60 



Mr. Kaelin. No. I think we are willing to accede to the FAO 

 Flagging Agreement. Then you have control over vessels, you can 

 keep boats out of the NAFO zone — and NAFO becomes even more 

 irrelevant than it is today in that case. I just do not — we have not 

 been able — no one has been able to convince the New England fish- 

 ing industry or the New England Fishery Management Council 

 that NAFO is relevant to our doing our job of managing our coastal 

 fisheries better. 



I think it was wrong, perhaps, for a few vessels to fish on the 

 tail of the bank in the NAFO zone a few years ago when we lost 

 that portion of Georges to the World Court decision. It was a relief 

 valve kind of a situation. There was not pressure by the adminis- 

 tration at the time to join NAFO. We had not made progress in 

 some of the international agreements that you have been discuss- 

 ing this morning; the Donut Hole Agreement was still in a forma- 

 tive stage. In fact, I was fortunate to participate in negotiations in 

 the Soviet Union on that agreement to help Alaska interests move 

 forward there. 



But the point is that if we were still fishing in the NAFO zone, 

 I think it would be very difficult for us to come down here and say 

 do not accede to NAFO, but we are not doing that. 



Senator Kerry. Well let me ask you this; I understand Maine 

 fisherman do not want to fish there now and there are no plans 

 to fish there in the near future and so forth, but we cannot receive 

 a quota — the country cannot receive a quota under NAFO unless 

 we are parties to it. And so why would you forgo the future possi- 

 bility of getting a quota? 



Mr. Kaelin. Well we think, given the situation, the fisheries sit- 

 uation in the Canadian EEZ and offshore there, that the likelihood 

 of receiving any substantial quota is very small. We would like to 

 continue to pursue the opportunity to regain access to some histori- 

 cal fishing grounds off Canada, but we do not think these efforts 

 should be linked to NAFO membership. 



Senator Kerry. What would the drawback be to New England 

 fishermen if the United States were to accede to NAFO? 



Mr. Kaelin. We think that it would drain National Marine Fish- 

 eries Service resources out of the region, focusing on stocks that 

 are not of concern to the fishing industry up there. The enforce- 

 ment issues — the enforcement costs would become an issue, I 

 think, only if there were 14 or 15 boats in the zone, according to 

 the convention. Perhaps enforcement costs are not an issue. 



I guess we just see it as totally irrelevant to what we do on a 

 daily basis in terms of managing the fisheries that we feel we have 

 a responsibility to manage. We think that the flagging convention 

 actually gives the United States the ability in the international 

 community to say we are controlling access to the NAFO zone, that 

 it is irrelevant to our industry and to our management focus here 

 in New England, and have a good time up there. 



I think — I believe, personally, that one of the biggest reasons 

 whv Canada wants the United States to be a member of NAFO is 

 to help put pressure on the EC to do the right thing in the zone. 

 And, frankly, the EC is not a big friend of ours in New England. 

 We cannot sell our Maine sardines in EC countries without 

 relabeling them; we have not made any progress in the GATT on 



