ARTICLE 11 The decisions of the special commission shall be bindings on the States concerned and the provisions of paragraph 2 of Article 94 of the Charter of the United Nations shall be applicable to those decisions. If the decisions are accompanied by any recommendations, they shall receive the greatest possible consideration. ARTICLE 12 1. If the factual basis of the award of the special commission is altered by substantial changes in the conditions of the stock or stocks of fish or other living marine resources or in methods of fishing, any of the States concerned may request the other States to enter into negotiations with a view to prescribing by agreement the necessary modifications in the measures of conservation. 2. If no agreement is reached within a reasonable period of time, any of the States concerned may again resort to the procedure contemplated by article 9 provided that at least two years have elapsed from the original award. ARTICLE 13 1. The regulation of fisheries conducted by means of equipment embedded in the floor of the sea in areas of the high seas adjacent to the territorial sea of a State may be undertaken by that State where such fisheries have long been maintained and conducted by its nationals, provided that non-nationals are permitted to participate in such activities on an equal footing with nationals except in areas where such fisheries have by long usage been exclusively enjoyed by such nationals. Such regulations will not, however, affect the general status of the areas as high seas. 2. In this article, the expression "fisheries conducted by means of equipment embedded in the floor of the sea" means those fisheries using gear with supporting members embeded in the sea floor, constructed on a site and left there to operate permanently or, if removed, restored each season on the same site. ARTICLE 14 In articles 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8, the term "nationals" means fishing boats or craft of any size having the nationality of the State concerned, according to the law of that State, irrespective of the nationality of the members of their crews. ARTICLE 15 This Convention shall, until 31 October 1958, be open for signature by all States Members of the United Nations or of any of the specialized agencies, and by any other State invited by the General Assembly of the United Nations to become a Party to the Convention. ARTICLE 16 This Convention is subject to ratification. The instruments of ratification shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations. ARTICLE 17 This Convention shall be open for accession by any States belonging to any of the categories mentioned in article 15. The instruments of accession shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations. ARTILCE 18 1. This Convention shall come into force on the thirtieth day following the date of deposit of the twenty-second instrument of ratification or accession with the Secretary-General of the United Nations. 2. For each State ratifying or acceding to the Convention after the deposit of the twenty-second instrument of ratification or accession, the Convention shall enter into force on the thirtieth day after deposit by such State of its instrument of raification or accession. ARTICLE 19 1. At the time of signature, ratification or accession, any State may make reservations to articles of the Convention other than to articles 6, 7, 9, 10, 11 and 12. 2. Any Contracting State making a reservation in accordance with the preceding paragraph may at any time withdraw the reservation by a communication to that effect addressed to the Secretary-General of the United Nations. ARTICLE 20 1. After the expiration of a period of five years from the date on which this Convention shall enter into force, a request for the revision of this Convention may be made at any time by any Contracting Party by means of a notification in writing addressed to the Secretary-General of the United Nations. 2. The General Assembly of the United Nations shall decide upon the steps. if any, to be taken in respect of such request. ARTICLE 21 The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall inform all States Members of the United Nations and the other States referred to in article 15: (a) Of signatures to this Convention and of the deposit of instruments of ratification or accession, in accordance with articles 15, 16 and 17; (b) of the date on which this Convention will come into force, in accordance with article 18; (c) Of requests for revision in accordance with article 20; (d) of reservations to this Convention, in accordance with article 19. ARTICLE 22 The original of this Convention, of which the Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish texts are equally authentic, shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who shall send certified copies thereof to all States referred to in article 15. In Witness Whereof the undersigned Plenipotentiaries, being duly authorized thereto by their respective Governments, have signed this Convention. Done at Geneva, this twenty-ninth day of April one thousand nine hundred and fifty-eight. Mr. EVERETT. We are well aware of the negotiations that have gone on between the United States and Russia concerning conservation of resources of the shores of the United States. As soon as this legislation passes and you are able to secure the information needed concerning our resources, how responsive do you think Japan and Russia would be to any conservation program that you would be interested in discussing or implementing, and also the nations parties to the convention? Mr. PAUTZKE. Of course, you know we are parties to several conservation conventions. Those countries participate in many of them. There is a multiple-species situation here, and where we want to talk about one species they want to talk about a broad series of selective species, and are we quite ready to move and open this arena of discussion. I speak of the fact that we have certain conventions that protect species. As you heard the Congressman from Washington say, we have a halibut convention and we have one for salmon up to a certain line. As you are aware, the Soviet line butts up against our abstention line. When we shove the Japanese back, we are shoving them onto the Russian line, so that we have more than just certain species on the Continental Shelf. We have other species. Should this negotiation open up this whole big situation for discussion? But, if we have the biological information and data, we are in a better position then, to sit down with a foreign country and discuss the conservation of that resource, because they can't refute our factual information. And if a resource is being overfished, they stand poorly in the eyes of the world. And we have that situation if we have the data. That is possible, when we have accumulated this data, we are in a better position then to meet and discuss conservation practices. Mr. EVERETT. Thank you, sir. very Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Pautzke, how much would it cost for us to make an adequate survey of the Continental Shelf fish and the fishery resources there? Mr. PAUTZKE. Of our shelf? Mr. DINGELL. Of the American Continental Shelf. Mr. PAUTZKE. As projected in Senate Joint Resolution 29? Mr. DINGELL. An adequate survey to give us a good understanding of resources and their use, and so forth. Mr. CROWTHER. I think what the chairman has in mind is an actual survey of the resources themselves. Mr. DINGELL. The fishery resources. Mr. CROWTHER. Of the Continental Shelf which would require vessel operation and biological research. I think this would take quite a bit of time, Mr. Chairman, and would be fairly expensive. We have information on a number of the species, I think, which is adequate right now, such as the haddock. On many of the unutilized species, this would require a tremendous amount of work. We do have in mind, Mr. Chairman, and we are preparing what we call an atlas for the resources of the Continental Shelf, which puts together the information as we know it now on these resources; but it is far from complete. Mr. DINGELL. You still have not answered the question that I have directed at you. The point I am coming to is simply this: $200,000 is a rather sadly inadequate figure for an adequate survey of the fishery resources of the Continental Shelf, is it not? Mr. CROWTHER. Yes, sir; the way you are referring to it. Mr. DINGELL. I am talking about a really comprehensive, worthwhile study. You have indicated that this would have to be performed over a number of years; am I correct? Mr. CROWTHER. That is right, sir. Mr. DINGELL. How long would this take? Of course, this would again depend upon the rate at which you would proceed, am I correct? Mr. CROWTHER. That is right, sir. Mr. DINGELL. Assuming that to be so, how long would it take to perform, and at what dollar rate; what number of people engaged in it, and what amount of equipment? Obviously, this is a very broad question; but obviously, this is what the committee has to have an answer on before we are able to legislate here. Mr. CROWTHER. I would prefer, if I have your permission, to actually do more figuring on this and consulting with our own staff. Mr. DINGELL. I didn't think, very frankly, that you could give us a horseback answer this morning. But you could give us this horseback answer saying that $200,000 is a grossly inadequate figure for a really comprehensive, meaningful, and useful survey; am I correct? Mr. CROWTHER. That is right, sir. Mr. PAUTZKE. Mr. Chairman. Mr. DINGELL. The Chair will be happy to receive that information. (The information mentioned above, follows:) ESTIMATE OF COST AND TIME REQUIRED FOR A SURVEY OF U.S. CONTINENTAL SHELF AND FRESH WATER COMMERCIAL FISHERY RESOURCES OF THE UNITED STATES, SEPTEMBER 1966 A useful survey of U.S. commercial fishery resources could be made at various levels of effort and degrees of thoroughness with price tags ranging from a few hundred thousand to many millions of dollars. A reasonably adequate survey of the Continental Shelf could be completed in 42 years at a total cost of $6.5 million, as described in this report. If a more complete and detailed survey is required, the number of vessels, manpower, and subsequently the cost, must be substantially increased. The proposed survey, costing $6.5 million, would utilize 6 vessels and the services of 48 people in addition to vessel crews. The estimate of time needed includes 1 year for planning details of the operation, chartering necessary vessels, and recruiting personnel required and 6 months for completing a summary report. The survey would cover data accumulated and processed over the 3-year field study. It would also make use of all existing pertinent data available to the Bureau. Automatic data processing would be used in compiling the results of the survey. In the program as outlined, surveys of commercial fishery resources of inland waters, including the Great Lakes, would be limited to summarizing available data, which could be accomplished by the staff and within the total cost indicated. REQUIREMENTS FOR SURVEY OF CONTINENTAL SHELF FISHERY RESOURCES Objectives. To obtain estimated measures of the abundance, availability, and distribution of fish and invertebrates on and above the continental shelf and slope. Vessels.-Six seagoing, research and survey vessels up to 150 feet in length (3 vessels to work the Atlantic and Gulf Coast, and 3, the Pacific coast, including Alaska). Field stations.-Utilize Bureau's present biological laboratories and exploratory fishing bases. Staffing. We assume that most of the vessels would be chartered, complete with crews and officers. Scientists and technicians to man the vessels: average 3 men × 6 vessels= 18 persons, average grade GS-11. Shore-based scientists and technicians, data processors and analysts would be needed at least equal in number to the seagoing staff, and perhaps more: estimated at 18 persons, average grade GS-11. Administration, clerical procurement, etc.,: 12 persons, average grade GS-11. Time required.— One year for planning, recruitment of staff, chartering of vessels, and purchase of equipment. Three years of field study, in order to obtain adequate data to compare differences between seasons and between years. There would be a serious problem, however, in obtaining the desired coverage in space and time with only one vessel in a particular area. Six months for preparation of summary report. Costs Vessels: 6 vessels at $200,000 for 3 years (4- to 6-month periods). Field stations: Indirect costs at 6 stations (1 station for each vessel) at $25,000 for 41⁄2 years.- $3,600,000 675,000 Staffing: Employee benefits (approximately 8 percent). 12 administration and clerical, average GS-11 at $9,295 for 41⁄2 years- 18 shore-based scientists and data processors, average grade GS-11, at $9,295 for 41⁄2 years.. 18 seagoing scientists and technicians, average grade GS-11, at $9.295 for 3 years_ 501, 930 752, 895 501, 930 140, 540 Total personnel costs.-- Miscellaneous: Travel, transportation of things, contracts, utilities, fishing gear, etc., 41⁄2 years-- Total costs for 4-year period 1,897, 295 327, 705 6, 500, 000 Possible benefits.-Potential production from the U.S. Continental Shelf could equal approximately 20 billion pounds annually valued at $1 billion at fisherman's level. Examples of underutilized species with commercial potential.-Anchovies, flounders, Pacific hake, Pacific herring, Pacific pollock, Pacific rockfishes, jacks, sharks, thread herring and round herring, clams, crabs, Pacific shrimp, squid, and seaweeds. Gaps in our knowledge.—Our knowledge is poor or lacking in respect to many of the above species, particularly the herring-like fishes, sharks, flounders, pollock, shrimp, and squid. In order to harvest the resource effectively and to manage it according to conservation principles, we would need information on the size and distribution of the resource, age and growth and natural mortality, reproductive rate, and nature of subpopulation structure. Entirely new harvesting methods might need to be devised before the industry could operate profitably on the resource. New products and new methods of processing would be needed to interest the U.S. public in eating some of the forms, squid, for example. The greater gaps in our knowledge occur in respect to the species which may have the greatest potential. The subject survey would provide guidelines in determining future avenues of approach. Mr. PAUTZKE. Mr. Chairman, may I interject? I Mr. PAUTZKE. You have heard about the commercial fisheries. would like to have you hear about the growing sport fisheries, which is perhaps more inadequately surveyed than the commercial fisheries. Mr. DINGELL. I have some questions for my good friend Mr. Gottschalk, but I would be happy to hear him at this time on that point. Mr. GOTTSCHALK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thought the committee might be interested in recalling that when the Marine Game Fish Act was passed a few years ago the committee established an authorization for expenditure of $2,700.000 per year in the expectation that a continuing program over a period of approximately 10 years would provide us the information, not on all of the fisheries of the coastal shelf, but on the fisheries of concern to sport fishermen, and on the other relationships of the estuarine and the coastal environment that is the base on which the sport fishery depends. So this might give you some lead as to the dollar requirements to carry out a survey and a complete study. Mr. DINGELL. Now, it is fair to say that because of the budgetary problems and other difficulties that you have never approached that $2.7 million per annum expenditure; am I correct? Mr. GOTTSCHALK. Quite correct. Mr. DINGELL. What has been the level of expenditure since that statute was passed? If you want to submit that for the record, the Chair will be happy to receive it. Mr. GOTTSCHALK. We will be glad to furnish this in terms of the total amount available per year since the act was passed. Mr. DINGELL. Perhaps on an annual basis, you might indicate to us how much has been appropriated under the bill. This was one of the questions I wished to direct to you. Mr. GOTTSCHALK. I can tell you that the program began immediately after the authorization at a low level of $150,000 and has grown gradually until we are now operating a program that is somewhat less than a million dollars. But I will give you the specific figures. Mr. DINGELL. Can you give us an idea of what benefits have flowed from that particular program? That will be helpful to the committee. I would like some kind of statement on that. |