Revitalization of Fishing Industry 



Presently, the fishing industry may be un- 

 able to take advantage of opportunities which 

 could be offered by stock enhancement or new 

 markets because many sectors of the industry 

 are experiencing economic difficulty and are 

 unable to attract capital and labor. Yet, no 

 coherent program has been developed to 

 assist the industry or fishermen. 



As noted in the previous section of this 

 report, economic information about the fish- 

 ing industry is not available in the quality or 

 quantity which is necessary to evaluate 

 problems in any segment of the industry. The 

 status of investment in new harvesting tech- 

 nology and systems, however, has been used 

 as a measure of economic well-being. Many 

 studies of the New England fishing industry 

 conclude that technology is old and ineffi- 

 cient. It is clear that investment in new ships 

 and harvesting technology in New England 

 fisheries was at a low point until passage of 

 the Fishery Conservation and Management 

 Act of 1976 was assured. The Act stimulated 

 new confidence in the future of the fishing in- 

 dustry and at least 20 new boats were ordered 

 for fishing fleets in New Bedford, Mass., and 

 Point Judith, R.I. However, there is concern 

 among some Regional Council members^s 

 that investment in U.S. fishing vessels may 

 continue to lag, in part due to the industry's 

 lack of success in getting import duties levied 

 or increased on fish products from countries 

 which subsidize their fishing industry. 



Members of the fishing industry have long 

 contended that the flow of subsidized prod- 

 ucts into the United States adversely affects 

 the competitive position of the U.S. fishing in- 

 dustry (see figure 24). Imports from Canada 

 are of particular concern because the United 



States and Canada share access to many fish 

 stocks. The Canadian Federal and Provincial 

 Governments have traditionally provided 

 grants, bounties, and other forms of direct and 

 indirect subsidies to their groundfish industry 

 and the cumulative effect of these grants and 

 subsidies has been calculated to reach 35 cents 

 (Canadian) a pound for some types of fish 

 products. In 1975, 150 million pounds of ma- 

 jor groundfish species which may have 

 benefited from such subsidies were exported 

 from the Atlantic fishery in Canada to the 

 United States. 89 



By law,90 the Bureau of Customs may levy a 

 duty on imported products which are pro- 

 duced with the support of a foreign govern- 

 ment subsidy or increase an existing duty if 

 there is proof the import is injuring a U.S. in- 

 dustry. Such duties could help protect both 

 the U.S. fishery resources and U.S. invest- 

 ments in fishing vessels. They could also, of 

 course, raise the price of foreign fish products 

 to U.S. consumers and possibly encourage 

 retaliation by foreign governments against 

 some U.S. products. 



Under existing practices,^! the Tariff Affairs 

 section of the Treasury Department considers 

 duties on fish imports on a case-by-case basis 

 as some segment of the U.S. fishing industry 

 requests that a particular duty be levied or in- 

 creased. Treasury does not routinely monitor 

 duties on fish imports in order to determine 

 their effects; does not initiate action to coun- 

 terbalance any unfavorable effects; and does 

 not develop the case when a U.S. industry re- 

 quests some change in a particular duty situa- 

 tion. Therefore, the full burden of proving that 

 changes are needed in duties on imported fish 

 products falls on individual fishermen or 

 firms which initiate action. 



This is an extremely difficult task. There are 

 no established criteria for demonstrating that 

 subsidized imports injure U.S. producers, but 

 the fishermen must generally prove that par- 



99 



