77 



Testimony of the Center for Marine Conservation 



Before the 



House Subcommittee on Fisheries 



October 20, 1993 



Good morning Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. My name is Suzanne 

 ludicello. I am general counsel for the Center for Marine Conservation (CMC), a science 

 based advocacy organization dedicated to conserving the diversity and integrity of the oceans. 

 We appreciate your invitation and the opportunity to present testimony about marine fisheries 

 management today on behalf of ourselves and our colleagues in ICCAT Watch, a joint 

 initiative of World Wildlife Fund, the National Audubon Society, and CMC, created last year 

 to increase public scrutiny on the International Commission on the Conservation of Atlantic 

 Tunas aCCAT). 



You have asked for our comments on several aspects of the implementation of the 

 Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA): the effectiveness of domestic management of highly 

 migratory species, tiie U.S. role ICCAT, and recommendations for legislative changes to the 

 ATCA. Our proposals for change in the management of highly migratory species were 

 developed by the Marine Fish Conservation Network, a coalition of more than 30 

 conservation organizations and commercial and recreational fishing groups. A list of the 

 groups endorsing these proposals is attached to this statement. 



In brief answer to your invitation, we offer the following" 



1) The transfer of management of highly migratory species from the Fishery Management 

 Councils in 1990 has, in its implementation, shut out the public participation that has been the 

 cornerstone of fishery management since the Magnuson Act was enacted in 1976, and has 

 rendered the Magnuson Act irrelevant to the management of tunas and swordfish. 



2) Rather than assert its leadership at ICCAT, the U.S. has abrogated its own fishery 

 conservation goals to an international regime that has proven unable to stop die decline of the 

 species under its jurisdiction. 



3) The Magnuson Act must be amended to allow domestic fishery management actions for 

 large pelagic fishes (the so-called "highly migratory species") to be more restrictive than those 

 recommended by international agreement, when such action is deemed necessary to achieve 

 U.S. conservation and management goals. Additionally, we recommend that Congress return 

 management responsibility for large pelagics to the Atiantic Fishery Management Councils. 



1. Highly Migratory Species Management Remains Too LitUe. Too Late 



Despite the significant new authority provided by Congress in the 1990 Fishery 

 Conservation Amendments, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has been slow to 

 implement its authority and to develop fishery management plans (FMP) for highly migratory 

 species. (Plans developed by the Fishery Management Councils include billfish (1988) and 

 swordfish (1985)). It must be noted, however, that since enactment of the 1990 Amendments, 

 efforts by die Secretary of Commerce to exercise responsible management over highly 

 migratory species have been significantiy curtailed by Congress' failure to appropriate the 

 necessary level of funds for the Highly Migratory Species Unit within NMFS. In FY 1994, 

 for example, other than base funding and $700,000 for East Coast observers, no new money 

 was provided for the data collection, research and management needed to keep pace with 

 increased responsibility. 



