The Convention for the Protection, Preservation, and Extension of the Sockeye Salmon Fishery of the Fraser River System was signed on May 26, 1930 (TS 918; 50 Stat. 1355; 6 Bevans 41; 184 LNTS 305; entered into force on July 28, 1937). The Protocol amending the Convention of May 26, 1930, for the Protection, Preservation, and Extension of the Sockeye Salmon Fisheries to include Pink Salmon in the Fraser River System was signed on Dec. 28, 1956 (TIAS 3867; 8 UST 1057; 290 UNTS 103; entered into force July 3, 1957).

For further information concerning United States v. Washington and the International Pacific Salmon Fisheries Commission, see the 1975 Digest, Ch. 7, § 4, pp. 414-417.

U.S.-Cuba

On April 27, 1977, Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs Terence A. Todman and Cuban Deputy Foreign Minister Pelegrin Torras signed a Governing International Fishery Agreement (GIFA) for their respective governments concerning fisheries off the coasts of the United States. The agreement, which is pursuant to the Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, establishes the principles and procedures under which Cuban fishing would take place in the U.S. 200-mile fishing zone. The agreement does not guarantee to vessels of Cuba an automatic right to fish; it provides the means by which Cuba may apply for permits which would allow fishing up to a level specified by U.S. authorities for certain kinds of fish which have been identified by U.S. authorities as surplus fish above the harvesting capacity of U.S. vessels.

U.S.-United Kingdom

On October 7, 1977, President Carter transmitted to the Senate for advice and consent to ratification the Reciprocal Fisheries Agreement between the United States and the United Kingdom, signed on June 24, 1977. The President also transmitted a related Agreed Minute, initialed on June 24, 1977, and a report of the Department of State.

In his transmittal letter the President described in part as follows the reciprocal fishing rights that the Agreement would establish between the commercial fishing industries of the United States and the British Virgin Islands:

The Agreement provides United States commercial fishermen access to the new 200-mile fishery zone of the British Virgin Islands and commercial fishermen of the British Virgin Islands access to the 200-mile United States fishery conservation zone. It secures the United States objective of providing for U.S. commercial fishermen the opportunity to continue fishing at traditional levels in areas which have recently become subject to the fishery jurisdiction of the British Virgin Islands.

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

The report of the Department of State, submitted to the President on September 17, 1977, by Deputy Secretary of State Warren Christopher, outlines the provisions of the Agreement, describing, inter alia, the affected fishery zones, the existing commercial fishing patterns reflected in the Agreed Minute, and consultative mechanisms to resolve future problems. Set forth below are portions of the report:

The Preamble to the Agreement recognizes that the two Governments apply the principle of equidistance in allocating exclusive fishery jurisdiction over areas where the 200-mile fishery zones of the United States and the British Virgin Islands overlap. Therefore, each Government exercises jurisdiction over that portion of the area of overlap which is on its side of a line equidistant between the two coastlines.

Article I identifies the exclusive fishery zone of each Party for purposes of the Agreement. Articles II and III provide that commercial fishing by vessels of each Party may continue in the exclusive fishery zone of the other "in accordance with existing patterns and at existing levels." Each Party extends access to vessels of the other for the purpose of conducting such fishing. In order to provide a yardstick for interpreting and applying this standard, the two Parties initiated, concurrently with the Agreement, an Agreed Minute setting forth specific information that reflects the existing patterns and levels of commercial fishing by vessels of each Party in the zone of the other Party.

Article IV provides that each Party will have exclusive authority to enforce the provisions of the Agreement and applicable national fishery regulations in its zone with respect to vessels of the other, provided that such national regulations shall not disturb existing patterns and levels of fishing. Article IV constitutes recognition by each Party of the fishery jurisdiction of the other. At the same time, Article IV reflects the understanding that each side, as its domestic management system proceeds, may apply specific regulations to commercial fishing by vessels of the other in its zone, provided that such regulations are consistent with the standard, set forth in Articles II and III, that they do not disturb existing patterns and levels. Article V emphasizes that the Agreement does not address recreational fishing by one Party in the zone of the other.

Article VI states that circumstances under which consultations may be held at the request of either Party (e.g., whenever either Party seeks a change in existing patterns and levels of commercial fishing). [sic] Article VI also states that if such consultations result in a decision to amend the Agreement, such amendments shall enter into force through an exchange of diplomatic notes.

The consultations provided for in Article VI provide a mechanism for the Parties to work out any problems arising, in the implementation of the Agreement and to coordinate efforts for effective conservation of the fishery stocks of the area. In keeping with the nature of the fisheries relationship between the United States and the British Virgin Islands, such consultations are expected to be

informal and would include participation by local representatives on both sides, particularly from the Caribbean Regional Fisheries Management Council on the United States side.

Id. VI.

In his report to President Carter, reprinted in S. Ex. O, 95th Cong., 1st Sess., V-VI, Deputy Secretary Christopher explained why the Agreement does not meet the criteria of the Fishery Conservation and Management Act for a governing international fishery agreement:

Establishment of a 200-mile United States "fishery conservation zone" under the Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (effective on March 1, 1977) placed under United States jurisdiction fisheries which fishermen from the British Virgin Islands have traditionally fished. Similarly, establishment of a 200-mile fisheries zone around the British Virgin Islands on March 7, 1977, placed under jurisdiction of the British Virgin Islands fisheries which United States fishermen from the U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico have traditionally fished. Consultations with United States fishermen and officials in the area, including the Caribbean Regional Fisheries Management Council, indicated a strong United States interest in reaching an agreement with the United Kingdom to ensure continuation of United States commercial fishing at traditional levels in the British Virgin Island fisheries zone.

Because of this recognition of existing British Virgin Islands interests in the United States zone, the Agreement does not meet the criteria for a "governing international fishery agreement" as defined in the Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The congressional oversight procedures provided in that Act for bringing a "governing international fishery agreement" into force therefore cannot be used for this Agreement. Consequently we are seeking the advice and consent of the Senate to ratification of the Agreement.

Conservation

The Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany submitted a diplomatic note dated December 8, 1976, to the Department of State indicating that the fishery research vessel Anton Dohrn was scheduled to carry out a scientific research program in the Gulf of Maine from February 26 to April 7, 1977. The note incorporated a fact sheet which described the purpose of the research as a "Young Herring Survey" for the International Commission for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries (ICNAF). Specifically samples of "Fish- and PlanktonSamples" and "Hydrographical investigations" were to be obtained by "Bottom-trawling for fish, Plankton-Sampling with Plankton-nets, Hydrographic work. . . ." The Embassy requested the necessary permits.

In a reply diplomatic note dated February 25, 1977, the Department of State interpreted the Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (P.L. 94–265; 90 Stat. 331; 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) as permitting such activities under certain conditions:

Scientific research, including fisheries research, is specifically excluded from the term "fishing" in Section 3 (10) of the Fishery Con

257-179 O 79-38

servation and Management Act of 1976. It should be noted, however, that the following specific activities are considered to be fishing within the meaning of the Act, and therefore require a permit issued in accordance with Section 204:

Any activity involving the catching, taking or harvesting of fish in commercial quantities, or the use of gear capable of catching, taking, or harvesting fish in commercial quantities, including:

1) the conducting of tests of fishing gear; or

2) fishing carried out for the purpose of training fishermen. Fisheries research which assists in the conservation and management of the stocks, and the identification of the fishery resources of the Fisheries Conservation Zone is encouraged. With this in mind, the specific activities outlined above, when undertaken in full cooperation with the United States, shall not be deemed to be fishing within the meaning of the Act.

Accordingly, from the information given with the above-mentioned note, no permits are required for the proposed scientific research program. The appropriate United States authorities are being informed of the program.

Clearance is granted for the proposed visits of the Anton Dohrn to Woods Hole on March 10-11 and March 26-27. In accordance with established procedures, the master should inform the Captain of the Port twenty-four hours in advance of each visit.

Dept. of State File No. P77 0031-1462.

85

The Deep Seabed and the High Seas

Ocean Mining

On October 4, 1977, Ambassador Elliot L. Richardson, Ambassador at Large and Special Representative of the President to the Law of the Sea Conference, testified before the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Resources of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation concerning S. 2053, a bill to promote the orderly and environmentally sound exploration for and commercial recovery of hard mineral resources of the deep seabed, pending adoption of an international regime. His testimony also dealt with S. 2085, a similar bill designed to provide interim legislation dealing with deep seabed mining pending the entry into force of an international regime on this subject.

Portions of Ambassador Richardson's remarks follow:

Last Spring, prior to the Sixth Session, I testified before a number of congressional committees to the effect that we did not support

legislation at that time, but that we would review this position in light of the results of the Sixth Session. We believed there was a risk at that time that administration support for legislation could adversely affect progress at that session. We were particularly concerned that the chance to obtain the good will and tone of the intersessional meeting held in Geneva in February and March under Minister Evensen's chairmanship not in any way be jeopardized. We also felt that the Sixth Session offered reasonable prospects of a breakthrough on deep-seabed issues.

As it turned out, and as I have explained earlier in this testimony, the breakthrough did not materialize. Indeed, the session saw a serious retrogression. The issue is, therefore, once again posed as to whether the administration should now support legislation which would authorize U.S. seabed miners to move forward pending agreement on an international regime.

It is our view, that U.S. legislation establishing a domestic regime for seabed mining will be needed whether or not there is a treaty. In either case, legislation will be required to regulate seabed mining in accordance with sound resource management and environmental principles. Additionally, in the absence of a treaty, we will need to assure that existing international rights in the area beyond national jurisdiction are protected. If there is no treaty, the issue of legislation boils down to two questions: one as to its timing; the other as to its content.

As to timing, the administration believes that if there is to be any meaning to the Common Heritage of Mankind, those with the technology and resources to make it a reality must move forward. In our view, therefore, Congress should continue to move forward with legislation. For its part, the administration will wish to work closely with this committee and other concerned committees to make the substance of the legislation consistent with our international posture.

With respect to the substance of deep seabed mining legislation, I, and officials of several agencies have on various occasions informed Members of Congress of administration views. There has clearly been a good measure of responsiveness to those views on the part of you who have participated in drafting the legislation before us, and I would like to express my appreciation for this. I am confident it augurs well for continuing cooperative efforts on these matters in the future.

May I briefly review the main elements of administration policy before turning to a discussion of the bills before us. In our view, legislation:

Should be interim in nature, providing for its own supersession by a treaty;

Should contain provisions for harmonizing U.S. regulations and those of reciprocating states so as to avoid conflict;

Should provide for environment protection, sound resource management, and protection of life and property at sea;

Should provide that seabed mining by U.S. companies produce financial benefits for the international community;