THE PRESS WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 22, 1986. Fishing deal in Pacific

Press, 22 October 1986, Page 20

THE PRESS WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 22, 1986. Fishing deal in Pacific

The conclusion of a fishing agreement between the United States and the Forum Fisheries Agency is a significant development for the whole South Pacific region. Under the agreement, the United States will pay SUSI2 million a year for the next five years for the right to fish for tuna in the Exclusive Economic Zones of the island States. The fee will be divided among the islands. The agreement does not apply to mainland New Zealand or Australia although it does apply to the Tokelaus, which is administered by New Zealand. Hitherto, the United States has not recognised tuna, which is a highly migratory species of fish, as coming under the jurisdiction of any coastal State. For some of the islands, tuna represented their only valuable resource and they were unable to realise economic benefit from it. The fee which the United States was willing to pay was about the only outstanding issue between the United States and the Forum Fisheries Agency. In July, the United States was prepared to offer about $7.5 million; so the final figure of $l2 million a year was a marked increase. The fee will enable 50 United States vessels to fish in the area. It is unlikely that as many as 50 American ships will fish in the area, and it is also unlikely that the settlement will mean that there will be more fishing in the region. The amount of fish taken is likely to be about the same as has been caught in recent years; the difference will be that the island States will receive payment for the right to fish. Both the islands’ laws and United States’ law will be enforceable. The agreement has yet to be ratified in the United States and in the countries of the Forum Fisheries Agency. The agency has 16 members, including New Zealand and Australia. Ratification in 10 of the member countries and in the United States will be necessary before the agreement comes into force.

The agreement removes a major irritant between a number of island Governments

and the United States. Fishermen from the American Tunaboat Association had fished around the islands without permission and to a certain extent were protected by United States law which provided for a ban on fish products from any country which took action against a United States fishing vessel. Both Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands had arrested tuna boats and the incidents had soured relations between some island States and the Americans. The new agreement relieves a source of tension. The American Tunaboat Association will no longer be running, in effect, United States policy towards the South Pacific States.

The fee to be paid will not be a bonanza, but will help some of the islands economically. One aspect of the American attitude towards the settlement has been a desire to see if something could be done for the islands through aid. The United States has long been wary of extending bilateral aid to the islands, being rightly concerned that it would find it difficult to adjust to the small scale of island activity. The United States may now argue, with some justice, that by paying a high fee it is contributing to the economic health of the region. It has found a suitable vehicle through which to extend aid.

Was the United States motivated to reach an agreement because the Soviet Union had concluded a fishing agreement (now expired) with Kiribati? This was probably one of the factors, though not the decisive factor. The United States has shown a greater awareness over the last few years of the strategic importance of the region and it is probably thinking in longer terms than a sudden response to the Soviet fishing deal with Kiribati. Neither Fiji nor Vanuatu, which have conducted talks with the Soviet Union, have reached any agreement. The agreement with the United States will not rule out other agreements, but will lessen some of the need for agreements with other distant-water fishing nations.