international arena with respect to driftnets, tuna, and other con- 

 cerns. The fact is, though, that the once thought to be inexhaust- 

 ible supplies of fish are rapidly disappearing. And every trend line 

 indicates that. 



It is evident from the United Nations studies by the Food and 

 Agricultural Organization — FAO — that 13 out of 17 international 

 fisheries are in jeopardy today. The seafood harvests of the oceans 

 have multiplied nearly fivefold since the end of World War II, 

 growing from an annual catch globally of about 18 million metric 

 tons to a peak of about 86.5 million metric tons in 1989, though 

 the figures on that differ — some people say as much as 100 million. 



Since 1989, we do not disagree that there has been a decline, 

 though there is some disagreement over the amount of decline — 

 whether it is 2 or 4 million metric tons or so forth. 



Fishery statisticians also tell us that they have seen a worldwide 

 shift to less valuable species, and that most gains in world harvest 

 levels over the last 10 years have come from increased landings in 

 lower value species, such as Alaskan pollock or Chilean jack mack- 

 erel. So, taking that into account, the decline is even more dra- 

 matic. 



Even more telling is the fact that the world's catch has declined 

 despite a significant increase in effort. The size and efficiency of 

 modern fleets, including vessels equipped with sophisticated sat- 

 ellite navigation and sonar detection, has simply outstripped the 

 productivity of traditional fishing grounds worldwide. 



Now, in the United States, we are struggling to address the 

 overfishing of our coastal fisheries, including the collapse of cod 

 and haddock stocks in New England. And we are obviously deeply 

 concerned and sensitive to these issues, because this year our fish- 

 ing is greatly reduced. We obtained an emergency allocation of re- 

 sources to help deal with the dislocation of fishermen. And we are 

 still facing a crisis in the New England fisheries. 



There is a simple reason for what is happening internationally. 

 There are too many boats of too sophisticated a character chasing 

 too few fish. The problem is not unique to New England, it is 

 worldwide. And quite simply, unless there is a worldwide urgent 

 response to this, we have the potential to do to international fish- 

 eries what we have seen developing and developed countries do to 

 resources and even to civilizations over the course of history. 



I am told that Iceland and the European Union could cut their 

 fleets by up to 40 percent and Norway by more than 50 percent 

 and all three nations would still be able to maintain fishery har- 

 vests at today's levels. If that is not a dramatic statement about 

 the overcapitalization of the industry, I do not know what is. 



Now, as nations increase their efforts, we have seen a perversely 

 uneconomical system emerge, where we are operating the world's 

 fleets at a loss. The United Nations FAO reports that in 1989, it 

 cost $92 billion to land 72 billion dollars' worth offish. So, as a re- 

 sult, we see the 13 of the 17 fisheries that I talked about in deep 

 trouble. 



We all know that fish rank as one of the most important food 

 sources throughout the world, providing up to 40 percent of the 

 protein for developing countries. But many of the most valuable 

 species in the world markets are now becoming harder to find, and 



