambassador WEST. Thank you. I will go first this time.

Let me say that the U.S. has been a leader in developing the

framework that we now have. Had it not been for the U.S., we

would not have a Straddling Stocks Agreement. We would not have

the Compliance Agreement. We would not have the new treaty that

we just negotiated that will conserve and manage the tuna stocks

out in the central and western Pacific. We would not have the Code

of Conduct for responsible fisheries, or the plan of action on IUU

fishing.

But I do agree with you. We have the structure, but I do agree

with you that our challenge, and one that we have not met as well

as I wish, is to get these things implemented to stop illegal fishing,

and to reduce capacity. These are things on which we are trying

to develop new approaches, such as the black list and white list in

ICCAT. But we have a lot of challenges ahead of us. As I mentioned, I think that one important element that we should conVerDate 11-MAY-2000 16:20 Oct 10, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 87232.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
43

centrate on in the future is in developing capacity in the developing

countries to manage the fisheries within their 200-mile zones. This

is something we ought to think about putting more time and resources into.

Finally, I would say, as you are well aware, the Pew Oceans

Commission will issue its report next week, I think on June 4th,

and the Oceans Policy Commission will issue its report probably in

September. Those will give us the opportunity, I think, together

collectively to address some of the systemic questions and the governance questions that you have raised, and we certainly will want

to work with Congress on that.

Dr. HOGARTH. Congressman Saxton, I know how you feel about

these issues. We have talked quite about white marlin, and I do

take some of it a little personal, I guess, since I am the leader of

the National Marine Fisheries Service for the last 2 years. And I

agree. I think we have made process. I do.

One of the things that bothers me very much is compliance on

an international basis. I am sitting here thinking how to say this

and whether I should say it or not, but we have the same problems

domestically as we have internationally. Look at our fisheries on a

domestic basis and the will to regulate. We have got a shrimp fishery in the Gulf which is the largest fishery money-wise. We, until

last year, were unable to get a permit system to know how many

vessels were even fishing in the shrimp fishery. We got stopped

every time we turned around to do it. Now that shrimp fishery is

suffering terribly from not being able to compete with agriculture

and imports, but it is probably about 55 percent of those vessels

could come out of the fishery. Those left would be harvesting the

same amount of shrimp as that. That is what is happening on an

international basis. Taiwan and Japan, those countries, fisheries is

big to them and they are building vessels every day.

So we have the same problem domestically with the will to manage fisheries as you would have internationally. Also, I agree that,

you know, that we have to figure a way to get compliance. We get

these things done, as the Ambassador said, but then have to get

the compliance with it, is the trade measures, and that is very difficult to implement trade measures. The U.S. now is importing

about 60 to 70 percent of all the seafood we utilize. About 80 percent of all the shrimp we use in this country are coming from imports.

Fisheries are tough. Fisheries are tough. I wish I was a young

man so I could go back and retrain to do something else. I am

stuck for the next 2 years to try to make things better, but it is

tough; and, you know, we have a fishery in the U.S. that is one of

our biggest fisheries that has not met the quota or any fishing mortality levels in 20 years, and we are fighting now and the courts

are in control of it to try to get regulations in place.

So what I am saying is fisheries is tough to manage both domestically and internationally. We have the same problem with the

will in countries to manage when that is all they have to do. To

tell Japan, even, that you have got to close this area due to small

fish, that we have done in the U.S. to small swordfish, is very difficult. But what we are trying to do now to fisheries, I am trying

44

to develop gear technology that we can export to these countries,

which I think that they will take and utilize.

But I will take any advice I can get. One thing I want you to realize, and I hesitate to say this, but this report by Dr. Meyers, and

I can give you several comments on it why we are not surprised

what he said, but I think there are real issues there; but it was

funded by the same group that is funding the Pew Ocean Commission, and right now they are getting ready to come out with their

report on June 4th. So there is a lot of publicity ahead of this that

is pointing to all the problems to get the public’s attention.

At the same time, NOAA Fisheries put out our Status of Stocks

Report for 2002. I haven’t found but one newspaper that bothered

to carry the news release which pointed out the positive things that

we have done on our fisheries, but the negatives points are being

carried by everybody.

So we have got to do a better job, I admit, and I will take any

advice that this Committee and any other Committee would like to

give us, but fisheries is tough. It is really tough to get these things

done. I think we are leaders. I think we are not the leader we used

to be because we don’t have the fisheries that we used to have. Our

tuna fleet is probably about a third of what it used to be on a

national basis.

Mr. SAXTON. Well, I know it is tough. So was Iraq. So was the

Taliban. So was the Soviet Union. So was the space station. They

are all international efforts. They ain’t any tougher than fish. We

just don’t have the national will to do these things.

You mentioned your black list, good example, the black list of

nations. Why don’t we go after them? We have got the law in place

to do it. Why don’t we go after them? We don’t have the will to do

it.

My time is up.

Mr. GILCHREST. The gentleman from New Jersey has been very

eloquent and passionate, and we will pursue our efforts fueled by

his ingenuity and initiative.

Thank you, Mr. Saxton.

What we want to do is, you know, politics is a strange thing.

International politics is even more strange, the nooks and crannies

of the human condition, how do we deal with it.

Madam Ambassador, you talked about three critical things: implement agreements, reduce capacity, find resources for underdeveloped nations to be able to manage those agreements, implement those agreements and then enforce those fisheries agreements. And I can tell you that this Subcommittee and hopefully

this Congress will be even more relentless and aggressive to back

up what you do and go even further from what you do with passing

a bill out of this Subcommittee or a resolution out of this Subcommittee saying that the nations on this black list, we are going

to implement the Pelly Amendment to the fullest extent of the law

and start doing as many aggressive things as we possibly can.

Inherent in all of this is political, is newspaper reports or people

that put a certain slant on it that have an agenda. Each one of us

has an agenda for sure, but inherent in all of this is we are hoping

we can help, as far as you are concerned, with the best available

science, and we will continue to provide the resources to ensure

45

that that takes place, whether we can look through the maze of differing opinions and come up with the best available data and then

engage the international community as a leader to enforce that.

I just have two questions. One is sort of out of the ball park, and

I only thought of it while Mr. Saxton was talking, and I don’t know

if any of you has jurisdiction over the issue of persistent toxic

chemicals, mercury in particular, that is contained in fish fat, and

there are protocols and recommendations all over the world, including the United States and especially people who are dependent

upon fish for their main source of food and subsistence. Is there

anything discussions that you have dealing with that issue of fish

consumption, persistent toxic chemicals, mercury in particular,

being dealt with in any of these agreements?

Dr. HOGARTH. I am not aware of anything that is being done in

any of the agreements. I am aware that the U.S. Tuna Foundation

has been spending a lot of money on the mercury issue because

there are so many different opinions.

I have talked to the—we are talking to the National Research

Council about getting involved with their medical group to get involved with the mercury issue, because it does affect us. We manage, for example, king mackerel in the U.S. and we manage to a

size that probably would have the higher mercury levels. So what

does it mean for domestic management also? So we have a real concern even domestically.

So we are going to take a look at this and get some expert advice, but internationally right now, I am not aware of anyone that

is dealing with it.

Mr. GILCHREST. Yes.

Ambassador WEST. The one thing I would say is these issues, as

some of you know, are of serious concern up in the Arctic, and we

are through the Arctic Council working on persistent toxic chemicals as they get into the environment in the Arctic and show up

in the fisheries and marine mammals. That is the only thing I can

think of right now.

Mr. GILCHREST. Is it an issue that is fairly well—it is an issue

that is beginning to be—people are beginning to become cognizant

of it domestically, and there are problems domestically, and I know

in the Chesapeake Bay, I am going to ask the Governor of Maryland that at every fishing spot, every public landing, public dock,

there should be a notification about the number of catfish that you

consume, because there has been reports that under certain circumstances, you shouldn’t eat of any of it, and under the best of

circumstances, you should really significantly limit the amount of

fish that you consume.

So we are becoming cognizant. I am just wondering as you discuss these issues on an international basis, is anybody else talking

about this.

So I don’t know, Mr. Jones, if you wanted to make a comment

on it as well.

Mr. JONES. Well, Mr. Chairman, just to endorse what Ambassador West said, the Fish and Wildlife Service, through the Arctic

Council and its efforts to look at the conservation of Arctic fauna

and flora as has been focusing on the amount of persistent organic

pollutants which are showing up particularly in the diets of

46

Alaskan Natives who consume on a subsistence basis both marine

mammals and fish that come from Arctic waters. So it certainly is

an issue there, but I think in that Arctic Council context, it is

being discussed among the other Arctic nations.

That is the only perspective that I can give on this, Mr. Chairman, but it is something that we recognize as important.

Mr. GILCHREST. Yes, sir.

Ambassador West.

Ambassador WEST. I understand a couple of things. One is that

UNEP is apparently addressing some of these issues and that I

would be happy to provide you more detail. And, in addition, I

think some of the food safety issues would be dealt with by Codex

Alimentarius, which is FAO and WHO, but if we provide you a subsequent more fulsome answer on this, we can try to deal with that.

[The information referred to follows:]

Response of Ambassador West

This issue you have raised is one that has risen to prominence over the last decade on the international scene, and concern over this was one of the primary motivations for negotiating the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants—a global agreement controlling production, use and release of certain toxic

chemicals known to persist over long periods in the environment and to bioaccumulate in the food chain. With regard specifically to mercury, the U.S. government has

been working with our international partners on cooperative efforts to deal with this

important issue. On a regional basis, we negotiated an international agreement with

Canada and many European countries to deal with three heavy metals, including

mercury, that will help to reduce releases of mercury to the environment. More recently, the United States took the lead in establishing a ‘Mercury Program’ in the

United Nations Environment Program to provide technical assistance to developing

countries to facilitate their efforts to address human health and environmental impacts related to mercury. In addition, the eight member states of the Arctic Council,

including the United States, have cooperatively monitored and assessed levels of

mercury and persistent organic pollutants (POPs) in the Arctic environment where

fish represent an important element of both the modern and subsistence economy

and the diet of indigenous communities and marine mammals. The latest assessment is titled, Arctic Pollution 2002, and is available on the web at www.amap.no.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you very much.

Do we have the black list? Does the Subcommittee have the black

list? Could we call it something else other than the black list? The

offenders list?

Dr. HOGARTH. We have talked about the positive list and the

negative list.

Mr. GILCHREST. Do we have the positive list and the negative

list?

Dr. HOGARTH. They have not been completed yet. They are in

process. You know, we have got to make sure of this, that we are

careful who goes on it, and then we have got to make sure we put

them on the positive list if they actually belong there and we don’t

leave someone off that is going to impact them from a trade standpoint. So we are trying to verify that list at the present time so we

can get it in the Federal Register.

Mr. GILCHREST. This positive and negative list, is this specific —

Dr. HOGARTH. Vessels.

Mr. GILCHREST. It is vessels flagged by convenience? It is also

members of ICCAT that turn their heads under certain circumstances, or is it just basically vessels, flags of convenience?

47

Dr. HOGARTH. These will be all vessels by the countries that they

are legal fish, that they are flagged properly, registered properly,

and that we feel like are legal vessels and they report the data,

that they are legally registered vessels, and they report data and

the whole, you know —

Mr. GILCHREST. Is the Pelly Amendment at all useful as we move

through this, something we could begin actually holding hearings

on and discuss to help your efforts?

Ambassador WEST. Mr. Chairman, ICCAT is structured so that

it requires countries to take trade measures against vessels that

are offending, basically, the ICCAT rules. The U.S. already has the

wherewithal to do that. So Pelly would not be necessary in this

process.

Mr. GILCHREST. Well, whether it is necessary or not necessary,

whether there is a structure or not a structure, we just want to

stay connected with you as you go through this process and try to

implement some of these agreements, and when there are countries

or vessels that are not pursuing this in an appropriate manner,

then we want to bring international attention to that and certainly

domestic attention to that.

Thank you very much.

Mr. Pallone.

Mr. PALLONE. I just wanted to say, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate

your asking those questions about mercury, because it is a major

concern, you know, not only nationally, but particularly in my state

it has come up quite a bit.

Just because I want to ask this before I forget, the 55th Annual

Meeting of International Whaling Commission is going to convene

next month in Berlin, and just two questions I guess for Dr. Hogarth: Will the U.S. continue to support the global moratorium on

commercial whaling, and will the U.S. continue to oppose illegal

scientific whaling by Japan and Norway?

Dr. HOGARTH. Yes, sir.

Mr. PALLONE. For both?

Dr. HOGARTH. Both.

Mr. PALLONE. All right. Thank you.

I wanted to go back to the Polar Bear Treaty. I am probably mispronouncing it. What is it? Chukotka. And this is for Mr. Jones.

The Administration has yet to forward to Congress a proposal of

draft enabling legislation to implement the U.S.-Russia treaty that

was signed by the parties in October 2000. It is my understanding

that ongoing negotiations inside the Administration have delayed

the transmittal of this guidance.

Two questions: One is it has been over 2 years. What issues are

holding things up, if you could tell us, and in the interim, what

management regulations are in effect for the polar bear population

to ensure that any level of harvest by either Russian or Alaskan

Natives is sustainable and within the conservation standards

under the treaty? We are hearing, obviously, that there is still a

lot of poaching on the Russian side, by way of background.

Mr. JONES. Mr. Pallone, if I could take your questions in reverse

order.

Mr. PALLONE. Sure.

48

Mr. JONES. Let me start first with where we are right now. We

are hearing the same thing. Clearly, the Russian Federation, I

don’t think this is a matter of will. They want to regulate things

better in Russia. It is a matter of capability right now, and it depends on their relationship with the natives of Chukotka, which is

a region of Siberia, just as, even though we operate under a different legal framework in this country, we are very much dependant on our relationship with Alaska Natives, because in this country, Alaskan natives have the right to an unlimited subsistence

harvest of marine mammals; and the great breakthrough which

was made in the negotiation of this treaty with Russia was the fact

that each country recognized we could not succeed unless we had

natives, Alaska Natives, natives of Siberia present.

And so we involved the Alaskan Nanuuq Commission from the

United States and the Union of Marine Mammal Hunters from

Siberia as coequal partners with the governmental representatives.

So there is a common agreement that we need to regulate the

harvest, and Alaska Natives thus have voluntarily agreed that they

would be bound by the framework which would be put together by

this treaty.

In the meantime, we are concerned that unregulated harvest on

the Russian side combined with the subsistence harvest on our side

of border could be a problem. In the last few years, I think we have

had an average over the last decade or so of about 50 bears taken

for subsistence purposes on the U.S. side of the border. The Russian side, we are not sure. The best Russian estimates put it somewhere between 100 and 400 bears per year on their side of the border from this same shared population.

So adding that together, you could be anywhere from 150 to 450

bears being taken every year. We have done some population projections based on what we know of the population size. We also are

not sure how many bears there are, but the IUC has estimated

that there are somewhere between 2,000 and 5,000 bears. If we

pick a number in the middle of that range and look at what are

the effects of the harvest that we know is taking place in the

United States combined with a much larger harvest that we believe

is taking place in Russia, we would project a decline in the population and eventually elimination of the population over 30 years.

Now, those are hypothetical numbers, but that is what the modeling would show. The good news is, back to what I said, we believe

that the Government of Russia does have the will and they are

looking for this treaty to give them the international framework

and structure, working with the United States, to do a better job

of regulating this.

Mr. PALLONE. But is anything being done in the interim, and

what is holding up the treaty since it has been 2 years? We are

asking the same questions again.

Mr. JONES. Right. Back to your first question, then, negotiations

are still going on within the Administration.

The Department of Justice has raised some questions about certain aspects of this. These are legal matters, Mr. Pallone, that I

don’t think it would be appropriate for me to comment on the details of this, but we have ongoing discussions right now between

the Department of Interior, the Department of Justice, and OMB

49

about what the appropriate implementing legislation would be for

this. We hope that these issues will be resolved very soon and that

there will be an Administration legislative proposal, but I can’t predict exactly when.

Mr. PALLONE. But in the interim, there really isn’t anything positive, then, to say about it, because obviously you think that the

population is declining.

Mr. JONES. Mr. Pallone, what I can say is I think there is some

goodwill. I think there is a recognition, and I believe that there, as

a result, has been some lessening of the harvest by native groups

on both sides of the border, but we can’t really document exactly

how much that is, and certainly we don’t have any legally enforceable way right now of engineering that until the treaty goes into

effect.

Mr. PALLONE. All right. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Pallone.

As a quick follow-up to that, and maybe you said it and I didn’t

catch it, are the native groups in any way being employed on either

side of the border to help with enforcement?

Mr. JONES. Right now, it is voluntary, but the Alaskan Nanuuq

Commission and the North Slope Borough and others have been

working with us, recognizing the need for restraint here. Most of

the problems are not on the U.S. sides of the border.

Mr. GILCHREST. Are most of the problems on the Russian side

poaching or is it just —

Mr. JONES. Poaching, because there still is a complete ban on all

hunting of polar bears in Russia.

Mr. GILCHREST. There isn’t?

Mr. JONES. There is.

Mr. GILCHREST. There is?

Mr. JONES. There is. That has been in effect since 1956. Unfortunately, they don’t have the capacity to enforce that. They need cooperation. This agreement gives a much better—will put us in a

much better context for getting cooperation from the Siberian hunters working with their counterparts.

Mr. GILCHREST. What is the status of this agreement now?

Mr. JONES. The agreement itself is pending before the Senate

Foreign Relations Committee now for advice and consent, and we

hope we will have an Administration proposal for implementing

legislation presented to this Committee soon.

Mr. GILCHREST. By the fall? Now, I guess the proposal for this

agreement presented to this Subcommittee could happen—we could

schedule it next week. We can schedule this. We are ready to with

the proposal for this agreement. We will give your office a call and

we will schedule the date.

Mr. JONES. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. GILCHREST. Yes, sir. Is most of the poaching done by people

who sell these on the so-called black market? Is it the natives or

subsistence hunters that are responsible for this poaching? Do we

know who is responsible?

Mr. JONES. There is certainly—there is native subsistence take

in Siberia. There is concern that there may also be some sport

hunting, which would be illegal, on the Russian side, but that may

50

be taking place. Unfortunately, it is obviously one of the most remote areas on Earth. There also could be poaching for gallbladders

which could be sold in international commerce. That would be—any

international movements of gallbladders or other polar bear parts

would be contrary to CITES. Polar bear is listed in Appendix II of

CITES, not because it is endangered, because it is vulnerable.

Mr. GILCHREST. How will this agreement once it is in effect help

the Siberia side? Is it resources from the U.S. to help bolster and

buttress their enforcement capabilities? Will it affect our subsistence hunters on our side at all by requiring them to reduce their

catch of polar bears?

Mr. JONES. The treaty establishes a framework whereby a commission, a polar bear commission, composed of representatives from

governments and the native groups from both countries, would set

annual harvest quotas which could be no more than the allowable

subsistence take. Those would be enforceable either by the governments themselves or by the Alaska Native organizations through

cooperative agreements with them provided they have the right capabilities and other things, and we think we could work with the

Alaskan Nanuuq Commission. We have had an agreement in place

for many, many years and very successful cooperation. They in

turn could work with their native counterparts in Siberia. There

would be some technical assistance from the Fish and Wildlife

Service that would go into that. We can provide training. We can

provide some financial incentives, although clearly they are the

ones that have to do the work, but this would be a huge step toward and we think it would make a big difference.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you.

Just one last question, and we will recess for lunch until we get

back next week for the polar bear agreement discussion.

Mr. PALLONE. Or during the break.

[Laughter.]

Mr. GILCHREST. Yes. We are going to come back during the break

in Mr. Pallone’s district.

Mr. PALLONE. We could always go to Siberia.

Mr. GILCHREST. I am for that. We could hike up through those

beautiful regions of the planet.

The question is specifically dealing with the polar bear agreements. This is probably out of the ball park as well, but as the

studies go through whether it is in this region or other regions, but

particularly this region where it looks like in 30 years if nothing

is done, we could have no polar bears there, and the modeling that

predicts that, is there any need or is there any discussion when you

consider the effect on this northern region from climate change and

some of the predictions about the loss of sea ice and further habitat

for polar bears? Is any of that discussion a part of these agreements or discussions that you have?

Mr. JONES. Well, Mr. Chairman, whatever the cause, we are

aware that sea ice is different today than it was two or three decades ago. That certainly could have an affect on polar bears of all

species. It is the one large mammal which is totally dependant on

sea ice. That is where they live.

This agreement does address conservation of habitat for polar

bears. Now, it focuses on denning areas, for example, and it builds

51

on a broader agreement. There is a 1973 agreement on the conservation of polar bears which involves not only the U.S. and Russia, but also Canada, Norway, and Denmark on behalf of Greenland, and in that 1973 treaty, which is in force in all countries,

there is a commitment to protecting the habitat of polar bears.

Through that plus the effort through the Arctic Council and the

Conservation of Arctic Fauna and Flora, there certainly is research

and thought being given to sea ice and whether the retreat of sea

ice, what are the projections for the future and whether that could

have an effect on polar bear population.

So far, we believe it has not, and so far, the good news is polar

bears overall, their population are very healthy; but overharvest

and any retreat or change in sea ice certainly could affect their

populations. It is not something we can give you anything definitive about today, but it is certainly something that we are watching. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you very much.

Ambassador West, Dr. Hogarth, Mr. Jones, I appreciate your testimony this morning, and we would like to continue to stay engaged.

I have to say one political announcement or whatever this is,

commercial. I ask unanimous consent that the testimony of Mr.

Bob Fletcher, President of the Sportfishing Association of California be submitted for the record.

Without objection, so ordered.

[The information referred to follows:]

52

53

54

55

56

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you all for your testimony, and we would

like to stay fully engaged, and we know one of the professors up

here is a very hard grader with passing out failing grades or passing grades or whatever, but we will all work on the same team to

get this job done.

Thank you very much. The hearing is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 11:40 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

[NOAA’s response to questions submitted for the record follow:]

Response to questions submitted for the record by the National Oceanic

and Atmospheric Administration for the Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans Hearing on International Fishery Conservation and Management Issues, May 22, 2003

1. Question: Quite a bit of controversy has been generated by a letter to

the editor in Nature Magazine regarding the depletion of predatory fish

populations. This letter to the editor seems to contradict the conclusions

of the recently released Status of the Stocks Report. Can you comment on

the letter to the editor or on how you believe fisheries management is progressing both domestically and internationally? Isn’t it true that ICCAT has

recently declared the international Atlantic swordfish rebuilding plan to

be ahead of schedule and the stock almost rebuilt? Can you please detail

the efforts that the U.S. has taken at international fora to advance sustainable management?

Answer: The Nature article is consistent with the current scientific view of impacts of global fisheries on marine ecosystems, but determining that fish stocks

worldwide have declined is not a new conclusion. NOAA Fisheries scientists share

57

many of the views identified by the authors of the article. However, there continues

to be significant uncertainty regarding the dynamics of fish populations before data

were collected systematically. Although some conclusions reached by the authors

(e.g., regarding overfishing and resource declines) are widely shared in the scientific

community, the conclusions reached about specific fisheries and specific ocean areas

are affected by the uncertainty of what fish populations and the ocean environment

was before data were routinely collected.

We recognize that world ecosystems have been, and will continue to be, altered

as a result of human activities. Rebuilding stocks to healthy levels includes a

human impact component that must be considered. Therefore, NOAA is increasingly

focusing its attention on scientific research into the impacts of marine fishing on

our ecosystems. Because this is a global issue, we are working with the international community to address the multiplicity of issues that surround sustainable

utilization of living marine resources. That said, we are not satisfied with the current state of international fisheries management, and we will continue to promote

the establishment of rebuilding programs for overfished stocks, as we have done in

International Convention for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) and

Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO), and improved, science-based

management, as we are doing in all the regional fisheries management organizations of which we are a member. With regard to swordfish, it is true that ICCAT’s

most recent assessment showed North Atlantic swordfish to be significantly ahead

of its rebuilding schedule. The stock climbed from about 65% of the biomass needed

to produce MSY to about 96% - within three years. This is something to be proud

of and demonstrates that with the cooperation of our foreign partners we can rebuild overfished international fisheries. For a comprehensive description of the

international conservation and management regimes of interest to NOAA Fisheries

and our efforts to promote sustainable international fisheries, please visit <http://

www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/international/2003int%271agrmts.pdf>.

2. Question: Due to court intervention, the western Pacific domestic

longline fleet has been essentially put out of business and yet the fishing

effort and sea turtle bycatch in the area has remained constant because of

an increase in fishing by foreign fleets. How do you justify the restrictions

on the domestic fleet when there is no protection for sea turtles by the foreign fleets that fish in the same waters? Has the virtual elimination of the

domestic fleet made any difference in reducing sea turtle bycatch? Are

there gear modifications that could allow the domestic industry to re-enter

this fishery?

Answer: Federal agencies are required under the Endangered Species Act to ensure that our actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a species

in the wild. As a result, we often must avoid or reduce the adverse effects of our

actions and provide protection for threatened and endangered sea turtles, regardless

of what foreign nations are doing. This requirement extends to our fishery actions

on the high seas. NOAA Fisheries recognizes that the United States is responsible

for a small percentage of the total fishing effort in the Western Pacific and that in

order to more permanently protect sea turtles we need to find solutions to reduce

or eliminate turtle takes by international fleets. We continue to develop scientifically proven gear solutions that can be transferred to the international community

through various international fisheries management bodies and though bilateral efforts. Those efforts are ongoing and include a multinational workshop held in February 2003 to evaluate possible solutions to reducing sea turtle interactions in

longline fisheries.

The restrictions on swordfish fishing have had a dramatic effect in reducing overall turtle takes. Tuna fishing, which continues, is relatively safer for turtles (fewer

turtles are taken) because of the deeper fishing of hooks in the water column.

Several promising solutions are currently the subject of intense scientific research.

NOAA Fisheries has pursued an aggressive research program to reduce turtle capture in the longline swordfish fishery for the past several years in the Atlantic

Ocean. Measures such as placement of hooks from a float, the types of hooks and

different baits are being tested. Any successful modifications in our Atlantic highly

migratory species fishery will be implemented through regulations and brought to

the attention of the international community. We are preparing a comprehensive

environmental impact statement to assess the continuation of similar research in

the Pacific Ocean. We are also in the early planning stages of working with Inter–

American Tropical Tuna Commission in sharing our gear modifications with Central

America.

3. Question: During the questioning of Dr. Hogarth, Congressman Pallone

asked a question regarding the U.S. position on the ‘‘illegal’’ whaling

activities by Japan and Norway. Can you clarify the U.S. position on

58

whether the U.S. considers the activities of either Norway or Japan to be

‘‘illegal ?

Answer: The United States does not view the whaling activities conducted by

Japan and Norway to be illegal. Japan takes about 700 whales annually for scientific research purposes in accordance with the International Convention for the

Regulation of Whaling. These research permits are issued under Japan’s laws and

do not require the approval of the International Whaling Commission (IWC). Norway conducts commercial whaling with a reservation to the commercial whaling

moratorium. Therefore, the United States does not consider the whaling activities

of Japan and Norway to be illegal under the IWC. However, it is the view of the

United States that these whaling activities undermine the spirit of the IWC and in

particular, the work of the IWC in its development of a Revised Management

Scheme, should the commercial whaling moratorium be lifted.

4. Question: You mention in your testimony that Italy will propose a resolution on whale bycatch at the IWC meeting this year. Does this concern

you that the IWC might be heading toward an attempt at regulating fisheries that have whale bycatch? Isn’t this entirely possible since some nations have argued that the IWC should regulate domestic whale watching

and regulate the take of small cetaceans?

Answer: At IWC 55, Italy sought to propose a resolution on whale bycatch. However, the resolution was deferred to a later date in order to continue further consultation with member countries. Italy’s resolution is intended to foster research

and the sharing of ideas on how to reduce bycatch of whales; it is not an attempt

to regulate fisheries. Bycatch is viewed in the IWC as a separate issue from whale

watching and small cetaceans. The IWC has not made a decision on whether it can

regulate whale watching and take of small cetaceans. However, the IWC does generally discuss whale watching and take of small cetaceans.

5. Question: Much of the international overfishing problem is caused by

IUU fishing. How is the U.S. attempting to address this problem?

Answer: Recognizing that international cooperation was absolutely necessary to

any future success in combating Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) fishing,

NOAA is a key participant in the preparation of the National Plan of Action to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate IUU Fishing and the International Monitoring, Control,

and Surveillance Network (IMCS).

The IMCS Network is an arrangement of national organizations and institutions

in charge of fisheries-related MCS activities, which have been designed to coordinate

and cooperate in order to prevent, deter and eliminate IUU fishing. At present,

there are at least 15 countries or entities (European Union and the Forum Fisheries

Agency) participating. The MCS Network is intended to give agencies support in

meeting national fisheries responsibilities as well as international and regional commitments in relation to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the

FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing, the United Nations Fish Stocks

agreement and the International Plan of Action to combat IUU.

NOAA is an active participant in the IMCS Network and administers the Network’s Website (http://www.imcsnet.org). The Network has fostered beneficial working relationships between NOAA Office of Law Enforcement (OLE) personnel and

their international counterparts. Due to this, OLE has made significant strides in

addressing IUU fishing in the CCAMLR area, sharkfin trade, highseas driftnetting

and many other vital areas.

6. Question: The issue of Chilean sea bass was raised at the CITES meeting recently. What steps has the international fishery management body

(CCAMLR) [taken] to regulate the harvest and trade of this species? What

steps has the U.S. taken to implement a catch verification scheme to prevent IUU fish from entering the U.S. markets?

Answer: Due to the scale of IUU fishing for toothfish in and beyond waters subject

to CCAMLR, a Catch Documentation Scheme (CDS) for toothfish was adopted in

1999. The CDS identifies the origin of toothfish imports, determines if the toothfish

were harvested consistent with CCAMLR conservation measures, monitors international trade, and provides catch data for stock assessments in the Convention

Area. Although NOAA Fisheries has fully implemented the CDS in the United

States, it recently published final regulations streamlining administration of the

program and enhancing efforts to prevent the import of illegally harvested toothfish.

On June 16, 2003, NOAA Fisheries began to operate a pre-approval system for most

toothfish imports. Pre-approval allows the agency to review toothfish catch

documents sufficiently in advance of import to facilitate enforcement and provide

additional economic certainty to U.S. businesses in the toothfish trade.

Information provided to CCAMLR has indicated high levels of IUU fishing in the

Convention Area. The majority of CCAMLR members agreed that catches reported

59

as harvests from FAO high sea areas in the (Statistical Areas 51 and 57) Indian

Ocean adjoining the Convention Area were not credible and were in all likelihood

fish pirated from within the Convention Area. They also expressed concerns, shared

by the United States, that information reported in catch documents did not match

scientific understanding of toothfish distribution and potential biomass of toothfish

on the high seas. Therefore, also as of June 16, 2003, no imports of fresh or frozen

toothfish represented as harvested within FAO statistical Areas 51 or 57 have been

allowed entry into the United States. Importers applying for a pre-approval certificate for fish that has been harvested from either of these areas will be denied preapproval.

7. Question: How can the U.S. identify those nations or ports that are assisting in the illegal landings and shipments of IUU-caught Chilean sea

bass? Once they have been identified, how can the U.S. take action to stop

these illegal practices?

Answer: Through the implementation of the pre-approval system, the United

States has provided the opportunity to ask some very specific questions of flag

states, landing states, and exporting states before issuing permission to import.

With this process in place, the United States can request and examine information

surrounding the harvest, landing or exporting of toothfish prior to its arrival in the

United States. Over the course of the past three years, since the first implementation of the CDS, several vessels have allegedly been sighted fishing illegally in restricted waters. CCAMLR has provided a mechanism for alerting member states of

these alleged sightings, which in turn, allows the United States to exercise extra

scrutiny concerning the verification of harvest location and circumstances of the

landing. CCAMLR has also identified certain ports as ‘‘ports of convenience’’ in addition to identifying ‘‘flags of convenience.’’ The United States has supported CCAMLR

in sending demarches to these port states identified as ports of convenience. Since

the inception of the CDS, several of these port states have formally advised that

they will participate in the CDS and/or have become members of CCAMLR.

8. Question: As you are aware, a number of this Committee’s Members

have been concerned about the bycatch of blue and white marlin by

foreign-flag vessels from both ICCAT-member nations and non–ICCAT

member nations. How is the U.S. addressing this problem and how can

Congress help to reduce this bycatch? Can Pelly Amendment sanctions be

used against ICCAT-member nations that continue to ignore the ICCAT rebuilding targets?

Answer: Because of the bycatch nature of most marlin catches in the Atlantic,

which makes both data collection and stock management difficult, marlin conservation has been a challenging issue to address at ICCAT, but we believe we are making progress. As you may know, we were successful in pursuing adoption of a rebuilding plan at ICCAT in 2000. As a first step, the plan calls for parties to reduce

their white marlin landings by 67% and their blue marlin landings by 50%. Because

this program only came into force for the later half of the 2001 fishing season, it

is difficult to fully evaluate how well parties are implementing it. Nevertheless,

based on discussions at ICCAT last year, some ICCAT members appear to be harvesting in line with the restrictions while a few others have been less successful.

Under ICCAT’s compliance rules, however, parties must explain over-harvests and

pay them back in future years. The United States has been working vigorously within ICCAT to implement and improve its compliance regime, and we will continue

to do so. Moreover, since the quality of data for these bycatch species is a continuing

concern, we successfully pursued the establishment by ICCAT of a data working

group. This group will hold a meeting in October 2003 to identify data gaps and

their causes and consider ways to improve data acquisition for marlins and other

species. This should help us get a better understanding of non-member fishing as

well, which is largely unreported and otherwise hard to track because of the limited

market for these animals.

The next stock assessment of marlins will be in 2005, at which time ICCAT will

consider steps to further address marlin conservation. In the meantime, as noted,

we will continue to press internationally for full implementation of ICCAT’s marlin

and compliance rules. Implementation of the so-called positive and negative vessel

lists may also help us control these fisheries. Although the Pelly Amendment may

be applicable, in order for this rebuilding plan to be successful, we need the cooperation of ICCAT’s membership, and we believe we are obtaining that cooperation. At

this stage, we do not think it would be wise to take any unilateral action.

9. Question: Can the Pelly Amendment be used to address IUU fishing

practices?

Answer: The consistent implementation of the Pelly Amendment over the past 30

years suggests that it not likely to be an effective tool to combat IUU fishing. In

60

the fisheries realm, the Pelly Amendment provides for the certification of and potential application of trade measures on foreign governments whose nationals, ‘‘directly

or indirectly, are engaging in trade or taking which diminishes the effectiveness of

any international fishery conservation program.’’ The Administration has therefore

consistently looked to see whether the foreign government authorized or was

complicit in such trade or taking. This is generally not the case in IUU fishing. The

typical IUU case involves a vessel that has done everything possible to evade controls by the flag state. The challenge lies in identifying vessels rather than governments involved in wrongful fishing. Fortunately, a number of more appropriate tools

have been or are being developed in order to directly address vessels that wrongfully

fish, including port state controls, fish product tracking systems, and eco-labelling.

10. Question: The U.S. fishing industry (in particular the North Pacific

fishing industry) took the lead on voluntary practices on reducing seabird

bycatch. How can these practices be encouraged for other nations’’ fishing

fleets and how can the international fishery management bodies take action to require seabird bycatch reductions without penalizing those who

have taken the lead voluntarily and who have been leaders in this effort?

Answer: NOAA Fisheries required the mandatory use of seabird avoidance measures in the demersal groundfish longline fisheries off Alaska in 1997 and the following year in the longline fishery off Alaska for Pacific halibut. The federal regulations are currently being revised to incorporate improvements in deterrent effectiveness as scientifically documented in a 2-year research study by scientists at the

Washington Sea Grant Program and the University of Washington. Mandatory

seabird avoidance measures have also been required in the pelagic longline fisheries

of Hawaii since 2001. U.S. scientists (including NOAA Fisheries staff) in Alaska and

Hawaii have participated in international collaborative research efforts to further

advance the effectiveness of seabird deterrent devices. Efforts such as these that include scientists, fishery managers, fishermen, and other interested stakeholders will

do much to advance the technology transfer of effective seabird mitigation practices

in longline fleets throughout the world. These efforts may include but are not limited to: scientific research on active fishing vessels, outreach on mitigation methods

and seabird identification, exchange of technical information and advice on observer

program protocols for seabird bycatch data collection, technical workshops, international fishermen fora, and assistance with seabird bycatch assessments of

longline fisheries.

International Cooperation One of the most effective ways that we can encourage

other nations’’ fishing fleets and regional fishery management organizations

(RFMOs) to adopt effective bycatch reduction methods is to vigorously support and

model implementation of the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization’s

International Plan of Action on Reducing the Incidental Catch of Seabirds in

Longline Fisheries (IPOA–Seabirds). NOAA Fisheries, in concert with the Department of State (DOS) and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS), has promoted

the implementation of the IPOA–Seabirds and the development of national plans of

action (NPOA–Seabirds) (or similar instruments) through various avenues such as:

Bilateral Fisheries Meetings and RFMOs In 2002/2003, the United States met bilaterally on fisheries issues, including seabird bycatch, with: People’s Republic of

China, European Union, Canada, Chile, Japan, Russia, and Spain. The United

States was one of the sponsors for a seabird resolution adopted at ICCAT in 2002.

The ICCAT resolution calls on all parties to implement the IPOA–Seabirds and to

provide the Commission with information about fishery interactions with seabirds.

Since 2001, the United States has actively participated in a scientific working group

of the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources

(CCAMLR) that specifically addresses issues of seabird bycatch. The adoption of

strong and effective resolutions by RFMOs to implement the IPOA–Seabirds is one

way that the seabird bycatch issue can be effectively and consistently addressed in

those fisheries where a bycatch problem exists.

Communication with 23 Longline Nations (Entities) In 2002, the United States

approached 23 nations (entities) with longline fisheries and arranged meetings of

embassy staff with appropriate government officials. The United States urged them

to implement the IPOA–Seabirds, conduct needed longline fishery assessments, and

develop an NPOA–Seabirds if a seabird bycatch problem was determined to exist.

In-country contacts within government agencies of many of these fishing nations

have been established and dialogue initiated. In 2003, we are collaborating with

Chile to jointly submit a seabird bycatch proposal to APEC. We also plan to

participate in a technical seabird bycatch workshop in early 2004 that will focus on

the Asian longline fleets.

Second International Fishers Forum (IFF2) The Western Pacific Regional Fishery

Management Council hosted the Second International Fishers Forum (IFF2) in HonVerDate 11-MAY-2000 16:20 Oct 10, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 87232.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
61

olulu, Hawaii, November 19–22, 2002. NOAA Fisheries and USFWS provided financial support and numerous staff from NOAA Fisheries, USFWS, and DOS attended.

The mission of the forum was to convene an international meeting of fishermen to

address possible solutions to incidental bycatch of sea turtles and seabirds by

longline fishing gear. This mission was successfully achieved and plans are already

underway for IFF3.

BirdLife International (BLI) Seabird Bycatch Workshop NOAA Fisheries has been

invited to participate in a technical seabird bycatch workshop being proposed by BLI

in 2004 in Taiwan. The proposed workshop has been endorsed by the Fisheries Administration of Taiwan and will focus on the Asian longline fleets. NOAA Fisheries

will participate and is able to contribute financial support as well.

Asia–Pacific Economic Cooperation Fisheries Working Group (APEC FWG) Chile

and the United States have submitted a proposal to APEC’s FWG. This project

would assess and mitigate seabird bycatch in the longline fisheries in the Pacific

and develop a bycatch database that can be used to generate regional and local bycatch assessments for at-risk seabird species in the Pacific. Chile will be used as

a case study of how bycatch can be assessed and mitigated in other APEC

economies.

[The Department of the Interior’s response to questions submitted for the record

follows:]

Response by the Department of the Interior to Questions Submitt4ed for

the Record on H.R. 2048, the International Fisheries Reauthorization Act

of 2003

1. You testified that there are approximately 60 projects that are funded

annually through the appropriation to the Yukon River Salmon Restoration and Enhancement Fund. Can you tell us a little bit about the types of

projects that are funded and, if possible, the ratio of projects in the U.S.

to those in Canada?

The Restoration and Enhancement Fund supports projects that fall into five

categories:

1. Salmon stock assessment and monitoring to provide U.S. and Canadian managers with information necessary to ensure adequate salmon spawning

escapements and for meeting harvest objectives;

2. Salmon habitat assessment and restoration projects to identify and restore important salmon habitats in Canada;

3. Projects that promote the conservation and stewardship of salmon and their

habitats;

4. Stock rebuilding via small-scale egg incubation to increase production in systems thought to be severely depressed, and voluntary reductions in harvests

to increase spawning escapements; and

5. Management planning.

The allocation of funds among these categories has varied between 2002 and 2003

(see attached table). An emphasis in both years was placed on stock assessment and

monitoring, and habitat assessment and monitoring. The Yukon River Panel is currently developing a strategic plan for use of the Restoration and Enhancement Fund

to maximize benefits accrued from the Fund. Projects were funded at less than $1.2

million to allow for administration of the Fund, to provide for contingencies in the

exchange rate, and to meet unforeseen needs as projects are implemented.

The Yukon River Salmon Agreement also stipulates that:

(1) Fifty percent of the Fund shall be used for programs, projects, and associated

research and management activities on either side of the Alaska-Yukon border

directed at the restoration, conservation and enhancement of Canadian origin

salmon stocks. These Funds are disbursed at the direction of the Yukon River

Panel.

(2) Fifty percent of the Fund shall be used for programs and projects that are directed at developing stewardship of salmon habitat resources and maintaining

viable salmon fisheries in the Yukon River in Canada. These funds are disbursed on Canadian programs and projects approved by the Canadian section

of the Panel when found with the Yukon River Panel as a whole to be consistent with the Principles and Guidelines for the Fund.

Nine U.S. projects, totaling about $200,000 per year, were funded in 2002 and

2003; these focused on assessment and monitoring needs to meet U.S. commitments

for border passage (see attached table). More proposals are received from Canada

than from the U.S. In 2003, 9 of 15 U.S. proposals were funded and 49 of 106 CanaVerDate 11-MAY-2000 16:20 Oct 10, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 87232.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
62

dian proposals were funded. Three Canadian projects, totaling $160,000, provided

Canadian support to a large-scale, drainage-wide chinook salmon radio telemetry

project being conducted by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration—Fisheries (NOAA Fisheries), and the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service (Service).

2. Your testimony talks about restoring Yukon River salmon populations.

Does this include enhancement projects?

The Yukon River Salmon Agreement defines ‘‘restoration’’ as returning a wild

salmon population to its natural production level and ‘‘enhancement’’ as expanding

a wild salmon stock beyond its natural production level. Because Canadian-origin,

Yukon River salmon stocks are thought to be below their natural production level,

we are currently in a restoration mode.

Is there interest in hatchery production and if so, is there concern that

more hatchery production may reduce ocean productivity for other species

of salmon?

There is little support for use of hatchery production for the restoration or enhancement of Yukon River salmon. This lack of support for hatchery production is

evidenced in the ‘‘Principles and Guidelines for Restoration, Conservation and Enhancement Programs and Projects,’’ Appendix 1 to Attachment C of the Yukon River

Salmon Agreement, which states in pertinent part:

Principles

1. Restoration, conservation and enhancement programs and projects shall be

consistent with the protection of existing wild salmon stocks and the habitats

upon which they depend.

2. Given the wild nature of the Yukon River and its salmon stocks, and the substantial risks associated with large-scale enhancement through artificial propagation, such enhancement activities are inappropriate at this time.

3. Artificial production shall not be used as a substitute for effective fishery regulation, stock and habitat management or protection.

Guidelines

The priorities for implementing programs and projects using monies disbursed

from the Restoration and Enhancement Fund shall be in this order with regard to

Attachment C, paragraph 1 (a):

(1) Restoring habitat and wild stocks;

(2) Conserving habitat and wild stocks;

(3) Enhancing habitat; and

(4) Enhancing wild stocks

There is only one large-scale production facility on the Yukon River. It produces

chinook salmon to offset the loss of juvenile salmon that pass over the spillway or

63

through the turbines of a hydroelectric dam located on the Yukon River in

Whitehorse, Yukon Territory, Canada. Funding for its operation does not come from

the Restoration and Enhancement Fund.

In 2003 the Restoration and Enhancement Fund provided funds for two smallscale, egg incubation projects to rebuild depressed salmon stocks in Canada. A primary objective of both projects is to foster stewardship of salmon and their habitats

within local communities; as such, both provide for student involvement.

3. Although the U.S. and Russia have completed negotiations on a treaty

on the conservation and management of polar bears, there has been some

concern about the harvest in Russia this year. What is the situation and

how can the U.S. help alleviate this situation?

The Agreement between the Government of the United States of America and the

Government of the Russian Federation on the Conservation and Management of the

Alaska-Chukotka Polar Bear Population was signed on October 16, 2000, in the

United States; however, it has not yet been ratified. The President submitted the

Agreement to the Senate on July 11, 2002, to begin the ratification process, and the

Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing June 17, 2003. In addition to

ratification, authorities to implement key provisions of the Agreement are necessary

and must be attained through passage of implementing legislation by Congress. A

fundamental provision of the Agreement is the process to determine sustainable

harvest limits and allocation of those limits between the two countries. Polar bears

represent a valuable species, both commercial and otherwise, for the native people

of the State of Alaska, satisfying traditional subsistence needs and providing the

raw material for the manufacture and sale of handicrafts and clothing in interstate

commerce. Implementation of the Agreement is dependent upon successful completion of these legislative actions.

There is a growing concern that a significant, but unquantified, level of harvest

in Chukotka, combined with the closely monitored Alaska harvest, could be causing

population declines. If unchecked, the projected level of harvest could severely depress the population and require years for recovery. Current harvest levels are similar to or potentially greater than levels of the 1960s that resulted in significant population declines. A Service report entitled ‘‘Chukchi Sea Polar Bears: A population

concern’’ provides details (attached).

In order to avoid depletion of the Chukchi Sea polar bear population, full implementation of the Agreement must be attained as soon as possible. In the United

States, this requires ratification of the Agreement and passage of implementing legislation. The Russian equivalent to ratification of the Agreement was completed as

a governmental requirement prior to signing the Treaty. The only step remaining

in Russia is signature of an administrative action or ‘‘normative’’ act by the Ministry

of Natural Resources. We are informed that the administrative action is prepared

and will be signed when the United States is prepared to implement the Treaty.

The excessive Russian harvest has captured the attention of conservation organizations and the Alaska and Chukotka native polar bear hunting organizations. Representatives of the Alaska Nanuuq Commission and the Chuktoka Association of

Traditional Marine Mammal Hunters signed a joint statement urging our respective

countries to fulfill the commitments of the Agreement in Anadyr on May 27, 2003

(see attached).

4. The issue of trade in Chilean sea bass was raised at the recent CITES

meeting. Despite the fact that the international fisheries body that regulates fishing in the range of the Chilean sea bass had developed a catch reporting scheme, there was pressure to involve CITES. Since the problem

appears to be a result of IUU fishing, isn’t it appropriate that the fishery

management body and the member nations deal with this rather than

CITES? If not, does this mean that CITES will be the forum for all of the

discussions about commercially harvested fisheries that have IUU fishing

problems?

IUU fishing for Patagonian and Antarctic toothfish in the Southern Ocean is a

problem that the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) has been facing for several years. In an attempt to address this

problem, the CCAMLR countries have implemented the Catch Documentation

Scheme (CDS) to reduce opportunities for IUU toothfish landings to be traded. Regional management organizations like CCAMLR have primary responsibility for

managing the harvest and trade of marine fish such as toothfish, and CCAMLR is

taking significant steps to address problems related to IUU fishing.

CITES has demonstrated its ability to complement existing management and

trade controls, especially for commercially exploited species in international trade,

and therefore has the potential to aid in the control of trade in toothfish. At the

most recent CITES meeting (COP12, November 2002), Australia, as both a CITES

64

and CCAMLR Party, proposed the listing of toothfish in CITES Appendix II. Many

prominent fishing nations such as Japan, Norway and Iceland oppose actions under

CITES regarding commercial fish stocks. Australia submitted this proposal under

the premise that the mandatory permitting requirements of CITES, coupled with its

near-global membership, would complement the CCAMLR CDS and help prevent

IUU fisheries from undermining efforts to manage the harvest of toothfish. However, Australia withdrew its proposal after working with the Chilean and U.S. delegations on a resolution to foster cooperation between CITES and CCAMLR. This

resolution, adopted by consensus, came into effect in February 2003 and calls on

CITES Parties to voluntarily adopt the CDS, report to the CITES Secretariat yearly

on their progress, and ensure that ships flying their flag do not undermine

CCAMLR’s conservation program for toothfish. The CCAMLR Secretariat was called

on to consider how further cooperation between CITES and CCAMLR could be best

achieved. The CITES Secretariat was directed to make a full report on Parties’ CDS

implementation at the next CITES meeting, scheduled to occur in October 2004.

While Australia’s decision to submit a CITES listing proposal for toothfish was

generally not supported by CCAMLR Parties at their meeting prior to CITES

COP12, the proposal resulted in the CITES Parties taking meaningful steps to conserve toothfish and reduce IUU fishing in and outside of the CCAMLR Convention

Area, and did so without listing the species in the CITES appendices. The CITES

Parties took meaningful steps to conserve toothfish and reduce IUU fishing in and

outside of the CCAMLR Convention Area. CITES can provide a framework for improved control of trade in marine fishery resources when species are taken in international waters outside the jurisdiction of other agreements, or when IUU fisheries

go unaddressed and threaten the viability of exploited populations. CITES can complement fisheries agreements that do not have trade provisions and when the fisheries are driven by international trade. Finally, the FAO sub-committee on Fisheries

has recently agreed on the technical details of how to work with CITES on evaluating future listing proposals on living marine resources, but implementation of

such measures is hampered by lack of agreement within FAO on text for an overall

Memorandum of Agreement on fisheries issues with CITES.

[The Department of State’s response to questions submitted for

the record follows]

Questions submitted for the record by Ambassador Mary Beth West to the

House Committee on Resources, Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans, May 22, 2003

Question 1:

H. Res. 30, introduced by Congressman Cunningham, calls upon your department to work with your Mexican counterparts to regain access to certain Mexican waters for American sportfishing vessels. You testified that

your department has already done so. Why is the Mexican government reluctant to allow this access when it was allowed up until a year ago? What

else can be done by your department or by Congress to resolve this issue?

Answer:

Over the past year, State Department officials, including our Ambassador to Mexico, Anthony Garza, have raised this issue with senior Mexican government officials

including Secretary of the Environment Victor Lichtinger, as well as the head of

Mexico’s National Commission on Natural Protected Areas, the Environmental Attorney General, and others. In each case, the response from the Government of Mexico has been the same: the fishing activity by sportfishing vessels around the

Revillagigedo Islands occurs in the ‘‘core zone’’ of the marine biosphere reserve established around the islands in 1994 by presidential decree. Sportfishing was allowed to continue in the reserve under special permit pending the development of

a management plan that set more specific rules. However, Mexican law related to

the management of natural protected areas, including such biosphere reserves, was

amended in 1996 to prohibit any ‘‘extraction’’ of resources in any biosphere reserve

core zone. The current Mexican administration has expressed its commitment to implement and enforce Mexico’s environmental and fisheries laws and maintains that

the permits previously issued to U.S. vessels were not consistent with the applicable

Mexican laws. While prospects for resolving this issue in the short term appear limited, we hope to continue discussions with Mexican counterparts in the hopes of

finding a way forward, including the possibility of a study of the environmental impact of sportfishing in the Revillagigedo Islands.

65

A Department of Commerce report to Congress on this matter is awaiting OMB

clearance and will be delivered to Congress shortly.

Question 2:

Funding for the Pacific Salmon Commission was inadvertently omitted

from the fiscal year 2003 appropriations. Can you explain how this happened, what is being done to fix the oversight, and whether this has been

fixed for 2004?

Answer:

For fiscal year 2003, the Administration requested a level of funding that would

have allowed the United States to meet all financial obligations to international

fishery commissions. The amount appropriated by Congress for FY ’03 fell more

than $1.7 million below the requested amount. The report that accompanied the appropriations act specified that the Pacific Salmon Commission and several other

international fishery commissions should receive no funding.

The level of appropriations in FY ’03 for international fishery commissions, and

the specification that certain commissions must receive no funding, is causing considerable hardship and jeopardizing U.S. interests related to international fisheries.

In the short term, the Administration has requested authority to reprogram some

of the funds within this appropriation so that all of these commissions will receive

at least enough contributions from the United States to carry out the bare minimum

of their responsibilities.

The Administration is encouraged that the Subcommittee regards the shortfall of

funding in FY ’03 as ‘‘inadvertent’’ and something that needs to be ‘‘fixed.’’ We note

that, with very limited exceptions, U.S. contributions to international fishery commissions are not voluntary, but rather represent mandatory treaty commitments.

Moreover, U.S. participation in each of these commissions supports U.S. economic

and environmental interests that far exceed the dollar value of our contributions.

Failure of the United States to pay our dues to the Pacific Salmon Commission, for

example, could easily prevent that Commission from establishing harvest regimes,

which could in turn cause U.S. fishers to be prohibited from harvesting the fish in

question.

For FY ’04, the Administration has again requested a level of funding that would

allow the United States to meet all its financial obligations to international fishery

commissions.

Question 3:

You mention several new treaties that either have been negotiated or are

about to be finalized. Many of these will require Senate advice and consent.

They will also require domestic implementing legislation. Should Senate

action on the treaties precede the passage of any implementing legislation?

Answer:

No legal requirement exists for Senate action on legally binding international

agreements to precede the adoption of domestic implementing legislation. In fact,

because both the treaty ratification process and the passage of implementing legislation can be time-consuming procedures, pursuing them sequentially would result in

unnecessary delay in U.S. ratification. It has proven efficient and in the best interests of the United States to proceed with Senate consideration of a treaty and the

enactment of implementing legislation simultaneously, on parallel tracks, as it were.

It is the policy of the United States not to express its consent to be bound by a Treaty by depositing its instrument of ratification until any necessary implementing legislation has become law. That does not, however, preclude the accomplishment of

all steps in the ratification process up to that point, so that the United States can

express its consent to be bound as soon as the legislation becomes law. We nonetheless look forward to early Senate action on the Agreement between the United

States and the Russian Federation on the Conservation and Management of the

Alaska–Chukotka Polar Bear Population (Treaty Doc. 107–10) and two fisheries

agreements—–Amendments to the 1987 Treaty on Fisheries Between the United

States and the Governments of Certain Pacific Island States (Treaty Doc. 108–2)

and the Agreement Amending the Treaty with Canada Concerning Pacific Coast Albacore Tuna Vessels and Port Privileges (Treaty Doc. 108–1).

We believe that Senate support for these important international agreements will

spur the adoption of respective implementing legislation. Such action will enable the

United States to become a party to these agreements at the earliest possible time

and thus to strengthen its hand in conserving marine mammals and protecting fish

stocks from further precipitous declines.

66

Question 4:

A proposal to create a new ‘‘Conservation Committee’’ within the International Whaling Commission (IWC) seems to be creating controversy.

Some have argued that the creation of such a committee will reduce and

coordinate the multitude of resolutions on whale conservation matters.

Others have argued that this will be another way to further prevent any

action on any whale harvesting management scheme and will circumvent

the full IWC. Can you comment on this proposal? What is the U.S. position

on completing the Revised Management Scheme (RMS) and what steps has

the United States taken to move this completion forward? What are the

major hurdles to completing the RMS?

Answer:

The United States co-sponsored the resolution to establish a new Conservation

Committee. This new body is not an anti-whaling committee, as those opposed to

it have suggested. The International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling recognizes both the principles of conservation and management. As a committee of the

whole, every member of the IWC would be a member of the Committee. The Committee is designed to address conservation issues in a more orderly fashion.

Although the United States is opposed to the resumption of commercial whaling,

it has participated in good faith efforts to negotiate the Revised Management

Scheme (RMS). The United States has taken several steps to advance these negotiations, including leading the effort to create a new Compliance Review Committee

and offering compromise proposals on a number of key issues (i.e., observer placement, catch verification using national DNA registers and cost sharing). Major hurdles that remain include resolving the parties’’ differences concerning provisions on

catch verification and cost sharing. Little progress is likely until the pro-whaling nations demonstrate a willingness to accept reasonable compromises.

Question 5:

The IWC has created a number of sanctuaries. These sanctuaries include

the EEZs of nations that border these sanctuaries. If the IWC were to create a sanctuary that included the EEZ of the United States, wouldn’t this

impinge on the sovereignty of the U.S. and possibly create a conflict with

domestic laws?

Answer:

The IWC has created sanctuaries in the Indian Ocean and in the Southern Ocean,

and proposals to establish new sanctuaries in the South Atlantic and South Pacific

Oceans have come before the IWC in recent years. The proposed South Pacific Sanctuary would include a small portion of the U.S. EEZ, namely the waters adjacent

to America Samoa. The government of America Samoa has endorsed the proposal

to establish this sanctuary. In our view, such whale sanctuaries would not infringe

upon U.S. sovereignty or conflict with domestic law. Under the Marine Mammal

Protection Act, commercial whaling is already prohibited in waters subject to the

jurisdiction of the United States. In addition, the Endangered Species Act generally

prohibits the take of threatened or endangered whales.

Question 6:

During the questioning of Dr. Hogarth, Congressman Pallone asked a

question regarding the U.S. position on the ‘‘illegal’’ whaling activities by

Japan and Norway. Can you clarify the U.S. position on whether the U.S.

considers the activities of either Norway or Japan to be ‘‘illegal’’?

Answer:

The United States does not regard the whaling activities of either Japan or Norway to be illegal. Japan takes about 700 whales annually under Article VIII of the

International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW), which allows parties to take whales for scientific research purposes without the approval of the

International Whaling Commission (IWC). Norway takes about 700 whales annually

for commercial purposes under an objection to the IWC’s 1982 decision to implement

a moratorium on commercial whaling. (Norway’s objection is consistent with Article

V of the ICRW.)

Question 7:

Can you tell us more about the extension of the South Pacific Tuna Treaty? What are the basic terms of the extension? Are the U.S. fishing interests

satisfied with the terms of the extension? How will this extension relate to

the new western and central Pacific fishing agreement that you also testiVerDate 11-MAY-2000 16:20 Oct 10, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 87232.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
67

fied about? How much of the tuna harvested under the South Pacific Tuna

Treaty is delivered to American Samoa?

Answer:

In March 2002, the Department of State completed negotiations to extend the operation of the 1987 Multilateral Treaty on Fisheries Between the Governments of

Certain Pacific Islands States and the Government of the United States of America.

Negotiation sessions were held in March 2001 and November 2001. The third and

final session occurred March 20–23, 2002.

This Treaty was originally ratified on December 21, 1987, following Senate advice

and consent to ratification. Although the Treaty itself is of unlimited duration, associated with the Treaty is an Economic Assistance Agreement under which the

United States provides funds to the Parties to the Treaty through the Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA), to be used solely for economic development. The Agreement is

a prime example of targeted aid that assists developing countries while also providing a tangible benefit to an important sector of the U.S. economy. This arrangement was concluded as an Executive Agreement.

Over the last fifteen years, the Treaty and its related Agreement have become a

vital component of the political and economic relationship between the United

States and the Pacific Island Parties. The Agreement is the only source of U.S. economic assistance to the vast majority of the Pacific Islands that are party to the

Treaty. The only exception is the assistance provided to the Federated States of Micronesia, Republic of the Marshall Islands, and Palau under their Compacts of Free

Association with the United States.

The Agreement has first extended in 1993 and the current 10-year term of the

Agreement expired on June 14, 2003. Unless the Agreement was extended, the arrangements available to the United States under the Treaty would cease to operate

at that time.

In March 2002, the United States and the sixteen Pacific Island Parties reached

agreement to extend the operation of the Treaty for another 10 years, through

June 14, 2013, with amendments to certain provisions of the Treaty, its Annexes,

and by extending the associated Economic Assistance Agreement.

In particular, the United States and the Pacific Island Parties agreed on the number of fishing licenses (45), the annual level of industry license fees ($3 million

USD), and the annual level of economic assistance provided by the U.S. Government

under the Economic Assistance Agreement associated with the Treaty ($18 million

USD).

The amended Treaty will, inter alia, enable use of new technologies for enforcement, streamline the way amendments to the Annexes are agreed, and modify the

waters that are open and closed under the Treaty. Of particular interest to the U.S.

industry, the waters of the Solomon Islands will be opened.

The extension of the Treaty will ensure that the United States and the Pacific

Island Parties continue to enjoy a close and cooperative working relationship with

respect to the management of the high value fishery resources of the Central and

Western Pacific and that U.S. fishing vessels will continue to have access to these

rich fishing grounds. U.S. tuna fishing interests are satisfied with the terms of the

amended and extended Treaty arrangement.

There are two substantive amendments to Article 7 of the Treaty that relate to

the WCPFC Convention. These amendments pertain to linkages between the Treaty

and the WCPFC Convention, once the latter enters into force. The first of these

amendments, a new paragraph 2, provides that parties to the Treaty shall, where

appropriate, consider the extent to which adjustments to the provisions of the Treaty or measures adopted thereunder may be necessary to promote consistency with

measures adopted under the WCPFC Convention. The second, a new paragraph 3,

provides that parties to the Treaty may cooperate to address matters of common

concern under the WCPFC Convention. These amendments provide for cooperation

and the promotion of consistency between the two treaties, without binding the

United States to the WCPFC Convention or any future measures adopted under it

prior to its entry into force for the United States.

Of the U.S. vessels that hold licenses pursuant to the Treaty, at least eighty-five

percent of the tuna harvested in the region is off-loaded in American Samoa on

average per year.

Question 8:

Russia has not ratified the 1990 maritime boundary agreement (although

the USSR did). Some in Russia have called for a renegotiation of this

treaty, although it is unlikely that Congress will support a renegotiation.

What is the Administration’s position on this matter?

68

Answer:

The Administration does not support a renegotiation of the 1990 maritime boundary agreement. We have made this position clear repeatedly to the Government of

Russian Federation.

We have, however, suggested to the Russian Government a number of ways in

which our two countries could improve their cooperative activities in the Bering Sea

region, including in the areas of fisheries scientific research and fisheries law enforcement. We are hopeful that the Russian Government will react favorably to our

suggestions.

We would note that the U.S.S.R. did not ratify the 1990 agreement. However, the

Soviet Union and the United States did agree in 1990 to apply the boundary agreement on a provisional basis, pending its eventual entry into force.

Question 9:

A recent letter to the editor of Nature magazine had created quite a bit

of controversy regarding the depletion of predatory fish populations. What

is your assessment of this report and do you agree that the world’s fish

stocks are in dire condition? Do you think we have the tools necessary to

address these concerns internationally? Can you please detail the efforts

that the U.S. has taken at international fora to advance sustainable management?

Answer:

We clearly recognize that there is no doubt that many of the world’s fish stocks

face serious problems. However, the situation is not quite as dire as reported. It is

true that a number of fish stocks have collapsed and others have been significantly

reduced within the last half-century. At the same time, however, a number of important fish stocks, including most Pacific tuna stocks and fisheries off Alaska, remain

healthy, at least for now, though pressure on some of these stocks is growing.

Over the past decade, a suite of international agreements has been negotiated to

maintain healthy fisheries, reverse declines where they have occurred and achieve

sustainable fisheries in the long term. Our challenge is to get these agreements fully

implemented, to stop illegal fishing in violation of these agreements or by vessels

of countries that are not party to the agreements, and to address overcapacity in

the world’s fishing fleets. However, approximately 90 percent of the world’s fish

catch is taken within 200-mile coastal zones around the world. Many of these zones

are off developing countries that don’t have the capacity to manage and enforce

their stocks. Building these countries’’ capacity to manage their stocks should be an

additional priority.

The United States has been a leader in developing existing international frameworks, including the Agreement for the Implementation of the Provision of the Convention Relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks

and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks, and the FAO Agreement to Promote Compliance

With International Conservation and Management Measures by Fishing Vessels on

the High Seas. The U.S. has also recently negotiated a new treaty that will conserve

and manage tuna stocks in the western and central Pacific. We have also taken a

leading role in developing the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries and

the International Plan of Action to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported

and Unregulated Fishing (IPOA–IUU).

Question 10:

Are you aware of any attempts to amend the Nicholson Act to allow foreign-flag fishing vessels access to U.S. ports? At a time when port security

is a major issue, would the Administration oppose such an attempt?

Answer:

We are not aware of any proposals to amend the Nicholson Act to increase access

by foreign-flag fishing vessels to U.S. ports. We agree that, at a time when port security is a major issue, any such proposals could raise concerns and would need to

be scrutinized very carefully.

There are a few U.S. ports to which the Nicholson Act restrictions on access by

foreign fishing vessels do not apply, particularly in U.S. island territories. Foreign

fishing vessels land considerable amounts of fish at these ports, particularly tuna

for processing at local canneries. In accordance with the 2001 FAO International

Plan of Action on IUU Fishing, the Administration is currently reviewing the existing rules and procedures regarding the landing of such fish. The purpose of this review is to determine whether these rules and procedures could be improved so as

to prevent the landing of illegally harvested fish.

69

Question 11:

Some have argued that imposition of trade sanctions under the Pelly

Amendment may not be WTO defensible. Have any Pelly sanctions been

challenged in the WTO? If so, what was the outcome of the challenge? If

the Pelly Amendment is not WTO consistent, then how can Congress make

it so?

Answer:

Under the Pelly Amendment, the President may only direct the Secretary of the

Treasury to prohibit the bringing or the importation into the United States of products from a certified country ‘‘to the extent that such prohibition is sanctioned by

the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.’’ 22 U.S.C. § 1978(a)(4). The agreement

establishing the World Trade Organization (WTO) incorporates all provisions of the

General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade that are relevant to this issue. Accordingly, the Pelly Amendment by its own terms requires that any import prohibitions

imposed under it must be WTO-consistent.

There has never been a WTO challenge to import prohibitions imposed pursuant

to the Pelly Amendment.

Æ