</HEAD>

<BODY>

<H1>INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS CONCERNING LIVING MARINE </H1>

<H1>RESOURCES OF INTEREST TO NOAA FISHERIES</H1>

<H1>(AGREEMENTS ARE IN FORCE AND THE UNITED STATES IS A</H1>

<H1>PARTY TO THE AGREEMENTS EXCEPT AS NOTED)</H1>

Page

1 International Convention for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (Basic instrument for the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas) -- ICCAT

7 Convention for the Establishment of an Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission -- IATTC

14 Convention for the Conservation of Salmon in the North Atlantic Ocean (Basic instrument for the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization) -- NASCO

20 Convention for the Preservation of the Halibut Fishery of the Northern Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea (Basic instrument for the International Pacific Halibut Commission) -- IPHC

24 Convention for the Conservation of Anadromous Stocks in the North Pacific Ocean (Basic instrument for the North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission) -- NPAFC

28 Treaty Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Canada Concerning Pacific Salmon (Basic instrument for the Pacific Salmon Commission) -- PSC

34 Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (Basic instrument for the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources) -- CCAMLR

40 International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (Basic instrument for the International Whaling Commission) -- IWC

44 Convention on Great Lakes Fisheries between the

 United<PRE>  States and Canada (Basic instrument for the Great      Lakes Fishery Commission) -- GLFC

48  Agreement Between the Government of the United

States</PRE> of America and the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on Mutual Fisheries Relations (Basic instrument for the U.S.- Russia Intergovernmental Consultative Committee) -- ICC

52 U.S.-Japan Consultative Committee on Fisheries

<PRE>

54 Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Seals --

</PRE>
    CCAS

<PRE>

57 U.S.-Canada Agreement on Fisheries

 Enforcement</PRE>

59 North Pacific Marine Science Research Organization -- PICES

66 International Council for the Exploration of the Sea - - ICES

71 *Convention on Future Multilateral Cooperation in the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries (Basic instrument for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization) -- NAFO

75 Governing International Fishery Agreements Between the United States and Foreign Entities

78 Scheduled Meetings

* - U.S. membership under consideration.

<H1>INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION FOR THE</H1>

<H1>CONSERVATION OF ATLANTIC TUNAS</H1>

<H1>(ICCAT)</H1>

Basic Instrument

International Convention for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (TIAS 6767), 20 U.S.T. 2887, 1969, which was signed on May 14, 1966.

Implementing Legislation

Atlantic Tunas Convention Act of 1975 (16 U.S.C. 971)

Member Nations

Angola, Benin, Brazil, Canada, Cape Verde, Côte d'Ivoire, Cuba, Equatorial Guinea, France, Gabon, Ghana, Republic of Guinea, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Morocco, Portugal, Sao Tome and Principe, the Republic of South Africa, Spain, the Russian Federation, Uruguay, the United States, and Venezuela. Benin has indicated its wish to withdraw from the Commission.

Commission Headquarters

International Commission for the Conservation of

Atlantic Tunas

Principe de Vergara 17

Madrid 1, Spain

Executive Secretary: Dr. Antonio Fernandez Gonzalez

Telephone: 275-85-24

Budget

The Commission approved a budget for calendar year 1994 of $1,005,000 (140,268,000 pesetas), of which the U.S. contribution is approximately $113,800 (15,875,221 pesetas).

U.S. Representation

A. Appointment Process

The Atlantic Tunas Convention Act of 1975 provides that not more than three Commissioners shall represent the United States in ICCAT. Commissioners are appointed by the President and can serve no more than 2 three-year terms. Of the three U.S. Commissioners one can be a salaried employee of any state or political subdivision thereof, or the Federal Government. (A NOAA official has served as a U.S. representative to ICCAT since its formation; current "Government" Commissioner is Mr. Carmen J. Blondin.) Of the two Commissioners who are not government employees, one must have knowledge and experience regarding commercial and the other regarding recreational fishing in the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, or Caribbean Sea.

B. U.S. Commissioners:

Carmen J. Blondin

Deputy Assistant Secretary for

International Interests

DOC/NOAA

Washington, D.C. 20230

Leon J. Weddig

National Fisheries Institute

1525 Wilson Boulevard

Arlington, Virginia 20009

Michael B. Montgomery

13200 Crossroads Parkway North

City of Industry, California 91746

C. Advisory Structure:

The U.S. Commissioners are required, under the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act, to constitute an advisory committee of not less than five nor more than twenty individuals selected from the various groups concerned with the fisheries covered by the Convention. The U.S. Commissioners appoint advisory committee members for a term of 2 years, with eligibility for reappointment. The Advisory Committee is invited to attend all non-executive meetings of the U.S. Commissioners and at such meetings have the opportunity to examine and to be heard on all proposed programs of investigation, reports, recommendations, and regulations of the Commission.

Description

A. Mission/Purpose:

The ICCAT was established to provide an effective program of international cooperation in research and conservation in recognition of the unique problems related to the highly migratory nature of tunas and tuna-like species. The Convention Area is defined as all waters of the Atlantic Ocean, including the adjacent seas. The Commission is responsible for providing internationally coordinated research on the condition of the Atlantic tunas, and tuna- like species, and their environment, as well as for the development of regulatory harvest proposals for consideration by the Convention Parties. The objective of such regulatory proposals is to conserve and manage species of tuna and tuna- like species throughout their range in a manner which achieves the maximum sustainable catch. B. Organizational Structure:

The ICCAT is comprised of a (1) commission, (2) council,

(3) executive secretary, and (4) subject area panels. The Commission consists of not more than three delegates from each contracting party. The Council is an elected body within the Commission consisting of a chairman, vice- chairman, and representatives of not less than four or more than eight Contracting Parties and which performs such functions as are assigned to it by the Convention or Commission. Although the Council is supposed to meet at least once between regular meetings, since 1978 Special Meetings of the Commission have been held in lieu of meetings of the Council. The Executive Secretary is responsible for coordinating the programs of investigation, preparing budget estimates, disbursing funds and accounting for expenditures; preparing the collection and analysis of data to accomplish the purposes of the convention; and preparing scientific, administrative, and other reports for approval by the Commission. Panels are established by the Commission and are responsible for review of the species under their purview; collection of scientific and other information; proposing recommendations for joint actions; and recommending studies by the Contracting Parties. Standing Committees on Research and Statistics (SCRS), Finance and Administration, and Infractions have been established by the Commission. ICCAT has also constituted a Permanent Working Group for the Improvement of ICCAT Statistics and Conservation Measures, which met for the first time in 1993.

C. Programs:

The Commission concerns itself with (1) joint planning of research, coordination of research carried on by agencies of the Parties in accordance with its plans, and joint evaluation of the results of such research; (2) the collection and analysis of statistical information relating to the condition of fishery resources in the Convention Area; and (3) joint formulation of regulatory proposals for submission to the Parties.

Regulatory proposals approved by the Commission are submitted to governments for approval. These recommendations become effective for all Parties within approximately 6 months (unless otherwise stated) provided objections are not made during that period by concerned Contracting Governments. Each Party to the Convention has the responsibility for implementing and enforcing the Commission's recommended conservation regulations.

The Commission has taken regulatory actions with regard to three species of Atlantic tunas: yellowfin, bigeye, and bluefin tuna. It has also established conservation measures for Atlantic swordfish. In 1972 the Commission recommended a ban on the taking of yellowfin tuna weighing less than 3.2 kilograms (kg) in amounts greater than an incidental catch allowance per trip of 15 percent of all yellowfin tuna on board a vessel. These regulations were extended to bigeye tuna in 1979.

In 1974, regulatory measures were recommended for Atlantic bluefin tuna which included a 6.4 kg minimum size regulation and a limit on fishing mortality to "current" (i.e., 1974 levels). The capture of bluefin tuna in the western Atlantic was prohibited in 1981 except for a catch quota for continuing scientific monitoring of the stock. This catch was allocated to the ICCAT member nations which had actively participated in the fishery (United States, Canada, Japan) while Brazil and Cuba, whose catches were less than 50 metric tons (mt) annually, were exempt from these regulations. The Commission established a total allowable catch (TAC) of 2,660 mt for the 1983 fishing season (including quotas for the United States of 1,387.3 mt, Canada of 573.3 mt, and Japan of 699.4 mt). Due to the continued concern over the low level of abundance of small bluefin tuna, the Commission also limited the catch of bluefin smaller than 120 centimeters in length to no more than 15 percent in weight of the catch limit in the western Atlantic. Further, no directed fishery was permitted in spawning areas such as the Gulf of Mexico.

At each of its meetings since 1983, the Commission has approved an extension of the existing management regime for bluefin tuna an additional year including those provisions in effect in the eastern Atlantic. At the November 1991 ICCAT meeting, new management measures were recommended that reduced the current scientific monitoring quota for western Atlantic bluefin tuna by 10 percent in 1992 and 1993 with possible additional reductions up to 25 percent based on future SCRS analyses.

Other measures limiting the number of small fish caught, addressing overages, and encouraging tag and release were also adopted by ICCAT. At the 1992 meeting, the United States successfully pressed for a program to identify target goals and timetables to assist in the recovery of both eastern and western bluefin tuna stocks. ICCAT also adopted its "bluefin statistical documentation program," which requires the use of an ICCAT-accepted reporting system to monitor trade in fresh and frozen bluefin tuna. The program will be phased in over time and is expected to address the problem of harvests in excess of ICCAT rules, especially by nonmember countries, by requiring exporters of bluefin tuna to include documents identifying the location and flag of the vessel catching the fish.

In 1993, new quotas for bluefin tuna in the western Atlantic were established. The total catch for the region for 1994 will be reduced by approximately 15% to 1,995 metric tons (of which the U.S. fishermen will receive 1,235.2 tons) and the quota for 1995 will be further reduced to 1,200 metric tons (of which the U.S. fishermen will receive 743.2 tons). This is less than 50% of the 1991 level. For the two years in question, the Japanese share of western Atlantic catch of bluefin tuna will be reduced to 12.5% from 26%. The Japanese agreed also to reduce their catch in the mid-Atlantic from approximately 1,400 tons in 1991 and 1,000 tons in 1992 to 650 metric tons for each of 1994 and 1995.

ICCAT agreed that imports of fresh bluefin tuna should be accompanied by a statistical document as of June 1, 1994. Procedures were clarified for the use of that document as well as for procedures associated with validation by a government official of the bluefin tuna statistical document. The United States called attention to the failure to comply with the ICCAT recommendations in the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean. The United States also raised the question of whether ICCAT should endorse multilateral trade measures to encourage compliance with ICCAT measures, but there was little willingness to discuss this at this time.

In response to U.S. proposals, the Commission approved startup funding to begin pilot studies in 1987 for an enhanced billfish research program. This program has continued with funding from private sources in the sport fishing community.

At the 1990 meeting, the Commission recommended that the following swordfish management provisions become effective in 1991: (1) fishing mortality on fish weighing more than 25 kg be reduced 15 percent from the 1988 levels in the North Atlantic, (2) landing of swordfish weighing less than 25 kg be prohibited in the entire Atlantic, allowing an incidental catch of not more than 15 percent of the number of fish landed, (3) for nations directly fishing for swordfish, effort in the entire Atlantic be limited to 1988 levels, (4) for Contracting Parties whose recent swordfish catch levels are small, that such annual catches be kept within levels that are reasonable, (5) for Contracting Parties that do not target swordfish, the incidental catch be limited to no more than 10 percent of the total weight of the catch, and (6) for nations not party to ICCAT, that these measures be brought to their attention and their cooperation solicited. At its 1992 meeting, ICCAT recommended that all nations maintain swordfish catch levels or fishing capacity at current levels for 1993-94 and instructed the SCRS to consider various measures to rebuild the stock over a reasonable period of time and maintain it at MSY levels. ICCAT also approved a U.S. plan to conduct a 2-year pilot program that would provide for the collection of biological data from dead swordfish discards. It will allow the landing of swordfish in excess of the current 15 percent tolerance under strictly controlled conditions; such fish will be donated to a food bank for distribution to the needy at no cost. This program is now being developed by NMFS.

Staff Contacts

NOAA Fisheries:

<PRE>

 Kevin Chu, F/IA1                 Richard Stone, F/CM3
 Room 7306                        Room 8210
 1335 East-West Highway           1335 East-West Highway
 Silver Spring, MD  20910         Silver Spring, MD  20910
 Phone:  (301) 713-2276           Phone:  (301) 713- 2347</PRE>

Department of State:

Brian Hallman

OES/OMC

Department of State

Washington, D.C. 20520-7818

Phone: (202) 647-2335

<H1>INTER-AMERICAN TROPICAL TUNA COMMISSION</H1>

<H1>(IATTC)</H1>

Basic Instrument

Convention between the United States of America and the Republic of Costa Rica for the establishment of an Inter- American Tropical Tuna Commission, 1949 (TIAS 2044)

Implementing Legislation

Tuna Conventions Act of 1950 (64 Stat. 777), as amended (16 U.S.C., 951-961)

Member Nations

Costa Rica, France, Japan, Nicaragua, Panama, the United States, Vanuatu, and Venezuela. Mexico and Canada withdrew effective November 8, 1978, and May 17, 1984, respectively. Costa Rica withdrew in 1979 and rejoined effective May 9, 1989. Venezuela joined effective June 10, 1992.

Commission Headquarters

Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission

c/o Scripps Institute of Oceanography

8604 La Jolla Shores Drive

La Jolla, California 92037-1508

Director of Investigations: Dr. James Joseph

Telephone: (619) 546-7100

Fax: (619) 546-7133

Budget

The IATTC approved budget is $4,743,000 for FY 1993/1994

(October 1, 1993-September 31, 1994). The requested budget for FY 1994-1995 is $4,865,250. It should be noted that, in recent years, the approved budget has not been completely funded by the Contracting Parties--only about 78 percent of what has been approved has actually been received. The expenses of the Commission are paid by the Contracting Parties in relation to the proportion of the total catch from the fisheries covered by this Convention utilized by each Party. Historically, the United States has paid the bulk (80-90 percent) of the Commission's budget. However, U.S. utilization of the catch, as defined by the Convention, from the eastern Pacific Ocean (EPO) will be greatly diminished when the U.S. tuna market becomes "dolphin safe" in 1994, thereby causing the U.S. contribution to be diminished. The United States will continue to support the IATTC, however it

may be necessary to develop a new framework for determining Contracting Party contributions in order for the Commission to continue functioning at its current level.

U.S. Representation

A. Appointment Process:

The Tuna Conventions Act of 1950 provides that the United States shall be represented by a total of not more than four Commissioners, of which at least one must be an officer of NOAA, one must be chosen from a nongovernmental conservation organization, and not more than one can reside elsewhere than in a state whose vessels maintain a substantial fishery in the area of the Convention. The Commissioners are appointed by and serve at the pleasure of the President.

B. U.S. Commissioners:

Henry R. Beasley

Director, Office of International Affairs

National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA

1335 East-West Highway.

Silver Spring, MD 20910

Robert C. MacDonald

410 Jerome Avenue

Astoria, OR 97103

Mary L. Walker

Luce, Forward, Hamilton, and Scripps

600 West Broadway, Suite 2600

San Diego, CA 92101

C. Advisory Structure:

The Act requires the U.S. Commissioners to appoint an Advisory Committee composed of not less than 5 nor more than 15 persons selected from the groups participating in the fisheries included under the Convention and from nongovernmental conservation organizations. The terms of the Advisory Committee members are fixed by the Commissioners. The Advisory Committee members are invited to attend all non- executive meetings and given opportunity to examine and to be heard on all proposed programs, reports, recommendations, and regulations of the Commission.

Description

A. Mission/Purpose:

The IATTC was established to "(1) study the biology of the tunas and related species of the eastern Pacific Ocean with a view to determining the effects that fishing and natural factors have on their abundance and (2) to recommend appropriate conservation measures so that the stocks of fish can be maintained at levels which will afford maximum sustainable catches." The Commission's duties were broadened in 1976 to include work on the problems arising from the tuna-dolphin relationship in the EPO.

B. Organizational Structure:

The IATTC consists of a Commission composed of national sections and a Director of Investigations. The Commission selects a

Chairman and a Secretary from different national sections for 1-year terms to be succeeded by representatives of different nationalities.

The principal duties of the Commission are (1) to study the biology of the tropical tunas, tuna baitfish, and other kinds of fish taken by tuna vessels in the EPO and the effects of fishing and natural factors upon them, and (2) to recommend appropriate conservation measures, when necessary, so that these stocks of fish can be maintained at levels which will afford the maximum sustained catches. Each national section has one vote. Approval of decisions, resolutions, recommendations and publications is only by unanimous vote of the Commission. National sections may consist of from one to four members appointed by the governments or the respective Contracting Parties. Each national section may establish an advisory committee which is invited to attend non-executive sessions of the Commission meetings. The Director of Investigations is appointed by the Commission and is responsible for drafting programs of investigations, budget formulation, accounting and administrative support, directing technical staff, coordinating Commission work with other organizations and preparing administrative, scientific, and other reports of the Commission.

C. Programs:

To fulfill its mission, the Commission carries out an extensive research program. This program is conducted by a permanent, internationally recruited staff selected and employed by the Director of Investigations, who is responsible to the Commission.

Yellowfin Tuna: The Commission recommends proposals for joint action by the member governments aimed at maintaining the resources at a high level. The regulations recommended by the Commission thus far apply only to yellowfin tuna. Regulation of this fishery has relied on a direct limitation on the catch, i.e., catch quotas, as a means of limiting fishing mortality to achieve optimum abundance of yellowfin tuna. Regulations were first proposed at a Commission meeting held in 1961, but were not implemented until 1966. Regulations were imposed each year through 1979. New features were added from time to time, providing for special allowances to be taken by vessels experiencing certain economic hardships.

Since 1979, no conservation program has been in effect for the Commission Yellowfin Regulatory Area (CYRA), largely because of member countries' reluctance to agree to implement a catch quota level when there is no assurance that it would be observed by non-member countries, such as Mexico, that harvest large amounts of Eastern Pacific tuna. Nevertheless, the Commission has recommended an international yellowfin tuna catch quota within the CYRA every year since 1979 (with the exception of 1987). The annual quotas have increased from 165,000 tons in 1980 to 250,000 tons, with the option to increase the quota by four increments of 25,000 tons each, in 1993. Despite the fact that the Commission's recommendations have not been implemented, they function as the basis for all participants in these fisheries to evaluate the conservation needs of the resource.

Dolphin Conservation: In 1976, the Commission embarked upon an international program to address the problem of the incidental take of dolphins in the tuna fishery. The Commission agreed on a policy to maintain tuna production near current levels and at the same time maintain dolphin stocks at or above levels that would ensure their survival in perpetuity. In connection with this policy, the Commission authorized a program for dolphin research which focused on (1) the recruitment and training of scientific technicians who will collect data from vessels at sea on the stocks of dolphin in the eastern Pacific; and (2) workshops to evaluate and disseminate dolphin-saving techniques and gear technology. The scientific technician program was initiated in January 1979. In 1987, the Commission also approved a resolution on the incidental take of dolphin, calling upon all interested nations whose flag vessels participate in the eastern Pacific purse-seine fishery to take appropriate steps to encourage their fishermen to employ fishing gear and procedures that have proven effective in reducing dolphin mortality. At the 1989 Annual Meeting, considerable time was spent discussing the recent changes in U.S. law which require

the countries fishing in the region to document that they have dolphin protection programs and kill rates comparable to U.S. programs in order to export tuna to the United States.

Following the 1990 meeting, the Commission scheduled a special meeting to explore the establishment of an international dolphin conservation program (IDCP). In September 1990, and in January 1991, special Commission meetings and broader intergovernmental meetings were held to establish such a program with the following objectives: (a) in the short term, to achieve a significant reduction in dolphin mortality and (b) over the long term, to make every effort to reduce dolphin mortality to insignificant levels approaching zero. The elements of this program were to include: (a) limits on dolphin mortality; (b) 100 percent observer coverage; (c) research programs to improve existing fishing gear and techniques, to assess the dynamics of the fishery, and to develop alternative fishing methods; and (d) training programs to achieve the highest standards of performance throughout the international fleet. By the end of 1991, the United States was reassessing the most effective way of accomplishing these objectives.

Finally, at the IATTC Annual Meeting held in La Jolla, California, on June 16-18, 1992, representatives of Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Spain, the United States, Vanuatu, and Venezuela agreed on a mechanism to implement a dolphin conservation resolution adopted during an IATTC Special Meeting on April 21-23, 1992, to reduce progressively dolphin mortality in the EPO tuna purse-seine fishery to levels approaching zero through the setting of annual limits. The resolution provides a dolphin mortality limit on the international tuna fleet in the EPO at 19,500 for 1993, which would be lowered over a 7-year period to less than 5,000 in 1999.

Compliance with the new IDCP is being accomplished through the implementation of individual vessel quotas or DMLs (Dolphin Mortality Limits). To monitor vessel compliance with the new program's DMLs, a Review Panel has been established, comprised of government representatives of Columbia, Mexico, Vanuatu, Venezuela, and the United States. The Panel also includes two fishing industry and two environmental representatives, who are non-voting members selected by the government representatives. In addition, a Scientific Advisory Board has also been established to assist the IATTC in expanding research pertaining to (1) modifications of purse-seine gear to reduce dolphin mortalities and (2) alternative means of catching large yellowfin tuna.

The IDCP program has enjoyed unexpected success to date. IATTC scientists estimate the total number of dolphin mortalities to be less than 3,500 for the EPO tuna fishery in 1993--substantially lower than the total DML of 19,500 for the year. Because of this success, participating governments resolved at the June 1993 IATTC Annual Meeting to revise the schedule of global annual DMLs downward to maintain the credibility of the program. They subsequently revised the 1994 global DML downward from the existing DML of 15,500 to 9,300, a 40 percent reduction. The Parties also agreed that in each successive year covered by the DML schedule in the IDCP, they will review the schedule for future years with the objective of determining whether further reductions in the schedule can be achieved.

Status of the Commission

At the Intergovernmental Meeting held on October 26-27, 1993, in La Jolla, California, in conjunction with the 52nd Meeting of the IATTC, the Under Secretary of Fisheries Development for Mexico announced that Mexico intended to rejoin the IATTC, and that a formal application for membership would be submitted in the near future.

Staff Contacts

<PRE>

National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA:                                                                                                             </PRE>

<PRE>

Headquarters: Southwest

 Region:</PRE>

<PRE>

 Paul E. Niemeier, F/IA1          Gary Matlock, F/SWR
 1335 East-West Highway           501 W. Ocean Boulevard
 Silver Spring, MD  20910         Suite 4200
 Telephone: (301) 713-2276        Long Beach, CA  90802-4213
 Fax: (301) 713-2313              Telephone: (310) 980- 4001</PRE>
 Fax: (310) 980-

4018

Department of State:

Brian Hallman

OES/OMC

Department of State

Washington, D.C. 20520-7818

Telephone: (202) 647-2335

Fax: (202) 736-7350

<H1>NORTH ATLANTIC SALMON CONSERVATION ORGANIZATION</H1>

<H1>(NASCO)</H1>

Basic Instrument

Convention for the Conservation of Salmon in the North Atlantic Ocean (TIAS 10789), 1982

Implementing Legislation

Atlantic Salmon Convention Act of 1982 (16 U.S.C. 3601)

Member Nations

Canada, Denmark (in respect of the Faroe Islands and Greenland), the European Union (EU), Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, United States, and the Russian Federation

Commission Headquarters

North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization

11 Rutland Square

Edinburgh, EH1 2AS Scotland

United Kingdom

Secretary: Dr. Malcolm Windsor

Telephone: 031-228-2551

Budget

The Convention provides that 30 percent of the Organization's budget will be borne equally by the Parties; 70 percent will be based on recent catches of salmon in intercepting fisheries. The Council adopted a budget for 1994 of £296,070 ($488,507), setting the U.S. contribution at £9,922 ($16,371).

The Council adopted a forecast budget for 1995 which estimates the NASCO budget will be a total of £315,550 with a U.S. contribution of £10,575 ($17,449).

U.S. Representation

A. Appointment Process:

The Atlantic Salmon Convention Act of 1982 provides that the United States shall be represented on the Council and Commissions by three U.S. Commissioners to be appointed by the President to serve at his pleasure. Of the Commissioners, one must be an official of the U.S. Government and two must be individuals (not officials of the U.S. Government) who are knowledgeable or experienced concerning the conservation and management of salmon of U.S. origin. The current U.S. Federal Commissioner is a NOAA official,

Mr. Allen Peterson, Director, NOAA Fisheries, Northeast Fisheries Science Center.

B. U.S. Commissioners:

Allen E. Peterson, Jr.

Science and Research Director

Northeast Fisheries Science Center

NOAA Fisheries

Woods Hole, MA 02543

Clinton B. Townsend

Perkins, Townsend, Shay & Brown, P.A.

P.O. Box 467

Skowhegan, Maine 04976

David F. Egan

Chairman

Connecticut River Atlantic Salmon Commission

273 Weatherly Trail

Guilford, CT 06437

C. Advisory Structure:

The U.S. Section of NASCO was formally constituted to provide the U.S. Commissioners with advice, with particular reference to development of U.S. policies, positions, and negotiating tactics. Membership of the U.S. Section includes public and ex officio members. Public members are appointed by the Commissioners and serve for a term of 2 years with eligibility for an additional two-year term. Public members are limited to 15 in number and must be persons knowledgeable or experienced concerning the conservation and management of salmon of U.S. origin. Ex officio members include:

<PRE>

(1)  the Chairman (or designee) of the New England Fishery

</PRE> Management Council;

(2) a representative of the fishery agency of each of the States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut;

(3) the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans and Fisheries Affairs or his representative;

(4) a representative of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and Department of Commerce; and

(5) a representative of the Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior.

Description

A. Mission/Purpose:

The Convention applies to the salmon stocks which migrate beyond areas of fisheries jurisdiction of coastal states of the Atlantic Ocean north of 36° N latitude throughout their migratory range. The purpose of NASCO is: (1) to promote the acquisition, analysis, and dissemination of scientific information pertaining to salmon stocks in the North Atlantic Ocean, and (2) to promote the conservation, restoration, enhancement, and rational management of salmon stocks in the North Atlantic Ocean through international cooperation.

B. Organizational Structure:

The Organization consists of a: (1) Council; (2) three regional Commissions: North American Commission (NAC),

West Greenland Commission (WGC), and North-East Atlantic Commission (NEAC); and (3) the Secretary.

The Council (which consists of representatives of all Contracting Parties): (1) provides a forum for the study, analysis, and exchange of information on salmon stocks subject to the Convention; (2) provides for consultation and cooperation concerning salmon stocks beyond Commission Areas; (3) coordinates the activities of the Commissions, (4) establishes working arrangements with the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) and other fisheries and scientific organizations; (5) makes recommendations concerning the undertaking of the scientific research, (6) supervises and coordinates the administrative, financial, and other internal affairs of the Organization, and (7) coordinates the Organization's external relations.

The three Commissions each have the following functions:

(1) provide for consultation and cooperation among their members, (2) propose regulatory measures for intercepting salmon fisheries, and (3) make recommendations to the Council concerning the undertaking of scientific research.

Canada and the United States are members of the NAC. Canada, the EU, the United States, and Denmark (in respect of Greenland), are members of the WGC. Denmark (in respect of the Faroe Islands), the EU, the Russian Federation, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden are members of the NEAC. In case of the NAC, the EU may submit and vote on proposals for regulatory measures concerning salmon stocks originating in the territories of its member States. Canada and the United States each have similar rights in the case of the NEAC.

C. Programs:

Fishing for Atlantic salmon by non-Contracting Parties to the NASCO Convention has long been a problem for the organiza- tion. At the Ninth annual meeting, held in June 1992, in Washington, D.C., the Council approved a protocol to the NASCO Convention for signature by non-Contracting Parties to NASCO. The protocol calls upon such states to prohibit the fishing of Atlantic salmon stocks beyond the areas of fishing jurisdiction of coastal states and to take appropriate actions to enforce the provisions of the protocol. The NASCO Council also approved a resolution calling upon NASCO Parties to encourage non-Contracting Parties fishing for salmon on the High Seas to comply with the Protocol and to obtain and compile information on such fishing. The NASCO Secretariat was given the tasks of devising a mechanism by which parties to the NASCO Convention may approach states in which vessels observed to be fishing on the high seas for Atlantic salmon are registered and of documenting and disseminating information on high seas fishing activities contrary to the protocol. The protocol is designed to provide non- Contracting Parties with a legal instrument for the creation and enforcement of domestic legislation and regulations.

As of June 1993, no non-Contracting Parties had become bound by the protocol.

In the 1992 NAC, Canada reported significant new management measures for Atlantic salmon within the Canadian Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). Beginning in June 1992, the Newfoundland commercial salmon fishery was closed for

5 years. The Canadian government is buying out and retiring commercial salmon licenses on a voluntary basis during this period. The commercial salmon fishery off Labrador will remain open, but participants in this fishery are also eligible for the C$ 40 million license buy-out program. There continues to be no commercial salmon fishing in the Maritime provinces, and the moratorium on license transfers remains in effect. Measures affecting the recreational fisheries vary by area but include delays of the fishing season, the establishment of quotas to ensure adequate salmon returns, and reductions in seasonal bag limits. The United States, which has no commercial Atlantic salmon fishery, will continue its 1 fish per year bag limit for the recreation fishery in Maine.

The NAC also heard a report from its scientific working group on salmonid introductions and transfers. Protocols adopted last year had been published in English and French and were to be widely distributed among relevant North American agencies. The working group is to continue monitoring implementation of the protocols.

Within the WGC, devising a management regime that could reduce interceptions of North-American origin salmon in the commercial fishery off West Greenland was the focus of U.S. efforts at the 1993 annual meeting. Agreement was reached in principle on a reduced 1993 quota (213 metric tons) and the implementation of a 5-year science-based management regime. This agreement was later ratified by a postal vote. Quotas over the next 4 years will be derived from ICES scientific advice, on the basis of a mathematical model. Spawning escapement (of multi-sea winter fish that return from Greenland to spawn in homewater rivers in North America) should increase dramatically.

The U.S. long-term policy objective to end ocean commercial interceptory fisheries for Atlantic salmon is one step closer to reality. While the management regime is in place, a U.S.- funded study should be completed to develop culturally acceptable, income-producing alternatives for Greenlandic fishermen who give up the fishery for Atlantic salmon. In addition, a private sector short-term assistance package has been agreed that provides economic development assistance, net and other gear buy-back assistance, and direct financial assistance.

The NEAC provides for the management of the interceptory salmon fishery off the Faroe Islands. There had been no commercial fishery during 1992 because of a private sector quota purchase that applied to the years 1991, 1992, and 1993. Negotiations to extend these arrangements are anticipated. Concern was expressed within the NEAC that a reduction in catch and/or fishing effort would be appropriate in 1994. Ultimately, the Commission decided to carry over the 1993 quota of 550 metric tons but establish an effort limitation program that, in effect, reduces the number of licenses that can be issued and used during the fishing season. This Commission also agreed to establish a working group to examine the question of introductions and transfers.

Scientific advice is provided to NASCO by the ICES. The Advisory Committee on Fishery Management (ACFM), a working group within ICES, provides information on catch statistics and associated research results in response to the specific requests from NASCO. At the 1992 annual meeting, the Council again approved a request for scientific advice from ICES but also established a standing committee, composed of a scientists and a management representative from each of NASCO's three geographic commissions, to formulate future requests for scientific advice from ICES. The standing committee is designed to address on-going complaints from managers that ICES advice is not responsive to the questions put to it, and to ICES' complaints of inadequately formulated questions.

The Council agreed to hold its 1994 annual meeting in Oslo, June 6-10, 1994.

Staff Contacts

NOAA Fisheries:

<PRE>

 Dean Swanson, F/IA1              Arthur Neill
 Room 7270                        Northeast Fisheries Center
 1335 East-West Highway           NOAA Fisheries
 Silver Spring, MD  20910         Woods Hole, MA  20543
 Phone: (301) 713-2276            Phone:  (508) 548- 1350</PRE>

Department of State:

Stetson Tinkham

OES/OMC

Department of State

Washington, D.C. 20520-7818

Phone: (202) 647-3940

<H1>INTERNATIONAL PACIFIC HALIBUT COMMISSION</H1>

<H1>(IPHC)</H1>

Basic Instrument

Convention for the Preservation of the Halibut Fishery of the Northern Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea, 1953 (TIAS 2900)

Implementing Legislation

Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1982 (as amended: 50 Stat. 325; 67 Stat. 494; 79 Stat. 902; 97 Stat. 78)

Member Nations

Canada and the United States

Commission Headquarters

International Pacific Halibut Commission

P.O. Box 95009

University Station

Seattle, Washington 98105-2009

Director: Dr. Donald A. McCaughran

Telephone: (206) 634-1838

Budget

The budget for the fiscal year running from October 1, 1994 through September 30, 1995 was approved at $ 1,721,000. The United States and Canada will contribute equal shares of $800,000 to fund the budget; and the Commission will fund the balance.

U.S. Representation

A. Appointment Process:

The United States is represented on the IPHC by three Commissioners who are appointed by the President for a determinate period. Of these Commissioners, one must be a NOAA official, one must be a resident of Alaska, and one must be a non-resident of Alaska. In addition, one of these three Commissioners must be a voting member of the North Pacific Fishery Management Council. The Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Commerce, may designate from time to time Alternate U.S. Commissioners to the IPHC.

B. U.S. Commissioners: (term expiration is in parentheses)

Steven Pennoyer (December 12, 1994)

Director, Alaska Region

National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA

P.O. Box 21668

Juneau, Alaska 99802

Richard I. Eliason (Designated Alternate Commissioner)

Alaska State Senate

P.O. Box 143

Sitka, Alaska 99835

Ralph G. Hoard (Designated Alternate Commissioner)

Executive Vice President

Icicle Seafoods, Inc.

4019 21st Avenue West

P.O. Box 79003

Seattle, Washington 98119

C. Advisory Structure:

There are no formal provisions for a U.S. Advisory Committee to IPHC, although an informal group made up of U.S. and Canadian industry representatives, known as the IPHC Conference Board, does attend and provide recommendations to annual Commission meetings.

Description

A. Mission/Purpose:

The IPHC was created to conserve, manage, and rebuild the halibut stocks in the Convention Area to those levels which would achieve and maintain the maximum sustainable yield from the fishery.

The halibut resource and fishery have been managed by the IPHC since 1923. The IPHC was established by a Convention between the United States and Canada, which has been revised several times to extend the Commission's authority and meet new conditions in the fishery. The most recent change, a protocol, was concluded in 1979, and involved an amendment to the 1953 Halibut Convention.

"Convention waters" are defined as the waters off the west coasts of Canada and the United States, including the southern as well as the western coasts of Alaska, within the respective maritime areas in which either Party exercises exclusive fisheries jurisdiction. For purposes of the Convention, the "maritime area" in which a Party exercises exclusive fisheries jurisdiction includes without distinction areas within and seaward of the territorial sea or internal waters of that Party.

B. Organizational Structure:

The IPHC consists of a Commission and staff. The Commission is comprised of six members; three representatives appointed by each Contracting Party. All decisions of the Commission are made by a concurring vote of at least two of the Commissioners of each Contracting Party. The research programs and regulatory actions of the Commission are coordinated by the IPHC staff, in consultation with the Commissioners. The IPHC staff currently includes over 25 employees, most of whom are fishery biologists; the rest are administrative and support staff.

C. Programs:

Under the Protocol to the Convention, the Commission retains a research staff and recommends, for the approval of the Parties, regulations designed to achieve the purpose of the Convention. The Protocol provides for: (1) the setting of quotas in the Convention Area, and (2) joint regulation of the halibut fishery in the entire Convention Area under Commission regulations. Neither U.S. nor Canadian halibut fishing vessels are presently allowed to fish in the waters of the other country.

The IPHC held its 70th Annual Meeting in Seattle, Washington, January 24-37, 1994. The Commission completed its discussion of fishing area, catch limits, fishing periods and other 1993 management measures and recommended government action. The total catch limit recommended for 1994 is 56.95 million pounds, 2.61 million pounds greater than the Commission recommended for 1993.

The increase in the total catch limit resulted from updated estimates of abundance and is not an indication of improved stock conditions. The Commission noted that abundance is declining, and the decline is likely to continue for several years. Biological data and fishery data indicate somewhat different levels of abundance, but both show the declining trend. This suggests the need to be conservative in setting catch limits.

In 1991, Canada implemented an individual quota system; a similar system is being developed for Alaska by the United States for implementation in 1995.

The Commission reviewed improvements in bycatch management that were requested in a resolution passed during the 1991 Annual Meeting. Canada submitted a bycatch reduction plan that it expects to reduce halibut bycatch mortality in Canadian waters by 1997 to 50% of the 1991 level. United States regulations for Alaskan waters have been successful in reducing bycatch mortality. Additionally, the Commission requested that the Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC) develop a plan to estimate and reduce bycatch mortality in Area 2A (Washington, Oregon and Northern California).

The Commission received regulatory proposals for 1994 from the scientific staff, Canadian and United States fishermen and processors, and other fishery agencies and recommended commercial fishing seasons and catch limits for 1994. The

Commission will recommend to the governments a catch sharing plan for Area 2A developed by the PFMC.

The Commission changed the application of the Area 4 (4A - eastern Aleutians, 4B - western Aleutians, C - Pribilof Islands, 4D - northwestern Bering Sea, 4D-N - St. Lawrence Island, and 4E - Bering Sea flats) clearance exemptions from persons to vessels. Therefore, only vessels (not persons) that land their entire annual catch in Area 4B, 4C, 4D-N, or 4E are exempted from clearance procedures.

New regulations were adopted that require fishermen and processors to unload all fish when fishing period limits are in effect and to record these landings on state fish tickets. These regulations are intended to help assure full accounting of all landings, including overages and fish retained for personal use. Other commercial regulations remain the same as in 1993.

The recommended regulations for the 1994 halibut fishery will become official as soon as they are approved by the Canadian and U.S. Governments.

The next annual meeting of the Commission will be held in Vancouver, B.C. from January 23-26, 1995.

Staff Contacts

<PRE>

NOAA Fisheries: Department of

 State:</PRE>

<PRE>

 Robin Tuttle, F/IA1                 Gregory Burton
  Room 7256                          OES/OMC - Room 5806
  1335 East-West Highway             Department of State
 Silver Spring, Maryland  20910      Washington, D.C.  20520
 Phone: (301) 713-2282               Phone:  (202) 647-2009
</PRE>

<H1>NORTH PACIFIC ANADROMOUS FISH COMMISSION</H1>

<H1>(NPAFC)</H1>

Basic Instrument

Convention for the Conservation of Anadromous Stocks in the North Pacific Ocean, 1992 (hereafter referred to as the "Convention")

Implementing Legislation

The North Pacific Anadromous Stocks Act of 1992 (Title VIII of P.L. 102-567)

Member Nations

Canada, Japan, the Russian Federation, and the United States

Commission Headquarters

North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission

6640 Northwest Marine Drive

Vancouver, B.C., Canada V6T 1X2

Interim Executive Director: Mr. Shigeto Hase (Mr. Hase's appointment ends on March 31, 1994. The Commission has appointed Dr. Irina Shestakova, Russia, as Executive Director for a 4-year term effective April 1, 1994.)

Telephone: (604) 228-1128

Fax: (604) 228-1135

Budget

The NPAFC budget for Fiscal Year 1994/1995 (beginning July 1, 1994) is Canadian $564,000 ($135,000 from each Party).

U.S. Representation

A. Appointment Process:

The United States is represented on the Commission by not more than three U.S. Commissioners who are appointed by the President and serve at his pleasure. Each U.S. Commissioner is appointed for a term not to exceed 4 years, but is eligible for reappointment. Of the three Commissioners, one must be an official of the U.S. Government, one a resident of the State of Alaska, and the third a resident of the State of Washington. Candidates for the non-Federal Commissioner positions must be knowledgeable or experienced concerning anadromous stocks and ecologically-related species of the North Pacific Ocean.

In addition, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Commerce, may designate from time to time Alternate U.S. Commissioners to the NPAFC. The number of Alternate Commissioners that may be designated to a Commission meeting is limited to the number of authorized U.S. Commissioners that will not be present.

B. U.S. Commissioners:

U.S. Commissioners have not yet been appointed to the NPAFC. The United States was represented by Alternate Commissioners at the NPAFC's First Annual Meeting in November 1993.

C. Advisory Structure:

The Advisory Panel to the U.S. Section of the NPAFC must be composed of: (1) the Commissioner of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game; (2) the Director of the Washington Department of Fisheries; (3) one representative of the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission; and (4) eleven members (six residents of the State of Alaska and five residents of the State of Washington) appointed by the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Commerce, from among a slate of 12 persons nominated by the Governor of Alaska and a slate of 10 persons nominated by the Governor of Washington. There must be at least one representative of commercial salmon fishing interests and one representative of environmental interests on each of the Governors' slates.

As is the case with NPAFC Commissioners, Advisors must be knowledgeable of North Pacific anadromous stocks and ecologically related species. Advisors serve for a term not to exceed 4 years, and may not serve more than two consecutive terms.

Description:

A. Mission/Purpose:

The NPAFC serves as a forum for promoting the conservation of anadromous stocks and ecologically-related species, including marine mammals, sea birds, and non-anadromous fish, in the high seas area of the North Pacific Ocean. This area, as defined in the Convention, is "the waters of the North Pacific Ocean and its adjacent seas, north of 33° North Latitude beyond 200 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured." In addition, the NPAFC serves as the venue for coordinating the collection, exchange, and analysis of scientific data regarding the above species within Convention waters. It also coordinates high seas fishery enforcement activities by member countries (the Convention prohibits directed fishing for salmonids and includes provisions to minimize the incidental take of salmonids in other fisheries in the Convention area).

B. Organizational Structure:

The NPAFC currently has two standing committees, the Committee on Enforcement, Finance and Administration (CEFA) and the Committee on Scientific Research and Statistics (CSRS). However, the Commission has instructed its Secretariat to take the necessary steps to separate the CEFA into two committees, the Committee on Enforcement and the Committee on Finance and Administration, in time for the Second Annual Meeting in October 1994. The committees are responsible for providing accurate and timely advice to the Commission in the areas relating to the finances of the Secretariat and the scope of the enforcement activities and scientific research conducted under the auspices of the Commission.

C. Programs:

Because the NPAFC is a relatively new commission (its inaugural meeting was held in February 1993), the precise nature of the its programs have not yet been fully defined.

The First Annual Meeting of the NPAFC was held in Vancouver, B.C., November 1-5, 1993. Regarding enforcement activities, the member countries exchanged information on fishing activities contrary to provisions of the Convention, reviewed 1993 enforcement operations, exchanged information on penalties for various fishing violations, and evaluated measures, including a certificate of origin program, to deter trade in illegally harvested salmon. They also exchanged information on 1994 enforcement plans. In reference to fishing and scientific research, Parties exchanged data on their salmon catch and production, reviewed 1993 scientific research activities, and discussed research plans for 1994. Major research emphasis continues to be placed on the determination of the country of origin of anadromous stocks migrating into the Convention area, including their distribution and abundance and life histories. Parties also identified issues affecting the productivity of Pacific salmon for cooperative work with the North Pacific Marine Science Research Organization (PICES). Finally, the NPAFC decided to invite the People's Republic of China and the Republic of Korea to become Parties to the Convention at the earliest opportunity.

The Second Annual Meeting of the NPAFC is scheduled to be held in Vladivostok, Russia, starting October 10, 1994.

Governmental Staff Contacts

National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA:

<PRE>

 Paul E. Niemeier, F/IA1             
 1335 East-West Highway              
 Silver Spring, Maryland  20910      </PRE>

Telephone: (301) 713-2276

Fax: (301) 713-2313

Department of State:

William E. Dilday

Office of Marine Conservation, OES/OMC

Department of State

Washington, D.C. 20520

Telephone: (202) 647-2009

Fax: (202) 736-7350

<H1>PACIFIC SALMON COMMISSION</H1>

<H1>(PSC)</H1>

Basic Instrument

Treaty Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Canada Concerning Pacific Salmon, 1985

Implementing Legislation

Pacific Salmon Treaty Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3631)

Member States

Canada and the United States

Commission Headquarters

Pacific Salmon Commission

1155 Robson Street, Suite 600

Vancouver, British Columbia

Canada V6E 1B5

Executive Secretary: Mr. Ian Todd

Telephone: (604) 684-8081

Fax: (604) 666-8707

Budget

The approved Commission budget for FY 1993-94 (April 1, 1993- March 1, 1994) is $1,600,000 (Canadian) with a U.S. contribution of $800,000 (Canadian). The FY 1994-95 budget (April 1, 1994-March 1, 1995) is identical to the FY 1993-94 budget.

U.S. Representation

A. Appointment Process:

The appointment process for U.S. members of the PSC includes several unique features. The legislation implementing the treaty specifies: "The United States shall be represented on the Commission by four Commissioners who are knowledgeable or experienced concerning Pacific salmon, to be appointed by and serve at the pleasure of the President. Of these, one shall be an official of the U.S. Government who shall be a non- voting member of the U.S. Section; one shall be a resident of the State of Alaska and shall be appointed from a list of at least six qualified individuals nominated by the Governor of that State; one shall be a resident of the States of Oregon or Washington and shall be appointed from a list of at least six qualified individuals nominated by the Governors of those States; and one shall be appointed from a list of at least six qualified individuals nominated by the treaty Indian Tribes of the States of Idaho, Oregon, or Washington. Two of the initial appointments shall be for 2-year terms; all other appointments shall be for

4-year terms." Legislation also provides for the designation of an Alternate Commissioner for each Commissioner. In the absence of a Commissioner, the Alternate Commissioner may exercise all functions of the Commissioner.

B. COMMISSIONERS ALTERNATE COMMISSIONERS

Mr. Robert Turner (Acting)

Director

Washington Department of

Fisheries

115-General Admin. Bldg.

Olympia, WA 98504-3135

Mr. Rollie Rousseau

16420 S.W. Joscelyn Street

Beaverton, OR 97006

Mr. Charles P. Meacham (Acting)

Deputy Commissioner

Alaska Department of Fish and

Game

P.O. Box 25526

Juneau, AK 99802-5526Vacant

Mr. Gerald I. James

Lummi Indian Tribe

2616 Kwina Road

Bellingham, WA 98226

VacantMs. N. Kathryn Brigham

Columbia River Inter- Tribal

Fish Commission

729 N.E. Oregon St., Suite 200<PRE>

Portland, OR  97232

</PRE>

Mr. Henry R. Beasley

Director

Office of Int'l Affairs

NMFS, NOAA

1335 East-West Highway

Silver Spring, MD 20910

C. Advisory Structure

No formal advisory group currently exists.

Description

A. Mission/Purpose:

The PSC's mission is to serve as a forum for cooperation between the United States and Canada in the establishment of general fishery management regimes for the international conservation and harvest sharing of intermingling North Pacific salmon stocks. Implementation of the principles of the Pacific Salmon Treaty enable the two countries, through better conservation and enhancement, to "prevent overfishing and provide for optimum

production; and provide for each Party to receive benefits equivalent to the production of salmon originating in its waters."

B. Organizational Structure:

The Commission has a complex organizational structure which includes three regional Panels (Northern, Fraser River, and Southern) consisting of 16 U.S. Panel Members (nine of whom are appointed by the Secretary of Commerce). The Panels are responsible for providing advice to the Commission on the management regimes for the intercepting salmon fisheries in those regions; i.e., those in which one or both countries intercept salmon spawned in the other country. This is done by reviewing technical data on annual fishing plans and regulations, and the salmon enhancement programs of each country. Based on the advice provided by the Panels, the PSC formulates management recommendations, including catch limits and related regulations, to present to the two governments. These recommendations become effective upon approval by both governments.

C. Programs:

Most of the PSC salmon management regimes expired at the end of 1992. Hence, much of the Commission's energy in 1992 and early 1993 was focused on preparations for renegotiating the regimes for the 1993 fishing season and beyond (many were multi-year arrangements). The United States and Canada attempted to negotiate multiyear management regimes in 1993, but after protracted negotiations were only able to achieve a 1-year agreement. Therefore, all of the salmon management regimes programs will need to be renegotiated in 1994.

PSC harvest quotas which expired in 1993 include those for the following intercepting fisheries by area and/or species:

Transboundary Rivers (Southeast Alaska and Northern British

Columbia)

Southeast Alaska and Northern British Columbia

--Portland Canal rebuilding and conservation program

Chinook Salmon

--All-gear catches in Southeast Alaska and Northern and

Central British Columbia

--Canadian troll catch off the west coast of Vancouver

Island

--Canadian total annual catch of sport and troll fisheries

in the Strait of Georgia

Fraser River Sockeye and Pink Salmon

--Annual U.S. harvest levels of Fraser River sockeye and

pink salmon

Coho Salmon

--Annual Canadian harvest levels off the west coast of

Vancouver Island

--Certain rules of conduct for various Canadian and U.S.

fisheries in southern British Columbia and northern Puget Sound.

Southern British Columbia and Washington State Chum Salmon

--Management regimes for chum salmon in southern British

Columbia and northern Puget Sound, with harvest limits for U.S. fisheries

Current Negotiations: At its Post Season Meeting in Vancouver, British Columbia, on November 29-December 2, the PSC conducted its post season review and began negotiations on new Pacific salmon conservation and management regimes. In their initial meetings, the PSC bilateral Panels and the Chinook Working Group focused on developing work plans and exchanging information. The U.S. participants provided Canada with a chinook proposal calling for a 5-year management regime extending through 1998, "unless (i) modified in 1994 or a subsequent year by mutually agreed adjustments based on chinook abundance and rebuilding progress, or (ii) modified in 1996 or a subsequent year based on a mutually agreed abundance-based management approach." The proposed chinook harvest ceilings, while similar to previous limits, would be supplemented by controls on fishery exploitation rates off the west coast of Vancouver Island and Georgia Strait fisheries. The U.S. chinook proposal also calls for collateral bilateral processes to address: (1) stocks of concern, (2) incidental mortalities, and (3) optimum production. The chinook regime is of particular interest in view of the long-term rebuilding obligation assumed by both countries, as well as the presence in PSC fisheries of Snake River fall chinook salmon listed as threatened under the U.S. Endangered Species Act.

Panel Actions--In the Fraser River Panel, the U.S. side proposed a new framework management regime for Fraser River sockeye and pink salmon based on the marginal harvest rate concept. The Southern Panel began bilateral discussion of a new management regime for coho salmon off the west coast of Vancouver Island that might include limits on both the harvest rate and overall harvest in the fishery. The Northern Panel assigned teams to address management regimes for (1) the transboundary rivers, and (2) northern boundary area of southeast Alaska and northern British Columbia.

Long-term Objectives: In addition to the specific management issues mentioned above, the PSC is committed to work on the broader issues of (1) determining salmon interception estimates and (2) documenting each country's production and management objectives for Pacific salmon fisheries of mutual concern with a view toward identifying incompatibilities and areas of possible cooperation. Separate U.S.-Canada government-to-government talks have also been initiated to explore approaches to the "equity" aspects of the Pacific Salmon Treaty, relating to the benefits each side receives from the production of salmon. 

Staff Contacts

National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA:

Headquarters: Northwest Region:

<PRE>

    Paul E. Niemeier               Charles K. Walters
    NMFS (F/IA1), NOAA             Pac. Salmon Treaty Coord.
    1335 East-West Highway         7600 Sand Point Way
    Silver Spring, MD 20910        Seattle, WA  98115-0070
    Telephone: 301-713-2276        Telephone: 206-526-6150                                                                                           
    Fax: 301-713-2313              Fax: 206-526- 6534</PRE>

Department of State:

Greg Burton

OES/OMC, DOS

Washington, D.C. 20520

Telephone: 202-647-1948

Fax: 202-736-7350

<H1>COMMISSION FOR THE CONSERVATION OF </H1>

<H1>ANTARCTIC MARINE LIVING RESOURCES</H1>

<H1>(CCAMLR)</H1>

Basis Instrument

Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (TIAS 10240), 1982

Implementing Legislation

Antarctic Marine Living Resources Convention of 1984

(16 U.S.C. 2431)

Member Nations

Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Chile, European Economic Community, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, the Russian Federation, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the United States of America (Note: Bulgaria, Canada, Finland, Greece, the Netherlands, Peru, and Uruguay have acceded to the Convention but are not members of the Commission).

Commission Headquarters

Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic

Marine Living Resources

25 Old Wharf

Hobart, Tasmania 7000 Australia

Executive Secretary: Estaban De Salas Ortueta

Telephone: 61 02 31 0366

Budget

(Amounts are in Australian dollars) The Commission approved a budget for 1994 of $1,633,000, a 4% increase, adjusted for inflation, over the 1993 budget. The U.S. contribution for 1994 was assessed at $62,845. In addition, the United States contributed $5,146 towards entitlements funding.

U.S. Representation

A. Appointment Process

The Secretary of State, with the concurrence of the Secretary of Commerce and the Director of the National Science Foundation, appoints an officer or employee of the United States as the U.S. representative to the Commission. The Secretary of Commerce and the Director of the National

Science Foundation, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, designates the United States representative to the Scientific Committee.

B. U.S. Representative to the Commission:

Raymond Arnaudo

Deputy Director, Office of Ocean Affairs

OES/OA, DOS - Room 5801

Washington, D.C. 20520

Phone: (202) 647-3262

U.S. Representative to the Scientific Committee:

Rennie Holt

Director, Antarctic Ecosystem Research Group

NOAA/NMFS F/SWC

P.O. Box 271

La Jolla, California 92038

Phone: (619) 546-7601

C. Advisory Structure:

The U.S. Representative to the Scientific Committee is responsible for providing scientific advice to the Commissioner on the operation of the U.S. Antarctic Marine Living Resources (AMLR) directed research program; on the status of krill, finfish, squid, marine mammal, and bird populations; on data requirements; on the long-term program of work of the Scientific Committee; and on recommendations for conservation and management measures. Permanent Working Groups on Krill, Fish Stock Assessment, and the CCAMLR Ecosystem Monitoring Program have been constituted to develop and review research proposals and results.

Description

A. Mission/Purpose

The 1982 Convention established CCAMLR for the purpose of protecting and conserving the marine living resources in the waters surrounding Antarctica. The Convention is based upon an ecosystem approach to the conservation of marine living resources and incorporates standards designed to ensure the conservation of individual populations and species and the Antarctic marine ecosystem as a whole.

The Convention applies to the Antarctic marine living resources of the area south of 60° South latitude and to the Antarctic marine living resources of the area between that latitude and the Antarctic Convergence which form part of the Antarctic marine ecosystem. The Antarctic Convergence is deemed to be a line joining the following points along parallels of latitude and meridians of longitude: 50°S, 0°; 50°S, 30°E; 45°S, 30°E; 45°S, 80°E; 55°S, 80°E; 55°S, 150°E; 60°S, 150°E; 60°S, 150°E; 60°S, 50°W; 50°S, 50°W; 50°S, 0°.

B. Organizational Structure

CCAMLR is comprised of the Commission, Executive Secretary, and a Scientific Committee. The Commission consists of one representative from each member nation and is responsible for facilitating research, compiling data on the status of and changes in Antarctic marine living resources, ensuring the acquisition of catch and effort data, publishing information, identifying conservation needs, adopting conservation measures, and implementing a system of observation and inspection. The Executive Secretary handles the administra- tive matters for the Commission. The Scientific Committee is comprised of scientific advisors from the member nations. It sponsors the permanent working groups and recommends research programs and conservation and other measures to the Commis- sion. There are working groups for Fish Stock Assessment; Krill; and the CCAMLR Ecosystem Monitoring Program.

C. Programs:

The Commission adopted its first conservation measures during the 1984 session (CCAMLR III). There are presently 35 conservation measures and 2 resolutions in force. 

 Measures relating to finfish. Conservation measure 2/III prohibits the use of pelagic and bottom trawls of less than 120 mm mesh size in the directed fishery for Notothenia rossii and Dissostichus eleginoides and of less than 80 mm mesh size in the directed fisheries for Notothenia gibberifrons and N. squamifrons. Measure 3/IV prohibits directed fishing on N. rossii around South Georgia (Statistical Subarea 48.3) and requests members to keep by-catches of N. rossii in fisheries directed to other species to the level allowing the optimum recruitment to the stock.

Measure 4/V establishes regulations on mesh size measurements which supplement Measure 2/III. Fishing around South Georgia was further addressed in Highlight by establishing authority for the Commission at the 1987 meeting to adopt limitations on catch, or equivalent measures binding for the 1987/88 and subsequent fishing seasons. Measure 7/XI requires the Commission to regulate fishing around Statistical Subarea 48.3 (South Georgia). Measure 59/XI limits the total catch of N. squamifrons in Statistical Division 58.4.4 (Ob and Lena Banks) in the 1992/93 and 1993/94 seasons; applies the reporting systems in 51/XI and 52/XI; and requires that age frequency and age/length keys for N. squamifrons and any other species forming a significant part of the catch be collected and reported to each annual meeting of the Working Group on Fish Stock Assessment for each Bank separately. Measure 66/XII limits the total catch of Champsocephalus gunnari in Statistical Subarea 48.3 in the 1993/94 season to 9,200 tons. The season is set from January 1, 1994 through March 31, 1994. The use of bottom trawls in the directed fishery is prohibited. Reporting consistent with measures 51/XI and 52/XI applies. Measure 67/XII limits the total catch of Electrona carlsbergi in Statistical Subarea 48.3 for the 1993/94 season to 200,000 tons; sets a sub-limit of 43,000 tons in the Shag Rocks region; and requires the use of the reporting systems in 40/XI and 54/XI. Measure 48/XI prohibits directed fishing on Notothenia gibberifrons, Chaenocephalus aceratus, Pseudochaenichthys georgianus, Notothenia squamifrons, and Patagonotothen guntheri is Statistical Subarea 48.3 in the 1992/93 and 1993/94 seasons (defined as the period from November 6, 1992, to the end of the Commission meeting in 1994). Measure 68/XII limits the by-catch of N. gibberifrons to 1,470 tons, C. aceratus to 2,200 tons, and P. georgianus, N. rossii, and N. squamifrons to 300 tons each in Statistical Subarea 48.3 in the 1993/94 season. Measure 69/XII sets a catch limit of 1,300 tons on D. eleginoides in Statistical Area 48.3 for the 1993/94 season; applies the reporting systems in 51/XI and 71/XII; and requires the submission of a research plan and the carrying of a CCAMLR Scientific Observer. Because of its critical conservation needs, the fishery is designated as a Special Area for Protection and Scientific Study. Measure 70/XII limits the total catch of Dissostichus eleginoides in Statistical Area 48.4 in the 1993/94 season to 28 tons. 

Measure 72/XII prohibits directed finfishing, except for scientific research purposes, in Statistical Subarea 48.2. Measure 73/XII prohibits directed finfishing, except for scientific research purposes, in Statistical Subarea 48.1.

Measures relating to krill. Measure 32/Xsets a precautionary limit on Euphausia superba in Statistical Area 48 at 1.5 million tons in any fishing season. A fishing season begins on July 1 and concludes on June 30 of the following year. This limit is to be kept under review by the Commission, taking into account the advice of the Scientific Committee. If the total catch in Statistical Subareas 48.1, 48.2 and 48.3 exceeds 620,000 tons in any fishing season, the Commission will set precautionary limits for the subarea. 

Measure 45/XI sets a precautionary catch limit on E. superba in Statistical Division 58.4.2 to 390,000 tons in any fishing season (beginning July 1 and ending on June 30 of the following year) and requires catch reporting to the Commission on a monthly basis. Measure 46/XI allocates the precautionary catch limit on E. superba in Statistical Area 48 (set in 32/X) to Statistical Subareas 48.1, 48.2, and 48.3 if, in any fishing season (beginning July 1 and ending on June 30 of the following year), the total catch exceeds 620,000 tons. The subarea limits apply to the fishing seasons 1992/93 and 1993/94. Catches are to be reported monthly to the Commission.

Measures relating to scientific research. Measure 64/XII defines the application of conservation measures to scientific research.

Measures relating to gear use. Measure 19/IX prohibits the use of pelagic and bottom trawls of less than 90 mm for any directed fishery for Champsocephalus gunnari, effective November 1, 1991. Measure 29/X obligates Members to take specific actions to reduce the possibility of incidental mortality of seabirds during longline fishing. The measure does not apply to designated research vessels investigating better methods for reducing incidental mortality. Measure 30/Xprohibits the use of net monitor cables on harvesting vessels in the CCAMLR Convention Area beginning in the 1994/95 fishing season. As a means of reducing the entanglement and death of Antarctic fur seals, Measure 63/XIIrequires that, as a general practice, all packaging bands, once removed from packages, must be cut so that they do not form a continuous loop. The use of plastic bands to secure bait boxes is prohibited beginning in the 1995/96 season. The use of such bands for other purposes on fishing vessels that do not use on-board incinerators is prohibited beginning in the 1996/97 season. 

Measures relating to straddling stocks. Resolution 10/XII affirms that Members whose flag vessels are harvesting stocks occurring both within and outside the Convention Area should ensure that their vessels harvest responsibly and with due regard for the Commission's conservation measures.

Measures relating to data and other reporting. Measure 40/X requires monthly catch and effort reporting for each Member vessel fishing in the Convention area. Measure 51/XI sets a five- day catch and effort reporting system. Measure 52/XI sets a monthly effort and biological reporting system for trawl fisheries. Measure 54/XI establishes a biological reporting system for E. carlsbergi in Statistical Subarea 48.3. Measure 71/XII establishes an effort and biological data reporting system for D. eleginoides in Statistical Subarea 48.3 for the 1993/94 season. Measure 61/XI continues, without reference to fishing season, a ten-day catch and effort reporting system.

Measures relating to crab. Measure 74/XIIlimits the exploratory crab fishery in Statistical Area 48.3 in the 1993/94 season to 1,600 tons and to one vessel per Commission Member. Measure 75/XIIestablishes an experimental harvest regime for the crab fishery in Statistical Area 48.3 for seasons 1993/94 to 1995/96.

Measures relating to new and exploratory fisheries. Measure 31/X requires notification that Members are considering initiating a new fishery in the Convention Area. "New fishery" is defined by the measure. Measure 65/XII requires notification of intent to fish, restriction of fishing effort by a precautionary catch limit, and agreement to carry a scientific observer for exploratory fisheries. An exploratory fishery is defined as a fishery that was previously defined as a new fishery.

Measures relating to CEMP sites. Measure 18/IX specifies the procedure for according protection to CCAMLR Ecosystem Monitoring Program sites and for developing management plans. Measure 62/XI accords protection to the Seal Islands CCAMLR Ecosystem Monitoring (CEMP) site. Resolution 11/XIIaccords protection to Cape Shirreff and the San Telmo Islands by establishing the "Cape Shiriff CEMP Protected Area" and requests voluntary compliance, pending consultation with the Antarctic Treaty Parties.

Staff Contacts

NOAA Fisheries: Department of State:

<PRE>

  Robin Tuttle, F/IA1               Raymond Arnaudo
  Room 7256                         OES/OSP - Room 5801  
  1335 East-West Highway            Department of State
  Silver Spring, Maryland  20910    Washington, D.C. 20520</PRE>
  Phone: (301) 713-2282              Phone: (202) 647-

3262

<H1>INTERNATIONAL WHALING COMMISSION</H1>

<H1>(IWC)</H1>

Basic Instrument

International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, 1946, (TIAS 1849); Protocol amending 1956 (TIAS 4228)

Implementing Legislation

Whaling Convention Act of 1949 (64 Stat. 421, 16 U.S.C. 916- 9161)

Member Nations

<PRE>

Antigua and Barbuda               Monaco
Argentina                          Netherlands</PRE>

Australia New Zealand

 <PRE> Brazil                                                                     Norway
Chile                             Oman
China, People's Republic of       Peru
Costa Rica                        Russian Federation
Denmark                           Senegal</PRE>
Dominica

Seychelles<PRE>

Finland                           Solomon Islands
France                            South Africa
Germany                           Spain
Grenada                           Sweden
India                             Switzerland
Ireland                           St. Christopher &amp; Nevis
Japan                             St. Lucia
Kenya                             St. Vincent/The Grenadines
Korea, Republic of                United Kingdom
Mexico                            United States
                                  Venezuela                                                                                                           </PRE>

Commission Headquarters

International Whaling Commission

The Red House

Station Road, Histon

Cambridge, CB4 4NP, United Kingdom

Secretary: Dr. R. Gambell

Telephone: 011-44-220-233 971

Budget

The Commission approved a budget of 960,835 pounds sterling ($1,440,290) for 1993-94. The U.S. contribution amounts to 49,920 pounds sterling ($74,830).

U.S. Representation

A. Appointment Process:

The Commissioner is appointed by the President, on the concurrent recommendations of the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Commerce, and serves at his pleasure. The President may also appoint a Deputy U.S. Commissioner.

B. U.S. Commissioner:

Dr. D. James Baker

Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Department of Commerce

Washington, DC 20230

Deputy Commissioner:

Dr. Michael F. Tillman

Director, Southwest Fisheries Science Center

National Marine Fisheries Service

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

La Jolla, CA 92038

C. Advisory Structure:

U.S. representation in the IWC has no formal (legislated) advisory structure. The IWC Commissioner does consult, however, with the IWC Interagency Committee which includes representatives of the DOS, the Marine Mammal Commission, other Federal agencies, conservation organizations, and other interested parties.

Description

A. Mission/Purpose:

The 1946 Convention has as its objective the proper conservation of world whale stocks, thus making possible the orderly development of the whaling industry. The Convention established the IWC to provide for a continuing review of the condition of whale stocks and for such additions to or modifications of the agreed conservation measures as might appear desirable.

B. Organizational Structure:

The IWC consists of the Commission, Secretariat, and subject area committees. The Commission is composed of one member from each Contracting Government, and may be accompanied by one or more experts and advisors. Each member government has one vote. Decisions of the Commission are by simple majority of those members voting, except that a three-fourths majority of those members is required for actions to amend the provisions of the Schedule (which contains the binding decisions of the Commission). The Commission can determine its own rules of procedure and may appoint its own Secretary and staff. The Committees may be set up by the Commission from its own members and experts or advisors to perform such functions as it may authorize.

C. Programs:

The IWC normally meets once a year to review the condition of whale stocks and to modify conservation measures as appropriate. The Commission has used various means of regulating commercial whaling including the fixing of open and closed seasons, open and closed areas, protected species, size limits for each species, and limits on the catch of whales in any one season. The IWC has also maintained an international observer program which places observers from other countries on board whaling vessels and at land whaling stations to monitor commercial whaling operations.

Recent actions by the IWC include establishment of a whale sanctuary in the Indian Ocean area, prohibition on the use of cold grenade (nonexploding) harpoons to kill whales for commercial purposes, a moratorium on all commercial whaling from the beginning of the 1985-86 pelagic and 1986 coastal seasons, and the adoption of a separate and distinct manage- ment scheme for aboriginal subsistence whaling. Criteria for evaluating research involving the killing of whales under special permits were established in 1986 because of concerns that some countries would use special permits for scientific research as a means of circumventing the zero catch limits for commercial whaling. Additional criteria were added to the existing guidelines for review of research programs in a resolution adopted in 1987 and the IWC Scientific Committee was called upon to review such programs. The resolution allows the Commission to recommend, based upon the Scientific Committee's advice, that member governments refrain from issuing or revoke permits when the Scientific Committee evaluation warrants such action. The Commission has since adopted resolutions recommending that five Governments, Iceland, Japan, Korea, Norway, and the Soviet Union, refrain from or revoke scientific permits either currently in force or proposed. At the 1991 Annual IWC Meeting, quotas were established or continued for aboriginal/subsistence whaling for bowhead whales, (taken by U.S. natives), gray whales (taken by Soviet and U.S. natives), and minke and fin whales (taken by Greenland natives). An aboriginal/subsistence quota for humpback whales (taken by St. Vincent and the Grenadines natives) was set in 1993.

Other contemporary issues include consideration of Japan's proposal requesting the authorization of small-type coastal whaling; a proposed sanctuary for whales in the Southern Ocean; the comprehensive assessment of whale stocks based on available or anticipated assessments of North Atlantic minke and fin whales, Antarctic minke whales, eastern North Pacific gray whales, and bowhead whales; revised management procedures and updating the system of observation and inspection. Support for the continuation of the moratorium on commercial whaling remains strong. However, in 1993 the Government of Norway authorized a commercial quota of 160 Northeast Atlantic minke whales without the approval of the IWC.

Staff Contacts

NOAA Fisheries:

Kevin Chu, F/IA1

Room 7306

1335 East-West Highway

Silver Spring, MD 20910

Phone: (301) 713-2276

Department of State:

Erica Keen

OES/OSP, Room 5801

Department of State

Washington, D.C. 20520-7818

Phone: (202) 647-3262<code>

`<H1>GREAT LAKES FISHERY COMMISSION</H1>`


<P>
<em u>Basic Instrument</em><P>

<P>

Convention on Great Lakes Fisheries between the United States and Canada, signed September 10, 1954; entered into force October 11, 1955. 6 UST 2836; TIAS 3326; 238 UNTS 97.<P>

<P>

<em u>Implementing Legislation</em><P>

<P>

Great Lakes Fisheries Act of 1956 (16 USC 932).<P>

<P>

<em u>Member Nations</em><P>

<P>

United States and Canada.<P>

<P>

<em u>Commission Headquarters</em><P>

<P>

2100 Commonwealth Boulevard, Suite 209 <P>

Ann Arbor MI 48105-1563<P>

Phone: (313) 662-3209; Fax: (313) 741-2010.<P>

<P>

<em u>Budget</em><P>

<P>

The Commission approved a budget of $13,848,700 for 1993. The U.S. contribution is $10,568,000.<P>

<P>

<em u>U.S. Representation</em><P>

<P>

A. Appointment process:<P>

<P>

The United States is represented by 4 Commissioners appointed by the President. Of the Commissioners, one is to be an official of the U.S. Government and 3 are individuals who reside in different Great Lakes States and who are knowledgeable regarding the fisheries of the Great Lakes; one of these three must be an official of a Great Lakes state. The term of office for commissioners is six years, and an Alternate Commissioner shall perform the duties of a Commissioner in the absence of a Commissioner, or when a Commissioner vacancy occurs. There are no set guidelines for the nomination process.<P>

<P>

B. U.S. Commissioners<P>

<P>

--Federal Commissioner: vacant (usually Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Fisheries, Wildlife, and Parks).<P>

--James Cady - Fish hatchery owner; appointed February 19, 1988; term expires February 1994.<P>

<P>

--Dr. Charles Krueger - Cornell University biology professor; appointed April 22, 1992; term expires April 1998.<P>

<P>

--Carroll D. Besadny - Secretary, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources; appointed December 11, 1990; term expires February 18, 1996.<P>

<P>

--Alternate Commissioner: Harry Whitely; appointed February 1992.<P>

<P>

C. Advisory structure:<P>

<P>

There is no statutory requirement that the Commission establish an advisory body. However, an extensive advisory network has been developed by the Commission (see
<em u>Description</em> below).<P>

<P>

<em u>Description</em><P>

<P>

A. Mission/Purpose:<P>

<P>

The GLFC was established to control and eradicate the sea lamprey which decimated important commercial and recreational fisheries in the Great Lakes following their entry into the lakes via canals constructed in the Nineteenth Century to improve navigation and access to the lakes by ocean-going vessels. Specific responsibilities of the Commission are:<P>

<P><PRE>

 1. To formulate research programs to sustain maximum                                                                                                productivity of any stock of fish in the Convention area that         is of common</PRE> concern to the U.S. and Canada.<P>
<P><PRE>
 2. To coordinate research made pursuant to such programs and,                                                                                       if necessary undertake such research itself and to recommend           appropriate measures to co ntracting parties and publish the  
</PRE>scientific findings obtained in the performance of its duties.
<P><PRE>

 3. To formulate and implement a program for eradicating or                                                                                           
</PRE>minimizing sea lamprey populations in the Great Lakes basin.
<P>

Over the years, as new organizations and new ecological challenges have arisen, the Commission has sought to coordinate fisheries- related activities with other agencies and the public.<P>

B. Organizational Structure:<P>

<P>

The GLFC secretariat handles the day-to-day operations of the organization. The Commission meets in plenary session annually, usually the first week in May. Commissioners convene an Interim Meeting in late November, and special meetings of the Commissioners take place as needed.<P>

<P>

<P>

C. Programs:<P>

<P>

Lamprey control. The lamprey eradication and control mandate of the Commission consumes the bulk of the Commission's budget and is carried out by the Commission's "control agents" in the U.S. and Canada. The U.S. agent is the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The Commission contracts for the application by USFWS employees of chemical lampricide in the lakes and in their tributaries. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans provides this function for Canada.<P>

<P>

Re-registration. The lamprey control chemical is currently undergoing re-registration, required by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under 1990 amendments to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). This process ensures that the chemical does not have harmful environmental effects and is a mandatory requirement of U.S. law. Canada has argued that the costly re-registration process should therefore be conducted with U.S. funds, rather than through the shared funding arrangement under which the Commission operates. The FY 1993 cost of re-registration was approximately $0.7 million. Projected costs for future years are: FY 1994 - $2.7 million; FY 1995 - $0.8 million; and FY 1996 - $0.7 million. If Canada cannot be convinced to contribute, all of these funds will be in addition to the U.S. GLFC funding contribution. If the re-registration process is not successfully completed within a specified period of time, EPA will require that USFWS stop using the chemical, lamprey control will stop, and fisheries whose annual contribution to the economy of the Great Lakes basin has been estimated at about $4 billion will be decimated.<P>

<P>

GLFC and its stakeholders. The Commission operates through a broad-based, grass roots committee structure, with a basin-wide series of local level committees which cooperate with state and federal officials in monitoring fish (and lamprey) populations in local waters. This information is passed to "lake committees," which present reports to the Commission at its annual meeting. The Board of Technical Experts (BOTE) draws from academic and industry experts in environmental issues, biology, and pesticide use. Other experts serve on a fish disease control committee. The Committee of the Whole (ComW) advises the Commission on technical and "political" matters. ComW members include senior State or Provincial officials with fisheries responsibilities. The Commission, assisted by these groups, has developed the Joint Strategic Plan for Management of Great Lakes Fisheries (SGLFMP), although the Convention does not vest the Commission with fishery management authority. <P>

The Government of Canada has challenged an arbitration procedure established through SGLFMP, leaving unresolved a catch allocation problem between Ontario and Ohio.<P>

<P>

U.S.-Canada issues. In addition to Canada's concerns about arbitration by the GLFC, both Canada and the United States are concerned about long-term funding prospects for the Commission. Commission costs must rise if the GLFC is to maintain effective lamprey control while conducting research in alternatives to chemical lampricide.<P>

<P>

<em u>Staff Contacts</em><P>

<P>

Stetson Tinkham<P>

OES/OMC<P>

Department of State<P>

Washington, D.C. 20520-7818<P>

Phone: 202-647-1948
<H1></H1>
<H1>U.S.-RUSSIA</H1>
<H1>INTERGOVERNMENTAL CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE (ICC)</H1>
<P>
<P>

<em u>Basic Instrument</em><P>

<P>

Agreement Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on Mutual Fisheries Relations of May 31, 1988 (the U.S.-Soviet Comprehensive Fisheries Agreement). Note: The obligations of the former Soviet Union under this agreement have devolved on the Russian Federation.<P>

<P>

<em u>Implementing Legislation</em><P>

<P>

Public Law 100-629 (An untitled Act that implemented the Comprehensive Fisheries Agreement. Enacted November 7, 1988.)<P>

<P>

<em u>Member Nations</em><P>

<P>

The United States and the Russian Federation<P>

<P>

<em u>Meetings</em><P>

<P>

The ICC meets alternately in the United States and Russia at the discretion of the heads of delegation.<P>

<P>

<em u>U.S. Representation</em><P>

<P>

Under the Rules of Procedure established for the ICC, the United States and Russia are to designate a Representative and an Alternate Representative. The current U.S. Representative is Ambassador David Colson, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans and Fisheries Affairs. To date, the United States has not identified an Alternate Representative.<P>

<P>

Pursuant to Section 5 of Public Law 100-629, a 12-member "North Pacific and Bering Sea Fisheries Advisory Body" was established to advise the U.S. Representative to the ICC. This body consists of the following individuals: <P>

<P>

(A) The Director of the Department of Fisheries of the State of Washington;<P>

(B) The Commissioner of the Department of Fish and Game of the State of Alaska;<P>

(C) Five members appointed by the Secretary of State from a list of ten nominees provided by the Governor of Alaska; and,<P>

(D) Five members appointed by the Secretary of State from a list of ten nominees provided by the Governor of Washington.<P>

<em u>Description</em><P>

<P>

The United States and the Russian Federation maintain the bilateral ICC fisheries forum pursuant to the U.S.-Soviet Comprehensive Fisheries Agreement, signed on May 31, 1988. <P>

The ICC is responsible for furthering the objectives of the Comprehensive Fisheries Agreement. These objectives include maintaining a mutually beneficial and equitable fisheries relationship through (1) cooperative scientific research and exchanges; (2) reciprocal allocation of surplus fish resources in national 200-mile zones, consistent with each nation's laws and regulations; (3) cooperation in the establishment of fishery joint ventures; (4) general consultations on fisheries matters of mutual concern; and, (5) cooperation to address illegal or unregulated fishing activities on the high seas of the North Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea. <P>

<P>

<em u>Recent Activities</em><P>

<P>

The First Meeting of the ICC was held in Washington, D.C., February 6-10, 1989. The two sides established rules of procedure, exchanged information on Bering Sea groundfish resources, and also negotiated and signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) regarding bilateral cooperation on the conservation and management of anadromous Salmonidae in the North Pacific Ocean. <P>

<P>

The Second Meeting of the ICC was held in Leningrad, U.S.S.R., September 19-22, 1989. At this meeting, the two sides took steps to implement the MOU on anadromous Salmonidae as well as exchange fisheries data and enforcement information regarding illegal salmon fishing. The two sides also initiated the drafting of a new international convention for the conservation and management of Pacific salmon resources. Both sides agreed to present the draft convention to other interested Pacific-rim nations, namely Japan and Canada. The new Convention would provide for broader multilateral cooperation than regimes currently in place. The two sides also reviewed the unregulated fishery for pollock in the central Bering Sea by fishing vessels from Japan, the Republic of Korea, Poland, and China. <P>

<P>

This fishery had raised substantial concerns regarding effects upon adjacent U.S. and Soviet pollock stocks. In an effort for closer cooperation, the two sides established the bilateral "Bering Sea Fisheries Advisory Body" (BSFAB). This body was tasked with reviewing the issue and providing options for the ICC to pursue to mitigate problems posed by overfishing by distant water interests. <P>

<P>

BSFAB met for the first time November 27-28, 1989, in Seattle, Washington. Its key conclusions were that: (1) there was no appreciable evidence that pollock in the donut area is a stock separate from pollock in the U.S. or Soviet 200-mile zones; <P>

(2) there was evidence that pollock fisheries in the donut were having adverse effects on the pollock found in the two adjacent 200-mile zones; (3) the pollock resource had been declining by <P>

approximately 10 percent per year; and (4) the appropriate harvest level for the entire Bering Sea for 1990 was 2.63 million mt. The appropriate level for 1988 had been exceeded by <P>

700,000 mt in actual catches. <P>

<P>

The Third Meeting of the ICC was held in Washington, D.C., <P>

March 16-23, 1990. The BSFAB results were carefully reviewed, and the two sides further explored principles for a multilateral conservation regime for pollock in the donut area. They also discussed how third party fishing countries might be brought into such a regime.<P>

<P>

In the context of the U.S.-USSR Presidential Summit in June 1990, the two sides issued a joint statement expressing concern about unregulated pollock fishing in the donut area. Noting the danger of significant harm to the ecological balance in the Bering Sea, the statement called for urgent conservation measures and cooperative efforts toward an international management regime for the donut.<P>

<P>

The Fourth Meeting of the ICC was held in Moscow, May 21-24, 1991, and provided a valuable opportunity to consult and coordinate positions prior to multilateral meetings on North Pacific salmonid conservation and the fisheries in the donut area. With regard to salmonids, the two sides agreed to approach negotiating obstacles with flexibility so long as the principal objective was realized of terminating high seas salmonid fisheries in the North Pacific by 1992 and establishing a new, four-party conservation regime as soon as possible. With regard to pollock fisheries in the donut area, conclusions about the status of the stocks contained in earlier reports had been verified by the preliminary results of joint research. The two sides concluded that the observed declines in catches and catch- per-unit of effort were serious and that the need to decrease fishing effort and catches as soon as possible was evident. They also resolved non-substantive differences in the text of a draft convention designed to provide a long-term management regime in the donut area and discussed specific monitoring and enforcement measures to be sought in the interim period while a long-term management regime is being negotiated.<P>

<P>

The Fifth Meeting of the ICC was held in Moscow, August 10-11, 1992. (Due to scheduling difficulties, it was agreed to hold the meeting in Russia despite the fact that it was the U.S. turn to host.) The two sides discussed strategy pertaining to the August 12-14 "Fifth Donut Conference" and also reached
<em u>ad</em>
<em u>referendum</em> agreement on a bilateral salmon agreement dealing with fishing within the respective zones. Among other things, this agreement restricts fisheries for Pacific salmon to within 25 nautical miles of the U.S. and Russian coasts between 170 degrees East longitude and 143 degrees 53 minutes and 36 seconds West longitude, north of 50 degrees North latitude.<P>

<P>

The Sixth Meeting of the ICC was held in Washington, D.C., January 13-15, 1993. The two sides issued joint statements on the importance of establishing a shared, uniform database system on living resources of the Bering Sea and developing and implementing a cooperative scientific monitoring program for the marine ecosystem of the North Pacific Ocean, including the Bering Sea. They also agreed on plans to complete the implementation of their September 1992 bilateral agreement on the regulation of Pacific salmon fishing within their respective zones. The two sides agreed in principle to recommend that their governments extend the agreement that established the ICC for an additional 5 years prior to the expiration of the present agreement in late October 1993 and discussed technical modifications that were warranted. Finally, the two sides considered the status of previously-agreed exchanges of information on fishing activities within their respective zones, traded primary contacts to send and receive such information, and further considered cooperation in the exchange of scientists, joint research planning, and the collection and reporting of biostatistical information. <P>

<P>

<em u>Staff Contacts</em><P>

<P><PRE>

NOAA Fisheries: Dean Swanson,
 F/IA1</PRE>
Room 7270<P>
1335 East-West Highway<P>

Silver Spring, MD 20910<P>

Phone: (301) 713- 2276<P>

<P><PRE>

Department of State:              William Dilday</PRE>
Room 5806, OES/OMC<P>
Department of State<P>

Washington, D.C. 20520- 7818<P>

Phone: (202) 647- 2009<P>

<H1>U.S.-JAPAN</H1>
<H1>CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES</H1>
<P>
<em u>Basic Instrument</em><P>

There is no formal instrument per se. The two countries agreed to the Consultative Committee via an exchange of diplomatic notes on January 27, 1992.<P>

<P>

<em u>Implementing Legislation</em><P>

<P>

None.<P>

<P>

<em u>Member Nations</em><P>

<P>

The United States and Japan<em u><P>

</em><P>

<em u>Meetings</em><P>

<P>

The Committee meets on an annual basis, or at other times as may be considered appropriate, in the United States or Japan. The venue for the Committee is decided prior to each meeting.<P>

<P>

<em u>U.S. Representation</em><P>

<P>

The Committee consists of one representative from each Government, as well as support staff and advisors. The current U.S. Representative is Ambassador David Colson, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans, Department of State. <P>

<P>

<em u>Description</em><P>

<P>

The U.S.-Japan Consultative Committee on Fisheries was formed to promote bilateral cooperation in the field of fisheries and fisheries research. It replaced the more formal Governing International Fisheries Agreement (GIFA) between the United States and Japan that expired on December 31, 1991. The Consultative Committee holds regular high-level bilateral consultations on fishery issues of mutual concern.<P>

<P>

<em u>Recent Activities</em><P>

<P>

Government delegations from the United States and Japan met at the U.S. Department of State in Washington, D.C., on December 13- 14, 1993, to conduct the Second Meeting of the U.S.-Japan Consultative Committee on Fisheries. The U.S. delegation was led by Ambassador David A. Colson, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Oceans and Fisheries Affairs, Department of State, and <P>

Mr. Kazuo Shima, Deputy Director-General of the Fisheries Agency of Japan, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, led the Japanese delegation. Discussions this year focused on a number of tuna issues: the International Commission on the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas and Atlantic bluefin tuna conservation, the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission and eastern tropical Pacific Ocean tuna-dolphin issues, North Pacific albacore, a South Pacific multilateral tuna conference, and tuna longline bycatch issues in the Western Pacific. United Nations (UN) fisheries issues also figured prominently in the consultations: the UN Conference on Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks, the UN FAO Agreement on High Seas Fishing (the Flagging Convention), and the International Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing. Other topics included were the central Bering Sea "Donut Hole" pollock conservation and management agreement, whaling, turtle excluder devices, Convention on International Trade in endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES, Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), the North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission, and large-scale high seas driftnet fishing. The talks were very productive and delegations agreed to meet again in 1994 in Japan. <P>

<P>

<em u>Staff Contacts</em><P>

<P>

National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA:<P>

<P>

Paul E. Niemeier, F/IA1<P>

1335 East-West Highway<P>

Silver Spring, MD 20910<P>

Telephone: (301) 713-2276<P>

Fax: (301) 713-2313<P>

<P>

Department of State:<P>

<P>

William E. Dilday <P>

Office of Marine Conservation, OES/OMC<P>

Department of State<P>

Washington, D.C. 20520-7818<P>

Telephone: (202) 647-1948<P>

Fax: (202) 736-7350<P>

<P>

<P>

<P>

<P>

<P>

<P>

<P>

<P>

<P>

<P>

<P>

<P>

<P>

<P>

<P>

<P>

<p>


<H1>CONVENTION FOR THE CONSERVATION</H1>
<H1>OF ANTARCTIC SEALS</H1>
<H1>(CCAS)</H1>
<P>
<P>

<em u>Basic Instrument</em><P>

<P>

Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Seals<P>

<P>

<em u>Implementing Legislation</em><P>

<P>

None<P>

<P>

<em u>Member Nations</em><P>

<P>

Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Chile, France, the Federal Republic of Germany, Japan, Norway, Poland, South Africa, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, and the United States of America.<P>

<P>

<em u>Commission Headquarters</em><P>

<P>

The Convention did not establish a Commission. The United Kingdom serves as the Depositary Kingdom.<P>

<P>

<em u>Budget</em><P>

<P>

None<P>

<P>

<em u>U.S. Representation</em><P>

<P>

The United States is represented at Meetings of Contracting Parties to the Convention by a delegation, headed by the Department of State and including representatives of the National Marine Fisheries Service, the Marine Mammal Commission, and the environmental community.<P>

<P>

<em u>Description</em><P>

<P>

A. Mission/Purpose<P>

<P>

The Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Seals was signed in London on February 11, 1972. It entered into force on March 11, 1978, and calls for Contracting parties to meet within five years of entry into force, and at least every five years thereafter, to review the operation of the Convention. The purpose of the Convention is to promote and achieve the objectives of protection, scientific study and rational use of Antarctic seals, and the maintain a satisfactory balance within the ecological system.<P>

<P>

<p>

The Convention applies to the seas south of 60&#176; South Latitude, in respect of which the Contracting Parties affirm the provisions of Article IV of the Antarctic Treaty.<P>

<P>

B. Organizational Structure<P>

<P>

There is no Commission. The Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR of the International Council of <P>

Scientific Unions, through its Group of Specialists on Seals, receives reports from and advises the Contracting Parties on the number of seals killed or captured, the status of stocks, and the need, if any, for conservation and management measures.<P>

<P>

C. Programs<P>

<P>

Because there had been no commercial sealing in the Antarctic after the Convention entered into force in 1978, an offer by the United Kingdom, as Depositary Government, to host a 1983 meeting of Parties, was declined. The first and, to date, only meeting of Parties, held in 1988, was occasioned by a 1986/87 Soviet commercial sealing expedition and research cruise.<P>

<P>

The Meeting limited its 1988 recommendations to either amendments to the Annex to the Convention or to Contracting Party or other institutional action independent of the terms of the Convention. The Meeting agreed that Contracting Parties should restrict the number of seals killed or captured by special permit. It also agreed to encourage cooperative planning among holders of special permits for scientific research and detailed the scientific information which should be reported. The meeting recommended that the Annex be amended to increase the period of notification by a Contracting Party to other Contracting Parties prior to leaving home port for a commercial sealing expedition from 30 to 60 days. The final report of the meeting noted, however, that Contracting Party countries are unlikely to engage in commercial sealing in the foreseeable future.<P>

<P>

In 1992, the United Kingdom proposed, but the Parties did not feel it was necessary, to hold a further meeting. In October 1993, the United Kingdom hosted an informal meeting of the Parties to review the operation of the Convention. The meeting was held in the margins of the Twelfth meeting of the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources. As a result, the Parties noted the need to: improve the submission and exchange of data; endorse scientific programs on seal research;<P>

provide the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR) with contact points of CCAS parties; and circulate copies of reports from the SCAR Group of Specialists to CCAS Parties. In response to an inquiry, the United Kingdom confirmed that the recommendations adopted by the 1988 Meeting of Parties entered into force on March 27, 1990.<p>


<P>

<em u>Staff Contacts</em><P>

<P><PRE>

NOAA Fisheries:                   DOS:</PRE>
<P><PRE>
Robin Tuttle, F/IA1               Raymond Arnaudo, OES/OSP
Room 7256                         Room 5806
1335 East-West Highway            Department of State
Silver Spring, Maryland  20910    Washington, D.C.  20520-7818
Phone:  301-713-2282              Phone:  202-647-3262<code><H1>U.S.-CANADA</H1></PRE>

<H1>AGREEMENT ON FISHERIES ENFORCEMENT</H1>
<P>
<P>

<em u>Basic Instrument</em><P>

<P>

Agreement between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Canada on Fisheries Enforcement of September 26, 1990.<P>

<P>

<em u>Authorities</em><P>

<P>

Magnuson Fisheries Conservation and Management Act, 16 U.S.C. 1822(a), which authorizes the Secretary of State to negotiate international fisheries agreements, and 16 U.S.C. 1855(d), which authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to promulgate regulations necessary to carry out the Magnuson Act.<P>

<P>

<em u>Member Nations</em><P>

<P>

Canada and the United States.<P>

<P>

<em u>Meetings</em><P>

<P>

Parties meet annually, alternating meetings between the U.S. and Canada.<P>

<P>

<em u>Description</em><P>

<P>

The Parties have agreed to take appropriate measures consistent with international law to ensure that their nationals, residents and vessels do not violate, within the waters and zones of the other Party, the national fisheries laws and regulations of the other Party. Such measures shall include prohibitions on violating the fisheries laws and regulations of the other Party respecting gear stowage, fishing without authorization, and interfering with, resisting, or obstructing in any manner, efforts to enforce such laws and regulations; and may include such other prohibitions as each Party deems appropriate.<P>

<P>

Bilateral enforcement meetings are held to review past practices and discuss new standards, policies, and strategies for enforcement cooperation. Communications, prosecution practices, evidentiary requirements, regulation interpretation, notification procedures, and hot pursuit comprise the core of discussions.<P>

<P>

<em u>Recent Activities</em><P>

<P>

The First Meeting under the Agreement was held in Ottawa May 7, 1993. The Agenda included the following topics:<P>

<P>

<p>

1. Review of 1992 enforcement actions.<P>

2. Review procedures under the Agreement.<P>

3. Discussions on legal processes of both sides.<P>

4. Suggested possible new approaches.<P>

5. Development of standard procedures for dealing with case files and evidence packages.<P>

<P>

The Parties agreed to meet within a year to review cooperation under the Agreement.<P>

<P>

<em u>Staff Contacts</em><P>

<P>

NOAA Fisheries: Morris M. Pallozzi<P>

8484 Georgia Avenue, Suite 415<P>

Silver Spring, MD 20910<P>

Phone: (301) 427- 2300<P>

<P>

Steven C. Springer<P>

8484 Georgia Avenue, Suite 415<P>

Silver Spring, MD 20910<P>

Phone: (301) 427- 2010<P>

<P>

<P>

Department of State: Stetson Tinkham<P>

Room 5806, OES/OMC<P>

Department of State<P>

Washington, D.C. 20520- 7818<P>

Phone: (202) 647-1948<P>

<H1>NORTH PACIFIC MARINE SCIENCE ORGANIZATION</H1>
<H1>(PICES)</H1>
<P>
<em u>Basic Instrument</em><P>

<P>

Convention for a North Pacific Marine Science Organization (PICES)<P>

<P>

<em u>Implementing Legislation</em><P>

<P>

No implementing legislation. Self-executing treaty; under the general authority of the Secretary of State.<P>

<P>

<em u>Member Nations</em><P>

<P>

Canada, Japan, People's Republic of China, and the United States of America<P>

<P>

<em u>Organization Headquarters</em><P>

<P>

PICES Secretariat<P>

Institute of Ocean Sciences <P>

P.O. Box 6000 <P>

Sidney, British Columbia, Canada V8L 4B2 <P>

Executive Secretary: Dr. Douglas W. McKone <P>

Telephone 604-363-6366 <P>

Fax 604-363-6827<P>

<P>

Chairman of the Governing Council: Dr. Warren Wooster<P>

Telephone 206-685- 2497<P>

<P>

<em u>Budget</em><P>

<P>

The 1994 annual budget was approved by the Governing Council at <P>

$ Canadian 440,000 (CND). It was agreed that $80,000 CND would be transferred from the Working Capital Fund to reduce the $110,000 CND contribution from each party to $90,000 CND for 1994.<P>

<P>

<em u>U.S. Representation</em><P>

<P>

A. Appointment Process<P>

<P>

The United States is represented on the PICES Governing Council by two delegates appointed by the Secretary of State in consulta- tion with interested agencies and institutions: one from a major federal government research agency and one from a research university or other academic institution. The United States is represented on the Scientific Committees and Working Groups<P>

created by the Governing Council by individuals appointed by the Secretary of State in consultation with interested agencies and institutions.<P>

<P>

B. U.S. Delegates<P>

<P>

Federal Government Representative:<P>

<P>

Dr. William Aron, Director<P>

Alaska Fisheries Science Center<P>

NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service<P>

7600 Sand Point Way, NE<P>

Seattle, Washington 98115-0700<P>

Telephone 206-526-4000<P>

<P>

Academic Representative:<P>

<P>

Dr. Vera Alexander, Dean<P>

School of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences<P>

University of Alaska<P>

Fairbanks, Alaska 99775-1090<P>

Telephone 907-474-7531<P>

<P>

C. Scientific Advisers<P>

<P>

Fishery Science Committee (FIS)<P>

<P>

Dr. Douglas M. Eggers<P>

Chief Fisheries Scientist<P>

Division of Commercial Fisheries<P>

Alaska Department of Fish and Game<P>

P.O. Box 25526<P>

Juneau, Alaska 99802-5526<P>

Telephone 907-465-4210<P>

<P>

Dr. John Hunter<P>

Chief, Coastal Fisheries Resource Division<P>

Southwest Fisheries Science Center<P>

NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service<P>

P.O. Box 271<P>

La Jolla, California 92038-0203<P>

Telephone 619-546-7127<P>

<P>

Dr. Gary Stauffer<P>

Director, Resource Assessment and<P>

Conservation Engineering Division<P>

Alaska Fisheries Science Center<P>

NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Center<P>

7600 Sand Point Way NE<P>

BIN C15700, Building 4<P>

Seattle, Washington 98115-070<P>

Telephone 206-546-4170<p>

Biological Oceanography Committee (BIO)<P>

<P>

Dr. Linda Jones<P>

Director<P>

Northwest Fisheries Science Center<P>

NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service<P>

2725 Montlake Boulevard East<P>

Seattle, Washington 98112-2097<P>

Telephone 206-860-3200<P>

<P>

Professor Michael M. Mullin<P>

Marine Life Research Program<P>

Scripps Institution of Oceanography<P>

University of California<P>

9500 Gilman Drive<P>

La Jolla, California 92093-0227<P>

Telephone 619-534-2868<P>

<P>

Professor Patricia A. Wheeler<P>

College of Oceanography<P>

Oceanography Administration Building 104<P>

Oregon State University<P>

Corvallis, Oregon 97331-1105<P>

Telephone 503-737-0558<P>

<P>

Physical Oceanography Committee (POC)<P>

<P>

Professor David Musgrave<P>

Institute of Marine Science<P>

School of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences<P>

114 O'Neill Building<P>

University of Alaska<P>

Fairbanks, Alaska 99775-1080<P>

Telephone 907-474-7837<P>

<P>

Dr. James E. Overland<P>

Leader, Coastal and Arctic Research Division<P>

Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory<P>

NOAA, Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research<P>

7600 Sand Point Way NE<P>

BIN C15700, Building 3<P>

Seattle, Washington 98115-0070<P>

Telephone 206-526-6795<P>

<P>

Professor Stephen C. Riser<P>

School of Oceanography<P>

307 Ocean Research Building<P>

University of Washington WB-10<P>

Seattle, Washington 98195-6000<P>

Telephone 206-543-1187<P>

Marine Environmental Quality Committee (MEQ)<P>

<P>

Professor William S. Reeburgh<P>

Department of Geosciences<P>

University of California, Irvine<P>

Irvine, California 92717-3100<P>

Telephone 714-725-2986<P>

<P>

Dr. C. Michael Watson<P>

Regional Toxicologist<P>

Health and Environmental Assessment Section<P>

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency<P>

1200 Sixth Ave., ES098<P>

Seattle, Washington 98101-3188<P>

Telephone 206-553-1072<P>

<P>

Dr. Usha Varanasi<P>

Director, Environmental Conservation Division<P>

Northwest Fisheries Science Center<P>

NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service<P>

2725 Montlake Boulevard East<P>

Seattle, Washington 98112-2097<P>

Telephone 206-553-7737<P>

<P>

D. Working Groups<P>

<P>

At the 2nd Annual meeting the Governing Council approved the recommendation of the Science Board to replace WG1 with WG7 on Modelling of the Subarctic Pacific Circulation:<P>

<P>

WG1 - Okhotsk Sea and Oyashio Region - Disbanded<P>

WG2 - Development of Common Assessment Methodology for Marine<P>

Pollution<P>

WG3 - Coastal Pelagic Fish<P>

WG4 - Data Exchange<P>

WG5 - Bering Sea<P>

WG6 - Subarctic Gyre<P>

WG7 - Modelling of the Subarctic Pacific Circulation<P>

<P>

Representatives to the working groups were named during 1993. Each working group has terms of reference that include review and assessment of existing knowledge, identification of gaps, and development of action plans. Chairpersons of the working groups are appointed by the Science Board Chairman in consultation with the PICES Chairman and chairpersons of the scientific committees. During the year, the first six working groups met, and summarized their work into reports which were reviewed by the relevant Scientific Committees and the Science Board.<P>

<P>

<em u><P>

<P>

<p>

Description</em><P>

<P>

A. Mission/Purpose:<P>

<P>

The area which the activities of PICES concern is defined by the Convention as the temperate and sub-Arctic region of the North Pacific Ocean and its adjacent seas, especially northward from 30 degrees North Latitude. Activities of the organization may, for scientific reasons, extend farther southward in the North Pacific Ocean.<P>

<P>

The primary role of PICES is to coordinate research efforts undertaken by the Parties and to facilitate the exchange of scientific and technical information on a broad range of scientific disciplines. The organization provides an international forum to promote greater understanding of the biological and oceanographic processes of the North Pacific Ocean and its role in global environment. <P>

<P>

B. Organizational Structure:<P>

<P>

PICES is comprised of (1) a Governing Council, (2) a Science Board (3) such permanent or
<em u>ad</em>
<em u>hoc</em> scientific groups and committees as the Governing Council may from time to time establish and (4) a Secretariat. The Governing Council has both scientific and administrative functions.<P>

<P>

The scientific functions of the Governing Council are to identify research priorities and problems pertaining to the Convention Area and appropriate methods for their solution; to recommend coordinated research programs and related activities pertaining to the Convention Area which shall be undertaken through the national efforts of the participating Contracting Parties; to promote and facilitate the exchange of scientific data, information and personnel; to consider requests to develop scientific advice pertaining to the Convention Area; to organize scientific symposia and other scientific events; and to foster the discussion of problems of mutual scientific interest.<P>

<P>

The administrative functions of the Governing Council are to adopt and amend the Rules of Procedure and Financial Regulations; to consider and recommend amendments to the Convention; to adopt the annual report of the organization; to examine and adopt the annual budget and financial accounts of the organization; to determine the location of the Secretariat; to appoint the Executive Secretary; to maintain contact with other international organizations; and to manage the activities of the organization.<P>

C. Recent Activities:<P>

<P>

PICES held its second annual meeting October 25-30, 1993, in Seattle, Washington. Each of the four contracting parties, Canada, Japan, the People's Republic of China, and the United States sent delegations to participate in the meeting. In addition, Russia, South Korea, and several international organizations, including the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC) and the North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission (NPAFC) sent observers. At the meeting, the Governing Council elected Mr. Cong-Meng Liu of China as Vice Chairman.<P>

<P>

The Contracting Parties agreed to increase efforts throughout the year to encourage the Republic of Korea and Russia to become members of PICES.<P>

<P>

The role of observers at PICES annual meetings was discussed by the Governing Council. Representatives from the IOC and the NPAFC were invited to speak before the Governing Council. The contracting parties agreed to look into means of expanding cooperative efforts between PICES and these organizations and to make observer delegations from noncontracting parties participation at the annual meetings more productive.<P>

<P>

The Council also confirmed as permanent committees of PICES the scientific committees which were established provisionally at the previous meeting. They are the Biological Oceanography Committee (BIO), Fishery Science Committee (FIS), Marine Environmental Committee (MEQ), and Physical Oceanography and Climate Committee (POC).<P>

<P>

The Council also established a mechanism for dealing with requests for scientific advice. Henceforth, upon receiving a written request for scientific advice from another organization, the Chairman of PICES will refer the question to the Science Board which will propose a process (e.g. refer to existing committee or to an
<I>ad hoc</I> working group as appropriate) to address the request. The question and the science Board proposal for addressing it will then be referred to the Governing Council for approval before action is undertaken. The advice generated will be handled in the same manner as advice offered in response to a request from Contracting Parties.<P>

<P>

The Council approved the recommendations of the Science Board to hold a workshop on
<I>Climate Change and Carrying Capacity</I> in order to develop a PICES GLOBEC international program and to organize a workshop on
<I>Monitoring Subarctic Pacific Ocean Variability</I> with a view towards developing a PICES monitoring program.<P>

<P>

<P>

<p>


The Council accepted the invitation of Japan to host the Third <P>

Annual meeting in Nemuro, Japan, October 15-24, 1994. The Fourth Annual meeting will be held the week of October 16, 1995 in the People's Republic of China.<P>

<em u><P>

Staff Contacts</em><P>

<P>

NOAA Fisheries:<P>

<P>

Frederick Beaudry/Angela Somma, F/IA2<P>

Room 7248<P>

1335 East-West Highway<P>

Silver Spring, Maryland 20910<P>

Phone: (301) 713-2288<P>

<P>

Department of State:<P>

<P>

William Sullivan<P>

OES/OA, Room 5801<P>

Department of State<P>

Washington, D.C. 20520-7818<P>

Phone: (202) 647-0240<P>

<H1>INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL FOR THE EXPLORATION</H1>
<H1>OF THE SEA</H1>
<H1>(ICES)</H1>
<P>
<em u>Basic Instrument</em><P>

<P>

The Council was established by an exchange of letters on July 22, 1902, in Copenhagen, Denmark, with eight country representatives in attendance (Denmark, Germany, Norway, Russia, Finland, The Netherlands, Sweden, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain). The United States joined the Council on July 22, 1912. From 1902 until 1964, the Council operated in a kind of "gentlemen's agreement" fashion. Then, on September 12, 1964, the council membership concluded the Convention for the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, 1964 (TIAS 7628), giving it a true and full international status. This Convention fixed the seat of the Council at Copenhagen and by the end of 1967 all Contracting Parties had ratified the Convention which came into force on July 22, 1968.<P>

<P>

<em u>Member Nations</em><P>

<P>

Belgium, Canada, Denmark Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom of Great Britain, and the United States of America.<P>

<P>

<em u>Commission Headquarters<P>

<P>

</em>International Council for the Exploration of the Sea:<P>

Palaegade 2-4 DK-1261<P>

Copenhagen K, Denmark<P>

General Secretary: Dr. Chris Hopkin<P>

Telephone: 33 15 42 25/33 15 70 92 (General Secretary)<P>

Telefax: 33 93 42 15; Telex: 22498 ices dk;<P>

Telemail: ICES.DK (OMNET)<P>

<P>

<em u>Budget<P>

<P>

</em>The 1993 assessed budget for ICES was 12,802,900 DKK. The U.S. contribution was 745,800 DKK ($129,704 U.S. dollars). The 1994 forecast budget for ICES is 13,802,000 DKK. The U.S. estimated contribution will be $125,000 U.S. dollars.<P>

<P>

<em u>U.S. Representation<P>

</em><P>

A. Process<P>

<P>

NMFS, through NOAA and DOC, and the National Science Foundation provide the Department of State with recommendation for the U.S. representatives (delegates and advisors) to the annual meeting.<P>


B. U.S. Representation<P>

<P>

There were two ICES Delegates to the 23 September-1 October, 1993, 81st Statutory Meeting in Dublin, Ireland.<P>

<P>

Dr. John H. Steele<P>

President and Director<P>

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution<P>

Woods Hole, Massachusetts, 02543<P>

Telephone: (508) 457-2000 (x2220)<P>

<P>

Dr. Michael Sissenwine<P>

Senior Scientist <P>

National Marine Fisheries Service, SSMC#1<P>

1335 East-West Highway, Room 9350<P>

Silver Spring, Maryland 20910<P>

Telephone: (301) 713-2239<P>

<P>

C. Advisory and Working Groups<P>

<P>

U.S. representation in ICES has no formal (legislated) advisory structure. For 1993/1994, the United States has members on all fourteen Committees and on forty-two Working Groups, with the U.S. chairing three Committees and nine Working Groups. <P>

<P>

<em u>Description<P>

</em><P>

A. Mission/Purpose<P>

<P>

ICES is the oldest oceanographic organization in the North Atlantic area and is the premier body for giving advice at the international level on scientific and policy matters relating to fisheries, pollution and other marine environmental issues. <P>

ICES provides advice on pollution matters to the London, Oslo and Helsinki Conventions for Marine Pollution and, on fisheries matters to the Convention for the Conservation of Salmon in the North Atlantic Ocean; the U.S. is a party to all of these conventions. ICES also has strong formal ties to the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC), to which the United States belongs, and the annual ICES meeting is the major forum for coordinating the planning and execution of ICES/IOC joint research on living marine resources in the North Atlantic.<P>

<P>

The United States has been a member of ICES since 1912 and, in recent years, has strengthened its leadership role, particularly in the Advisory Committees on Marine Pollution and on Fisheries Management, in order to direct the organization's work towards issues and concerns of U.S. interest. U.S. representatives serve on all of the fourteen Advisory and Standing Committees which meet in concurrent session during the Annual Statutory Meeting to plan the work of ICES and to conduct its business.<p>


B. Organizational Structure<P>

<P>

The Council proper consists of the President, who presides at all meetings of the Council and the Bureau, and two delegates from each participating country. The Bureau, the executive body of the Council, meets intersessionally and consists of the President, a First Vice President and five Vice Presidents elected from the delegates, each for a three-year term. On completion of his term of office a member of the Bureau is not eligible for re-election to the same office for the next succeeding term.<P>

<P>

The Council does most of its work through two Advisory and twelve Standing Committees. The chairmen of these Committees constitute the Consultative Committee, whose chairman is elected by the committee, but not necessarily from its members. The chairman of this committee is also the chairman of the Liaison Committee, which provides advice to the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission.<P>

<P>

The chief executive officer of the Council is the General Secretary and is responsible to the Bureau for the management of the Council's staff and office. He is appointed by the Council, on the advice of the Bureau. The Service Hydrographique is under the immediate direction of the Council's Hydrographer. The Statistician acts as Secretary of the Liaison Committee and to the various working groups established by the Council. He also provides advice on such statistical matters as may come within the scope of his office.<P>

<P>

Delegates of participating countries may be accompanied by experts at annual or other meetings of the Council. Each annual meeting of the Council has a formal opening presided over by the President which may be attended by delegates, the experts appointed by member countries, observers appointed by the various international organizations which have received invitations from the Council, and guests, usually persons from non-member countries wishing to take part in the meeting. All other meetings of the Council proper are restricted to delegates. Certain committees, such as the Consultative, Liaison, Finance and Editorial Committees are not open to non-members.<P>

<P>

The Advisory and Standing committees produce reports at each annual meeting, which are considered, together with any recommendations, by the Consultative Committee. The recommendations of the Consultative Committee are passed to the full Council for decision, which if agreed, are binding on the Council. The Council as a scientific body is only concerned with scientific matters. Its constitution prohibits it from dealing with non-scientific matters.<P>

Using the information provided by the Working Groups, the Advisory Committee on Fishery Management (ACFM) provides advice, upon direct request, to regulatory fishery commissions on behalf of the Council. ACFM meets twice a year and its findings and advice are supplied to the Member Countries of ICES, the Commission of the European Communities, and to three fishery commissions: the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission, the International Baltic Sea Fishery Commission, and the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization.<P>

<P>

Since 1902 the Council has met in a number of places, mostly in Copenhagen, its seat. Currently, in alternating years, the Council meetings in some other city, usually a capital of one of the participating countries.<P>

<P>

<em u>Recent Activities</em><P>

<P>

The 81st Statutory Meeting of ICES took place in Dublin, Ireland, 23 September - 1 October 1993. The U.S. was represented by a delegation of over 20 scientists. A record number of people attended the meeting and roughly 600 papers were presented.<P>

<P>

At the meeting Latvia became a full member paying approximately 1/2 share in 1994/95 and three shares thereafter. Estonia is also expected to join in 1994/5 with a similar ramp-up in shares. Due to its financial difficulties, Russia's shares were decreased.<P>

<P>

ICES also decided at the meeting to reconsider the nature and manner of providing advice on non-indigenous species of marine organisms. This advice had been provided by a working group without the customary review by Advisory Committees. In the future, requests for advice and responses will flow through the Advisory Committee on the Marine Environment (ACME). ICES will also consider the nature of advice it will provide in the future (i.e. generic vs. site/species specific).<P>

<P>

In addition, an ad hoc group was formed to develop a policy for future activity concerning marine mammals. Dr. Michael Sissenwine, U.S. Delegate, will serve on the group.<P>

<P>

Also at the meeting, a reduction in the publication of symposia volumes was approved. ICES will now be limited to publishing three symposia volumes every two years.<P>

<P>

The international program "Cod &amp; Climate Change", which was a U.S. initiative as part of International GLOBEC, has developed successfully.<P>

<P>

<P>

<em u><P>

<P>

<p>

Leadership<P>

</em><P>

The Consultative Committee which has general oversight over the scientific work of ICES and which consists of the 14 chairs of the Standing Committees, will have three USA members through 1994. These members are the chairs of the Hydrography Committee, the Biological Oceanography Committee and the Statistics Committee. The U.S. also chairs nine working groups.<P>

<P>

<em u>Future Meetings<P>

</em><P>

Proposed venues for future Statutory Meetings are as follows:<P>

<P>

1994 St. Johns, Newfoundland, 20-28 September, 1994<P>

1995 Copenhagen, Denmark 21-29 September, 1995<P>

<P>

<em u>Staff Contacts</em><P>

<P>

NOAA Fisheries: Frederick H. Beaudry, F/IA2, Rm. 7248<P>

Angela Somma, F/IA2, Rm. 7232<P>

1335 East-West Highway<P>

Silver Spring, Maryland 20190<P>

Telephone: (301) 713-2288<P>

<H1>NORTHWEST ATLANTIC FISHERIES ORGANIZATION</H1>
<H1>(NAFO)</H1>
<P>
<em u>Basic Instrument</em><P>

<P>

Convention on Future Multilateral Cooperation in the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries (entered into force January 1, 1979)<P>

<P>

<em u>Implementing Legislation</em><P>

<P>

None. Although the United States signed the NAFO Convention in 1979, and the Senate ratified it in 1983, the United States has not yet sought to accede to the Convention. The President signed the instrument of accession on September 6, 1983. Draft implementing legislation has been submitted to the Congress. U.S. membership in NAFO requires only the enactment of implementing legislation and depositing of the instrument of accession.<P>

<P>

<em u>Member Nations</em><P>

<P>

Bulgaria, Canada, Cuba, Denmark (in respect of the Faroe Islands and Greenland), Estonia, the European Union (EU), Iceland, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Poland, Romania, and the Russian Federation. <P>

<P>

<em u>Commission Headquarters</em><P>

<P>

Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization<P>

P.O. Box 638<P>

Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, Canada B2Y 3Y9<P>

Executive Secretary: Dr. L. Chepel <P>

Telephone: (902) 469-9105<P>

<P>

<em u>Budget</em><P>

<P>

NAFO adopted a budget for 1994 of $968,000 (Canadian). There is no U.S. contribution since the United States is not a NAFO member. <P>

<P>

<em u>U.S. Representation</em><P>

<P>

There are no U.S. Commissioners because the United States is not a member of NAFO. The NAFO meetings have traditionally been attended by observers from NMFS and DOS. U.S. scientists from the NMFS Northeast Center have routinely attended scientific committee meetings since the formation of NAFO.<P>

<P>

<em u>Description</em><P>

<P>

A. Mission/Purpose:<P>

<P>

The mission of NAFO (a successor to the International Commission for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries, ICNAF) is: (1) to provide for continued multilateral consultation and cooperation with respect to the study, appraisal, and exchange of scientific information and views relating to fisheries of the Convention Area and (2) to conserve and manage fishery resources of the Regulatory Area, i.e., that part of the Convention Area which lies beyond the areas in which coastal states exercise fisheries jurisdiction. The Convention Area is located within the waters of the Northwest Atlantic ocean roughly north of 35&#176; north latitude and west of 42&#176; west latitude. (Note: The Convention applies to all fishery resources of the Convention Area with the exception of: salmon; tunas and marlins; cetacean stocks managed by the International Whaling Commission or any successor organization; and sedentary species of the Continental Shelf.)<P>

<P>

B. Organizational Structure:<P>

<P>

The NAFO consists of a General Council, Fisheries Commission, Scientific Council, a Secretariat, and standing committees. The General Council provides executive guidance for the Secretariat and provides a forum for member nations' approval of programs and regulations. The Scientific Council provides a forum for the exchange of scientific information and views relating to the fisheries of the Convention Area; compiles, maintains, and publishes statistics pertaining to the fisheries, including environmental/ecological factors in the Convention Area; provides scientific advice to coastal states when requested to do so; and provides scientific advice to the NAFO Fisheries Commission. <P>

The Fisheries Commission is responsible for the management and conservation of the fishery resources of the Regulatory Area. The Standing Committees consider and make recommendations in the areas of (1) finance and administration; (2) the fishing activities of Non-Contracting Parties in the regulatory area; <P>

(3) inspection and control; (4) fishery science; (5) research coordination; and (6) publications.<P>

<P>

C. Programs:<P>

<P>

NAFO has established and maintains conservation measures in the Regulatory Area. These measures include TACs and member nation allocations, mesh size and chafing gear requirements, notifica- tion and registration requirements for fishing vessels operating in the Regulatory Area, and data reporting requirements. The principal species managed are cod, flounders, redfish, American plaice, and capelin. Occasionally, a significant squid fishery occurs in the Regulatory Area as well. The management strategy of NAFO has been dominated by the Canadian adherence to the F 0.1 mortality rate which is designed to yield smaller catches of more mature fish than the F max strategy favored by the EU. Canada and the EU appear to have reached agreement on a common approach to NAFO problems during bilateral talks in December 1992. <P>

<P>

Actual total takes in the late 1980s and the first two years of the 1990s were substantially higher than the officially set TACs. This higher level was the result of the EU's official rejection of some NAFO TACs in favor of its own unilaterally-imposed figures. NAFO's convention provides that a management measure is not binding on any contracting nation that formally objects to it. Unregulated fishing in the NAFO Regulatory Area by non- member states (sometimes by reflagged vessels of a member state), the under-reporting of catches by Soviet vessels, (acknowledged for the first time at the 1991 annual meeting), and over-fishing by EU vessels even of the unilaterally-set quotas were also factors.<P>

<P>

NAFO conducts a program of joint international inspection and enforcement in the Regulatory Area. In the 1990 annual meeting, NAFO took steps to strengthen these aspects of the organization, with a suggestion of more action in the near future. The momentum behind this effort weakened in 1991 and 1992 but continued forward. NAFO is also stepping up efforts to end fishing by Non-Contracting Parties in the regulatory area. One manifestation of this NAFO attempt was the presentation in 1991 of joint demarches to the governments of Non-Contracting Parties' vessels observed in the NAFO regulatory area. An additional set of coordinated demarches will be carried out in 1994. <P>

<P>

Three contentious management issues have been the fishing for cod in the Flemish Cap area, cod and redfish quotas in the area around the "nose" and the "tail" of the Grand Banks, and the proper management strategy for a straddling cod stock over which Canada seeks exclusive management authority. At its 1992 and 1993 annual meetings, NAFO agreed to a TAC of zero for cod in the 3L area (the "nose" of the Grand Banks). This complements the 2- year moratorium on cod harvests imposed by Canada within its EEZ off Newfoundland. It also agreed on minimum sizes of 41 cm for cod, 25 cm for American plaice, and 25 cm for yellowtail flounder; and minimum mesh sizes of 130 mm for groundfish and 160 mm for short-finned squid.<P>

<P>

Scientific advice that many NAFO-regulated stocks were at all- time low levels of abundance confirmed the need for other TAC reductions as well. TACs and allocations to Contracting Parties in 1994 for all groundfish stocks that are either entirely in the Regulatory Area or associated with stocks within 200-mile zones were decreased. Other new proposals adopted for control and enforcement during 1994 within the Regulatory Area include: no directed fishery for the stocks of American plaice in Divisions 3LNO and 3M, witch flounder in Divisions 3LNO, and for yellowtail flounder in Divisions 3LNO, as those stocks should be used only as bycatch; special measures to prevent the taking of undersized fish in the fishing for cod in Division 3NO were agreed, such as the ban on shrimp trawling in this area. The Parties agreed on 50 percent observer coverage and a goal of 100 percent inspection monitoring. As regards shrimp trawling in Division 3M, a minimum net mesh size of 40mm, sorting grids for fish escapement, and deployment of observers on board fishing vessels were agreed. These conservation measures were directed at drastic reductions of the mortality of juvenile fish and, as a result, a gradual rebuilding of the stocks. The 1994 Annual Meeting will occur September 19-23 in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, Canada.<P>

<P>

<P>

<em u>Staff Contacts</em><P>

<P><PRE>

NOAA Fisheries: Department of
 State:</PRE>
<P><PRE>
Dean Swanson, F/IA1               Stetson Tinkham
Room 7270                         OES/OMC, Room 5806
1335 East-West Highway            Department of State
Silver Spring, MD  20910          Washington, D.C.  20520
Phone: (301)713-2276              Phone: (202)647-3940<H1>GOVERNING INTERNATIONAL FISHERY

AGREEMENTS</H1></PRE>

Pursuant to the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act (the Magnuson Act), foreign fishing within the U.S. 200- mile Exclusive Economic Zone may only be conducted under governing international fishery agreements (GIFAs). Below is a list of GIFAs that have been concluded since the enactment of the Magnuson Act, including their status as of January 31, 1994.

Entity Date <PRE> Entered <em

 u><B>Expiration

Signed Into DateStatus</PRE&g t;Force

Bulgaria<PRE>

  original        12/17/76   2/28/77    7/01/83
  renegotiated     9/22/83   4/12/84    7/01/88     Expired</PRE>

Cuba<PRE>

original 4/27/77 9/26/77 9/26/82

 Expired</PRE>

Denmark/Faroe Islands<PRE>

  original         9/05/79   1/18/80    7/01/84
  renegotiated          6/11/84  11/20/84    7/01/89
  extended                    7/01/89    7/01/91    Expired      </PRE>

<PRE>

<B>Estonia               
</B>  original          6/1/92   12/22/92    6/30/94     In force</PRE>

European Economic

Community<PRE>

  original         2/15/77   6/09/77    7/01/84
  renegotiated         10/01/84  11/18/84    7/01/89</PRE>
  extended                     8/4/89

7/01/91<PRE>

extended 1/13/92 12/31/93

 Expired</PRE>

German Democratic

Republic<PRE>

  original        10/05/76   3/04/77    7/01/83
  renegotiated          4/13/83   7/20/83    7/01/88            
  extended                   7/01/88    7/01/90
  extended                   7/01/90    7/01/92     *</PRE>

Iceland<PRE>

  original         9/21/84  11/16/84    7/01/89</PRE>
  extended                    7/25/89

7/01/91<PRE>

extended 10/21/91 12/31/93

 Expired</PRE>

Entity Date <em<PRE> u>Entered <em

 u>Expiration

 Signed Into Date Status Force</PRE>

Japan<PRE>

  original         3/18/77  11/29/77   12/31/82
  1st renegot.          9/10/82   1/01/83   12/31/87
  2nd renegot.         11/12/87  12/31/87   12/31/89
  extended                   12/18/89   12/31/91    Expired</PRE>

Republic of Korea<PRE>

  original         1/04/77   3/04/77    7/01/82
  1st renegot.          7/26/82   4/28/83    7/01/87
  extended                   7/01/87    7/01/89</PRE>
  extended                    7/01/89

7/01/91<PRE>

extended 7/01/91 12/31/93

 **</PRE>

<PRE>

<B>Latvia</B>            
  original         4/08/93  10/29/93    6/01/95     In force</PRE>

Lithuania<PRE>

original 11/12/92 7/28/93 12/31/94

 In force</PRE>

</em><B>Mexico</B><P><PR

original 8/26/77 12/29/77 7/01/82 Expired</PRE>

Norway<PRE>

original 1/26/81 5/15/81 7/01/85

 Expired</PRE>

People's Republic

of China<PRE>

  original         7/23/85  11/19/85    7/01/92
  extended                   7/01/90    7/01/92     
  extended                   4/08/93    7/01/94     In force</PRE>

Poland<PRE>

  original         8/02/76   2/28/77   12/31/85
  renegotiated                    1/01/86    7/01/91
  extended                   7/01/91   12/31/93     **</PRE>

Portugal<PRE>

original 10/16/80 3/04/81 3/04/86

 *</PRE>

Romania<PRE>

  original        11/23/76   1/18/78    7/01/82
  renegotiated                              12/31/88     Expired</PRE>

Spain<PRE>

  original         2/16/77   3/10/77    7/01/82
  renegotiated          7/29/82   1/17/83    7/01/87     *</PRE>

Entity Date <em<PRE> u>Entered <em

 u>Expiration

 Signed Into Date Status Force</PRE>

Taiwan<PRE>

  original         9/15/76   2/28/77    7/01/82
  renegotiated          6/07/82   7/01/82    7/01/87     Expired</PRE>

U.S.S.R.<PRE>

  original        11/26/76   2/28/77    7/01/84
  1st renegot.         12/31/86  12/31/86   12/31/87
  2nd renegot.         12/08/87  12/08/87   12/31/88</PRE>

<PRE>

  U.S.-U.S.S.R.    5/31/88  10/28/88   10/28/93</PRE>

Agreement on

Mutual Fisheries

Relations

<PRE>

extension 10/28/93 5/01/94 In

 force</PRE>
<em u>

* Portugal, Spain, and the German Democratic Republic were incorporated into the GIFA with the EEC.

** Extensions in progress.

<H1>NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE</H1>

<H1>OFFICE OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS</H1>

<H1>SCHEDULE OF MEETINGS AND NEGOTIATIONS</H1>

<H1>JANUARY 1-DE CEMBER 31, 1994</H1>

D ATES </em&g t;

A CTIVITY</B& gt; ;

L OCATION</B& gt; ; 1 994< ;P>

J ANUARY  24-2870th Annual Meeting International Pacific Halibut CommissionSeattle, Washington26-28IATTC IRP MeetingEnsenada, Mexico 27-29Alaska Eskimo Whaling CommissionBarrow, Alaska F EBRUARY </e m> ; 7-1110th Central Bering Sea MeetingWashington, D.C.7-11PSC 9th Annual MeetingVancouver, B.C., Canada 7-23Sea Turtle NegotiationsVarious sites, Brazil 22-25IWC Intersessional MeetingNorfolk Island, Australia M ARCH </em&g t;7-18*DOS/NMFS TED Consultations with Caribbean Countries (various countries) 8-10Third Pacific Rim Fisheries ConferenceBeijing, China14-31Second Plenary Session of UN Conference on Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish StocksNew York, New York 24-25ICCAT Advisory Committee Unknown 24-25Mexico-U.S. Fishery Cooperation talksMiami, Florida*U.S. Section Meeting, NASCOBoston AreaAPRIL< ;/em> 11-20*DOS/NMFS TED Consultations with Caribbean countries(various countries)<PRE&g t;

17-21*

</PRE>

ICCAT Intersessional

 Meeting

Tokyo, Japan24-MAY 7UN Conference on the Sustainable Development of Small Island Developing StatesBarbados *APFC Fisheries Work GroupSidney, Canada

*IATTC Dolphin Conservation Program IRP MeetingLa Jolla, CAM AY *IATTC U.S. Advisory MeetingLa Jolla, CA *16-27IWC Annual MeetingPuerto Vallarta, Mexico *U.S.-Colombia Fisheries ConsultationsCartagena, Colombia

& lt;P>

JUNE </em&g t; 7-9IATTC Annual MeetingPuerto La Cruz, Venezuela 6-10NASCO Annual MeetingOslo, Norway J ULY ; A UGUST </em& gt; 15-26Third Plenary Session of UN Conference on Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish StocksNew York, New York S EPTEMBER </B&g t; 13-14U.S.-Russia Intergovernmental Consultative Committee on FisheriesMoscow, Russia 19-23NAFO Annual MeetingDartmouth, Nova Scotia 20-28ICES 82 StatutorySt. Johns, Newfoundland *NPAFC U.S. Advisory MeetingSeattle, WashingtonOCTOBER& lt;/em> *10-142nd Annual Meeting of the NPAFCVladivostok, Russia 15-243RD Annual Meeting of PICESNemuro, Japan 26-Nov. 4Thirteenth Meeting of the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living ResourcesHobart, Tasmania NOVEMBER < ;/B>

14-18 <PRE>

ICCAT Special Meeting
Madrid, Spain
21- 23</PRE><P>
Interim Meeting IPHC
Seattle, Washington
28-Dec. 2PSC Post Season MeetingVancouver, B.C., Canada
<em u>DECEMBER </em><P&g t;

<P>

<P>

<P>

<P>

<P>

<P>

<P>

<P>

<P>

<P>

_______________< ;P>

*Denotes tentative scheduling.<P>

<P>

<P>

<H1>INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS CONCERNING LIVING MARINE </H1>

<H1>RESOURCES OF INTEREST TO NOAA FISHERIES</H1>

<H1>(AGREEMENTS ARE IN FORCE AND THE UNITED STATES IS A</H1>

<H1>PARTY TO THE AGREEMENTS EXCEPT AS NOTED)</H1>

<H1>INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION FOR THE</H1>

<H1>CONSERVATION OF ATLANTIC TUNAS</H1>

<H1>(ICCAT)</H1>

<H1>INTER-AMERICAN TROPICAL TUNA COMMISSION</H1>

<H1>(IATTC)</H1>

<H1>NORTH ATLANTIC SALMON CONSERVATION ORGANIZATION</H1>

<H1>(NASCO)</H1>

<H1>INTERNATIONAL PACIFIC HALIBUT COMMISSION</H1>

<H1>(IPHC)</H1>

<H1>NORTH PACIFIC ANADROMOUS FISH COMMISSION</H1>

<H1>(NPAFC)</H1>

<H1>PACIFIC SALMON COMMISSION</H1>

<H1>(PSC)</H1>

<H1>COMMISSION FOR THE CONSERVATION OF </H1>

<H1>ANTARCTIC MARINE LIVING RESOURCES</H1>

<H1>(CCAMLR)</H1>

<H1>INTERNATIONAL WHALING COMMISSION</H1>

<H1>(IWC)</H1>

<H1>GREAT LAKES FISHERY COMMISSION</H1>

<H1></H1>

<H1>U.S.-RUSSIA</H1>

<H1>INTERGOVERNMENTAL CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE (ICC)</H1>

<H1>U.S.-JAPAN</H1>

<H1>CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES</H1>

<H1>CONVENTION FOR THE CONSERVATION</H1>

<H1>OF ANTARCTIC SEALS</H1>

<H1>(CCAS)</H1>

<H1>U.S.-CANADA</H1></PRE>

<H1>AGREEMENT ON FISHERIES ENFORCEMENT</H1>

<H1>NORTH PACIFIC MARINE SCIENCE ORGANIZATION</H1>

<H1>(PICES)</H1>

<H1>INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL FOR THE EXPLORATION</H1>

<H1>OF THE SEA</H1>

<H1>(ICES)</H1>

<H1>NORTHWEST ATLANTIC FISHERIES ORGANIZATION</H1>

<H1>(NAFO)</H1>

<H1>GOVERNING INTERNATIONAL FISHERY

<H1><B>NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE</H1>

<H1>OFFICE OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS</H1>

<H1>SCHEDULE OF MEETINGS AND NEGOTIATIONS</H1>

<H1>JANUARY 1-DE CEMBER 31, 1994</H1>

`<H1>GREAT LAKES FISHERY COMMISSION</H1>`