The marine monument established by the Obama Administration has “detrimental impact” on the “economy and property” of American Samoa as well as on the US fishermen, according to American Tunaboat Association executive director Brian Hallman’s testimony Wednesday before the U.S. House Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans hearing.

However, Dr. John F. Bruno, Professor of Biology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, argued that there is no evidence that sanctuaries and monument designation have any “negative affect on the tuna fisheries”.

Hallman and Bruno, who is also a marine community ecologist, were among three witnesses testifying at the subcommittee’s oversight hearing, which was streamed online, to examine the creation and management of marine monuments and sanctuaries.

According to Hallman’s official written testimony, the U.S. purse seine fleet consists of 40 vessels and about half of the fleet lands its catch in American Samoa where the tuna industry accounts for approximately 80% of the private sector economy, and where the tuna processing sector is the largest private employer.

He said the purse seine vessels that utilize American Samoa as a home port contribute significantly to the territory’s economy through the purchase of fuel, oil, deck supplies/other local supplies, maintenance/ repairs, hotels, restaurants, staff payroll, etc.

“We estimate that this economic contribution is between $50- 60 million annually, which is directly to the benefit of American Samoa’s economy,” he said and also provided the same dollar amount when asked by subcommittee members.

The other half of the US flag purse seine fleet, Hallman said, transships to canneries around the world, including in the United States — the country with the largest canned tuna market in the world.

Hallman was invited to discuss the impact of marine monument designations under the federal Antiquities Act on fishing, and, in particular, the US flag purse seine tuna fleet experience regarding marine monument designations.

He said, “Not only do marine monument fishing prohibitions make no sense, they are downright dangerous.”

He reminded the subcommittee about anti-fishing groups that have publicly stated their desire and intention to prohibit fishing in up to one third of the ocean, regardless of whether the fish stocks involved are already being managed and conserved, and regardless of the best scientific advice.

“This kind of approach to ocean governance could be devastating to sustainable fisheries,” he argued and pointed out — “there are reasons of both principle and practicality why marine monuments affecting commercial fishing are problematic.”

For example, he said a marine monument established by the Obama Administration which has a “detrimental impact” on the US fishermen, represented by ATA, and “on the economy and property... of American Samoa.”

Hallman said, “The main reason why fishing activities involving US fishermen should never be included in a marine monument designation is that all relevant fisheries are effectively conserved and managed by other legislative and legal means.”

For example, for fisheries under US jurisdiction, there is a Congressional mandated process established by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.

He went on to argue that prohibitions on fishing grounds of declared marine monuments are not based on science. “That is not to say that fishing area closures cannot be based on science,” he noted. “In fact, science-based area closures do exist and have at times proven to be effective fisheries management measures.”

Hallman told the committee that existing systems for the conservation and management of fisheries are rigorous and well established, involving some of the best fisheries scientists in the world.

He also addressed the 2014 expansion of the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument expansion plan (PRIMNM) by the Obama administration that was done without input from the public or the fishing fleet.

“These closures involved traditional and productive US fishing areas,” he said, adding that the initial intention was to prohibit all commercial activity but was later modified following “an uproar” from US fishing interests — including ATA — the American territories in the region, tuna science experts, and the Western Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Council (WPRFMC).

“These areas are traditional fishing grounds for US flag tuna vessels operating mainly out of American Samoa and Honolulu,” he explained.

“From a practical point of view, the fishing closures dictated by the US monument areas and US EEZs in the central Pacific, along with like closures of fishing areas within the EEZ of Kiribati and areas on the high seas by US regulations, have been estimated to cost the Territory of American Samoa upwards of $100 million dollars annually as estimated by NOAA Fisheries,” he said.

Hallman went on to say that ATA “strongly supports” a call — via letter — last week from US Rep. Rob Bishop, chairman of the House Committee on Natural Resources and American Samoa’s Congresswoman Aumua Amata asking President Trump to remove all marine monument fishing prohibitions and reinstate fisheries management in accordance with federal law. (See Samoa News edition Mar. 8 for details of the letter.)

“For the longer term, to further ensure that the existing fisheries management processes are respected, it would seem that legislation to restrain future unilateral executive branch actions prohibiting fishing in these types of situations would be appropriate,” he said.

Hallman gave verbal opening remarks summarizing several issues in his official written statement. And prior to him delivering his remarks, Amata introduced Hallman. She, along with other subcommittee members, also questioned Hallman.

Also questioned by Congressional members was Bruno, with one question pertaining to fishery marine reserve or monument areas.

Bruno said the small reserve areas “have absolutely no impact on fishery catch — the tuna fishery” in the Pacific Remote Island marine monument, adding that that catch is “about 1% of their (purse seine) total catch. That’s obviously a tiny amount. The fish move through the monument, so they can’t possibly be locked up in the monument.”

“And finally, this is a quota based fishery. So there’s a certain number of fishes that the tuna boats are allowed to catch every year,” he pointed out. “The monument designation has zero impact on that number. So it does not in anyway restrict the number of tuna being caught. In fact tuna catches have been going up in recent years post sanctuary implementation.”

“So overall there is no evidence that the sanctuaries has any negative affect on the tuna fisheries, despite what Mr. Hallman has testified. And there’s good evidence to suggest that they have benefited... the fisheries because it has increased, and gone up,” he said.

As part of his official written statement and opening verbal remarks, Bruno said marine reserves are a proven policy tool that can lead to win-win ocean stewardship. He cited a couple of examples, such as, dozens of studies indicate that well-designed and strictly enforced reserves increase the density, diversity and size of fishes, invertebrates and other marine organisms important to recreational and commercial fishermen.