55 



resenting harvesters and processors in several fisheries, which is dedicated to pro- 

 viding a forum for cooperative action. 



I want to preface mv remarks by stating that Maine's sardine industry has en- 

 joyed a cooperative relationship with Canadian fishermen and fisheries managers 

 for more than 100 years. In recent years, as has often been the case historically, 

 as much as 50 per cent of the Atlantic herring which our processing plants utilize 

 comes from Canadian waters. During 1993, 8000 metric tons were imported from 

 Canada to supplement the 24,000 metric tons harvested from Maine, Massachu- 

 setts, and U.S. federal waters. Canadian sardine factories similarly utilize herring 

 originating in U.S. waters. This cross-border trade occurs primarily during the win- 

 ter months when herring landed in Gloucester, Massachusetts is trucked to Cana- 

 dian plants. 



As the development of a regional Atlantic herring management plan by the Atlan- 

 tic States Marine Fisheries Commission and the New England Fisheries Manage- 

 ment Council has progressed during the past three or four years, at least three in- 

 formal bilateral meetings of fishermen, processors, scientists, and managers have oc- 

 curred. 



Since the time that the Senate ratified the "NAFO Convention" on July 23, 1983, 

 industry support for U.S. participation in the organization has not developed. It has 

 been difficult to articulate a U.S. fisheries interest in joining the organization pri- 

 marily, I believe — because NAFO's jurisdiction does not reacn straddling stocks of 

 concern to New England fisheries businesses or managers. These stocks: Atlantic 

 herring, and groundfish transiting the Hague Line on Georges Bank or in the Gulf 

 of Maine, are managed as EEZ fisheries by the U.S. and Canada. 



As I explained; informal and substantive Atlantic herring discussions are occur- 

 ring. Within the past year, representatives of the National Marine Fisheries Service 

 and the New England Fisheries Management Council have met with their Canadian 

 counterparts to improve cooperation in fisheries management for transboundary cod 

 and haadock. 



While a handful of Maine boats explored a fishery within the NAFO's jurisdic- 

 tion — on the tail of the Grand Banks — several years ago, these explorations pro- 

 duced limited amounts of marginal quality product and negative balance sheets. It 

 has been three or four years since any of the AFM's member groundfish vessels 

 have taken that trip. This fishery is not in these boats' business plans today. 



This recent activation of a long-dormant traditional U.S. fishery began imme- 

 diately after the World Court gave one third of Georges Bank to Canada in 1984, 

 abruptly ending fishing opportunities for New England fishermen on many tradi- 

 tional fishing grounds. That decision had the effect of increasing the severity of New 

 England's current groundfishery problems today by reducing the size of U.S. fishing 

 grounds just as large offshore vessels — capitalized in part through U.S. government 

 efforts — were being launched, it is interesting to note, particularly as we consider 

 NAFO membership, that the straddling stock arguments made by the U.S. to the 

 World Court prior to 1984 were rejected by the Court based upon an objective inves- 

 tigation of available fisheries data. 



In August of 1987, I received the attached letter from Ambassador Edward Wolfe 

 after he met industry representatives in Portland, Maine on July 29. In his letter, 

 Ed wrote "* * * We will not move towards accession to NAFO without assurance 

 that there are benefits to the U.S. fishing industry .* * * (and) will also attempt 

 to determine what incentives Canada may ofTer in exchange for membership in 

 NAFO". 



In April of 1993, Ambassador Colson met with AFM members and described the 

 reasoning for President Clinton's administration to pursue NAFO membership, 

 again, today. In short, I can say that our members still aren't convinced and don't 

 believe that anything has changed. We do not recognize the NAFO regime as a 

 straddling stocks regime. At the same time, our industry continues to support and 

 work on cooperative management initiatives with Canada with a mutual under- 

 standing of the need to ensure the development of sustainable cross-border fisheries 

 in our region. 



We learned last week that the Administration has submitted draft legislation to 

 implement the 'TAO Flagging Agreement" — the High Seas Fisheries Licensing Act 

 of 1994. In fact, it was just last week when the details of what is involved in the 

 agreement became available to us. It is important for the Committee to understand 

 that FAO and UN deliberations are not "transparent" for* fur industry. To the ex- 

 tent that we are aware that various international fisheries agreements are being 

 discussed, our day-to-day. fisheries management focus jg on our coastal fisheries 

 problems and opportunities. 



Because we have been working in other areas, the AFM has not taken a position 

 on this bill. The Maine Sardine Council does support its passage but we urge the 



