Existing Capabilities 



The existing capabilities for enforcing 

 Public Law 94-265 include three primary 

 groups, within the executive branch, which 

 would or could be involved in the future: 



1. The Coast Guard has the primary respon- 

 sibility for enforcement and exercises 

 almost complete jurisdiction over ac- 

 tivities in the foreign fisheries. 



2. The National Marine Fisheries Service 

 shares the enforcement function with the 

 Coast Guard by providing personnel 

 with scientific and biological expertise to 

 aid in planning and carrying out enforce- 

 ment strategies in the domestic fisheries. 



3. The Department of Defense normally will 

 have no enforcement function at all, ex- 

 cept in the unlikely event that foreign 

 warships should appear within the 200- 

 mile zone to contest U.S. regulations. In 

 that case, U.S. military forces would be 

 called upon under the terms of a 

 memorandum of understanding between 

 the Coast Guard and the Department of 

 Defense. The memorandum and con- 

 tingency plan for such a situation has 

 been worked out by the Joint Chiefs of 

 Staff and the highest levels of the Coast 

 Guard and is classified information. 



The Department of State, which has been 

 involved in enforcement of fishery agree- 

 ments in the past because of their interna- 

 tional nature, has been given a limited role 

 under the new law. 



The Department of State's primary function 

 is to negotiate the Governing International 

 Fisheries Agreement, by which, foreign na- 



tions agree to accept the U.S. jurisdiction in 

 the 200-mile zone. The State Department is 

 also to exercise an advisory role, keeping the 

 Coast Guard, the National Marine Fisheries 

 Service, and the Regional Councils informed 

 on foreign policy implications of fishery 

 management. 



Under the new law, as in the past, the State 

 Department is consulted by the Coast Guard 

 before any foreign fishing vessel is seized for 

 violation of U.S. regulations. There are un- 

 doubtedly legitimate instances when the 

 foreign policy or diplomatic implications of 

 some action should take precedence over the 

 fishery implications. However, the Coast 

 Guard routinely allows the State Depart- 

 ment's desire to avoid unpleasant diplomatic 

 incidents to influence enforcement actions. 

 There appears to be no formal mechanism to 

 assure that State Department decisions to in- 

 tervene in a fishery action are made at an ap- 

 propriate policy level and that the Coast 

 Guard exercises its statutory responsiblitity to 

 make final enforcement decisions, with advice 

 from the State Department being only one of 

 many factors to be considered. There is ob- 

 vious need for a clear and simple procedure 

 which quickly leads to a decision — and review 

 of that decision by the Chief Executive when 

 necessary — on whether or not to seize a 

 foreign vessel which is violating U.S. law or 

 regulations. 



The following discussion of the work of 

 these agencies in regard to enforcement is not 

 intended as a specific description of their 

 planned operations. Rather, it is an overview 

 and a critique of likely enforcement. 



In its routine enforcement role, the Coast 

 Guard provides personnel, vehicles, and sens- 

 ing equipment. Its enforcement capability 

 during 1975 came from its fleet of 39 aircraft, 

 39 ships, 94 helicopters, and various support 

 facilities. These facilities were not dedicated 



29 



