59 



enough for inside a zone, or it is good enough on the high seas, 

 then it should be good enough inside, and vice versa. If we do not 

 do it that way, we are going to have a patchwork. 



Senator Kerry. That may not be entirely true in that you may 

 only be able to get a certain threshold in the international arena, 

 but you may have, in the EEZ, achieved a higher one. 



Mr. BuRiVEY. You could, and that is very true. I think what con- 

 cerned me about the U.N. conference is all of its focus is on the 

 high seas as if that is the answer, and that is not the answer. As 

 I said, 90 percent of these fish stocks are taken inside. 



Senator Kerry. Agreed. I understand that. 



Well, Ms. Speer, do you want to comment? 



Ms. Speer. Yes. I wanted to respond to this concern that I think 

 a number of people share about how this U.N. conference would 

 impact our existing agreements, and I think that there is a tension 

 between wanting to maintain maximum flexibility on the part of 

 the United States and the need for a comprehensive international 

 regime. And I would just say a couple of things. 



First of all, if the rules that come out of this conference are good 

 rules, then it will help us, not hurt us. And I think that the seeds 

 for good rules are, in fact, in the text. For example, the text would 

 do things like deny access to a fishery to any party, any nation that 

 is not participating in or cooperating with the regional manage- 

 ment organization that is in place. 



For example in ICCAT, if a nation — if that provision makes it 

 through this process, if a nation were not a party to ICCAT but 

 fishing in the ICCAT region, they would then be prohibited from 

 doing so, and the dispute resolution procedures would provide a ve- 

 hicle for going against that nation and preventing it from undercut- 

 ting the ICCAT measures. 



I would also note, though, that the history of U.S. participation 

 in regions has not been altogether stellar. We did not reach the 

 Bering Sea Agreement until the entire pollock fishery was wiped 

 out in the Bering Sea. ICCAT, even though we have been a mem- 

 ber for a long period of time, is not a model of success in terms of 

 the operation of a regional management organization. There are 

 problems out there that the United States is facing now and will 

 face more and more as the pressure on fisheries around the world 

 increases, and I think it is in, ultimately, the U.S. interest to have 

 a regime out there that covers the world and not take a region-by- 

 region approach. 



Senator Kerry. Mr. Kaelin, in your testimony you say that the 

 Sardine Council supports the implementation of the FAO licensing 

 agreement. Under that agreement, U.S. vessels that are fishing on 

 the high seas would be subject to the requirements of regional 

 agreements. Those regional agreements include NAFO. At the 

 same time, you oppose the United States acceding to NAFO. So, 

 there is a conflict in that, is there not? How can you continue to 

 oppose being part of NAFO but then support FAO? 



Mr. Kaelin. There would be a conflict — if I thought that Maine 

 boats still wanted to fish in the NAFO zone, that would be a con- 

 flict. But as I said, they do not. I think that 



Senator Kerry. So, are you wiling to accede to NAFO? 



