The GIFA's approved by the Transition Act, as amended, were the agreements with Bulgaria signed on Dec. 17, 1976 (TIAS 9045; entered into force on Feb. 28, 1977); with Romania signed on Nov. 23, 1976 (TIAS 8825; entered into force on Jan. 18, 1977); with the Republic of China signed on Sept. 15, 1976 (TIAS 8529; entered into force on Feb. 28, 1977); with the German Democratic Republic signed on Oct. 5, 1976 (TIAS 8527; entered into force on Mar. 4, 1977); with the Soviet Union signed on Nov. 26, 1976 (TIAS 8528; entered into force on Feb. 28, 1977); with Poland signed on Aug. 2, 1976 (TIAS 8524; entered into force on Feb. 28, 1977); with the European Economic Community signed on Feb. 15, 1977 (TIAS 8598; entered into force on June 9, 1977); with Japan signed on Mar. 18, 1977 (TIAS 8728; entered into force Nov. 29, 1977); with the Republic of Korea signed Jan. 4, 1977 (TIAS 8526; entered into force on Mar. 3, 1977); with Spain signed on Feb. 16, 1977 (TIAS 8523; entered into force on Mar. 10, 1977); and with Mexico signed on Aug. 26, 1977 (TIAS 8852; entered into force on Dec. 29, 1977).

The texts of the GIFA's between the United States and the Soviet Union, the European Economic Community, and Japan may be found in 16 International Legal Materials (1977) 62-71, 257-264, 287–294, respectively.

For further information concerning the Transition Act and the Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, see the 1976 Digest, Ch. 7, § 4, pp. 356–358.

On May 17, 1977, President Carter transmitted to Congress a Governing International Fishery Agreement between the United States and Cuba for review by Congress for 60 calendar days of continuous session pursuant to the provisions of the Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1821-1825). The agreement had been signed at Havana on April 27, 1977, for the United States by Terence A. Todman, Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs, and for the Republic of Cuba by Pelegrin Torras, ViceMinister of Foreign Affairs. President Carter noted that this agreement was significant because it was the "first to be negotiated personally by representatives of the two governments since 1958." The agreement entered into force on September 26, 1977 (TIAS 8689). H.R. Doc. No. 95-157, 96th Cong., 1st Sess., 1 (1977).

Reciprocal Fisheries Agreement

On July 26, 1977, the Fishery Conservation Zone Transition Act was amended by an Act (Public Law 95-73; 91 Stat. 283) to give effect during 1977 to the Reciprocal Fisheries Agreement between the United States and Canada signed on February 24, 1977. A Senate Report ordered to be printed on June 29, 1977, by Senator John J. Sparkman, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, described the background of this legislation dealing with the U.S.Canadian Reciprocal Fisheries Agreement and the relationship between this legislation and the Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 in part as follows:

BACKGROUND

The United States and Canada are now in the process of negotiations designed to conclude long term agreements on maritime boundaries, Pacific salmon interceptions and comprehensive bilateral fisheries. Three separate negotiations were conducted with Canada on these matters during 1976 with the aim of concluding them before January 1, 1977, when the Canadian 200-mile fisheries zone went into effect. However, the complexity of the issues frustrated this goal. It was necessary to conclude an interim arrangement, the United States-Canadian Reciprocal Fisheries Agreement, to insure that each Nation's fisheries would be allowed to continue when both countries extended their fishery jurisdictions to 200 miles.

In negotiating this interim agreement, the United States attempted to satisfy the following specific interests:

continuation of important U.S. fisheries in the Canadian zone during 1977, without regard to a determination of surplus by the Canadian domestic management system;

relief for U.S. fishermen from the permit and related administrative requirements that would otherwise apply under Canadian regulations in the Canadian zone;

continuation of recreational fishing by U.S. nationals in Canadian waters without additional new permit and other administrative requirements that would otherwise apply under Canadian regulations in the Canadian zone;

continuation of scientific cooperation and consultation between the United States and Canada on fishery matters of mutual concern; and

special arrangements in the disputed boundary areas, which would not prejudice the U.S. position on maritime boundaries.

RELATIONSHIP TO THE FISHERY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ACT (FCMA)

Section 201 (a) of the Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Public Law 94-265) states that no foreign fishing may be carried out in the U.S. 200-mile fishery zone unless it is authorized under an existing fishery agreement, treaty or Governing International Fishery Agreement (GIFA), and is pursuant to a permit developed in accordance with the domestic management system. The following explanation provided by the Department of State sets forth the reasoning why this agreement was not negotiated as a Governing International Fishery Agreement under the FCMA:

The agreement satisfies the expressed interests of U.S. fishermen in allowing U.S. fishing to go forward in the Canadian zone during 1977 without regard to a determination of surplus by the Canadian domestic management system and without the requirements of permits and related conditions which would otherwise apply under Canadian law. Satisfaction of these U.S. interests required reciprocal accommodation of Canadian interests in the U.S. zone.

The necessary reciprocal accommodation of interests is not possible under the terms of the Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (FCMA). Specifically, the agreement allows Canadian fishing to go forward in the U.S. zone without regard to a determination of surplus by the U.S. domestic management system. It also allows Canadian fishing to go forward without the requirement of permits and, therefore, does not require Canadian vessels to meet all the conditions and restrictions that the FCMA says may be part of a permit. At the same time, the agreement preserves the right of the U.S. domestic management system to develop management plans. Should those plans place restrictions on U.S. fishermen, Canadian fishermen would be obliged to abide by the same restrictions. Therefore, though the Reciprocal Fisheries Agreement is consistent with the U.S. domestic management structure, it is at variance with certain other provisions of the FCMA as they would otherwise apply to Canada during 1977. For this reason, the agreement is not a governing international fishery agreement, as contemplated by the terms of the act. Accordingly, the agreement cannot be brought into force under the 60-day congressional oversight provisions in section 203 of the act.

The Reciprocal Fisheries Agreement thus must either be submitted as a treaty, for the advice and consent of the Senate, or to both Houses of Congress for legislative action to establish the legal basis to allow Canada to fish in our zone during 1977. Given the interim nature of the agreement, the interests of both Houses of Congress in its provisions and the need for rapid action, approval of the agreement by both Houses seems an appropriate way of bringing it into force.

S. Rep. No. 95-317, 95th Cong., 1st Sess., pp. 1-4.
The text of P.L. 95-73 reads in part as follows:

SEC. 5. RECIPROCAL FISHERIES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA

(a) CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL.-The Congress hereby approves the Recip rocal Fisheries Agreement between the Government of the United States and the Government of Canada (hereinafter in this section referred to as the "Agreement"), as contained in the message to Congress from the President of the United States dated February 28, 1977. The Agreement shall be in force and effect with respect to the United States during the period beginning March 1, 1977, and ending at the close of December 31, 1977.

(b) APPLICATION.-During the period when the Agreement is in force and effect with respect to the United States

(1) vessels and nationals of Canada may fish within the fishery conservation zone, or for anadromous species and Continental Shelf fishery resources beyond such zone, but only pursuant to, and in accordance with, the provisions of the Agreement; and

(2) title II of the Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (relating to foreign fishing and international fishery agreements) and section 307 of such Act of 1976 (relating to prohibited acts) shall not apply with respect to fishing within the fishery conservation zone, or for anadromous species and Continental Shelf fishery resources beyond such zone, by vessels and nationals of Canada which is pursuant to, and in accordance with, the provisions of the Agreement.

(c) FISHING STATISTICS.-(1) Any person who-
(A) owns or operates any fishing vessel which-

(i) is a vessel of the United States, and

(ii) engages in fishing to which the Agreement applies; or

(B) directly or indirectly receives, or may receive, fish to which the Agreement applies in the course of a commercial activity in quantities determined by the Secretary to be sufficient to assist in the carrying out of this paragraph,

shall submit to the Secretary such statistics (including, but not limited to, catch data) regarding such fishing or such receipt of fish as are necessary to fulfill the obligations of the United States under article XIII of the Agreement. The Secretary, after consultation with the Secretary of State, shall issue such regulations as are necessary and appropriate to carry out the purposes of this paragraph. Section 303 (d) of the Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (relating to the confidentiality of statistics) shall apply with respect to all statistics submitted under this paragraph.

(2) Any violation of paragraph (1), or of any regulation issued pursuant to paragraph (1), by any person shall be deemed to be an act prohibited by section 307 of the Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976. Any person who commits any such violation shall be liable to the United States for a civil penalty as provided for in section 308 of such Act of 1976. Sections 309 (relating to criminal offenses) and 310 (relating to civil forfeiture) of such Act of 1976 shall not apply with respect to any such violation.

(d) DEFINITIONS.-As used in this section, the terms "anadromous species", "Continental Shelf fishery resources", "fishery conservation zone", "fishing", "fishing vessel", "Secretary", and "vessel of the United States" shall have the same respective meanings as are given to such terms in section 3 of the Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976.

91 Stat. 283-284.

U.S.-Brazil

The United States and Brazil entered into an agreement concerning shrimp in an exchange of notes on May 1, 1977. The agreement permitted access for 90 U.S. flag vessels to conduct shrimp fishing activities from March 1 through December 31, 1977, in a designated area lying north and west of the Amazon River delta within 200 miles of the Brazilian coasts. Under the terms of the agreement, each vessel was required to pay an annual fee of $3,600.

Dept. of State Press Release No. 95, Mar. 3, 1977, and Dept. of State File L/T.

U.S.-Canada

On March 31, 1977, President Carter transmitted to the Senate for advice and consent to ratification the Protocol between the United States and Canada to Amend the Convention for the Protection, Preservation and Extension of the Sockeye Salmon Fisheries in the Fraser River System, as Amended, signed on February 25, 1977. President Carter explained in his letter of transmittal that the 1977 Protocol is designed to permit a native Indian adviser to participate in the international regulation of salmon fishing in the Fraser River System:

The present Protocol increases the size of the Advisory Committee to the International Pacific Salmon Fisheries Commission from six

members from each country to seven members from each country. The additional positions will enable the United States to provide for a native Indian adviser while continuing to have representatives on the committee from all the presently represented parties.

S. Ex. G, 95th Cong., 1st Sess., III.

For the information of the Senate, President Carter also transmitted the report of the Department of State concerning the Protocol. The report, submitted to the President on March 18, 1977, by Deputy Secretary of State Warren Christopher, describes the function and composition of the Advisory Committee to the International Pacific Salmon Fisheries Commission and how a U.S. court case provided the impetus for the negotiation of this 1977 Protocol:

The Convention, done in 1930, provides for a Commission to regulate salmon fishing in the Fraser River System. In addition, the Protocol of Exchange of Ratification of the Convention stipulated the understanding of the parties that there would be an Advisory Committee to the Commission composed initially of five persons from each country. A 1956 Protocol increased this number to six persons from each country. The Advisory Committee is invited to all nonexecutive meetings of the Commission and gives advice on all orders, regulations, or recommendations proposed by the Commission.

The members of the Advisory Committee are designated from the various branches of the salmon industry, including, but not limited to, purse seine, gill net, troll, sport fishing and processing. The sixth position of the U.S. section of the Advisory Committee traditionally has been filled by a representative of the reef net fishermen. The present Protocol further enlarges the Advisory Committee to provide a seventh position from each country. For the United States this position is to be assigned to a representative of American Indian fishing interests.

The 1974 decision in U.S. v. Washington, (384 F. Supp. 312 (1974); affirmed 520 F. 2d 676 (1976); cert. denied 423 U.S. 1086 (1976)), held that treaty Indian fishermen must have the opportunity to fish for up to one-half of any run of fish that normally would pass through their traditional off reservation fishing sites, with various adjustments for fish caught beyond State jurisdiction and for subsistence and ceremonial fishing.

The court in U.S. v. Washington held that U.S. treaty Indians were subject to the regulations of the International Pacific Salmon Fisheries Commission and the executive branch has worked to accommodate the court's recognition of Indian rights within the framework of the 1930 Convention. Thus, we have attempted to secure extra fishing time for U.S. treaty fishing Indians in areas under Commission regulation. Addition of an Indian member to the Advisory Committee is another positive step in accommodating the Federal court decision and in pursuing our overall policy of extending representation to all groups with a vital interest in fisheries

matters.

Id. 1-2.