220 countries in existence today. He presents some other in- 

 teresting statistics to show that there is an imbalance in the 

 catch of food from the sea, not only in the amount taken by 

 a few fishing countries but in the distribution of the fish catch. 



Mr. Jackson points out that world fisheries are in the midst 

 of a technological revolution. The catch has increased, ves- 

 sels are increasing in number and in size, the number of prod- 

 ucts and their distribution has increased exponentially in the 

 last few years. This, however, is happening only in few places ; 

 the overwhelming majorities of nations and people have been 

 left far behind. This results in 95 percent of the world catch 

 being taken by about 20 percent of the countries. 



Mr. Jackson also deals with the international trade problem. 

 His general arguments are much the same as those of Secretary 

 Udall. He points out, for example, that if one considers the 

 live-weight equivalent of the fisheries catch, one-third of the 

 total world catch was entering international trade seven years 

 ago, and in 1962, the figure had risen to about 40 percent. 

 Another way of putting this is that for every five tons of fish 

 caught now, two are exported. A surprising statistic came 

 from Mr. Jackson. He estimates that the volume of fish and 

 fishery products traded internationally is now of about the same 

 order of magnitude as the international trade in meat. He 

 points out, quite rightly, that fisheries differ from agriculture 

 and meat production in that, for the most part, the fisheries 

 stocks of the world are common property of mankind and, 

 therefore, they are highly international in nature. 



After reviewing the general kinds of work that FAO does, 

 Mr. Jackson strongly implies, and it is an implication that I 

 am perfectly willing to accept, that the FAO fisheries group is 

 wholly inadequate to accomplish the task before them. Their 

 problems of dealing with regional fisheries bodies and technical 

 assistance of various kinds, and attempting to be responsive not 

 only to the needs of the developing countries but to others — by 

 bringing together scientists as well as scientific information for 

 the developing countries — pose a task far beyond the capa- 

 bility of their present staff. He has pointed out that there are 

 moves on foot, and I am pleased to be able to say that the 

 United States Government has been in the forefront of these 

 moves, to upgrade fisheries and provide adequate tools for this 

 potentially important international organization. He believes 

 that FAO's role should be one of leadership through service, 

 and he has summarized some of the duties of this organization 

 as he sees it. My own view is somewhat similar to that of Min- 

 ister Robichaud's. In the future, fishing countries must look 

 to some kind, or kinds, of international organization, broader 

 than those now in being, to provide a common forum for fishing 

 nations to wisely consider conservation measures for the living 

 resources of the sea. I am not sure that FAO is in fact one 

 of these organizations of the future, but I insist that they should 

 have the opportunity to develop along these lines. 



I have tried thus far in summarizing the Conference to more 

 or less highlight the papers of preceding speakers, inserting what 

 appeared to me to be pertinent comments; to others, they may 

 have seemed impertinent. Now I should like to attempt to 

 summarize the Conference in my own words. 



Turning to the resource, it seems quite obvious that there is 

 ample opportunity for a twofold to tenfold increase in the 

 sustainable catch of fishery resources from the world ocean and 

 from the seas surrounding our shores. The question raised by 

 several of our distinguished speakers is how to achieve this in- 

 crease economically; by what means; and several have pointed 

 out that this can only happen when products and a market 

 for those products have been found. 



There is no simple answer to the disturbing questions raised 

 by Dr. Kask. It seems quite obvious that the fishing industries 

 of at least Canada and the United States have not kept up 

 either with other food-producing industries in our countries or 

 with many important fish-producing nations of the world. It 

 has been shown that the reasons for this are complex. They 

 involve the political, economic, and social customs and regula- 

 tions of our countries. The rules under which we can fish and 

 sell our products have been so manipulated that we are handi- 

 capped in relation to other fishing nations in developing the 

 most efficient kinds of gear and harvesting the resources to the 

 maximum extent possible, consistent with proper conservation. 



Several speakers have pointed out that the resources off our 

 coasts were being utilized by large fleets from foreign lands. 

 One speaker has told us, in a sense, to get off our pants and start 

 fishing before we lose our industry. It has been suggested that 

 the organizations of our Government — Federal and State — are 

 not completely adequate to handle the problems of complex 

 international fisheries of tomorrow, and that certain changes 

 ought to be made in order to improve our chances. I do not 

 quarrel with these views nor for the need for change. How- 

 ever, I am not certain that we have considered all the road- 

 blocks to increased production nor the changes in our fisheries 

 which are taking place. For example, there is a move towards 

 the consolidation of the small, independent fishing unit within 

 our own country, and I presume the same thing is happening in 

 Canada and Mexico. 



The problems of the small, independent operator — be he 

 fisherman or processor — have been pointed out by a least one 

 of our speakers in the last three days, and it seems to me that 

 whether it is good for the country, good for the fisherman, or 

 good for the processor, there are some business advantages in 

 the larger units within the industry. The larger entrepreneurs 

 have more capital for adequate investment, for carrying large 

 inventories, and for withstanding the shock of fluctuating sup- 

 ply and demand which is so characteristic of the fish business. 



The consensus of our Conference seems to be that we need 

 better and more diversified products. These seem to be de- 

 veloping slowly in the form of fish portions, shrimp products, 

 fish protein concentrate, and others. Most of our experts did 

 not think we were doing nearly enough to develop new products 

 nor to improve the quality of those we now sell. 



Some speakers were optimistic about the marketing potential, 

 but neither Dr. Earle nor I am very happy. We see our coun- 

 tries falling hopelessly behind other fishing nations in catching, 

 marketing, and in the consumption of fish — despite the rosy 

 picture of fish sticks and portions, shrimp products, canned 

 tuna, and another one or two products. 



71 



