- 146 - 



the countries failed to implement the 1978 Agreement. 

 Thus, even if an interim approach could be 

 negotiated, past experience raises questions whether it 

 could be maintained during the several years that v;ould 

 probably be needed at a minimum to resolve the boundary 

 issue . 



Another difficulty is that stocks most immediately 

 threatened with intense fishing pressure for the most part 

 are those fully exploited by both countries, and the 

 fishermen of both countries thus have substantial economic 

 interests at stake. An interim agreement providing 

 effective conservation of these stocks would require mutual 

 self-restraint in the present in order to maintain longer 

 term resource productivity and fishing opportunities in the 

 future. The acceptance of such restraint in the present 

 may become difficult, however, when neither country or its 

 fishermen under an interim agreement could have assurance 

 that a new agreement developed after the boundary delimita- 

 tion would allow them to share in future opportunities in 

 a manner commensurate with the restraint each side exer- 

 cised during the interim period. Thus, any interim agree- 

 ment would probably tend to impose only limited restric- 

 tions on the emerging trend to maximize current fishing 

 opportunities at the expense of potential future 



