B-5 



Another is tne creation of a totally indeoendent oody 

 responsiole only to tne Commission itself, of Duildino a 

 large scientific Secretariat in the body of the organiza- 

 tion itsel f . 



It may be possible to combine these two, though in so 

 doing we would wish to avoid duplication of effort. We'd 

 like to see the organization establish the proper kinds of 

 relationships with other scientific bodies -- SCAR, FAO, 

 other bodies that are involved in doing wotk on the ecosystem 

 and its components. 



There is no definitive answer on what the organizational 

 structure should be. In our view, there has to be an effec- 

 tive one. We have tried to elaborate this in the EIS. We'll 

 be elaborating further the objectives and the standards 

 which we believe that organizational structure should be. 

 And, of course, we think it should be satisfactorily funded. 

 As to the level of funding, I don't know that one could an- 

 swer that question now. Again we believe that it has to be 

 funded in such fashion and at such levels that it can carry 

 out the purposes for which it's created. We have no specific 

 answer on that particular item. 



With regard to the question of less developed nations, 

 I'm not sure, with regard to Antarctic marine living re- 

 sources, that I agree that there's a great deal of pressure 

 at this stage of the game. I think there is a basic interest 

 of all nations — and again I think this has been expressed 

 by developing countries at least in the FAO context — that 

 no regime be concluded which in principle excludes them 

 from potential harvesting. 



With regard to the question of profit-sharing or assis- 

 tance to developing countries, the United States is probably 

 in somewhat of an anomalous position since we ourselves are 

 not engaged in fishing. We might be considered to be pro- 

 posing to give away other people's fish catches. 



I think that it's probably premature — and this is a 

 personal view — to assume that Antarctic krill or other 

 resources which are a part of the Antarctic ecosystem offer 

 the kind of low-cost protein that may be of real benefit to 

 developing countries. I'm just not sure that we can make 

 that assumption. 



I would say that it is premature to start considering, 

 in the context of a conservation regime, these kinds of 

 distributive elements — the question of how the ultimate 

 products may be used and distributed. To do so at this 

 stage of the game might well prevent agreement on the kinds 



