by
Jean Carroz and Michel Savini
FAO (Rome)
1. INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this paper is to analyse the main features and characteristics of many of the numerous bilateral fisheries agreements concluded under the new regime of the oceans (see list in Appendix 1).
Reference to specific provisions of bilateral agreements is limited to cases where the text of these agreements has been published in official gazettes or in specialized reviews and journals, or has been transmitted to FAO.
So as to provide a comprehensive review of the practice of States with regard to foreign access to fishery resources in waters under national jurisdiction, account has been taken of the most important agreements concluded since 1975, even though some of these agreements are no longer in force. In this latter case, an appropriate mention has been included to the extent possible.
Particular care was taken to illustrate the great diversity of local conditions reflected in the agreements. The sole purpose of the comparative analyses carried out in this paper with respect to a number of salient points is to delineate general trends and not to draw up or attempt to draw up model agreements in fisheries.
2. TYPES OF AGREEMENTS
It is apparent from the numerous agreements analysed in this document that governments may take a different approach regarding the context within which they conduct fishery negotiations, the form and duration of their commitments, the parties with which they conclude agreements and the institutional mechanisms they may deem desirable to facilitate the implementation of these agreements. These points will be reviewed successively hereunder.
2.1 Structure and duration
In a number of cases, fishery agreements between two countries are but a component of their cooperation in much wider fields. Thus, several bilateral agreements concerning scientific and economic collaboration provide expressly for the subsequent negotiation of agreements on fisheries: for example, the 1967 Agreement between Egypt and Mauritania on Technical Cooperation, the 1978 Agreement on Economic, Scientific, Cultural and Technical Cooperation between Greece and Guinea, and the 1979 Treaty of Friendship between the United States and Tuvalu.
As regards agreements restricted to fishery matters, a distinction can be made between agreements providing a framework for medium-term cooperation in fisheries and self-contained agreements, which do not require to be supplemented periodically by protocols or other arrangements.
Agreements of the former type usually define the various sectors of collaboration in fisheries and include general principles and norms governing the access of vessels of the flag State to fish resources in waters under the jurisdiction of the coastal State. The detailed terms and conditions, such as the level of fees to be paid, the number and size of vessels authorized to fish, the specific areas where they are to operate, the type of gear to be used, catch quotas, or the reporting of catches and other data, are normally set out on a yearly basis. This is done either by a unilateral decision of the coastal State, usually made after consultations with the flag State (e.g., by the United States under all their "governing international fishery agreements" 1/) or in protocols or subsidiary agreements negotiated by the two parties or on their behalf. For example, yearly protocols are concluded by Australia and Japan under their 1979 framework agreement, by the Solomon Islands and the Republic of Korea under their 1980 agreement on fisheries, and by Mozambique and Spain pursuant to the general agreement they concluded in 1982.
1/ Agreements on fishing off the coasts of the United States signed with the following countries: Bulgaria, on 17 December 1976; Cuba, on 27 April 1977 (expired on 26 September 1982); the European Economic Community, on 15 February 1977; Denmark (for the Faroe Islands), on 5 September 1977; the German Democratic Republic, on 5 October 1976; Japan, on 10 September 1982; the Republic of Korea, on 26 July 1982; Norway, on 26 January 1981; Poland, on 2 August 1976; Portugal, on 16 October 1980; Romania, on 23 November 1976 (expired on 1 July 1982); Spain, on 29 July 1982; USSR, on 26 November 1976.
As to self-contained fishery agreements, they tended to be concluded for rather short periods (normally one year) especially during the 70's. This was probably due to the uncertainty, from the legal point of view, which prevailed while the new regime of the oceans was being established. The same uncertainty existed as regards the fisheries policies of coastal States and the nature and extent of compensation which they could claim. Agreements of this type are now often entered into for periods varying from two to five years. Longer-term agreements, such as the one concluded in 1964 by Mauritania and Spain for a duration of fifty years, seem to be an exception.
It would appear that long-term agreements, especially if they are self-contained and include specific provisions on such matters as the level of fees or the number of authorized vessels, are not best suited, despite the general acceptance of the new legal regime, since economic conditions are bound to change and are in any case unpredictable over long periods. Short-term self-contained agreements may also present some disadvantages today, both for coastal States and for flag States. Indeed, rational resource management planning by the coastal State and planning of investments and fishing operations by flag States would seem to require arrangements over periods of several years. This may explain an increasing preference for medium-term self-contained agreements in recent State practice, especially off West Africa 2/.
2/ Two years in the case of the Agreement concluded by Senegal with EEC in 1979 and with Spain in 1982, as well as in the 1980 Agreement between Guinea-Bissau and EEC; three years in the case of the 1980 Agreement between Angola and Spain and of the 1982 Agreement between Guinea and the EEC; six years in the case of the 1979 Agreement between Equatorial Guinea and Spain.
The fisheries agreements concluded in other areas, mainly in the southwest and northern Pacific Ocean are mostly framework agreements. Since they are implemented periodically through the negotiation of additional protocols or the adoption of unilateral decisions by the coastal State, they offer a certain degree of flexibility. At the same time, however, the flag State has no assurance regarding the continuity and stability of its fishing operations. This preoccupation is reflected, for example, in the agreed minutes appended to the 1982 fisheries agreement between the United States and Japan 3/. In some cases, the yearly negotiation or determination of catch quotas may unavoidably be affected by factors or circumstances not directly related to fisheries.
3/ The agreed minutes appended to the agreement mention that "the representative of the Government of Japan stated that the need of nationals of Japan concerned to make plans for their annual fishing operations is important to the efficiency of their fishing operations in the fishery conservation zone and to the promotion of cooperation in the development of the United States fishing industry. In this connection, the representative of the Government of the United States stated that it was his expectation that his Government would notify the Government of Japan as early as possible of the projected allocations for each fishing year to fishing vessels of Japan and the expected dates of periodic releases of such projected allocations".
2.2 Contracting parties
In most cases, bilateral fisheries agreements are concluded between a coastal State and a flag State.
There are also a number of cases in which a framework agreement is entered into by the coastal State and the flag State and, subsequently, the agreement is implemented through detailed subsidiary arrangements made between the coastal State and public corporations or private companies having the nationality of the flag State. The fisheries agreements concluded by Japan and the Republic of Korea frequently follow this pattern 4/.
4/ For example, the 1981 Agreement between the Governments of the Marshall Islands and Japan has been implemented through subsequent agreements concluded from the Japanese side by the Federation of Japan Tuna Fisheries Cooperative Associations and the National Federation of Fisheries Cooperatives Associations. The 1980 Agreement between the Governments of Solomon Islands and the Republic of Korea has been implemented through subsequent agreements concluded from the Korean side by the Deep Sea Fisheries Association of the Republic of Korea.
The coastal States tend to favour the involvement of the flag State as a contracting party, since it may be held responsible in cases where the corporations or companies involved fail to meet their obligations.
In certain circumstances, however, it may be deemed preferable or expedient to avoid the participation of the coastal State as a contracting party. Thus, agreements may be concluded by a coastal State directly with a public corporation or a private company for reasons of a political or diplomatic nature, to avoid the formal and often lengthy ratification process, or to prevent the flag State from having to recognize a situation which is contrary to its fisheries policy.
It would seem worthwhile to refer to a recent trend, which is relevant to the question of contracting parties to fisheries agreements. In some regions and sub-regions, coastal States are consulting with a view to coordinating their policies or adopting common policies with respect to negotiations with foreign fishermen. Thus, in June 1980, the Third Sub-Regional Conference on the Preservation, Conservation and Exploitation of Fisheries Resources comprising Cape Verde, Guinea-Bissau, Mauritania, Senegal and The Gambia, adopted a Joint Declaration in which the governments concerned agreed to strengthen their cooperation and to aim at adopting common policies with respect to foreign fishing operations. In the Western Pacific area, the Federated States of Micronesia, Kiribati, the Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, Papua-New Guinea and the Solomon Islands concluded in February 1982 the Nauru Agreement Concerning Cooperation in the Management of Fisheries of Common Interest. The contracting parties agreed to "seek to establish a coordinated approach to the fishing of the common stocks in the fisheries zones by foreign fishing vessels". The Agreement also indicates that the parties shall seek to explore the possibility of establishing a centralized licensing system of foreign fishing vessels.
The EEC constitutes a special case since it is itself a contracting party to a number of fisheries agreements as a result of the transfer of competence in fisheries matters which took place in 1976 5/.
5/ The EEC is competent with regard to waters subject to the jurisdiction of its Member States and to which the EEC Treaty applies. In a resolution dated 3 November 1976 the EEC Council instructed the Commission to start negotiations with third countries in accordance with its directives. These negotiations were to be conducted with a view to concluding outline agreements regarding the general conditions to be applied in the future for access to resources, both those situated in the fishing zones of third countries and those in the fishing zones of the Member States of the Community.
2.3 Institutional arrangements
Several bilateral agreements provide for institutional arrangements designed to facilitate the implementation of the agreements generally or the settlement of specific disputes that might arise under the agreements.
As regards the implementation of the agreements in general, the relevant provisions are of three types. In the first instance, reference may be made to an existing body 6/. In other cases, the agreements provide for the setting up of a subsidiary body of an existing commission. For example, under the 1975 fishery agreement between Benin and France, a specialized commission is established within the framework of the commission created by the General Agreement between the two countries. In most cases, however, the agreements provide for the establishment of a new body whose members are appointed in equal numbers by the two parties. Recent examples include the agreements concluded in 1980 by Angola and Spain, Guinea-Bissau and EEC, in 1981 by Nigeria and Equatorial Guinea, and in 1982 by Mozambique and Spain.
6/ For example, the 1977 Agreement between Chile and Spain, which has not come into force, provided that the Mixed Commission established under the Convention on trade and economic cooperation between the two countries would be responsible for taking measures to facilitate the implementation of the agreement on fisheries and for proposing to the two governments any broadening of the agreement which might strengthen the cooperation in the fishery sector.
As to the frequency of meetings, commissions or committees may meet once a year 7/, at least once a year 8/, at any time at the request of either contracting party 9/, or whenever necessary 10/. Few bilateral agreements contain provisions regarding the venue of meetings when they do. They usually lay down the principle of rotation between the two countries. The chairmanship, when specified, is also usually rotated 11/.
7/ e.g., 1982 Agreement between Mozambique and Spain.
8/ e.g., 1976 Agreement between Senegal and Poland (now expired).
9/ e.g., 1981 Agreement between Equatorial Guinea and Nigeria.
10/ e.g., 1977 Agreement between Norway and the German Democratic Republic.
11/ e.g., 1978 Agreement between Senegal and Ivory Coast.
Agreements seldom deal with the financial aspects involved. However, the 1977 bilateral agreements concluded by Norway with the German Democratic Republic and with Poland indicate that each country will defray the expenses incurred to ensure attendance by its commissioners. The costs incurred in organizing meetings will be borne by the country on whose territory the meeting is held. The 1978 Agreement between Japan and the Soviet Union provides that the expenses incurred by members of the commission to attend meetings shall be paid by their respective governments, while joint expenses shall be paid in the form and proportion recommended by the commission.
In most cases the functions assigned to the commissions or committees are described in general terms. For example, the Joint Commission established under the 1978 fishery agreement between Equatorial Guinea and Spain is entrusted with responsibility for analysing the development of cooperation in fishery matters between the two countries. The agreements entered into by Senegal with EEC in 1979 and with Spain in 1982 provided that the committees shall ensure their correct implementation.
In addition, the commissions or committees are sometimes entrusted with more specific responsibilities, which may involve detailed measures regarding technical cooperation 12/, the fishing operations of the flag State 13/, the preparation of an annual report on the state of stocks 14/, or the settlement of fishery disputes. The 1981 Agreement between Equatorial Guinea and Nigeria gives detailed examples of matters which may be considered by the joint technical committee established under the agreement, including the volume of catches, the number and type of vessels, fishing gear, licence fees and conditions of employment of Equatorial Guinea nationals. The 1978 Agreement between Japan and the Soviet Union provides that the commission it sets up shall consider the conservation and rational utilization of fishery resources in the north-west Pacific Ocean, draw up a cooperative fisheries programme, determine the type of statistics and other data to be submitted by the contracting parties, review the implementation of joint actions and, generally, of the agreement itself.
12/ e.g., 1981 Agreement between Equatorial Guinea and Cameroon.13/ e.g., 1969 Agreement between the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen and USSR (still in force).
14/ e.g., 1982 Agreement between Senegal and Spain.
Generally, the agreements limit themselves to stating that the recommendations formulated by the commissions or committees will be transmitted to the respective governments. However, the recommendations of the joint committees, established under the agreements concluded by the Soviet Union with Guinea-Bissau in 1975 with Angola in 1976 and with Sierra Leone in 1976, are submitted to the governments of the contracting parties for their approval and considered to be in force unless either party objects to them within 60 days. The 1981 Agreement between Equatorial Guinea and Cameroon indicates that each country shall take such measures as are necessary to ensure observance of the decisions made by the joint technical commission set up under the agreement.
3. PRINCIPLES GOVERNING THE GRANTING OF ACCESS
3.1 The concept of surplus in bilateral agreements
Under the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, coastal States are required to promote the objective of optimum utilization of the living resources in exclusive economic zones 15/. To this end, they have to fulfil a number of obligations, the most important of which can be summarized as follows:
- Coastal States have to determine the allowable catch of the living resources in their exclusive economic zones.- They must then determine their own capacity to harvest these resources.
- Where coastal States do not have the capacity to harvest the entire allowable catch, they have to give other States access to the surplus 16/.
15/ Article 62, para. 1, of the Convention
16/ Article 61, para. 1, and Article 62, para. 2, of the Convention
The scope of this notion of surplus may best be illustrated by a reference to its origin at the Conference on the Law of the Sea. At the very first session of the Enlarged Sea-Bed Committee acting on a preparatory committee for the Conference, in March 1971, delegations were discussing the rights to be granted to coastal States with respect to fisheries in a zone adjacent to the territorial sea. The representation of Mexico made in this connection an intervention in which one can clearly identify an outline of the principles which were to become instrumental in making the notion of exclusive economic zone generally acceptable. Stressing the need for ensuring the optimum use of living resources in the interest of the international community, he suggested that the share of the resources off the shore of a coastal State which should be reserved for its nationals, should be commensurate with the State's fishing capacity at any given time. In his view, it was necessary to find a compromise solution to avoid both a situation where resources would be left to waste by the coastal State and a situation where the coastal State would not be entitled to reserve for its nationals an important part of the resources or all resources, even though it was in a position to harvest them in a rational and efficient manner.
It is important to stress that the determination of the surplus is the culmination of very complex operations, as is apparent from the provisions of the Convention itself regarding the factors to be taken into account by coastal States when determining the allowable catch 17/. It should be noted that the granting of access to the surplus is not automatic, but depends on the negotiation and conclusion of agreements or other arrangements 18/.
17/ See in particular Article 61, paras. 2 and 4
18/ Article 62, para. 2, of the Convention
Although the Convention on the Law of the Sea is not yet in force, it may be of interest to analyse the references made in bilateral agreements to the determination, by the coastal State, of the allowable catch and to its views regarding both the concept of surplus and its application.
At the outset, it should be noted that a fair proportion of bilateral agreements do reflect, generally, the various mechanisms and procedures laid down in Articles 61 and 62 of the Convention concerning the determination of both the allowable catch and the coastal State's harvesting capacity, and the allocation of a surplus, if any. This is in particular the case of most agreements entered into by such important countries, from the point of view of fishing activities or fishery resources off their shores, as Canada, Japan, the Republic of Korea and the United States. The agreements concluded by the EEC with developed coastal States present the same characteristics. However, bilateral fishery agreements concluded so far by African coastal States are usually silent on the matter.
The principles embodied in the Convention are seldom reflected in their entirety and contracting parties tend to be selective, especially as regards the factors to be taken into account by coastal States when determining the allowable catch. In addition, the enunciation of principles is sometimes accompanied with provisos which indicate that account will also have to be taken of unforeseen circumstances. Several agreements mention that these circumstances must be such as to be affecting the stocks (e.g., most of the agreements concluded by the United States). Others do not contain any indication regarding the nature of these circumstances. In the case of the 1978 Agreement between New Zealand and the USSR, an exchange of letters annexed to the agreement specified that unforeseen circumstances are those affecting fish stocks.
The requirement that the allowable catch should be determined on the basis of the best available scientific evidence is very frequently referred to in State practice, e.g., the 1976 Agreement between Mexico and Cuba, the 1978 Agreement between Poland and Sweden, and the Agreements concluded by the Republic of Korea in 1980 with the Cook Islands, Kiribati, the Solomon Islands and Tuvalu.
References are also made to the work of appropriate international organizations (e.g., the 1978 Agreement between Spain and Portugal, the 1978 Agreement between Poland and Sweden, and many of the agreements concluded by the EEC) or to internationally accepted criteria (e.g., most of the agreements entered into by Canada and by the United States).
Many of the agreements indicate that the coastal State will take into account the interdependence of stocks (for example, the 1979 Agreement between Australia and Japan, the 1980 Agreement between Norway and the EEC).
Some of the recent agreements concluded by the United States (e.g., with Japan, the Republic of Korea and Spain in 1982) provide that consideration will be given to social, economic and other relevant factors when determining the allowable catch.
It is of interest to note that in at least one case (the 1980 Agreement between the Cook Islands and the Republic of Korea) the coastal State agreed to take into account the result of consultations with the flag State.
The availability of a surplus following the determination of its harvesting capacity by the coastal State is the "raison d'être") of the conclusion of agreements granting access. Indeed, most of these agreements do refer to the existence of a surplus, either with respect to the fish resources of the exclusive economic zone in general or to particular stocks or complexes of stocks. As the determination of a surplus will depend on periodic assessments of the state of exploitation of the stocks, several agreements concluded for a period of several years specify that the flag State will have access to the fish resources of the coastal State only if a surplus becomes available. This is the case of the agreements concluded by Norway with Portugal in 1980 and with Spain in 1981, and by Mexico with Cuba in 1976.
It is customary for agreements to provide that the coastal State will consult the flag State before deciding upon the portion of the surplus which will be allocated to that State: for example, the 1977 Agreement between Canada and Cuba, the 1977 Agreement between Norway and Poland, the 1978 Agreement between Canada and Japan, the 1980 Agreement between Kiribati and the Republic of Korea, the 1981 Agreement between the Marshall Islands and Japan, and the 1981 Agreement between Canada and the EEC.
A number of agreements, especially when they provide for access on a reciprocal basis, do not refer to the determination of the harvesting capacity of the coastal States and to the existence of a surplus, but only set out the catches allotted to the fishing vessels of the contracting parties (e.g., the agreements concluded by the EEC with Sweden in 1977, with Norway in 1980, and with Spain in 1980).
3.2 References in bilateral agreements to the selection criteria listed in the Convention on the Law of the Sea
Article 62, paragraph 3, of the Convention on the Law of the Sea provides that the coastal State, in giving access to its exclusive economic zone, shall take "all relevant factors" into account. It then lists a number of factors, which are not meant to be exhaustive. Apart from the first one, which relates to the significance of the living resources of the area to the economy of the coastal State concerned and its other national interests, these factors provide guidelines for the selection of States to be granted access. They will be considered successively hereunder, in the light of the recent practice of States.
(a) Provisions of Article 69 (Right of land-locked States) and of Article 70 (Right of States with special geographic characteristics
Under Article 69, paragraph 1, of the Convention on the Law of the Sea, land-locked States shall have the right to participate, on an equitable basis, in the exploitation of an appropriate part of the surplus of the living resources of the exclusive economic zones of coastal States. This right, however, may be exercised only in the same sub-region or region and subject to certain conditions of an economic and geographical nature. Article 70, paragraph 4, contains identical provisions relating to coastal States with special geographic characteristics, as defined in paragraph 2, of the same article.
It would appear that none of the bilateral agreements concluded so far makes an express reference to the right of these two categories of States.
Nevertheless, it may be worthwhile to mention a few initiatives taken in this regard by African States. In the 1974 Declaration on the Law of the Sea, adopted by the Council of Ministers of the Organization of African Unity, African countries recognized that land-locked and other disadvantaged countries are entitled to share in the exploitation of living resources of neighbouring economic zones on an equal basis with the nationals of coastal States, under such regional and bilateral agreements as may be worked out. Mention could also be made of two current projects involving land-locked States and States with special geographic characteristics of Africa. The member countries of the West African Economic Community are negotiating a convention providing for the establishment of a company to be owned jointly by the three land-locked (Mali, Niger and Upper Volta) and the three coastal (Ivory Coast, Mauritania and Senegal) member countries of the Community. The vessels of the company would operate in the waters under the jurisdiction of the coastal countries. Negotiations have also started among the coastal countries bordering on the Gulf of Guinea, which include States with special geographic characteristics. The draft agreement now under consideration refers explicitly to both the 1974 OAU Declaration and to the relevant provisions of the Convention on the Law of the Sea concerning States with special geographic characteristics.
(b) The requirements of developing States in the sub-region or region in harvesting part of the surplus
Very few agreements seem to take into consideration the factor relating to the requirements of developing States in the sub-region or region. In the first instance, mention can be made of three agreements which are no longer in force: in the agreements concluded in 1975 by Brazil with Barbados, Suriname and Trinidad and Tobago, the contracting parties indicated that it was desirable for the developing countries of the region to grant each other preferential treatment in the access to their fishery resources. Subsequently, a number of agreements have been entered into between developing countries belonging to the same sub-region or region. Although they do not refer explicitly to the factor under consideration, it would appear that they take it into account. For example, the 1976 agreement between Mexico and Cuba refers to the consensus emerging from the Conference on the Law of the Sea and to the fact that both contracting parties are developing countries.
The limited number of bilateral fisheries agreements between developing countries of the same region may perhaps be due to reasons of an economic nature and to their needs for technology which only other countries can provide.
(c) The need to minimize economic dislocation in States whose nationals have habitually fished in the zone
The above factor is mentioned frequently in agreements granting access to fisheries in waters under the jurisdiction of developed countries. Thus, the framework agreements entered into by the United States with Bulgaria, Cuba, EEC, Denmark, the German Democratic Republic, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain and the USSR provide that "in determining the portion of the surplus that may be made available to vessels of the country, the Government of the United States will decide on the basis of the factors identified in the United States law, including: whether, and to what extent, the fishing vessels of such nations have traditionally engaged in fishing in such fishery". Similarly, the agreements concluded by Canada with the EEC, the German Democratic Republic, Japan, Portugal, Spain and the USSR indicate that account is taken of traditional fishing by the vessels of these countries off Canada's coasts.
The 1978 Agreement between Sweden and Poland refers specifically to the need for minimizing the consequences caused by the extension of national jurisdiction.
References to traditional fishing and to the need for reducing economic dislocation are exceptional in cases where the coastal State is a developing country. Examples include the agreements concluded by the EEC with Senegal in 1979 and with Guinea-Bissau in 1980, and the 1980 Agreement between the Cook Islands and the Republic of Korea.
(d) The need to minimize economic dislocation in States which have made substantial efforts in research and identification of stocks
This factor is obviously related to the preceding one, since the contribution of flag States to research and to stock assessment has normally been associated with their fishing operations in a given area. Nevertheless, bilateral agreement include fewer references to the contribution of the flag State to research than to traditional fishing. Those which do so are the ones concluded by Australia, New Zealand and the United States. The agreements entered into by developing coastal States, especially in West Africa, do not mention this factor at all.
3.3 Other selection criteria followed in State practice
At the outset, it should be stressed that the factors which guide coastal States in the selection of the flag States are not necessarily identified in the agreements themselves. This is often the case of the factors having political or ideological connotations.
A factor which is not specifically listed in the Convention on the Law of the Sea and is frequently taken into account by coastal States, is cooperation with regard to trade in fish and fishery products. For example, in an exchange of letters attached to the 1979 Agreement between Australia and Japan, the Government of Australia states that, when granting access to the surplus to Japanese fishing vessels, it will take into consideration, inter alia, the development of cooperation with regard to access to the Japanese market for Australian fish and fish products.
As a result of the 1980 amendment to the 1976 Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the agreements concluded recently by the United States (with Portugal in 1980, with Norway in 1981 and with Japan, the Republic of Korea and Spain in 1982) include a provision whereby, when determining the portion of the surplus that will be made available to the vessels of the flag State, the United States Government will also take into account the cooperation of that State in enhancing trade and trade opportunities for United States fisheries products.
Similarly, a 1981 exchange of letters between Canada and the EEC provides that the maintenance of allocations to EEC vessels will be contingent upon the fulfilment by the EEC of its obligations with regard to cooperation in fish trade.
Among the other factors referred to in State practice, one could mention cooperation in developing the coastal State's fishing industry, cooperation in enforcement of the coastal State's regulations or strengthening of regional solidarity.
4. CONDITIONS GOVERNING ACCESS
The degree of precision and detail with which bilateral agreements lay down the terms and conditions of access varies considerably. This is not surprising if one bears in mind the types and structure of bilateral agreements reviewed in Section 2 above and the ways in which framework agreements, in particular, are implemented periodically through the negotiation of additional protocols or the adoption of unilateral decisions by the coastal State.
Article 62, paragraph 4, of the Convention on the Law of the Sea, provides that nationals of other States fishing in the exclusive economic zone of a coastal State shall comply with the conservation measures and with the other terms and conditions established in its laws and regulations. It then indicates that national legislation must be consistent with the Convention and, without being exhaustive, lists a series of points which may be included in laws and regulations related to access. In practice, these points are either covered directly in the provision of bilateral agreements or the latter limit themselves to making cross-references to the relevant national legislation. They will be reviewed hereunder.
4.1 Requirements concerning fishing operations 19/
19/ These points are covered in lit. (b), (c) and (d) of paragraph 4 of Article 62 of the Convention.
The main objective of the requirements imposed on the flag State with regard to fishing operations is to direct and control fishing effort. This objective may be attained through a wide range of methods depending on the particular circumstances of each case. Examples are given below merely to illustrate the variety of possible situations and solutions.
In many cases, the agreements or the annexes or protocols thereto prescribe the numbers and type of vessels flying the flag of one contracting party that are authorized to fish in waters under the jurisdiction of the other (e.g., the 1976 Agreement between Iceland and Norway, the 1982 subsidiary agreement between Australia and Japan, and the 1982 Agreement between Guinea and Spain). The vessels are sometimes listed by name (e.g., the 1975 Agreement between Iceland and the Federal Republic of Germany). In principle, licences are not transferable. However, some agreements provide that once a licence has been granted to a particular vessel which, subsequently, is not in a position to use it as a result of "force majeure", it may be assigned to another vessel of the same class at the request of the flag State (e.g., 1982 Agreement between Senegal and Spain, and 1982 Agreement between Guinea and the EEC).
Instead of being expressed by reference to the number of fishing vessels, the limitation imposed on the flag State may also be set out with reference to a maximum tonnage figure applicable to the fishing fleet which has been granted access (e.g., 1982 Agreement between Morocco and Spain).
In some cases, the agreements lay down specific criteria regarding the effective ownership of the vessels flying the flag of the other contracting party. Detailed provisions in this respect are found in the few agreements in which a developing coastal State grants access to another developing coastal State under particularly favourable terms and conditions. For example, the Nigerian vessels authorized to fish in the waters of Equatorial Guinea under the 1981 agreement between the two countries must: (i) fly the Nigerian flag; (ii) have on board a crew made up of not less than 50% African nationals; and (iii) belong to a company whose capital is owned not less than 50% by Nigerians. Provisions reflecting the same concern are contained in the 1977 Agreement between Trinidad and Tobago and Venezuela, the 1982 Agreement between The Gambia and Senegal, and the 1982 Agreement between Guinea-Bissau and Senegal.
It is customary for bilateral agreements to ensure that the fishing operations of foreign vessels will not adversely affect the interest of the fishermen of the coastal State. For this reason, foreign vessels are normally prevented from fishing in areas close to the shore (e.g., the 1981 Agreement between Norway and Spain, and the 1982 Agreement between Equatorial Guinea and Cameroon). These areas may, however, be open to foreign vessels when they are not fully exploited by the fishermen of the coastal State as is the case with respect to certain fisheries along the coasts of Alaska and off US islands in the North Pacific and the Bering Sea. The delimitation of the area or areas where foreign vessels are authorized to fish may also be influenced by other factors, such as the need to protect nursery grounds (e.g., the 1982 arrangement between the EEC, Iceland and Norway prohibiting the fishing for capelin in certain areas of the north-east Atlantic as defined by ICES), the desirability of avoiding possible gear conflicts (e.g., the 1982 subsidiary agreement between Australia and Japan), the size of vessels (e.g., the 1982 Agreement between Guinea and the EEC) and the need to avoid over-exploitation of certain stocks.
A preliminary remark may be made as regards catch quotas. Under the previous regime of narrow areas of national jurisdiction, quotas were usually discussed and agreed upon within the framework of multilateral conventions setting up regional fishery commissions, especially in the North Atlantic. With the establishment of 200 mile zones, the pattern of negotiation has changed radically, since quotas are now granted mostly by coastal States on a bilateral basis and are therefore the object of an increasing number of agreements.
The allocation of quotas is a practice which is still largely limited to cases where the coastal State is a developed country with the necessary scientific, administrative and enforcement support and the required logistical facilities (e.g., in the North Sea, the North-East and North-West Atlantic and the North Pacific). None of the numerous agreements concluded by the coastal States of North-West Africa provides for the allocation of quotas as a measure to limit fishing effort. With very few exceptions, the same situation prevails in the South Pacific area insofar as developing island States are concerned.
As rare examples of agreements to which a developing coastal State is a party and which provide for catch quotas with respect to certain species, one can mention the 1980 Agreement between Angola and Spain and the 1982 Agreement between Mozambique and Spain.
It would be beyond the scope of this document to review the numerous other measures, such as closed seasons, gear characteristics, minimum sizes of fish, port facilities or rotation of crews, which are laid down in the agreements or their technical annexes. It is, however, interesting to note that an increasing number of bilateral agreements now include provisions designed to protect marine mammals (e.g., the agreements concluded by the United States, the 1980 Agreement between the Cook Islands and the Republic of Korea, and the 1982 Agreement between New Zealand and Japan).
4.2 Fees and other forms of compensation 20/
20/ This point is covered in litt. (a) of para. 4 of Article 62 of the Convention
The authorization granted to foreign vessels to fish in extended zones of national jurisdiction is normally subject to the payment of fees. In many cases, additional compensation is provided for in the form of technical or economic cooperation with the coastal State.
In State practice, there are essentially two ways of levying fees in exchange for the right of access:
(i) Fees may consist of a lump sum to be paid for a fixed period, usually one year, to cover the fishing operations of all the vessels of the flag State. For example, the 1982 Agreement between Australia and Japan and a number of agreements concluded by developing island States in the South Pacific provide for such a total fee. Only a few of these agreements refer to the basis upon which the fee has been calculated. It would appear that a figure amounting to around 5% of the value of the estimated catch has been used. Other factors taken into consideration would seem to include the risks involved in developing a new fishery or the expenses incurred in placing observers on board.(ii) Fees may be computed on the basis of specific factors, the most important of which are the gross registered tonnage (GRT) of the vessels and actual catches, or a combination of these factors.
No trend is discernable, either regionally or by type of fishery, from the information available regarding preferences for the use of one or other of these factors as a means for calculating fees. For instance, in West Africa fees for tuna fishing are sometimes based on the GRT of the foreign fleet (e.g., the 1982 Agreement between Mauritania and a tuna fishing company based in Senegal) and sometimes on the weight of the tuna caught (e.g., the 1982 Agreement between Senegal and the EEC). Both methods of computation may be found in the same agreement for different fisheries (e.g., the 1982 Agreement between Guinea-Bissau and the EEC which provides for fees based on the GRT of vessels for trawl fishing and for fees based on the weight of catches for tuna fishing). The value of the fish landed is also used as a basis for computing fees (e.g., part of the fee to be paid by foreign vessels fishing in US waters).
Licence fees normally require to be paid in cash. Payment in kind is authorized in exceptional cases mainly when the coastal State needs fresh fish for its internal market or industry. For example, under the 1976 Agreement between Mauritania and Portugal, Portuguese fishermen had to pay an annual fee three quarters of which were to be paid in cash and the balance in the form of fish landed in Nouadhibou. Under the 1982 Agreement between Guinea and the EEC the owners of the EEC authorized fishing vessels have the choice between paying 100 ECU (European Currency Unit) per GRT or landing a certain quantity of fish in Guinean ports.
Any attempt at comparing the level of licensing fees set out in various agreements would not be very fruitful. In some instances the licensing fee is the only compensation obtained by the coastal State in exchange for the granting of fishing rights and therefore the fee can be rather high. In other cases, besides the proceeds of the licence fees bilateral agreements provide for granting to the coastal State additional forms of compensation. For instance, under the 1976 Agreement between Tunisia and Italy, the Italian Government undertook to contribute a sum of Lire 2,500 millions annually for the implementation of fishery development projects in Tunisia. All the agreements concluded by the EEC with West African coastal countries provide that in return for the fishing opportunities granted to EEC vessels and in addition to licence fees, the coastal State will receive financial compensation which shall be used to finance projects and services relating to fishing 21/.
21/ 2,100,000 ECU in the 1982 Agreement with Guinea; 4,275,000 ECU in the 1982 Agreement with Guinea-Bissau; 2,500 million of CFA francs in the 1982 Agreement with Senegal.
Frequently, bilateral agreements provide that the flag State will grant loans to the coastal State on favourable terms. Thus, the 1982 Agreement between Morocco and Spain provides that Spain would open a credit line of US$ 15 million to be reimbursed in 20 years at a 5.5 percent rate of interest.
Several agreements envisage that the flag State will contribute to the development of the fishery industry of the coastal State, but they do not provide any details on the financial aspects involved. In fact, they refer solely to the conclusion of subsequent agreements to cover particular projects.
The conclusions of ancillary agreements providing for the supply of goods and services has been frequent in the South Pacific area until recently. Since 1981/82 this practice seems to be discontinued in most cases 22/.
22/ For Palau, see explanations on the national policy in this respect in FAO/FFA: "Workshop on the harmonization and coordination of fisheries regimes and access agreements", Suva, Fiji, 22 February to 5 March 1982, Regional Compendium of Fisheries Legislation, Volume 1, p.6.
In a number of cases the owners of foreign fishing vessels have to arrange for seamen of the coastal State to be trained on board 23/. Several bilateral agreements also contain provisions to the effect that the flag State will send experts to the coastal State to provide technical assistance in various sectors of the fishing industry 24/. In other cases, the flag State agrees to grant fellowships and to accept trainees in its own teaching institutions 25/. The flag State normally bears all relevant expenses.
23/ e.g., 1975 Agreement between Guinea-Bissau and USSR; 1980 Protocol between Mauritania and USSR.24/ e.g., 1980 Agreement between Angola and Spain
25/ e.g., 1975 Agreement between Benin and France
As regards cooperation in scientific research, several agreements envisage joint programmes and other activities by the flag State and the coastal State. The extent and nature of such cooperation vary depending on whether the agreement is concluded between developed countries or between developed and developing countries. Thus, under a 1977 agreement, the USA and the EEC cooperate in the conduct of scientific research for managing and conserving living resources subject to the fishery management authority of the USA. This cooperation includes compilation of the best available scientific information for the management and conservation of stocks of mutual concern. The appropriate agencies of the two parties will enter into such arrangements as may be necessary to facilitate cooperation, such as the exchange of information and scientists, regular meetings between scientists and the implementation of a standardized system for the collection and archiving of relevant statistical and biological information.
Agreements providing for joint research activities between a developed and a developing country usually describe in detail the contribution that will be made by the developed country. For example, the 1976 Agreement between Sierra Leone and the Soviet Union indicates that the Soviet Union will render technical and economic assistance in conducting scientific surveys on fish stock assessment. The Soviet Union is to provide a research vessel equipped with the necessary fishing equipment and gear and manned with crew and scientists. Except for the salaries of five Sierra Leonean fishery specialists, the USSR will bear all expenses for research activities to be carried out on board the vessel. Similar provisions are found in the agreements concluded by the Soviet Union with The Gambia and Guinea-Bissau in 1975, Angola in 1976 and Seychelles in 1978. The three agreements concluded in 1982 by the EEC with Guinea, Guinea-Bissau and Senegal include a provision by which the Community undertakes to contribute to the financing of coastal States scientific programmes in order to improve information on their fishery resources 26/. There are a few agreements which provide for the setting up by the flag State of research centres or laboratories in the territory of the coastal State 27/.
26/ CFA francs 100,000,000 in the case of Senegal, 250,000 ECU for Guinea-Bissau, and 200,000 ECU for Guinea27/ e.g., 1973 Agreement between Mauritania and the Soviet Union
Some bilateral agreements contain provisions whereby the flag State grants privileges or facilities of a commercial nature to the coastal State in exchange for the right to fish in waters under its jurisdiction. For example, pursuant to an agreement entered into with Senegal in 1977, Ivory Coast authorized the import of Senegalese fishery products free of all customs duties. The 1971 Agreement between Congo and Gabon provides that each State will export to third countries only such fish that cannot be marketed in either country.
In a more general fashion, the 1981 Agreement between Canada and the EEC provides that the two parties will carry out periodic bilateral consultations regarding the development of further cooperation in fish trade and that they shall encourage economic and commercial cooperation in the field of fisheries. In the 1978 Agreement between New Zealand and the Republic of Korea, the parties agreed to cooperate in respect to the expansion of markets, including improved market access, for fish and fish products originating in New Zealand 28/.
28/ See also the 1976 Agreement between Mexico and Cuba
There is a definite trend to include, in bilateral fishery agreements, provisions aimed at encouraging the establishment of joint ventures between the flag State and the coastal State. These provisions are sometimes couched in very general terms. For instance, under the 1977 Agreement between Iran and the Republic of Korea both parties agreed to encourage and facilitate cooperation in the field of fisheries between their nationals, particularly through joint ventures and other appropriate means, within the framework of their respective laws and regulations. Joint ventures are envisaged in various sectors, including fishing in international waters, fish processing, international marketing of fishery products, manufacture of fishing gears, ship-building and repair. Similarly, the 1975 Convention between Colombia and Ecuador provides that the two countries will encourage the establishment of joint ventures for the purpose of developing the exploitation and utilization of living resources in waters under their respective jurisdictions.
A few bilateral agreements are somewhat more specific and include details on the characteristics of the joint ventures envisaged. This is in particular the case of the 1978 Agreement between Brazil and Barbados and the 1978 Agreement between Mauritania and the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya.
5. SURVEILLANCE AND ENFORCEMENT
Coastal States attach considerable importance to the question of control over the activities of foreign fishing vessels authorized to operate in waters under their jurisdiction. This concern is usually reflected in the provisions inserted in bilateral agreements regarding enforcement methods and procedures. In this respect, the Convention on the Law of the Sea 29/ provides that nationals of other States fishing in the exclusive economic zone shall comply with the conservation measures and with the other terms and conditions established in the regulations of the coastal State. It goes on to state that these regulations may relate, inter alia, to enforcement procedures. Furthermore, in the exercise of its sovereign rights to explore, exploit, conserve and manage the living resources in the exclusive economic zone, the coastal State may take such measures 30/ including boarding, inspection, arrest and judicial proceedings, as may be necessary to ensure compliance with the laws and regulations enacted by it in conformity with the Convention.
29/ Article 62, para. 4
30/ Article 73, para. 1
5.1 Prevention of infringements
Whatever the legal nature of the extended zone of jurisdiction claimed by the coastal State, the latter is always vested with enforcement authority under existing bilateral agreements. The only exceptions seem to be cases where two adjacent coastal States have not yet reached final agreement on delimitation in maritime border areas. This is so in various parts of the boundary areas between the Canadian fishing zone and the US fishery conservation zone. Pending a definitive agreement on delimitation, Canada and the USA have agreed that in these areas enforcement measures against fishing vessels flying the flag of other countries may be carried out by either party, while enforcement as between the two parties will be conducted by the flag State 31/.
31/ e.g., 1977 Agreement between Canada and the USA. For a slightly different solution to the same problem, see the 1981 memorandum of understanding between Indonesia and Australia concerning the implementation of a provisional fisheries surveillance and enforcement arrangement
A great number of bilateral agreements lay down the principle that foreign vessels are to comply with the fishery laws and regulations of the coastal State. This presupposes that foreign fishermen are familiar with the contents of such laws and regulations. To this end, some bilateral agreements indicate that the flag State will be provided with all relevant legislation 32/, or that appropriate advance notice of any new measure taken by the coastal State will be provided so as to enable foreign fishermen to abide by them 33/.
32/ e.g., 1977 Agreement between Finland and the Soviet Union33/ e.g., 1978 Agreement between Canada and the EEC, and 1980 Agreement between the EEC and Spain
In some cases, the agreements provide that foreign fishermen must also comply with the relevant rules of international law. Thus, the 1977 Agreement between Guinea-Bissau and France stated expressly that the right to fish should be exercised in accordance with the laws and regulations in force in Guinea-Bissau and with the rules of international law.
Very often agreements contain a provision whereby the flag State undertakes to adopt all necessary measures to ensure that its nationals and vessels will comply with the provisions of the agreement.
Several agreements prescribe a number of measures aimed at facilitating the task of the enforcement authorities in localizing and identifying foreign fishing vessels at sea. Before beginning their fishing activities, vessels may be required to provide the coastal State's authorities with a set of detailed identifying information 34/. Moreover, foreign vessels are sometimes required to hoist a special flag or pennant 35/ or to display on board special identification marks in such a way that they are visible from both sides of the vessel or from the air 36/. In the North-East Atlantic and North Sea areas, several agreements require foreign fishing vessels to report their position daily 37/ or weekly 38/ to the designated authorities of the coastal State. A more sophisticated solution consists in the installation on each foreign vessel of equipment enabling an enforcement cutter or aircraft to identify the vessel and ascertain its position. Such equipment does not require any operation or repair activity on the part of the vessel crew. This solution could be imposed within the next few years on all foreign vessels fishing in the exclusive economic zone of the USA.
34/ Including: the name of the vessel; the name and business address of the owner; the official number and the number prescribed under the bilateral agreement; the port of registry and usual port of operation; a photograph of the vessel accompanied by its general description (including colour of side, deck house, top of house and trim, tonnage, capacity, speed, horsepower of the main engine, etc.), the radio frequency and radio call letters for the establishment of communications; the methods and equipment employed for fishing; the ocean area in which, and the season and period during which fishing will be conducted; and any other information necessary for the identification of the vessel and other enforcement functions.35/ e.g., 1976 Agreement between Tunisia and Italy
36/ e.g., 1979 Agreement between Guyana and Suriname, 1981 Agreement between Japan (Associations) and Papua New Guinea
37/ e.g., 1975 Agreement between Iceland and the Federal Republic of Germany; 1976 Agreement between Iceland and Norway
38/ e.g., 1977 Agreement between Norway and the German Democratic Republic; 1977 Agreement between Norway and Poland
5.2 Inspection and control
In addition to practical measures designed to prevent infringements and facilitate the localization of foreign fishing vessels, bilateral agreements often contain provisions regarding the measures to be taken by the coastal State to ensure compliance with its laws and regulations, including the conduct of inspection operations and their possible legal consequences.
The agreements concluded by Norway with Finland, Sweden and the Soviet Union in 1976 and with the German Democratic Republic and Poland in 1977, and those concluded by the EEC with Denmark (Faroes) and Sweden in 1977 and with Norway and Spain in 1980, contain a general provision enabling the coastal State to take, in accordance with international law, such measures as may be necessary to ensure that foreign fishing vessels comply with the provisions of the agreement.
In many other cases the agreements are more detailed and provide that a set of documents, including a fishing log book of a commonly agreed model and updated daily, must be available at any time for inspection 39/. Inspectors are also entitled to inspect fishing gears and catches.
39/ e.g., 1977 Agreement between Norway and Poland; 1977 Agreement between Norway and the German Democratic Republic; 1978 Agreement between Guyana and Cuba
Bilateral agreements often provide that when a violation has been ascertained, the coastal State's officials may seize the vessel and escort it to a port. In that situation, the authorities of the flag State must be informed without delay. The Convention on the Law of the Sea 40/ provides that in cases of arrest or detention of foreign vessels, the coastal State shall promptly notify the flag State, through appropriate channels, of the action taken and of any penalties subsequently imposed. Several agreements include specific provisions to protect the rights of the arrested vessel and its crew. For example, under the 1976 Agreement between Tunisia and Italy, the captain of the vessel was authorized to communicate with his embassy. The 1976 Agreement between the USA and the German Democratic Republic provides that the arrested vessel will be allowed to use its communications' facilities to report the situation to its owners and that crew members will have the right to choose competent counsel for their defence.
40/ Article 73, para. 4
A number of agreements 41/ provide for the prompt release of the arrested vessels and their crews upon the posting of reasonable bond or other security; these are the exact words used in Article 73, paragraph 2, of the Convention on the Law of the Sea.
41/ e.g., 1977 Agreement between the Soviet Union and Japan, and all the governing international fishery agreements concluded by the USA with other States in 1976 and 1977
5.3 Penalties
The penalties most frequently mentioned in bilateral agreements include the withdrawal of the fishing licence, fines 42/ and the seizure of gear and catches. Imprisonment and other forms of corporal punishment are sometimes specifically excluded by bilateral agreements 43/. Agreements concluded by the USA or the agreed minutes attached thereto provide that in the case of violation of fishery regulations the representative of the US Government will recommend to the court that the penalty not include imprisonment or any other form of corporal punishment 44/. Under the Convention on the Law of the Sea, the coastal State penalties for violations of fisheries regulations in the exclusive economic zone may not include imprisonment, in the absence of agreement to the contrary by the States concerned, or any other form of corporal punishment 45/.
42/ The level of the fines is very seldom set out in the agreements themselves. See, however, the 1982 Agreement between Guinea and the EEC43/ e.g, 1976 Agreement between Mexico and Cuba; 1976 Agreement between Mexico and the USA
44/ It may be noted, however, that in the agreed minutes attached to the agreements concluded in 1982 with Japan and Spain, the USA noted that this provision does not apply in the case of enforcement related offences such as assault on an enforcement officer or refusal to permit boarding and inspection
45/ Article 73, para. 3
6. SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES
A distinction should be drawn between disputes concerning the interpretation or application of bilateral agreements and incidents occurring during fishing operations.
6.1 Disputes concerning the interpretation or application of bilateral agreements
Only a few agreements contain provisions on the question of settlement of disputes between contracting parties regarding the interpretation or application of bilateral agreements. It has been seen above that, in some cases, the bodies established to advise generally on the implementation of the agreements are also specifically entrusted with the settlement of disputes.
In some cases the agreements include only very general provisions. Thus, under the arrangements entered into in 1981 by Papua-New Guinea and a number of Japanese associations, it has been agreed that any dispute regarding the interpretation or the implementation of the arrangements should be settled amicably by the parties 46/.
46/ Similar provisions may be found in the 1982 Agreement between Mauritania and Spain and in the 1982 Agreement between Guinea and the EEC.
The 1977 Agreement between the EEC and Sweden goes one step further and provides that if no settlement is reached following consultations, and where it is claimed that a contracting party has manifestly failed to comply with specified provisions or conditions established by the agreement, the dispute will be the subject of arbitration. An annex to the agreement contains detailed provisions on the composition of the arbitral tribunal, the binding character of its decisions and the apportionment of costs 47/.
47/ Similar provisions may be found in the 1979 Agreement between Senegal and the EEC and in the 1982 Agreement between Senegal and Spain.
6.2 Disputes arising from incidents during fishing operations
As regards incidents occurring during fishing operations, many agreements recently concluded in the South Pacific region include a general provision depending to which the government of the flag State shall ensure that all necessary measures are taken to ensure prompt and adequate compensation to the coastal State or citizen for any loss or damage that is caused by the flag State's fishing vessel 48/.
48/ e.g., the 1980 Agreement between Cook Islands and the Republic of Korea; the 1978 Agreement between New Zealand and Japan.
Reference can be made to the 1976 Agreement between Finland and the Soviet Union. A joint commission set up under the agreement is responsible for dealing with claims for compensation in connection with damage sustained by vessels and equipment during fishing operations in the Finnish fishing zone. The functions and methods of work of the Commission are specified in detail. If the Commission cannot agree on a recommendation regarding compensation or if one of the parties is unwilling to accept the recommendation, the Commission may recommend that the matter should be settled in court or by arbitration.
Several of the agreements concluded by the USA and other States provide for the establishment of fisheries boards to perform conciliation functions in respect of claims advanced by a national of either State against a national of the other State, regarding financial loss resulting from damage to or loss of the national's fishing vessel or fishing gear. For example, the American-Spanish Fisheries Board established under an annex to the 1982 Agreement between the USA and Spain consists of four members, two appointed by each country. At least one of the two members must have knowledge of the general principles of international law, particularly those relating to fisheries matters. The Board, whose decisions are made unanimously by those members present and voting, prepares a report containing its findings on the facts giving rise to the claim, the extent of damage or loss, the degree of the respondent's or claimant's responsibility and the amount which should be paid as compensation for losses arising from the incident. The report is transmitted to the claimant, to the respondent and to the two governments. If one of the parties to the conciliation proceeding refuses to settle in accordance with the findings of the Board, the latter will encourage the parties to submit their dispute to binding arbitration. The agreements which provide for the establishment of such boards also contain detailed provisions regarding procedures to be followed, applicable law and apportionment of expenses.
APPENDIX 1
Selected Bilateral Fishery Agreements
|
Denmark/Sweden |
7 January 1975 |
Exchange of notes on mutual fishing rights |
|
Italy/Senegal |
17 January 1975 |
Agreement on marine fisheries |
|
France/Norway |
30 January 1975 |
Exchange of letters concerning fishing |
|
USA/USSR |
26 February 1975 |
Agreement in the form of an exchange of notes amending the agreement relating to the consideration of claims resulting from damage to fishing vessels and gear measures to prevent fishing conflicts |
|
Benin/France |
27 February 1975 |
Convention concerning marine fishing |
|
Brazil/ Trinidad & Tobago |
28 February 1975 |
Shrimp fishing agreement |
|
Barbados/Brazil |
28 February 1975 |
Shrimp fishing agreement |
|
Brazil/USA |
14 March 1975 |
Agreement concerning shrimp |
|
The Gambia/USSR |
18 March 1975 |
Agreement on cooperation in the field of fisheries |
|
France/Mauritania |
26 March 1975 |
Protocol of agreement on fishing |
|
Brazil/The Netherlands (Suriname) |
4 April 1975 |
Shrimp fishery agreement |
|
Norway/USSR |
11 April 1975 |
Agreement on cooperation in the field of fisheries |
|
Guinea Bissau/USSR |
11 April 1975 |
Agreement on cooperation in the field of fisheries |
|
Senegal/Spain |
16 May 1975 |
Convention on marine fisheries with exchange of letters |
|
Colombia/Ecuador |
23 August 1975 |
Convention on delimitation of marine and submarine areas and maritime cooperation |
|
Mauritania/Poland |
17 September 1975 |
Agreement on intergovernmental cooperation in the field of fishing |
|
Mauritania/Norway (KSAS Norglobal & Co.) |
27 September 1975 |
Protocol of agreement |
|
Italy/Tunisia |
30 October 1975 |
Protocol of agreement |
|
Finland/Sweden |
24 November 1975 |
Exchange of notes concerning fishing |
|
Japan/Papua New Guinea |
26 November 1975 |
Exchange of letters concerning fishing |
|
Belgium/Iceland |
28 November 1975 |
Fisheries agreement relating to the extension of the Icelandic fishery limits to 200 nautical miles |
|
Germany, Fed. Rep./ Iceland |
28 November 1975 |
Fisheries agreement relating to the extension of the Icelandic fishery limits to 200 nautical miles |
|
Canada/Norway |
2 December 1975 |
Agreement on mutual fisheries relations |
|
Poland/Sweden |
9 December 1975 |
Agreement on the mutual granting of fishing rights within their sea fishery zones |
|
Canada/USSR |
22 December 1975 |
Fishery agreement |
|
Korea, Rep./Morocco |
23 February 1976 |
Agreement on fisheries cooperation |
|
Iceland/Norway |
10 March 1976 |
Exchange of notes on fishing |
|
Mauritania/Portugal |
12 March 1976 |
Agreement on cooperation in the field of marine fisheries |
|
Poland/Senegal |
16 March 1976 |
Agreement concerning marine fisheries |
|
Denmark (Faroes)/ Iceland |
20 March 1976 |
Fishery agreement |
|
India/Sri Lanka |
25 March 1976 |
Agreement on the maritime boundary in the Gulf of Mannar and the Bay of Bengal and related matters |
|
Morocco/Portugal |
25 March 1976 |
Agreement concerning marine fisheries |
|
France/Mauritania |
15 April 1976 |
Exchange of letters on lobster fishing |
|
Angola/USSR |
May 1976 |
Agreement on cooperation in fisheries |
|
German Dem. Rep./ Guinea |
14 May 1976 |
Protocol of agreement concerning the exploitation of Guinean fishery resources |
|
Canada/Poland |
14 May 1976 |
Agreement on mutual fisheries relations |
|
Sierra Leone/USSR |
14 May 1976 |
Agreement on cooperation in the field of fisheries |
|
Canada/USSR |
19 May 1976 |
Agreement On mutual fisheries relations |
|
Iceland/United Kingdom |
1 June 1976 |
Agreement on fisheries |
|
Canada/Spain |
10 June 1976 |
Agreement on mutual fisheries relations |
|
Italy/Tunisia |
19 June 1976 |
Agreement concerning fishing by Italian vessels in Tunisian waters |
|
Cuba/Mexico |
26 July 1976 |
Fishery agreement |
|
Canada/Portugal |
29 July 1976 |
Agreement on mutual fisheries relations |
|
Korea, Rep./The Gambia |
July 1976 |
Agreement on fisheries cooperation |
|
Poland/USA |
2 August 1976 |
Agreement concerning fisheries off the coasts of the United States with agreed minutes and related letters |
|
German Dem. Rep./ USA |
5 October 1976 |
Agreement concerning fishing off the coasts of the United States with annexes, agreed minutes and related letters |
|
Finland/USSR |
11 October 1976 |
Agreement on certain questions relating to fishing in the Finnish fishing zones |
|
Norway/USSR |
15 October 1976 |
Agreement on mutual fishery relations |
|
Romania/USA |
23 November 1976 |
Agreement concerning fisheries off the coasts of the United States with agreed minutes and exchange of letters |
|
Mexico/USA |
24 November 1976 |
Fisheries agreement with exchange of notes |
|
Canada/France |
26 November 1976 |
Provisional fishery agreement |
|
USA/USSR |
26 November 1976 |
Agreement concerning fisheries off the coasts of the United States with agreed minutes and related letters |
|
Norway/Sweden |
9 December 1976 |
Agreement on fishing |
|
Bulgaria/USA |
17 December 1976 |
Agreement concerning fisheries off the coasts of the United States with agreed minutes and related letters |
|
Finland/Norway |
29 December 1976 |
Fisheries agreement |
|
Brazil/USA |
30 December 1976 |
Agreement extending the agreement of 14 March 1975 concerning shrimp |
|
Korea, Rep./USA |
4 January 1977 |
Agreement concerning fisheries off the coasts of the United States with agreed minutes and exchange of notes |
|
France/Guinea Bissau |
20 January 1977 |
Fishery agreement |
|
Ivory Coast/Senegal |
26 January 1977 |
Agreement in the field of marine fisheries |
|
German, Dem. Rep./ Norway |
28 January 1977 |
Fisheries agreement |
|
Norway/Portugal |
8 February 1977 |
Fisheries agreement |
|
Japan/USA |
10 February 1977 |
Agreement concerning fisheries off the coasts of the United States |
|
EEC/USA |
15 February 1977 |
Agreement concerning fisheries off the coasts of the United States |
|
Spain/USA |
16 February 1977 |
Agreement concerning fisheries off the coasts of the United States |
|
Denmark (Faroes)/ Norway |
21 February 1977 |
Agreement on mutual fishing rights |
|
Denmark (Faroes)/ Sweden |
22 February 1977 |
Fishery agreement |
|
Canada/USA |
24 February 1977 |
Reciprocal fisheries agreement |
|
Angola/USSR |
March 1977 |
Protocol on cooperation in fisheries |
|
Mauritania/Nigeria |
14 March 1977 |
Protocol of agreement on fisheries |
|
EEC/Denmark (Faroes) |
15 March 1977 |
Agreement concerning fisheries |
|
Colombia/Costa Rica |
17 March 1977 |
Agreement on marine cooperation |
|
Mozambique/Spain (Pescanova) |
20 March 1977 |
Fisheries Agreement |
|
EEC/Sweden |
21 March 1977 |
Agreement on fisheries |
|
Denmark (Faroes)/ USSR |
April 1977 |
Proces verbal on temporary mutual fishing rights |
|
Greece/Mauritania |
1 April 1977 |
Agreement on fishery cooperation |
|
Norway/Spain |
15 April 1977 |
Fisheries Agreement |
|
Iceland/USSR |
25 April 1977 |
Agreement on scientific cooperation and consultation in the field of fisheries and research with respect to the living resources of the sea |
|
Cuba/USA |
27 April 1977 |
Agreement concerning fisheries off the coasts of the United States with annexes agreed minutes and related notes |
|
Brazil/USA |
1 May 1977 |
Agreement concerning shrimp |
|
Iran/Korea, Rep. |
11 May 1977 |
Agreement on fisheries cooperation |
|
Canada/Cuba |
12 May 1977 |
Agreement on mutual fisheries relations |
|
Guinea Bissau/ Portugal |
20 May 1977 |
Agreement on cooperation in fisheries |
|
Egypt (Société égyptienne des pêches en haute mer)/ Mauritania |
22 May 1977 |
Agreement on fisheries |
|
Japan/USSR |
22 May 1977 |
Agreement concerning fisheries in waters off the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics coast in the Northeast Pacific Ocean |
|
Norway/Poland |
24 May 1977 |
Fisheries agreement |
|
Canada/Romania |
9 June 1977 |
Agreement on mutual fisheries relations |
|
Japan (Japanese Deep Sea Trawler Association)/ Mauritania |
22 June 1977 |
Contract on fishing |
|
Libya/Mauritania |
26 June 1977 |
Agreement on cooperation in the field of marine fishing |
|
UK/USA |
24 June 1977 |
Reciprocal fisheries agreement |
|
Japan/USSR |
4 August 1977 |
Agreement concerning fisheries in waters off the coast of Japan |
|
Mexico/USA |
26 August 1977 |
Agreement concerning fisheries off the United States |
|
Guinea/Italy (Amopesca) |
31 August 1977 |
Protocol of agreement relating to the exploitation of fishing resources of the Republic of Guinea |
|
Denmark (Faroes)/ USA |
5 September 1977 |
Agreement concerning fisheries off the coasts of the United States with Annexes |
|
Canada/German Dem. Rep. |
9 September 1977 |
Agreement on mutual fisheries relations |
|
Bulgaria/Canada |
27 September 1977 |
Agreement on mutual fisheries relations |
|
Norway/USSR |
20 October 1977 |
Agreement on catch quotas in the Barents Sea |
|
Mauritania/Spain |
26 October 1977 |
Protocol of agreement on fisheries cooperation |
|
Guinea/Libya |
19 November 1977 |
Agreement concerning the establishment of a fishery joint venture |
|
Denmark (Faroes)/ USSR |
27 November 1977 |
Agreement regarding mutual fisheries relations |
|
Japan/South Africa |
6 December 1977 |
Fishery Agreement |
|
Denmark (Faroes)/ Norway |
7 December 1977 |
Agreement on reciprocal fishing rights |
|
Ivory Coast (Compagnie africaine de pêche atlantique)/ Mauritania |
7 December 1977 |
Protocol of agreement |
|
Iceland/Denmark (Faroes) |
12 December 1977 |
Fishery agreement |
|
Venezuela/Trinidad and Tobago |
12 December 1977 |
Fishery agreement |
|
Japan/USSR |
16 December 1977 |
Protocol amending and extending the Conventions of 27 May 1977 and of 4 August 1977 |
|
German Dem. Rep./ Sweden |
16 December 1977 |
Agreement on Fisheries |
|
Sweden/USSR |
22 December 1977 |
Fishery agreement |
|
Poland/USSR |
1978 |
Agreement on fishing cooperation (Baltic Sea) |
|
Poland/USSR |
1978 |
Agreement on fishing cooperation (Barents Sea) |
|
Norway/USSR |
11 January 1978 |
Provisional agreement on the delimitation in the Barents sea |
|
Barbados/Brazil |
15 February 1978 |
Agreement concerning joint ventures in the fishing sector |
|
Angola/USSR |
March 1978 |
Protocol of agreement on fisheries |
|
Mauritania/Morocco |
1 March 1978 |
Protocol implementing the agreements on fisheries cooperation |
|
Korea, Rep./New Zealand |
15 March 1978 |
Fisheries agreement |
|
Guinea-Bissau/Italy (Federpesca) |
15 March 1978 |
Fisheries agreement |
|
Japan/Portugal |
18 March 1978 |
Agreement on fisheries |
|
Bangladesh/Thailand |
25 March 1978 |
Agreement on cooperation in fisheries |
|
Mauritania/USSR |
April 1978 |
Provisional protocol |
|
New Zealand/USSR |
4 April 1978 |
Agreement on fisheries |
|
Canada/USA |
10 & 11 April 1978 |
Interim reciprocal fisheries agreement |
|
Japan/USSR |
21 April 1978 |
Convention on cooperation in the field of fisheries |
|
Japan/USSR |
21 April 1978 |
Protocol relating to salmon-trout fishery |
|
Argentina/Germany, Fed. Rep. |
24 April 1978 |
Agreement on fisheries cooperation |
|
Morocco/USSR |
27 April 1978 |
Fishery agreement |
|
Canada/Japan |
28 April 1978 |
Agreement on fisheries |
|
Brazil/Trinidad and Tobago |
8 May 1978 |
Agreement concerning joint ventures in the fishing sector |
|
Guinea/Libya |
29 May 1978 |
Agreement laying down the statutes of Sogualip (Guinean/Libyan joint venture) |
|
Seychelles/USSR |
25 June 1978 |
Agreement on cooperation in the field of fisheries |
|
Mauritania/USSR |
26 June 1978 |
Agreement on cooperation in the field of fisheries with protocol of application |
|
Gilbert Islands/ Japan |
26 June 1978 |
Agreement concerning fisheries off the coasts of Gilbert Islands |
|
Kiribati/Korea, Rep. |
28 June 1978 |
Agreement concerning fisheries off the coasts of the Republic of Kiribati |
|
Gilbert Islands/ Japan (Federation of Japan Tuna Fisheries Cooperative Associations) |
30 June 1978 |
Agreement concerning the licensing of Japanese fishing vessels to fish within the fishery limits of the Gilbert Islands |
|
Greece (Union des Armateurs Grecs)/ Guinea |
8 August 1978 |
Agreement on cooperation in the field of marine fishing |
|
Libya/Mauritania |
18 August 1978 |
Agreement establishing the "Société mixte arabo-libyenne mauritanienne de pêche maritime" |
|
Ghana/Guinea |
18 August 1978 |
Agreement on cooperation in the exploitation of fishery resources |
|
New Zealand/USA (Van Camp) |
September 1978 |
Fishing agreement |
|
Japan/New Zealand |
1 September 1978 |
Agreement on fisheries |
|
Iraq/Mauritania |
7 September 1978 |
Agreement on fisheries |
|
Japan/Solomon Isl. |
20 September 1978 |
Agreement on fisheries |
|
Japan (Federation of Japan Tuna Fisheries, Cooperative Association and the Federation of Fisheries Cooperative Associations of Japan)/ Solomon Islands |
20 September 1978 |
Agreement concerning the issue of permits to Japanese fishing vessels to fish within the fishery limits of Solomon Islands |
|
Barbados/Guyana |
2 October 1978 |
Agreement concerning fishing in the fisheries zone of Guyana |
|
Japan/Portugal |
17 October 1978 |
Agreement on fisheries |
|
Greece/Guinea |
26 October 1978 |
Protocol of agreement on cooperation in the field of marine fishing |
|
Cuba/Guyana |
1 November 1978 |
Fishery agreement |
|
Guinea/Korea, Rep. (Dai Ho Company) |
14 December 1978 |
Agreement on fisheries cooperation |
|
Japan/USSR |
15 December 1978 |
Protocol amending and extending the conventions of 27 May 1977 and of 4 August 1977 |
|
Mauritania/Spain |
6 January 1979 |
Annex on fishing |
|
Mauritania/Morocco |
13 January 1979 |
Protocol of agreement in the field of fisheries |
|
Greece/Guinea |
14 February 1979 |
Agreement on cooperation in the field of marine fisheries |
|
Portugal/Spain |
13 March 1979 |
Fishing agreement |
|
France (Armateurs langoustiers français)/ Mauritania |
27 March 1979 |
Convention on fishing |
|
UK/USA |
27 March 1979 |
Reciprocal fisheries agreement |
|
Canada/USA |
29 March 1979 |
Protocol amending the convention for the preservation of the halibut fisheries of the northern Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea (with Annex) |
|
Canada/USA |
29 March 1979 |
Agreement effected by exchange of notes on the preservation of halibut fishery of northern Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea and Fishing off west coast of Canada |
|
Guyana/Suriname |
29 March 1979 |
Agreement on reciprocal fishing relations (with annexes) |
|
France (Cooperative Lagun Artean)/ Mauritania |
5 April 1979 |
Protocol of agreement |
|
Angola/USSR |
6 April 1979 |
Protocol of agreement |
|
Japan/USSR |
21 April 1979 |
Protocol relating to salmon trout fishery |
|
Mauritania/Sweden (Joint Trawlers Ltd.) |
23 May 1979 |
Protocol of agreement |
|
Canada/EEC |
28 June 1979 |
Agreement on fisheries |
|
Morocco/Spain |
29 June 1979 |
Provisional protocol on fishing |
|
Japan (Federation of Japan Tuna Fisheries Cooperative Associations)/Kiribati |
June 1979 |
Agreement concerning the licensing of Japanese fishing vessels to fish within the fishery limits of the Republic of Kiribati |
|
Norway/USSR |
July 1979 |
Exchange of letters extending the provisional agreement on the delimitation of the Barents Sea |
|
USSR/Vietnam |
5 July 1979 |
Protocol on fishing |
|
Korea, Rep. (Atlantic Industry Co.)/Mauritania |
4 August 1979 |
Contract on fishing |
|
South Africa/Spain |
14 August 1979 |
Agreement on fisheries |
|
Portugal/Spain |
September 1979 |
Provisional fishing agreement |
|
Japan (Federation of Japan Tuna Fisheries Cooperative Associations and the National Federation of Fisheries Cooperative Associations of Japan)/Solomon Islands |
September 1979 |
Agreement concerning the issue of permits to Japanese fishing vessels to fish within the fishery limits of Solomon Islands |
|
Greece (Union des Armateurs Grecs de pêche Atlantique)/ Guinea |
7 September 1979 |
Protocol of-agreement |
|
Ghana (Mankoaze)/ Guinea |
7 October 1979 |
Agreement concerning maritime fishing off the Guinean coast |
|
Australia/Japan |
17 October 1979 |
Agreement on fisheries |
|
Australia/Japan |
17 October 1979 |
Subsidiary agreement concerning tuna long line fishing |
|
Iraq/Mauritania |
26 October 1979 |
Convention establishing the "Société arabe de pêche mauritano-irakienne" |
|
Portugal/Sao Tome and Principe |
27 October 1979 |
Agreement on fisheries cooperation |
|
Equatorial Guinea/ Spain |
31 October 1979 |
Agreement on cooperation in the field of marine fisheries |
|
EEC/Sweden |
21 November 1979 |
Agreement on certain measures for the purpose of promoting the reproduction of salmon in the Baltic Sea |
|
Senegal/Spain |
6 December 1979 |
Agreement in the field of marine fisheries |
|
Japan/USSR |
15 December 1979 |
Protocol amending and extending the Conventions of 27 May 1977 and of 4 August 1979 |
|
Japan (Federation of Japan Tuna Fisheries Cooperative Associations, the National Federation of Fisheries Cooperative Associations and the Far Seas Purse Seine Fishing Association)/ Micronesia |
22 December 1979 |
Agreement concerning the supply of goods and services for the development of the Federated States of Micronesia |
|
Japan (Federation of Japan Tuna Fisheries Cooperative Associations, the National Federation of Fisheries Cooperative Associations and the Far Seas Purse Seine Fishing Association)/ Micronesia |
22 December 1979 |
Fishing agreement |
|
Morocco/Spain |
29 December 1979 |
Fishing agreement |
|
Japan (Associations)/Papua New Guinea |
end of 1979 |
Arrangement concerning fishing within the fishing zone under the jurisdiction of Papua New Guinea |
|
Japan/Palau |
end of 1979 |
Fishing agreement |
|
Iceland/Denmark (Faroes) |
1980 |
Agreement on reciprocal fishing rights |
|
Korea, Peop. Dem. Rep./USSR |
January 1980 |
Protocol on fisheries cooperation |
|
Korea, Rep./ Solomon Islands |
January 1980 |
Agreement on fisheries cooperation |
|
Portugal/Spain |
February 1980 |
Fishing agreement |
|
Italy/Yugoslavia |
12 March and 27 June 1980 |
Exchange of notes extending the agreement of 15 June 1973 |
|
Japan/France |
March/April 1980 |
Agreement on fisheries |
|
Japan/Palau |
March/April 1980 |
Agreement on fisheries |
|
Japan (Associations)/Micronesia |
March/April 1980 |
Agreement on fisheries |
|
Angola/USSR |
April 1980 |
Protocol on fisheries cooperation |
|
Cape Verde/Portugal |
April 1980 |
Agreement on fisheries |
|
Guinea/Italy (Amopesca) |
1 April 1980 |
Agreement concerning fishing off the Guinean coasts |
|
Mauritania/Senegal |
17 April 1980 |
Proces-verbal on fishing |
|
Japan/USSR |
20 April 1980 |
Protocol relating to salmon-trout fisheries |
|
Iraq/Seychelles |
29 April 1980 |
Agreement relating to fisheries |
|
Iceland/Norway |
28 May 1980 |
Agreement on fishery and continental shelf matters (Jan Mayen) |
|
Angola/Spain |
11 June 1980 |
Fishery agreement (with annexes) |
|
Korea, Rep./Tuvalu |
18 June 1980 |
Fisheries agreement |
|
Canada/EEC |
27 June 1980 |
Agreement in the form of an exchange of letters concerning the extension of the agreement on fisheries |
|
Canada/EEC |
27 June 1980 |
Agreement in the form of an exchange of notes concerning salmon fishing |
|
Morocco/Spain |
30 June 1980 |
Exchange of letters on fishing |
|
Korea, Rep. (Deep Sea Fisheries Association of the Republic of Korea)/Tuvalu |
August 1980 |
Agreement concerning the licensing of fishing vessels of the Republic of Korea to fish within the fishery limits of Tuvalu |
|
Cook Islands/ Korea, Rep. |
August 1980 |
Agreement concerning the licensing of fishing vessels to fish within the Cook Islands Exclusive Economic Zone |
|
Cook Islands/ Korea, Rep. |
25 August 1980 |
Agreement on fisheries |
|
Maritime Authorities of Micronesia/USA (American Tuna Boat Association) |
5 September 1980 |
Agreement |
|
Japan (Federation of Japan Tuna Fisheries Cooperative Associations and the National Federation of Fisheries Cooperative Associations |
7 September 1980 |
Agreement concerning the issue of permits to Japanese fishing vessels to fish within the fishery limits of Solomon Islands |
|
Kiribati/Korea, Rep. |
Sept./Oct. 1980 |
Fishing agreement |
|
France/Korea, Rep. |
19 September 1980 |
Procès verbal concerning an exchange of letters on fishing |
|
Portugal/USA |
16 October 1980 |
Agreement concerning fisheries off the coasts of the United States with annexes |
|
Australia/Japan |
30 October 1980 |
Subsidiary agreement concerning Japanese tuna long-line fishing |
|
Japan (6 private associations)/ Micronesia |
5 December 1980 |
Fishing agreement |
|
Japan (6 private associations)/ Micronesia |
5 December 1980 |
Agreement concerning the supply of goods and services for the development of fisheries of the Federated States of Micronesia |
|
Japan/USSR |
6 December 1980 |
Protocol amending and extending the Conventions of 27 May 1977 and of 4 August 1977 |
|
Korea, Rep./Solomon Islands |
12 December 1980 |
Agreement on fisheries with agreed minutes |
|
Indonesia/Papua New Guinea |
13 December 1980 |
Agreement concerning maritime boundaries and cooperation in related matters |
|
Norway/Portugal |
25 December 1980 |
Exchange of notes on fishing |
|
Argentina/USSR |
50 December 1980 |
Protocol of understanding on fishery research |
|
Japan (associations)/Papua New Guinea |
end of 1980 |
Agreement concerning fishing within the fishing zone under the jurisdiction of Papua New Guinea |
|
Norway/Spain |
21 January 1981 |
Fisheries agreement |
|
Palau/USA |
26 January 1981 |
Agreement concerning fisheries off the coasts of the United States |
|
Korea, Rep./ Mauritania |
January 1981 |
Agreement on fishery cooperation |
|
Mauritania/USSR |
March 1981 |
Provisional agreement |
|
Portugal/Spain |
March 1981 |
Provisional agreement on fisheries |
|
Japan (private associations)/ Mauritania |
10 March 1981 |
Fishing agreement |
|
USSR/Yemen, Peop. Dem. Rep. |
19 March 1981 |
Protocol of agreement |
|
Japan/Marshall Islands |
25 March 1981 |
Agreement concerning fisheries off the coasts of the Marshall Islands |
|
Japan (Fisheries Association of Japan)/Palau |
25 March 1981 |
Agreement concerning fishing in the waters of Palau |
|
Morocco/Spain |
1 April 1981 |
Protocol of provisional agreement |
|
Japan/USSR |
20 April 1981 |
Protocol relating to salmon-trout fishery |
|
EEC/Guinea-Bissau |
|
Agreement in the form of an exchange of letters concerning the interim extension of the Protocol annexed to the agreement concerning fishing off the Guinea-Bissau coast. Approved by an EEC Council Decision dated 26 April 1982 |
|
Fiji (Ika Corporation)/Tuvalu |
19 June 1981 |
Fishing permit agreement |
|
Japan/France |
13 July 1981 |
Fishing agreement |
|
EEC/Senegal |
27 July 1981 |
Agreement in the form of an exchange of letters concerning an interim extension of the Protocol annexed to the agreement on fishing off the coast of Senegal |
|
Japan (several associations)/ Papua New Guinea |
7 August 1981 |
Arrangement concerning fishing within the fishing zone under the jurisdiction of Papua New Guinea |
|
Portugal/Spain |
September 1981 |
Protocol relating to the implementation of the agreements of 1969 and 1978 |
|
Micronesia/USA (American Tuna- Boat Association) |
5 September 1981 |
Amendment Number One to the agreement |
|
Denmark/Norway |
7 September 1981 |
Temporary arrangement |
|
Mauritania/Romania |
15 September 1981 |
Agreement on fishery cooperations |
|
Cape Verde/Spain |
25 September 1981 |
Agreement on cooperation in the field of fisheries |
|
Japan (Federation of Japan Tuna Fisheries Cooperative Associations and the national Federation of Fisheries Cooperative Associations/ Kiribati |
October 1981 |
Agreement concerning the licensing of Japanese fishing vessels to fish within the fishery limits of the Republic of Kiribati |
|
Korea, Rep. (Samyane Enterprise Co. ltd.)/Micronesia |
12 October 1981 |
Foreign fisheries agreement |
|
Sierra Leone/USSR |
15 October 1981 |
Protocol on fisheries |
|
Korea, Rep, (Deep Sea Fisheries Association of the Republic of Korea)/Tuvalu |
25 October 1981 |
Agreement concerning the licensing of fishing vessels of the Republic of Korea to fish within the fishery limits of Tuvalu |
|
Australia/Japan |
29 October 1981 |
Subsidiary agreement concerning Japanese tuna long line fishing |
|
Norway/USSR |
November 1981 |
Agreement on the division of quotas in the Barents Sea |
|
EEC/Suriname |
24 November 1981 |
Provisional agreement on the issuance of licences to EEC |
|
Cook Islands/Korea, Rep. (Fisheries Associations of the Republic of Korea) |
26 November 1981 |
Agreement concerning the licensing of fishing vessels to fish within the Cook Islands Exclusive Economic Zone |
|
Cameroon/ Equatorial Guinea |
26 November 1981 |
Protocol of agreement |
|
Equatorial Guinea/ Nigeria |
27 November 1981 |
Agreement on fishing rights |
|
France/Korea, Rep. |
end November 1981 |
Fisheries agreement |
|
Japan/USSR |
16 December 1981 |
Protocol amending and extending the Convention of 27 May 1977 and 4 August 1977 |
|
EEC/Senegal |
|
Agreement in the form of an exchange of letters providing for provisional application of the agreement amending the agreement on fishing off the coast of Senegal and the protocol thereto. Approved by the EEC Council by a decision of 21 December 1981 |
|
Canada/EEC |
30 December 1981 |
Agreement in the form of an exchange of letters concerning fishing relations |
|
USSR/Yemen, Peop. Dem. Rep. |
end of 1981 |
Fishing protocol |
|
Denmark (Faroes)/ German Dem. Rep. |
beginning 1982 |
Fishery agreement |
|
France (Lagun Artean)/Mauritania |
January 1982 |
Agreement |
|
Japan (Fisheries Associations of Japan)/Palau |
13 January 1982 |
Memorandum of agreement extending the agreement concerning fisheries in the waters of Palau of 25 March 1981 |
|
EEC/Senegal |
21 January 1982 |
Agreement amending the agreement on fishing off the coast of Senegal signed on 15 June 1979 |
|
Korea, Rep. (Sambu Industrial Co. Ltd.)/ Micronesia |
12 February 1982 |
Foreign fishing agreement |
|
Senegal/Spain |
16 February 1982 |
Fisheries agreement |
|
Mauritania/Spain |
6 April 1982 |
Agreement on economic cooperation |
|
Mauritania/Spain |
6 April 1982 |
Agreement on fishing |
|
Papua New Guinea/ |
17 March 1982 |
Fishing agreement |
|
USA (American Tuna-Boat Association) |
|
|
|
Japan (Federation of Japan Tuna Fisheries Cooperative Associations and the National Federation of Fisheries Cooperative Associations)/ Marshall Islands |
23 March 1982 |
Agreement concerning operations of fishing vessels within the fishery zone of the Marshall Islands |
|
Morocco/Spain |
31 March 1982 |
Exchange of letters extending the protocol of provisional agreement of 1 April 1981 |
|
Korea, Rep. (Deep Sea Fisheries Association of the Republic of Korea)/ Solomon Islands |
13 April 1982 |
Agreement concerning the issuance of permits to fishing vessels of the Republic of Korea to fish within the fishery limits of Solomon Islands |
|
Japan (Federation of Japan Tuna Fisheries Cooperative Associations and the National Federation of Fisheries Cooperative Associations)/Micronesia |
16 April 1982 |
Foreign fishing agreement |
|
USA/USSR |
22 & 29 April 1982 |
Exchange of notes extending the agreement concerning fisheries off the coasts of the United States of 26 November 1976 |
|
Japan/USSR |
23 April 1982 |
Protocol relating to salmon-trout fishery |
|
Japan/New Zealand |
7 May 1982 |
Exchange of letters extending the agreement on fisheries of 1 September 1978 |
|
Denmark (Faroes)/ EEC |
|
Exchange of letters establishing measures for salmon fishing in North Atlantic waters approved by a decision of the EEC Council of 11 May 1982 |
|
Spain/USA |
30 June & 2 July 1982 |
Exchange of notes extending the agreement on fishing off the coasts of the United States of 16 February 1977 |
|
Korea, Rep./USA |
26 July 1982 |
Agreement concerning fisheries off the coasts of the United States with agreed minutes |
|
Spain/USA |
29 July 1982 |
Agreement concerning fisheries off the coasts of the United States |
|
Korea, Rep./ New Zealand |
August 1982 |
Exchange of notes extending the agreement on fisheries of 16 March 1978 |
|
New Zealand/USSR |
August 1982 |
Exchange of notes extending the agreement on fisheries of 4 April 1978 |
|
France/USSR |
2 August 1982 |
Fishing agreement |
|
EEC/Guinea |
10 August 1982 (initialed on) |
Agreement on fishing off the Guinean coast |
|
France/Japan |
14 August 1982 |
Fishing agreement (French Polynesia) |
|
France/Japan |
14 August 1982 |
Fishing agreement (New Caledonia, Wallis and Futuna, Indian Ocean French Territories) |
|
Nigeria/Mauritania |
November 1982 |
Agreement amending the agreement of 14 March 1977 |
|
Nigeria/Senegal |
8 November 1982 |
Fishing agreement |
|
Morocco/Spain |
31 December 1982 |
Agreement extending the exchange of letters of 31 March 1982 |
