2ir)(){

j'ö

JPRS 80976

3 June 1982

ift.

Worldwide Report

LAW OF THE SEA

No. 199

FBIS FOREIGN BROADCAST INFORMATION SERVICE
NOTE

JPRS publications contain information primarily from foreign

newspapers, periodicals and books, but also from news agency

transmissions and broadcasts. Materials from foreign-language

sources are translated; those from English-language sources

are transcribed or reprinted, with the original phrasing and

other characteristics retained.

Headlines, editorial reports, and material enclosed in brackets

[] are supplied by JPRS. Processing indicators such as [Text]

or [Excerpt] in the first line of each item, or following the

last line of a brief, indicate how the original information was

processed. Where no processing indicator is given, the information was summarized or extracted.

Unfamiliar names rendered phonetically or transliterated are

enclosed in parentheses. Words or names preceded by a question mark and enclosed in parentheses were not clear in the

original but have been supplied as appropriate in context.

Other unattributed parenthetical notes within the body of an

item originate with the source. Times within items are as

given by source.

The contents of this publication in no way represent the policies, views or attitudes of the U.S. Government.

PROCUREMENT OF PUBLICATIONS

JPRS publications may be ordered from the National Technical

Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161. In ordering, it is recommended that the JPRS number, title, date and

author, if applicable, of publication be cited.

Current JPRS publications are announced in Government Reports

Announcements issued semi-monthly by the National Technical

Information Service, and are listed in the Monthly Catalog of

U.S. Government Publications issued by the Superintendent of

Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

20402.

Correspondence pertaining to matters other than procurement

may be addressed to Joint Publications Research Service,

1000 North Glebe Road, Arlington, Virginia 22201.
JPRS 80976

3 June 1982

WORLDWIDE REPORT

LAW OF THE SEA

No. 199

CONTENTS

WORLDWIDE AFFAIRS

Finfish Catch Allocations in New Zealand Waters Issued

(Various sources, various dates)

Locals Get One-Third

Joint Ventures Complain

ASIA

INTER-ASIAN AFFAIRS

New Zealand Aiding Development of South Pacific Fisheries

(THE PRESS, 16 Apr 82)

AUSTRALIA

Prospects of Five Offshore Oil Wells Discussed

(Paul Colvey; THE COURIER-MAIL, 30 Mar 82)

Briefs

Ship Position Reports

INDIA

Nation Objects to Dacca Move at Law-of-the Sea Talks

(THE STATESMAN, 3 May 82)

MALAYSIA

U.S. Monopoly on Funds, Technology Will Not Last Forever

(Chandra Kumar; NEW STRAITS TIMES, 15 Apr 82)

-a - [III - WW - 136]
NEW ZEALAND

Decision on Importing More Deep-Sea Trawlers Deferred

(THE NEW ZEALAND HERALD, various dates) 10

Limited Catches Cited

Fishing Company Protests

Deep-Sea Trawlers From UK To Open New Fishing Era

(THE PRESS, 19 Apr 82) 12

Fisheries Minister Stresses Need for Controlled Access

(THE PRESS, 13 Apr 82) 13

Local Firm To Drill for Oil, Gas Off Taranaki in 1983

(THE NEW ZEALAND HERALD, 8 Apr 82) 15

Four Oil Prospecting Licenses Off South Island Granted

(THE EVENING POST, 16 Apr 82) 16

SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA

GUINEA-BISSAU

Briefs

Seized Ships Fined 17

WEST EUROPE

FRANCE

Sea Group Leader Speaks on Decentralization, Ocean Policy

(Jean Lacombe Interview; LA NOUVELLE REVUE MARITIME,

Mar 82) 18

NORWAY

Norway's LOS Ambassador, Observer Weigh Results of LOS Talks

(Various sources, various dates) 22

Deplores Treatment of Developing Countries,

by Arvid Bryne

Hegge Sees Nationalism As Problem,

by Per Egil Hegge

- b -
WORLDWIDE AFFAIRS

FINFISH CATCH ALLOCATIONS IN NEW ZEALAND WATERS ISSUED

Locals Get One-Third

Auckland THE NEW ZEALAND HERALD In English 8 Apr 82 p 3

[Text] The domestic fishing fleet has been allocated a third of the

allowable finfish catch

for the coming season.

The overall total has been

slightly reduced from last

season.

Limits on catches have

been introduced for hoki, ling

and oreo dory.

The domestic allocation in

the extended economic fishing zone is 110,000 tonnes of

the 340,000-tonne trawl total.

Foreign licensed vessels

have been allocated 104,100

tonnes — Japan, 66,000;

Korea, 5600; and the Soviet

j Union, 32,500. The joint-venture fleet has been allocated

125,900 tonnes.

Most of the 23,000-tonne

total allocation for bottom

longlining — 16,500 tonnes —

has not been allocated to any

particular fleet or country.

However, the domestic fleet

has been given 3000 tonnes.

Species limits will remain

in force for' hake, silver warehou and orange roughy.

The total allowable catch for

all finfish is 363,000 tonnes,

down from 379,000 last

season.

Licence fees for foreign

fishing in the zone have been

increased. The fee goes up

from $17 to $18 a tonne of

allocation, or from $24 to $28

a tonne, depending on the

area being fished. The bottom longlining fee rises from

$25 to $30 a tonne. . .-,:<• . . The Minister of Agriculture

and Fisheries, Mr Maclntyre, said yesterday that

the Government was not trying to deny share fishermen

the right to own their own

vessels when , it, introduced

the moratorium on new commercial fishing permits.

Mr Maclntyre was speaking in \ Auckland at the

annual ponference of the

New Zealand Share Fishermen's .Association, before

he becanie ill on his way to

the airport.

The minister told the fishermen that he knew there

was concern about the effectiveness of the moratorium.

"I believe that this concern

stems from worries you have

as share fishermen that you

may be denied a permit to

fish in your own right from

your own. vessel once you

feel you can make the move

from share fishing," he said.

"Our aim is to stop the'

constant influx of new fishermen into the domestic fishery, not to'deny people the

right to advance in their

present occupation."

Mr Maclntyre said the

Government wanted to hold

the number of permits at the

March 1982 level until other

management measures could

be put into place.

"The Government is committed to getting as many

New Zealanders as possible

economically involved in

fishing and in ensuring the

best possible return to New

Zealand from the resource,"

Mr Maclntyre said.

But the minister warned

that making the fishing industry a wholly New Zealand

one would take time.
Joint Ventures Complain

Christchurch THE PRESS in English 13 Apr 82 p 24

[Text] PA Wellington

Joint fishing ventures have

attacked Government finfish

allocations, saying they will

force many ventures out of

business.

The Government has cut

joint venture quotas in productive fishing areas and

increased quotas in non-productive and useless areas,

says the Joint Venture Partners Committee's chairman.

Mr Ron Morris.

"This is an extreme move

which is completely unjustifiable." he said from his

Timaru home. "They didn't

have the guts to say there

are too many joint ventures

and some should go home.

They just did this instead."

Mr Morris, whose committee represents the 11 joint

venture companies working

the New Zealand fishing,

zone, said he had the impression the Government had

fixed the allocations jn this

way because it did not want

the joint ventures to survive.

"It knows as well as we do

that we couldn't survive

under this sort of arrangement. We can't live with this

allocation." he said. . ,

The joint ventures' total

finfish catch in Area G. to

the west of the South Island,

was cut from 18.000 tonnes

last year to 11.000 for the

season beginning this month.

Area G was a particularly

productive area for hoki.

The quota for Area F.

immediately' south of the

South Island, was cut-from

12.500 tonnes to 300 tonnes,

and in Area D. on the Chatham Rise, from 45.000 tonnes

to 30.000.

But the quota in the nonproductive Area M, west of

the North Island, was increased from 5000 tonnes to

16.500 tonnes, and in the

"useless" Area E. far to the

south of tjhe South Island, the'

quota was a very high 48.000

tonnes.

"Effectively half of thetotal we have been given is

in areas which are almost

useless for us." Mr Morris

said. .

"There arc just no quantities of fish there — they arc

the , two least productive

areas in the 200-mile zone.

Foreign licensed boats had

been allocated 8700 tonnes in

Area F.. while joint ventures

were given 300 tonnes.

"Why should the foreign

licensed boats be .given this

favourable treatment? The

order of preference in allocation is supposed to be the

domestic Tleet first, joint

ventures next and foreign

licensed boats last." Mr Morris said.'

Joint venture quotas were

125.000 tonnes, compared

with 167.000 last year, while

the foreign licensed boats'

quota dropped 'from 113.000

last-year to 104.100 this year:

Foreign vessels' licence

fees has risen from- between

$1 to $5 a tonne depending'on

the area fished.

Th° secretary of the^ Federation of ' Commercial

Fishermen. Mr Ray Poison,

said .that foreign fishing

vessels in New Zealand

waters were being protected

by the Government as part

of a trade-off deal.

The Government decision

to close the door for three

months to other New Zealand companies • after

Fletcher Fishing had won

approval to import two

vessels made nonsense, he

said.•

"Because of this decision

the joint venture 'boats the

imported vessels would have

replaced can carry on fishing."

"Trade and Industry and

Foreign Affairs are obviously

using the fishing industry for

trading purposes.''

Fishing industry officials

believe the Government .has

offered Japan and Russia

this extra protection from

New Zealand competition in

return for better deals on

wool, timber, and meat exports.

"As far as we're concerned

the' fishing industry is once

again playing second fiddle

to other industries." Mr Polson said.

"It's obvious that the fishing industry is not one of the

great industries of the future

as shown in the Government's manifesto."

CSO: 5200/9089
INTER-ASIAN AFFAIRS

NEW ZEALAND AIDING DEVELOPMENT OF SOUTH PACIFIC FISHERIES

Christchurch THE PRESS in English 16 Apr 82 p 13

[Text] A course for fisheries

cadets at Nelson Polytechnic,

contributions to tuna and

billfish surveys, technical advice on the construction of a

tuna fleet, and funding of

freezer storage projects, are

among the forms of assistance New Zealand bilateral

and regional aid programmes are making to the

development of South Pacific

fisheries.

The Nelson Polytechnic

course lasts 18 weeks. It

began in February for 10

cadets from Pacific Island

countries, including Papua

New Guinea, Kiribati. Vanuatu. Solomon Islands and the

Cook Islands.

The course was specially

devised for South Pacific

conditions. For example, instruction in the operation

and maintenance of outboard

motors is given more emphasis than it would be in a

course for New Zealand fisheries cadets. The course is

divided into six blocks —

three in the classroom, two

at sea, and one which involves training in fish handling and processing.

Similar courses for fisheries trainees from Island

countries were held at Nelson Polytechnic in 1979 and1981'. The 1982 course is cofunded by _New Zealand's

regional aid programme, the

South Pacific Commission

and the Commonwealth Fund

for Technical Co-operation.

At the request of the South

Pacific Commission, New

Zealand is also providing

help for a regional tuna and

billfish survey. The aims of

the project are to estimate

total tuna and billfish resources, advise countries in

the region of the potential of

their fisheries, and investigate fishing methods and

boat types, .

New Zealand provided a

grant of »60,000 in 1981-82 to

help launch the project,

which is a follow-up to. the

skipjack tuna survey completed last year by the South

Pacific Commission. To help

fund the survey, New Zealand contributed just over

$300,000 between 1977 and

1981.

Tuna is considered the

most important fisheries resource in the South Pacific,

and this has been recognised

in the decision'by the Government of the Solomon

Islands to build a fleet of

catchers with help from New

Zealand and the Asian Development Bank. The bank is

providing the capital and

New Zealand the expertise.

Three New Zealand advisers

are supervising the construction, fitting out and commissioning of the first four (of

10) 21-metre pole-and-llne

catchers, built in ferro-concrete.

In Tuvalu. New Zealand is

providing $17,000 over two.

years (1981-83) for the purchase and equipping of an

inshore fisheries vessel.

The use of refrigeration in

fish "storage projects is a

feature of the help New

Zealand is providing in

Papua New Guinea and the

Cook Islands.

For more than five years

New Zealand has contributed

equipment and expertise to a

coastal fishing venture in the

West New Britain region of

Papua New Guinea. Ice-making equipment, cold stores,

generators and a 20-metre

barge have been supplied to

the project together with the

expert assistance of a refrigeration engineer on a longterm assignment.

In the Cook Islands, a

grant of $90,000 late last

year went towards the provision of fish freezer equipment for the outer islands of

Rakahanga and Palmerston.

CSO: 5200/9090
AUSTRALIA

PROSPECTS OF FIVE OFFSHORE OIL WELLS DISCUSSED

Brisbane THE COURIER-MAIL in English 30 Mar 82 p 24

[Article by Paul Colvey]

[Text] MEXBOURNE. — Recent newspaper coverage of gluts and

falling prices on world oil markets has overshadowed some

important exploration work currently under way in

Australia.

The results of seven wells now being?

drilled are being «waited with a good

deal of interest.

The wells, five of them offshore* are'

important because success in any of

them will add significantly to Aus-,

tralia't petroleum reserves or open new -

areas for intensive exploration.

The well that appears to have the

biggest potential is Vulcan No. I in

permit NT/P2 off the northern West

Australian coast.

Vulcan, started on March 8, is aiming

for a geological structure which'

geologists say could contain hundreds of

millions of barrels of oil.

This would place it in the category of

some of the Bass Strait fields, which

contain most of Australia's indigenous

oil.

Eight exploration wells were drilled in

the Vulcan area between 1972 and 1980

and one of them, Puffin No. 2 in 1974,

bad an oil flow of 4700 barrels a day

.on test, -..-.y.,.—-~. ^...."N..v,-.,

Whether the Vulcan structure contains oil or not should be known some

time next month when the well is

scheduled to reach its target area.

The US company Citco has 20-

percent of the permit and is the

operator.

1$$$$

Others involved are Weeks Australia,

Ampol Exploration, Australian Aquitaine, Guff Oil Australia, Arco of the

US and two Canadia firms.

Weeks is particularly enthusiastic

about the possibilities for Vulcan. It has

recently doubled its percentage holding

in NT/P2 to around 24 percent.

Onshore, Jackson South No. 1 in the

Queensland portion of the Cooper Basin

holds most interest where last week it

was reported that an oil Jlow had

occurred of 640 barrels a day through

a 12 mm choke. •

This well, started on March 9, is only

5.8 kilometres from Jackson No. l\

which hit the headlines last year with

oil flows of up to 2600 barrels a

day.

The South well's target is a formation

similar to Jackson but separate from

it.

Should the second formation prove as

expected, the Jackson field could be

doubled to close to 100 million barrels

of recoverable oil.

The Jackson partners are Santos,

CSR-owned Delhi, Vamgas, Claremont

and Oil Co.

Another Cooper well of interest this

one in the South Australian section, is

Alliance Oil Development's Merrimelia

No. 8.

This well is seeking an extension to

the Merrimelia oil and gas field.

In Victoria, the Triton No. I well

being drilled in Vic/P15 could have a

big impact on future exploration in the

offshore Otway basin.

The well, the first in this offshore

area for a number of years, is being

drilled by Esso. Its partner in the permit
area is Beach Petroleum.

Geologists say improved seismic and

interpretation techniques have increased

the chances of finding oil or gas in the

basin — if any is there.

$$$$

Obviously a successful Triton well

will spur on further exploration in the

Otway basin.

Similarly Columbia No. 1 being

drilled in the Great Australian Bight off

the South Australian coast, will

stimulate interest in this area if

petroleum is discovered.

sPhoenix No. 2

WA L 1

QLD

_

The Bight has been only very lightly,

and unsuccessfully, explored in the

past.

Columbia is being drilled by Australia Occidental, which holds two

thirds of the permit area.

Two wells currently being drilled off

the WA coast could add substantial

amounts to Australia's gas reserves.

These are Scott Reef North No. 1

being drilled by Woodside, and Phoenix.

No. 2, being drilled by BP Australia.

A number of other companies,

including AAR, AOG, Bridge, Offshore

Oil and Endeavour Resources have

small shares in Phoenix.

Scott Reef North is being drilled to

find out if there is a northern extension

to the Scott Reef gas discovery made

in 1972.

The original Scott Reef well made

Woodside's first significant gas discovery on the North-West Shelf.

The drill ship Ben Lomond began

drilling Phoenix No. 2 early this

month.

Its objective is to determine the

extent of the gas discovery made last

year in the Phoenix No. 1 well.

CSO: 5200/7536
AUSTRALIA

BRIEFS

SHIP POSITION REPORTS-CANBERRA: Ships in Australian waters will have to report their position daily from tomorrow to make search-and-rescue operations

easier. They will have to send sailing reports, position reports and final

reports through coastal radio stations to the Australian Coastal Surveillance

Centre in Canberra, which coordinates all ship movements and rescue operations.

The Transport Minister, Mr Hunt, said yesterday that the new law was an attempt

to reduce the time between a ship getting into trouble and the rescue starting

The reporting system was the first in the world and had been operating on a

voluntary basis for about eight years. The Australian ship-reporting system

will be compulsory for all Australian ships and for foreign ships between

their first Australian port and their last. Mr Hunt said that the system was

provided free by the Federal Government as part of its obligations under the

United Nations conventions on safety of life at sea. The Australian searchand-rescue area was the biggest in the world, covering a ninth of the world's

surface.

CSO: 5200/7536
INDIA

NATION OBJECTS TO DACCA MOVE AT LAW-OE-THE-SEA TALKS

Calcutta THE STATESMAN in English 3 May 82 p 5

[Text] U.N. H.Q., May 2—India has objected to a Bangladesh attempt at the

Law of the Sea conference to revive its formulation that would give it a wider

territorial sea, exclusive economic zone and continental shelf in the Bay of

Bengal, reports PTI.

In a letter to the conference, Mr S. P. Jagota, who headed the Indian official

team, said that the Bangladesh proposal would have the effect of establishing

"a new rule of international law." The formula sought to establish straight

baseline from base points at sea rather than from the coastline as provided

for in law.

Mr Jagota also disputed the Bangladesh claim that when its proposal was first

made in 1978, it received "substantial and favourable support" from a large

number of delegations and that such support still existed.

He said that the Bangladesh suggestion was not discussed with India, as implied

earlier. It had also not been raised at the conference since 1978 "except now."

In his letter, the Bangladesh suggestion was not discussed with India, as

implied earlier. It had also not been raised at the conference since 1978

"except now."

In his letter, the Bangladesh representative said that his country had made

the proposal because of the "unique configuration" of its coastline and shallow

water considerations, not amenable to conventional charting. Except for the

channels leading to the two riverine ports of Chalna and Chittagong, the offshore area has not historically been navigable and that situation continues to

remain so," he said.

Meanwhile, the Law of the Sea conference president, Mr Tommy T.B. Koh, has

warned that if the USA combining with other industrialized States, concluded

a mini sea treaty" outside the universal sea convention and went ahead with

seabed mining, he would persuade the General Assembly to refer the issue to

the International Court of Justice for advisory opinion.

Addressing a press conference yesterday on the just concluded sea convention

Mr Koh said: "We do not know how the court will rule, but, if the court ruling
is that such activities under the 'mini treaty' are illegal. I would like to

see whether these Western countries, which have been sermonizing to the Third

World countries about the rule of law, will ask their consortia to stop such

activities, or whether they will reveal themselves to be a bunch of greedy

hypocrites."

By an overwhelming majority, the conference on Friday adopted the draft sea

convention which was under preparation for the past nine years.

While 130 countries voted for the 320-clause package the USA and three others

voted against and 17 countries abstained.

Thunderous ovation marked the passage of the treaty which declares trillions

of dollars worth of live mineral resources on the sea-bed—the common heritage

of man.

India was accorded the status of a "pioneer investor" in the treaty enabling

it to undertake deep seabed mining for mineral-rich polymetallic sulphides in

a site to be determined in the Indian Ocean.

AP adds: The convention on the Law of the Sea, as the treaty is called will

be signed in September in Caracas. It will enter into force a year after 60

countries have ratified or acceded to it.

CSO: 5200/7039
U.S. MONOPOLY ON FUNDS, TECHNOLOGY WILL NOT LAST FOREVER

Kuala Lumpur NEW STRAITS TIMES in English 15 Apr 82 p 14

[Article by Chandra Kumar]

MALAYSIA

[Text]

ONCE again 150 national

delegates are assembled

in New York for a session

(the eleventh) of the

Third United Nations

Conference on the Law of

the Sea. Once again they

hope this will be the last

meeting of a conference

that has been locked in

complex negotiations for

over eight years.

The hope is tinged with

suspicion and apprehension about the US

attitude and the reactions of like-minded nations.

President Reagan has

said that the US is ready

to try to shape a final

treaty compatible with

US interests. • He wants "meaningful

changes" in certain

seabed miningprovisions

of the draft treaty.

How meaningful and

how significant has been

spelled out firmly by Ambassador James Malone,

head of the US delegation

at the talks. He went to

London to try to persuade

friendly countries like

Britain to fall into line

with the US.

At a speech to the

Royal Institute of International Affairs, he

stressed the need for industrialised and especially like-minded countries such as Britain,

West Germany and

Japan, to show solidarity

in the talks.

From his observations, the outlook for resolution of the differences

teems a little brighter or

more helpful. His

sternness may have been

a pre-negotiation pose.

Benefit

Most nations at the

talks are in no mood to be

trifled with. They realise

theneed for the US to Join

as a signatory to the treaty if it is to be really

effective and implemented for the benefit

of the entire international community and

would be willing to consider minor changes.

But they would be extremely reluctant to

make substantial alterations and so re-open the

can of worms.

The Draft Convention

on the Law of the Sea is a

comprehensive document formulated after

tortuous negotiations,

word by word and clause

by clause, over seven

years.

The US played an important part in the negotiating process and the

final document, issued in

August 1980 for adoption

in 1981, was arrived at by

remarkable unanimity

and consensus among

such a large group of diverse nations often having conflicting Interests.

It was a package deal,

based on compromises

and trade-offs.

The president of the

conference, Tommy Koh

of Singapore, told a Press

conference at the end of

the tenth session at Geneva last year: "The Programme of j»ork just

adopted by the conference spelt out its collective determination

that with or without the

United States, delegates

intended to bring the conference to a successful

conclusion next spring

and that, unlike previous

occasions, we do not intend to let the commitment slip away from our

fingers."

US concern about the

Draft Convention, revised and upgraded as an

"official" instead of an

"informal" text, relates to

issues of free access to

ocean sites, consistent

with principles of free

market economies, decision-making machinery and substantial anxieties about the provision

for deep seabed mining

and transfer of technology.

Balance

The concessions demanded strike at the

very roots and basis of

previous US administrations. Any attempt to

unravel the package

would lead to unpredictable consequences.

The answer lies in

achieving a balance between the interests of all

the parties concerned in

negotiations rather than

any show of force on the'

part of those who, at present, control the pursestrings and technology.

The monopoly

stranglehold will not last

forever.

Some advanced developing nations are already near technological

breakthroughs.

If the treaty is finally

adopted by a consensus

among all nations, it will

mark a milestone in international relations.

The nations of the

world will then re-assemble in Caracas, and

proclaim their success

from the hallowed spot

which was the site of the

first substantive session

of the conference in 1974.

- GEMINI.

CSO: 5200/8211
NEW ZEALAND

DECISION ON IMPORTING MORE DEEP-SEA TRAWLERS DEFERRED

Limited Catches Cited

Auckland THE NEW ZEALAND HERALD in English 6 Apr 82 p 3

[Text] ! The Government has put

! off deciding whether to allow 1 more deep-sea trawlers to be

imported.

The cabinet" yesterday deferred the decision for three

months.

Several local fishing companies wanted to import the

trawlers after Fletcher Fishing Ltd was allowed to import two from Britain.

But the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, Mr

Maclntyre, said yesterday

that imports would be restricted to the two Fletcher

boats until ministry officials

finished a plan for deepwater

fisheries.

•''Experience since 1978 has

shown there are only limited

numbers of high-value specie's available each season,"

Mr Maclntyre said.

He said there was pressure

on the species from the existing 23 joint venture vessels.

This would be increased by

the two Fletcher vessels.-

The 22 domestic vessels of

around 35 metres were also

capable of working the fishery.

The chief executive of Sealords Products Ltd, Nelson,

Mr Graham France, said

last night that he was "disappointed, to put it mildly,"

to hear the decision.

He did not understand how

the Government could agree

to give Fletchers, a new

company in the fishing industry, a preferential right over

other companies.

Fletchers now had an advantage over the traditional

fishing industries and a very

competitive situation had developed, i

Fishing Company Protests

Auckland THE NEW ZEALAND HERALD in English 7 Apr 82 p 16

[Text] The Government's decision to allow one company to import two

large deepsea trawlers and to delay approvals for other trawlers' has

been described by one of the country's leading fishing companies as

"straight-out favouritism."

The move means Fletcher

Fishing Ltd will get a full

season's fishing out of its two

imported Bntish deepsea

trawlers while many companies face the prospect of

losing their boat import arrangements with overseas

sellers because of the threemonth time lag imposed by

the Government.

The Government decided

this week it would defer for

three months decisions on

the . importation of more

deepsea trawlers.

Sänford Ltd is one company with plans to import

near-new British trawlers.

The managing director of

the company, Mr Neil Mills,

yesterday described the Goveriment decision as

"straight-out favouritism."

10
Sale Option

He said the stupid aspect

of the decision was that

under existing legislation a

company like Sanford could

import,,a new boat without

Government 'approval, if it

could afford it.

"What is the difference between a new or an old boat

when it comes to catching

fish?" he asked.

"Fletcher's could flood the

Auckland market with

orange roughy and mess up

everyone else's fishing if

they wanted to."

Mr Mills said he did not

know if his company could

keep an option on two British

Boyd Line trawlers for three

more months.

Fletcher Fishing bought its

two deepsea trawlers from

the Boyd Line of HulL and

Sanford has been negotiating

a similar deal.

the chairman of the Fishing Industry Board, Mr Mark

Hinchliff, said the decisions

the Government had to make

on fishing would be no easier

In three months than they

were now.

He said the board recognised the decisions it had 'to

take were difficult because

of the relatively limited

quantities of more highly

valued deeper water species

and competition for them

from existing domestic!

boats, joint ventures and the!

larger boats which New Zea-;

land companies wanted to

acquire.

A thorough economic

analysis by the board of the

effects of the,introduction of

more local deepsea boats

showed the plans to be

viable, and it would allow

the continuation, in the short

term at least, of existing

joint ventures with overseas

partners.

"A major problem was the

possible disruption of existing purchasing arrangements for good quality secohd-hand deepwater vessels

by New Zealand interests,"

he said.

"Should these vessels' become unavailable the high

cost of alternative new or

second-hand vessels will

make investment in the fishery uneconomic, and will

make it unlikely in the medium term that the domestic

expansion will take place.

Talks Today

"The board has considerable sympathy for the New

Zealand companies which

are seeking to do exactly the

same (as Fletcher Fishing)

but whose opportunity to follow this initiative could be

severely affected by the Government's delay in making a

decision.

"The industry needs a

clear statement of Government policy so that it can

plan for its future expansion," said Mr Hinchliff.

"The 'board is at present

preparing further detailed

submissions for the Govern-1

ment on appropriate man-|

agement and investment!

strategies for the develop-!

ment of the deepwater fish-1

ery."

Many of the local fish-i

ermen who were in line for!

new jobs on the deepsea'

trawlers which the other'

local companies wanted to

import will meet at Auckland

today at the New Zealand

Share Fishermen's Con-,

ference. !

CSO: 5200/9091

11
NEW ZEALAND

DEEP-SEA TRAWLERS FROM UK TO OPEN NEW FISHING ERA

Christchurch THE PRESS in English 19 Apr 82 p 6

[Text] pA Dunedin

The first of the large

trawlers ordered by Fletcher

Fishing, Ltd. arrived at

Dunedin from Britain yesterday to start a new era in

New Zealand fishing.

The 30m Otago Buccaneer

arrived at the Port of Otago

to join Fletcher's Dunedinbascd fleet.

Hundreds of people lined

the harbour to welcome the

trawler, which tied up about

11 a.m.

A sister ship, the Otago

Galliard, is due at Dunedin

on Wednesday.

Together the trawlers represent a $15 million investment in the deep-sea fishing

industry by Fletcher's.

Otago Buccaneer's English

skipper, Mr Michael Langrick, and the first mate, Mr

Tony Tuton, said that they

were looking forward to

starting work in New Zealand waters. •;.

Mr Langrick, aged 29, has

had 12 years experience in

the industry. He said that the

six-week delivery voyage

was uneventful, with fine

weather most of the way.

The Otago Buccaneer and

. the Otago Galliard will begin

fishing in New Zealand

waters on May 1, seeking

orange roughy in areas from

25 to 400 nautical miles off

the east coast of the South

Island.

The two trawlers,

formerly regarded as the

pride of the British deep-sea

fleet, are the largest New

Zealand-owned trawlers.

They cost about $10,000 a day

to run and when on the

grounds will fish 24 hours a

day.

Eventually both ships will

be manned by New Zealand

fishermen, but for the next

two yeate a core of experienced Hull fishermen .will

form the basis of the three

crews — one a relief crew —

while the New Zealandcrs

are trained.

Initially, 24 Hull men will

be the core of each crew,

with up to 10 New Zealanders • working in the engine room, on the deck, or on

the bridge of each trawler.

The use of the Hull men

has been necessary because

of the complexity of the

ships and the way they work.

Although New Zealand

fishermen are experienced in

inshore fishing, few have the

skills needed to work these

trawlers, which even by

European standards are very

sophisticated.

The two trawlers, both of

1660 tonnes, were built in

Poland in 1975 for the Boyd

Line, of Hull.

Between now and May 1

they will be fitted with new

. heading and gutting equipment; as well as grading,

washlAg, and other gear.

CSO: 5200/9091

12
FISHERIES MINISTER STRESSES NEED FOR CONTROLLED ACCESS

Christchurch THE PRESS in English 13 Apr 82 p 24

NEW ZEALAND

[Text] A" tin-- issues of'the fishing

industry really boiled down

lo the one basic problem of

controlled access, the Minister of Fisheries I Mr MacIntyrei told the Share Fishermen's Association in Auckland.

The questions of who

should fish for what species,

by which methods, where

and when, underlay all New

Zealand's attempts to manage its fisheries to its best

advantage, he said.

Fishing was one of NewZealand's growth industries.

Between 1970-80 fish exports

rose almost tenfold, from

10.000 tonnes (valued more

than $17 million) to 110.000

tonnes (valued more than

$160 million).- Last year New'

Zealand had exported 120.000

tonnes of fish valued at $190

million, which was 17 per

cent up on 1980. This was

three limes more than

kiwifruit had earned and

one-third more than export

receipts from cheese.

Mr Maclntyre said everyone in the fishinu industryhad a responsibility lor managing the hiulngical resources of New Zealand's

extensive waters.

It was a public misconception that the huge ocean area

had been taken to mean

abundant fish stocks.' and

that misconception had to be

dispelled. Comparatively

speaking, the fishing grounds

were not rich in resources.

The scant resources had to

be managed not just for

today but for tomorrow and

beyond, he said. The history

of the snapper industry was

a good example.

The percentage of total

wetfish landings represented

by snapper had fallen

dramatically .in the last few

years. In 1976 the species had

comprised 30.5 per cent of

wetfish landings: by 1980 the

percentage had fallen to 14.5.

Even allowing for the

growth in the catch of other

species, there had been a

disturbing decline in the

catch of .this prime species.

Mr Maclntyre said.

Recent • , developments

which pointed, towards 'total

management 'were: the

freeze on issuing permits for

fishing in New Zealand's

coastal waters; allowing the

import of two vessels, capable of competing in -deep

water: the formation of the

National Fisheries Management Advisory. Committee,

progress towards a muchimproved fisheries statistics

information system: and. a

review of the "Ministry's fisheries management effort.1

The aim of the freeze was

to slop the influx of new

fishermen into the domestic

fishery, and not to deny

people the right to advance

their occupation. Mr Maclntyre said.

Illegal fishing reported

from some areas was a

symptom of the extreme

pressures facing some fisheries. It was up to fishermen to

help control the problem. All

fishermen would suffer in the

long run if illegal fishing

continued.

Competing interests in

fishing had their own viewpoint, he said. Harsh economic realities circumscribed

the opportunities for people

to take a broader view of the

fishery than their own sectional interest. But the Government would make decisions and take actions based

on the general interest of the

fishing industry and the

country.

A plan to include more

New Zealanders in the fishing industry was being established.

This had been promised

for a while, but as more

information was gathered

and deeper analysis done of

the returns from joint venture and foreign licensed

fishermen, it was found that

the process would have to be

progressive.

There was. not. yet enough

hard information'about the

economics of fishing in deep

water to be able to make

firm decisions on the best

numbers of vessels which

could fish economically in

any given area for any given

species. Mr Maclntyre said.

Managing New Zealand's

fisheries was not easy. Almost all fish stocks In all

areas were under intense

pressure, he said.

' The fishing industry had to

be controlled. The 'alternative was to allow New Zealand fishermen to go out of

business around the coast

because too many had put to

sea in pursuit of too few fish.

Later Mr Maclntyre was

told that New Zealand fisher-

, men were among the world's

imost adaptable.

He was asked why the,

Government had no confidence in New Zealand fishermen.

Mr Peter Reid said he was

concerned about the Government's attitude to fishermen

and its apparent reluctance

to believe that the men could

fish in deep waters. It did

'not take much trouble to

adapt gear already on inshore boats'so they could fish

in deep water

Mr Maclntyre said he was

.impressed with the hardworking fishermen, their

initiative, and on occasions

the "cunning things-they get

up to in the hope that we

will not catch them."

13
He believed that the industry was still in its infancy. The area south of New

Zealand was being fished by foreign vessels, because, he believed, New Zealand

fishermen had no desire to go down there.

An executive officer of the Federation of Commercial Fishermen, Mr Christopher

Sharp, told the meeting that he had spent a lot of time convincing some New Zealand

companies that local fishermen were better than their foreign counterparts.

Some traditional companies had faith in the country's fishermen, "and their catching

records justify that faith," he said.

"The real problem lies with the industry and not foreigners."

CSO: 5200/9091

14
NEW ZEALAND

LOCAL FIRM TO DRILL FOR OIL, GAS OFF TARANAKI IN 1983

Auckland THE NEW ZEALAND HERALD in English 8 Apr 82 Sec 2, p 6

[Excerpts] New Zealand Oil and Gas Ltd now has petroleum

prospecting licence interests in six separate areas and will have

a semi-submersible drilling: rig in New Zealand waters in the

summer of 1983-84.

Details of four licences

granted since the company

was floated to the public last

year are given in the company's latest report to shareholders.

' The new areas in New Zealand include a 32,7 per cent

development' participation

interest in PPL 38,107, an

area of 3040 square kilometres offshore Kawhia Harbour. Other participants are

Petrocorp,. which is the

operator of the licence, and

Sion Resources. One well,

Mangaa 1, was drilled in the

area some years ago.

A second area in the Taranaki basin, PPL 38,116, extends from the coastline immediately to the south of the

Kapurii gasfield and is considered \a have excellent

hydrocarbon potential.

The area comprises 2491

square kilometres and one

well, Kupe 1, was drilled

within the licence in 1975. It

encountered encouraging oil

shows in the Kapuni group

sands, which will be the

major exploration target.

Consortium

NZOG has formed, with

Petrocorp, Hematite (a BHP

subsidiary), Tricentrol. Diamond Shamrock and Cultus

Pacific, a consortium to contract and import a suitable

semi-submersible drilling rig

to carry out for each company, its drilling programme

off Taranaki.

Negotiations to secure such

a rig are at present being

completed. NZOG has

secured the fourth drilling

"slot" and expects to drill in

PPL 38,113 in the summer of1

1983-84.

Before drilling, further

analysis and Interpretation of

existing seismic survey data

will be completed. The

seismic survey vessel Geco

Kappa is at present working

off Taranaki for another

operator but has been contracted ,by NZOG to carry

out a seismic survey of 750

kilometres over licence PPL

38,113. The survey will concentrate on the north-western

side of the licence.

CSO: 5200/9091

15
NEW ZEALAND

FOUR OIL PROSPECTING LICENSES OFF SOUTH ISLAND GRANTED

Wellington THE EVENING POST in English 16 Apr 82 p 4

[Text] Four new petroleum

prospect licences, for off

the coast of the South Island, have been granted

by the Minister of Energy,

Mr Birch.

All are for a maximum

five year term and involve

expenditure of $75 million. A

further $100 million may

also be spent once the results of seismic testing and

drilling are complete.

Petrocorp Exploration is

not involved in any of the

licences, meaning no government expenditure.

Work under the licences

is expected to start immediately.

Mr Birch said two of the

blocks run from Banks Peninsula down the east coast,

covering a combined area of

35,340 square kilometres.

These have been awarded to

a BP Shell Todd consortium.

The other two licences,

which cover an equally large

area, are immediately to the

south of the South Island, adjoining Stewart Island.

One of these licences has

been awarded to a group of

three companies — Ultramar Australia (US) Ltd,

of New York, Weeks Australia Ltd, of Melbourne and

Weeks International Ltd, of

Connecticut

The other licence has

gone to a consortium comprising Stewart Petroleum

Co Ltd (a fully-owned subsidiary of New Zealand Oil

and Gas) and a group of

American, Canadian and

Australian companies.

These are Seahawk Oil

Australia NL, Ottawa

Energy Inc, Pan Energy Resources Inc, Petro Pacific

Resources Inc, Sunlite International Inc, Texas Gas

Exploration Corp and Sabra

Petroleum Ltd.

Advertised

"These licences have

been granted as the result of

the Southern offshore blocks

concession round recently

advertised. There were a

number of other applicants

who were unsuccessful but I

expect some of these companies to take up some of the

areas not yet awarded," the

minister said.

Despite Petrocorp's

absence, Mr Birch said the

nation stood to benefit considerably from any discovery made.

In the last year licences

have been granted to 17 offshore exploration programmes and four onsnore

programmes. Sixteen of the

offshore licences were in the

Taranaki Basin and the onshore licences were in the

South Island.

CSO: 5200/9091

16
GUINEA-BISSAU

BRIEFS

SEIZED SHIPS FINED—The Bissau Regional Court has fined the captains of the two

seized ships (the French "Capitaine Cook" and the South Korean "Hun-Sung No 5")

a total sum of 40 million pesos (converted into foreign currency). The ships were

seized on 15 April by our Navy for illegal fishing activities in the GuineaBissauan territorial waters. French captain Jean Gouzerh and South Korean captain

Lin Yung Kin were tried and found guilty of illegal fishing in our territorial

waters, flight, disobedience and an attempt to bribe the captains of our speedboats in charge of the seizure operation. In a sentence issued last Saturday

the Court decided that the approximately 200 tons of confiscated fish and all

the fishing gear on board the two ships would revert to the state of GuineaBissau. Thre trial was presided over by Judge Rui Monteiro. The accused were

defended by lawyer Rufino Silva. [Text] [Bissau NO PINTCHA in Portuguese

1 May 82 p 8]

CSO: 5200/5657

17
FRANCE

SEA GROUP LEADER SPEAKS ON DECENTRALIZATION, OCEAN POLICY

Paris LA NOUVELLE REVUE'MARITIME in French Mar 82 pp 6-12

[Interview with Jean Lacombe, president of the: National Assembly Sea Group:

"A Club or a Tool for Parliamentary Action?" Date and place not specified;

passages enclosed in slantlines printed in italics]

[Excerpts] Created in 1965 by Mr Christian Bonnet, deputy

of the department of Morbihan, the National Assembly Sea

Group has become almost an institution and has fortunately

survived changes in the Assembly majority. It was set up

again at the beginning of the present legislative session;

its chairman is Mr Jean Lacombe, the socialist deputy of the

department of Herault, deputy mayor of Sete, chairman of the

Sea Group of the Languedoc-Roussillon Regional Council.

Before him, the group chairmen had been Messrs Christian

Bonnet, Frederic Gabriel (Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon) and Guy

Guermeur (department of Finistere).

Here are Mr Lacombe's answers to our questions.

[Question] The government is now reorganizing the oceanological structures;

how do you see the future of this sector?

[Answer] In France, oceanology includes all research and development activities aimed at knowing, exploiting and protecting the marine environment.

The scope of our ambition probably accounts for the number and importance of

the organizations involved:

- as far as the administration is concerned, four ministries are directly

involved (Research, Sea, Industry, Environment);

- as far as scientific and technical organizations are concerned, we should

mention the CNRS [National Center for Scientific Research] and the various

universities on the coast, the CNEXO [National Center for Exploitation of

the Oceans], the ISTPM [Scientific and Technical Institute for Ocean Fishing],

the ORSTOM [Bureau of Overseas Scientific and Technical Research], the CEA

[Atomic Energy Commission], the IFP [French Petroleum Institute], etc.

18
the efficiency of making decisions locally without having to go through many

and more or less distant or bureaucratic authorities.

There again, and especially with respect to the interface I have already mentioned, it is to be hoped that the thought process will take place and that

a discussion will be held openly based on the experiments already carried out

in other regions.

In conclusion, it is on these three points—the role of the Ministry of the

Sea, the research/development interface, the taking into account of decentralization—that, as chairman of the National Assembly Sea Group, I intend to ask

questions from the ministers which will have to do with oceanology in the

future. I hope that a clear debate will take place and that our country will

at long last engage in a maritime policy in keeping with our potentialities;

this should be made easier by the decisions made by the Council of Ministers

on 2 March.

[Question] In connection with the law on decentralization, a parliamentary

debate will take place on the new powers given to the departments and regions.

What powers would you wish to give to the local communities as far as the sea

is concerned?

[Answer] I hope that "decentralization" will find a broad expression in the

bill which is to be considered and voted upon during the next parliamentary

session. As far as I am concerned, I am taking an interest in it and I shall

do my best to have a number of powers transferred to the regions and departments. But, although I am a "regionalist" when it comes to many powers which

were until now the province of the state, I still have a scrupulous regard for

the integrity of the Maritime Public Domain, for the protection of the seashore and of our coasts, and the control of all pollutions. In these areas,

the power must remain with the state and a national jurisdiction is necessary.

It is only within these bounds—and with a broad scope of application—that

the departments and regions can exert their powers.

Thus, in each region, an Aptitude Diagram for the Utilization of the Maritime

Public Domain can be prepared by the new territorial community and under its

responsibility, setting conditions for the development of fishing, and the

protection and development of the sea-shore.

Regionalized state administrations are implementing the programs prepared and

approved by the regions. With its: representatives in the various administrations, the state should be a full-fledged partner ensuring that the national

jurisdiction is obeyed.

Thus, in my opinion, each region should have its own /director of Sea Affairs

and its Regional Maritime Service for the Development of Navigable Ways/ (as

is the case in Languedoc-Roussillon for example).

As far as the ports are concerned, they fall into two categories:

- ports of national interest (and there are more of them than the six independent ports) including larger fishing ports,

20
- ports of regional interest.

The departments now more especially interested in marinas could also contribute

to the management of smaller fishing ports.

All these, of course, are only my personal opinions...

[Question] In your own region, Languedoc-Roussillon, what are your priorities

as far as the sea is concerned?

[Answer] In Languedoc-Roussillon, we became aware at an early date of the

sea, its protection and its economic development. Our Regional Council has a

Sea Group, and there is a Sea Subcommittee of the Economic and Social Committee.

Together with professionals (fishermen and shellfish breeders) and scientists,

we have created an association, CEPRALMAR, to coordinate, encourage and

make suggestions concerning the development of fishing and the. protection of

the sea-shore.

Before that, I had submitted a report, the title of which, "Protect, Maintain

and Develop," outlined a maritime and lagoonal policy for Languedoc-Roussillon.

While, until 10 May [1981], we were opposing the state on the implementation of

this program, the state has now become a partner for us since most of our

objectives cannot be fulfilled without its aid in money and personnel. Thus,

a draft agreement and an agreement have been signed with CNEXO to develop a

joint aquicultural policy based on the existing socio-professional structures,

creating the necessary interface for its development between research and the

maritime professions. We also maintain a continuous and necessary relationship

with GIS (Scientific Interest Group) bridging the gap, if I may say so,

between research and practical applications, strengthening the relations which

must exist between professionals and researchers, with ISTPM to improve

the knowledge and management of the stocks.

This is why my thoughts on decentralization concerning the sea have been nourished by the regional experience I have acquired as chairman of CEPRALMAR and

why my point of view is not always that of Parisian offices.

9294

CSO: 5200/2066

21
NORWAY

NORWAY'S LOS AMBASSADOR, OBSERVER WEIGH RESULTS OF LOS TALKS

Deplores Treatment of Developing Countries

Oslo DAGBLADET in Norwegian 24 Apr 82 p 6

[Article by Arvid Bryne]

[Text] New York—"Only a miracle could save the

UN Law of the Sea convention today," Ambassador

Jens Evensen said to DAGBLADET. Jens Evensen does

not believe in miracles.

This marks the collapse of one of mankind's greatest

dreams in modern times.

It happened yesterday when Law of the Sea president Tommy Koh of Singapore

told the delegates there was no possibility of reaching what is known as a

consensus--unanimity--on the principles concerning mutual utilization of the

enormous wealth of resources in the vast ocean depths.

The remaining week will be used for voting on the various sections. It seems

quite certain now that the United States and a number of other western industrialized nations will vote against two key points. It is not yet clear which

position Norway will take.

"These have been the bitterest days of my life. In general, my health is

excellent but what I have been through in the last few days has been hard on

my stomach!" That is how Jens Evensen expressed his disappointment yesterday

over what has happened here in New York.

Evensen has been leader of the Norwegian Law of the Sea delegation for almost

9 years. He is highly esteemed by many involved with international ocean

rights because this project had come so far that it was almost completed, but

now it seems to be falling apart again.

22
Opposed to Sharing

The United States and the other western industrialized nations will not go

along with transferring the technology for extracting minerals from the ocean

depths to developing countries and the United Nations' own planned ocean

rights authority. They also flatly refuse to pledge that a revision conference held within the next 15 to 20 years would have the power to change the

agreements reached now with a two-thirds majority.

For their part, the underdeveloped countries feel they have gone a long way

when they give companies from industrial nations the right to explore and

extract mineral deposits in the most promising fields. When the industrial

lands have supplied themselves, it is not certain there will be anything left

for those who come along later.

Big Setback

"This is a big and serious step backward that can have great consequences for

international cooperation in the future. If we have a convention that is not

signed by the United States or other industrialized countries, there will be

an increased risk of conflicts. We risk big problems concerning free passage

through straits and ocean areas lying within the territorial waters of developing countries today. What I have experienced the last few nights of

relations between the developing and industrialized nations has not been

pleasant," Evensen said.

Anger and Bitterness

"The mood among delegates from the developing countries is marked by aggressiveness, anger and bitterness concerning what has happened. We must not ignore the possibility that this might lead to their increasing the chances of

conflicts in the oceans of the world in a spirit of reprisal," he said.

This does not give much hope for North-South negotiations, does it?

"We have now focused the North-South conflict in almost its bitterest form.

We told the world in advance that this was the first time the North-South

dialogue has led to something really effective—an international ocean floor

authority that would administer the resources we have on the ocean floor for

the benefit of our common inheritance. There is very little chance of getting

that now. I am not at all optimistic," said Evensen.

In Vain?

Does Evensen feel his work on the law of the sea for 8 1/2 years has been in

vain?

"No, of course not. We have accomplished a great deal that I am convinced

will remain as part of international law. Among other things we have established rules on fishing zones and the continental shelf, an international

23
apparatus to combat ocean pollution and promote scientific ocean research.

We have established the principle of the 200-mile economic zone," said Jens

Evensen, trying to find a bright point in spite of everything. He said that

some hope still remains until the end of next week and that there is a possibility that the defeat can be made less severe if the United States and

other presumably negative voters simply abstain when a vote is taken on the

controversial points.

Hegge Sees Nationalism As Problem

Oslo AFTENPOSTEN in Norwegian 3 May 82 p 2

[Article by Per Egil Hegge]

[Text] The almost 10 years of work on an international

ocean rights treaty was not totally wrecked with the

conclusion of the spring session in New York on Friday,

30 April. But it is quite thought-provoking that it

proved to be impossible to establish the treaty on the

basis of the consensus principle which had been in

effect and on which former Minister of Commerce and

Ocean Rights and now Ambassador Jens Evensen had staked

his considerable influence.

It came to a vote on the section concerning rules on extracting minerals from

the ocean depths in international waters. Leading industrial nations, led by

the United States, followed by such countries as Great Britain, West Germany

and the East bloc states, did not support the principle of distribution outlined in the draft. That left these countries standing against the Third

World.

It is one thing that we in Norway thought things would and should go differently. But were we really justified in doing so? I believe the answer is

no and that for many reasons, not least a national enthusiasm over the tireless efforts of international law expert Jens Evensen, we were not receptive

to reports on the situation as it really was.

This should not be taken as a criticism of Evensen (although on the weekend

he was quite optimistic about the prospects of U.S. support). Not only is he,

as in the past, a prominent figure in this tedious work--he was also always

available, always involved, always patient, always willing to guide the press

people through a body of material that was consistently more complex than it

was exciting. We relied on Evensen. By "we" I mean Norwegian press organs

and journalists. I make no exceptions.

But it was not Evensen's job to tell us about the complications the basic

ideas ran into in other countries. We should have found out about these for

ourselves and we neglected to do so. So when the news came last March that

24
the newly-inaugurated Republican government in the United States wanted to

take time out for thought before continuing talks on the Law of the Sea

treaty, it came as a shock, which should not have been the case. And when we

recovered from our amazement, we had a scapegoat ready. His name was Ronald

Reagan.

Simple explanations of complicated phenomena have an almost erotic appeal.

As far back as 1978-79 it should have been clear to us that the existing

treaty draft had about the same chance as a snowball in a sauna with regard

to the likelihood of its being ratified by the American Senate. For what was

involved was investing somewhere between 8 and 10 billion kroner in a technology that was extremely demanding and uncertain. Thus work on extracting

metals from the ocean floor would be controlled by an international authority

that would also distribute the revenue to all lands and make the new technological knowledge available to everyone. The basis for this was the idea

that these minerals were the joint inheritance of all men and that the distribution of both money and knowledge should be a manifestation of efforts

for a new economic world order, abbreviated as NOV [New Economic World Order]

by the Foreign Ministry—which unfortunately rhymes with...well, never mind.

The only response to that is to fold our hands and say amen, for it is a

splendid idea. But the world does not operate in such a way that 10 billion

kroner can be pulled out of thin air. And the U.S. Senate—or the twothirds majority that must ratify such an agreement--definitely does not consist of men who will applaud wildly the prospect of turning over American

money and American discoveries to an international body in which the United

States and Laos, for example (if it becomes a member), would each have one

vote.

And the opposition came not only from the United States but also from other

countries which had been working for a decade to develop the equipment that

would probably be used. They kept a low profile to avoid irritating the developing nations too much and it was the Americans who took the blame yesterday by standing up and breaking with the policy of previous governments.

Or did they break with the policy of former negotiators? For it is hard to

escape the impression that the ocean rights negotiators operated in their own

closed world. Experts shut themselves up in their greenhouses in Caracas,

Geneva and New York, used their intelligence and experience to create new

international laws—and forgot the political world outside- the glass windows.

We journalists forgot it too. For it was pleasant to move in this environment and it was easy to get excited about sitting in the grandstand and

watching the boundaries of international law being moved.

But outside, there was a different reality.

6578

CSO: 5200/2068 END

25