69. Memorandum From the Director of the Office of Ocean Affairs
(Busby) to the Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Oceans and International and Scientific Affairs
(Irving)1
2
Washington, September 30, 1976
SUBJECT:
- Antarctica: Question of Living Resource Exploitation
Attached is an Issues Paper concerning exploitation of the living
resources of the Southern Ocean, prepared by OES/OFA for inclusion in the package being put together for
a possible APG meeting on Antarctic
resource questions. Since the paper was prepared for inter-agency
circulation and is purposely designed to raise questions rather than
answer them, I would like to pass on for your consideration some
thoughts as to how we might deal with the issues.
We are initially faced with a decision as to what our attitude should be
toward efforts by a number of Antarctic treaty partners to initiate
negotiations on a regime for Antarctic living resources. As indicated in
the issues paper, we have important interests in seeing that the
resources of the Southern Ocean are managed and utilized in a rational
and environmentally sound fashion.
The living resource ambitions of the states involved—both those claiming
territory in Antarctica, and the potential distant-water fishing
states—are sufficiently at odds so as to make effective management of
such resources extremely difficult in the absence of agreement. So much
so that I believe in practical terms the necessary conservation and
management program will have to be effected through some form of
international arrangement.
There are a number of arrangements possible. At one end of the spectrum,
the twelve treaty parties could seek “agreed measures” to deal with
resource questions. This is a mechanism provided within the consultative
system to promote cooperative efforts among the twelve.
[Page 2]
At the other end, there could be a full-scale renegotiation of the
Antarctic treaty itself, since it does not explicitly deal with
resources. Based on a preliminary analysis, I believe the Antarctic
treaty parties should seize the initiative and negotiate a living
resources convention, but one which would itself be distinct from the
treaty. The negotiation of such a convention would permit a regime
consistent with the treaty but with a broader base of participation than
just the twelve, involving other interested (non-party) states. An
important appeal of this approach is that it would envisage as little
disturbance as possible to the existing operation of the Antarctic
treaty system, which has well served U.S.
security, scientific, and environmental interests, yet it would allow
participation by non-parties who have an interest.
Starting from this premise, one must next answer the question as to the
timing of such a negotiation.
In conservation terms, the answer is “the sooner the better.” However, it
should be recognized that a negotiation, once initiated, may stimulate
an international interest in exploitation of the potential resources
beyond that which would otherwise be the case. This may make it a more
difficult negotiation in some ways, i.e., more highly politicized, but I
think that there are three positive reasons for moving quickly:
- —The ecosystem of the Southern Ocean, characterized by a very
short food chain, is representative of an extremely delicate and
balanced environment. Over-exploitation of a particular species
in this system could have possibly irreversible impact not only
on that species itself but on the system as a whole. In such
circumstances, it is extremely important to regulate and monitor
exploitation from its earliest stages;
- —Similarly, there is a basic need to develop and broaden the
data base upon which to build a conservation and management
regime. Preliminary exploitation of the living resources of the
area is already underway. Those states conducting most research
into the living resources of the Southern Ocean are also
exploiters, and have little incentive to share such data with
potential competitors. Thus, some form of agreement among all
interested states, whether exploiters or not, is necessary to
provide the needed data.
- —Development of a regime for Antarctic living resources can
provide a model for resolving general Antarctic resources
issues, including the question of a regime for mineral
resources, there are definite precedents for multilateral
fisheries commissions, and the concerned states are familiar
with them. It might prove easier to resolve difficult legal and
political issues in the context of a fisheries negotiation
rather than one dealing with oil.
It is my opinion, therefore, that we should be prepared to participate in
the early negotiation of a regime for living resources. While we do not
have a detailed negotiating position to set forth at this time, a
negotiation on living resources offers an opportunity for the U.S. not only to satisfy its specific
objectives, but also to play a major role in bringing about a negotiated
solution. Since the issue for the immediate future does not involve the
economic interests of U.S. fishermen, we
are in a position to be the “honest broker” between those states
investigating the feasibility of commercial exploitation (for the most
part, non-claimants) and the claimant states (particularly the Latins,
Australia and New Zealand) who are motivated by varying combinations of
environmental concern and desire to achieve recognition of 200-mile
fisheries zones around their claimed areas.
In this position, I believe we should initially adopt an attitude of
guarded interest in commencing negotiations, allowing ourselves to be
persuaded by those pressing for early action (UK, Australia and New Zealand). I do not believe we should
put ourselves in the position, as we have in so many other resource
negotiations, of appearing to be the participant most interested in
rapid settlement.
There is no easy formula as to how to deal with the Soviets and Japanese,
although there are issues on which we can ally ourselves with them and
where we can perhaps exert leverage. It will also be difficult to devise
a means for resolving the difficult question of conflicting claims with
its juridical and legal ramifications. I believe, however, that we must
begin to develop our position, including a projected detailed
negotiating position, with some degree of urgency both within the
Department and on an inter-agency basis.
[Page 4]
Attachment
Issues Paper
ANTARCTICA
The Question of Living Resource
Exploitation
THE PROBLEM
The living resource potential of the Southern Ocean is attracting
mounting international attention. The prospect of large-scale
commercial fishing in Antarctic and sub-Antarctic waters raises a
number of complex issues for the parties to the Antarctic treaty,
for those states themselves contemplating exploitation activities,
and for the international community at large. These issues involve:
first, whether there is need for international arrangements to
manage and conserve the resources; if so, what kind of arrangements;
and second, how to deal with the difficult political problems
inherent in addressing the issues. The United States, as a major
Antarctic power and a major actor in efforts at international
resource management, has important interests at stake in how the
Southern Ocean living resource questions are resolved. Events are
moving rapidly and the United States will need to define its
position on a possible regime for Antarctic living resources in the
near future.
BACKGROUND
The Southern Ocean, comprising the productive waters surrounding the
Antarctic continent, supports a marine ecosystem of extremely large
biomass. The area has been the scene of past exploitation activity,
directed almost exclusively toward marine mammals, particularly
Antarctic whale stocks. Interest in future potential, however,
centers upon fish stocks: to some extent upon groundfish and squid,
but primarily upon, krill small protein-rich crustaceans (closely
related to shrimp) which are found in enormous quantities in the
Southern Ocean.
In a general sense, the catalyst for the interest in krill is easy to
identify: growing scarcity of sources of protein on a world-wide
basis in the face of rapid world population increase. Though the
economic viability of large-scale harvesting of fish stocks in the
Southern Ocean remains to be proven, there have been rough estimates
that the potential yield of krill alone could result in
[Page 5]
doubling the annual world
fish catch. Regardless of die ultimate accuracy of these estimates
they are widely accepted and politically potent.
On a more specific level, the potential of the Southern Ocean has
drawn the interest of distant-water fishing states, whose fleets are
faced with depletion of stocks on traditional fishing grounds and
realignment of fishing patterns with the establishment of 200-mile
fishery zones. The USSR and Japan
have for a number of years conducted research and experimental
fishing for krill and other species in the Southern Ocean. They have
recently been joined by the FRG,
Poland and others are waiting in the wings.
On an international level, FAO has
before it a proposal to undertake a comprehensive survey of the
living resources of the Southern Ocean. The study would be funded by
UNDP, following a pattern
established for a number of food-related development projects. A
draft feasibility study for such a project has been prepared by an
FAO consultant and envisages an
ambitious program looking toward eventual management of Southern
Ocean resources primarily for the benefit of developing countries.
The Antarctic living resource issue, like the question of mineral
resources, could well become enmeshed in the North-South rivalry
over resource questions. For instance, there have been preliminary
expressions of interest in Antarctic resources both in the UNGA and at the Colombo Non-Aligned
Conference.
The possibility of extensive living resource exploitation in the
Southern Ocean is having a major impact within the Antarctic treaty
system. Until recently, the primary emphasis of Consultative Party
consideration of living resources centered upon preservation of
sensitive elements of the Antarctic ecosystem, as for instance in
the designation of specially protected areas. An exception to this
orientation were the interim guidelines on Antarctic pelagic sealing
which formed the basis for the 1972 Convention on Antarctic Pelagic
Sealing (not yet in force), which would regulate exploitation of
certain species of Antarctic seals. (The only other form of living
resource regulation in the Southern Ocean originates outside the
Antarctic treaty system in the regulation of Antarctic whaling under
the International Whaling Commission (IWC).
[Page 6]
The Eighth Meeting of the Antarctic Consultative Parties in Oslo,
however, called for a study by the Scientific Committee on Antarctic
Research (SCAR) of the marine
potential in the Southern Ocean, which was the aim of a recent
symposium which was held in Woods Hole. Among the recommendations of
the Woods Hole meeting was a call for steps to conserve and manage
krill and other potential targets of exploitation on the political
level.
During the Paris Special Preparatory Meeting of Antarctic
Consultative Parties on the mineral resources issue, last June, the
Australian and UK delegations
organized an informal consultation among a number of the
participants on the question of devising a regime to deal with
expected living resource exploitation. The consultation, which did
not include the Soviet Union and Japan, revealed a wide feeling that
resolution of the Antarctic living resource question was a more
immediate challenge to the treaty parties than a resolution of
non-living resource issues. This view derived from several
motivations:
- 1.
- Sincere concern with rational management of a delicate
ecosystem;
- 2.
- Desire for the treaty parties to preempt the field before
FAO or other
international bodies take the initiative; and
- 3.
- Concern among states claiming territory in Antarctica over
securing 200-mile zones contiguous to their territories in
the face of projected distant-water state exploitation in
the Southern Ocean.
The UK delegation tabled an outline of
a possible convention on Antarctic Living Resources, modeled upon
the Pelagic Sealing Convention. Both Australia and the UK indicated that they will seek a
decision by the Ninth Consultative Meeting to be held next September
in London to initiate formal negotiation for a living regime and
discussions of the nature of such a regime at the regular
preparatory meeting tentatively scheduled for early spring also in
London.
[Page 7]
THE ISSUES FOR THE US
The US faced with the need to define
its policy on the desirability of an international regime to manage
the living resources of the Southern Ocean. There is a good case to
be made that such a regime is essential to the rational utilization
of resources from the Southern Ocean, as well as to maintenance of
the integrity of a marine ecosystem of world-wide importance. A
decision to adopt such an attitude flows logically from our
international resource and environmental interests and from our
continued commitment to the objectives and functioning of the
Antarctic treaty. This attitude, however, does not provide guidance
as to how to deal with the issue in a concrete sense. More
specifically:
- 1.
- We must adopt a stance on the timing of a negotiation on
Antarctic living resources.
- 2.
- We should decide upon a negotiating approach in terms of
how active a role to play in any such negotiations.
- 3.
- We need to define a substantive position on the type of
management regime we think necessary and negotiable for
Antarctic living resources. Further, we need to define our
policy on who should negotiate such a regime and who should
participate therein (for instance, the 12 Consultative
parties? The 12 plus a limited number of interested states?
The international community as a whole?)
- 4.
- We need to devise means of dealing with the very difficult
political and legal questions arising from the position of
claimant and non-claimant states.
- 5.
- We need to develop a strategy for dealing with the USSR and Japan who, among the
treaty parties, will resist any resource arrangements which
they feel might limit their freedom of fishing in the
Southern Ocean.
- 6.
- Also, we need to devise a strategy for dealing with
possible injection of Antarctic living resource issues in
polemical form into multilateral for a such as the UNGA.
