Hearing of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee - International Fisheries: Management and Enforcement

SEN. STEVENS: I am pleased to see you here Secretary Negroponte. I understand your timeframe. Let me just state that just over a year ago, President Bush signed into law the Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization Act, which mandates science-based catch limits and an end to over fishing in the U.S. territories.

Now, the primary threat to sustainable fisheries are the foreign fleets that pillage the world's oceans by practicing Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated fishing or what we call IUU fishing. We simply cannot allow this high-seas piracy.

I want you to -- Mr. Secretary, as I said I understand your situation I will put my statement full in the record and be happy to turn to you and for your comments for the record. Thank you very much for coming.

MR. NEGROPONTE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have submitted a slightly longer statement for the record but if I could make some summary remarks, I appreciate your invitation and Senator Inouye's to address the committee this morning on ways the United States can strengthen the management and enforcement of fisheries around the globe.

Today, the state department witness, Ambassador David Balton, who is the deputy assistant secretary for Oceans and Fisheries Affairs will testify in much greater detail about our efforts to formulate and enforce better management measures for international fisheries.

For my part, I would like to focus on how the challenges we face in this endeavor are compelling reasons for the United States to become party to the Law of the Sea Convention as soon as possible.

With 155 parties including the major fishing nations, the Law of the Sea Convention is widely accepted as the legal framework under which all international fisheries must operate.

The United States accepts the fisheries provisions of this convention, indeed those provisions form the basis of a related treaty that the United States has already ratified, the 1995 UN Fish Stocks Agreement, which deal with the management of key stocks within and outside of the Exclusive Economic Zone.

Senator Stevens, you will recall that you went to the United Nations when the UN Fish Stocks Agreement was adopted, to deliver the United States intervention supporting that agreement.

The United States was the third country to ratify the Fish Stocks Agreement and we also chaired the seven meetings of the parties in the agreement, as well as the 2004 review conference held to consider its implementation.

Despite our leadership on this issue, some nations still question our intentions and our right to press for improvements in the management and enforcement of international fisheries rules because we have not yet joined the Law of the Sea Convention.

Acceding to the convention will give us greater leverage in negotiating on these matters particularly in our efforts to eliminate Illegal Unreported and Unregulated fishing.

American fishermen already follow these standards and they support our accession to the Law of the Sea Convention, by doing so we will be in a stronger position to encourage other governments to hold their fishermen accountable to the same standards that ours now uphold.

Other important industries support the convention as well. Oil and gas companies want international recognition and greater legal clarity regarding the outer limits of our continental shelf beyond 200 miles. This will facilitate access to the vast energy resources residing there particularly in the Arctic.

American companies can recover valuable minerals from the deep seabed only if we join the convention because a permit issued under domestic legislation would not provide a U.S. entity with the certainty of tenure that it would require.

The telecommunications and shipping industries also want the convention's protection of submarine cables and navigational freedoms.

An equally important reason to join is to put our vital navigational rights on the firmest legal footing. The United States military establishment continues to express its urgent need for our accession to the convention in order to promote international cooperation on issues, on initiatives of national security importance such as the Proliferation Security Initiative.

Lastly, I want to note that no additional legislation on fisheries or on any other topic is required before acceding to the convention.

Indeed the drafters of the 1976 Fishery Conservation and Management Act intended it to be consistent with the convention's provisions on fisheries and subsequent amendments to what is now known as the Magnuson-Stevens Act, have preserved that consistency.

Mr. Chairman, I would be pleased to provide for the record my testimony on the substance of the convention before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in a hearing last fall for any members who might be interested.

I know that you are a strong supporter of the Law of the Sea Convention, and as I understand is Chairman Inouye, and I thank you for your leadership and for this opportunity to make the case for U.S. accession to the convention in the context of international fisheries management and enforcement.

And that concludes my summary remarks.

SEN. STEVENS: Thank you very Secretary Negroponte. I am glad to see you are here and willing to make a statement and appreciate the fact that you are once again back in state department where we need you.

So we will print your full statement in the record and I will -- we appreciate if you would provide the committee with a copy of the statements you made at the -- before the other committee.

MR. NEGROPONTE: I shall do that.

SEN. STEVENS: That would be helpful. But we do thank you for coming and I know you have another appointment so there will be no questions.

MR. NEGROPONTE: I thank you very much for this opportunity and look forward to continuing to work with you on this issue. Thank you.

SEN. STEVENS: Thank you very much, Secretary.

Now, our first panel is Dr. James Balsiger, assistant administrator, for Fisheries, National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration NOAA.

Mr. David Balton, deputy assistant secretary for Oceans and Fisheries, Department of State. And Rear Admiral Gene Brooks, commander of the 17th Coast Guard District and of the Forces Maritime Component Commander for Alaska.

Gentlemen, your statements will appear in full in the record, I appreciate your comments, there is no limit on what you want to make your -- the comments you want to make -- but let us proceed in the order I indicated. Dr. Balsiger you will be first. Please.

MR. BALSIGER: Thank you, good morning I am Jim Balsiger, the acting assistant administrator for fisheries within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration --

SEN. STEVENS: Can you pull that mike towards you please, doctor?

MR. BALSIGER: Of course.

SEN. STEVENS: Thank you.

MR. BALSIGER: -- with the U.S. Department of Commerce. Thank you, Senator Stevens and my thanks to Chairman Inouye for the invitation to this hearing, thanks to the members of the Senate Commerce Committee for the opportunity to describe some of the challenges of international fisheries management.

I am pleased to see Congress' increased attention on these issues. Thanks to the efforts of this committee, Congress adopted and the president signed the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act in January 2007.

This act contains several new provisions that will significantly shape the focus of our international fisheries management efforts. Fulfilling this mandate is a high priority for my agency and I'll illustrate this with some of the examples from our work with the Regional Fishery Management Organizations or the RFMOs.

Many of our target fish stocks and protected species range into waters of other countries, so our management strategies require a multilateral regional approach.

RFMOs provide a forum for collaboration, data sharing, regional management, and enforcement and NOAA has a leadership role in a number of these RFMOs.

One of these RFMOs, the International Convention for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas or ICCAT, has adopted catch and trade tracking programs for bluefin tuna in response to declining stocks and high levels of IUU. fishing.

These programs help us to verify what bluefin tuna are caught and allow us to track products from capture through its final market. This information can lead to trade restrictions against countries which are a major deterrent to illegal trade -- illegal fishing.

The Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization or NAFO has also taken proactive steps to combat IUU. fishing. With U.S. leadership this RFMO developed a compliance scheme that prevents a vessel from landing its catch in the port of any NAFO member if the vessel has been sighted engaging in IUU. fishing. Programs based on this scheme have been adopted by other RFMOs.

NOAA also plays a leadership role in developing international measures to reduce bicatch of seabirds, sea turtles and sharks. The U.S. promotes the development of national seabird bicatch reduction plans by RFMO members and stresses the need for science -- scientific assessments, on sea turtles, the U.S.-led negotiations resulting FAO guidelines to reduce sea turtle mortality in fishing operations. These guidelines have now been adopted by several RFMOs.

Additionally, the U.S. negotiated the binding Inter-American Convention for the Protection and Conservation of Sea Turtles and we are hosting international workshops to train fishermen to use circle hook as turtle bicatch reduction devices.

On sharks, we have the Shark Finning Prohibition Act enacted and has drastically reduced the number of sharks found with the carcasses discarded at sea. In accordance with this mandate the U.S. has promoted the adoption of shark finning bans in many RFMOs.

Through the Magnuson-Stevens Act, Congress recognized the significant lack of data for international fisheries management, particularly from developing countries. Good data is the corner stone for sound fisheries management, and to address this data scarcity NOAA has provided funding to improve data collection in other countries.

The Magnuson-Stevens Act also calls for biannual report to Congress on IUU. fishing and NOAA is currently soliciting information from the public that can be used to identify nations whose vessels are engaged in IUU. fishing.

With regard to enforcement efforts to combat IUU. fishing NOAA's office of law enforcement works closely with international federal and state law enforcement partners to detect, apprehend and prosecute those involved in illegal importation of IUU. products.

These efforts include NOAA's coordination with coast guard patrols in the North Pacific Ocean to detect large scale high seas drift net fishing.

NOAA currently serves as a chair of the International Monitoring, Control and Surveillance Network which works with countries around the globe to exchange enforcement information including information on IUU. fishing.

The network provides a mechanism for fisheries law enforcement professionals to share experiences as they monitor increasingly complex global fisheries.

Another important development that will improve NOAA's ability to detect IUU. fish imports is the international trade data system currently under development by the Department of Homeland Security.

This system is a government-wide platform for the electronic collection, use, and dissemination of trade data. NOAA has taken steps to become a participating agency and I believe our participation will significantly improve our ability to enforce RFMO trade measures and documentation requirements.

In closing we have a lot to be proud of in the international fisheries management realm but much work remains. With the tools that this committee has supplied, NOAA is well positioned to improve our fisheries management efforts to benefit the world's marine ecosystems.

Senator Stevens, please give my thanks again to Chairman Inouye for the invitation, to the members of the committee I look forward to working with you, with the public, with the fishing industry, and our international counterparts on this important issue.

I will be happy to answer questions when the time is right.

SEN. STEVENS: Thank you Mr. Secretary, and -- we will proceed with all the statements then I will have some questions.

Mr. Balton, deputy assistant secretary for Oceans and Fisheries we are happy to have your statement.

MR. BALTON: Thank you Senator Stevens, it is a pleasure to be -- appear before you again this morning.

We seek sustainable fisheries but three daunting challenges stand in the way. First, overcapacity of fishing fleets which leads to over-fishing. Second, Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated fishing. And third, adverse environmental effects of certain fishing practices.

We cannot successfully address these challenges separately nor can we succeed without the cooperation of other nations and stakeholders. Congress and the administration also need to continue to work together.

The overall picture is worrisome, FAO estimates that almost three quarters of commercially exploited fish stocks for which good data exists are either overexploited, fully exploited, or recovering from a depleted state. Problems of over-fishing, IUU. fishing, and other environmental factors have certainly contributed.

We have two reasons for hope, however. First, international fisheries issues now occupy a much more prominent position on the policy agenda.

And second, as we have already heard, this framework, the framework for international fisheries governance that we have rests on the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea.

For the United States to maximize its influence over international fisheries however we must join all other major fishing nations as a party to this convention.

Of the three challenges overcapacity and over-fishing are the hardest to address. We have achieved only limited success in establishing capacity caps for some fisheries.

To be sustainable many fisheries need actual reductions in fishing capacity and effort. We also need stronger disciplines on subsidies to the fisheries sector. At the WTO the United States has proposed new subsidies rules but negotiations continue.

The second challenge, IUU. fishing, continues to plague virtually all fisheries but we are making progress here. Through the FAO we have created a tool box for this, flag state measures, coastal state measures, port state measures, market related measures.

Governments have been using these tools individually and through the RFMOs. We have seen improvements in the monitoring, control and surveillance of fishing vessels.

Restrictions on transshipment at sea, catch and trade documentation schemes, lists of authorized vessels and of IUU. vessels, import restrictions, and port state controls. We have seen increasing cooperation among the RFMOs.

We are supporting the creation of a global record of fishing vessels to include unique vessel identifiers and comprehensive ownership information.

We are leading efforts to negotiate a new agreement on port state measures for IUU. fishing. I was pleased to chair an initial meeting to develop a first draft of this treaty. Negotiations will begin in earnest in June with the goal of producing a final treaty next year.

We understand that Congress shares our desire to crack down on IUU. fishing and we look forward to further cooperation.

We know that Congress also shares our concern over the third challenge, the impact of certain fishing practices on the marine environment.

I can report reasonable progress here as well. But again more needs to be done. We brokered a UN resolution that calls for identification of vulnerable marine ecosystems for assessment of whether fishing practices significantly harm them and for the development of measures to prevent such harm.

In the absence of such measures governments have agreed to stop destructive fishing in the high seas areas in question by the end of this year.

We have secured interim rules for the South Pacific and for the Northwest Pacific to give effect to the UN mandate as negotiations on longer term arrangements proceed.

Worldwide, as we have heard, we are pressing treaties bicatches of species of concern including sea turtles, seabirds and sharks.

With respect to sharks, many RFMOs have followed the lead in banning shark finning but they have done little else for these species and this is has led other international bodies to act including the UN and the Convention on Migratory Species.

Despite their short comings the RFMOs remain the only feasible means for managing international fisheries, but they are only as effective as their member governments allow them to be.

One way to make RFMOs more effective is to review their performance using common criteria, a process that is now underway. And one RFMO the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission has adopted a new treaty, the Antigua Convention.

To strengthen its role the Senate provided advice and consent to this treaty and we now urge Congress to pass the necessary implementing legislation.

Let me conclude with a call for greater assistance to developing countries, to help them with fisheries management.

To achieve sustainability in international fisheries all nations must have the capacity to implement agreed rules. Such assistance therefore will ultimately benefit the United States as well.

Thank you very much Senator Stevens, I will be happy to take any questions when the time is right.

SEN. STEVENS: Thank you very much, Mr. Balton.

Rear Admiral Brooks, we will be happy to have your statements, sir.

REAR ADM. BROOKS: Good morning Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to appear before you today to discuss the Coast Guard's role in international fisheries management in deterring Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated or IUU. fishing.

It is also a pleasure to represent the Alaskan law enforcement community today. The Coast Guard has been the leading federal law enforcement presence on the high seas since the days of the revenue cutter service in the 18th century.

Our role in defending living marine resources dates back to the great Alaskan first seal and sea otter hunts of the 19th century. In the 21st century Coast Guard law enforcement is primarily focused on protecting the 3.4 million square miles of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone in key areas of the high seas.

The Coast Guard aims to provide effective and professional at-sea enforcement to advance national goals for living marine resource conservation and management. IUU. fishing describes activities that are a direct affront to such conservation and management measures.

The U.S. Coast Guard strategy for maritime safety, security and stewardship is driven by national policy such as presidential decision directive 36, protecting the ocean environment, and legislation such as the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act.

Coast Guard efforts to deter IUU. fishing span across domestic and international fisheries, and they bridge our maritime security and maritime stewardship goals.

IUU. activity is global, it is conducted by fishing vessels of all sizes and descriptions. As discussed the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that as much as 75 percent of the world's fish stocks are fully exploited, overexploited, or depleted.

There are tremendous economic incentives at play in IUU. fishing for both the coastal states and the IUU. fishers. The FAO estimates annual global revenues lost to IUU. fishing to be as much as $9 billion per year.

This activity damages marine ecosystems, distorts competition, and jeopardizes the economic survival of coastal communities that rely on fishing for their livelihoods.

Many coastal states lack the enforcement capability to effectively manage and protect their living marine resources and are left exposed to poaching and over fishing.

Recent press reports from West Africa, for example, link depleted fish stocks to regional instability and dangerous illegal large scale immigration from devastated fishing communities.

NOAA and the state department are our key partners in implementing the U.S. National Plan of Action to Combat IUU. Fishing. The Coast Guard applauds NOAA and the state department's efforts to establish port state control measures, catch documentation schemes, and the international trade data systems to deter IUU. importation.

These tools will help restrict market access for IUU. products. Nevertheless, at-sea enforcement, which applies significant legal and economic consequences to those who engage in illegal fishing activity, remains a critical element in combating the IUU. threat.

The Coast Guard is the only federal agency with the capability and legal authority to project the law enforcement presence on the high seas and throughout the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone.

The Coast Guard plan for fisheries law enforcement is known as Ocean Guardian, and it is based on principles of sound regulations, meaning enforceable legal regimes or systems of rules that define acceptable activities, productive partnerships, cooperative resource management, law enforcement, and case prosecution efforts.

The use of technology to enhance enforcement efforts through maritime domain awareness, and effective presence meaning professional law enforcement personnel on board capable surface and air assets.

The concepts of sound regulations and productive partnerships are inextricably linked. The Coast Guard serves as an enforcement adviser to a number of U.S. delegations to Regional Fisheries Management Organizations or the RFMOs that establish the foundations of legal regimes for maritime governance to combat IUU. fishing.

One such RFMO is the North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission. My staff in 17th Coast Guard District serves as the head of the U.S. delegation to the enforcement committee for that commission.

The Coast Guard is also highly engaged in maintaining the productive bilateral agreement for the People's Republic of China to enforce the UN moratorium on large scale, high seas drift net fishing.

The Chinese fishers' enforcement officers have served as ship riders on U.S. Coast Guard cutters under this agreement stage and operate out of the Coast Guards North Pacific Regional Fisheries Training Center in Kodiak, Alaska.

These forums further overlap with the international coordination efforts of the North Pacific Coast Guard Forum Fisheries Working Group which met last week in Seattle.

This year Pacific Rim partners will conduct harmonized service and air patrols in the North Pacific high threat area for IUU. drift net fishing.

In addition to the United States, Canada, Japan, Korea, the Russian Federation, and the People's Republic of China will all contribute operational resources to this effort.

Similar efforts paid great dividends last year when the U.S. Coast Guard Cutter Boutwell intercepted and facilitated the seizure of six Chinese flagged high seas drift net vessels.

The Coast Guard operational efforts are guided by an organizational sense of maritime domain awareness or knowledge of what is happening at sea.

We enhance this awareness with satellite-based ship tracking systems such as the Vessel Monitoring System which allows us to see the movement of many U.S. and foreign flagged vessels in the non contiguous EEZ especially in the Western and Central Pacific.

VMS is also extremely valuable tool in many domestic fisheries within the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone.

However, awareness alone is of little use without a robust at-sea presence to detect and intercept potential perpetrators.

The first component of effective Coast Guard presence is a professional core of knowledgeable boarding officers. The five U.S. Coast Guard Regional Fisheries Training Centers including the North Pacific Regional Training Center in Kodiak and The Maritime Law Enforcement Academy continue to be vital to training our maritime law enforcement personnel.

Our cutters, both aircraft and the facilities and personnel that support them, must to up to the task of sustaining our efforts on sea over vast distances for days, weeks or months on end.

In the 14th Coast Guard District, for example in Honolulu, Hawaii, a patrol cutter must transit for over a week from the nearest Coast Guard base to reach many of the eight non contiguous Exclusive Economic Zones most susceptible to illegal foreign fishing.

Similar distances figure into the 17th District operations where the U.S. Russian maritime boundary line is at least three days transit from the nearest viable logistics stop or port, and emerging operational areas in the Arctic are even more remote.

The centerpiece of the Coast Guard's future capabilities to meet projected increases in the IUU. threat and to secure our maritime boarders is the integrated Deep Water System.

Deep Water will maintain our ability to enforce international and domestic living marine resource regulations in the distant regions of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone and the high seas.

The Coast Guard addresses the IUU. threat to living marine resource through a framework of concerted international efforts to develop legal regimes, foster partnerships inside and outside of our own government, expanding maritime domain awareness and maintaining effective at-sea enforcement.

We will continue to work closely with NOAA, the state department, and our international partners to achieve national and international objectives for fisheries conservation and management.

One thing is clear, more people throughout the world are going to greater lengths to harvest limited living marine resources. This impacts the economies and the stability and well being of entire societies across the globe.

In the face of increasing resource scarcity, IUU. fishing is a threat that the Coast Guard stands ready to confront.

Thank you for this opportunity to testify before you today, I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.

SEN. STEVENS: Well thank you very much, Admiral. Let me start with questions with you.

I have just returned from Alaska where I had some briefings by the International Arctic Research Center at the University of Fairbanks and it is the Alaskan Fairbanks -- and they informed me that it is true that the Arctic ice will continue to thin in the period ahead.

Now, in order to enter the Arctic Ocean a vessel has to go through someone's -- some nation's economic zone. That is the one area in the world that could be completely controlled if we had an agreement from all nations that no vessel could proceed through their economic zone without specific controls such as having a beacon that can be traced by satellite, and such as examination of the -- (inaudible) -- and such as examination of the catch as they exited that Arctic Ocean.

I think it is time that we really worked on through the entities that all three of you represent really an aggressive approach to protecting the Arctic.

If we are informed correctly the thinning is taking place because of warm water that is coming from the Atlantic into the Arctic Ocean and that our ice is thinning from the bottom not from the top.

Under those circumstances it seems that the time -- it is very acute, the time, before the ice will be thin enough for operation in the Arctic by just regular fishing vessels without any ice protection available to them.

I would say from what I understand, the briefing, we have two to three years at most before it would be possible to operate up there, fishing vessels, without any protection any ice capability in their construction.

Do you think that that is a possibility that the law enforcement mechanisms for the various states that have entry into the Arctic Ocean, could get together and initiate this kind of an agreement?

REAR ADM. BROOKS: Yes, Senator, I think they could. I think the Arctic nations all understand the opportunities and risks of the Arctic.

I can -- I was in Kotzebue, in Barrow just last week and was surprised to see clear water within visual range offshore, of course the shore ice is still there but there the ice is already retreating and that means ships can come -- access is coming, the whale season is accelerating.

The issue for us we -- I have talked with my Russian counterpart locally, General Lebedev (ph) in Kamchatka, about the need for a Vessel Traffic Management scheme through the Bering Straits, because from the Pacific side all vessels entering the Arctic must transit that narrow pass between Alaska and Russia where -- between Little and Big Diomede Island, and it is a shallow place -- relatively shallow and we are -- I am concerned about navigational safety, whether we need a way to control these ships to ensure that they don't run aground or breakdown and drift ashore in Alaska and give us a -- (inaudible) -- type of problem.

And the Russians understand that whatever we did in the Bering Straits would have to be a joint U.S. Russian venture and we would have to pursue that through the international maritime organization, based on the needs that we would have to control vessels.

Beyond that I had not considered the idea of a fishing regulatory scheme among the nations, but it makes perfect sense. It is something that could and probably should be pursued because for no one benefits from IUU. fishing and I think the nations of the world could come together on this issue.

SEN. STEVENS: Well, I think the interests of the Congress and what is going on in the Arctic Ocean is demonstrated by the number of people at this committee table.

(Laughter)

SEN. STEVENS: We are the only ones who have the direct knowledge of the threat and the only ones to have direct impact on our people, our indigenous people harvest ocean mammals for their sustenance, or their subsistence.

They are not too may people in the world who still do that but ours do and if not under their own regimes we helped them to create -- to regulate their taking of those mammals.

We know that that the oil industry now is proceeding to have a great interest to try to keep up with Russia in terms of what is going on the ocean floor of the Arctic Ocean. And by the way the Russians will be here next week over at the -- (inaudible) -- and I think we ought to find someway to have a meeting with them while they are here to start talking about this.

But I would like to -- we showed what the UN can do with regard to drift nets hadn't been completely effective but it has been -- had enormous impact on their use, I think we ought to try to think about how to get the UN into aiding us to protect the Arctic Ocean now before it is raped by these IUU. fisheries but I do appreciate your concern and you being here.

Mr. Balton, I have really no problem with what the state department is doing, I do think they are -- you are really very much aware of it, of the threat -- I mentioned some of the things that you mentioned about the tools that are available now -- I believe that was your statement -- the tools that are available now.

Can you describe that to us a bit more? What really can we do under existing arrangements to initiate some firmer control over IUU. fishers in the Arctic Ocean?

MR. BALTON: Let me say a word about existing fisheries in the Arctic Ocean, Senator. The Arctic is not actually a single region, when it comes to fisheries.

In the area of the Arctic farthest from Alaska namely the part off of Norway there already are major commercial fisheries underway in the Barents Sea and the Greenland Sea.

SEN. STEVENS: Are they regulated by Norway at all?

MR. BALTON: Yes, not only by Norway within its economic zone -- its economic zone but through bilateral and multilateral agreements among the countries in that area. We are not party to those.

SEN. STEVENS: Have they been effective agreements?

MR. BALTON: I would say the record is mixed. Mixed --

SEN. STEVENS: Do they document their activities -- is there a record somewhere that shows what they actually have done in pursuing those agreements.

MR. BALTON: Yes, I could provide that to the committee if you are interested, yes, they have very good documentation.

They have had problems with IUU. fishing particularly in the Barents Sea and in the high seas pocket in that area known as the Loophole in -- (inaudible) -- and they have made major strides in cutting down on IUU fishing including through port state measures.

Now, in the area of the Arctic closest to Alaska there are not yet major commercial fisheries, but you are right to say that as the climate changes and the ice recedes, the water warms, we should be expecting and anticipating that there could be major commercial fisheries north of the Bering Straits sometime in the future.

And we are aware that the Senate has passed a resolution calling on us to work with the other Arctic countries to regulate our -- future Arctic fisheries to prevent IUU. fishing.

SEN. STEVENS: Ours is a virgin area and my worry is not that the entrance through the Bering Straits as much as it is this entrance from the fishing fleets of foreign countries that are dealing with the other part of the Arctic already.

Our is a virgin area, the ice has been thicker in the past than it will be in the near future, although I have been told they are expected, it will come back eventually. And this is not a permanent problem. But it will be a problem for the next couple of decades that that would be sure.

But I am really interested to try and find out to what extent the vessels there that are out there now from -- and particularly above Norway, would have easy access to the waters off Alaska and Canada.

MR. BALTON: I don't see any significant threat in the immediate future of vessels fishing in the North Atlantic area adjacent to the Arctic coming all the way through the Arctic to reach Alaskan waters.

And we have controls already in place to -- regulatory controls for our own EEZ, the North Pacific Council for example has proposed an Arctic Fisheries Management Plan that I expect will be finalized sometime soon. There are other --

SEN. STEVENS: That would only apply to the area above Alaska.

MR. BALTON: That is correct.

SEN. STEVENS: Does not apply above Russia, yes.

MR. BALTON: Not yet. I have however, in a meeting with Russia just last September, presented to them the North Pacific Council decision and urged that they adopt something comparable for their area adjacent to ours and that we work with them for any stocks that could straddle our zone and theirs.

I similarly presented to Canada the Senate resolution calling for cooperative work on Arctic fisheries and urged that we meet with Canada to talk specifically about the area in the Arctic that the U.S. and Canada both border.

And it is my hope and expectation that in the near future we will be able to make progress with our neighbors in that way.

SEN. STEVENS: Well, I think you mentioned -- and I believe that ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty would enable us to have greater control of the areas above our country.

But some of the areas that would -- are touching the nations that have boundaries that touch -- in the Arctic Ocean already have ratified the Law of the Sea, are there any mechanisms that they have used pursuant to the Law of the Sea Treaty to enhance their ability to regulate fisheries in the Arctic Ocean, where they have already ratified the Law of the Sea Treaty?

MR. BALTON: You are right that all of the major fishing countries other than the United States are party to the Law of the Sea Convention already including all of the other Arctic nations.

And that gives them a strong framework on which to build fisheries laws. They also -- gives them a clear path forward for defining where the outer limit of their continental shelf in the Arctic and elsewhere may exist.

As a non-party we are at a disadvantage in those ways.

SEN. STEVENS: I know we are at a disadvantage now but I wonder if they have been affective at all in using the powers of the Law of the Sea treaty to enhance their ability to manage the fisheries in the areas that -- which those nations already have control.

MR. BALTON: Senator I wouldn't want to overstate it but I would say that at least indirectly their being party to the Law of the Sea Convention has aided them in these endeavors.

The Law of the Sea Convention creates a general framework for fisheries and these countries using that framework have built fisheries rules for both their EEZ and in cooperation with each other for areas beyond natural jurisdiction to deal with fisheries in their parts of the Arctic, yes.

SEN. STEVENS: Well, I am one who believes that our control over the -- our economic zone has enabled us to lead the world in terms of scientific management of fisheries and I don't think that many areas of the world have been as aggressive as ours.

I think our regional council has been more aggressive than any area of the world in management on a scientific basis. Our area, which is half the coastline of the United States has no endangered species that are harvested by any fishery, and it has no endangered, no threatened species that are harvested by any fishery.

At least that was on my latest report and I hope it is still the case.

MR. BALTON: I certainly agree that the North Pacific Council has a very well deserved reputation for effective --

SEN. STEVENS: Well, if we can spread that throughout the Arctic as quickly as possible, it may enhance the future of the fisheries of the Arctic Ocean. Otherwise I think that I will really --

Mr. Balsiger, there maybe some seafood products that we do want to harvest in the Arctic Ocean in time, are we -- do you think we have the capability to know or to have any influence on what fishing does take place over in this area now?

MR. BALSIGER: Senator yes, certainly in the U.S. EEZ just above Alaska that -- any regulations that would allow fishing there would be recommended by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council through their Arctic FMP and then it would be approved or disapproved by NOAA.

So we have a strong role in that regard and I think you are correct that the North Pacific Council in developing their Arctic FMP has a very conservative outlook.

I don't think that there will be fishing regulations recommended that would put any of the fish stocks in jeopardy or the environment in jeopardy. So there is good control there.

SEN. STEVENS: Well, let me be bad and just ask you and Mr. Balton, is state and NOAA ready to accept the jurisdiction of our regional council over the EEZ north of Alaska as they have in terms of in the North Pacific?

MR. BALTON: Senator, I believe so I think that is --

SEN. STEVENS: We have shown that that is our authority but I just wondered are you going to challenge the authority of the regional council to deal with the area -- in the Arctic Ocean that is not -- might be available to be fished by anybody?

MR. BALTON: No, sir.

SEN. STEVENS: Well, if you have any hesitancy, I appreciate if you will report back to us if there is any indication at all that state and NOAA will challenge the jurisdiction of the North Pacific Regional Fisheries Council to manage the resources within the U.S. EEZ north of Alaska.

MR. BALTON: Senator, my hesitancy was only because such an idea never occurred to me that we would challenge that but I take your point that we certainly look at that.

SEN. STEVENS: I appreciate your hesitancy and I agree with it.

(Laughter)

SEN. STEVENS: Thank you very much gentlemen. There may be some questions by colleagues who wish to submit that and appreciate it if you would answer them within a two-week period. Thank you very much.

MR. BALTON: Thank you, Senator.

MR. BALSIGER: Thank you.

SEN. STEVENS: Thank you, Admiral.

REAR ADM. BROOKS: Thank you, Senator.

SEN. STEVENS: And now we will turn to the second panel, which is Mr. Dave Benton, he is the executive director of the Marine Conservation Alliance. Mr. James Cook, a president of North Pacific Ocean Producers, LLC. And Ms. Lisa Speer, of the National Resources Defense Council.

If it is agreeable we will just proceed with the witnesses as they are listed on my list and see if -- you first Dave if you will. Mr. Benton.

MR. BENTON: Thank you Mr. Chairman, for the record my name is David Benton I am the executive director of the Marine Conservation Alliance.

Marine Conservation Alliance is a coalition of seafood industry participants in Alaska, harvesters, processors, coastal communities, CDQ groups, collectively the membership of MCA represents prior between 70 and 80 percent of the seafood production of the coast of Alaska.

And Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to come before you today on international fisheries issues. It has been quite awhile since we have had a discussion about international issues in a committee like this.

My history goes back with the state of Alaska and the initiatives that you generated back in the 1980s and 1990s to deal with the threats like high seas -- large scale high seas drift nets, over fishing in the Donut Hole by the fleets from Japan and Poland and China and Korea.

The need to get a UN fish talks agreement to deal with straddling stocks and highly migratory fish stocks. All of those -- all those initiatives, Senator, sort of originated in this room.

And I know that your comment, a little while ago that the interest in the Arctic is reflected by how many committee members are here in the room and seems to me that I recall that the time when we had to deal with high seas drift nets we had just about this many members in the room at the time when we first started that.

And I think the result turned out pretty good at the end of the day. And I think that --

WITNESS (MR.) : -- (Inaudible.) --

(Laughter)

SEN. STEVENS: -- comments, but I understand what you are saying.

MR. BENTON: Yeah, we -- it has really been quite an interesting process from my perspective and from the perspective of the seafood industry.

When you look at what was going on in the 1980s and early 1990s in the North Pacific, there was a high seas drift net fleet of about 1,500 vessels to 2,000 vessels fishing there.

They are fishing between 35,000 miles of net a night estimates were 1 million miles of net a year during the summer when they fished up there. Those fleets then moved down to the south into the Southern Pacific Ocean, and we are hammering tuna stocks and migratory species down there.

Literally tens of thousands of sea turtles, hundreds of thousands of marine mammals, estimates of up to -- maybe 1 million and some odd seabirds were being decimated by those fleets.

At the same time that that fleet was operating we had several hundreds vessels operating in the Central Bering Sea, Donut Hole that were over fishing the Pollock stocks in the Aleutian Basin, and we had some real problems.

But this committee took charge of those issues, the seafood industry worked very closely with you. We created the Bering Sea Fisheries Advisory Body, which then advised state department on U.S.- Russian matters.

We initiated bilaterally with Russia, joint initiatives to address those kinds of problems and including -- I failed to mention high sea salmon fishery that Japan was conducting as well.

And within a very short space of time we banned high sea drift net fishing, we eliminated the INPFC, the International North Pacific Fisheries Commission which authorized the high seas salmon fleet, eliminated the high seas salmon fishery of Japan, closed the Donut Hole and established pretty much an entirely new order in the North Pacific, and it was in a very short period of time.

And there were large conservation benefits that have come about from that. I think it is important for us to remember that -- that bit of history because we are facing very similar challenges, I think, today.

And in some ways we really need to make a new -- renewed commitment to dealing with problems of IUU. fishing and in the prospects of the Arctic opening to new fisheries whether they are IUU. fisheries or a nation -- or fisheries that are sponsored by nations that maybe regulated but not be -- but may not be acceptable to us and our interests.

So I want to talk a little bit about that and I want to talk about it in a context of both the North Pacific and the Arctic.

And I want to start with the Arctic, Senator because as you know that obviously that is very close to our home, it is always been a place that has been very important to our coastal communities and the native peoples that live along our shoreline, they live off the sea, the sea is fundamental to their way of life.

There is rapid pace of change up there that may bring industrialization and commercial fishing into those waters. It is going to have a very significant impact on the resources up there and also on those people.

And I think that that the United States has an obligation to take charge of that matter not let it happen in a happenstance way and take a very proactive approach to dealing with the Arctic.

The resolution that came out of the Senate last year, I think, was a very, very important piece of work. You laid out a chart -- you charted a course and laid out a way for the United States to proceed and you keyed off the actions that the North Pacific Fishery Management Council has been pursuing.

Our organization and the seafood industry in Alaska fully supported and in fact initiated the action of the North Pacific Council to close the waters of the U.S. EEZ, north of Bering Straits, to all commercial fishing until we understood better the effects of climate change and had a fishery management plan in place so that we would go up there if fishery is opened up in an orderly, biologically sustainable manner and in a way that was respectful of the people and the resources of the Arctic Ocean.

We believe that same policy needs to carry forward and that the United States needs to go and push very aggressively with our at least our two closest Arctic neighbors, Canada and Russia bilaterally -- initially bilaterally, and get those two countries to support a similar kind of policy within their own waters, and then to work with us, and with yourself to close the major part of the Arctic Basin.

Ambassador Balton referred to what is going on in the Atlantic and that there are fisheries there that are technically in the Arctic, they are above the Arctic Circle, but it is a very different world over there, very different than what it is off of Alaska and Russia and Canada, and very different than the world that is in the major part of the Arctic Basin, in the international waters.

If those waters open up or if there -- if there are ways for vessels from the Atlantic or from other countries to come into the Arctic Basin because of sea ice retreat, then that is going to have a dramatic effect and if we don't have controls on that ahead of time, we are going to be facing a situation that is going to be just like what we had in the Bering Sea Donut Hole with fleets of Japan and China and Korea and Poland were fishing.

They were authorized -- they weren't IUU. fishing, they were authorized by their countries, but they over fished those stocks very much to the detriment of Alaskans to the United States and to the resources of that region.

So I think we really need to pursue that, Mr. Chairman.

With regard to North Pacific, there are initiatives to deal with bottom fisheries on the seamounts in the northwest -- North Pacific. We think that that's appropriate, but we don't think it goes far enough. And frankly, it's somewhat disappointing the approach that the United States has taken in that regard.

If you look back at some of the history that I was mentioning just a moment ago, we working with you and working with state made major changes in North Pacific waters, and the idea actually was that we should have a comprehensive single international organization and series of institutions that were all coordinated from Asia to North America, and northern or your southern boundary. But at the time, we are looking at 33 degrees north and anything north of there.

And that such an institutional arrangement should deal with all species and all fisheries. The North Pacific Anadromous Fish Convention and the commission that's it's on, was intended to, at least, for a while, fill that role, and it has provisions in the convention to do that.

United States has chosen to go down a different path, and deal with just the north western Pacific Ocean for the time being. We believe, and I know that you sent a letter to Secretary Rice last fall, stating that there should be a comprehensive treaty, and we agree with that.

We think that such a comprehensive treaty needs to be simple in structure. We don't want something complicated, we don't need to create a new organization. We can use, to the extent possible -- we can use existing international instruments to achieve that goal.

A good example is the enforcement arrangements that Admiral Brooks was referring to. It's one of the models for the world on how international enforcement corporation can proceed. We don't want to disrupt that, we want to maximize, and the benefits we get from that, and use it better.

We believe that such a new international instrument should prohibit new fisheries in the North Pacific, not just bottom fisheries, all fisheries, until such time as there is management plan in place to manage those fisheries, and that they develop again in an orderly manner.

And finally, Mr. Chairman, and this is a -- perhaps a bit of a touchy subject. But we really believe that such a new international instrument needs to avoid the use of big, ill-defined terms and principles, of the over application of principles that perhaps we would not apply inside our own waters.

We should be promoting sound management practices, like we do in the North Pacific. But we should not try and impose on the high seas a lot of rhetorical principles that aren't necessarily going to get us there. And problems with some of the language, some of the instruments that have been discussed these days had actually driven ledges between interests that should be natural allies.

Those successes that we had in the North Pacific in the 1980s and 1990s came about because the seafood industry, this committee, NOAA and the Department of State worked together very well.

The environmental interests, that Ms. Speer represents, got involved as well. And we were all able to work together because there was a good working relationship. Adherence to rhetorical stances on some of the principles is going to get in the way of that, unless we figure out how to work together.

NOAA and Department of State need to forge the kinds of working relationships with seafood industry, environmental interest, so that we can all have a good strong U.S. presence to make the success work -- that you are trying to achieve -- we see that we need.

Thank you Mr. Chairman. That's my statement.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

SEN. STEVENS: Thank you very much. We'll ask some questions.

Ms. Speer, Natural Resources Defense Council. Thank you for being here.

MS. SPEER: Thank you very much Senator Stevens. It's a delight --

SEN. STEVENS: Can you pull that mike up towards you please.

MS. SPEER: Yeah. Sure.

SEN. STEVENS: Thank you.

MS. SPEER: I want to first of all echo Mr. Benton's sentiments thanking you for your extraordinary leadership over the last two decades.

In terms of the Fish Stocks Agreement, driftnet moratorium , the recent U.N. General Assembly resolution calling for regulation of currently unregulated bottom fisheries throughout the world, all of those and many more major international instruments to govern high seas fishing have resulted directly from your leadership. And the world owes you a big thanks.

My written testimony focuses on a lot of different issues. I'd like to address my comments today on the North Pacific and the Arctic. As you know, as a direct result of the resolution you sponsored, Senate Resolution 610, the U.N. General Assembly passed a resolution in October of 2006 calling on states to establish regional fishery management organizations to govern fisheries that are currently unregulated throughout the world.

And there has been good progress since 2006 in implementing that resolution in many places. But unfortunately, one of those places is not the North Pacific. There are a couple of problems here.

The first is in the current Northwest Pacific negotiations that are ongoing right now between the United States, Korea, Russia, and Japan. There have been a number of different meetings, interim measures have been adopted for the Northwest Pacific, but unfortunately, a lot of those interim measures are not being implemented.

For example, one of the key interim measures that was agreed to was to freeze the footprint, to have no new fishing in this region until a management regime could be established.

But the parties have not yet submitted the information needed to determine where that footprint is. So it's pretty -- it's hard to, in fact, implement and freeze the footprint agreement if you don't know where that footprint is.

And secondly, with respect to the other measures that have been adopted, in the absence of 100 percent observer coverage as we do in the North Pacific within the U.S., there are always going to be questions about whether in fact the other parties are complying with the -- whatever measures, no matter how good they are, that have been adopted.

Of even greater concern is the draft treaty text that's been prepared by Japan that would govern fisheries in the future. This treaty, in our view, falls way short of what is currently required that U.S. fishermen have to comply with under the Magnuson-Stevens Act as well as the Fish Stocks Agreement and other international agreements.

Our view is that this -- the Northwest Pacific agreement has to undergo a complete overhaul. And if that's not possible, we would actually recommend that the United States withdraw from the negotiation, because for us to sign on to a treaty that is that deficient would send a terrible message to the world about our commitments to modern fisheries management and promoting the ideas that are in the Magnuson-Stevens Act beyond U.S. borders.

So why does the North Pacific agreement matter to the United States? There is a chain of volcanoes under sea that stretches from the northern part of Hawaii up to the Aleutians. It's sort of a string of pearl, if you will, that connects Hawaii and Alaska.

And that -- those little volcanoes are stopping points for a number of different migratory species. There are also covered with corals. The Chinese fishery in that region for many years was exclusively coral, and there are still very large aggregations remaining in many places.

Unfortunately, the Japanese and the Russians fished out of most of those seamounts for pelagic armorhead and alfonsin in the '60s and '70s. And one thing we learned in Hawaii at the most recent meeting of the Northwest fishery negotiations is that over-fishing is continuing on those seamounts, and it's having an impact within the zone -- within our zone.

And that is on the Hancock seamounts, which are the northernmost seamounts within the U.S. zone that used to be -- before 1976, they used to be the high seas. They were over-fished. The U.S. claimed jurisdiction. They shut the fisheries down in 1984.

There's been a moratorium on all bottom fishing on the Hancock seamounts since 1984, and those fish are not coming back. And NOAA, in the Hawaii office, thinks the reason they are not coming back is because over-fishing is continuing on the high seas, in the northern seamounts, that would provide the feedstock for beginning those fishes back up again.

So over-fishing on the high seas is having an impact within our zone, and that's a really important element to address.

The Northeast Pacific, turning to that for a moment there, as you probably know, is completely unregulated. There are no efforts right now to establish an RFMO, and we are very concerned that as the noose tightens around unregulated fishing in other parts of the world that we are going to start attracting all kinds of people will seek to evade regulated fishing to the Northeast Pacific.

We recommend that the United States initiate something to get into place, a management plan for the Northeast Pacific as soon as possible. We'd prefer to see one regime cover both, you know, the entire North Pacific. But given the drawbacks that I mentioned with the Northwest Pacific, that may not be possible.

I wanted to turn to the Arctic for a moment, and to say that the actions of the North Pacific Fishery Management Council has taken have been extraordinarily foresighted, and we strongly support what they have done, and agree that they ought to be exported beyond our zone.

And time is not on our side on this. If in fact, as you mentioned earlier, we have two or three years, we really need to get cracking.

I've spoken to a number of people on the State Department who, as was noted earlier, there have been overtures both to Russia and to Canada to see whether there is interest in moving this forward.

And frankly, I understand the response has been, sort of, tepid to lukewarm. And I think that's going to continue to happen unless we start elevating the level of diplomatic engagement by a bunch of rungs up the ladder. In fact, we may want to just ditch the ladder and get in the elevator, and raise this at a much higher level.

And I would encourage you, Sir, to consider doing what you have done in the past so successfully, which is, start talking about this in the international for a, come to the United Nations, start talking about the need to protect the Arctic, the need to come together and develop a -- an agreement that would regulate commercial fishing before those commercial fisheries get established. If we wait until they get established, it will be much more difficult.

Thank you, sir, for the opportunity.

SEN. STEVENS: Well, thank you very much. I look forward to discussing your latest comment. I agree, time -- there's just a scarce amount of time to deal with this issue. And I hope that we can get together.

It was a great credit -- Secretary Albright, she saw the problem, and went with us when we went to the U.N. before. I hope that Secretary Rice will similarly see the problem with regard to the Arctic, and I have not had a chance to really discuss that with her yet. But you are right, we can't wait on that subject at all.

Let me down to Mr. Cook, though.

Mr. Cook, Senator Inouye wanted to ask a couple of questions. You have already discussed -- a part of his question was the effectiveness of the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission to establish conservation in the management efforts.

Do you think they have been successful so far in their efforts?

MR. COOK: Senator, I'm sorry, sir, I don't. This is a relatively new organization. It's been in formative stages for several years, but it still is relatively new.

As you know, the island nations of the Pacific, the fisheries there, the tuna fisheries are really the only natural resource that they have. They want to sell that resource to the highest bidder. It makes it a very, very difficult situation to operate in.

I think that the U.S. brings a conservation ethic to the WCPFC, and I think that it will take a long time because other members do not necessarily share the same ethic, and it will take a long time and a lot of convincing on our behalf to make these organizations work. It's simply a battle that we have to fight, and that will be a while getting it won.

SEN. STEVENS: He certainly wanted to know whether the WCPFC has cooperated with and consulted with the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission. Do you see such cooperation taking place now?

MR. COOK: I believe there is some corporation there. I'm not an expert in that area, and I really can't comment on it extensively.

SEN. STEVENS: You mentioned the council. There's a council interacting with both the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission and the WCPFC.

MR. COOK: Yes, they do. I think they do a very effective job working with both of those commissions. We have people from the council that attend meetings of both of those commissions. And we keep constantly up with them, as you may be aware.

We operate under quotas for certain species under both of those. And so we are very, very actively engaged. And I think the council does a terrific job representing the interests of the U.S. on both those organizations.

SEN. STEVENS: Well, would you submit to us any comments you might have on what might be done to increase the effectiveness of the WCPFC, and whether or not we might be in position to bring about a better relationship with the council.

MR. COOK: I will, thank you.

SEN. STEVENS: Thank you very much.

Let me go back to you, Mr. Benton. I -- based also on what Ms. Speers has said, I think we've been fairly -- we've acted quickly enough to put down some roadblocks to really entering into the zone directly, those of our own state. But I don't think we have been very effective with looking at the whole Arctic Ocean as it might impede on that area once we take down the barriers out. Am I right?

MR. BENTON: Thank you, Senator Stevens. Yes I think you are absolutely dead-on. I think that the fishery management Council took a very bold step. There was, you know, some trepidation there for a bit on their part when they first did it, but they, you know, they stepped up to the plate as they have often done for conservation, and that's a good step.

But when you look at the Arctic basins, sort of, look at the map, looking down on from the top, we've got a real challenge ahead of us here.

As Ambassador Balton pointed out, there are fisheries occurring on the Atlantic side now, and a lot of players over there -- those arrangements over there, even though they have arrangements, aren't working all that well. It's my understanding.

Our relationship with our Russian neighbor is not what it was a decade or so ago, to be quite honest. And I've also heard, as Ms. Speer mentioned, that overtures have been made to both Canada and Russia, and that Russia and Canada both were lukewarm.

Ad it seems to me that we do need to up the ante here. But I don't think that we can do it just from a top-down approach. I like the idea of you taking charge of this Arctic issue and giving it the profile it needs, because it does need it.

We also though, need to find the right people to talk with the -- the people on the ground on the Russian side, to get some support in Russia for that kind of action as well. That's how we did it before.

We worked both from the top and the bottom, and we got industry to industry discussions going on, we had, you know, the state of Alaska took a real role in working with folks in Vladivostok and Petropavlovsk to get support in the region for some of the initiatives we took in the past.

I think that if we explained it correctly, and if we had an initiative, such as, as Ms. Speer mentioned, and you've hinted out of maybe you taking charge of this, and taking it to the United Nations, and taking it to the Secretary of State, I think we could be very successful, and I think we can turn it around.

I don't see that kind of aggressive, coordinated strategy developing yet, and it needs to do that very quickly, because you're right, time is not on our side.

SEN. STEVENS: Well, we are planning to do just that. But one of the problems we have is the oil and gas development is coming at us too with the -- (inaudible) SAIL and the interest of Shell now in the Arctic Ocean.

I don't know if you realize it, but the revenue sharing provisions of the bill that passed in the last Congress excluded Alaska from participating in any of the revenues from the Outer Continental Shelf off our state.

Strangely enough, the revenues from any development off our state will go into this fund that was created by that legislation that is shared by a Florida and Louisiana and Texas, and parts of California.

I think that's right now an impediment. And I have had meetings with the oil industry. They agree. They think there should be a portion of that revenue to go to federal government dedicated to basic resource protection that comes from a revenue-sharing concept.

We are going to try to deal with that. But they -- the representatives of the oil industry also recognize that the fisheries issues are acute and want to be involved in approaching the people to make sure that the protection measures are in place.

So that if there is any damage that comes about from an initiation of harvesting of the fisheries, that they won't be blamed for that, frankly, and I understand their fear, because that is a totally virgin area for any kind of fishing.

And if the IUU people get in there, it's going to be an overwhelming damage immediately, and it would harm the future of the oil and gas prospects, I think.

Ms. Speer, do you have any knowledge of what happened in the Norwegian area? There has been oil and gas development there, as I understand it, in the same areas there's been some of the intrusion of the IUU fisheries. Are you familiar -- are you Mr. -- no -- you Ms. Speer, are you familiar at all with that area?

MS. SPEER: I'm not. Unfortunately, not with respect to the oil and gas interests there, but I think you are raising a really important issue. And the things that worries us most is the oil and gas development that's conducted on the Russian side.

It's not subject to the same kind of controls we have here, and a devastating event on the Russian side could have implications for the entire Arctic, including our zone, including our fishery.

And I think, having a larger engagement with the Russians over the future of the Arctic is going to be very important. I don't know how to make that happen other than to have a much higher level engagement than we have right now.

The president -- I know, your friend, Sylvia Earle was at the Easter egg roll with the president a few weeks ago, and she mentioned this. And she's very interested in trying to pursue this.

Maybe there's a way to get interest and engagement at the White House for moving forward with this that linked to the -- (inaudible) -- and other related issue.

SEN. STEVENS: You're right. She has very -- a great approach to all of these issues. And I enjoy working with her.

You've mentioned over-fishing on the high seas, and I assume you are speaking of the Gulf of Alaska. Where were you talking about in terms of your comments about fishing -- over fishing in the high seas?

MS. SPEERS: I was talking about over-fishing on the seamounts of the Northwest Pacific, which is a subject of the current negotiation going on between Japan and the United States, Russia and Korea, to negotiate a fisheries agreement as a result of the U.N. General Assembly's resolution.

This is a chain of seamounts that extends from the Northwest Hawaiian islands up to the Aleutians. And it's really an extraordinary area, and it's been over-fished for a long, long time, and it's continuing, and we are now learning the effects of that are --

SEN. STEVENS: What vessels are involved? Are these IUU vessels, or are these -- they are tuna fleets.

MS. SPEERS: Well, they are U vessels. They are unregulated vessels in terms of international controls. There are somewhere between two and eight Japanese vessels, there is one Korean vessel, and is an unknown number of Russian vessels. The Russians don't seem to have a good grip on how many vessels they have.

SEN. STEVENS: David you mentioned too --

MR. BENTON: Yes Senator, that seamounts chain that stretches from Hawaii towards the Aleutian Islands is where those fisheries are occurring now. And the fishing that is going on there is a definite concern.

The problem that I see, and I think the problem that Ms. Speer also sees is a piecemeal approach to dealing with this. There's equally large and important seamount provinces in the eastern North Pacific Ocean. They extend up into the Gulf of Alaska, and up into our own waters.

Right now, you know, it's not a really large fishery that's going on there, as Ms. Speers pointed out. You know, there's -- you know, probably maybe 20 vessels that over there, but they are having a very significant effect.

And if we have, sort of, a situation where we squeeze the balloon in the Northwest Pacific, then they're going to move over into our part of the world, or other fleets potentially can. That's why we support a comprehensive solution, one that covers the entire Pacific Ocean and deals with protecting areas like seamounts.

You know, the North Pacific Council closed the seamounts in own waters, and we did that in recognition that seamounts are a very unique habitat. Seamount fishing in other parts of the world has an important way of doing it, but -- and I think in -- off of Hawaii, you know, inside our own zone, we have pretty adequate controls on how you do that without damaging seamount resources.

But we won't see that in the international waters unless we get a comprehensive agreement and we get regulations put in place. But if we don't do that for the entire area between Asia and the Americas, we are not solving the problem, we're just moving the problem.

SEN. STEVENS: Do we have any information at all about any fishing that's up in the area of the Baffin Islands on the Canadian side?

MR. BENTON: Up in the Arctic side?

SEN. STEVENS: Yes.

MR. BENTON: There is, I think, some small nearshore coastal subsistence fisheries that are occurring up in that area, but nothing of any consequence.

SEN. STEVENS: -- (Cross talk) -- commercial fisheries out there, have you?

MR. BENTON: No. I don't believe there are any. And there is a very small semi-commercial fishery at the mouth of the Mackenzie River as well.

SEN. STEVENS: Well, I thank you very much, and I thank the chairman for allowing us to have this hearing in his absence, because I think it is important for us to get a record and proceed on it.

I do plan to have -- to approach the secretary and try to -- not only the secretary, but the state -- secretary of commerce in terms of a concept of trying to dig into this issue.

As I said, the area north of our state, I think, is totally a virgin territory. And north of the Wrangel Island and Russia too, I don't think there's been much, really, commercial fishing up there either.

So I do think that we have a chance to show what scientific management could bring, and maybe hold, as an example to the other countries of the Arctic, what can be done if they really assert their authority to protect the fish resources of the Arctic Ocean.

I -- most people seem to think the ice is going to disappear altogether. It will be there in the wintertime. We are not going to have any wintertime fisheries as I am told. But the summer fisheries could be just zip in and zip out. If we are not careful, if there's unregulated access to the Arctic Ocean, to the Bering Straits, we are going to be in trouble.

The concepts of Freedom of Navigation would apply to that area, and we have to find ways to limit that with regard to vessels that could do a great harm to the fish resources.

We have not mentioned the basic problem that a lot of the basic food chain for the fish resources of the North Pacific originate in the Arctic area. That's my information. And I do think that we ought to pursue it and make sure that information is correct.

Mr. Cook, the chairman sent -- gives you his apologies, but -- and I spoke to him. He deserves to be where he is. I hope he stays in bed, because he was not -- he had a bad cold.

Ms. Speer.

MS. SPEER: I just wanted to say one more thing. The United Nations is a terribly dysfunctional body. But it is a place where you can make progress. And people remember you. They're really do.

And I think there's a lot of discussion of Arctic issues, but people are looking for a leader. And I think if you came to the United Nations, it would have a very big impact in elevating this issue.

SEN. STEVENS: Well, I thank you for that. That's why I asked the chairman to allow us to have this hearing. You don't go up there until you are ready, and you have to be sure you have your own people with you.

The reason we succeeded in terms of the -- (inaudible) -- fishery was that we went from a hearing to Secretary Albright, and then to the U.N. together. You can't -- a senator can't rush up to the U.N. and say, look guys, listen to me.

It has to be representative of this country. They have to be behind at the center before that takes place. So I hope we can go from here and to the cabinet, and then to the president, and then to the U.N. And it will be much better if I had the president of the United States speaking to the U.N. about protecting the Arctic Ocean. I hope we can convince him to do that.

So thank you all very much. As I said, there may be questions submitted to any member here by members of the committee. There's a debate on the floor about housing, so I understand why they are not here, and I am. But I am where I want to be.

Thank you very much.

Source