number of factors, including the vacancy in the post of IOC Secretary from November 1971 until October 1972 and a wait-and-see attitude on many ocean science programs by some nations until issues can be settled by the U.N. Law of the Sea Conference.

During 1972, the United States unsuccessfully urged the Commission-and UNESCO as the Commission's basic sponsor-to provide strong support for both the International Decade of Ocean Exploration (IDOE), particularly the Global Investigations of Pollution in the Marine Environment (GIPME), and the IOC program in mutual assistance, training, and education. At the 17th General Conference of UNESCO, which approved the IOC work program and budget for the next two years, many countries strongly supported U.S. efforts to emphasize the IOC program in mutual assistance, training, and education, but our efforts to emphasize GIPME gained less support.

The first meeting of the reconstituted IOC Executive Council in July 1972 made disappointing progress on most issues before it. An International Coordination Group for GIPME was established by the Council, but, in spite of the urgency attached to this program by many members, it was not possible to organize the Group or to schedule its first session until April 1973.

Particularly disappointing was the failure to streamline the Commission's internal structure to increase its efficiency. A hopeful note was found in the Council's decision to establish an Ad Hoc Study Group to take an intensive look at improving the effectiveness of the Commission across the Board. The Group's meeting in January 1973 produced several important recommendations, which, if implemented, should significantly improve the efficiency of the Commission and enable it to function better as the focal point for international marine science activities. Among these were development of a work program and financial requirements, which will establish priorities and lay the base for obtaining resources needed for the IOC's work; a restructuring of the Commission's subsidiary bodies to enhance their work; and the establishment of formal working relationships with other international organizations, such as the Food and Agriculture Organization, the Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organization, and the World Meteorological Organization.

The United States also continued its efforts through other mechanisms to achieve the coordination needed between our oceanographic program and those of other nations. One such mechanism is the U.S.-French bilateral program, under which U.S. and French oceanographers are planning to cooperate in a series of projects over the next few years, including studies of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, aquaculture, buoy technology, and abatement and control of marine pollution.

During 1972 a number of countries initiated cooperative efforts with the United States under the IDOE program, but outside the IOC.

These efforts include projects in the areas of environmental quality, environmental forecasting, and seabed assessment. Other countries participating in these projects thus far include Canada, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom. Additional studies in the area of living resources will soon be underway. It is expected that many other nations, especially those African and South American nations bordering the South Atlantic, will participate in various IDOE programs over the next few years.

The United States continued its active participation in the marine science programs of the International Hydrographic Organization and the various international fisheries commissions. During 1972 NATO undertook a comprehensive review of its oceanographic research program for the purpose of revising it extensively over the next year.

In April 1973 the United States became a member of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), the oldest international organization dealing with fisheries and marine sciences, dating from 1901. The U.S. became a member in 1912, but terminated its membership during World War I. In recent years we have participated in ICES meetings and scientific projects in an observer status, but our participation was handicapped by lack of full membership. The United States is the last major oceanic nation in the North Atlantic region, the center of ICES activities, to become a full member. This action should significantly enhance the effectiveness of our planning and execution of scientific work in the North Atlantic.

Foreign Relations Aspects of United States Fisheries

Jurisdictional disputes between U.S. fishermen and foreign governments continued to be a major issue. U.S. tropical tuna fishermen operating in certain foreign-claimed waters have been subjected to seizures and fines. The U.S. fishermen are viewed by developing foreign nations as representatives of a developed country exploiting resources off their shores. Consequently extensions of jurisdiction and other coastal state measures have been implemented to foster development of their own fishing industries by restricting the activities of distant-water fishermen. Continuing diplomatic efforts to resolve the jurisdictional dispute of 20-years standing with Ecuador and Peru in the eastern Pacific tuna fishery failed to achieve a settlement. Seizures continued at a high level in 1972, with Ecuador seizing 25 U.S. seiners and assessing a total of $1.7 million in fees.

Congress and Government agencies took action to aid U.S. fishermen whose vessels and gear were seized or damaged by foreigners. The tuna industry was helped by Congressional action in late 1972, when the Fishermen's Protective Act was amended. This change expedited compensation for losses caused by illegal seizures and

tightened up the requirement for offsetting reductions from aid funds programmed for the seizing governments. Congress also authorized appropriation of funds to support tuna fishery development activities in Micronesia.

The United States distant-water fishermen who operate off northeastern South America were assured of continued access to their accustomed fishing grounds within the 200-mile territorial sea claimed by Brazil by the signing of a shrimp conservation agreement between the United States and Brazil on May 9, 1972. The United States agreed to limit the number of its flag vessels in the fishery for conservation purposes. The agreement requires only voluntary compliance until passage of implementing legislation in the United States. The agreement was a successful compromise between countries having widely disparate positions on fishery jurisdiction, and should make it possible to avoid another dispute like that which has troubled the tuna fishery on the west coast of South America. It is also noteworthy that both the United States and Brazil could reach agreement while preserving their judicial and law of the sea positions pending an international solution at the Law of the Sea Conference.

Foreign fishing vessel interference with deepwater lobster pots off the Atlantic coast continued to be a problem. Vigorous action by the U.S. Coast Guard and National Marine Fisheries Service in cooperation with the Department of State helped alleviate conflicts with foreign fishermen. In an effort to minimize gear conflicts, daily messages were sent to foreign fleet commanders identifying areas where U.S. lobster pots were located. These actions tended to diminish the problem somewhat. Assistance was rendered to American Fishermen in preparing and presenting damage claims.

against foreign fishing vessels, and some have been settled successfully.

International regulation continues to be part of the fisherman's life. Strong competition for dwindling stocks in established fishing areas prompted the United States and other nations to seek more equitable arrangements through international fishery commissions. The response has been the establishment of new or reduced quotas, size limits, and inspection schemes, as well as a new technique for allocating quotas.

The International Commission for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries (ICNAF), under the authority of the December 1971 amendment to the ICNAF Convention, adopted at a February 1972 Special Meeting national quota regulations for the depleted herring stocks off the United States and Canada. These regulations, which became effective in September 1972, represent the first national catch quota scheme applied in a major, multinational fishery. For the first time the regulations were formulated using economic and technical considerations as well as the basic scientific criteria historically used in fisheries management. One basis for allocation was preference for coastal fisheries, thus helping to redress the competitive disadvantage of the U.S. coastal fishing vessels against foreign ocean-going fishing vessels. This step may be the most significant move since the inception of international fisheries management many years ago. A second Special ICNAF Meeting in January 1973 modified and extended the herring quota scheme through 1973.

At its regular annual meeting in June 1972, ICNAF took steps to extend this method for formulating fisheries allocations to other species and fishing areas where some depletion or a potential for depletion exists. This action was an attempt to head off problems before they materialized. Of the 23 regulatory proposals adopted at the Annual Meeting, 18 dealt with quotas for the 1973 season, and 15 of those allocated quotas among member nations. Allocations were made for three of the stocks among all (then) 15 members of the Commission. The quotas became effective on January 1, 1973, for the 1973 season.

Monitoring of foreign fishing operations off our coast showed that the fishing effort was significantly increased in 1972. This expanded activity threatened to undermine progress on national quota allocations and posed a serious danger that small stocks available to U. S. coastal fisheries might be decimated by incidental catches. The size of the effort might also disperse stocks, thus making it difficult or impossible for the small American fishing vessels to operate economically. Accordingly, the United States issued an urgent call in October 1972 for a special ICNAF Meeting in January 1973 to consider limitation of fishing effort. That meeting failed to reach agreement on the U.S. proposal to reduce and control fishing effort, but did not reject it. A special expert group was established by ICNAF to study the many difficult and complex questions posed by the U. S. proposal so that the Commission may consider it further.

The experts met in Woods Hole, Massachusetts, March 26-30, 1973. As an interim control measure, ICNAF adopted national quota regulations on four more previously unregulated species to help cut back on the build-up of effort. Thus, virtually all species in the ICNAF area will be under quota regulation.

The first full year of operation of the ICNAF International Inspection Scheme was 1972. Under the scheme enforcement officers of one nation are allowed to board other ICNAF members' fishing vessels on the high seas to check for compliance with ICNAF regulations. Under maritime practice, enforcement against vessels at sea is a prerogative usually reserved to the flag nation. The ICNAF scheme, together with a similar one under the sister Northeast Atlantic Fisheries Commission, both involving 20 nations as diverse as Japan and Iceland, the Soviet Union and Portugal, and Canada and Romania, demonstrate that it is possible for nations to cooperate in mutual policing of activities of common concern. Numerous inspections carried out during the year were without incident, and no major infractions of the ICNAF regulations were reported.

The controversial debate on curbing the high seas Atlantic salmon. fishery was resolved in 1972 when ICNAF adopted a regulation which will phase out the fishery by January 1, 1976. The regulation became effective on December 23, 1972. As a result, the resource will no longer be threatened by direct high seas fisheries which could destroy the stock and which had severely depleted some salmon spawning rivers.

The International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas adopted its first conservation recommendation, a size limit. for yellowfin tuna, at its fourth regular meeting in December 1972. The United States and 11 other countries are members of the Commission. In addition, present and anticipated conservation restrictions and sharpening competition in established fishing areas, coupled with the problems posed by extensions of Atlantic coastal state jurisdictional claims, caused the tuna fishermen to show an increasing interest in developing new fishing grounds in the central and western Pacific Ocean and the Indian Ocean.

The waters off our Pacific coast continued to be major fishing grounds for foreign vessels, particularly those of Japan and the Soviet Union. In areas off Alaska, vessels of those two major fishing nations number in the hundreds during certain seasons of the year. In addition, vessels of the Republic of Korea trawl-fished the eastern Bering Sea, though to a much lesser degree than those of Japan and the Soviet Union. Most foreign fishing effort has been devoted to a number of fish species which are not now greatly sought by U.S. fishermen. However, the United States is very concerned about conserving these fish stocks as resources for the future. Consequently, the United States means to assure their conservation.

For example, the United States sought to broaden research efforts and data exchanges through the International North Pacific Fisheries Commission (made up of the United States, Canada, and Japan) to apply to stocks of fish to which the Commission has