In the Northwest Atlantic area, in the principal ports of Massachusetts alone, in 1948 there were landed 573,000,000 pounds of fish. New England historically has found the banks area an essential part of its economy, and that still is so. METHOD OF NEGOTIATING THE CONVENTIONS Now I will speak briefly about the way we have gone about planning and negotiating these conventions. These have not primarily originated from the Department of State. We have consulted at length and on numerous occasions with everybody who is involved in the fisheries concerned. You see a number of representatives of the various unions present here; also boat owners and managers of factories in the industry are here. We have consulted thoroughly with the States which are involved in each case, and we have consulted everybody that we knew, all citizens of the United States that we knew, who were affected by these treaties, and we have the thorough support of all of these organizations and the States on all three of these treaties. We have appended to this statement a list of the organizations that have been involved. You will see it is rather complete. With regard to the Northwest Atlantic Convention, the following organizations favor the ratification of these treaties: Atlantic Fishermen's Union, representing all fishermen along the New England coast; Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, representing all the States along the Atlantic seaboard; Federated Fishing Boats of New England and New York, Inc.; Gloucester Fisheries Association; Massachusetts Fisheries Association; New Bedford Sea Food Producers Association; National Canners Association; and National Fisheries Institute. I think all citizens of the United States that are involved in the area of the Northwest Atlantic Treaty are associated with one of those organizations. Ι With regard to the United States-Mexican Tuna Convention, the following organizations favor ratification: Fish Commission of Oregon; California Division of Fish and Game; office of the attorney general, State of California; Lower California Fisheries Association, representing mostly the small boats in the area; American Turnaboat Association, representing the large clippers Mr. Cary is here representing them; Fishermen's Cooperative Association, representing the purse seine vessels; California Fish Canners Association, representing all the tuna packers, excepting the Columbia River Packers Association, which is also in favor; International Fishermen and Allied Workers of America, CIO, a fishermen's union; Fish Cannery Workers' Union of the Pacific, AFL; National Canners Association; National Fisheries Institute; Pacific Marine Fisheries Commission, representing all three of the west coast States; and the CIO Maritime Committee. We think we have consulted with everyone, and with all those we have consulted, there is thorough support behind these conventions. NO OPPOSITION Senator FULBRIGHT. Is anyone opposing it? Dr. CHAPMAN. No one is opposing it. We have searched for opposition. We have not found any. THE NEED OF INTERNATIONAL ACTION Now, to take up the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Convention more specifically. I will not dwell on its history and background. I think everyone here is very well versed on the close association of the fisheries of the Atlantic with New England. We have set it down in the statement, but I think there is no need for going into it at the present time. There has been definite need for international action in the area. In the first place, there is a need for investigation and probably conservation regulation in the New England banks area, where our fishermen primarily operate. There the fishery has been largely supported recently by the high prices and the ready market for any fish. That situation is beginning to fade at the present time, but during the war period, the market could handle the young haddock very handily. The older fish were apparently being fished out in the nearby banks, and the fisheries went heavier and heavier into taking the young fish, which is poor conservation, as everyone will realize. The rosefish fishery has bloomed and blossomed in the last 15 years in production, but many of the inshore banks have been fished out and there is a necessity on the part of the fishermen to go farther and farther for their fish. The American fleet is at an all time high; at the same time, the Canadian fleet is under some degree of expansion. The French fleet, the Portugese, the Spanish, the Norwegian, and the English fleets are all being expanded. Furthermore, there is a depletion in some of the fisheries of the North Sea area, where these foreign fleets ordinarily operate, and the fear has been on our part that with a decrease of fish on the other side of the ocean and a building up of a demand for fish over there, with the present ability of these large trawlers to work on either side of the ocean, at the same time we were having trouble on our own score, there would be more fishing intensity coming in from the other side of the Atlantic. THE SIGNATORIES TO THE NORTHWEST ATLANTIC CONVENTION Senator FULBRIGHT. Who are the signatories to this treaty? Dr. CHAPMAN. The signatories to this treaty are the United States, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Great Britain, France, Portugal, Spain, Italy, and Iceland. All of those countries have fisheries in the area, or have had them in the recent past, and some of the countries have been fishing in the area since before the United States was settled. Those are the ten countries signatory. Newfoundland is a signatory, but Newfoundland is now absorbed into Canada, and we have listed them as one. So we have hoped by this means to provide protection for our fisheries and administrative mechanism for maintaining the stocks of fish to permit maximum utilization. The convention applies to this entire area that is shown on the map. It was simply not possible to divide that into a smaller area and to just consider a smaller area, because the fishing efforts of the different nations are operated in different degrees in the different areas that are shown there. THE REASON FOR PANELS Now, when you have 10 nations operating together on a single commission it is not as effective as it would be if the commission were composed of a small number. So we thought it was desirable to have on a working level as few nations represented as possible, working on the individual problems. With that in mind, we split the area into five sub-areas which, so far as we know at the present time, represent quite well the biological and hydrographic areas, and to a large extent, too, they cut down the area into smaller political units. In this area, No. 5 [indicating on chart], for instance, only the United States and Canada fish at the present time. In this area, No. 4 [indicating on chart], the United States, Canada, France, and Italy fish. In area 3, nearly everybody fishes. In area 2, you have a fewer number of nations, and the Scandinavians come in there. In area 1, at the present time it is almost entirely the Scandinavian countries, Norway and Denmark. The French and English are now beginning operations there, but it is principally a Scandinavian operation. We don't operate to the north any more at all; we used to, but we do not at the present time. Senator GREEN. Would you explain more fully how the different regulations apply to these different areas? Dr. CHAPMAN. Yes. That is in the organization of the Commission. Senator GREEN. Or does it mean also that a limited number of nations have anything to say about the regulations in these areas? Dr. CHAPMAN. That is not quite so. I will explain the organization, if I may. For each of these panel areas, for each of the sub-areas, there is set up within the Commission a panel which works on problems of its particular area. That panel consists of a group chosen from the Commission, representing those nations who have either a coastline contiguous to the area or a fishery operating in the area. The primary operation of the Commission, therefore, will be at the panel level. The panel will work on the problems in its particular area and will make recommendations based on investigations. Senator GREEN. In other words, it is like a subcommittee, just as we are here. Dr. CHAPMAN. That is quite correct. Senator GREEN. Senator Fulbright and I-Senator Lodge isn't here are a subcommittee to the Foreign Relations Committee to make a report. We have no authority but to make this report. Now, is the same true of the panel? Dr. CHAPMAN. Yes, that is right. However, there is one variation which we have provided. In cases when the panel makes a recommendation to the commission and the commission does not choose to favor that recommendation, the commission may send it back to the panel with its recommendation for change; and if the commission will not agree to the recommendation of the panel, even as amended, then the panel may send the recommendation, with the comments of the commission as a whole, to the signatory governments for their action. So that the panels do have access to the signatory governments. REGULATIONS UNDER THE CONVENTION Senator GREEN. Who has the authority to enforce that? Dr. CHAPMAN. The panels have the ability to force their opinion through the commission to the signatory governments. Now, no regulations under this treaty are undertaken by the Commission. The recommendations do not become regulations until they are agreed to by the signatory powers which are involved in the panel area. Senator GREEN. Then any one power would have the right of veto, would it not? Dr. CHAPMAN. Any one power, that is, in a panel area. Norway, which is in panel 1, would have no power of veto whatever in area 5. Senator GREEN. Would this country have the power of veto in all? Dr. CHAPMAN. No. We are at the present time requesting membership on panels 4 and 5. After an initial 2-year period, each year the panel arrangement will be reconsidered by the Commission as a whole, and readjustment can be made. Senator GREEN. Then do I understand you correctly that each nation of these 10 is a party to the Commission Dr. CHAPMAN. That is right. Senator GREEN. But is not a party to the panel; is that correct? Dr. CHAPMAN. That is correct. Senator GREEN. But the panel has the regulatory power for a certain area; is that correct? Dr. CHAPMAN. That is not exactly right. It does not have regulatory power but recommending power. The regulatory power does not exist in the panels. The panels make recommendations, and if the signatory governments that are members of that panel are all in agreement, then that recommendation of the panel becomes a regulation which is applicable to all vessels of the contracting governments in the area. THE MAKE-UP OF THE PANELS Senator GREEN. And how is it determined to which panel a nation belongs? Dr. CHAPMAN. There is a list in the convention of the nations belonging to each of the panels. That may be adjusted between the time of signing and ratification. Senator GREEN. Is there a provision for additional members? Senator GREEN. Who assigns the additional members? Dr. CHAPMAN. A nation, to be assigned, would have to have a fishery in the area. So if an eleventh nation came in and it did not have a fishery in the area, it could become a member of the commission; but it would not be a member of a panel until it did establish a fishery in any one of the panel areas. Senator GREEN. Why should a nation join if it could be regulated after it joined but couldn't have a share in the regulation? Dr. CHAPMAN. I don't see any reason why it should. I am just saying that that is the way it would work. We have all fishing nations interested in the area now signatory to the pact. Senator GREEN. Those questions arose in my mind when I read that additional members would be well provided for in the convention. Dr. CHAPMAN. Yes. Well, there is a possibility that another nation might fish in the area. I think the Netherlands and Ireland, for instance, were both quite interested and desired actually to be represented at the convention. We did not extend an invitation to them just for that reason, that they were not at the present time fishing in the area, but in such instances that may arise in the future when they would reestablish a fishery in the area and would wish to be represented REGULATIONS EFFECTIVE ONLY AFTER APPROVED BY ALL GOVERNMENTS Senator FULBRIGHT. Do I understand that the regulations become effective only after approval by the Government? Dr. CHAPMAN. That is correct. Senator FULBRIGHT. The commission itself has no final power for any regulation, has it? Dr. CHAPMAN. No. Senator FULBRIGHT. It is purely a recommendation board, is it not? Dr. CHAPMAN. That is right. THE RIGHT TO FISH UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW Senator FULBRIGHT. Well, of course, under international law, any other nation would have a right to fish in these areas. Dr. CHAPMAN. That is correct. Senator GREEN. I don't say that these would bind any nation that isn't a party to it. Dr. CHAPMAN. That is quite correct. Senator GREEN. It is self regulation on the part of the 10 members. Dr. CHAPMAN. That is so. You will notice that question came up during the course of the meetings, and we put in a clause to the effect that the Commission or the 10 governments could make recommendations as a unit through diplomatic channels to a nation who did come in and was not abiding by the recommendations of the Commission. The thought was that the 10 countries would act as a unit in making diplomatic approaches to an 11th country that came into the area. Senator FULBRIGHT. Have you had any commission similar to this in the past? THE HALIBUT AND SALMON FISHERIES Dr. CHAPMAN. Yes, sir; we have had two commission, but only between ourselves and Canada. Today we have a long history of these commissions: the Halibut Commission since 1923 and the Salmon Commission since 1937. Senator FULBRIGHT. Will they be merged in this Commission? Dr. CHAPMAN. No. We have found through this long experience that the only practical way to handle these rather complex fishery problems is to have a commission for a particular set of problems. |