US Ban on Driftnets

CASE NUMBER: 9
CASE MNEMONIC: DRIFTJAP
CASE NAME: US Driftnet Ban

1. Issue

In early 1980s, Japanese fleets (as well as Taiwanese and South Korean) began to use large-scale driftnets in the North Pacific Ocean to catch salmon, tuna, squid, and other species. A driftnet typically stretches as wide as 40 miles and traps many species. Among its unintended victims are marine mammals such as whale, dolphin, porpoise, fur seal, and other sea animals such as sea turtle and even sea birds. Driftnet fishing is believed to have contributed to a decrease in the population of such economically valuable fish as tuna, marlin, swordfish, salmon, etc., in the North Pacific Ocean. The United States, Canada and Russia, each of which has its own fishing industry, have been concerned about the rapid destruction of valuable sea resources restricted their fishing, especially driftnets, in the North Pacific region. The UN General Assembly adopted a resolution which bans driftnet fishing in the high seas effective December, 1992.1 Appropriations United States Senate (Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1990), 9. United States, "Gist: High-Seas Driftnet Fishing," US Department of State Dispatch (Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1992), 783. As a result, Japan halted driftnet fishing in high-seas.

2. Measure: Import Ban

According to the 1990 observer report on Japan's squid driftnet fishery, "in addition to the 7.9 million squid caught by these 74 [Japanese] vessels, 3.2 million pomret, over 253,000 tuna, 82,000 blue sharks, over 30,000 sea birds, nearly 10,000 salmonids were entangled in squid driftnets."2

The United Nations resolution 44/225 called for a 50 percent reduction in driftnet fleets by June 30, 1992. It also called for a ban on imports of fishing equipment, fishing products and fish from countries that chose not to enforce the U.N. ban on fishing fleets. Further, the resolution called for a repeal of a "user fee" federal tax on boats over 16 feet long. As a follow-up to this U.N. resolution, the Commerce Department's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) submitted new rules on September 18, 1991 as a response to the Dolphin Protection Consumer Information Act of 1990.

The most important aspect of this regulation states that "fish taken with driftnets on the high seas will be banned from sale in the United States after July 1, 1992."3 The new rules apply to the countries that import seafood products harvested by nations which engage in driftnet fishing. This act requires those nations who use drift nets to provide documents certifying that the products were not taken by drift nets in specified areas of the high seas. This regulation also established a new definition of what is considered to be a "drift net." It is considered to be a floating gillnet whose length exceeds 2.5 kilometers. Legislation to monitor the driftnet problem began as early as 1987, when Congress passed the Driftnet Impact monitoring, Assessment and Control Act.

3. Exporter and Importer: JAPAN and USA

At the time, Japan was most impacted by the measure.

4. Trade Costs

Probably little of driftnet catches were exported to the United States, or any other country. Rather, they were consumed in Japanese (and other) domestic markets. Since trade data does not record catches by method used or when domestic data is at issue, little hard information on economic impacts exists. Sanctions on drift net compliance were substantial across a number of dimensions. HR-2152 and its companion bill, S-884, also would have imposed the following penalties.

o It would ban the import of sports fishing equipment, fish and fish products from any nation engaging in high seas large-scale driftnet fishing.

o It would then ban the import of, or raise tariffs on, any product -- automobiles, TVS, VCRs, computer chips, garments, etc. -- from nations driftnet fishing on the high seas six months later.

o It would deny port privileges to all driftnet or support vessels;

o It would require the Department of Defense to help enforce domestic fishing laws and international agreements;

The bill allows the government to revoke or suspend fishing and processing permits to fishermen who violate the law, and increases fines from $25,000 to $100,000. The re-authorization bill sets a spending ceiling of $75 million for programs under the act during the current fiscal year, rising by $1 million a year through fiscal 1993.

The Bush administration opposed a U.S. driftnet ban because it would conflict with a treaty with Japan and Canada regarding salmon fishing in the North Pacific.

5. Other Economic Costs

Driftnets have been commonly used by many countries in the coastal waters. However, Japanese driftnet fishing began to draw America's attention in the mid-1980s when Japan and other Asian countries began to send large fleets to the North Pacific Ocean to catch mainly tuna and squid. Those fishing boats were blamed not only for the indiscriminate destruction of sea lives but also for the poaching of North Pacific salmon. Japan operated about 900 driftnet vessels and earned $300 million a year.

Japan's squid driftnet fishery takes far less fish from the North Pacific than U.S. commercial fisheries. It discards only 28 percent of its catch, a ratio that compress favorably to other fishing methods, such as trawling, and is much smaller than the 90 percent and higher discard rates of U.S. shrimp fisheries.

Perhaps 15,000 Japanese fishermen who fish for red cuttle fish and albacore would be impacted by the measure.4 South Korean driftnet fishermen caught 150,000 tones of fish stocks in the past seven months earning more than 200 billion won, sustaining the livelihood of more than 50,000 people.5

The international driftnet standard, adopted by the European Union, among others, forbids the use of driftnets that are more than 2.5 miles long on the high seas. Recently, in a move applauded by environmentalists and coastal fishing groups, European Union fisheries officials in Brussels ordered French vessels to stop using driftnets that exceed the limit in the northeast Atlantic. The French albacore tuna fleet had been given special permission to use nets as long as 3 miles over a two-year conversion period, an action that provoked demonstrations by Spanish fishermen, who complained that their livelihoods were at risk. The United States threatened about $1 billion in sanctions against Italy in March, 1996 for continued driftnet use.

6. Environmental Impacts

Ranges for the destruction of wildlife and sea mammals from driftnets, include: 75,000-875,000 seabirds, 20,000-200,000 metric tons of blue sharks and marine mammals which are estimated in the upwards of tens of thousands.

The biggest impact of driftnet fishing is that they catch more than just their intended target. There are two categories of concern: first, the high seas interception of salmon and steel head trout of U.S. and Canadian origin. Under international law, the fish belong to the streams to which they originate. Second, (2) the incidental taking of other species of fish, marine mammals and seabirds (whales, dolphins and northern fur seals) that may have an aesthetic or commercial value to the U.S.

Substantial evidence exists documenting the incidental take of marine mammals, seabirds, marine turtles, and non-target species and cephalopods. Of particular concern is the impact of large-scale driftnet fisheries on the threatened northern fur seal population. "Data collected in 1990 indicated that over 41 million non-target fish, sharks, sea birds, marine mammals and sea turtles were killed in the Japanese squid industry alone."6

Following the ban, there was record coho salmon season in the United States. Prior to the January 1, 1992 ban, the average salmon catch in the North Pacific was 127 million tons, in 1993 the catch was 193 million and in 1994 even higher.7 Southeast Alaskan catches jumped over 100 percent, from 1.6 to 3.5 million. The ban require Japan to reduce its catch by 50 percent in six months. On January 1, 1993 all Japanese operations would cease.

South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan decreased their fleet size, China increased there's over this period.8 Their takes from coastal waters have therefore increased. About 90 percent of Japan's total catch is from coastal waters, up from 80 percent in the 1980s. Taiwan has reduced the import duty from 43 to 20 percent. More than 50 percent of Taiwan's total catch from off-shore waters, in part due to nearby fishing. However, China is investing billions to creating a distant water fleet, at the same time other countries are down-sizing.

7. References

1. United States, Expansion of the North Pacific High Seas Driftnet Fisheries - Hearing before a Subcommittee of the on

2. United States, High Seas Driftnet Fishing, 27.

3. "NOAA Issues New Rules Banning Imports of Certain Fish Caught With Drift Nets," International Trade Reporter, September 25, 1991.

4. "U.S. Defers Sanctions on Taiwan, Korea Drift-Net Fishing," Kyoto News Service, Japan Economic Newswire October 19, 1991.

5. "S. Korea to try to Avert U.S. Driftnet Sanctions," Reuters, October 23, 1991.

6. W.I. Bennet, "Driftnet Fishing: US, Japan Agree on Moratorium," Dispatch 2 (December 2, 1991), 875.

7. Richard Bard, "Record Coho Returns Point Finger at High Seas Squid Fleet By-catch," National Fisherman, February 1, 1995, 15.

8. Scott McCredie, "China builds its fleet while other Asian Nations Downsize," National Fisherman, 75, March 1, 1995, 22. The Electric Library.