have to steam much farther from port in order to find commercial quantities. Ten years ago, even five years ago, the bulk of the catch of rosefish was taken within 150 miles of Gloucester and Boston, in the Gulf of Maine and South Channel. Now many vessels are forced to travel to Sable Island and Banquero bank, 500 to 600 miles from port in order to return with a pay load. Catches of halibut have gradually dwindled through the years until today they constitute an insignificant quantity. The catches of cod from the New England banks are likewise reduced and accordingly an increasing number of lengthy and expensive trips to the Nova Scotian banks have become necessary. The general scarcity of groundfish on the New England banks has not been disastrous to the fishing industry only because of the very high prices being paid for fish since the end of the war. Should a more serious drop in the price of fish develop, the value of the United States groundfish landings, if they remain at the present low level, may be so small as to have a serious financial effect upon the domestic industry. The United States otter trawl fleet is at present larger than at any other time in history. In addition, the fleets of many European countries have been rapidly expanding. Certain fisheries in the North Sea and other important European fishing areas have apparently become depleted to such an extent that they are producing reduced poundages. It is possible that depletion of European banks might result in a shift in the operations of many European vessels to the Northwest Atlantic. With the expected heavy exploitation of the fisheries of the Northwest Atlantic, the question of maintaining the highest possible level of productivity becomes increasingly important and urgent. The present scarcity of fish on the New England banks, and the probable increase in fishing pressure by our own and by foreign vessels, indicates the extreme value of providing means for determining if the decline of the fisheries can be stopped and if production can be increased in the future. For example, our fishery biologists are certain that the protection of small haddock would substantially increase the future landings. A great deal of research would of course be necessary to find out how increases for haddock and for other species could be obtained. To put into effect any changes which, as a result of such research, are found to be useful in increasing the production of these fisheries, some sort of regulation would be necessary inasmuch as voluntary restrictions of fishing effort have little chance of success. The offshore fishing banks of the Northwestern Atlantic are fished by nationals of many countries besides the United States. Thus, if the various New England States, or the Federal Government, regulated the fishing methods to be used by United States fishermen, while the other countries were free to use whatever methods they wished, little help would be afforded the fisheries. Regulations therefore, must be put into effect by agreement of the various countries who, at present and in the furure, fish the banks of the Northwest Atlantic. Scientific study of these fisheries, a prerequisite to any regulations, would also be undertaken best on an international scale, with a pooling of scientific facilities and the knowledge of fishery experts of all the interested countries. It is emphasized that the purpose of any regulations, which might grow out of scientific study following an international fisheries agreement, would be designed to increase the sustained production of these fisheries. It is not contemplated that any regulation would be recommended without adequate scientific evidence proving that the proposed measure will actually serve that purpose. Provisions of the Convention Area and species.-The International Convention for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries applies to an area, excepting territorial waters, generally within the boundaries of 39° north latitude on the south, 42° west longitude on the east up to the southern tip of Greenland and along the western coast of Greenland northward to 78°10' north latitude and awestern boundary of the coasts of Canada and the United States. The over-all area is divided into five subareas covering waters off (1) the west coast of Greenland, (2) Labrador, (3) Newfoundland, (4) Nova Scotia, and (5) New England, as described in the annex to the convention (appendix V). The subareas can be altered only upon unanimous recommendation of the panel or panels affected. The convention applies to those species of fish which support international fisheries in the convention area. These generally may be called the "ground" fish, for instance, the haddock, cod, rosefish, and so on. Signatories. The nations concerned, based upon either contiguity to or current fisheries interest in the convention area are the United States of America, Canada (which now includes Newfoundland), Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Norway, Portugal, Spain, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. 1 Reservation to the convention.-The exclusion of territorial waters from the convention area raised the question of the definition of territorial waters and resulted in the inclusion in the convention of article I, paragraph 2, which reads, "Nothing in this convention shall be deemed to affect adversely (prejudice) of a coastal State over fisheries." Much discussion at the Conference centered around this clause as it affected the general question of territorial waters. The Conference finally approved the clause with the exception of the French and Spanish delegations, which included a statement in the final act indicating that they could not agree to paragraph 2 of article I, and therefore signed with reservation. The reservation was made since the Conference, with the exception of the French and Spanish delegations, considered that article I, paragraph 2 merely indicated that this convention did not in any way affect the question of territorial waters or other jurisdiction, while the French and Spanish delegations considered that if any mention were made it should contain a clear definition of the limits of jurisdiction, which limits could not be modified without the consent of all contracting governments. There were no other reservations. Provisions for administration, investigation, and regulation. The convention establishes an International Commission for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries in which each contracting government shall have one vote and to which it may appoint not more than three Commissioners, who may be aided by experts and advisers. The Commission, as a whole, is responsible, in the field of scientific investigation, for obtaining, collating, and disseminating the information necessary for maintaining those stocks of fish supporting international fisheries in the convention area. For this purpose it is to collaborate with or act through existing agencies, and, when necessary, it may act independently. In the final act the Conference states that it is not contemplated that independent investigations conducted by Commission personnel or equipment would include field operations. The contracting governments are required to furnish the Commission with the necessary statistical information at the time and in the form the Commission shail designate. The convention includes a panel form of organization within the framework of the Commission. There are five panels, one for each of the five subareas. The panels will not exercise direct regulatory powers but will have the power, through the Commission, to recommend measures to the contracting governments for maintaining the fisheries in its subarea at a level permitting the maximum sustained catch. For 2 years after the convention has been in force panel representation for each subarea shall be as follows: Subarea I-Denmark, France, Italy, Norway, Portugal, Spain, United Kingdom; subarea II-Denmark, France, Italy, Newfoundland; subarea III-Canada, Denmark, France, Italy, Newfoundland, Portugal, Spain, United Kingdom; subarea IV-Canada, France, Italy, Newfoundland, Portugal, Spain, United States; subarea V-Canada, United States. This list, contained in the annex to the convention, may be modified by the time the convention enters into force, since it is provided that until that time any signatory or adhering government may withdraw from or be added to the list of panel members for any subarea. After the convention has been in force for 2 years, panel representation will be reviewed annually by the Commission, which shall have the power, subject to consultation with the panel concerned, to determine representation on the basis of current substantial exploitation of fishes of the cod group, of flat fish, and of rosefish in the subarea concerned, except that each contracting government with coastline adjacent to the subarea shall have the right of representation on the panel for the subarea. Decisions of the Commission shall be taken by a two-thirds majority of the votes of all the contracting governments, and decisions of a panel by a two-thirds majority of the votes of all the governments participating in that panel. Article VIII of the convention establishes machinery by which the recommendations of a panel for regulation may be put into effect. The article provides that the Commission may, on the recommendation of one or more panels, and on the basis of scientific evidence, transmit to the United States, as the depository Government, proposals for joint action by the contracting governments, designed to keep the stocks of those species of fish supporting international fisheries in the convention area at a level permitting the maximum sustained catch. Such recommendations could provide for the fixing of seasons, size limits, the kinds and specifications of gear, the closing of areas and the imposition of an over-all catch limit. When a recommendation is made by a panel or panels the Commission may transmit it, with such modifications or suggestions as the Commission seems desirable, as a proposal, through the depository Government, to the contracting governments, or it may refer it back to the panel for reconsideration. If, following reconsideration by the panel, the Commission is still unable to adopt the recommendation as a proposal, it sends a copy of the recommendation with a report of the Commission's decision, through the depository Government, to the contracting governments. If a proposal is accepted by all the contracting governments participating in the originating panel or panels, it shall become effective for all other contracting governments within a specified time with regard to the subarea or subareas to which the proposal applies. The Commission may also transmit its own proposals affecting the convention area as a whole, after consultation with all the panels. At any time after the expiration of 1 year from the date on which a proposal becomes effective any contracting government, represented on the panel for the subarea to which the proposal applies, may give the United States, as depository Government, notice of termination of its acceptance of the proposal. One year later, if the notice is not withdrawn, the proposal shall cease to be effective for that contracting government. Thereafter any other contracting government may terminate its participation in the proposal, effective on the date their notice of withdrawal is received by the depository Government. Status of ratification All nations represented at the Conference signed the convention under date of February 8, 1949. No instruments of ratification have as yet been deposited. With respect to United States action in this regard it is suggested that in view of the particular interest of this Government in the convention, early ratification would be desirable. Implementation of the convention The convention will enter into force upon the deposit of instruments of ratification by four signatory governments. It was recommended by the Conference that upon the entry into force of the convention the United States Government, as depository for the convention, should take the initiative in convening the first meeting of the Commission. The permanent seat of the Commission will be in North America at a place to be determined by the Commission. It was also recommended by the Conference that in the interim between signing and ratification of the convention the fishery biologists of the several countries might advantageously be drawing up preliminary plans for the scientific work of the Commission. Canada agreed to take the initiative in beginning this work. Advisory committees Advisory committees are provided for in article V of the convention. At the discretion of the government concerned, it is provided that such committees may be established including fishermen, vessel owners, and others well informed concerning the problems of the fisheries of the Northwest Atlantic Ocean. All groups actively interested in the fisheries in question may thus be adequately represented by the Advisory Committee to the United States Commissioners. A representative or representatives of a committee may attend as observers all nonexecutive meetings of the Commission or of any panel in which their government participates, with the consent of the contracting government concerned. Cost to the United States In accordance with the provisions of article XI and the estimate contained in the final act, with full panel participation as indicated in the annex to the convention, the United States share of the administration expense of the Commission for the first fiscal year would be approximately $3,500. United States participation at Commission meetings, based upon experience with the similar International Pacific Salmon Fisheries Commission, would require approximately $5,000. Since it is indicated in the final act that it is not contemplated that investigations conducted by Commission personnel or equipment would include field operations, and that such investigations should be conducted insofar as possible by existing agencies, the operational costs of the convention should consist primarily of any additional funds required by the Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, for expanded investigatory operations in the area. Interested organizations in the United States Consultations with-Their views The United States position and the draft of the convention which the United States offered at the conference were the results of several years of consultation and exchange of ideas among the Department of State, other Federal agencies, and all groups interested in the Northwest Atlantic fisheries. That position was, therefore, one in which every shade of opinion was reflected.. With respect to the Federal departments, extensive exploration was undertaken, not only with the Fish and Wildlife Service of the Department of the Interior, but also, having regard to enforcement phases of the convention, with the Coast Guard and Bureau of Customs. In addition, the Departments of Justice and Commerce were consulted throughout the whole period. All these agencies have indicated their concurrence in the convention. In this connection, there were included in the United States delegation which negotiated the convention two officers of the Fish and Wildlife Service and an officer of the Coast Guard. In addition, advisers were present during the negotiations from the Bureau of Customs, United States Tariff Commission, and Department of Commerce. Consultation between the Federal Government, the interested States, and the industry groups concerned has likewise been a continuing process. In developing the United States position, at least six formal meetings were held between representatives of the Federal Government and of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. The Commission, as is well known, is comprised of State fisheries officials and representatives of the fishing industry, and includes in its membership all States along the Atlantic seaboard. Frequent informal discussions as well were held between the two groups. Concomitantly, full and open discussions were held with representatives of management and labor in the New England fishing industry, and in May and December of 1948 Federal officials visited State capitals and principal fishing ports along the coast from Maine to New Jersey to consult local State and industry representatives. Consultation with these groups continued throughout the negotiations. Indeed, 4 of the 10 members of the United States delegation were chosen from the State, management, and labor groups. These were: Mr. Thomas Fulham, president, Federated Fishing Boats of New England Mr. Wayne D. Heydecker, secretary-treasurer, Atlantic States Marine Mr. Patrick McHugh, secretary-treasurer, Atlantic Fishermen's Union Mr. Richard Reed, Commissioner, Sea and Shore Fisheries, State of Maine. In addition, prior to the conference in Washington in February of this year, a blanket invitation was extended by the Department of State to all interested parties to come to Washington to participate in informal daily consultations with the United States delegation during the negotiations. Not only did local representatives of the National Canners Association and National Fisheries Institute accept this invitation, but so did fishermen and trade organization officials come from Gloucester, New Bedford, and Boston. No single one of these groups or individuals have indicated opposition to the convention. On the contrary, from all the knowledge that the Department has been able to gather, their strong support appears unanimous. TUNA CONVENTIONS-UNITED STATES-MEXICO AND UNITED STATES-COSTA RICA History and background Since the early 1920's, various attempts have been made to arrive at a basis for the establishment of a United States-Mexican Fisheries Commission to deal with fisheries problems of common concern to the two countries. Such a commission did come into being in 1926, under the terms of the convention between the United States and Mexico to prevent smuggling and for certain other objects. That Commission failed, among other reasons, because of conflicts among the State of California, the Federal Government, and the affected industry. Attempts to resolve these conflicts continued steadily over the years, and resulted finally in meetings being held between fishery officials of the United States and Mexico during the years 1944 and 1945. At these meetings, an endeavor was made to reach agreement on a wide range of fisheries matters, including both economic and conservation aspects. There was no unanimity of opinion, either within this country or between the United States and Mexico, and no treaty was concluded. The need for an agreement continued, however, and in 1948 the proposal was made that a convention providing only for a Commission for the Scientific Investigation of Tuna would serve a double purpose in that it would furnish sorely needed information regarding these fisheries and would, in addition, provide administrative machinery by means of which the two countries could work together on fishery problems of mutual concern. This approach proved acceptable to the industry, the Pacific Coast State governments, and, after negotiation, to the Mexicans. The present convention resulted. In the meantime a group of problems had arisen between the United States and Costa Rica regarding their joint development of the tuna fisheries in that area. Costa Rica became concerned over the possible depletion of the stocks of fish which supported the bait fisheries in her territorial waters. Questions arose over the jurisdiction of the fisheries lying in the high seas off Costa Rica, the possible depletion of the tuna stocks, the possible destructiveness of certain types of gear, and so on. In 1947 Costa Rica requested the loan of a fishery expert from the United States to study the situation. As a result of that mission, it was recommended that a convention be concluded between the two countries to establish a joint commission to investigate problems of common concern. Nothing developed along those lines at that time. Shortly after the signing of the United States-Mexican convention, the Government of Costa Rica renewed its interest in such a commission. In the meantime Peru and Ecuador had made informal inquiry about the possibility of a similar convention. At the request of the Costa Rican Government, negotiations were undertaken in May of this year, on the basis of a desire by Costa Rica to engage in a convention basically similar to the Mexican convention. With the concurrence of Costa Rica, and having in mind that other countries in the tropical tuna area had expressed similar interests, the Costa Rican convention was constructed so these other countries might, at a later date, adhere to the convention and by doing so become full members in the cooperative studies. These two conventions, being based on substantially similar drafts, contain so many identical provisions that they will be considered together. Area The Mexican convention covers the "waters of the Pacific Ocean off the coasts of both countries and elsewhere as may be required." The Costa Rican convention covers "the waters of the eastern Pacific Ocean fished by the nationals of the high contracting parties." The description of the areas in both of these conventions was purposely left indefinite by the negotiators for the following reason: Knowledge regarding the area covered by any of the kinds of tuna included in the conventions is scanty in the extreme. It is known that tuna are fast-swimming, far-ranging fish, but little else is known about them. It is quite possible, for instance, that the yellowfin which are found off Ecuador in one season are the same identical fish which are found off Costa Rica in another season, and off southern Mexico in a third season. It will not be possible to define more closely the area of work of the Commissions until more is known about the migratory habits of the fish. The United States negotiators felt that there was satisfactory evidence that little admixture took place between the tuna populations in the Eastern Pacific and the central Pacific. In consequence, the United States position was that the area of the convention should be confined to the eastern Pacific. This view prevailed in the Costa Rican negotiations. The Mexicans, however, insisted upon the broader interpretation because they felt that the restriction on the area of convention waters possibly might be construed as a restriction on the area in which Mexicans might fish. It is anticipated that this difference in area of work between the two conventions will have no practical effect on the actual work of the Commissions set up under the conventions. A space of 2,000 miles and more extends between the tuna fisheries of the eastern Pacific and any tuna fisheries now operating or likely to begin operation in the reasonably near future to the westward. There is a necessary overlap between the areas of the two conventions, since both yellowfin and skipjack, which are the primary species of interest in the Costa Rican convention, are also an important element of the fishery off southern and central Mexico. Species The Mexican convention covers yellowfin, bluefin, and albacore tuna, bonitos, yellowtails, skipjacks, and the kinds of fishes commonly used as bait in tuna fishing. The Costa Rica convention covers yellowfin and skipjack, "other kinds of fish taken by tuna-fishing vessels," and "the kinds of fishes commonly used as bait in the tuna fisheries, especially the anchovetta." This difference in language places emphasis on the yellowfin, skipjack, and anchovetta, which are the species |