Like Causes?

Install the App
TRY NOW

senate Bill S. 1335

Should the U.S. Implement an International Agreement to Manage Fisheries in the North Pacific?

Argument in favor

The international fisheries convention that this bill implements will make it easier for the U.S. to sustainably manage the fisheries of the North Pacific, and deter illegal fishing by foreign countries.

Mickb's Opinion
···
07/01/2015
Some protection of natural resources is better then none. Lets lead by example on this.
Like (4)
Follow
Share
Rick's Opinion
···
03/29/2016
The Earth's natural environment and resources need to be protected and regulated. Any arguments against based on "China won't follow the rules...." is the same reasoning as "people will run through traffic lights...."
Like (2)
Follow
Share
David's Opinion
···
07/08/2015
Managing fisheries is a good step toward bringing balance to the ecology of the region
Like (2)
Follow
Share

Argument opposed

An agreement is only as good as the willingness of those involved to stick to the terms, and with countries like China involved there’s cause for skepticism.

Loraki's Opinion
···
04/29/2016
This is part of the NWO agenda! Please read this carefully and consider the far-reaching implications! We are seeing more and more erosion of our national sovereignty! The UN starts toward new control over the world's oceans The United Nations has launched a far-reaching initiative that could give U.N.-sponsored authorities sway over the biological resources of the high seas—all the waters that lie outside national territories and economic zones. The potential shift in power involves multi-trillion-dollar issues, such as whether large areas—conceivably, as much as 30 percent-- of the world’s international waters should be designated as no-go areas to protect biological diversity; whether and how to require elaborate “environmental impact assessments” for future ocean development projects; and how to divide up the economic benefits from the future development of “marine genetic resources.” Eden Charles, a diplomat from Trinidad and Tobago who is serving as the chairman for a U.N. preparatory committee that began the discussions this week underlined to Fox News that the talks are at a “very, very preliminary stage.” Overall, the hoped-for treaty will cover “two-thirds of the oceans, almost half the planet,” says Lisa Speer, a senior official of the National Resources Defense Council (#NRDC), which is in turn a lead member of a squadron of 33 environmentalist groups banded together as the High Seas Alliance to lobby for protectionist measures during the talks. http://highseasalliance.org/ The rationale behind the discussions: easing the rising pressure on the world’s undersea #biodiversity wrought by over-fishing, #pollution, the drainage of nutrients and other substances from surrounding lands, disturbance of underwater seabeds, and fears of even greater threats from underwater industrial technology, including underwater exploration for #hydrocarbons. CLICK HERE FOR THE U.N. RESOLUTION MANDATING THE TREATY: http://www.foxnews.com/world/interactive/2016/04/07/prep-committee-on-marine-reserves-62015/ In U.N. terms, the discussions are proceeding at something like flank speed—that is, a lot slower than a melting iceberg bobbing in the north Atlantic. They began with the initial meeting on March 28 of the preparatory committee-- “prep-com” in U.N.-speak--of nations to discuss preliminary ideas until Friday, April 8. Another two-week prep-com session will take place in August, and two more next year. These are expected to result by the end of 2017 in draft language for a planned oceans treaty that could then be chewed over for another year or two in broader international sessions. The agreement that ensues from those discussions, however, is seen by some involved in its hoped-for creation as the salt-water equivalent of the Paris Agreement on climate change, which will be formally signed at an April 22 ceremony in New York—a global, permanent and legally-binding deal for the management of Earth’s last frontier, which will spawn further layers of regulation in years to come. “The climate negotiations showed the possibilities for us to come together,” Speer told Fox News. Like the climate treaty, the intended oceans treaty envisages transfers of marine technology and investment to developing nations as part of the deal , along with some still far-from-specified portion of the wealth derived from marine biological discoveries, including genetic breakthroughs. “One of the things we are looking at is how marine genetic resources will be conserved, sustainably used, and how the dividends will be shared,” says Speer. One of the biggest backers of the preliminary talks is the Obama Administration. Even though the U.S. has never ratified the 1982 U.N. Law of the Sea Convention—the new talks are aimed at creating an “implementing agreement” under the Law of the Sea umbrella—the Administration is deeply involved in the negotiations, as are some of the world’s most powerful environmental organizations. The U.S. also has a legal precedent for its involvement: its ratification in 1996 of another “implementing agreement” under the Law of the Sea Convention that orchestrated the activities of a variety of regional fisheries management organizations across international waters, allowed for international enforcement, and a variety of other measures. Ocean bio-preservation is also one of the 17 nebulous Sustainable Development Goals endorsed by all the world’s governments, including the U.S. last September. “The United States strongly supports conservation and sustainable use of the ocean and its resources, both within and beyond national jurisdiction,” a State Department official told Fox News. That included “increased cooperation and coordination among states, international bodies, and relevant stakeholders to achieve better conservation and management of high seas resources,” not to mention “better management and planning for multiple uses and activities where they occur in areas beyond national jurisdiction.” The Administration has already anted up domestically on some of the big-ticket possibilities under discussion, with, among other things, its huge expansion by executive order in September 2014 of the Remote Pacific Islands National Marine Monument in the central Pacific Ocean into a half-million-square-mile oceans preserve. U.S. environmental groups are lobbying now for additional marine monument areas off the coast of New England, site of some of the U.S.’s most important Atlantic fisheries. Such preserves—known as marine protected areas or MPAs, in Law of the Sea jargon—are a major focus of attention for the U.S.-based Pew Charitable Trusts, which has been lobbying governments around the world for years to create them. So are environmental impact assessments, or EIAs, which are a focus for the High Seas Alliance as well—a bid to create not only environmental protection standards but also public review processes that will give non-governmental environmentalists a greater voice in what would pass muster as acceptable future ocean resources development. Pew is the organization lobbying most loudly for a 30 percent set-aside of the high seas for preservation purposes—“although not completely no-take, no-use areas,” according to Elizabeth Wilson, director of the non-profit organization’s international ocean policy program, who attended several days of the New York meeting. Pew has also been funding pilot projects for satellite observation of protected zones as an efficient means of supporting law enforcement in the vast reaches of ocean that would be involved, as well as financing research that offers backing for the preserve concept. As the first prepcom session neared its end, Wilson said the diplomatic talks “had gotten a lot further into the details than we expected it to do at this stage,” and that “people were feeling pretty comfortable” with the concepts involved in the mammoth ocean discussions. Comfort with concepts, and agreement on terms, however, are still two greatly different things. Participants in the meeting were divided over such questions as whether a new accord would create a new international oceans authority to administer the exploitation of the world’s undersea biological resources, or whether ways could be found to expand existing authorities such as the regional fisheries management organizations and the International Seabed Authority, a U.N.-sponsored creation that is currently supposed to regulate undersea mining. One of the “most animated” areas of discussion, prep-com chairman Charles told Fox News, was how the rewards of the world’s undersea bio-heritage could be shared. “We do not yet have a legal code for their exploitation,” he declared. Some countries were arguing that all such resources be considered the “common heritage of mankind,” a code term for a socialist-leaning vision of shared international ownership. Other countries were emphasizing traditional “freedom of the seas,” which apparently would leave more room for private initiative. In the case of MPAs, he said, “some member states say we first need to take stock to determine if the need for an MPA is there,” while others “say not in all circumstances.” There is also conceptual disagreement on whether such protections always need to be permanent, he said. According to some scientific experts, there is also reason to question whether the undersea set-aside approach was really going to be all that effective in dealing with some of the world’s most pressing ocean problems, such as over-fishing. Ray Hilborn, an internationally known fisheries expert at the University of Washington in Seattle, is one of the skeptics. Co-author of a recent study that is the groundbreaking effort to estimate the historical extent of global fish stocks, he told Fox News that while over-fishing is a serious issue, “in the a big picture, we are not close to calamity at all.” The study he co-authored shows that “about 20 percent of the globe’s fish stocks are over-fished,” he said, and stocks of many of the major species that are commercially exploited “are in better shape than smaller fish stocks, essentially because they are better managed.” Many of the worst problems are in Pacific fisheries exploited by Asia, where the bigger issue is getting countries such as China and Korea to honor existing fisheries management organizations. While reforms of fisheries management are needed, the study says, “recovery can happen quickly, with the median fishery taking under 10 years to reach recovery targets.” Closed-off ocean areas, Hilborn says, “are the crudest possible tool for fishing management. All it does is move boats somewhere else.” George Russell is Editor-at-Large of Fox News. He is reachable on Twitter at @GeorgeRussell and on Facebook at Facebook.com/George.Russell http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/04/08/exclusive-un-starts-toward-new-control-over-worlds-oceans.html
Like (5)
Follow
Share
Pam's Opinion
···
11/06/2015
And what happens when we are the only ones in compliance?
Like (2)
Follow
Share
wsdraperv's Opinion
···
04/24/2016
China, Japan, fish quotas. Give me a break. We will abide by it, they won't. No one will police it. Pointless
Like (1)
Follow
Share

What is Senate Bill S. 1335?

This bill would implement the North Pacific Fisheries Convention, which is a treaty that seeks to strengthen the role of the U.S. in fisheries management of the North Pacific Ocean — which is defined as the area between the Bering Sea and the Northern Mariana Islands. Specifically, this Convention applies to portions of the North Pacific that are outside of a country’s exclusive economic zone.


The North Pacific Fisheries Convention was
ratified by the Senate in 2014, and puts in place safeguards against overfishing in the North Pacific that aren’t covered by existing international fisheries agreements.

It would be illegal to violate provisions of the Convention by committing any of the following actions:

  • Fishing without a permit, or refusing to allow an inspection of a fishing vessel;

  • Impeding an officer during the search, or resisting arrest;

  • Transporting, selling, buying, possessing, or transferring fisheries resources taken in violation of the Convention;

  • Violating any fishing regulation adopted under this legislation;

  • Failing to provide accurate information about fish harvested and provided to processors;

  • Failing to make, keep, or furnish catch returns and statistical records.

An exclusive economic zone notification would go out to all fishing vessels from countries participating in the Convention when they enter U.S. territorial waters. This would allow the U.S. Coast Guard to determine their destination, and the circumstances surrounding their presence in U.S. waters. Such a vessel would be required to stow all gear used for fishing activities where it isn’t readily available to be used for fishing, and allow an inspection to occur if one is requested.

In order to enforce the Convention, the North Pacific Fisheries Commission would be established with the other participating nations. Five U.S. commissioners would be appointed by the president, including two who work for the Dept. of Commerce, the Dept. of State, or the U.S. Coast Guard.

An 11 member advisory committee would be appointed by the Secretary of Commerce to examine proposals, programs, investigations, reports, recommendations, and regulations put forward by the commissioners. Members of the committee could serve up to three consecutive two year terms. and would be unpaid.

Specific responsibilities would be delegated to the Secretaries of State and Commerce, who would respond to proposals, decisions, and rules produced by the commission. The Dept. of Commerce would develop and enforce regulations in cooperation with the North Pacific Fishery Management Council, and the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council.

U.S. territories — specifically the Northern Mariana Islands — would be empowered to be involved in the process of implementing the Convention to a similar degree that other member nation's territories participate.

Impact

Fishermen and businesses involved in the fishing industry, the Coast Guard, the Depts. of Commerce and State, members of the advisory committee and members of the North Pacific Fisheries Convention, and the Secretaries of Commerce and State.

Cost of Senate Bill S. 1335

$500.00 Thousand
The CBO estimates that implementing this bill would cost less than $500,000 per year over the 2016-2020 period.

More Information

In-Depth: There are seven members of the North Pacific Fisheries Commission, including the U.S., Canada, China, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Russia. The Convention’s terms were agreed to by all parties on February 24, 2012, and it was signed by the U.S. on May 2, 2012 — but the passage of legislation implementing it is required before it can take full effect.

The sponsor of this legislation, Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-AK), said that:

“The North Pacific Fisheries Convention Implementation Act and the South Pacific Fisheries Convention Implementation Act will rightfully give the United States a voice and assert our influence in both the fisheries management and conservation decisions in the respective high seas areas of the Pacific Ocean covered by these treaties. Doing so will provide for our fishermen in the future, and help to protect their current activities for generations to come.”

This bill was passed by the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee via voice vote.


Of Note: The U.S. commercial fishing industry is associated with about 1 million U.S. jobs which provide more than $32 billion in income according to a 2011 analysis. In 2010, fishermen from Alaska, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, and California caught a total of more than 5 billion pounds of fish.

There are several species of migratory fish that travel into the high seas areas of the Pacific that would be affected by this legislation by increased conservation — including tuna, billfish, sharks, and swordfish. These species accounted for about 48 million pounds of fish caught in the five states bordering the Pacific Ocean during 2010.


Media:

Summary by Eric Revell
(Photo Credit: Flickr user born1945)

AKA

Ensuring Access to Fisheries Act

Official Title

A bill to implement the Convention on the Conservation and Management of the High Seas Fisheries Resources in the North Pacific Ocean, as adopted at Tokyo on February 24, 2012, and for other purposes.

bill Progress


  • Not enacted
    The President has not signed this bill
  • The house has not voted
  • The senate Passed May 17th, 2016
    Passed by Voice Vote
      senate Committees
      Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
    IntroducedMay 13th, 2015

Log in or create an account to see how your Reps voted!
    This is part of the NWO agenda! Please read this carefully and consider the far-reaching implications! We are seeing more and more erosion of our national sovereignty! The UN starts toward new control over the world's oceans The United Nations has launched a far-reaching initiative that could give U.N.-sponsored authorities sway over the biological resources of the high seas—all the waters that lie outside national territories and economic zones. The potential shift in power involves multi-trillion-dollar issues, such as whether large areas—conceivably, as much as 30 percent-- of the world’s international waters should be designated as no-go areas to protect biological diversity; whether and how to require elaborate “environmental impact assessments” for future ocean development projects; and how to divide up the economic benefits from the future development of “marine genetic resources.” Eden Charles, a diplomat from Trinidad and Tobago who is serving as the chairman for a U.N. preparatory committee that began the discussions this week underlined to Fox News that the talks are at a “very, very preliminary stage.” Overall, the hoped-for treaty will cover “two-thirds of the oceans, almost half the planet,” says Lisa Speer, a senior official of the National Resources Defense Council (#NRDC), which is in turn a lead member of a squadron of 33 environmentalist groups banded together as the High Seas Alliance to lobby for protectionist measures during the talks. http://highseasalliance.org/ The rationale behind the discussions: easing the rising pressure on the world’s undersea #biodiversity wrought by over-fishing, #pollution, the drainage of nutrients and other substances from surrounding lands, disturbance of underwater seabeds, and fears of even greater threats from underwater industrial technology, including underwater exploration for #hydrocarbons. CLICK HERE FOR THE U.N. RESOLUTION MANDATING THE TREATY: http://www.foxnews.com/world/interactive/2016/04/07/prep-committee-on-marine-reserves-62015/ In U.N. terms, the discussions are proceeding at something like flank speed—that is, a lot slower than a melting iceberg bobbing in the north Atlantic. They began with the initial meeting on March 28 of the preparatory committee-- “prep-com” in U.N.-speak--of nations to discuss preliminary ideas until Friday, April 8. Another two-week prep-com session will take place in August, and two more next year. These are expected to result by the end of 2017 in draft language for a planned oceans treaty that could then be chewed over for another year or two in broader international sessions. The agreement that ensues from those discussions, however, is seen by some involved in its hoped-for creation as the salt-water equivalent of the Paris Agreement on climate change, which will be formally signed at an April 22 ceremony in New York—a global, permanent and legally-binding deal for the management of Earth’s last frontier, which will spawn further layers of regulation in years to come. “The climate negotiations showed the possibilities for us to come together,” Speer told Fox News. Like the climate treaty, the intended oceans treaty envisages transfers of marine technology and investment to developing nations as part of the deal , along with some still far-from-specified portion of the wealth derived from marine biological discoveries, including genetic breakthroughs. “One of the things we are looking at is how marine genetic resources will be conserved, sustainably used, and how the dividends will be shared,” says Speer. One of the biggest backers of the preliminary talks is the Obama Administration. Even though the U.S. has never ratified the 1982 U.N. Law of the Sea Convention—the new talks are aimed at creating an “implementing agreement” under the Law of the Sea umbrella—the Administration is deeply involved in the negotiations, as are some of the world’s most powerful environmental organizations. The U.S. also has a legal precedent for its involvement: its ratification in 1996 of another “implementing agreement” under the Law of the Sea Convention that orchestrated the activities of a variety of regional fisheries management organizations across international waters, allowed for international enforcement, and a variety of other measures. Ocean bio-preservation is also one of the 17 nebulous Sustainable Development Goals endorsed by all the world’s governments, including the U.S. last September. “The United States strongly supports conservation and sustainable use of the ocean and its resources, both within and beyond national jurisdiction,” a State Department official told Fox News. That included “increased cooperation and coordination among states, international bodies, and relevant stakeholders to achieve better conservation and management of high seas resources,” not to mention “better management and planning for multiple uses and activities where they occur in areas beyond national jurisdiction.” The Administration has already anted up domestically on some of the big-ticket possibilities under discussion, with, among other things, its huge expansion by executive order in September 2014 of the Remote Pacific Islands National Marine Monument in the central Pacific Ocean into a half-million-square-mile oceans preserve. U.S. environmental groups are lobbying now for additional marine monument areas off the coast of New England, site of some of the U.S.’s most important Atlantic fisheries. Such preserves—known as marine protected areas or MPAs, in Law of the Sea jargon—are a major focus of attention for the U.S.-based Pew Charitable Trusts, which has been lobbying governments around the world for years to create them. So are environmental impact assessments, or EIAs, which are a focus for the High Seas Alliance as well—a bid to create not only environmental protection standards but also public review processes that will give non-governmental environmentalists a greater voice in what would pass muster as acceptable future ocean resources development. Pew is the organization lobbying most loudly for a 30 percent set-aside of the high seas for preservation purposes—“although not completely no-take, no-use areas,” according to Elizabeth Wilson, director of the non-profit organization’s international ocean policy program, who attended several days of the New York meeting. Pew has also been funding pilot projects for satellite observation of protected zones as an efficient means of supporting law enforcement in the vast reaches of ocean that would be involved, as well as financing research that offers backing for the preserve concept. As the first prepcom session neared its end, Wilson said the diplomatic talks “had gotten a lot further into the details than we expected it to do at this stage,” and that “people were feeling pretty comfortable” with the concepts involved in the mammoth ocean discussions. Comfort with concepts, and agreement on terms, however, are still two greatly different things. Participants in the meeting were divided over such questions as whether a new accord would create a new international oceans authority to administer the exploitation of the world’s undersea biological resources, or whether ways could be found to expand existing authorities such as the regional fisheries management organizations and the International Seabed Authority, a U.N.-sponsored creation that is currently supposed to regulate undersea mining. One of the “most animated” areas of discussion, prep-com chairman Charles told Fox News, was how the rewards of the world’s undersea bio-heritage could be shared. “We do not yet have a legal code for their exploitation,” he declared. Some countries were arguing that all such resources be considered the “common heritage of mankind,” a code term for a socialist-leaning vision of shared international ownership. Other countries were emphasizing traditional “freedom of the seas,” which apparently would leave more room for private initiative. In the case of MPAs, he said, “some member states say we first need to take stock to determine if the need for an MPA is there,” while others “say not in all circumstances.” There is also conceptual disagreement on whether such protections always need to be permanent, he said. According to some scientific experts, there is also reason to question whether the undersea set-aside approach was really going to be all that effective in dealing with some of the world’s most pressing ocean problems, such as over-fishing. Ray Hilborn, an internationally known fisheries expert at the University of Washington in Seattle, is one of the skeptics. Co-author of a recent study that is the groundbreaking effort to estimate the historical extent of global fish stocks, he told Fox News that while over-fishing is a serious issue, “in the a big picture, we are not close to calamity at all.” The study he co-authored shows that “about 20 percent of the globe’s fish stocks are over-fished,” he said, and stocks of many of the major species that are commercially exploited “are in better shape than smaller fish stocks, essentially because they are better managed.” Many of the worst problems are in Pacific fisheries exploited by Asia, where the bigger issue is getting countries such as China and Korea to honor existing fisheries management organizations. While reforms of fisheries management are needed, the study says, “recovery can happen quickly, with the median fishery taking under 10 years to reach recovery targets.” Closed-off ocean areas, Hilborn says, “are the crudest possible tool for fishing management. All it does is move boats somewhere else.” George Russell is Editor-at-Large of Fox News. He is reachable on Twitter at @GeorgeRussell and on Facebook at Facebook.com/George.Russell http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/04/08/exclusive-un-starts-toward-new-control-over-worlds-oceans.html
    Like (5)
    Follow
    Share
    Some protection of natural resources is better then none. Lets lead by example on this.
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    The Earth's natural environment and resources need to be protected and regulated. Any arguments against based on "China won't follow the rules...." is the same reasoning as "people will run through traffic lights...."
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    And what happens when we are the only ones in compliance?
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    Protecting fish protects our future.
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    Managing fisheries is a good step toward bringing balance to the ecology of the region
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    If China doesn't comply, blow their ships out of the water, I am sick of China
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    We have a group of guys with boats and guns to take care of the what ifs...don't we? A couple of them.
    Like (1)
    Follow
    Share
    International agreements are compromises between nations, where each gives up a supposedly equal amount of their rights. Unfortunately, the US Government seems to routinely give up more than other parties. Therefore, it is in our national interest to avoid international agreements of any sort until we are in a better position to negotiate, or are able to find or train negotiators who are more skilled.
    Like (1)
    Follow
    Share
    PROTECT OUR FISH AND SEAS
    Like (1)
    Follow
    Share
    If the government fines me for misconduct, do I get to deduct it from my taxes?
    Like (1)
    Follow
    Share
    Other countries will cheat like they always do.
    Like (1)
    Follow
    Share
    China, Japan, fish quotas. Give me a break. We will abide by it, they won't. No one will police it. Pointless
    Like (1)
    Follow
    Share
    If this is done, there needs to be measures in place that will force China to comply with it.
    Like (1)
    Follow
    Share
    If you can enforce with seizure like illegal drugs, then yes. Otherwise, what is the point?
    Like (1)
    Follow
    Share
    If the US does not belly up to this international issue the other nations will override our interests.
    Like (1)
    Follow
    Share
    That is wise to do for future generations.
    Like
    Follow
    Share
    The U.S. Has a comprehensive fisheries management program that will benefit Americans and our neighbors by ensuring the sustainability of fishing.
    Like
    Follow
    Share
    What's the consequences
    Like
    Follow
    Share
    Stop wasting time and money
    Like
    Follow
    Share
    MORE