United States Policy on High Seas Fisheries

by ▣...▣

Special Assiatant to the under Secretary

The policy of the United States Government regarding fisheries in the high seas is to make possible the maximum production of food from the sea on a sustained basis year after year.
So stated, the policy is extremely simple and it is doubtful that there will be objection to it from any quarter. Yet the implementation of this simple policy is as complex as any other single polich that the United States Government has before it. The roots of the difficulties go back into history even further than our colonial period. The vast advances in marine technology that he recent war stimulated are rapidly accentuating the difficulties.
The production of foods that animals eat occurs on two independent areas: on land, in the form of terrestrial plants that derive their nutrition from the soil and the air; and, in the sea, in the form of aquatic plants that derive their nutrition from the water that surrounds them. By and large no connection exists between the ability of the land and the sea to produce food. The influx or nutrient material to the sea from the land by means of revers is inconsequential Then compared with the vast bulk of nutrient materiel already in the sea.
That eminently terrestrial animal, man, has succeeded in improving and regulating the production of food from the land in a manner which even his most sanguine immediate ancestors would have thought fantestic. During all the history of agriculture it has, indeed, been somewhat of a question whether man would not increase his numbers more rapidly than he could improve his food supply, but so far man is still ahead in the race. In the course of the development of food production a concept has grown up for the production of food on land which is diametrically contrary to the one which has grown up for the production of food in the ocean.
Most land on earth is owned by and is under the sovereign control of some group of people. Ownership may shift through the fortunes of war or economic factors, from one group to another, but always some group can say for any productive part of land that the foood will be produced in such and such a way. The group owns the land and everything that comas from it.
In diredt contrast, no one owns the ocean. It is an international common comprising more than three-fourths of the surface of the earth; the reservoir of vast resources; the producer of immense, and as yet unknown, quantities of those particularly essential types of food now in such short supply on land--snimal fats and proteins. What is produced in this international common is either res nullius or res communia, the property of no one or the property of everyone, whichever legal phrase you prefer. The practical result is the same. If one can reduce any part of the production to his possession before somebody else does, then it is his-but not before then,
The consequence of this lack of ownership is that there is no law to cover the means of production from these food resources. They cannot be placed under any solid type of management either for good or for bad. Fish are owned property when they are reduced to possession; fishery resources of the open sea, however, are owned by everyone or no one. They are the property of no nation.
Between the land and the open sea is a narrow belt of water, which in many parts of the world is vary productive and which is called territorial waters. By international accord this belt is under the sovareignty of the nation whose coasts it washes and its products are subject to the exclusive contral of that nation. The narrowness of this band of water is assured because the naval policy and the commercial policy-and ordinarily the fishery policy--of the major maritime nations demand that the seas be open to unimpeded navigation.
Most of the major fisheries of the world started in these narrow territorial waters. As Market demands increased, however, fishermen increased the size and navigability of their vessels and the afficiency of their methods, and they went far beyond territorial waters for their catches. in the post two hundred years most of the major fisheries of the world have lain at least partially outside territorial waters.
Until 40 or 30 years ago these major fishery resources of the sea were generally considered inexhaustible. The greater the fishing, the greater the catch. True, in so me years the herring or cod were not in such abundance as they had been before and great distress came to the fishing villages. Eventually the fish always came back in abundance. The effect of mains activities on fish populations seemed to be so small, when compared with the effects of the great natural fluctuations caused by cyclic changes in the climate of the sea, that it could be ignored.
But fishermen became more clever at harvesting the sea. In this century, fishing intensity has increased tremendoesly Motors in vessels increased the distances that a fisherman could travel to the banks and the number of trips a year he could make between market and the banks. Diesel engines made his trips even more dependable and less costly. First ice and then mechanical refrigeration on the vessels made it possible for him to stay longer on the grounds, to go farther to new grounds, and to return with larger catches in first-class condition. Gear was improved to catch more fish in less time. In only the last faw years new developments have improved fishing efficiency tremendously. New instruments developed during the war permit the fishermen to follow the schools in the depths and without having sighted a fish, to set his nets where the fish are. Other instruments have made the most complex navigation easy to the simplest fisherman. Radar permits him to operate in the heaviest fog, the bane of all seaman. With the consequent tremendous inerease in fishing effort, some kinds of fish have become less abundant. But this has boon happening for time without memory, and fisherman have always said, "wait, they will be back again."
But some kinds of fish just have not some back; and biologists take another view of the fishermen's belief that the fish will come back. The viologists who have been building up a new branch of sciance-fishery biology-claim that some fish will never come back unless the fishery is relaxed. Too great a crop, they say, has already been taked. These fish cannot be harvested at the rate damended and still maintain their atundance In ordor to get big crops of food again from such a population of fish, smaller crops will have to be takeb until the population recovers. Capital stock has to be built up if the revenue from its is to increase.
In recent years evidence has continued to mount that when fishing is begun on any population of fish, that population begins to decrease in total number as the take of fish from it increases. As the intensity of fishing increases up to a certain point, however, the reproductive capacity of the population increases also Why this is so is not yet well understood. It may be because there is more food for the fish that are left, or because there is less loss to natural predators or because of other unknown factors.
If the fishing intensity continues beyond this optimum point, the population or fish cannot respond and the crop harvested begins to drop off regardless of the number of vessels used or the efficiency of the fishing operation, This situation is easily expressed in a simple curve.
The meaning of this curve is that for any particular population of fish there is an optimum point of fibbing intensity which, if sustained, will yield the maximum crop of fish year after year. Less fishing is wasteful, for the surplus of fish dies from natural causes without benefit to mankind; more fishing is wasteful because it depletes the population and so results actually in a smaller crop.
The determination of this point of optimum fishing intensity is a difficult and expensive task. The abundance of fish is determined only in part by the intensity of fishing. The population of fish, and consequently the point of maximum harvest, fluctuates also with cyclic changes in the climate of the sea, which affect the productive ability of any particular fish population. In such important kinds of fish as herring and sardine these natural fluctuations are of major importamce in such fish as halibut it seems that natural fluctuations are small enough that that can almost be ignored.
It is not the purpose of this article to go into the difficulties of the scientific work at this time, but rather to dwell am the diplomatic difficulties that follow as a result of the now concept that leas fishing can in some cases provide more fish and the apparent fact that, as the technclogy of catching improves, one after another of the major fishery resources of the sea stands in danger of overfishing and depletion.
These factors indicate that management of a fishery will be desirable when the fishing intensity gets beyond the point of maximum return. But who is to manage the fishery on the high seas? Management means laws and the enforcement of those laws. The high seas are an international common. It would probably be argued that the United States under accepted international procedure has no right to regulate the fisherman of another nation unless that nation acquiesces in such regulation.
One way out of this puzzle is not generally known to fishermen, but it is well known to all foreign chancelleries. A fishermen, once beyond the limits of the territorial waters of hie country and on the high seas, is operating in an area under the domain of international law. No principle of international law is more universally recegnized than that vessels on the high seas are under the jurisdiction of the country to which they belong. The fisherman on the high seas is, therefore, subject to any legislation which his government may enact Concerning his activities in such waters. Consequantly each country has full control over the activities of its own fisherman wherever they go on the high seas.
Thus any nation has the power to regulate and manage any fishery in which only its own nationals participate.
The difficulty is that most kinds of fish are migratory and fisherman without regard to nationality, follow the fish. Where the nationals of more than one nation fish together on the same grounds, all must work under the same regulations uniformly enforced on all, or a commercial advantage will accrue to one aide or the other, a condition that no fisherman or any nation will peacefully accept.
The United States and Canada have worked out a joint formula for managing the high seas fisheries in which only their nationals operate. Beginning first with the halibut fishery of the north Pacific the two nations set up a Joint Commission under treaty. The first duty of this Commission was to determine whether regulation of the halibut fishery was necessary and desirable. Through scientific investigation the Commission found that regulation was desirable. Successive changes in the treaty have given the Commission more and more power of regulation over the fishery. The regulations have proved tramsndously beneficial to the fisherman of both countries.
The regulations of the Commission are designed solely to keep the populations of halibut in the northeast Pacific at that level of abundance which makes possible the maximum sustained yield from those populations year. after year The percentage of this catch which goes to either country depends solely on the energy and ability of its fishermen. within the season, fishermen of both countries fish everywhere under equal privilege; when the season closes all fishermen stop.
When the Commission began managing the halibut fishery the fisherman of both countries together, fishing nine months of the year (all that the weather would permit), could take about 44 million pounds of halibut from the north Pecifis. The populations at halibut on the bankd have been so carefully managed and built up that now those fisherman can take 56 million pounds each year in leds than two months of fisheing.
The object lesson of this cooperative effort has been so striking that it has had world-wide significance. The United States and Canada have been joint parthers in another similar Commission for the past several years, the International Pacific Salmon Commission, which manages the sockeys-saimon fishery of the Fraser River. This Commission is also producing results which are highly beneficial to both countries and, in that its work results in a greater production of food, to mankind generally. A third fishery treaty, which has still to be approved by the Senate before coming into effect, has been signed between the two countries to mange the fisheries of the Great Lakes.
A major benefit of those various treaties has been that the two countries have become used to working together on fisheries problems. What used to be serious political problems between us have one after the other come under the impartial eye of our fishery scientists working jointly, and one after asnother they have simply evaporated under the pressure of scientific fact. In fact we work together as closely on fisheries matters now, especially on the Pacific Coast, that many problems are solved directly by our fishery administrators and scientists and never come to the attention of traty makers or ambassadors.
We have recently completed an agreement with Mexico to set up a commission, very similar to the Halibut Commission, for the purpose of investigating the tuna resources occurring off the coasts of both countries. With this treaty we hope to befin not only to gather information which will be useful in managing the great tuna fishery, whan that proves to be necessary, but also to build up amity on fisheries problems by working jointly on these problems in order that one day we will have permanent mutually amioable relationship to fisheries matters with our neighbours both to the south and to the north.
These bilateral treaties represent the simplest form of management of fisheries in international waters. The work of even these bilateral Commission has been much more difficult than has appeared. Long years of gathering scientific facts have receded each positive step by both of our working commissions. Arguments and high temperatures in meetings have occurred; a high degree of statesmenship has been necessary on the part of both Commissions and industry leaders and a high degree of scientific compotence has been required on the part of the Commission staffs.That these treaties have worked at all is a high tribute to the good will, energy, and level handedness of the man involved.
A task is now being undertaken which is much more difficult than anything that has ever been attempted in managing fisheries in international waters. It has become apparent that the halibut, haddock, and cod resources of the northwest Atlantic either require regulation now or will in the immediate future. The United States and Canada are both involved in these fisheries. There would be no trouble in signing a joint treaty to handle these fisheries, as hsa been done for others of our joint fisheries, if only Cana is and the United States were interested.
But fishermen of other nations are involved. There is good evidence that Basque fishermen were fishing cod on the Grand Banks when Leif Bricson, the Norseman, sailed by on his way to Vinland long before Columous set sail to the west or before there was a Canada or a United states. Danish, English, French, Italian Norwegian, Spanish, and Portuguese fishermen work on the stocks of fish, as well as fishermen from Canada, Newfoundlond and the United States. That these nations have rights to fish in the waters of the northwest Atlantic roes without question. That it is impossible to regulate a fisherman of one nationality and not one of another nationality who works alongside him on a bank is also unquestioned.
The United States Government is calling together in late January 1949, a conference of sldven antions in the expectation of reaching a multilateral agreement establishing a commission which will have the same beneficial effect in the northwest Atlantic as has been achieved in the Pacific.
The aim of these unilateral, Silateral, and multilateral arrangements for managing fisheries in international waters is without question beneficial to all of mankind in that they seek to increase and protect the amount of food that can be produced from the sea. Their principles of such arrangements lie wholly within the presently accepted tenets of international law. Ad long as all nations whose fishermen are involved sign a fisheries treaty, all fisherman concerned are covered by the regulationsoof such joint commission as may be established.
The difficulty is that technological advances in fishing practice may outmode thesotypes or agreements before they can be fully put into force. The mother ship has come into the picture. A large ship and a group of smaller fishing vessels go out as a group. The large ship acts as a supply and repair vessel for the small vassals.
The small vessels catch the fish and transfer the catches to the ▣▣y processing or refrigaration.the group of vessels can ▣▣ of the earth after its catch and never come into the ▣▣ of another country.
States would recognize off their own ▣▣ whalers catch and process whales in the interetic: Japanese mother-ship,operations have worked in Sristol Bay: ▣...▣, operateted in the Greenland halibut fishery▣▣ slvan the capital ▣...▣ other country.
This is a revolution in fishing technique which, to by properly controlled ▣...▣ international law. protect fishery resources lying in international waters from overex litation
Canada and United Stares by mutual sacrkfices, expense,and strict ▣...▣ the Pacific halibut ▣...▣ around in the world ▣...▣to accept ▣...▣ resources in this manner?
To meet this new need President Truman issued a proclamation in September 1945 to the effect that the United States might set up nones in the high seas in order to conserve fisheries without regard to the limitations of territorial water. There only its own nationals are involved, the United States would undertake exclusive jurisdiction (as it might do at any rate under present international law). Where the nationals of other countries are involved with ours, those nations might participate in the jurisdiction over the fishery. The United States would recognize similar action by other countries in fisheries off their own coasts.
It should be carefully noted that the proclamation made no mention of extension of sovereignty beyond territorial waters or of enclusion of fisherman of any nationality from any fishery.
The purpose of the proclamation was to provide for new means, under law, to protect fishery resources lying in international waters from overexploitation.
One nation by itself cannot change into national law. A proclamation by the United States does not bind other nations to accept the new principle into the body of international law. Several other national for instance, have issued proclamations convering their coastal waters which actend very considerably the scope of the Truman proclamation.
Although they differ considerably, the general tendency of thoes other proclamations Is to extend the territorial waters of the country involved-its sovereignty-a considerable distance beyond generally recognized limits, in some cases, indeed, up to 200 marine miles. All the production of the sra in this new territory might be regarded as the property of that country. Foreign fishermen in such waters might be looked upon am interlopers without rights and treated accordingly.
This thesis would lead logically to the division of the oceans of the world into sagmants of sovereign territory in the same way that the land surface of the world is dividad This would be a step backward into the past to the time when Spain, Portugal, England and other nations claimed sovereignty over vast areas of the ocean sees. The principle of sovereign control of the sees did not work then and will not work now. It works against too many maritime interests of too many maritime nations and is simply unaceaptable to them.
Yet half of this thesis has great attraction to fishermen everywhere. An industry man said in just a short time ago that the only thing the American fishing industry wanted was permission for their vessels to go anywhere in the world and for the fishing vessels of all other countries to stay in harbor. At least ton countries would like to see exactly the reverse of this-the vessels of this mancs company staying out of the waters off their coast and their vassals going everywhere.
This normal selfish desire of all fisherman has to be compromised with the realities of the international policies of their countries. At present the nationals of any nation can go anywhere and fish on the vast international common of the sea. It cannot be demonstrated that it is in the general good of mankind to restrict, for selfish national purpose, the fishing activity of any particular nation in any particular segment of this common.
It can be demonstrated that it is in the general warfare of all mankind to protect the resources of the sea from overfishing to the end that the sea will continue to produce the maximum quantity of food that it can.
This is precisely the goal at which the United States aims-to provide the possibility of menagement for each high seas fishery in the world to the end that the population of fish upon which the fishery works will be kept at that level at which a maximum crop can be harvested year after year.
That part of the problem must be Ieft, for the present, to free enterpriss and competition, There is a crop to be taken in the international common. Each takes according to his avility ability. When the safe crop is taken, all stop the harvest.