However, these ships can be returned to the 

 U.S. flag fleet by an equally simple procedure, 

 and records should be monitored to determine 

 if this is happening in order to give foreign in- 

 vestors access to U.S. fisheries. 



There are also foreign investments of less 

 than majority ownership which may in- 

 fluence the economics and activities of fishing 

 vessels. But there are no data at all on these in- 

 vestments, although such investments may 

 ultimately increase the number of U.S. vessels 

 competing for scarce stocks. A larger number 

 of vessels may cause the resource to be spread 

 among more fishermen and make operation 

 inefficient. 



b) Foreign investments in processing plants and 

 wholesale operations: The last look at foreign in- 

 vestments in this category was a very limited 

 report which resulted from a special survey of 

 foreign direct investment in the United States, 

 conducted by the Bureau of Economic 

 Analysis of the Department of Commerce in 

 1974.75 



The report, prepared by the Economic and 

 Marketing Research Division of NMFS in 

 April 1976, showed that 47 U.S. commercial 

 fish processing and wholesale firms were at 

 least partially owned by foreign interests 

 which held 10 percent or more of the voting 

 stock. The total value of the foreign invest- 

 ment in U.S. firms was (in 1974) $129 million. 

 More than half of the firms involved had 

 received foreign investments since 1970 and 

 during 1974 investments rose 30 percent, ac- 

 cording to the report. 



More than half the total value of foreign 

 direct investment in fishing firms at that time 



was from the United Kingdom, Japan, and 

 Canada. Other countries investing were Den- 

 mark, Iceland, Norway, Kuwait, and Mexico. 

 The firms in which these countries invested 

 operate 107 facilities, located mostly in Alaska 

 and the State of Washington, but also spread 

 along the east coast. 



In its report, NMFS acknowledged that a 

 major reason for foreign investment is proba- 

 bly the desire to gain a more certain access to 

 additional supplies of fishery products 

 beyond what the countries can harvest off 

 their own coasts. As the United States and 

 other coastal nations moved to extend their 

 jurisdiction over fisheries out to 200 miles, in- 

 vestments in firms which could export prod- 

 ucts appeared to be one way of keeping some 

 access to fishing areas which might be closed 

 to foreign vessels. Instead of being frozen out 

 by the U.S. 200-mile fishery jurisdiction, 

 foreign nations with investments in U.S. firms 

 share in benefits and protections of the law. 



Presently, there is no mandatory disclosure 

 of the actual extent of foreign investment in 

 U.S. fish processing and wholesale operations. 

 Such disclosure would be necessary in order 

 to determine if foreign investment has in- 

 creased along lines that would support the 

 NMFS theory that such investments could be 

 used as a hedge against low-catch allocations 

 for foreign fishermen. 



In addition, there are no data on the point 

 of origin of fish products imported to this 

 country. Such data, which could identify if 

 fish had been caught in U.S. waters, could be 

 collected by the Bureau of Customs and would 

 help in assessing the impact of foreign fishing 

 activities. 



c) The impact of foreign investments: Concern 

 has been expressed by the public and some 

 Members of Congress that foreign invest- 

 ments may allow some countries to circum- 

 vent some provisions of Public Law 94-265 or 



83 



