Foreign Developments ogy for fishing rights in countries from Africa to the Far East as well as with the United States. An Italian law passed in 1982 out­ lined the government's program to re­ structure and upgrade the Italian fish­ The Italian ing fleet as well as to improve, reor­ Market ganize, and expand processing on shore, distribution, and fish harvest­ ing facilities. Recently, the Italian government allocated 60 billion lire (US$I = 1,385 lire) for this program. Italy consumes about 700,000 and mercury content. In the meantime, ship owners and metric tons (t) of fishery products per Italian fishery product consump­ fishing cooperatives are also soliciting year, of which two-thirds is caught by tion was reportedly stable in 1980 and emergency government subsidies to the Italian fleet and one-third im­ 1981 near the 700,000 t figure. How­ help defray the high cost of fuel, ported. Major fish imports, by high­ ever, partial 1982 figures and industry which they claim accounts for as est quantity, are: , merluzzo (de­ specialists indicate it is again on the much as 60 percent of operating costs. mersal species such as hake and ), rise, some say by as much as 20 per­ Italian trade statistics reveal im­ , , , crayfish, cent. The most popular species eaten ports of 225,695 t of fresh, chilled, , , , , and . are the locally caught pesce azzurro and frozen fish and (with a U.S. fish exports to Italy increased (blue fish), tuna (caught and imported value of 574.8 billion lire) in 1981, in considerably during the first half of for canning), squid (caught and im­ addition to 51.5 t of dried, salted, 1982 (Table I), particularly frozen ported frozen), and merluzzo (cod smoked, and canned fish (21.5 billion salmon, eels, loligo and other , varieties, imported fresh, frozen, dry, lire). By volume and category, 1981 and . U.S. fishery exports, salted, or in brine). imports were: Tuna (71,225 t); dry, however, still account for less than I Landings of fish and shellfish by salted merluzzo (23,426 t); squid percent of Italian fishery imports. Ac­ local producers were an estimated (22,254 t); fresh, frozen merluzzo cording to Italian importers, the small 500,000 t in 1981. This includes (II ,224 t); octopus (9,614 t); mackerel U.S. share is due primarily to prob­ Italian freshwater lake and aquacul­ (8,591 t); crayfish (4,877 t); shark lems of quality, presentation, price, ture production, as well as the Italian (4,322 t); sole (4,098 t); eels (3,202 t); fleet harvests in coastal and foreign salmon (790 t); and trout (228 t). The waters. Italy exported 85,759 t of fish Italian canning industry is of good in 1981. size, processing mainly locally caught Table 1.-U.S. exports of fishery products to Italy by Italy's oceanic fleet of some 45 ves­ fish (especially ) and imported commodity. 1978-September 1982, in millions of U.S. dollars. sels catches about 45,000-50,000 t of tuna. Statistics for the first 5 months of Product 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982' fish per year, of which about 20 per­ cent is taken in U.S. waters. Italy's 1982 indicated imports of fresh, Edible Finfish Mediterranean fleet includes about chilled, and frozen fish increased Live 0.3 Negl. about 30 percent over the same period Frozen2 2,900 medium-sized motor vessels and Whole 36 4.9 5.1 2.6 3.4 1,100 small boats of under 25 GRT. in 1981. This increase was mostly in Fillets 0.1 0.4 1.2 0.4 0.1 fresh and chilled trout, salmon, tuna, Canned (not The Italian fleet is facing serious in oil) 0.1 0.7 0.3 0.2 0.2 difficulties, due to rising costs as well and an unspecified group of frozen Roe 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.1 marine species. The major supplier Shellfish as increased competition and third Frozen2 0.4 1.9 2.7 0.5 0.7 country efforts to reduce foreign fish­ countries of these products were Canned Negl. 01 0.2 Other Negl. Negl. ing in their waters. North African Belgium for trout, the United States for salmon, the Philippines for tuna, Total 4.4 8.3 9.7 4.3 4.5 countries, for example, are reducing Italian fleet access to their waters, and and Mauritania and Panama for Inedible other frozen fishes. Fish meal Negl. 30 the United States has served notice Fish oil Negl. Negl. Negl. Negl. that foreign fishing is to be phased out In the first 6 months of 1982, Ital­ Total 0.4 3.0 of U.S. waters in the relatively near ian imports of fresh, chilled, and fro­ zen fish from the United States were Grand total 4.4 8.7 12.7 4.3 4.5 future. The Italian industry has re­ 'January through September 1982. sponded to this challenge by actively about 1,000 t (4.7 billion lire), mainly 'May include small quantities of fresh seafood. seeking and developing, among other in frozen salmon, eels, loligo and Note: The data in this table have been computed for com­ parative purposes to correspond to the fishery commodity initiatives, joint ventures, bilateral other squid, and lobsters. This figure data compiled by FAO. It includes edible fishery products, government-level fishing agreements, compares favorably with that of 1981 fish meal, and fish oil. Source: U.S. Department of Com· merce, Bureau of the Census. and the exchange of Italian technol- when U.S. fish exports to Italy were

56 April-May-June 1983,45(4-6) 191 t of processed fish and 979 t of tent is set at 0.7 ppm. The permissible fishermen have become concerned in fresh and frozen fish. mercury level for tuna, shark, and recent years with the significant in­ Per capita fish consumption in Italy in canned form is 1.5 ppm. crease in levels of "subsistence" is roughly 11 kilos (8.8 kilos of fresh Italy's lower permissible mercury con­ fishing. and frozen fish and 2.2 kilos of pre­ tent prejudices U.S. products, whose The DFO denied these allegations, served fish and ). Industry maximum is set at 1.0 ppm. maintaining that the enforcement ac­ sources claim consumption rose about EC policy and regulations estab­ tion was conducted for conservation 20 percent in 1982. Fish consumption lishing reference prices on imports of purposes only. The DFO stated in a is highest in southern Italy where certain fish species have caused seri­ press release earlier this year that: fresh domestic fish prevails. The ous concern to U.S. exporters in the "Over the entire Fraser River market in northern Italy has expand­ past. Although the reference price watershed, the illegal catch for the ed considerably in recent years, mechanism is still in force, reportedly summer of 1982 is conservatively esti­ especially for frozen and processed the effects have been mitigated since mated at one-half million salmon. For fish. Packaged (e.g., U.S. export prices are now well above comparison, the local commercial fish fillets, steaks, and breaded fish EC minimum prices due to the cur­ catch of Fraser River salmon is only portions) are widely available and sev­ rent dollar exchange rate. (Source: 793,000 fish, so the illegal catch is eral major fish companies have suc­ IFR-83/7.) almost two-thirds as large. The De­ cessfully organized distribution chan­ partment is particularly concerned nels throughout Italy. about the impact this poaching activi­ Squid is by far the most popular ty has on conservation, especially for seafood bought frozen in Italy. High Canadians Charge 130 . Two years ago, the quality loligo is the preferred variety, With Salmon Poaching Department embarked on a long-term but the market is increasingly accept­ rehabilitation program to restore ing the illex variety, which is about The Canadian Department of Fish­ Fraser River chinook salmon to one-third the cost of loligo. Most loli­ eries and Oceans (DFO) disclosed the former abundance and all user groups go sold in Italy is caught by the Italian "most extensive undercover operation were required to reduce or eliminate fishing fleet in U.S. waters or import­ in its history" aimed at preventing the their catches of chinook. These ef­ ed from and . The poaching and illegal sales of salmon forts were diminished greatly because U.S. accounts for only a tiny fraction from the Fraser River in British Co­ of the damaging effects of poaching. of squid imported into Italy. For ex­ lumbia. During the last 4 months of Over the years, many attempts have ample, Italian fishing industry statis­ 1982, Federal agents in British also been made to rebuild some of the tics for the first 6 months of 1982 Columbia set up "storefront" opera­ early (July) sockeye runs, and it is show Italy imported 4.2 million kilos tions and made 200 "buys" of about now clear why we continually fall of squid from Thailand (valued at 61.5 metric tons of salmon. As a re­ short of spawning escapement goals 10.6 billion lire); 1.4 million kilos sult, 130 persons, all but one of whom even when all directed commercial from Japan (for 3.5 billion lire) and were Indians, were charged with vio­ fishing is eliminated." only 184,163 kilos from the United lating the Canadian Act. Commercial salmon fishing on the States (for 492 million lire). The: DFO enforcement action has Fraser River above Mission Bridge The Italian industry is noncommit­ created considerable public attention (near New Westminster, British Co­ al about the market potential of other and controversy. Native Indian lumbia) has been prohibited since the U.S. fish species in Italy. Fish is a groups charged that the "sting" ac­ last century. The only in-river activity high-priced, highly valued commodity tion was a blatantly discriminatory above Mission Bridge permitted by in Italy and the local consumer and illegal entrapment of innocent In­ law is traditional Indian subsistence demands a well-presented product of dian fishermen, and that it was moti­ fishing. The remaining salmon re­ high quality. The major complaint vated by the Canadian Government's source, not taken by subsistence fish­ against U.S. fish products is low desire to take control of Fraser River ermen, is intended for spawning quality, poor processing, and poor fisheries away from the Indians. The escapement. The DFO estimates that presentation. Price is also a factor, president of the Canadian United the 1982 escapements on the Fraser particularly in high-volume imports Fishermen and Allied Workers River system are 4 million sockeye, such as tuna and cod, which come Union, Jack Nichols, has charged 3,000-4,000 chum, 50,000 coho, cheaper from nothern Europe, that the DFO's enforcement action 60,000 chinook, and no pink salmon. Argentina, and Africa. was designed to achieve a quick pas­ The 1982 sockeye run was one of the Italian health regulations governing sage of the U.S.-Canadian Pacific best on record, substantially exceed­ the importation and distribution of Salmon Treaty, by appeasing U.S. ing targets, but chum, coho, and chi­ foods, especially seafoods, are strict fishermen who dislike unlimited nook escapements were about half the and energetically enforced by local fishing rights for Indians in the subsis­ desired levels, according to the DFO authorities. Maximum mercury con- tence fishery on the Fraser River. U.S. spokesman. (Source: IFR-83/17.)

April-May-June 1983,45(4-6) 57 The Malaysian of seafoods totaled $52.91 million Total fish landings in 1982 were there­ Fisheries Market with the United States supplying $0.22 fore expected to amount to 869,500 million (Table 1). tons compared with 836,100 tons in Malaysia is a net exporter of sea­ The Malaysia fishing industry, 1981, or an increase of 4 percent, food. In 1981, it imported $63.85 which employs some 87,000 fisher­ primarily due to the increase in million and exported $114.10 million men, remains predominantly an in­ and cockles landings and worth of seafood. The leading foreign shore activity with the majority of the following implementation of the suppliers were Thailand ($29.66 mil­ fishing fleet operating in coastal Government of Malaysia's fishing lion), Japan ($19.01 million), New waters. In 1981, the number of li­ projects. The Fisheries Department Zealand ($1.88 million), and Singa­ censed fishing boats totaled 25,952 and the Fisheries Development pore ($1.88 million). The United (powered) and 4,434 (nonpowered) Authority are the two government States supplied a mere $0.81 million and the number of licensed fishing agencies responsible for the develop­ of the total imports. For the first 9 gears was 32,213. For the same year, ment and expansion of the fishing in­ months of 1982, Malaysia's imports the number of ponds used for fish dustry. With continued development culture totaled 16,147 with a total of the fishing industry, total fish land­ acreage of 13,788.8, and the number ings in 1983 are expected to increase Table 1.-Malaysia's Imports, exports, and reexports of seafood' In 1981 and 1982. of new ponds opened for fish culture by 4.5 percent to 908,700 tons. Dur­ totaled 2,046 with a total acreage of ing 1981-85, the fishing industry is Value (U .S. $) Product category 1,070.6. projected to have an annual growth and country 1981 1982 In 1982, marine fish landings in rate of 4 percent, and the public Fish: Fresh, chilled or frozen Malaysia were estimated at 861,000 development expenditure for fisheries Imports from: Thailand 13.81 12.81 tons, an increase of 4 percent over the totaled $198.0 million, or 1.1 percent New Zealand 1.10 0.76 Singapore 0.83 0.63 previous year. pro­ of the total allocation for public sec­ United States 0.59 0.08 duction was estimated at 8,500 tons tor development programs. (Source: Japan 0.26 0.21 Other countries 1.29 3.08 compared with 8,400 tons in 1981. IFR-83/6.) Total 17.88 17.57 Exports 9.72 7.88 Fish: Dried, salted or brined. smoked Pakistan Receives Imports from: Pakistan. Thailand 1.88 1.46 Fisheries Aid Japan 0.20 020 Any U.S. companies interested in Singapore 0.17 008 New Zealand 0.01 The Asian Development Bank possible equipment sales should con­ United States 0.01 0.01 (ADB) has approved a $35.4 million tact the Department of Livestock and Other countries 1.62 1.33 Total 3.89 3.08 loan and technical assistance grant to Fisheries, Provincial Government of Exports 3.68 2.30 Pakistan to help finance the $42.2 Baluchistan, Quetta, Pakistan, or the and mollusks: Fresh, million Baluchistan Province Fisher­ Agricultural Development Bank of frozen, and salted Imports from: ies Development Project. Pakistan, Islamabad, Pakistan, Thailand 11.47 6.46 Major project components include: Telex: 5618 ADBP PK. U.S. com­ Japan 0.75 0.73 Singapore 0.27 0.37 1) Construction of a fisheries harbor panies may want to send copies of this New Zealand 0.24 0.14 and landing facilities at Pasni on the correspondence to the Economic/ United States 0.03 0.02 Other countries 6.08 6.33 Arabian Sea; 2) extension of credit to Commercial Section (Ref: Karachi Total 18.84 14.05 Exports 29.56 21.76 fishermen to buy 700 marine engines 436), U.S. Consulate General, Kara­ and 1,560 sets of fishing gear; 3) ex­ chi, c/o U.S. Department of State, Crustaceans and mollusks: Prep. or pres. nes. tension of credit to the private sector Washington, DC 20520. Imports from: to build two fish meal plants, five ice Japan 17.80 12.46 Thailand 2.50 0.25 plants, four fish transport vessels, two Singapore 0.61 0.41 fish transport trucks, and to buy New Zealand 0.53 0.38 United States 0.18 0.11 vessel repair equipment; and 4) provi­ Other countries 1.62 460 Total 23.24 18.21 sion of training classes, extension ser­ Exports 71.14 41.24 vices, consultation services, and edu­

Import totals cational fellowships. Thailand 29.66 20.98 The Pakistan Government plans to Japan 19.01 13.60 Singapore 1.88 1.49 complete the project by 30 June 1989 New Zealand 1.88 128 under the supervision of the Baluchi­ United States 0.81 0.22 Other countries 10.61 15.34 stan Department of Livestock and Total 63.85 52.91 Fisheries, the Pasni Fisheries Harbor Export totals 114.10 73.18 Authority (to be established), and the 'All data are in U.S. dollars. Agricultural Development Bank of

58 April-May-June /983,45(4-6) Mexico's Pacific Coast mid-December some fishermen still Fisheries Reviewed had to wait as long as 2-3 days to land their shrimp. The shrimp fishery off the Mexican 1,000 metric tons (t). In the past, An unusually large number of fish­ states of Sinaloa and Nayarit on the violent clashes have occurred be­ ermen reported problems with the re­ Pacific coast continues to have several tween the artisanal and trawler frigeration machinery on their trawl­ long-term problems. Shrimp fisher­ fishermen. The trawler fishermen ers. As a result, many had to use ice to men have had difficulty landing their claim that harvesting juvenile preserve their catch and, as a result, catch at the overcrowded ports, shrimp in estuaries reduces their returned to land their catch more fre­ especially at Mazatlan in Sinaloa. catch of the more valuable adult quently than usual, causing some of Shrimp fishermen reported that, shrimp at sea. the congestion at the port in Mazat­ while initial estimates of extremely Ian. Unloading delays in Mazatlan large catches appeared to have been also meant increased spoilage. Mazat­ overoptimistic, the 1982-83 Pacific Several new shrimp farms in Ian newspapers reported that 6 t of shrimp season was likely to be slightly Nayarit are planning their first com­ shrimp spoiled at the port during the better than the 1981-82 season. The mercial harvest in early 1983. Other third week of November alone. December 1982 decline in the shrimp farms along Sinaloa's central coast catch, normal after the first weeks of are being constructed near the smaller shrimping, somewhat eased the un­ estuaries which are not currently be­ Theft and Blackmarketing loading problems with Mazatlan. ing fished by the artisanal fishermen. Several shrimp fishermen reported Incidents of alleged theft of shrimp If these ponds prove a commercial armed robberies at sea to Mexican and of cooperative black marketing success, they could have a substantial authorities during late November and have increased. Some cooperatives impact on future shrimp production early December 1982. This prompted had begun to sell shrimp directly to in Nayarit and Sinaloa. charges by the Mexican Navy (most U.S. companies, avoiding the export Catch notably by Admiral Martinez, Com­ marketing system established by the mander of the 8th Naval Zone) that Mexican Government. The initially optimistic reports of a the cooperative fishermen were selling record shrimp catch appear to have their shrimp illegally and then claim­ been exaggerated in both the coastal Two Fisheries ing that they had been robbed. While trawler and the artisanal estuarine there may be a considerable amount Two shrimp fisheries, coastal fisheries. Trawlers have averaged of illegal sales by the fishermen, some around 6-8 t rather than 8-10 t per trip trawler and artisanal estuarine, are industry sources indicate that there during their first voyage in October conducted by Mexican fishermen have been several genuine robberies. along the country's Pacific coast. The 1982. Preliminary reports, however, indicated that the 1982-83 season The Navy agreed to increase its patrol two fisheries differ both in method activities, especially in the Mazatlan and in duration. Modern commercial would be slightly better than average. Artisanal fishermen also overstated area. trawlers which have a 45-day range their initial catches in the estuaries. By are used in coastal fishing. Artisanal mid-November 1982, only 720 t of Co-op Shrimp Marketing fishermen, using hand-held or throw shrimp, for example, had been deliv­ nets, fish in the estuaries where they ered to Productos Pesqueros of Escui­ Only cooperatives are authorized to restrict the channels leading to the sea napa. Company officials believed that fish for shrimp in Mexico. In the past, by fencing off such outlets with con­ the catch for the entire season would the cooperatives have relied on com­ crete, wood, and bamboo. When the be only 1,000-1,500 tons and specu­ panies owned by the Mexican Gov­ tide goes out, the shrimp (along with lated that the poor rains during the ernment to market their catch. The and fish) are channeled into summer of 1982 may have affected Government became almost the ex­ enclosed areas from which they are shrimp stocks. clusive channel for marketing shrimp netted by hand. The catch is then when Productos Pesqueros Mex­ Ports loaded into small boats and taken icanos (PPM), the state-owned fishing from the estuary channels to trucks The coastal trawler fishermen company, took over most private loaded with ice which take the shrimp found it difficult during October and packing plants in late 1981 and early for processing to Rosario and Escui­ November 1982 to land their shrimp 1982. Some cooperatives in Mazatlan napa, small towns near Mazatlan. catch at Mazatlan. At one time there are now attempting to participate The trawler fishermen take much were over 150 trawlers waiting to un­ more directly in the marketing of their larger quantities of shrimp, but the ar­ load. As the season progressed and shrimp abroad. This stems from the tisanal catch is nevertheless signifi­ catch rates declined, fewer fishermen cooperatives' desire to have more cant. Production from the estuaries experienced excessively long waits to control over their catch and to in­ during the 1982-83 season will be over land their catch. However, even in crease their profits.

April-May-June 1983.45(4-6) 59 Several cooperatives have reported delivery of shrimp to a private U.S. operatives continue to grow, however, pricing and payment problems with company. The quantity and prices the Mexican Government may require Government companies, PPM, and were not disclosed. Cooperative mem­ sales through PPM. Cooperatives its U.S. marketing subsidiary, Ocean bers in Mazatlan report that those co­ have to obtain Government export Gardens. The cooperatives claim that operatives not owing money to Ban­ licenses to ship shrimp to the United PPM and Banpesca' have been taking pesca could sell shrimp to anyone they States, and the Government could use a disproportionate share of the money choose. As of 15 November 1982, those licenses to discourage direct earned by cooperative shrimp sales. three cooperatives were reported to be sales on dollar remittances through This is being done in several ways. free of any Banpesca debts. Some the Government-owned Mexican PPM has been raising the price it other cooperatives decided to payoff banking system. charges per kilo for processing the co­ their Banpesca loans as quickly as Several other U.S. companies have operatives' shrimp. The processing possible so that they could also had agents in Mazatlan negotiating charge was about 75 pesos/kilo in market their catch directly. One co­ the purchase of shrimp from the co­ 2 both Mazatlan and Escuinapa • At operative which was selling its shrimp operatives. They are reportedly offer­ the same time, if a cooperative owes directly to U.S. companies is Pesca­ ing better prices than those offered by money to Banpesca (which most do), dora de Mariscos in Mazatlan. This PPM and Ocean Gardens. If Ocean PPM deducts a portion from their cooperative has 18 trawlers which Gardens continues to deny the coop­ shrimp revenue as loan payments to landed over 300 tons of shrimp during eratives' access to company records, Banpesca. Even for those coopera­ the 1981-82 season. The other coop­ the direct sale of shrimp to U.S. firms tives not owing money to Banpesca, eratives which sell directly are similar. could escalate, especially as more co­ PPM has attempted to set up contin­ The direct shrimp sales to U.S. operatives payoff their loans from gency funds by taking deductions firms, if they continue, could even­ Banpesca (Source: IFR-83121.) from their shrimp revenues. The co­ tually encompass a significant portion operative fishermen have been ex­ of the future shrimp harvest. As long tremely critical of the increased pro­ as the market rate for exchanging ITAL Y AND TUNISIA cessing fees and deductions. Coopera­ pesos is much higher than the con­ FORM JOINT VENTURE tive officials have also demanded a trolled Government rate, there will be detailed review of Ocean Gardens' great inducement for the cooperatives Italian Foreign Minister Emilio operations and financial records, but to sell directly to U.S. importers. Of­ Colombo visited Tunisia in late De­ Ocean Gardens has yet to allow coop­ ficials are known to be concerned, cember 1982 to sign two agreements erative representatives access to inter­ and one PPM official referred to the furthering bilaterial economic cooper­ nal company information. Further direct sales as "disloyalty" on the part ation. One of the agreements will problems developed in December of the cooperatives, because of the ex­ create a joint-venture fishing com­ 1982 when some Mazatlan coopera­ tensive assistance the Mexican Gov­ pany to alleviate a long-standing tives complained about having their ernment has given the cooperatives in fishing dispute which has troubled dollar earnings converted at the con­ the past. PPM officials claim that relations between the two countries. trolled rate (about 100 pesos to the private U.S. importers will not be able The new joint company will be 51 dollar) rather than at the then-current to provide all of the services that percent owned by the Tunisian Gov­ market rate (about 150 pesos to the PPM and Ocean Gardens offer the ernment and 49 percent by private dollar). cooperatives. If direct sales by the co- Italian fishermen, primarily from Several cooperatives thus began to Sicily. The company will operate to sell their shrimp directly to foreign vessels in Tunisian-claimed waters. importers in the United States. The Tunisian President Bourguiba, fol­ association of cooperatives "Cama­ lowing Foreign Minister Colombo's roneros del Pacifico" indicated on 15 departure, pardoned several Italian November 1982 that it made its first Note: Unless otherwise credited, fishermen who had been arrested material in this section is from either while fishing in Tunisian-claimed the Foreign Fishery Information Re­ leases (FFIR) compiled by Sunee C. waters. The joint venture is an impor­ 'The Banco Pesquero y Portuario is the Mex­ Sonu, Foreign Reporting Branch, Fish­ tant step toward resolving the fish­ ican Government's financial institution ery Development Division, Southwest eries dispute between the two coun­ responsible for financing fisheries and port Region, National Marine Fisheries Ser­ projects. vice, NOAA, Terminal Island, CA tries. To permanently avoid future 'The Mexican peso fluctuated widely in foreign 90731, or the International Fishery seizures of unlicensed Italian fisher­ exchange markets during 1982. On 10 Decem­ Releases (IFR), Language Services Bi­ men operating off Tunisia, the two ber 1982, exchange controls were eased and the weekly (LSB) reports, or Language Ser­ peso was allowed to float. The free market ex­ vices News Briefs (LSNB) produced by countries will probably have to even­ change rate was almost 150 pesos per dollar at the Office of International Fisheries tually negotiate a comprehensive bi­ the end of December. The Government main­ Affairs, National Marine Fisheries Ser­ tained a lower controlled rate for many official vice, NOAA, Washington DC 20235. laterial fisheries agreement. (Source: transactions. IFR-83/18.)

60 Apri/-May-June 1983,45(4-6) South Africa Sees Steep maturation under the previous ar­ wegian Fisheries Research Council Pilchard, Drop rangement. DEAF decided not to de­ also has a grants program to aid re­ crease the pelagic fish quota below cruitment, domestic and foreign re­ The Republic of South Africa's 380,000 t because it believed such a searchers, travel, adult education, etc. Department of Environmental Af­ move would impact private vessel The Norwegian Fisheries Research fairs and Fisheries (DEAF) an­ owners adversely and might lead to Council includes the following bodies: nounced a change in the fishing sea­ increased fish meal prices. The fisher­ Central Board (NFFR's executive son for the valuable west coast pil­ men assured the South African Gov­ body), Council board (monitors and chard and anchovy fisheries to avert a ernment of their support for the new makes recommendations to the Cen­ collapse of the resource. The west arrangement and pledged to help con­ tral Board), and the Main Secretariat, coast pilchard catch has decreased trol irregularities in the industry so NFFR's administrative body which is from 318,000 metric tons (t) in 1960 that can recover. The fish­ located in Trondheim. to only 35,000 t in 1982, but the an­ ermen will have to wait until the end The Institute of Fishery Technol­ chovy catch has increased from 300 t of the 1983 season for payment for ogy Research (FTFI) is an inde­ in 1963 to 307,000 t in 1982. Indica­ the "second season" catch, but an in­ pendent research institute under the tions are that too many juvenile fish dustry spokesman stated that they Norwegian Fisheries Research Coun­ are being taken in the anchovy fish­ would be assisted by advance pay­ cil. NFFR appoints the board of the ery, as has occurred in the pilchard ments from fish processors if neces­ Institute and allocates the major share fisheries in the past. sary. of the funds for FTFI's activities. DEAF announced the following John Wiley, Deputy Minister of The Institute has branches in TromsfS changes which began with the 1983 DEAF, in announcing the changes, (economy and processing), Bergen fishing season: said that the "New Deal" could suc­ (fishing methods), and in Trondheim 1) The season for anchovy and pil­ ceed only if the industry is prepared to (vessels). About half of NFFR's 1983 chard is divided into two periods. The accept responsibility for honestly research money will go to FTFI. first half began 1 January and lasts monitoring their own catches and ful­ NFFR's research areas include: until half of the 1983 quota of ly cooperating with DEAF to ensure Living resources of the sea, fishing 380,000 t (190,000 t) has been caught. that quotas are not exceeded and ir­ methods, processing, and economy The second half of the season will regularities are corrected. (Source: and other social studies. Research on begin 1 November and will last until IFR-83120.) the living resources of the sea aims to the remaining 190,000 t has been increase knowledge about all condi­ caught. Norway's Fish Research tions related to the biological re­ 2) Beginning this year too, the pil­ Council Sets 1983 Agenda sources in the sea and their environ­ chard catch may be used for canning ment. This includes: 1) Studies of only and no longer for reduction to The Norwegian Fisheries Research stocks, 2) special biology and behav­ fish meal. council (Norges Fiskeriforskningsrad) ior, 3) environmental studies and 3) Underutilized pelagic fish (her­ (NFFR), which finances and has the supervision, 4) effects of competing ring, lanternfish, mackerel, and maas­ professional supervision of fisheries uses of the sea, 5) aquaculture, and 6) banker) will not have a catch quota in research, does not itself engage in re­ development and improvement of 1983. search, according to the Norwegian methods. NFFR is supporting this re­ 4) Deep-sea hake quotas for 1983 Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Rather, search this year with about Nkr 6.5 are reduced from 136,000 t to 120,000 it participates in planning the course million. A major share will be spent t a) the deep-sea trawler catch is re­ of, and setting priorities for, Norwe­ on projects at the Institute of Marine duced from 9,000 to 7,940 t; b) the gian fisheries research. Research. coastal trawler catch is reduced from Institutions of higher learning, re­ Good and efficient gear, a knowl­ 119,150 to 105,135 t; and c) the for­ search institutions, enterprises, and edge of where the fish are and how eign trawler catch has been reduced individuals engage in research with they react to the gear, a good and safe from 7,850 to 6,925 t and the South funds received from the Council. For vessel, profitable operations, the best African Navy has been asked to help 1983, NFFR distributed approximate­ possible use of fuel, and safe and patrol fishery grounds to prevent il­ ly Nkr 35 million to various research good working conditions on board legal foreign fishing. projects. are among the many research projects The Department of Fisheries also Administratively, NFFR is funded included in the area of fishing meth­ recommended a change from the by and subject to the Ministry of Fish­ ods. Research is now being done on: former January-August catching sea­ eries. Appropriations are made to re­ 1) Catch-relevant fish behavior; 2) son for anchovy and pilchard to pro­ search projects connected with the gear, handling of gear, and catch op­ vide the fish a 6-month period to marine environment, basic fisheries, erations; 3) fishing vessels, machinery mature and breed; too many juvenile fishing methods, processing, and and equipment, instrumentation, op­ fish were being taken before sexual economy and social studies. The Nor- erations, and maintenance; 4) tactical

April-May-June 1983,45(4-6) 61 information on resources; and 5) fish­ supporting this research in 1983 with working conditions, housing situa­ ing system solutions. NFFR is sup­ approximately Nkr 15 million. tion, health, etc., in fisheries areas? porting this research with about Nkr Research into the possibilities and and 4) What does a woman's employ­ 10 million this year. problems for people in the fisheries ment inside and outside of the home Processing studies are being con­ industry is financed at Nkr 4.6 million mean for a fisheries household? ducted on: 1) Raw materials, 2) pres­ this year. Some of the questions being More detailed information on ervation between catch and produc­ studied are: I) What is the most prof­ Norwegian marine research may be tion, 3) processing of fish products, 4) itable proportion of fishing vessels to obtained from the Norges Fiskeri­ environment/pollution, 5) quality shore installations? 2) What does a forskningsrad (NFFR), Hakon Mag­ problems/questions of nutrition, 6) good or a poor fishery mean for the nussons gate 1 b, Postbox 1853, packaging, 7) transport, and 8) country in actual money? 3) What is N-7001 Trondheim, Norway. knowledge of the market. NFFR is the situation with regard to incomes, (Source: IFR-83/16.)

Norway-U.S.S.R. Set blue whiting, and octopus. Norway catch above the quota allowed. The 1983 Fishing Quotas was allocated a 1983 fishing quota of Norwegians would not promise that 1,582,500 metric tons (t). The actual the 1983 quotas would be adhered to Norway and the Soviet Union Norwegian quota for 1983, however, because of the difficulties in regulat­ reached agreement on 1983 fishing will be substantially larger because the ing their coastal fisheries, but prom­ quotas in the Barents and Norwegian Soviet Union will transfer 202,500 t of ised stricter enforcement measures. Seas during the eleventh session of the cod, , and back to the The Norwegians were concerned Joint Soviet-Norwegian Fisheries Norwegians. In return, Norway has that the Soviet Union would not Commission held in Oslo late last allowed the Soviets to take 485,000 t respect the unilateral increase in net year. V. K. Zilanov, head of the In­ of blue whiting, 70,000 t of redfish, as mesh size in the Spitsbergen (Sval­ ternational Section of the Soviet Min­ well as small amounts of shrimp, bard) fisheries protection zone. The istry of Fisheries, and G. H. Gunder­ Greenland , and octopus from increase in net mesh size to 135 mm, sen, Director General, Office of Fish­ the Norwegian 2oa-mile fishery con­ which became effective on 1 January eries of the Norwegian Ministry of servation zone (Table 1, 2). 1983, is part of the Norwegian effort Fisheries, led their respective delega­ During the negotiations, the Soviets to regulate the fish stocks in the Bar­ tions. expressed concern over alleged over­ ents Sea. Despite the Norwegian con­ The Commission established fishing by the Norwegians, claiming cern that the net mesh-size increase quotas for cod, haddock, capelin, that Norway's use of passive gear in would not be accepted, both nations shrimp, , redfish, the coastal cod fishery resulted in a have agreed that the Barents Sea fish stocks, which have declined consider­ ably in recent years, should be regu­ Table l.-Sovlet·Norweglan Ilshlng quotas, 1983, lated and controlled. (Source: Quola (1 ,000 I) IFR-82/168.)

Species Norway U.S.S.R. Other Total

Cod Arctic 112.5' 112.5' 350 260.0 Tabla 2.-Soviet-Norwegian fishing quotas alter transler 01 catch Soviet coastal 40.0 40.0 allocations 1983. Norwegian coastal 400 40.0 Quota (1,000 t) TOlal cod 152.5 152.5 35.0 3400 Species Norway US.S.R. Other Total Haddock 35.0' 35.0' 7.0 77.0 Capelin 1,380.0' 920.0' NA' 2,300.0 Cod Shrimp 2.0 0.5' 25 Arctic 185.0 40.0 35.0 260.0 Redflsh 70.0' 70.0 Soviet coastal 40.0 40.0 Greenland halibut 13.0 5.5' 18.5 Norwegian coastal 40.0 40.0 Blue whiling 485.0' 485.0 Total cod 225.0 800 35.0 3400 Octopus 5.0' 50

Total 1,582.5' 1,673.5' 42.0' 3,298.0 Haddock 55.0 15.0 7.0 77.0 Capelin 1,490.0 810.0 (40.0') 2,300.0 'The U.S.S.R. will transfer 72,500 t of cod, 20,000 I of haddock, and 110,000 Shrimp 2.0 0.5 2.5 I of capelln 10 Ihe Norwegians (lolaI 202,500 t) reducing Ihe total U.S.S.R. Redflsh 70.0 70.0 quola for 1983 to 1,4ll,000 t and Increasing the Norwegian quota 10 Greeland halibut 13.0 5.5 18.5 1,785,000 t. Blue whiling 485.0 485.0 'In exchange, Ihe Norwegians are granting the U.S.S.R. catch allocalions OclOpus 50 5.0 amounling to 556,000 t of shrimp, Greenland halibul, redflsh, blue whiling, and OCIOpuS to be fished Inside the Norwegian 200-mlle fishery conservation Tolal 1,785.0 1,471.0 82.0' 3,298.0 lone. 'Bolh Norway and the U.S.S.R. may transfer up to 20,000 t of treir capelln 'The 40,000 I quota for capelin Is the maximum amount (20,000 t each) that quota to third countries. Norway and the U.S.S.R. may Iransfer 10 Ihlrd countries.

62 April-May-June 1983,45(4-6)