referendum agreement with Japan. However, the Department of 

 Commerce advised the Department of State of certain concerns 

 regarding the extent to which the agreement satisfied the terms 

 of the Driftnet Act. Particular areas of concern in this regard 

 involved provisions related to the level of observer coverage, 

 the placement of transmitters aboard vessels to pinpoint their 

 location at sea, and the types of data to be collected. 



In addition, the Commission wrote to the Department of State 

 on 18 May 1989 recommending that the driftnet monitoring 

 agreement developed with Japan for the 1989 season be accepted, 

 provided that an effort be initiated at once to determine the 

 observer effort needed to obtain statistically significant 

 results and that this information be used as the basis for 

 seeking broader observer coverage in 1990. After renegotiating 

 several points, the Secretary of State informed the President, on 

 29 June, that the Secretary of Commerce had reviewed the revised 

 driftnet agreement reached with Japan and found that it satisfied 

 the terms of the Driftnet Act. He also noted that the agreement 

 included commitments to expand the observer programs in 1990 and 

 beyond and that Japan, therefore, would not be certified under 

 the Pelly Amendment. 



Although negotiations were also undertaken with Taiwan and 

 the Republic of Korea, the Secretary of Commerce advised the 

 President, by letter of 29 June 1989, that satisfactory 

 agreements had not been reached. Both Taiwan and South Korea 

 were therefore certified under the Pelly Amendment of the 

 Fishermen's Protective Act. Later in the summer, agreements were 

 reached with both Taiwan and South Korea for the 1989 and 1990 

 seasons. In the Secretary's view, the agreements met the minimum 

 requirements of the Driftnet Act, and the President imposed no 

 sanctions. 



On 1 November 1989, the Commission wrote to the Department 

 of State providing comments on the agreements. A copy of the 

 letter was sent to the National Marine Fisheries Service. The 

 letter noted that the agreements with Japan, Taiwan, and South 

 Korea sought to obtain "statistically reliable data" on the catch 

 of target and non-target species, but that the details of the 

 1990 programs had not been determined. The Commission also noted 

 that there had not been a critical examination of the provisions 

 of any of the three agreements to see if they were, in fact, 

 adequate to provide for the collection of statistically 

 meaningful data. 



The Commission suggested that a group of quantitative 

 scientists and biologists be convened to describe monitoring and 

 analysis programs that would satisfy the intents and provisions 

 of the Driftnet Act. The Commission recommended the group meet 

 and report the results of its discussions well in advance of 

 negotiations on the 1990 observer program with Japan, Taiwan, and 



154 



