31 



deposited its instrument of accession because no implementing 

 legislation has been adopted to require U.S. fishermen and 

 vessels to comply with the Convention. Thus we are in the 

 unusual position where the Senate approved a treaty more than 

 10 years ago but we remain outside of it. It would be too 

 speculative for me to go into the reasons for this situation. 

 It is simply time to rectify it. 



With a decline in fish harvests in many areas, both 

 government and industry groups have begun to recognize the 

 need to coordinate and strengthen fishery management actions. 

 While 10 to 15 U.S. vessels fished the NAFO Regulatory Area 

 through 1989, declining catches and rising operating costs 

 reduced that number to one or two vessels in 1990. U.S. 

 fishermen reported no catches in the NAFO Regulatory Area in 

 1991 or 1992. Maximum reported U.S. harvests during the 

 1980's never exceeded 4,000 metric tons; catch in 1990 was 

 reported to be 27 metric tons. 



Recognizing the need to achieve a consistent policy 

 approach in international fora toward straddling stocks, the 

 previous administration forwarded draft legislation to 

 implement the NAFO Convention to the Congress in August, 

 1992. The issue of accession to NAFO was studied extensively 

 and reaffirmed in the Clinton Administration's review of 

 oceans and environmental policies, coordinated by the National 

 Security Council under Presidential Review Directive 12. 

 Therefore, the Administration will support the bill (H.R. 

 3058) introduced by Chairman Studds on September 14, calling 

 for implementation of the Convention. 



Participation in the work of NAFO ' s Scientific Council 

 would help to ensure continuity of the data base accumulated 

 over a period of more than four decades. It would provide 

 U.S. scientists with important additional opportunities to 

 exchange information on advances in fisheries science and to 

 benefit from international peer review of their work. It 

 would enable them to coordinate research programs on a 

 multilateral basis to meet general scientific needs, to share 

 research costs which would otherwise be borne exclusively by 

 the United States, and to publish research results and obtain 

 information concerning work in progress on a real-time basis. 



Since 1979, the United States has derived some of these 

 benefits by attending NAFO scientific meetings in observer 

 status. Far greater benefits could be derived, however, from 

 membership in the Organization. 



We have also heard it argued by opponents of NAFO that 

 U.S. membership would detract from the efforts of our 

 managers, scientists and enforcement officials to undertake 

 work concerning our own zone. We simply do not believe that 

 to be the case. 



By joining NAFO, the United States would participate in 

 the conservation and management decisions affecting fish 

 stocks in the NAFO Regulatory Area. The United States would 

 also participate in the allocation of the catches from these 

 stocks . 



NAFO is the kind of organization we encourage others to 

 join. We encourage others to join ICCAT, lATTC, NPAFC and 

 others; we support regional conservation approaches globally 

 and we seek to create one in the Bering Sea. By remaining 

 outside NAFO, we leave ourselves open to the accusation that 

 we are not participating effectively in an international 

 fishery conservation agreement. 



It is deeply important if we are to use commercial 

 fisheries on a sustainable basis that all fishermen who fish 

 outside their national zone - whether they be tuna fishermen 



