Hearing on International Treaty Agreements (POPS, PIC, Albacore Tuna, South Pacific Tuna Access, and Polar Bear)

Introduction

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before this Committee today to discuss five important international agreements -- the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, with annexes, done at Stockholm May 22-23, 2001 (“POPs”); the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade, with annexes, done at Rotterdam September 18, 1998 (“PIC”); the Agreement Amending the Treaty Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Canada on Pacific Coast Albacore Tuna Vessels and Port Privileges, effected by exchange of notes July 17 and August 13, 2002 (“Albacore Tuna Treaty”); Amendments to the 1987 Treaty on Fisheries between the Governments of Certain Pacific Island States and the Government of the United States of America, done at Koror March 30, 1999 and Kiritimati March 24, 2002 (“South Pacific Tuna Access Agreement”); and the Agreement Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Russian Federation on the Conservation and Management of the Alaska-Chukotka Polar Bear Population, done at Washington October 16, 2000 (“Polar Bear Treaty”).

These agreements directly affect the health and economic well-being of the American people. They embody concepts and ideas that we cherish, such as creating economic opportunities and preserving our ecosystems. Hazardous chemicals, like POPs, respect no boundaries and can harm Americans even when released abroad. They are of particular concern because of their impacts on human health and the environment in places such as Alaska and in the Great Lakes Region. Indigenous people in Alaska and elsewhere in the United States are particularly at risk due to their reliance on a subsistence diet. Meanwhile, in the fish industry, changes are needed to permit more effective control over fishing for albacore in U.S. and Canadian waters. In American Samoa, tuna provided by U.S. fishing vessels supplies tuna canneries that serve as the lifeblood of the economy in this region. If these jobs disappear, political and economic instability would result. Much further North, we find the beauty and majesty of a living marine resource -- the polar bear -- the population of which could be depleted in the absence of adequate safeguards.

U.S. negotiation of these agreements sought to address these and other issues of direct benefit to Americans. They uphold our notion of U.S. sovereignty, ensuring that the voice of the United States is heard in appropriate cases, through measures such as consensus-decision making or the ability to decide whether to opt in to significant new legal commitments. Additional legislative authority will, however, be needed to implement certain of our obligations under these agreements.

Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs)

The Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, or the POPs Convention, aims to protect human health and the environment from twelve chemicals that are of particular concern because they have four intrinsic characteristics. First, they are toxic and known to have deleterious health or environmental impacts. Second, they have the potential to bioaccumulate, meaning that they work their way through the food chain by accumulating in the fat of living organisms and become more concentrated as they move from one creature to another. Third, they are stable and thus resistant to natural breakdown. Fourth, they can be transported over long distances.

The 12 POPs chemicals, known as the “dirty dozen” covered by the POPs Convention are: aldrin, hexachlorobenzene, chlordane, mirex, DDT, toxaphene, Dieldrin, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), endrin, polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (dioxins), heptachlor, and Polychlorinated dibenzo furans (furans). Each of these chemicals has been linked through solid scientific information to adverse human health effects, including cancer, damage to the nervous system, reproductive disorders, and disruption of the immune system. Many of these chemicals are also known to cause deleterious environmental effects, including egg shell thinning and other effects. All 12 of these chemicals are already banned or tightly controlled in the United States.

Nevertheless, U.S. action alone is not enough. These chemicals are still in use, or are being released, in many places abroad, particularly in developing countries. The reality is that POPs are capable of impacting human health and the environment far away from where they are released; they respect no national boundaries. POPs released in East Asia or Northern Europe have been shown to travel all the way to Alaska. As a result, POPs can have impacts all over the United States, and have been of particular concern in Alaska and in the Great Lakes Region. Thus, as President Bush remarked in announcing U.S. plans to sign the POPs Convention, “[t]he risks are great and the need for action is clear. We must work to eliminate, or severely restrict the release of these toxins without delay.”

Under the POPs Convention, parties commit to taking steps similar to those already taken by the United States to eliminate or restrict the production, use, and/or release of the 12 POPs. The Convention will also restrict trade in intentionally produced POPs and includes obligations with respect to the treatment of POPs stockpiles and wastes. All of these control measures were carefully negotiated, keeping in mind the impact they could have in light of existing uses of these chemicals. As a result, the Convention allows certain exemptions to its control measures where they were deemed necessary, such as the need for DDT, for example, to fight malaria in Africa, in line with World Health Organization guidelines until locally safe, effective and affordable alternatives are available.

The Convention also recognizes the situation of less-developed nations, which have fewer resources to phase out their use of these chemicals of global concern. In order to lend them a hand in addressing this threat, the Convention includes a flexible system of financial and technical assistance by which developed countries will help developing countries meet their obligations under the POPs Convention. The Global Environment Facility has already initiated action to provide financial assistance to developing countries to help them implement the Convention.

Finally, the POPs Convention creates a science-based procedure that will govern the inclusion of additional chemicals to the Convention, and defines the criteria that must be met by proposed chemicals. These criteria insure inclusion of substances that are toxic, that bioaccumulate, that are resistant to natural breakdown and that can be transported over long distances. In accordance with Article 8, paragraph 7(a) of the Convention, this science-based procedure will involve an evaluation of whether “the chemical is likely as a result of its long-range environmental transport to lead to significant adverse human health and/or environmental effects such that global action is warranted . . .” Inclusion of such science based procedures and criteria in the Convention make it an important vehicle in protecting human health and the environment in the United States from the harmful impacts of these POPs chemicals wherever they may be used in the world. It is particularly important that the United States ratify the Convention so that we are at the table when it enters into force and issues of importance to the United States are decided.

Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade

The Rotterdam Convention on Prior Informed Consent (PIC), which was concluded in 1998 under the auspices of the UN Environment Program and the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, was the first international agreement designed to protect human health and the environment from the risks posed by trade in toxic chemicals. The Convention recognizes that, while the United States and other developed countries have strong systems in place to deal with risks presented by imported chemicals, many countries lack the resources and capability needed to assess and control such risks. In order to address this issue, the Convention establishes a system of information sharing and technical assistance that promotes sound, risk-based decision making for chemicals management in all countries.

The Convention stipulates that export of certain especially hazardous chemicals that have been banned or severely restricted in some parts of the world can only take place with the prior informed consent (PIC) of the importing country. Prior informed consent is enabled by the creation of an internationally recognized summary of the chemical’s risks and basis for control measures (known as Decision Guidance Documents). When exported, these chemicals must be labeled and accompanied by safety data sheets that explain their potential health and environmental effects. Importing countries are also required to inform the other Parties in a timely manner of any controls they would be placing on the import of PIC listed chemicals. In addition, countries must also ensure that any such controls they place on imports also apply to domestically produced PIC chemicals. Thus, the agreement enhances the safe management of chemicals by enabling countries, especially developing countries, to identify risks and make informed decisions about the importation and use of highly dangerous chemicals.

The Rotterdam Convention builds upon an existing voluntary PIC procedure that is already being implemented by the United States, with participation from major U.S. chemical manufacturers, and 150 other countries. The treaty signatories agreed to continue to implement the procedure on an interim basis until it comes into force. Thus, during this interim period, 5 additional pesticides have been added to the list of 27 chemicals developed during the voluntary PIC procedure; participants have agreed to exchange information and respect import decisions even before the Rotterdam Convention enters into force. These interim decisions must be approved by the first Conference of Parties (COP), but it is expected that the Rotterdam Convention will cover these same chemicals and provide for the addition of new chemicals to this list through a science-based process and on the basis of consensus among the Parties.

It is important to note that, in the case of both the POPs and PIC Conventions, a significant number of countries have already deposited their instruments of ratification and both Conventions are expected to enter into force in the relatively near future. Upon entry into force, Conferences of the Parties (COP) will be established and begin making critically important policy decisions on the implementation and future evolution of these treaties. For example, decisions on the rules of procedure, financial rules, noncompliance procedures, and consideration of new chemicals could all take place soon after these two treaties enter into force. If the United States is not a Party to these agreements by the time their respective COPs meet, we will not be in a position to influence major policy decisions that could directly affect U.S. interests. As a result, the Administration is seeking Senate advice and consent to these treaties at the earliest possible date. The Administration is separately working with the appropriate congressional committees to craft the necessary implementing legislation for these two treaties that we will need enacted before the United States may become a party to them.

Amendments to Agreement with Canada Concerning Pacific Coast Albacore Tuna Vessels and Port Privileges

The 1981 U.S.-Canada Albacore Treaty permits unlimited fishing for Pacific albacore tuna by vessels of each Party in waters under the jurisdiction of the other Party. Since the entry into force of the Treaty, most of the tuna appear to have shifted their migratory patterns in a southerly direction. As a result, U.S. fishermen have fished significantly in Canadian waters only in approximately three out of the last 20 years, while Canadian fishermen have continued to fish regularly in U.S. waters.

The imbalance in benefits flowing from the treaty has become particularly acute in recent years. Since 1998, Canada has more than doubled its albacore tuna fishery in U.S. waters, from its historical average of less than 100 vessels to 200 or more vessels per year. The U.S. albacore fishing industry began in 2000 to complain to the Administration of overcrowding on U.S. fishing grounds and the disproportionate benefits received by Canadian fishers under the Treaty.

The United States entered into negotiations with Canada with a goal to reduce Canadian fishing effort in U.S. waters to tolerable and more equitable levels and to create a fishery limitation mechanism for both Parties that could respond to future needs to conserve and manage the stock. The negotiations culminated in an Agreement to amend Article 1(b) of the Treaty to allow for a mutually agreed limitation on the previously unlimited albacore fishery by vessels of each Party in each others’ waters. The Administration seeks the advice and consent of the Senate to this amendment.

The United States and Canada also agreed to an initial 3-year reciprocal fisheries limitation regime that reduces the permitted fishing effort each year until a level is reached in the third year that is slightly above the pre-1998 average level of fishing. This related agreement to amend the Annexes to the Treaty sets out the initial regime in a new Annex C as well as making a few minor technical changes to Annex A. The related agreement has been concluded, pursuant to Article VII of the Treaty, by executive agreement, but will not enter into force until the Amendment to the Treaty enters into force. Prior to entry into force of the treaty amendments, implementing legislation will also be necessary. The Senate passed such legislation at the close of 2002, but the House adjourned before taking action. The Administration hopes that the legislation will be re-introduced and enacted soon.

Amendments to 1987 Treaty on Fisheries with Pacific Island States

Since 1987, the Treaty on Fisheries between the Governments of Certain Pacific Island States and the Government of the United States of America has contributed substantially to U.S. foreign policy in the Pacific region, as well as to our commercial and security interests in the region. Under the Treaty, U.S. vessels have enjoyed access to fish in the rich tuna fishing grounds in waters under the jurisdiction of the Pacific Island Parties.

The original regime of the Treaty lasted for 5 years. In 1993, the Parties extended it for an additional 10 years. Now, they have agreed to extend the regime for 10 more years, until 2013. In doing so, the Parties have also negotiated several relatively minor amendments to the original Treaty, as described in the Report of the Secretary of State to the Senate, and for which the Administration seeks the advice and consent of the Senate. The extension of the regime also entails a series of amendments to the technical annexes to the Treaty, a new related economic assistance agreement and a memorandum of understanding on provisional application. These amendments to the annexes and the memorandum of understanding were previously transmitted by the Administration earlier this year as part of our treaty package.

The Amendments to the Treaty will, among other things:

(1) allow U.S. longline vessels to fish in high seas portions of the Treaty Area;
(2) streamline the way future amendments to the Treaty Annexes enter into force;
(3) allow the Parties to consider the issue of fishing capacity in the Treaty Area; and
(4) promote consistency between the Treaty and an emerging multilateral fisheries management convention, which is likely to come into force in the next few years.

Existing legislation, including the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and the South Pacific Tuna Act of 1988, provides sufficient legal authority to implement continuing U.S. obligations under the Treaty. Thus, no new legislation is necessary in order for the United States to ratify these Amendments. However, a minor amendment to Section 6 of the South Pacific Tuna Act will be necessary to allow U.S. longline vessels to take advantage of the opportunity afforded by the amendment to the Treaty that opens the high seas of the Treaty Area to fishing by U.S. longline vessels.

Agreement with Russian Federation on the Conservation and Management of the Alaska-Chukotka Polar Bear Population

Polar bears are a potentially threatened species that live in the circumpolar North and are unique to five countries: the United States, Russia, Canada, Norway, and Denmark’s Greenland. They are an important part of a sensitive ecosystem, and know no national boundaries. Polar bears also continue to be essential to the survival of Native Alaskan people as a renewable subsistence resource upon which they have depended for centuries.

The United States has long recognized our common interest in the responsible management of shared polar bear resources. Since 1976, we have been party to the 1973 Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears, along with the other four states where polar bears are found. The 1973 Agreement did several things.

First, it generally prohibited the hunting, killing or capturing of polar bears.

Second, it created several exceptions to this prohibition, including one for local people using traditional methods in the exercise of traditional rights, in accordance with applicable laws.

Third, it required the parties to coordinate and consult on research, management of the species, and the exchange of information.

Fourth, the 1973 Agreement explicitly allows Parties to adopt more stringent controls than those required under the Agreement itself.

The Polar Bear Treaty signed by the United States and Russia in 2000 would provide legal protections for the Alaska-Chukotka polar bear population beyond those found in the 1973 Agreement. It would establish a common legal, scientific, and administrative framework for conserving and managing the polar bear population shared by the United States and Russia. This framework is needed because of concerns over the widely different polar bear harvest provisions and practices of the United States and Russia. As I just mentioned, the 1973 Agreement allows local people to take an unlimited number of polar bears for subsistence purposes. Our own law, the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) similarly authorizes Alaska Natives to take polar bears for subsistence purposes so long as it is done in a non-wasteful manner. However, despite Russia’s general prohibition on hunting polar bears, harvest of this population is now occurring at levels that, when combined with the Alaskan legal subsistence harvest, could deplete the population. The MMPA, however, does not authorize limitations on Alaskan subsistence harvests until after the population is found to be depleted. The negotiated agreement would coordinate harvest restrictions to prevent such an unsustainable combined harvest by both Native people.

Discussions between the United States and Russia on a bilateral treaty to conserve our shared Alaska-Chukotka polar bear population began in 1992. The State Department and the Department of the Interior (Fish and Wildlife Service) jointly led subsequent negotiations. Alaska and Chukotka Natives and other public and private stakeholders also participated in these negotiations.

The Polar Bear Treaty with Russia continues to recognize subsistence use of polar bears from the Alaska-Chukotka region by Native people. At the same time, however, it includes a definition of sustainable harvest level, reflecting a clear obligation to conserve the population while safeguarding the interests of the Native people. It would also establish a joint management mechanism by creating a U.S.-Russia Polar Bear Commission that would, by consensus, establish quotas to ensure that subsistence take of polar bears on both sides is consistent with maintaining that population at sustainable levels. The Treaty includes provisions to ensure representation of the interests of the Native people of Alaska and Chukotka and equitable allocation of take between them. Finally, the joint research and population assessment mechanisms foreseen in the Treaty would constitute an ongoing means for assessing the environmental impact of removals from the population.

The Administration seeks prompt Senate action on this Treaty as it would establish a common legal, scientific and administrative framework for the conservation and management of the Alaska-Chukotka polar bear population, promote responsible management of the Alaska-Chukotka polar bear population at sustainable levels, preserve the interests of the Alaskan Native people, and enhance our collaborative efforts with Russia to conserve a treasured natural living resource.

Conclusion

Protecting our health, fostering international trade and serving as stewards of our resources are integral parts of U.S. foreign policy. U.S. ratification of these agreements will reinforce our leadership role in negotiating treaties that save lives; promote economic stability; and protect natural resources. Our implementation will encourage similar action by other nations.