Testimony of Marine Conservation Institute To Presidential Taskforce on Combating Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated Fishing & Seafood Fraud

Transcription

1 Testimony of Marine Conservation Institute To Presidential Taskforce on Combating Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated Fishing & Seafood Fraud August 28, 2014 Lindsay Jennings, Policy Fellow Mike Gravitz, Director of Policy and Legislation 122 C Street, N.W. #240 Washington, DC

2 Introduction: On behalf of the Marine Conservation Institute, thank you for allowing me to provide comments to the Presidential Taskforce to combat illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing, aka pirate fishing. Marine Conservation Institute is dedicated to securing permanent, strong protection for the oceans most important places for us and future generations. Marine ecosystems are essential for human survival, wealth and well-being, and are the Earth s biggest life support system. As a leader in the global movement to protect and recover the integrity of vast ocean areas, Marine Conservation Institute uses the latest science to identify important marine ecosystems around the world and then advocates for their protection. We work with scientists, politicians, government officials and other organizations to identify key threats to areas in the sea and then build workable solutions to protect them. Too often illegal fishing happens in the very areas we are trying to protect, so often that these marine protected areas are sometimes labeled marine poaching areas. Our organization is therefore working to combat illegal fishing not only for the security of global fish populations and the people who depend on them but also for the places those fish call home. The Problem: The term pirate fishing has been highlighted recently in international news, as it should be, given that it accounts for $10-$23 billion annually in internationally traded seafood. To compound the problem, IUU fishing has also been linked to food shortages in developing countries, environmental degradation of many marine ecosystems, political turmoil, slave labor, and the movement of other illicit cargo, like drugs and weapons, which all pose threats to many countries national security and stability. Since the United States is the second largest importer of seafood in the world, we are undoubtedly contributing to this significant threat to global food security, stability and ocean health. U.S. laws, regulations, and government resources devoted to monitoring and enforcement allow these illegal catches to enter our ports every day. These imports affect our national economy, American fishermen, and coastal fishing communities. Using publicly available sources of information and simple, straightforward economic assumptions, Marine Conservation Institute estimates that the U.S. allows the import of approximately $1.85 billion of wild-caught IUU seafood each year; and there are many reasons to believe the number could be a good deal higher as the U.S. s major seafood export source countries rank much higher than average on the percentage of their seafood thought to be IUU. Using this relatively conservative number, the U.S. imports over $5 million of IUU seafood each day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year. This level of Marine Conservation Institute 1

3 pirate seafood has impacts on U.S. fishermen and the communities they live in. The Marine Conservation Institute will be releasing our report on the state by state economic impacts of IUU fishing from which these numbers are derived, in the near future. But potential impacts range from: $600 million of revenue lost per year in Alaska, at ports like Dutch Harbor and Bristol Bay $200 million lost in Massachusetts, including at ports like New Bedford and Gloucester $25 and $28 million lost in North Carolina and Maryland, respectively If we assume and there are many complicating factors underlying this assumption that we deal with in our forthcoming report- that much of this IUU seafood can eventually be replaced with domestically caught and processed product, the U.S. could slowly reclaim a net 31,000 jobs in the harvest, processing and distribution sectors of the U.S. seafood industry. While nationally these jobs are a small drop in the bucket, for states with a large fishing industry and in the communities where these jobs would be added, these are significant numbers of jobs. When IUU imports are replaced with sustainable, domestically caught seafood, we look forward to seeing the rewards go to: U.S. fisherman who are sacrificing to make the strict management regime under Magnuson-Stevens work, to local seafood processors, and to consumers who may prefer to buy and consume safe, sustainably harvested domestic seafood. Our Proposal for Short Term Progress: So what can we do to capture this $1.85 billion dollar opportunity, those 31,000 jobs, and close down the market for IUU fish in the U.S.? Unfortunately, the scope and scale of this issue is so large, that there are no single silver bullets. One thing is clear to us: we must begin with a foundation of strong, clear, and enforceable laws that make IUU products much harder to bring into the U.S. Preventing IUU imports is key, but there are other important remedies for this problem (such as the SAFE Seafood Act for increased labeling and traceability, IMO numbers for all fishing vessels, mandatory AIS/VMS for location monitoring of larger vessels and eliminating the ability for illegal vessels to easily change flag states), and we support many of them. However, we strongly believe that there are some simple, easy things to do that could be done in the short term. We ought to take these initial, relatively easy steps now. The House and Senate have two very straightforward pieces of legislation HR. 69: the Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated Fishing Enforcement Act of 2013 and S. 269: the International Fisheries Stewardship and Enforcement Act before them. If adopted, the Marine Conservation Institute 2

4 bills would streamline enforcement rules and penalties for IUU fishing on the high seas and bringing IUU products into the U.S. We believe that remedies like seafood traceability and mandatory IMO numbers are absolutely necessary to solve this problem in the long term, but we also believe that the time frame for adopting these statutes and regulations is likely to be much longer than passing these simple, bipartisan bills. Why not give the appropriate authorities like NOAA s Office of Law Enforcement, the Office of the General Counsel, the Justice Department s Natural Resources Division and the Coast Guard the additional tools they can use now to more effectively enforce existing statutes and fishing treaties and help reduce the level of IUU seafood imported into the US? Although different types of IUU fishing can be prosecuted under at least a dozen current laws, HR. 69 and S. 269 would streamline and harmonize enforcement provisions under a single section of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, making monitoring and enforcement actions on the water and in court cases easier for enforcement and prosecutorial personnel. It is not a secret that illegal fishing is hard to detect and prosecute, especially on the high seas where enforcement is lacking. Foreign fishermen, processors, and sometimes importers have become adept at skirting the rules and regulations and evading law enforcement. Laws that are difficult to enforce are enforced poorly. Both pieces of legislation can strengthen and streamline the enforcement of ten high seas international fishing treaties for more efficient detection of illegal fishing and seafood shipments into the U.S. The House bill (HR. 69) would authorize additional enforcement measures: searching and/or inspections of facilities and shipment records, shipment detainment, and searching, and seizing of illegal products. It would require the identification and listing of nations and vessels that violate conservation measures required under international fisheries management bodies which the U.S. is a party. The Senate bill (S. 269), essentially an analogue to the House version, aims for the same goals in bettering enforcement, but also prohibits importing, exporting, transporting, selling, receiving, acquiring or purchasing IUU seafood. Furthermore, it would prohibit vessel owners and/or crew to refuse to allow an officer to inspect the vessel, shipments, records, accounts, labels etc. Another bill, the Pirate Fishing Elimination Act (S. 267), would implement the Agreement on Port States Measures to Prevent, Deter, and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing, which the Senate ratified earlier this spring. S. 267 would make the Port States Measures Agreement operational and make it illegal to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire or purchase any fish or fish product that was caught in violation of any international treaty or any conservation or management measure. This treaty and statute would strengthen the power of the existing Lacey Act. Marine Conservation Institute 3

5 Additional Important Measures: In addition to enforcement statutes, I want to focus on how NOAA enforces the fishery laws around our Pacific territories, national marine monuments, and around the world so as to reduce IUU or pirate fishing. To begin, the U.S. and other nations enforce fishery laws with a mix of 18 th century to 20 th century technology and legal frameworks that need to be brought into the 21 st century. Some fishing vessels carry an internationally recognized boat identifier the IMO number- like a vehicle identification number here in the U.S.; but most do not. Without a unique international identifier, fishing boats engaging in illegal activity can simply change identities when seen or caught. While some fishing vessels carry ship-to- shore self-identification systems (Vessel Monitoring System VMS) and ship-to-ship and shipto-satellite systems (Automatic Identification System AIS), most do not. Some U.S. vessels even carry automatic monitoring equipment that allows compliance personnel to watch fishing effort from 1,000 s of miles away. While some vessels carry the flag of the country where their owners reside or where the boat is home ported, many carry flags of convenience issued by countries that take little or no responsibility for the safety of the boat or the legality of its actions. While a few fisheries track where, when and how their fish are caught and transfer that information in a way that can t be tampered with to the next stage of the value chain, most seafood is not tracked that way. The standard elements of any decent monitoring and control system are: vessel identification, vessel location, vessel operation, vessel ownership and product traceability. Unless each of these areas is brought into the 21 st century, IUU fishing will continue to be a worldwide problem. What would a 21 st century integrated monitoring and control system look like? Fortunately, the pieces of such a system do exist; they just have never been put together and used as a whole system. Someday, we believe all the elements of this system will be in place to protect some of our most valuable and threatened places and make the source and conditions of capture for our seafood transparent. To get there, we need a program at NOAA to do research and development on integrating these new technologies and the money to pilot test them in real life situations. To really encourage better enforcement to spread internationally, the US needs to implement international agreements like the Port States Measures Agreement. With fewer countries or ports to land IUU fish in, and fewer places to sell the seafood, the incentive to engage in this activity will begin to wither. Marine Conservation Institute 4

6 Summary of Additional Measures for Improved Marine Law Enforcement: All fishing vessels over a certain size or capacity should be equipped with a unique vessel ID from the IMO or other international organization. The number should be visible on the boat. Changing or modifying that number on the vessel should be highly penalized. The IMO should investigate and clean up the flag of convenience process whereby IUU vessels are moved cheaply from one flag to another to avoid detection and prosecution. Flagging countries responsible for too many such vessels should lose this international privilege, and their right to flag should be jeopardized. Edible fish imports to the US should eventually be required to be accompanied by verification from the producer or exporter that AIS/VMS was used on board when the fish was caught by a vessel(s) and accompanied by vessel ID number(s). When fully prototyped and phased in, and if the costs outweigh the benefits, the U.S. should require imports to be accompanied by date, location, gear, species/common name, etc. on each package of fish. There should be stiff penalties for false information. In the meantime, all imported seafood should be labeled with the country of origin, no matter where it is processed or prepared. Consumers should know where their seafood comes from regardless of its status as raw or cooked, frozen, fresh, canned or preserved. NOAA, U.S. Coast Guard, and the Departments of State and Justice should develop an improved framework beyond the biennial Black List for reducing IUU fishing. This listing process is not working very well. Additionally, there should be harmonization across all lists from individual countries and RFMOs. We recommend a much shorter process leading to the banning of seafood imports from offending countries. The current system is unreasonably slow and balky. The Congress should establish a research, development and pilot program for advanced technologies for marine monitoring, vessel identification, and enforcement and the Administration should fund it, perhaps from adding a small surcharge to the tariffs on imported fish. Congress should require basic information about fishery enforcement activity and case load to be provided to relevant committees and the public on some periodic basis. The U.S. is a global leader in fisheries management, having rebuilt 36 stocks since the Magnuson Stevens Act was reauthorized in American fishermen who have sacrificed their businesses and livelihoods to abide by the rules and catch limits set forth by the MSA should not be punished by having illegal catches compete with their Marine Conservation Institute 5

7 domestically-caught products. Let s level the playing field and reward them for following the rules. While we understand these pieces of legislation will not be a panacea to curb IUU fishing completely, they offer a bipartisan, quick, and cost-effective way to begin to address this issue in our county and our own ports. When we stop allowing illegal fish and vessels to enter our ports, American fishermen, coastal communities, and the entire seafood sector wins. Marine Conservation Institute 6