110 



passed in 1954 and significantly amended in 

 1968, entitles T".S. vessel owners to reimburse- 

 ment for any fines, license, or registration 

 fees they must pay to secure the prompt re- 

 lease of their seized vessels and arrested 

 crews. It also authorizes a temporary, 4-year 

 voluntary insurance program under which 

 the Secretary of the Interior will reimburse : 



• The participating vessel owner for the 

 destruction of or damage to the vessel, its 

 fishing gear, or other equipment directly 

 resulting from the seizure 



• The owner and crew for the market value 

 of fish caught before the seizure and con- 

 fiscated or spoiled during the period of de- 

 tention and for 50 per cent of the potential 

 income lost because of the interruption of 

 fishing time. 



Vessel owners participating in the insur- 

 ance program will pay the expenses of its 

 administration and at least one-third of its 

 cost, which is estimated at $506,668 for the 

 4-year period. Finally, the Act requires the 

 Seci-etary of State to withhold from any for- 

 eign aid funds an amount equal to the unpaid 

 U.S. claim against a country that seized a 

 T'.S. fishing vessel. 



The Commission concludes that, as a gen- 

 eral principle, coastal nations should be given 

 preferential access to the living resources 

 nearest their coasts as a means of lessening 

 the international tension provoked by the 

 kind of situation just described. It is not easy, 

 however, to apply this principle in particular 

 cases. 



For example, the Latin American countries 

 seizing IT.S. tuna vessels take relatively small 

 quantities of tuna. To the extent that the 

 existing international framework safeguards 

 the freedom of distant water fleets to fish for 

 stocks which coastal fishermen are not ex- 

 ploiting fully, it encourages the development 

 of the \ast food reserves of the sea without 

 hurting the coastal nations. We assume, as is 



the case in Latin America, that the distant 

 water fleets are not overfishing, interfering 

 with coastal fishing by gear conflict, or up- 

 setting the ecological balance. 



This fundamental and desirable feature of 

 the existing framework should not be sacri- 

 ficed to allay groundless fears of the coastal 

 nation. 



The Commission urges that serious consid- 

 eration be given to assuring coastal nations a 

 reasonable opportunity to participate in the 

 exploitation of fish stocks nearest their coasts. 

 This assurance shovdd take the form of an 

 agreement to allocate natioaial catch quotas 

 whenever the coastal nation requests such 

 quotas. The quotas should be allotted to 

 guarantee the coastal nation a minimum 

 amount or percentage of the catch. 



Effectuating this proposal may necessitate 

 the requirement that the coastal nation catch 

 its quota with vessels carrying its flag. 



It is impossible to predict whether these 

 assurances and programs would suffice to in- 

 duce the Latin American countries in ques- 

 tion not to seize U.S. fishing vessels outside 

 the 12-mile limit. But it is also difficult to see 

 what else the United States can reasonably be 

 expected to offer. 



The Commission recommends that until 

 the existing disagreements with the Latin 

 American countries are resolved, the 

 policy of indemnification embodied in the 

 Fishermen's Protective Act be continued. 

 However, the Commission also recom- 

 mends repeal of the Act's requirement that 

 the amount of aid a country is scheduled 

 to receive from the Unitedl States must be 

 cut by the total of unpaid U.S. claims 

 against it for seizing U.S. fishing vessels. 



The latter requirement restricts the flexi- 

 iMlity the President must have in exercising 

 his responsibilities. It subordinates all for- 



