Skip to main content

Full text of "World fishing fleets : an analysis of distant-water fleet operations, past, present, future"

See other formats 


World  Fishing  Fleets 

An  Analysis  of  Distant-water  Fleet  Operations 
Past  -  Present  -  Future 


Volume  V 

The  Baltic  States 
The  Commonwealth  of  Independent  States 

Eastern  Europe 


NATIONAL  MARINE  FISHERIES  SERVICE 

National  Oceanic  and  Atmospheric  Administration 
U.S.  Department  of  Commerce 


II 

1/,  . 


World  Fishing  Fleets: 

An  Analysis  of  Distant-water  Fleet  Operations 
Past  -  Present  -  Future 


•\  -0  -H    /vv 
•SSViM  'j-rOH  ;^00'' 


Volume  V 


AyV>JB' 


The  Baltic  states  AyoivHcavn 

I  nW'll'-"".'^''lOia 

The  Commonwealth  of  Independent  qtat^u^vi/j 
Eastern  Europe 


» 


to 


5. 


'^ 


Prepared  by 


^^  The  Office  of  International  Affairs 

■C3 


Milan  Kravanja 
Ellen  Shapiro 


^     A     \ 


November  1993  ^      i/M\\       ^ 


NOAATech.  Memo.  NMFS-F/SPO-13  S        £M§1^        2 


'r 


ys 


NATIONAL  MARINtH^K^^S  SERVICE 

National  Oceanic  and  Atmospheric  Administration 

Silver  Spring,  Maryland 

November  1993 


^*^.f"of^° 


WORLD  FISHING  FLEETS 

The  Baltic  States, 

Commonwealth  of  Independent  States, 

and  Eastern  Europe 

Volume  5. 


1.0   Overview 1 

2.0  Baltic  States 9 

2.1  Overview 11 

2.2  Estonia 21 

2.3  Latvia 45 

2.4  Lithuania 67 

3.0  Commonwealth  of  Independent  States 87 

3.1  Overview 89 

3.2  Russian  Federation 93 

3.3  Ukraine 147 

3.4  Georgia 169 

4.0  Eastern  Europe 177 

4.1  Overview 179 

4.2  Bulgaria 185 

4.3  Poland 209 

4.4  Romania 255 

4.5  Former  Yugoslavia 275 


m 


IV 


I 


# 


I 

-3 


r- 


1 
I 

05 


I 


I 


I 


•  t. 


-3 


c 

T 

I 


f 


STATISTICAL  NOTE 

A  major  source  of  statistical  data  for  several  countries  in  this  study  was  the  Statistical  Tables  of 
Lloyd's  Register  of  Shipping  which  provided  uninterrupted  fleet  statistics  from  1975  through  June  1992. 
Lloyd's  most  recent  publication.  World  Fleet  Statistics,  is  especially  useful  since  it  gives  the  statistical  data 
as  of  December  31,1 992  (the  Statistical  Tables  only  listed  the  status  of  the  fleets  as  of  June  30  of  each  year) 
and  also  calculates  the  average  age  of  each  country's  fleet.  The  Lloyd's  Register  of  Shipping  includes 
worldwide  data  for  vessels  having  over  500  gross  registered  tons  (i.e.  high-seas  fishing  vessels)  that  can  be 
used  for  analyzing  trends  and  making  comparisons  among  countries. 

The  most  difficult  problem  that  the  authors  encountered  was  the  recent  non-existence  of  most  of  the 
covered  countries.  The  3  Bakic  states,  Ukraine,  Georgia,  and,  last  but  not  least,  the  Russian  Federation, 
became  independent  sovereign  states  in  late  1991  when  the  Union  of  Soviet  Socialist  Republics  dissolved  into 
its  15  component  parts.  This  event  made  it  difficult  to  follow  the  historical  sequence  of  the  increase  or 
decrease  of  the  fishing  fleets  in  those  countries.  (For  other  countries  such  historical  data  are  available  in  the 
Lloyd's  Register  of  Shipping.)  In  obtaining  information,  we  were  fortunate  to  receive  the  outstanding 
cooperation  of  the  U.S.  Office  of  Naval  Intelligence  (ONI)  which  provided  a  complete  vessel  inventory  for 
all  the  covered  countries. 

Deconmiissioning  of  high-seas  vessels  from  tlie  registers  of  the  covered  countries  (by  reflagging, 
selling,  or  scrapping  of  vessels)  is  occurring  so  rapidly  that  we  have  no  illusion  that  the  report  presents  a 
complete,  updated  picture.  Through  many  personal  contacts  and  conmiunications,  the  authors  have  tried, 
to  the  best  of  dieir  ability,  to  verify  the  available  data  and  eliminate  any  inconsistencies  and  contradictioiLs. 
These  efforts  are  described  mostly  in  the  notes  accompanying  die  various  statistical  appendices.  Any  help 
from  the  readers  to  obtain  additional  information  on  decommissioning  would  be  most  appreciated. 

EMPHASIS  ON  HIGH-SEAS  FLEET 

The  authors  have  defined,  for  the  purposes  of  this  study,  liigh-seas  fishing  vessels  as  vessels  having 
over  500  gross  registered  tons.  The  authors  decided  to  use  this  definition  since  most  high-seas  fishing  vessels 
in  the  covered  countries  exceed  the  500  GRT  mark.  Existing  data,  such  as  those  provided  by  Lloyd's,  give 
worldwide  fleet  statistics  based  on  the  gross  tomiage,  but  do  not  describe  where  these  vessels  are  deployed. 
The  authors  have  had  to  rely  mainly  on  extensive  NMFS  files  to  determine  the  fishing  grounds  where  these 
liigh-seas  fleets  are  deployed. 

In  our  study  we  have  used  the  term  "high-seas"  to  identify  vessels  having  over  500  GRT  that  fish 
beyond  200-mile  Exclusive  Economic  Zones.  In  some  cases,  we  used  the  term  "distant-water"  to  identify 
fishing  grounds  far  from  homeports. 

CITATION  OF  THIS  PUBLICATION 

This  volume  should  be  cited  as:  Kravanja,  Milan  and  Ellen  Shapiro.  Tlie  Baltic  States,  The 
Commonwealth  of  Independent  States,  and  Eastern  Europe  (fishing  fleets).  Published  in:  "World  Fishing 
Fleets:  An  Analysis  of  Distant-water  Fleet  Operations.  Past-Present-Future.  Volume  V."  Prepared  by  the 
Office  of  International  Affairs,  National  Marine  Fisheries  Service,  NOAA,  U.S.  Department  of  Commerce. 
Silver  Spring,  Maryland,  November  1993. 


VII 


A  WORD  ABOUT  REFLAGGING 

Reflagging,  registering  a  vessel  in  another  country,  is  a  growing  concern  for  fishery  managers 
around  the  world.  Reflagging  is  done  for  many  reasons.  The  simplest  case  is  a  vessel  owner  in  one  country 
selling  a  vessel  to  a  new  owner  in  a  different  country.  In  other  cases,  local  requirements  may  require  all 
joint  venture  fisheries'  vessels  to  fly  the  flag  of  one  particular  country.  In  some  instances,  and  particularly 
for  older  and  less  efficient  vessels,  fishermen  may  not  be  able  to  operate  profitably  in  one  country  and  may 
reflag  their  vessel  in  another  where  taxes,  fuel  costs,  and  crew  salaries  are  less  onerous.  While  there  are 
several  major  reasons  for  reflagging  a  vessel,  one  reason  of  growing  concern  is  reflagging  to  avoid 
internationally  agreed  measures  for  the  conservation  and  management  of  living  marine  resources.  By 
reflagging  a  vessel  with  a  country  that  is  not  a  signatory  to  an  agreement  designed  to  manage  and/or  conserve 
living  marine  resources,  a  vessel  may  avoid  the  regulations/conservation  measures  for  a  regional  area.  The 
problem  is  compounded  by  the  fact  that  many  of  the  countries  frequently  used  for  reflagging  simply  do  not 
have  the  staff  to  monitor  the  fishing  operations  of  their  flagged  vessels  throughout  the  world.  The  issue  of 
reflagging  is  gaining  international  attention  and  is  the  subject  of  the  proposed  Agreement  to  Promote 
Compliance  with  International  Conservation  and  Management  Measures  for  Fishing  Vessels  on  the  High  Seas 
approved  by  the  Food  and  Agriculture  Organization  of  the  United  Nations  in  November  1993  for  ratification 
by  interested  States. 

SPECIAL  NOTICE:  In  the  preparation  of  this  report,  the  authors  noted  that  in  many  instances  reflagging 
simply  involved  the  transfer  of  ownership  from  one  owner  to  another.  The  reasons  for  other  reflaggings 
were  less  clear.  However,  the  purpose  of  diis  project  was  to  identify  trends  and  the  results  obtained  through 
our  research  efforts  show  that  reflagging  has  increased  sharply  in  the  last  few  years. 


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

Numerous  individuals  have  helped  to  prepare  this  report.  The  authors  wish  to  thank  the  many 
individuals  outside  the  Deparmient  of  Commerce  who  contributed  to  this  project.  The  Foreign  Service 
Officers  and  Foreign  Service  Nationals  at  U.S.  diplomatic  posts  were  extremely  helpful  in  obtaining 
information  and  providing  useful  comments  and  evaluations  of  our  draft  documents.  The  U.S.  Navy 
provided  invaluable  data  that  helped  to  identify  the  magnitude  of  reflagging.  The  statistical  group  at  the  FAQ 
Department  of  Fisheries  in  Rome  provided  needed  statistics  on  the  fishing  catch.  Special  thanks  are  due  to 
the  Lloyd's  Register  of  Shipping  for  allowing  us  to  use  their  data.  Members  of  the  Diplomatic  Corps  in 
Washington,  D.C.  provided  support  to  our  research  efforts,  and  to  each  of  them  we  would  like  to  express 
our  sincere  appreciation.  We  particularly  value  the  assistance  of  the  individuals  who  contributed  to  die 
country  analyses: 

Baltic  States:  The  cooperation  of  Mr.  Andrew  Silski.  Baltic  Countries  Affairs  Officer,  U.S.  Department  of 
State,  in  coordinating  liaison  with  U.S.  Embassies  in  tlie  Baltic  states,  is  much  appreciated.  Mr.  Eriing 
Hulgaard  of  the  Danish  Ministry  of  Fisheries  contributed  significantly  to  our  understanding  of  Baltic 
fisheries. 

Estonia:  Mr.  Jaak  Pollu,  Advisor  to  the  Estonian  Board  of  Fisheries,  and  Minister  of  the  Environment, 
Tonis  Kaasik,  provided  informative  insights  into  Estonian  fisheries.  The  dedicated  help  of  Ms.  Ingrid 
KoUist,  Economic  Officer  at  tlie  U.S.  Embassy  in  Tallimi,  and  of  Foreign  Service  National,  Mr.  Indrek 


vui 


Kaju,  made  Estonia  the  best  and  the  most  up-to-date  of  tlie  three  Bakic  reports. 

Latvia:  Mr.  Andris  Ukis,  Deputy  Minister  of  Maritime  Affairs,  spent  long  hours  during  a  visit  to 
Washington  briefing  the  authors  on  tlie  intricacies  of  Latvian  fishery  trends. 

Lithuania:  Mr.  Algirdas  Rimas,  Economic  Officer  at  the  U.S.  Embassy  in  Vilnius,  provided  an  informative 
cable  on  tlie  Lithuanian  high-seas  fleet  that  was  tlie  basis  of  our  study.  Also  helpful  were  tlie  insights  of  Mr. 
Eugenius  Shpelys,  Director  General  of  die  Klaipeda  fishing  port. 

Russian  Federation:  Despite  a  request  from  the  U.S.  Embassy  in  Moscow  to  the  State  Committee  on 
Fisheries  of  the  Russian  Federation,  information  was  not  received  in  time  for  inclusion  in  this  report.  The 
Russian  chapter  is  based  in  its  entirety  on  NMFS  files  and  informative  discussions  with  the  current  Russian 
Fisheries  Attache,  Mr.  Yuriy  N.  Bovykin,  and  the  Assistant  Attache,  Viktor  N.  Solodovnik.  The  autliors 
would  like  to  take  this  occasion  to  thank  their  many  friends  in  tlie  Russian  Federation  for  past  support  and 
cooperation. 

Ukraine:  Despite  repeated  requests  from  die  U.S.  Embassy  in  Kiev  to  the  Ukrainian  State  Committee  on 
Fisheries,  information  was  not  received  in  time  for  inclusion  in  this  report.  Without  the  extensive  files  of 
the  Office  of  Naval  Intelligence  of  the  U.S.  Navy,  tliis  chapter  could  not  have  been  written. 

Georgia:  Mr.  Steve  Carrig,  Georgia  Desk  Officer,  U.S.  Department  of  State,  assisted  us  in  trying  to  obtain 
the  latest  information  on  tlie  Georgian  high-seas  fleet.  Unfortunately,  because  of  the  political  turmoil  in  tlie 
country,  it  was  impossible  to  get  information  in  time  for  this  report. 

Bulgaria:  Mr.  John  Struble,  Economic  Officer  at  the  U.S.  Embassy  in  Sofia,  provided  helpful  answers  to 
the  many  questions  Uiat  die  authors  had  on  the  Bulgarian  fleet.  Many  thanks  also  to  Mr.  Todor  Ivanov  of 
Okeanski  Ribolov  for  his  cooperation. 

Poland:  The  U.S.  Embassy  in  Warsaw  transmitted  updated  statistics  on  the  Polish  high-seas  fleet  prepared 
by  die  Department  of  Marine  Fisheries  in  the  Ministry  of  Transport  and  Maritime  Economy  which  were  the 
most  extensive  and  accurate  of  all  the  countries  covered.  Fonner  Polish  Fisheries  Attache  in  the  United 
States,  Mr.  Edward  Budzinski,  provided  helpful  insights,  and  the  audiors  would  like  to  thank  him  for  his 
long-term  friendsliip  and  cooperation.  We  wish  to  thank  Professor  Zygniunt  Polanski,  the  Director  of  the 
Polish  Marine  Fisheries  Institute,  for  his  help  in  interpretating  conflicting  data. 

Romania:  The  U.S.  Embassy  in  Bucharest  provided  an  informative  cable  on  Romanian  shipyards. 

Former  Yugoslavia:  The  Slovenian  Ambassador  to  the  United  States,  His  Excellency,  Dr.  Ernest  Petric, 
kindly  reviewed  and  commented  on  the  Yugoslavian  chapter. 

The  authors  were  assisted  in  the  preparation  of  the  report  by  Charles  Taylor,  Tanya  L.  Rasa,  and 
Christine  Parker.  Doretha  W^iite  and  Ruth  Ware  carefully  typed  many  of  the  lengthy  and  complicated 
appendices  under  the  supervision  of  the  Division  Secretary,  Carolyn  MacDonald.  Lance  Samuels  ably 
prepared  many  graphics  illustrating  the  text.  Our  colleagues,  Dennis  Weidner  and  Mark  Wildman 
contributed  their  well-researched  insights  on  the  operations  of  the  covered  countries'  high-seas  fleets  in  Latin 
American  and  Asian  countries.  William  Folsoni,  the  European  Desk  Officer  in  the  Division,  helped  us 
format  the  final  report.  Without  his  and  Mark  Wildman's  dedicated  assistance  over  the  last  weekend,  this 
report  could  not  have  been  finished  on  time.  The  invaluable  contributions  made  by  the  dedicated  staff  of 
the  Office  of  Naval  Intelligence  and  the  help  of  Frederick  Beaudry,  the  Division  Director,  in  obtaining 
photographs  and  country  maps,  are  greatly  appreciated. 


IX 


Prepared  by: 

Division  of  International  Science,  Development  and  Foreign  Fisheries  Analysis 

The  Office  of  International  Affairs,  F/IA2 

National  Marine  Fisheries  Service,  NOAA 

U.S.  Department  of  Commerce 

1335  East- West  Highway 
Silver  Spring,  MD  20910-3225 

TEL:  301-713-2286 
FAX:  301-713-2313 


1.0 


OVERVIEW 


The  fishing  fleets  of  the  Baltic  states,  Eastern  Europe,  and  the  Commonwealth  of 
Independent  States  harvested  approximately  9.8  million  tons  of  fish  and  shellfish  in  1991 
(slightly  under  10  percent  of  the  world  catch).  The  Commonwealth  of  Independent  States 
fishermen  landed  over  9.2  million  tons.  The  Russian  Federation  alone  harvested  6.7  million  tons 
of  this  total.  The  remainder  was  caught  by  Baltic,  Ukrainian,  and  Georgian  fishermen.  East 
European  countries  (Poland,  Romania  and  Bulgaria)  caught  0.6  million  tons;  their  catch  has 
decreased  drastically  in  recent  years. 

These  countries  have  4,113  fishing  vessels  registering  8.8  million  gross  registered  tons 
(CRT)  in  1993.  This  includes  2,778  high-seas  vessels  (those  having  over  500  CRT)  registering 
8.6  million  CRT,  as  highlighted  in  table  1.  This  high-seas  fleet  consists  of  some  of  the  largest 
fishing  vessels  in  the  world;  the  gross  tonnage  of  the  individual  vessels  averages  3,090  CRT  per 

vessel! 

This  fleet  of  large  vessels  poses  a  potential  problem  to  managers  of  living  resources  around 
the  world.  Its  fishermen  can  quickly  target  stocks  of  fish  anywhere  in  the  world  and  have  the 
potential  to  overfish  these  resources  in  a  short  period  of  time.  The  dissolution  of  the  Soviet 
Union  has  resulted  in  a  sharp  lessening  of  controls  over  these  fleets;  many  vessels  now  operate 
independently.  It  is  difficult,  if  not  impossible,  to  follow  the  movements  of  these  hundreds  of 
huge  fishing  vessels. 

These  countries  have  been  reducing  their  registries  by  reflagging  vessels  to  other  countries 
in  the  last  2  to  3  years.  The  three  Baltic  states  reflagged  16  vessels  with  a  total  tonnage  of 
38,382  CRT.  Poland  is  known  to  have  reflagged  28  vessels,  but  Romania  and  Bulgaria  have 
not  reflagged  any,  while  26  high-seas  vessels  (160,408  CRT)  from  Russia  and  6  vessels  (18,945 
CRT)  from  Ukraine  were  reflagged. 

These  former  Communist  countries  are  currently  experiencing  profound  economic  and 
political  changes.  The  once  tightly  administered  fishing  fleets  of  these  countries  are  undergoing 
privatization  and  are  attempting  to  establish  fishing  operations  wherever  possible.  Many  vessels 
are  seeking  new  opportunities  in  distant  fishing  grounds  under  bilateral  agreements,  joint 
ventures,  or  as  chartered  vessels.  It  is  difficult  to  account  for  all  of  the  adjustments  currently 
being  made  in  these  huge  fishing  fleets  as  the  situation  is  changing  constantly,  while  the  fishery 
authorities  remain  tight-lipped  about  them. 


Table  1.— Former  Communist  Countries.    Fishing  and  high-seas  fishing  vessels;  1993. 


Country 

Fishing  and  fishery  support  vessels 

High-seas  fleet 

Coastal/Inshore  fleet 

Total  fishing  fleet 

Vessels 

Tonnage 

Vessels 

Tonnage 

Vessels 

Tonnage 

Number 

1.000- 
GRT 

Number 

1.000- 
GRT 

Number 

7,000- 
GRT 

Baltic  States 

Estonia 

90 

226 

56 

10 

146 

236 

Latvia 

152 

502 

71 

10 

223 

512 

Lithuania 

116 

429 

9? 

0 

209 

429 

Sub-total 

358 

1,157 

220 

20 

578 

1,177 

Commonwealth  of  Independent  States 

Russia 

1,999 

5,941 

755 

157 

2,754 

6,098 

Ukraine 

247 

890 

108 

17 

355 

907 

Georgia* 

15 

45 

20 

3 

35 

48 

Sub-total 

2,261 

6,876 

883 

177 

3,144 

7,053 

Eastern  Europe 

Poland 

85 

251 

215 

25 

300 

276 

Romania 

50 

221 

7 

1 

57 

222 

Bulgaria 

24 

79 

10 

1 

34 

80 

Sub-total 

159 

551 

232 

27 

391 

578 

Total 

:,77S 

8,584 

1,335 

224 

4,113 

8,808 

GP.T  -  Gross  registered  tons.    *Georgia  rejoined  the  Commonwealth  hi  October  1493. 
Source:  Office  of  Naval  Intelligence.  US,  Navy,  July  1993. 


I.    REGIONAL  OVERVIEW 

A.  Baltic  States 

The  three  Baltic  countries,  Estonia, 
Latvia,  and  Lithuania,  became  independent 
in  1991,  after  being  part  of  the  Soviet  Union 
for  almost  five  decades.  The  Baltic  fishing 
industries  which  were  part  of  the  centrally 
planned  economy,  directed  by  the  Soviet 
Ministry  of  Fisheries  in  Moscow,  had  to 
readjust  quickly  to  the  new  free-market 
demands.  Their  fishing  fleets  were 
previously  supported  by  the  giant  (and 
expensive)  Soviet  network  of  fishery  support 
vessels  and  representatives  in  foreign  ports. 
The  Baltic  states  now  have  to  secure  their 
own  arrangements  for  access  to  fishing 
grounds  in  foreign  200-mile  zones.  The 
Baltic  fisheries  also  had  to  face  the  loss  of 
the  infrastructure  and  domestic  Soviet  sales 
network  on  which  they  relied  over  the  past 
half  century.  Most  importantly,  they  can  no 
longer  count  on  cheap,  subsidized  diesel  oil, 
but  have  to  purchase  it  with  foreign 
currencies.  The  difficult  transition  from  a 
command  to  a  free-market  economy  has 
been  exacerbated  by  the  need  to  reorganize 
the  administrative  staffs  following  the 
dissolution  of  the  Soviet  Western  Fisheries 
Administration  in  Riga. 

The  capacity  of  the  Baltic  fishery  fleets 
exceeds  the  currently  available  fishery 
resources.  The  moratorium  on  fishing  off 
Namibia  and  the  loss  of  fishing  in  the 
Moroccan  200-mile  zone  were  especially 
painful.  To  counter  these  unfavorable 
developments,  the  Baltic  countries  have 
concluded  several  bilateral  fishery 
agreements  and  have  begun  to  reduce  the 
gross    tonnage    of   their    high-seas    fleets. 


During  the  last  few  years,  a  total  of  31 
vessels  with  over  70,000  gross  tons  have 
been  decommissioned  (16  of  the  units  were 
reflagged)  and  the  process  is  by  no  means 
ended.  In  July  1993,  the  Baltic  states 
owned  358  high-seas  fishery  vessels  with  a 
gross  tonnage  of  1.2  million  CRT.  The 
average  age  of  these  fleets  is  only  14  years, 
but  the  maintenance  and  modernization  of 
the  fleet  is  complicated  by  the  fact  that  the 
vessels  were  constructed  in  countries  whose 
current  economic  environment  is  not 
conducive  to  efficient  supply  of  spare  parts 
or  major  repairs. 

Among  the  most  important  factors  for 
the  future  profitability  of  the  Baltic  fishing 
industries  is  the  privatization  program  which 
all  three  governments  have  begun.  Another 
way  to  obtain  sufficient  raw  materials  to 
operate  the  vessels  and  the  processing  plants 
lies  in  the  joint  ventures  with  foreign  fishing 
companies  which  still  have  abundant  fishery 
resources  within  their  countries'  200-mile 
economic  zones.  Leasing  and  chartering 
arrangements  will  help  in  keeping  the  Baltic 
fishermen  employed. 

Estonia 

Estonia's  fishing  industry,  based  in  the 
country's  two  marine  ports  at  Tallinn  and 
Parnu,  employs  about  30,000  people.  In 
1991,  Estonian  fishermen  landed  315,000 
metric  tons  of  fish  and  shellfish,  most  of 
which  was  exported;  approximately  90 
percent  of  exports  were  sold  to  the  former 
Soviet  Union.  The  catch  was  mostly  used  to 
produce  edible  fishery  products,  but  over  20 
percent  was  reduced  to  fishmeal  (for  animal 
feeds)  and  fish  oils.  Estonians  have  always 
been  fishermen  and  the  fishing  industry 
plays  an   important  part   in   the  country's 


economy,  contributing  almost  900  million 
rubles  to  the  Estonian  gross  domestic 
product  in  1991.  The  value  of  fishery 
exports  in  1991  amounted  to  775  million 
rubles,  or  over  85  percent  of  the  total  value 
of  fisheries  output. 

The  Estonian  fishing  fleet  has  150 
vessels  with  a  total  gross  tonnage  of  236,000 
tons.  The  high-seas  fleet  accounts  for  96 
percent  of  the  entire  tonnage,  even  though  it 
has  only  75  vessels  of  various  classes. 
Many  vessels  are  aging  and  will  have  to  be 
decommissioned.  The  capacity  of  the 
Estonian  high-seas  fleet  exceeds  the  current 
availability  of  fishery  resources.  The  high- 
cost  of  diesel  fuel  further  restricts  the 
operations  of  the  distant-water  fleet. 
Estonian  fishery  managers,  however, 
promptly  reduced  18  percent  of  the  fleet's 
tonnage  in  the  last  two  years.  They  are 
actively  searching  for  partners  in  joint 
fishery  ventures  which  would  allow  them 
access  to  fishery  resources.  Bilateral  fishery 
agreements  have  been  concluded  with  a  half 
dozen  countries.  Several  government-owned 
companies  have  been  privatized  and  the 
prospects  for  Estonian  fisheries  appear 
favorable. 

Latvia 

A  leading  traditional  sector  in  the 
Latvian  economy,  the  fishing  industry  used 
to  employ  48,000  persons,  according  to  the 
Latvian  Ministry  of  Maritime  Affairs.  The 
Latvian  fishing  industry  is  based  mainly  in 
two  fishing  ports  —  Riga  and  Liepaja.  The 
fishing  industry  contributed  almost  500 
million  rubles  to  the  Latvian  economy  in 
1990.  As  the  Soviet  Union  was  breaking  up 
in  1991,  the  Latvian  fishing  fleet  consisted 
of  351  fishing  and  fishery  support  vessels, 
but  has  since  been  reduced  to  223  units. 


Among  the  three  Baltic  Soviet  republics, 
Latvia's  fleet  was  by  far  the  largest, 
comprising  almost  50  percent  of  the  762 
vessels  based  in  the  ports  of  the  Baltic 
republics.  The  high-seas  fleet,  owned  by 
the  Government,  is  fishing  primarily  in  the 
Atlantic,  both  northern  and  southern.  The 
principal  fishing  grounds  are  off  Canada, 
Mauritania,  Nigeria,  the  Faroe  Islands,  and 
Russia.  The  Government,  however,  is 
exploring  the  possibility  of  concluding 
additional  bilateral  fishery  agreements. 

Lithuania 

Lithuania  is  the  largest  of  the  three 
Baltic  countries.  In  1990,  Lithuanian 
fishermen  harvested  355,000  metric  tons  of 
fish.  The  high-seas  fishing  fleet  of  153 
vessels  landed  326,000  metric  tons  of 
fishery  products.  The  small  Baltic  fleet 
landed  only  18,000  tons.  About  9,000  tons 
were  harvested  from  fresh-water  ponds.  By 
the  end  of  1992,  however,  the  total  catch 
was  halved  to  170,000  tons.  The  fisheries 
sector  employed  about  24,000  persons  in 
1991;  of  this  total,  9,000  were  employed  in 
the  fishing  fleets,  while  15,000  were 
working  in  the  fish-processing  industry. 

The  Lithuanian  fishing  fleet  consisted  of 
201  fishing  and  fishery  support  vessels  as 
the  Soviet  Union  was  breaking  up  in  1991. 
Of  this  total,  153  vessels  fished  on  the  high- 
seas  and  48  in  the  Baltic.  Lithuania  had  the 
smallest  fleet  out  of  the  three  former  Soviet 
Baltic  republics,  comprising  only  about  26 
percent  of  the  762  vessels  in  the  Baltic 
fleets.  Most  of  the  fishing  fleet  is  in  poor 
condition  when  compared  to  the  average 
standards  of  Western  fishing  nations. 
Nearly  one  half  of  the  fishing  vessels 
deployed  in  the  Baltic  Sea  and  on  the  high- 
seas  is  obsolete.   The  processing  fleet  is  in 


even  worse  condition;  only  about  a  third  of 
the  vessels  is  considered  worthwhile  to 
upgrade  and  modernize.  However,  the 
difficult  economic  situation  currently  facing 
the  Lithuanian  Government  will  likely  mean 
that  funding  for  fleet  modernization  and 
replacement  is  unavailable. 

B.  Commonwealth  of  Independent  States 

(CIS) 

Following  the  dissolution  of  the  Union  of 
Soviet  Socialist  Republics  (USSR)  in 
December  1991,  most  of  the  component 
republics  established  a  looser  political 
association  called  the  Commonwealth.  The 
Baltic  States  and  Georgia  chose  not  to  join 
the  CIS,  so  that  only  two  republics  with 
high-seas  fishing  capabilities  remained  in  the 
CIS  —  the  Russian  Federation  and  Ukraine. 
In  October  1993,  however,  Georgia  also 
asked  to  become  a  CIS  member. 

In  the  former  Soviet  Union,  the  fishery 
fleets  of  all  republics  operated  as  a  unit 
divided  only  by  the  various  fishing  regions. 
Russian,  Ukrainian,  and  Georgian  vessels  all 
fished  together  in  any  particular  fishing 
ground.  The  fleets  were  under  the 
administrative  command  of  the  regional 
administration  which  organized  the  so-called 
expeditions.  A  fleet  of  30  to  40  large  stern 
factory  trawlers  was  managed  by  a  fleet 
commander  whose  headquarters  were  aboard 
a  large  baseship.  It  did  not  matter  from 
what  Soviet  republic  the  vessels  originated, 
they  were  all  part  of  this  highly-organized 
fishing  flotilla.  The  baseship  received  the 
catch  from  the  trawlers,  processed  it,  and 
passed  it  on  to  refrigerated  fish  carriers  for 
transportation  to  homeport.  The 
commander's  flagship,  supplied  with  fuel 
and  other  needs  by  tankers  and  cargo 
transports,  distributed  these  supplies  among 


its  vessels.  This  system,  which  prevailed 
for  the  past  40  years,  was  suddenly 
disrupted  by  the  new  political  arrangements. 
Each  independent  country  now  had  to 
organize  its  own  support  and  transportation 
activities,  and  obtain  its  own  fuel  (Georgia 
and  Ukraine  have  no  oil  resources  and  must, 
therefore,  buy  diesel  oil  from  Russia  or 
other  countries).  In  addition,  the  bilateral 
agreements  which  were  formerly  negotiated 
by  the  Soviet  Ministry  of  Fisheries  were  no 
longer  valid.  The  Russian  Federation,  as 
the  internationally  recognized  successor  state 
to  the  Soviet  Union,  took  over  most  of  these 
agreements.  Ukraine  and  Georgia,  therefore, 
have  to  make  their  own  arrangements  to 
obtain  access  to  foreign  200-mile  fishery 
zones.  Georgia  is  especially  disadvantaged 
because  its  diplomatic  corps  and  political 
leverage  are  limited. 

All  three  CIS  countries  are  currently 
undergoing  a  major  shake-up  of  their 
economic  systems.  In  Russia,  the  slow 
process  of  reform,  until  recently  hindered  by 
a  conservative  parliament,  has  made 
privatization  more  of  a  hope  than  a  reality. 
In  Ukraine,  a  severe  economic  depression 
has  negatively  affected  the  fishing  industry. 
According  to  one  report,  only  a  third  of  the 
Ukrainian  fishing  fleet  is  deployed  in 
harvesting      aquatic      resources.  No 

information  is  available  on  the  fate  of  the 
Georgian  high-seas  fleet  following  the 
invasion  and  occupation  of  its  main  fishing 
port  of  Poti  by  rebel  troops  on  October  10, 
1993.  All  CIS  republics  suffer  from  the 
inability  to  provide  their  fishing  fleets  with 
sufficient  quantities  of  diesel  fuel  in  a  timely 
manner.  Confirmed  reports  indicate  that  at 
times  as  much  as  a  half  of  the  Russian  fleet 
was  idling  in  various  ports  because  of  fuel 
shortages.  Other  reports  describe  an  even 
worse   situation    whereby    vessels    already 


deployed  on  the  high-seas  had  to  stop  their 
fishing  operations  because  fuel  tanlcers  did 
not  reach  them  on  time.  The  authors  have 
been  unable  to  verify  any  fuel  shortages  in 
Ukraine  or  Georgia,  but  it  must  be  assumed 
that  a  similar,  if  not  worse,  situation 
prevails. 

The  future  of  the  CIS  fishing  fleets  will 
depend  on  the  ability  of  the  three  countries 
to  obtain  the  necessary  fishery  resources  to 
maintain  the  fleets'  operations  and  provide 
protein  to  the  domestic  population.  Also 
important  is  the  export  of  fishery  products  to 
earn  hard  currencies  with  which  to 
modernize  and  replace  the  fleet,  purchase 
diesel  fuel,  and  support  operations  in  foreign 
fishing  zones.  The  joint  fishery  ventures 
with  foreign  companies  and  arrangements  to 
lease,  charter,  or  sell  fishery  vessels  will 
become  an  important  part  of  the  future 
activities  of  the  CIS  fishery  administrators. 
Russia  has  a  natural  advantage  because  its 
200-mile  exclusive  economic  zone  contains 
some  of  the  most  prolific  fishing  grounds  in 
the  world.  Ukrainian  high-seas  fishing 
operations  will  probably  have  to  be  reduced 
along  with  the  fleet.  The  prospects  for  the 
Georgian  fleet  are  bleak  and  it  remains  to  be 
seen  whether  it  can  continue  functioning. 

C.  Eastern  Europe 

The  three  major  fishing  countries  in 
Eastern  Europe,  Poland,  Romania,  and 
Bulgaria,  were  associated  with  former  the 
Soviet  Union  in  the  so-called  5-partite 
agreement  (the  former  East  Germany  was 
the  fifth  member)  to  help  each  other  develop 
high-seas  fisheries.  Although  the  Russian 
Soviet  Federative  Socialist  Republic,  now 
the  Russian  Federation,  was  the  leading 
force  behind  the  expansion  into  the  world's 
oceans,  all  three  East  European  countries 


rapidly  developed  their  own  fishing  fleets. 
Poland  invested  in  an  important  and 
productive  network  of  fishery  shipyards 
which  built  hundreds  of  vessels  over  the  past 
five  decades. 

Bulgaria  and  Romania 

Romania  and  Bulgaria  are  both  adjacent 
to  the  Black  Sea  and  their  fisheries  have 
been  traditionally  based  on  that  body  of 
water.  In  the  1960s,  however,  they  began 
to  buy  high-seas  fishing  and  fishery  support 
vessels  from  the  Soviet  Union,  Poland  and 
East  Germany,  and  to  build  an 
infrastructure  for  the  processing  of  landed 
fish.  Along  with  the  increase  in  the  fishery 
vessel  tonnage,  their  marine  catch  grew 
rapidly  until  the  late  1970s  when  coastal 
countries  began  to  extend  their  fishery 
jurisdictions  to200-miles.  Neither  Romanian 
nor  Bulgarian  fishery  administrators  were 
able  to  adapt  themselves  to  the  new 
conditions.  As  a  result,  their  catch  began  to 
stagnate  and  finally  decrease  rapidly;  soon 
the  aging  fleet  became  more  of  a  burden 
than  an  asset. 

The  outlook  for  both  industries  is  bleak 
and  the  lack  of  rapid  privatization  helps  to 
perpetuate  the  inbred  inefficiency  of  large 
government-owned  corporations.  The 
Bulgarian  high-seas  fishing  company  was 
forced  into  bankruptcy  and  will  have  to  be 
bailed  out  by  government  funds  to  continue 
operations.  The  Romania  fishing  industry 
is  also  still  government-owned  and,  as  in 
other  the  former  communist  countries,  its 
two  principal  goals  are  to  fully  utilize  its 
fishery  fleet  and  so  maintain  the  full 
employment  of  its  fishermen  and  to  export 
fishery  products  to  earn  hard  currency. 


Poland 

In  Poland,  the  high-seas  fishing  industry 
has  better  maintained  its  viability  and, 
although  the  catch  has  decreased  somewhat 
and  the  high-seas  fleet  shrunk,  it  continues 
to  be  a  powerful  presence  on  the  world 
oceans.  The  future,  however,  could  be 
catastrophic.  Almost  the  entire  Polish  high- 
seas  fleet  has  been  concentrated  in  1992  and 
1993  in  the  international  waters  of  the  Sea 
of  Okhotsk,  an  enclave  surrounded  by  the 
Russian  200-mile  zone.  The  Russian 
Federation,  claiming  that  the  fishery 
resources  in  that  area,  as  well  as  their 
originating  stocks  in  the  Russian  zone,  are 
in  danger  of  being  overfished,  are 
demanding  that  the  Poles,  along  with  the 
Koreans  and  the  Chinese,  stop  fishing  there. 
The  Poles  (and  others)  refused  to  do  so, 
stressing  that  their  fishery  in  international 
waters  is  not  subject  to  regulation  by  coastal 
states.  The  Russians  have,  therefore, 
exerted  diplomatic  pressure  to  declare  a 
moratorium  on  foreign  fishing  in  the  Sea  of 
Okhotsk.  If  this  occurs,  the  Polish  high- 
seas  fleet  will  have  to  rapidly  find  new 
resources,  or  even  more  rapidly,  reduce  the 
number  of  its  vessels. 

Former  Yugoslavia 

The  Socialist  Federative  Republic  of 
Yugoslavia  (SFRJ)  ceased  to  exist  in  1991 
when  Croatia  and  Slovenia  declared  their 
independence.  The  country's  fisheries  have 
been  based  on  the  Adriatic  Sea  except  for  a 
brief,  unsuccessful  attempt  in  the  1970s  to 
enter  the  Atlantic  tuna  fishery.  Most  of  the 
2,000  kilometer-long  Adriatic  coast  is  now 
in  the  Republic  of  Croatia.  Currently, 
Croatia  and  Slovenia  have  no  high-seas 
vessels  and  are  not  expected  to  expand  into 
high-seas  fishing  in  the  near  future. 


2.0 
THE  BALTIC  STATES 


10 


2.1 


OVERVIEW 


The  three  Baltic  countries,  Estonia, 
Latvia,  and  Lithuania,  reoccupied  by  the 
Red  Army  in  1944-45,  were  part  of  the 
Soviet  empire  until  August  1991.  Their 
fishing  industries  were  developed  (along 
with  those  of  other  Soviet  republics)  as  an 
integral  part  of  the  centrally  planned 
economy,  directed  by  the  Soviet  Ministry  of 
Fisheries  in  Moscow.  A  part  of  the  Soviet 
worldwide  fishery  activities  was  conducted 
from  the  Baltic  states.  Baltic-based  fishery 
operations  were  serviced,  as  needed,  by  the 
Soviet  fishery  representatives  in  foreign 
ports,  where  repairs,  supplies,  water,  fuel, 
and  other  necessities  were  provided.  The 
three  Baltic  countries  had  no  effective  policy 
control  over  the  expanding  high-seas 
fisheries  conducted  from  their  ports  during 
the  Soviet  period.  The  operations  of  their 
fishing  and  fishery  support  fleets  were 
managed  directly  by  central  Soviet 
authorities  through  the  Western  Fisheries 
Administration  (ZAPRYBA),  headquartered 
in  Riga,  Latvia.  In  1993,  the  Baltic  fishing 
fleet  included  578  vessels  with  a  total 
tonnage  of  1,177,000  gross  registered  tons 
(GRT).  This  included  358  high-seas  vessels 
(1,157,000  GRT)  that  registered  more  than 
500  GRT  each. 


A.  Background 

The  Baltic  fishing  fleets,  operating  for 
40  years  under  the  system  of  the  Soviet 
expeditionary  fishing  fleets,  organized  their 
own  fishing  expeditions  consisting  of  high- 
seas  trawlers  supported  by  motherships, 
fish-processors,  tankers,  water  supply 
vessels,  and  other  support  vessels,  but  these 
fleets  were  always  Ashing  under  the 
administrative  command  of  the  ZAPRYBA. 
A  ZAPRYBA  fleet  commander  (naclialnik 
flota),  located  aboard  one  of  the  large 
motherships,  was  responsible  for  day-to-day 
operations  and  for  the  transfer  of  flsh  to 
motherships  for  processing,  or  to 
refrigerated  transports  for  delivery  to  home 
ports.  This  system  was  in  force  until 
September  1991  when  the  Baltic  republics 
achieved  independence  and  took  over  the 
operational  command  of  their  fleets, 
processing  plants,  and  other  flshery  assets 
from  the  ZAPRYBA.  At  that  time,  each 
Baltic  country  had  to  set  up  a  new 
administrative  system  to  manage  its  Ashing 
industry.  Estonia's  fisheries  are  now 
managed  by  the  Estonian  National  Board  of 
Fisheries  of  the  Ministry  of  the 
Environment.      This    Board   develops   and 


11 


administers  fisheries  policy,  maintains  and 
protects  fishery  stocks,  coordinates  research 
activities,  and  issues  regulations.  Latvia's 
fisheries  management  was  under  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  Latvian  Ministry  of 
Maritime  Affairs  until  August  1993,  when  it 
was  turned  over  to  the  Ministry  of 
Transportation.  Lithuania's      fisheries 

management  is  handled  by  the  Fisheries 
Department  in  the  Ministry  of  Agriculture. 

1.  Problems  of  independence 

The  fishing  industries  in  all  three  Baltic 
states  faced  a  real  crisis  when  they  became 
independent.  Their  —  by  now  substantial  — 
fishing  industries  suddenly  found  themselves 
without  the  infrastructure  and  sales  network 
which  they  had  relied  on  over  the  past  4 
decades.  The  new  Baltic  state-owned 
fishing  companies  lost  maintenance  support 
in  fdreign  ports,  centralized  marketing 
agents,  and,  most  importantly,  cheap, 
subsidized  Soviet  diesel  oil. 

The  Baltic  fishing  companies  have  also 
lost  the  large  Soviet  internal  marketing 
network.  Before  1991,  the  Baltic  fish- 
processing  plants  simply  shipped  their 
fishery  products  to  any  Soviet  domestic 
trade  organization  that  wanted  them.  The 
Russians  now  consider  such  deliveries  to  be 
imports  from  a  foreign  country.  The  same 
goes  for  exports  to  Ukraine,  Belarus,  and 
other  parts  of  the  Commonwealth.  Besides 
a  specific  order  for  fishery  commodities, 
customs  papers  have  to  be  made  out,  duties 
(if  any)  paid  and,  most  importantly,  payment 
must  be  received.  Fortunately,  the  Baltic 
states  have  maintained  their  relationship  with 
the  principal  Soviet  fishery  trading 
company,  SOVRYBFLOT,  which  now 
operates  as  a  Russian  holding  company. 
Various    enterprises    in    the    three    Baltic 


countries  own  shares  in  SOVRYBFLOT:  the 
Estonian  state  companies,  ESTRYBPROM 
and  ESTRYBKHOZSOIUZ  (Estonian 
Cooperative  Fisheries  Union),  hold  two  and 
one  shares  respectively;  the  Latvian  state- 
owned  Riga  Trawler  and  Refrigeration  Fleet 
and  the  Liepaja  Fishing  Fleet  Base  each 
holds  two  shares;  and  the  Jura  state-owned 
fishing  fleet  of  Lithuania  holds  eight  shares.' 

The  most  severe  problem  resulting  from 
independence  is  how  to  obtain  diesel  fuel. 
In  the  Soviet  period,  the  subsidized  fuel, 
delivered  by  the  Soviet  authorities, 
represented  only  about  10-15  percent  of  the 
operating  costs  of  Baltic  fishing  vessels. 
Now,  at  world  prices,  fuel  represents 
anywhere  from  an  estimated  50-70  percent 
of  operating  costs.  The  availability  of  diesel 
fuel  is  not  much  of  a  problem,  the  problem 
is  its  price  and  the  fact  that  it  has  to  be  paid 
for  with  foreign  currencies  which  all  three 
Baltic  countries  currently  lack.  Some 
bartering  was  attempted,  but  it  reportedly 
was  not  very  successful. 

2.  International  agreements 

Baltic  fishermen  used  to  have  access  to 
a  large  number  of  200-mile  zones  under  the 
59  bilateral  fishery  agreements  which  were 
concluded  by  the  former  Soviet  Union. 
After  they  won  their  independence  in 
September  1991,  such  access  rights  were  no 
longer  available.  Each  of  the  three  Baltic 
countries  must  now  negotiate  its  own 
agreements  for  access  to  fisheries  off  foreign 
countries.  In  view  of  their  inadequate 
diplomatic  leverage  and  the  limited  number 
of  diplomatic  posts  which  the  Baltic  states 
maintain,  this  has  proven  difficult.  For 
example,  the  Baltic  fleets  used  to  fish  as 
Soviet-registered  vessels  in  the  Moroccan 
200-mile  zone  where  the  former  USSR  in 


1991  obtained  a  large  annual  catch  quota  of 
850,000  metric  tons  (t).  In  1992,  the 
Russian  Federation  renegotiated  the  former 
Soviet  accord  and  managed  to  obtain  a  3- 
year  agreement  allowing  it  to  net  400,000  t 
of  sardines  and  mackerel  annually.^ 
Morocco,  however,  chose  not  to  conclude  a 
similar  agreement  with  the  now  independent 
Baltic  states  (or  with  Ukraine). 

More  positive  are  fishery  relations  with 
the  European  Community  (EC)  which, 
during  the  past  2  decades,  did  not  allow 
Soviet  vessels  to  fish  in  its  Exclusive 
Economic  Zone  (EEZ).  This  policy  was 
revised  in  early  1992  and  the  Baltic  states 
initialed  agreements  with  the  EC  in  July 
1992.  Lithuania  signed  in  Vilnius  on  July 
14,  Latvia  in  Riga  on  July  16,  and  Estonia 
in  Tallinn  on  July  17.  If  the  respective 
parliaments  ratified  these  agreements,  they 
would  have  become  effective  in  1993.  The 
accords  provide  for  reciprocal  access  to 
respective  fishing  zones,  financial 
contributions  for  fishermen's  training,  and 
the  establishment  of  joint  ventures.^ 

These  agreements  should  also  facilitate 
the  admittance  of  the  Baltic  states  into  the 
Baltic  Sea  Fisheries  Commission,  and  the 

granting  of  catch  quotas  allowing  them  to 
fish  in  that  sea.  Unfortunately,  Russia  is 
claiming  successor  state  rights  for  the  quotas 
previously  allocated  to  the  former  Soviet 
Union,  and,  even  if  the  Baltic  States  gain 
admittance  to  the  Commission,  there  may  be 
a  dearth  of  available  resources.  There  have 
been  calls  from  the  International 
Commission  for  the  Exploration  of  the  Seas 
(ICES)  for  a  1993  moratorium  on  Baltic  cod 
and  from  Greenpeace  for  a  complete 
moratorium  on  Baltic  salmon. 


The  agreement  with  the  EC  was  strongly 
supported  by  Denmark  which  soon 
promoted  its  own  bilateral  arrangements. 
The  Danish  Government  has  approved  a 
DK50  million  (US$  7.5  million)  grant  to  the 
3  newly  independent  Baltic  countries.  These 
funds  will  buy  6,000  t  of  Baltic  Sea  herring 
which  will  be  donated  to  Latvia,  Lithuania, 
and  Estonia,  in  equal  amounts  of  2,000  t 
each.  The  herring  will  be  caught  by  Danish 
fishermen  from  the  island  of  Bornholm 
(which  is  going  to  help  the  serious 
unemployment  among  the  fishermen  there), 
paid  for  by  the  Danish  Government  and  then 
donated  to  the  Baltic  countries  which  will 
send  their  own  refrigerated  transports  to 
pick  it  up.  One  half  of  the  total  amount  will 
be  donated  to  the  Baltics  in  whole,  frozen 
form,  while  the  other  half  will  be  headed 
and  gutted;  some  herring  might  even  be 
filleted  in  local  Bornholm  fish-processing 
plants.  The  Danes  stipulated  in  the 
memorandum  of  understanding  that  the 
donated  fish  can  be  used  only  for  domestic 
consumption  in  the  Baltic  states,  but  the 
end-products  may  be  exported  to  members 
of  the  Commonwealth  of  Independent  States 
and  other  East  European  countries  except  to 
the  former  German  Democratic  Republic 
(which  is  now  united  with  West  Germany)." 
The  Baltic  Governments  will  charge  their 
fish-procesing  plants  a  small  administrative 
fee  and  transportation  costs.  Any  profits 
obtained  from  the  sale  of  the  canned  or 
smoked  products  will  be  used  to  modernize 
antiquated  processing  equipment.  Such 
purchases  have  already  been  made  in 
Denmark  mostly  for  updated,  used 
processing  equipment. 


13 


The  Baltic  States 


International  boundary 

ir        National  capital 
-"^ — ■ — '-'  Railroad 
Road 

Estonia,  Lativa.  and  Liihuanm  have 
no  interna/  administrative  divisions 

SO  100  Kilofneters 

■    ■    --i" . 1 ' , 


SWEDEN 


801946 (ROOl 12)  10-91 


The  three  Baltic  states  have  also 
separately  concluded  bilateral  fisheries 
access  agreements  with  the  Faroe  Islands 
(with  the  consent  of  Denmark).  The 
agreements  provide  the  Baltics  with  1993 
catch  quotas  totalling  28,000  t  to  harvest 
blue  whiting  in  the  Faroese  fishing  zone  in 
exchange  for  giving  Faroese  fishermen  a 
catch  quota  of  12,000  t  of  various  species. 

Neighboring  Sweden  also  resumed 
fishery  relations  with  the  Baltic  states  soon 
after  it  recognized  them  as  independent 
states.  The  fishery  administrators  of 
Estonia,  Latvia,  and  Lithuania  signed  a 
quadripartite  agreement  with  Sweden  in 
Stockholm  at  the  end  of  January  1992.  The 
document  defines  the  contested  fishing 
grounds  in  the  coastal  areas  of  the  Baltic 
Sea.  An  estimated  75  percent  of  fishery 
stocks  in  the  area  will  be  managed  by  the 
Baltic  states.^ 

Another  area  where  the  Baltic  states 
have  been  able  to  obtain  some  fishery  catch 
quotas  is  in  the  Northwest  Atlantic.  The 
fishing  in  this  area  is  governed  by  the  North 
Atlantic  Fisheries  Organization  (NAFO), 
which  allocates  the  catch  quotas  to  various 
countries.  During  NAFO's  Fourteenth 
Annual  Meeting  in  Dartmouth  (Canada)  in 
September  1992,  Russia,  as  the  successor 
state  to  the  Soviet  Union,  received  a  1993 
allocation  of  37,300  t  of  various  species, 
mostly  redfish  (27,000  tons).  In  bilateral 
negotiations,  following  the  conclusion  of  the 
Annual  Meeting,  Russia  transferred  12,000 
t  of  its  1993  ocean  perch  (redfish)  quota  to 
Latvia,  Estonia,  and  Lithuania,  with  each 
country  receiving  4,000  tons.  In  September 
1993,  the  Russian  Federation  was  allocated 
32,573  t  of  fish  for  the  1994  fishing  year 
including  --  for  the  first  time  --  5,000  t  of 
illex  squid  which  can  easily  be  sold  for 


foreign  currencies.  The  portion  that  will  be 
transferred  to  the  Baltic  countries  will  be 
decided  later  in  bilateral  talks. 

A  severe  blow  to  the  Baltic  fishermen 
was  the  moratorium  on  fishing  within  its 
200-miles  which  Namibia  declared  in  1991. 
A  large  proportion  of  their  total  catch  came 
from  this  area,  regulated  by  the  International 
Southeast  Atlantic  Fisheries  Commission. 
The  Namibian  Government,  however,  has 
recently  announced  that  foreign  vessels  can 
apply  for  fishing  licenses  in  1994,  and  it  is 
possible  that  some  Baltic  vessels  may  be 
deployed  there  in  the  future.  Other  fishery 
agreements  and  joint  venture  arrangements 
that  individual  Baltic  countries  have 
concluded,  in  addition  to  those  mentioned 
above,  are  enumerated  and  explained  in  the 
body  of  the  report  under  each  Baltic  state. 

B.  Fishing  fleets 

The  capacity  of  the  Baltic  fishery  fleets 
greatly  exceeds  the  current  availability  of 
fishery  resources.  In  mid- 1993,  the  Baltic 
high-seas  fishing  and  fishery  support  fleets 
had  a  gross  registered  tonnage  of  1,156,400 
tons,  or  almost  97  percent  of  the  entire 
fishery  tonnage  (appendix  1).  The 
remaining  3  percent  consisted  of  small 
fishing  vessels  under  500  gross  tons  most  of 
which  fished  in  the  Baltic. 

Given  the  fact  that  high-seas  tonnage  in 
the  late  1940s  was  zero,  one  can  see  how 
rapidly  the  Baltic  fleets  developed  to  reach 
almost  a  quarter  of  the  total  fishery  tonnage 
of  the  former  USSR,  while  the  Baltic  states' 
population  (8.0  million  inhabitants  for  all 
three  countries)  barely  reached  4  percent  of 
the  total  Soviet  population. 

As  shown  in  appendices   1  and  2,  the 


16 


Latvian  fishery  tonnage  is  not  only  the 
largest  among  the  Baltic  states,  it  is  also  the 
most  disproportionate  when  related  to  the 
population.  Every  fifth  Latvian  "owns"  a 
gross  high-seas  fishery  ton,  but  only  every 
eighth  Lithuanian  does.  One  possible 
explanation  for  this  imbalance  is  the  fact  that 
the  Soviet  Western  Fisheries  Administration, 
which  was  ordering  the  vessels  and  paying 
for  them,  was  located  in  Riga,  Latvia. 

After  independence  was  granted  to  the 
Baltic  states  by  the  Russian  Federation  in 
1991,  there  were  no  disputes  -  as  far  as  is 
known  -  about  the  ownership  of  fishery 
vessels.  Whatever  vessels  were  in  Baltic 
ports  or  were  "owned"  by  the  Estonian, 
Latvian,  and  Lithuanian  fishery 
administrations,  became  the  property  of  the 
newly  independent  states  which  lost  no  time 
in  re-registering  these  vessels  under  their 
own  registry.  The  few  exceptions  confirm 
the  rule.* 

Cognizant  of  the  excessive  capacity  of 
their  fishery  fleets,  all  three  Baltic  countries 
have  begun  to  reduce  the  number  of  vessels 
(appendix  3).  Estonia  leads  the  way  in 
decommissioning  35,000  gross  registered 
tons,  or  almost  15  percent  of  its  total 
tonnage.  Lithuania  reduced  its  large  fleet  by 
only  5  percent,  while  Latvia  (with  the 
largest  Baltic  fleet)  was  able  to  reduce  its 
tonnage  by  barely  3  percent  in  the  last  two 
years. ^  The  data  for  Estonia  are  the  most 
complete  and  reliable  because  of  the 
outstanding  cooperation  of  the  U.S. 
Embassy  in  Tallinn  which  repeatedly 
checked  the  data  available  in  Estonia;  it  is 
not  impossible  that  Latvia  and  Lithuania 
have  also  removed  from  their  registries 
additional  vessels,  and  the  authors  hope  that 
local  readers  will  be  kind  enough  to  notify 
them     of    new     changes     in     the     fleet 


complement.  Of  special  interest  is  the  fact 
that  the  decommissioned  6  percent  of  the 
Baltic  fishery  fleets  was  mostly  sold  for 
scrap  and  thus  removed  from  the  over- 
capitalized high-seas  fleets. 

The  average  age  of  the  Baltic  fleets  is 
only  14  years;  the  vessels  were  built  more 
recently  than  those  in  practically  all  other 
East  European  countries,  including  Russia. 
Since  the  reduction  program  will  presumably 
eliminate  the  oldest  vessels,  it  is  hoped  that 
the  age  of  the  Baltic  fleet  will  decrease  even 
further. 

C.  Outlook  for  the  Baltics 

Another  important  factor  governing  the 
future  efficiency  and  profitability  of  the 
Baltic  fleets  are  the  privatization  programs. 
As  long  as  the  fleets  continue  to  be  owned 
by  the  governments  (and  therefore  likely  to 
receive  subsidies  to  cover  their  deficits),  the 
Baltic  high-seas  fisheries  will  not  operate  at 
the  maximum  economic  efficiency.  In  late 
1992,  Lithuania's  privatization  programs 
were  the  most  advanced  among  the  3  Baltic 
countries.  Its  government  expected  75 
percent  of  state-owned  assets  to  be 
privatized  by  the  end  of  the  year,  while  in 
Estonia  only  15  percent  of  sdch  assets  were 
privatized.  In  Latvia,  the  program  was 
barely  in  the  policy  planning  stage.  A 
major  difficulty  is  the  giant  size  of  the  Baltic 
state-owned  fishing  companies;  no  local  or 
even  foreign  owner  has  the  necessary  funds 
to  buy  them  out.  The  Baltic  fishery 
managers  have  already  divested  themselves 
of  many  non-fishing  enterprises  which  were 
accumulated  over  the  years  when  investment 
funds  were  readily  available.  In  addition  to 
divestitures,  a  tendency  is  noted  towards 
breaking  up  large  organizations  into  smaller 
parts.      This    was   especially   pronounced 


17 


among    the    former    Soviet-type    fishery 
cooperatives  (kolkhozes). 

Another  path  to  survival  for  the  Baltic 
fleets  will  be  the  joint  ventures  with  foreign 
fishing  companies  (especially  in  countries 
where  fishery  resources  are  still  abundant 
within  their  200-mile  EEZs).  Bareboat 
leasing  arrangements  and  charters  will  also 
help  to  keep  the  Baltic  fishermen  employed 
and  the  vessels  running.  It  is  important  that 
the  fleet  be  occupied  since  its  being  idle  in 
ports  is  economically  disastrous. 


The  question  remains:  is  it  still  possible  to 
operate  the  Baltic  fishing  fleets  profitably 
once  they  are  streamlined  and  the  inefficient 
old  vessels  are  retired?  According  to  the 
best  available  information  this  is  still 
possible,  but  the  margin  of  managerial 
errors  and  inefficiencies  will  be  much 
smaller.  The  Baltic  countries  realize  this 
necessity  and  are  trying  to  modernize  not 
only  the  fishing  fleets,  but  also  the 
infrastructure,  by  attracting  foreign 
investments  and/or  by  entering  into  joint 
ventures  with  Western  fishing,  fish- 
processing,  and  equipment-manufacturing 
companies. 


ENDNOTES 


1.  VAO  SOVRYBFLOT,  Spravochnik  Aktsionerov,  Smeshannikh  Obshchestv,  Sovmestnikh  Predpriiatii  i 
Zagraniclvnkli  Predstavitel'stv.  Moscow,  1992. 

2.  Tills  amount  will  be  reduced  by  50,000  t  for  each  year  of  the  agreement. 

3.  Eurofish  Report,  30  July  1992. 

4.  Danish  Ministry  of  Fisheries,  Personal  Communication,  26  July  1993. 

5.  Radio  Russia,  27  January  1992. 

6.  One  such  exception  was  the  training  vessel,  Kruzenshtem.    This  vessel  was  seized  by  the  victorious  Russian 
Army  from  Nazi  Germany  after  the  end  of  World  War  II,  and  was  used  by  the  Soviet  Ministry  of  Fisheries  to 
train  cadets  from  fishery  schools  and  the  merchant  marine  academy.    The  Kn/zenshtern  '.v  homeport  was  Tallinn 
at  tlie  time  of  the  breakup  of  the  USSR,  but  the  Russians  insisted  it  belonged  in  the  Russian  fleet  and,  in 
December  1991,  the  vessel  set  sail  for  the  port  of  Baltiisk  near  Kaliningrad. 


7.  The  reduction  of  vessels  data  are  by  no  means  complete. 
vessels  with  7,827  GRT  marked  to  be  sold  in  August  1993. 
thus  further  lowering  the  country's  gross  tomiage. 


For  instance,  the  Estonians  had  an  additional  4 
Tliey  might  have  been  decommissioned  already 


Appendix  1.  Baltic  states.  Fishing  and  fishery 
support  fleets,  by  country  and 
selected  vessel  sizes:  1993. 


Country 

Number 

GRT 

Average  GRT 

ESTONIA 

Under  500 
Above  500 
Total 

GRT 
GRT 

56 

90 

146 

9.852 
225.713 
235,565 

176 
2,508 
1.613 

LATVIA 

Under  500 
Above  500 
Total 

GRT 
GRT 

71 
152 
223 

9.884 
501.935 
511,819 

139 
3,302 
2,295 

LITHUANIA 

Under  500  GRT 
Above  500  GRT 
Total 

93 

116 
209 

19.784 
428.756 
448,540 

213 
3.696 

2.146 

GRAND  TOTAL 

578 

1.195.924 

2.069 

Source  U  S  Navy.  Office  of  Naval  Intelligence. 
July  1993 


Appendix  2.  Baltic  states.  Gross  registered  tonnage  of 
the  high-seas  fleet  versus  population  of 
country:  1993. 


Country 

Tonnage 

Pop 

ulation 

GRT 

per 

■  inhabitant 

(1,000  tons) 

(in 

millions) 

(in 

GRT) 

Estonia 

225  7 

1.6 

7.1 

Latvia 

501  9 

2.7 

5.4 

Lithuania 

428.8 

3,7 

8  6 

Total 

1,156  4 

8  0 

6  9 

Sources  U  S  Navy.  Office  of  Naval  Intelligence.  July 
1993  (for  gross  tonnage):  Central  Intelligence 
Agency.  The  Uorld  Factbook   J'^92    Washington.  DC. 
1992  (for  population  as  of  July  1992), 


Appendix  3.  Baltic  states.  Fishing  fleet  reduction,  by 
country,  gross  registered  tonnage,  and 
percentage  of  reduction:  September  1993. 


Country 

Gross  reqi 
Total 

istered  tonnage 
Reduced 

Percentage* 

LATVIA 

LITHUANIA 

ESTONIA 

511,819 
448 , 540 
235.565 

15.330 
20.547 
34.704 

3  0 

4  6 
14  7 

BALTIC  TOTAL** 

1,195.924 

70,581 

5  9 

Source  The  individual  country  reports  give  the  sources 

from  which  this  information  was  obtained 
*  Percentage  of  total  gross  tonnage  which  is  known  to  - 
have  been  decommissioned  from  the  respective  country  registers, 
**  Includes  both  high-seas  and  Baltic  fleets. 


19 


20 


2.2 


ESTONIA 


Estonia  is  one  of  three  Baltic  countries  that  became  independent  after  being  part  of  the  Soviet 
Union  for  almost  five  decades.  The  Estonian  fishing  industry  was  part  of  the  centrally  planned 
economy,  directed  by  the  Soviet  Ministry  of  Fisheries  in  Moscow.  The  republic's  fishing  fleet 
was  supported  by  the  giant  (and  expensive)  Soviet  network  of  fishery  support  vessels  and 
representatives  in  foreign  ports.  Estonia  now  has  to  secure  access  to  fishing  grounds  in  foreign 
200-mile  zones  itself  and  can  no  longer  count  on  cheap,  subsidized  Soviet  diesel  oil.  Estonia's 
fisheries  have  also  lost  the  infrastructure  and  domestic  Soviet  sales  network  on  which  they  relied 
over  the  past  half  century.  The  difficult  transition  from  a  command  to  a  free-market  economy 
has  been  exacerbated  by  the  need  to  reorganize  the  administrative  staff  following  the  dissolution 
of  the  Soviet  Western  Fisheries  Administration  in  Riga.  The  Estonian  fishing  fleet  has  about  80 
high-seas  vessels  with  a  total  of  226,000  gross  registered  tons  (GRT);  its  capacity  exceeds  the 
currently  available  fishery  resources. 


CONTENTS 

I.  Background 22 

II.  Fishing  Fleet 22 

A.  High-seas  Fleet 22 

B.  Fleet  Reduction 25 

C.  Types  of  High-seas  Vessels     25 

D.  Baltic  Sea  Fleet 26 

III.  Shipyards 26 

IV.  High-seas  Fishing  Grounds 26 

V.  High-seas  Fishery  Catch     27 

VI.  High-seas  Fishing  Companies    27 

VII.  Employment 29 

VIII.  Fishery  Agreements    29 

IX.  Joint  Ventures 30 

X.  Outlook 30 

Sources    31 

Endnotes    35 

Appendices 37 


21 


I.  BACKGROUND 


Estonia  is  the  smallest  of  the  three  Baltic 
republics  both,  in  size  and  population.  It  has 
an  area  of  roughly  45,000  square  kilometers 
(km),  including  2  large  islands  located  in  the 
Baltic  Sea  which  together  account  for  8 
percent  of  Estonia's  land  area.  The  country's 
population  numbered  1.6  million  inhabitants 
in  1992.  This  northern- most  former  Soviet 
Baltic  republic  has  a  coastline  of  1,393  km,  if 
calculated  on  the  baselines  alone.  Including 
the  coasts  of  all  islands,  however,  Estonia's 
total  coastline  almost  triples  to  3,794 
kilometers  (about  2,357  miles).' 

Estonia's  fishing  industry,  based  in  the 
country's  two  marine  ports  at  Tallinn  and 
Parnu,  employs  about  30,000  people."  In 
1991,  Estonian  fishermen  landed  315,000 
metric  tons  (t)  of  fish  and  shellfish,  most  of 
which  was  exported;  approximately  90 
percent  was  exported  to  the  former  Soviet 
Union.  The  entire  catch  was  not  used  to 
produce  edible  fishery  products  only;  over  20 
percent  was  reduced  to  fishmeal  (used  in 
animal  feeds)  and  fish  oils.^ 

Estonians  have  always  been  fishermen  and 
the  fishing  industry  plays  an  important  part  in 
the  country's  economy,  contributing  almost 
900  million  rubles  to  the  Estonian  gross 
domestic  product  in  1991.  The  value  of 
fishery  exports  in  1991  amounted  to  775 
million  rubles,  or  over  85  percent  of  the  total 
value  of  fisheries  output."* 


II.  FISHING  FLEET 


The  Estonian  fishing  fleet  consisted  of  210 
fishing  and   fishery   support  vessels  as  the 


Soviet  Union  was  breaking  up  in  1991.  Of 
this  total,  95  vessels  fished  on  the  high-seas 
and  115  in  the  Baltic.^  Estonia's  fleet 
comprised  only  about  28  percent  of  the  762 
vessels  based  in  the  ports  of  the  three  former 
Soviet  Baltic  republics.  According  to  the 
Nordic  Investment  Bank  study,  however, 
much  of  this  fleet  was  aged  and  should  have 
been  retired. 

By  July  1993,  the  Estonian  fishing  fleet 
was  greatly  reduced  and  now  numbers  less 
than  150  vessels  having  in  excess  of  100 
gross  registered  tons  (CRT),  with  a  total  CRT 
of  236,000  tons.  The  high-seas  fleet  accounts 
for  96  percent  of  the  entire  tonnage,  or 
226,000  tons. 


Table  1.  Estonia.  Fishing  fleet,  by  selected 
vessel  capacity.  1993. 


Capacity 


Number    GRT   Average  GRT 


Under  500  GRT 
Above  500  GRT 
Total 


56     9.852     176 

90    225,713    2.508 

146    235.565    1.613 


Source  US  Navy.  Office  of  Naval 
Intelligence.  29  July  1993 


A.  High-seas  Fleet 

In  1991,  the  Estonian  state-owned,  high- 
seas  fishing  fleet  consisted  of  95  vessels."  By 
November  1992,  the  active  fleet  was  reduced 
to  75  vessels  of  various  types,  according  to 
FAO.^  This  was  20  units  less  than  the  year 
before;  their  "disappearance"  is  explained  in 
section  B  below. 

The  90  vessels  listed  in  table  1  as  having 
over  500  GRT  are  most  likely  all  engaged  in 
high-seas  fishing;  (For  a  complete  list  of  the 
vessels  showing  vessel  names,  type,  GRT, 
country  and  year  built,  see  appendix  1.) 


22 


^-x 

Baltic 
Sea 

C^             HELSINKI^ 

Finland  ^, 

Cjulf  of  Finland 

-J 
Paldiski                    ^ 

.                      TALLINN                                   1 

] 

1;-^ 

<ohtta-Jarve* 

lii^^ 

1  I';,.-    1   • 

Estonia 

'- 

^,.ipu,       Russia 

\             1      ■     ■     ■ 

U 
'    ;               S,l,ir(7tl,P,l 

Parnu                                     /-^^ 

\      ;  vr>r(.s 
1    1  '•1'^' 

• 
Tartu 

/ 

-"'."'  ■  '  ■ 

Cult  u(  Riga                                                                 X 

^,/-^ 

A 

% 

Latvia 

X 

.«/■■*■ 

,-,                         .^ 

tt^l.nnete«s 

> 

,.-.,-.. .:/..._.. 

.RIGA                                    ,*^        ^         '         ' ' 

B.  Fleet  Reduction 

The  Estonian  fishing  fleet  has  been 
reduced  by  13  vessels  during  the  past  2  years 
(appendix  2).  Seven  vessels,  owned  by  the 
state-owned  OOKEAN  company,  were  sold  to 
Indian  and  Pakistani  companies,  probably  to 
be  scrapped  for  iron.  (Estonia  itself  does  not 
have  a  vessel-scrapping  facility.)  Most  of  the 
vessels  sold  for  scrap  were  20  years  old  and 
older.  The  other  six  vessels  were  reflagged, 
mostly  to  former  Soviet  states.  A  large 
fishery  training  vessel,  the  Kruzenshtern,  was 
reportedly  returned  to  Russian  operative 
control.*  The  total  gross  tonnage  of  sold 
(scrapped)  and  reflagged  vessels  amounts  to 
almost  38,000  GRT,  approximately  17 
percent  of  the  Estonian  high-seas  fleet 
tonnage.  The  stern  factory  trawler  Korall, 
owned  by  the  OOKEAN  company,  is  no 
longer  engaged  in  high-seas  fishery 
operations.  It  is  moored  in  Tallinn  and  serves 
as  a  training  vessel  for  students  of  the  local 
technical-vocational  fishery  school.* 

This  significant  reduction  of  the  Estonian 
distant-water  fleet  is  not  yet  completed.  In 
August  1993,  four  additional  Estonian  vessels 
were  marked  for  sale,  including  3  large  stern 
factory  trawlers.  There  has  been  buyer 
interest,  but  the  contracts  have  not  yet  been 
signed.  A  small  Baltic  fishing  vessel,  the 
Kirre,  is  also  on  the  block.'"  If  and  when 
these  units  are  sold,  another  8,000  gross  tons 
of  capacity  will  be  eliminated  from  the 
Estonian  high-seas  fleet. 

C.  Types  of  High-seas  Vessels 

Estonia's  distant-water  fleet  has  17 
different  classes  of  fishing  and  fishery  support 
vessels.  They  are  identified  in  appendices  3 
and  4. 


Most  fishing  vessels  have  between  2,000  and 
3,000  gross  tons  and  are  owned  by  the 
OOKEAN  high-seas  fishing  company  in 
Tallinn.  The  medium-sized  side  and  stern 
trawlers  are  mostly  owned  by  former 
cooperatives  (kolkhozes)  that  have  been 
privatized. 

The  largest  type  in  the  Estonian  fishing 
fleet  is  the  giant  floating  cannery  and  fish- 
processing  stern  factory  trawler  of  the 
MOONZUND  class  (appendix  2).  With  a 
gross  tonnage  of  7,700  tons  and  two  engines 
(each  having  31,600  horsepower),  this  vessel 
not  only  harvests  fish  itself,  but  can  also 
freeze  the  catch  and  produce  up  to  26,000 
standard  cans  a  day  (appendix  5).  A 
relatively  modern  vessel,  the  MOONZUND 
class  was  built  in  the  late  1980s  in  the 
VOLKSWERFT  Shipyard  in  Stralsund, 
located  in  the  former  German  Democratic 
Republic.  Also  known  as  the  ATLANTIK- 
488  class,  this  freezer  trawler  can  flsh  with 
both  bottom  and  mid-water  trawls  and  can 
operate  on  its  own,  or  with  a  fisheries 
"expedition"  in  the  proverbial  seven  seas  of 
the  world.  Fish  (either  whole  or  processed) 
is  frozen;  bycatch  and  offal  are  reduced  to 
fishmeal  and  fish  oils.  Medicinal  fish  oils  are 
also  produced.  The  finished  products  can  be 
transferred  at  sea,  or  brought  into  port  by  the 
vessel  itself. 

Practically  all  Estonian  fishing  vessels 
were  built  in  Soviet  or  East  German 
shipyards.  An  exception  ares  the  two  Polish- 
built  fish-processing  baseships.  These  are 
larger  (13,500  GRT)  and  longer  vessels  than 
the  MOONZUND  class,  but  they  are  much 
older  (almost  30  years  old)  and  less  efficient. 
They  also  have  no  canning  facilities.  Built  in 
Poland's  Gdansk  Shipyard,  they  are  known  as 
the  B-64  or  PIONERSK-class  vessels. 


25 


D.  Baltic  Sea  Fleet 

A  fleet  of  about  117  small  trawlers, 
driftnetters,  and  longliners  over  20  meters 
long  operates  in  the  Baltic  Sea."  In  1991,  the 
Baltic  Sea  fishermen  harvested  approximately 
20  percent  of  Estonia's  total  fisheries  catch, 
or  about  80,000  tons.'^  The  catch  is  mostly 
herring,  sprat,  cod,  and  salmon.  An 
additional  500  small  boats  fish  along  the  coast 
of  the  Baltic  Sea.'^ 


III.  SHIPYARDS 


High-seas  fishing  vessels  are  not  built  in 
Estonia.  Some  companies  build  small  wooden 
and  fiberglass  rowboats,  but  these  are  not 
fishing  vessels.  Fishing  nets  are  also  not 
manufactured  in  Estonia;  they  have  generally 
been  imported  from  Russia.  However,  there 
are  about  10  small  companies  that  convert  the 
nets  into  fishing  traps/gear. ''' 


rV.  HIGH-SEAS  FISHING  GROUNDS 


The  Estonian  high-seas  fleet  operates  in 
the  international  waters  of  the  Northwest 
Atlantic,  beyond  the  Canadian  200-mile  EEZ. 
The  fishing  in  this  area  is  governed  by  the 
North  Atlantic  Fisheries  Organization  (NAFO) 
which  allocates  the  catch  quotas  to  various 
countries.  During  NAFO's  September  1992 
Fourteenth  Annual  Meeting  in  Dartmouth 
(Canada),  Russia,  as  the  successor  state  to  the 
Soviet  Union,  received  an  allocation  of  37 , 300 
t  of  various  species,  mostly  redfish  (27,000 
tons). 


In  negotiations,  following  the  conclusion 
of  the  Annual  Meeting,  Russia  transferred 
12,000  t  of  its  1993  ocean  perch  (redfish) 
quota  to  Latvia,  Estonia,  and  Lithuania,  with 
each  country  receiving  a  catch  allocation  of 
4,000  tons.  At  the  subsequent  annual 
meeting,  the  Russian  Federation  obtained  the 
1994  catch  allocation  of  32,000  t,  but  its 
division  among  the  Batlic  countries  has  not  yet 
been  negotiated  as  of  this  writing. 

Estonians  fished  in  the  Russian  200-mile 
zone  in  the  Pacific  while  the  country  was  still 
a  part  of  the  Soviet  Union.  The  Latvian 
Ministry  of  Fisheries  reported  in  July  1991'^ 
that  a  few  Estonian  vessels  were  idling  in  the 
Pacific  because  of  a  lack  of  diesel  fuel. 
Currently,  2  Estonian  vessels  fish  in  the 
Pacific  Russian  200-mile  zone.  The  775-GRT 
trawler  Paista  is  fishing  for  cod  and  ocean 
perch,  while  the  large  stern  factory  trawler 
Parallaks  is  deployed  as  a  freezing  and 
transporting  vessel  in  the  Russian  Far  Eastern 
salmon  fishery.  Owned  by  the  MAJAK 
company  of  Tallinn,  both  vessels  are  leased  to 
an  unspecified  Kamchatka  company.'^ 

Other  major  areas  where  Estonian  high- 
seas  fishermen  operate  are  off  the  Faroe 
Islands  in  the  Northeast  Atlantic,  and  off 
Mauritania  and  Namibia  in  the  Southeast 
Atlantic.  Recently,  their  operations  were  also 
noted  in  the  Indian  Ocean  (where  a  joint 
venture  with  Indian  interests  is  being  planned) 
and  in  the  Barents  Sea.''' 

Two  Estonian  vessels  belong  to  the 
TUNTSELOV  (tuna  hunter  in  Russian)  class, 
but  they  are  in  effect  stern  trawlers.  The 
Estonian  fishermen  do  not  harvest  tuna. 


26 


V.  fflGH-SEAS  FISHERY  CATCH 


VI.  HIGH-SEAS  nSHING  COMPANIES 


The  Estonian  high-seas  fishing  fleet  landed 
only  an  estimated  110,000  tons  in  1992,  less 
than  a  half  of  the  1991  catch  and  less  than  a 
third  of  what  was  landed  in  the  peak  year  of 
1988  (appendix  6). 

The  high-seas  catch  remained  fairly  steady 
until  1989  (figure  1)  at  about  350,000  t  per 
year,  but  it  began  to  decline  in  1990  (by  10 
percent)  and  in  1991  (by  15  percent).  In 
1992,  it  decreased  by  42  percent  to  only 
110,100  t;  the  decline  was  caused  by  the 
political  and  economic  turmoil  that  followed 
the  country's  declaration  of  independence  in 
March  1990'\  and  which  was  exacerbated  by 
the  formal  dissolution  of  the  Soviet  Union  in 
December  1991. 


1 ,000  metric  tons 


□  Baltic  Sea  catch 

□  High-seas  catch 


^^  '^  '^  '^  '^  '^  '^   '^o   '^o 


The  largest  Estonian  distant-water  fishing 
company  is  OOKEAN  which  owns  the 
OOKEAN  Trawler  and  Refrigeration  Fleet, 
located  in  Tallinn.  In  August  1991,  the 
company  owned  57  fishing  and  fishery 
support  vessels.  By  August  1993,  the 
OOKEAN  high-seas  fleet  had  been  reduced 
by  7  vessels;  its  current  strength  is  thus  50 
units  with  a  total  gross  tonnage  of  177,000 
tons  (appendix  3).  Despite  the  Estonian 
Government's  drive  to  privatize  state-owned 
companies,  OOKEAN  is  still  formally 
Government-owned  although  its  management 
is  operating  increasingly  as  a  profit-making 
venture. 


In  1992,  OOKEAN's  catch  was  90,904 
tons,  of  which  80  percent  was  exported. 
These  exports  were  worth  US$9.8 
million;  another  US$2.5  milion 
was  sold  on  the  domestic  market. 
The  largest  percentage  of  exports 
was  sold  to  West  African  countries 
off  whose  coasts  the  company 
conducts  fishing  operations.  About 
15  percent  of  the  exports  were  sold 
to  CIS  countries  of  which  Russia 
took  the  largest  amount,  about  7 
percent.  This  figure  does  not 
include  exports  to  Latvia  which 
equalled  0.2  percent  of  the  total. 
For  additional  details  on  export 
sales,  see  figure  2. 


Figure  1. -Estonia.  Baltic  Sea  and  high-seas  fisheries  catch 
by  quantity;  1975-92. 


Estonia's  four  former  fishery 
kolkhozes,  Majak,  Saars  Kalur, 
Parnu  Kalur,  and  Hiiu  Kalur 
annually  contribute  about  60,000 
tons  to  the  total  catch.  They  fished  in  the 
Baltic  and  expanded  into  high-seas  fisheries. 


27 


After  independence,  the  fishery  kolkhozes 
were  privatized  and  converted  into  holding 
companies.  These  4  former  kolkhozes,  and  2 
newly  organized  private  companies,  own  the 
remaining  24  Estonian  high-seas  vessels 
(appendix  4).  The  former  kolkhozes  were 
restructured  into  the  following  companies:  the 
joint  stock  company  MAJAK  (located  in 
Tallinn);  the  stock  company  DAGOMAR 
(Hiiumaa);  the  stock  company  MOONSUND 
SHIPPING  (Saaremaa);  and  the  leasing 
company  VAAL  (Parnu).  The  2  small  private 
companies,  KALMAR  and  MARVEL,  are 
both  based  in  Tallinn. 

The  MAJAK  fishing  company  owns  9 
vessels  (appendix  4).  All  are  leased  to  other 
countries  because  MAJAK  has  discontinued 
high-seas  fishing  operations.  Four  of 
MAJAK' s  trawlers  (Kandova,  Polva,  Pirita, 
and  Paljasaare)  have  been  leased  to  a 
Murmansk  stockholding  company  named 
NORD  and  fish  for  cod  in  the  Barents  Sea. 
Two  vessels  (Paistu  and  Parallaks)  are  leased 


African  Countries 
44.4% 

,^ 

Japan 
.  0.3% 
^s^  South  America 

\          10.3% 

^ 

^ 

^  C.I.S. 

Europe  ^^ 

14.9% 

9.9% 

Estonia 
20.1% 

Figure  2. --Estonia.  Distribution  of  fishery  production,  by  percentage 
of  total;  1992. 


to  a  Russian  Far  Eastern  fishing  company  and 
deployed  in  the  Russian  Pacific  200-mile 
zone.''  The  remaining  two  vessels  (Onekotan 
and  Tiskre),  both  large  stern  factory  trawlers, 
have  been  leased  to  a  company  in  Guinea- 
Bissau.  The  deployment  of  the  small  side 
trawler,  Kondopoga,  is  not  known.  Since  the 
lessees  are  not  required  to  inform  MAJAK 
company  of  any  details  about  their  catch,  it  is 
not  known  how  much  they  are  harvesting,  or 
what  species. 

The  DAGOMAR  company's  3  medium 
stern  trawlers  (ZHELEZNYAKOV  class) 
fished  in  the  Barents  Seas  and  off  the  West 
African  country  of  Guinea-Bissau  in  1992. 
DAGOMAR' s  200  fishermen  landed  6,300  t 
of  various  fish,  for  an  average  of  over  30  t 
per  fisherman.  The  targeted  species  were 
shrimp  and  cod  in  the  Barents  Sea,  and 
sardines,  carangids  and  octopus  off  Guinea 
Bissau. 

The  MOONSUND  company  also  owns  3 
medium  stern  trawlers  of  the 
ZHELEZNYAKOV  class.  They 
are  fishing  for  shrimp  in  the 
Barents  Sea  in  two  joint  ventures. 
The  first  one  is  with  a  newly- 
established  private  Estonian 
company  KALMAR,  which  leased 
one  trawler;  the  other  two  vessels 
are  in  a  joint  venture  with  a 
Russian  company.  In  1992, 
MOONSUND 's  vessels  were 
deployed  off  Colombia  under  a 
contract  concluded  by 
SOVRYBFLOT  (a  Russian 
company  which  arranges  joint 
ventures,  fleet  maintenance,  and 
the  export  of  fishery  products),  but 
that  joint  venture  contract  was  not 
renewed  in  1993. 


28 


In  addition  to  the  privatized  former  fishery 
cooperatives,  2  newly-established  private 
companies  operate  3  fishing  vessels:  the 
KALMAR  company  has  2,  and  the  MARVEL 
company  one. 

The  KALMAR  company  was  organized  as 
early  as  1990,  when  Estonia  was  still  a  part  of 
the  Soviet  Union,  by  a  captain  of  a  fishing 
vessel,  Kaljo  End,  who  became  the  Chairman 
of  the  Board  of  the  new  company.  Starting  in 
1990  with  one  medium  stern  trawler  {Rotalia) 
which  was  bought  from  the  Laane  Kalur 
kolkhoz,  the  company  leased  a  second  one 
{Sorve)  from  the  MOONSUND  company,  a 
privatized  former  kolkhoz,  and  plans  to  buy 
or  lease  several  more  vessels  in  the  future. 
The  company's  fishermen  harvest  shrimp  in 
the  international  waters  of  the  Barents  and 
Greenland  Seas  where  there  are  no  fishing 
catch  quotas. ^°  The  catch  of  about  800  t  per 
vessel  is  sold  in  Norway  where  the  company 
also  purchases  diesel  oil.  Captain  End.  who 
for  years  has  been  fishing  in  the  Northeast 
Atlantic,  not  only  knows  the  fishing  grounds 
well,  but  also  has  at  his  disposal  valuable 
research  data  secured  by  the  fishery 
exploratory  vessels  of  SEVRYBA's  (Russia's 
Northern  Fishery  Administration)  Exploratory 
Service      (PROMRAZVEDKA).  The 

KALMAR     company     is     profitable     and 
expanding. 

Information  on  the  MARVEL  company  is 
not  available. 


VII.  EMPLOYMENT 


Estonian  fisheries  reportedly  employed 
30,000  persons  in  1991;  about  4,300 
fishermen  fished  on  the  high-seas,  the 
remainder    was    employed    in    the    Baltic 


fisheries,  in  the  processing  industry,  fish 
marketing,  trade,  etc.  Estonia's  fisheries  thus 
provide  employment  for  about  2  percent  of  the 
nation's  total  population  which  is  estimated  at 
approximately  1.6  million  inhabitants. 
Fisheries  was  thus  an  important  part  of  the 
country's  economy. 

The  state-owned  OOKEAN  high-seas 
fishing  company  currently  has  3,915 
employees.  Most  are  deep-sea  fishermen  and 
crews  (3,114  persons);  280  persons,  less  than 
9  percent  of  the  total,  are  in  administrative 
positions  and  the  remaining  521  employees 
work  in  supply,  building  maintenance  and 
other  support  jobs.^' 

The  privatized  fishery  kolkhozes  employ 
about  3,000  persons  of  which  less  than  a  half 
(an  estimated  1,200  fishermen  and  crews)  fish 
on  the  high-seas  (appendix  1)}^ 


VIII.  FISHERY  AGREEMENTS 


On  January  10,  1992,  a  protocol  was 
signed  in  Riga  to  regulate  the  fisheries  in  the 
neighboring  Russian  and  Estonian  zones  until 
a  bilateral  agreement  on  respective  relations  in 
fisheries  could  be  signed.  This  protocol 
allowed  Estonia  to  fish  for  cod  and  shrimp  in 
the  Russian  200-mile  Exclusive  Economic 
Zone  (FEZ)  in  the  Baltic  and  Barents  Seas, 
while  the  Russians  were  allowed  to  fish  Baltic 
herring  and  Baltic  sprat  in  the  Estonian  FEZ. 
Russian  officials,  however,  argue  that  they  do 
not  need  the  fishery  in  the  Estonian  EEZ  in 
the  Baltic  and  have  little  to  gain  from  a 
bilateral  fisheries  agreement;  so  it  is  possible 
that  the  Russian  Federation  will  let  the 
protocol  expire  and  no  longer  allow  Estonia  to 
fish  in  the  Barents  Sea."  In  May  1992, 
negotiations  continued  in  Moscow  on  a  draft 


29 


agreement.^"  According  to  the  U.S.  Embassy 
in  Tallinn,  an  agreement  had  still  not  been 
concluded  by  October  1993.  Reportedly,  the 
two  sides  differ  only  on  the  issue  of  fishing  in 
Lake  Peipsi  (a  freshwater  lake  on  the 
Estonian-Russian  border). 

On  July  14,  1992,  Estonia  initialed  the 
draft  of  a  bilateral  fisheries  agreement  with 
the  European  Community  (EC)."  According 
to  the  U.S.  Embassy  in  Tallinn,  the  agreement 
became  effective  after  it  was  signed  by  the 
Estonian  Foreign  Minister,  Trivimi  Velliste, 
on  July  16,  1993. 

At  the  end  of  January  1992,  a 
quadripartite  agreement  was  signed  in 
Stockholm  between  Sweden  and  the  fishery 
administrators  of  Estonia,  Latvia,  and 
Lithuania.  The  document  defines  the 
contested  fishing  grounds  in  the  coastal  areas 
of  the  Baltic  Sea.  An  estimated  75  percent  of 
fishery  stocks  in  the  area  will  be  managed  by 
the  Baltic  states.^*' 

Estonia  also  concluded  a  bilateral 
agreement  with  the  Faroe  Islands  (with  the 
consent  of  Denmark).  The  agreement 
provides  Estonian  fishermen  with  a  1993  catch 
quota  of  6,000  t  of  blue  whiting  in  the 
Faroese  FEZ  in  exchange  for  giving  Faroese 
fishermen  a  1993  catch  quota  of  2,000  t  for 
various  species  in  the  Estonian  FEZ  in  the 
Baltic." 


IX.  JOINT  VENTURES 


International,  Ltd.  Estonia  will  own  49 
percent  of  the  shares  of  this  J/V  company 
whose  central  office  will  be  located  in  New 
Delhi,  India.  OOKEAN  will  supply  the  new 
J/V  with  2  ORLENOK-class  trawlers  and 
their  crews,  while  the  Indian  Government  will 
provide  tax  breaks,  partially  cover  fuel  costs 
for  the  fishing  vessels,  and  give  the  firm  a 
license  to  fish  in  Indian  territorial  waters. ^^ 
The  two  companies  are  currently  negotiating 
the  final  contract. 


X.  OUTLOOK 


Since  independence,  it  has  become  clear 
that  the  size  and  capacity  of  Estonia's  fishing 
fleet,  as  well  as  its  fish-processing  industry, 
exceed  the  availability  of  fishery  resources. 
The  loss  of  the  traditional  foreign  fishing 
grounds  where  Estonia  was  allowed  to  fish  as 
a  constituent  Republic  of  the  Soviet  Union,  is 
the  main  reason  for  overcapacity. 

Almost  a  half  of  OOKEAN  company's 
trawler  fleet  reportedly  stood  idle  in  April 
1993  in  Tallinn  because  of  insufficient  catch 
quotas,  difficulties  in  accessing  fishing 
grounds  in  foreign  waters,  and  the  high  cost 
of  purchasing  diesel  fuel.^'  This  is  not  a 
problem  given  to  an  easy  solution  as  indicated 
by  the  fact  that  the  company  is  attempting  to 
further  reduce  its  fleet  by  offering  for  sale  3 
large  stern  factory  trawlers.  OOKEAN  will 
need  to  establish  more  joint  ventures  like  the 
one  planned  with  an  Indian  company  to 
improve  the  utilization  of  its  fleet. 


In  August  1993,  the  Estonian  Government 
gave  its  permission  to  the  state-owned 
OOKEAN  company  to  establish  an  Estonian- 
Indian  joint  venture.  Fortune  Oceanic 
Products,  Ltd.,  with  the  Indian  firm.  Fortune 


The  most  pressing  problem  is  the 
availability  of  funds  to  purchase  diesel  fuel. 
The  ever-increasing  prices  of  fuel  have 
rendered  the  operations  of  the  high-seas  fleet 
costlier.     Whereas  in  the  Soviet  system  the 


30 


cost  of  diesel  fuel  represented  barely  15 
percent  of  the  operational  costs  of  the  fleet, 
under  the  free-market  system,  fuel  now 
represents  over  50  percent  of  the  total  costs 
(and  in  some  cases  as  much  as  70  percent)  of 
the  Estonian  high- seas  fishing  fleet. ^° 

Despite  serious  problems,  the  outlook  for 
the  Estonian  fishing  industry  is  not  entirely 
unfavorable.  The  new  fishing  managers 
promptly  began  reducing  the  oversized  fleet 
and,  during  the  past  two  years,  sold  for  scrap, 
reflagged,  or  otherwise  decommissioned  18 
percent  (41,000  tons)  of  the  total  high-seas 
gross  registered  tonnage  (225,000  tons).  They 
also  seem  to  be  adept  at  forming  joint 
ventures  and  finding  markets  for  their 
products.  Helping  to  maintain  the  productivity 
and  economic  efficiency  of  the  high-seas  fleet 
is  the  fact  that  its  vessels  are  of  relatively 
recent  vintage.  The  average  age  of  the  fleet, 
according  to  Lloyd's  of  London,  was  14  years 
on  December  31,  1992. 

The  successful  transfer  of  Government- 
owned  assets  of  the  fishery  cooperatives 
(kolkhozes)  to  private  companies  is  an 
additional  factor  boding  favorably  for  the 
future  of  the  Estonian  fisheries.  The  largest 
company,  OOKEAN,  however,  remains 
government- owned.  Its  assets  are  so  large 
that  private  funds  can  not  be  found  for  its 
purchase.  The  discontinuation  of  government 
subsidies,  however,  has  forced  the  company  to 
increasingly  operate  as  a  private  enterprise 
geared  towards  covering  its  costs  and  making 
a  profit. 

If  the  Estonian  fishing  companies  can 
continue  exporting  a  large  portion  of  their 
catch,  thereby  earning  hard  currencies,  they 
will  be  able  not  only  to  secure  fuel  for 
continued  distant-water  operations,  but  may 
even    find    sufficient    funds    to    modernize 


existing  vessels  and  save  for  the  eventual 
replacement  of  the  old  fishery  vessels.  This 
modern  new  fishing  fleet,  however,  will  have 
to  be  much  smaller  and  more  efficient  than  it 
is  today. 

SOURCES 


Estonian  Republic.  List  of  the  Ships  of  the  Estonian 
Fishing  Company  OOKEAN.  Tallinn,  1991  and 
1993. 

FAO.  Fishery  Country  Profile.  Estonia.  Rome, 
November  1992. 

National  Technical  Information  Service.  Estonia:  An 
Economic  Profile.  Washington,  D.C.,  July  1992. 

Nordic  Investment  Bank.  Baltic  study.  September 
1991. 

U.S.  Embassy,  Tallinn.  Personal  Communications.  6 
August,  2,  3,  14,  &  30  September,  1993. 

U.S.  Navy,  Office  of  Naval  Intelligence.  29  July 
1993. 


31 


32 


Photo  1.—  The  635-gross  ton  Zhelezhnyakov-dass  trawler  is  used  by  Estonian  fishermen. 


Photo  2.—  The  Estonian  fleet  has  7  Orlenok-class  stern  factory  trawlers  with  a  gross  tonnage  of  1,900  GRT. 

33 


Photo  3.  -The  Estonian  factory  trawler,  Johann  Koler,  a  Mayakovskyi-dass  trawler  having  2, 400-GRTwas 
recently  fishing  in  the  southwestern  Atlantic  off  the  Falkland  Islands  and  Argentina. 


34 


ENDNOTES 


1.  National  Technical  Information  Service.  Estonia:  An  Economic  Profile.  Washington,  D.C.,  July  1992. 

2.  FAO,  Fishery  Country  Profile.  Estonia.  Rome,  November  1992.  The  figure  of  30,000  employees  in  the  Estonian 
fishing  industry  is  probably  inflated  and  includes  persons  who  worked  in  the  former  fishing  kolkhozes,  their 
families,  and  possibly  individuals  who  weren't  directly  involved  in  fishing  activities.  A  more  realistic  figure  is 
probably  about  15,000  employees. 

3.  Ibid;  Estonian  Fishing  Agency,  September,  1993. 

4.  Ibid. 

5.  Nordic  Investment  Bank.  Baltic  study.  September  1991. 

6.  Ibid. 

7.  FAO,  Fishery  Country  Profile.  Estonia,  Rome,  November  1992. 

8.  Seized  by  the  victorious  Red  Army  from  Nazi  Germany  after  the  end  of  World  War  II,  the  Kruzenshtern  was 
for  years  used  by  the  Soviet  Ministry  of  Fisheries  to  train  cadets  from  fishery  schools  and  the  merchant  marine 
academy.  It  visited  the  United  States  several  times.  The  most  memorable  of  these  visits  was  the  one  to  Newport, 
Rhode  Island,  in  1976  for  the  jamboree  of  "tall  ships"  celebrating  the  200th  anniversary  of  the  founding  of  the 
United  States.  The  Kruzenshtern 's  home  port  was  Tallinn  until  December  1991 ,  when  it  left  for  the  port  of  Baltiisk 
near  Kaliningrad.    It  is  now  assigned  to  the  Kaliningrad  Fisheries  College. 

9.  U.S.  Embassy,  Tallinn,  Personal  Communication,  2  September  1993. 

10.  U.S.  Embassy,  Tallinn,  Personal  Communication,  10  August  1993. 

11.  FAO,  Fishery  Country  Profile.  Estonia,  Rome,  November  1992.  This  figure  of  115  given  by  FAO  is  at  slight 
variance  with  the  117  vessels  of  the  Baltic  fleet  mentioned  in  the  NIB's  1991  study,  but  the  difference  of  2  vessels 
is  small  enough  to  be  insignificant.  The  ONI  list  (appendix  1)  shows  only  56  vessels  of  between  100  and  500  GRT, 
many  of  which  are  believed  to  be  operating  in  the  Baltic,  especially  the  BALTIKA  and  KARELIA  classes.  The 
other  Estonian  vessels  fishing  in  the  Baltic  probably  have  a  gross  tonnage  below  100  tons,  and  were,  therefore,  not 
included  in  ONI's  list. 

12.  Ibid. 

13.  Lauri  Vaarja,  "The  Fishery  Industry  in  Estonia."  Published  in  The  First  East-West  Fisheries  Conference,  20-22 
May  1993,  St.  Petersburg,  Russia.  (London,  Agra  Europe,  1993),  p.  61. 

14.  U.S.  Embassy,  Tallinn,  Personal  Communication,  10  August  1993. 

15.  Radio  Riga,  12  July  1991. 

16.  U.S.  Embassy,  Tallinn.  Personal  Communication,  2  September,  1993. 

17.  Ibid. 


35 


18.  Estonia's  independence  was  not  officially  recognized  by  Moscow  until  September  6,   1991  following  the 
unsuccessful  coup  d'etat  in  Moscow  in  August  1991. 

19.  The  name  of  the  Russian  company  and  the  terms  of  its  contract  with  MAJAK  are  not  known. 

20.  In  1992,  the  KALMAR  vessels  harvested  shrimp  in  the  Russian  200-mile  zone  in  an  arrangement  with 
SEVRYBA  (Russia's  Northern  Fishery  Administration)  which,  however,  was  not  prolonged  in  1993. 

21.  U.S.  Embassy,  Talliim,  Personal  Communication,  30  September  1993. 

22.  Ibid.    The  figures  appear  too  high  judging  from  the  number  of  vessels  these  companies  own. 

23.  Rybatskie  Novosli  (Moscow),  No.  20,  June  1993,  p.  2. 

24.  Radio  Tallinn,  7  May  1992. 

25.  Eurofish  Report,  30  July  1992. 

26.  Radio  Russia,  27  January  1993. 

27.  Faroese  Statistical  Bulletin,  May  1993. 

28.  Baltic  News  Service,  29  August  1993. 

29.  Rybatskie  Novosti  (Moscow),  No.  12,  April  1993,  p.  7. 

30.  U.S.  Embassy,  Tallinn,  Personal  Communication,  10  August  1993. 


36 


APPENDIX  SECTION 


37 


38 


Appendix  1.  Estonia.  Fishing  and  fishery  support  fleet,  by  vessel  name,  class, 

gross  registered  tonnage,  and  country  and  year  of  construction:  1993. 


Vessel  name 


Class 


Country  built    Year 


GRT 


Agnes 

100 

USSR 

1968 

Amandus  Adamson 

PROMETEY  MOD  A 

3.977 

GDR 

1981 

Anna  Haava 

MAYAKOVSKIY 

3.170 

USSR 

1969 

Askele 

ZELENODOLSK 

863 

USSR 

1966 

August  Kork 

TAVRIYA 

3.555 

USSR 

1967 

Bester 

MANEVRENNYY 

163 

USSR 

1984 

Carol  in 

ALPINIST 

720 

USSR 

1973 

Derzhavinsk 

ZHELEZNYAKOV 

648 

USSR 

1975 

Dromia 

LEDA 

249 

Poland 

1985 

Eernka 

ORLENOK 

1.513 

GDR 

1985 

Eestirand  II 

MOONZUND 

7.765 

GDR 

1990 

Ella 

TUNISELOV  1 

280 

USSR 

1986 

Elva 

PROMETEY  MOD  A 

3.977 

GDR 

1982 

Emma 

TUNTSELOV  1 

265 

USSR 

1982 

Fryderyk  Chopin 

PIONERSK 

14,368 

Poland 

1965 

Georg  Kask 

MOONZUND 

7.765 

GDR 

1989 

Georg  Lurich 

MOONZUND 

7,656 

GDR 

1989 

Harju 

ZHELEZNYAKOV 

635 

USSR 

1977 

Harku 

PROMETEY  MOD  A 

3.147 

GDR 

1982 

Hennaste 

MOONZUND 

7,765 

GDR 

1990 

Hnumaa 

ZHELEZNYAKOV 

775 

USSR 

1979 

Hnurand 

ZHELEZNYAKOV 

775 

USSR 

1977 

Hobulaid 

LUCHEGORSK 

2,323 

USSR 

1970 

Ihasalu 

ALPINIST 

720 

USSR 

1983 

Iklarand 

ZHELEZNYAKOV 

775 

USSR 

1979 

Island 

TAVRIYA 

3.555 

USSR 

1965 

Jaan  Koort 

MAYAKOVSKIY 

2.351 

USSR 

1968 

Jakob  Hurt 

KRONSHTADT 

2,327 

USSR 

1976 

Jarve 

KIROVETS 

190 

USSR 

1989 

Johann  Koler 

MAYAKOVSKIY 

2,407 

USSR 

1968 

Juhan  Liiv 

MAYAKOVSKIY 

3,170 

USSR 

1968 

Juhan  Smuul 

ATLANTIK 

2,154 

GDR 

1972 

Kadn 

ORLENOK 

1,513 

GDR 

1986 

Kagu 

KARELIYA 

180 

USSR 

1975 

Kalarand 

ZELENODOLSK 

863 

USSR 

1968 

Kaleste 

MAYAK. 

676 

USSR 

1967 

Kandova 

ORLENOK 

1,895 

GDR 

1986 

Karl  Ristikivi 

LUCHEGORSK 

2,323 

USSR 

1971 

Kastor 

KREVETKA  MOD  A 

149 

USSR 

1981 

Kaunispea 

BALTIKA 

108 

USSR 

1976 

Keibu 

117 

USSR 

1985 

Khiiyesaare 

BALTIKA 

108 

USSR 

1977 

Khybesaare 

BALTIKA 

108 

USSR 

1977 

Kihelkonna 

117 

USSR 

1985 

Kiipsaar 

LAUKUVA 

359 

USSR 

1990 

Kirre 

KARELIYA 

180 

USSR 

1975 

Kondopoga 

MAYAK 

600 

USSR 

1971 

Kootsaare 

BALTIKA 

108 

USSR 

1975 

Kootsaare 

117 

USSR 

1990 

Kopli 

OKEAN 

508 

GDR 

1959 

Korgessaare 

117 

USSR 

1985 

Kose 

OKEAN 

507 

GDR 

1959 

Kreutzwald 

TAVRIYA 

3,556 

USSR 

1968 

Kristjan  Raud 

MAYAKOVSKIY 

3,170 

USSR 

1965 

Kruzenshtern  * 

SEDOV 

3,545 

FRG 

1926 

Kuba 

RR  151 

258 

GDR 

1955 

Kuressaare 

117 

USSR 

1985 

Kurtna 

PROMETEY  MOD  A 

3,977 

GDR 

1983 

Kyrgesaare 

BALTIKA 

108 

USSR 

1977 

Lahemaa 

LUCHEGORSK 

2.833 

USSR 

1975 

Langust 

MAYAK 

699 

USSR 

1966 

Lao 

BALTIKA 

117 

USSR 

1984 

Leemeti 

ZHELEZNYAKOV 

775 

USSR 

1986 

Lehtma 

ZHELEZNYAKOV 

775 

USSR 

1987 

Lembit  Parn 

PROMETEY 

3.017 

GDR 

1976 

Lennuki 

RR  151 

255 

GDR 

1953 

Leppneeme 

117 

USSR 

1985 

Lindi 

KARELIYA 

206 

USSR 

1968 

Uu 

BALTIKA 

117  - 

USSR 

1984 

Makhu 

OKEAN 

507 

GDR 

1960 

Malle 

MANEVRENNYY 

164 

USSR 

1975 

Mai  us  1 

100 

USSR 

1967 

Maret 

ORLENOK 

1.898 

GDR 

1984 

Man 

ORLENOK 

1,898 

GDR 

1984 

Mane  Under 

LUCHEGORSK 

2,323 

USSR 

1974 

Manna 

OMA 

141 

USSR 

1959 

39 


Appendix  1.  Estonia.  Continued. 


Vessel  name 

Class 

GRT 

Country  built 

Year 

Mart  Saar 

MAYAKOVSKIY 

3.170 

USSR 

1969 

Matsalu 

ALPINIST 

720 

USSR 

1982 

Mndurand 

ZHELEZNYAKOV 

635 

USSR 

1976 

Moonsund 

MOONZUND 

7.656 

GDR 

1986 

MRTK  3250 

BALTIKA 

108 

USSR 

1977 

Mustjarv 

PROMETEY 

3.019 

GDR 

1974 

Narvia 

117 

USSR 

1991 

Neeme 

100 

USSR 

1967 

Olemiste 

ATLANTIK 

2.117 

GDR 

1970 

Ontika 

ORLENOK 

1.513 

GDR 

1986 

Onssaare 

OKEAN 

507 

GDR 

1960 

Oskar  Luts 

KRONSHTADT 

2.327 

USSR 

1976 

Panstu 

ZHELEZNYAKOV 

775 

USSR 

1980 

Pal  amuse 

ORLENOK 

1.895 

GDR 

1986 

Paljassaare 

ZHELEZNYAKOV 

635 

USSR 

1978 

Parallaks 

KOSMOS 

2.944 

Poland 

1967 

Peipsi 

PROMETEY 

3.019 

GDR 

1973 

Pingvi in 

100 

USSR 

1967 

Pirita 

ZHELEZNYAKOV 

775 

USSR 

1988 

Polva 

ORLENOK 

1.513 

GDR 

1986 

Pnngi 

117 

USSR 

1989 

Ramsi 

117 

USSR 

1985 

Rand  1 

KASPIY 

1.058 

GDR 

1970 

Rand  2 

KASPIY 

1.058 

GDR 

1970 

Rand  3 

KASPIY 

1.058 

GDR 

1970 

Rand  4 

KASPIY 

1.058 

GDR 

1970 

Raudoja 

117 

USSR 

1985 

Reigi 

100 

USSR 

1968 

Renu 

117 

USSR 

1991 

Ridala 

117 

USSR 

1988 

Rinksu 

KARELIYA 

206 

USSR 

1968 

Ristna  2 

OKEAN 

507 

GDR 

1950 

Rotalia 

ZHELEZNYAKOV 

635 

USSR 

1979 

Rudolf  Sirge 

LUCHEGORSK 

2.323 

USSR 

1973 

Saadjarv 

PROMETEY 

3.019 

GDR 

1974 

Saaremaa 

ZHELEZNYAKOV 

775 

USSR 

1982 

Salmistu 

117 

USSR 

1977 

Sangelaid 

LAUKUVA 

359 

USSR 

1986 

Sekstant 

PROMETEY  MOD  A 

3.147 

GDR 

1981 

Selenga 

BOLOGOYE 

334 

USSR 

1958 

Sindi 

ZHELEZNYAKOV 

775 

USSR 

1985 

Soela 

LUCHEGORSK 

2.581 

USSR 

1973 

Sorgu 

GIRULYAY 

282 

USSR 

1981 

Sorve 

ZHELEZNYAKOV 

635 

USSR 

1981 

Stanislaw  Momuszko 

PIONERSK 

14.368 

Poland 

1965 

Stralsund 

MOONZUND 

7.765 

GDR 

1988 

Tahkuranna 

ZHELEZNYAKOV 

635 

USSR 

1980 

Tarrmsaare 

LUCHEGORSK 

2.833 

USSR 

1975 

Tamula 

PROMETEY 

3.017 

GDR 

1975 

Tibnku 

GIRULYAY 

282 

USSR 

1983 

Tipton 

LEDA 

230 

Poland 

1985 

Tiskre 

KRONSHTADT 

2.327 

USSR 

1976 

Toi  1  a 

LAUKUVA 

359 

USSR 

1990 

Tom 

BOLOGOYE 

334 

USSR 

1958 

Topu 

BALTIKA 

108 

USSR 

1984 

Tori 

OKEAN 

507 

GDR 

1959 

Treimam 

ZHELEZNYAKOV 

635 

USSR 

1977 

Udna 

117 

USSR 

1988 

Undva 

OKEAN 

507 

GDR 

1960 

Uzventis 

LAUKUVA 

359 

USSR 

1987 

Vagula 

PROMETEY 

3.932 

GDR 

1975 

Vahur 

ORLENOK 

1.898 

GDR 

1984 

Vai vara 

BALTIKA 

117 

USSR 

1986 

Valgejarv 

PROMETEY 

3.017 

GDR 

1977 

Vapper 

PROMETEY 

3.019 

GDR 

1974 

Vel 1 se 

BOLOGOYE 

334 

USSR 

1961 

Vergi 

RR  151 

255 

GDR 

1952 

Vergi 

BALTIKA 

117 

USSR 

1984 

Viru 

117 

USSR 

1989 

Virumaa 

MAYAKOVSKIY 

2.690 

USSR 

1968 

TOTAL  =  146 

fishing  vessels 

TOTAL  GROSS  TONNAGE 

-  235.565  GRT 

Source   U  S  Navy.  Office  of  Naval  Intelligence.  29  July  1993 

*  In  December  1991.  the  Kru/enshtcrn  was  moved  to  the  port  of  Baltiisk.  near  Kaliningrad 
and  IS  now  part  of  the  Russian  fleet. 
FRG  -  Federal  Republic  of  Germany 


40 


Appendix  2.  Estonia.  OOKEAN  company's  fishing  fleet  reduction,  by  disposition:  1993. 


Vessel  name 

Class 

GRT 

Year  Built 

Built  In 

New  Owner 

VESSELS  SOLD  (7 

vessels) 

Olemiste 

ATLANTIK  II 

2.117 

1970 

GDR 

* 

Johan  Koler 

MAYAKOVSKII 

2.407 

1968 

USSR 

* 

Jaan  Koort 

MAYAKOVSKI I 

2.351 

1968 

USSR 

* 

Mart  Saar 

MAYAKOVSKI I 

3.170 

1969 

USSR 

* 

Harju 

ZHLEZHNYAKOV 

635 

1977 

USSR 

•k 

Sajaanid 

TAVRIYA 

3.180E 

1965 

USSR 

* 

August  Kork 

TAVRIYA 

3,555 

1967 

USSR 

* 

TOTAL 

17,415 

VESSELS  REFLAGGED  (6  vessels) 

Ave 

N/A 

104 

1984 

USSR 

Ukraine 

Botmjos  Ilanka 

AMURSKII  ZALIV 

12.891 

1970 

France 

Lithuania 

Kabl  1 

OKEAN 

507 

1960 

GDR 

Panama** 

Saturn 

N/A 

104 

1985 

USSR 

Lithuania 

Vetrasputns 

TAVRIYA 

3.308 

1962 

USSR 

Latvia 

Kruzenshtern 

SEDOV 

3,545 

1926 

Germany 

*** 

TOTAL 

20.459 

VESSELS  DECOMMISSIONED  (1  vessel) 

Korall  MAYAKOVSKII 


3.170 


1964 


VESSELS  FOR  SALE 
Juhan  Liiv 
Marie  Under 
Kirre 
Juhan  Smuul 

TOTAL 


(4  vessels  ■ 
MAYAKOVSKI  I 
LUCHEGORSK 
KARELIA 
ATLANTIK  II 


as  of  August  1993) 

3.170  1968 

2.323  1974 

180  1975 

2.154  1972 


USSR 


USSR 
USSR 
USSR 
USSR 


7.827 


TOTAL  =  18  vessels 


TOTAL  GROSS  TONNAGE  =  48,871  GRT 


Sources:  US,  Navy.  Office  of  Naval  Intelligence.  29  July  1993  (for  vessels  reflagged) . 
Estonian  Republic.  List  of  the  Ships  of  the  Estonian  Fishing  Company  OOKEAN.   Tallinn.  1993: 
US  Embassy.  Tallinn,  Personal  Communication,  August  10,  1993  (for  vessels  sold). 

E  -  Estimated 

N/A  -  Not  available 

*  These  vessels  were  sold  to  Indian  and  Pakistani  intermediaries  and  probably  scrapped  for  iron 
**  Although  now  under  Panamanian  flag,  this  vessel  reportedly  still  belongs  to  Estonia 
***  This  vessel,  a  training  "tall  ship"  for  students  from  fishery  colleges  and  technical 

schools,  is  reportedly  operated  by  the  Russian  Federation 
t  The  former  large  stern  factory  trawler  Korall   is  moored  in  the  Tallinn  port  and  serves  as  a 

training  vessel  for  fishery  school  students. 
@  These  vessels  are  idling  in  port  while  awaiting  a  buyer 


41 


Appendix  3.  Estonia.  OOKEAN  Company's  Trawler  and 
Refrigeration  Fleet,  by  type  and  class 
of  vessels,  nun±)er  of  vessels  owned,  and 
gross  registered  tonnage;  1993. 


Type/class  of  vessels 
Trawlers 

BATM  HOONZUND 
RTMS  PROMETEI 
RTMS  ATLANTIK  II 
BMRT  MAYAKOVSKII 
BMRT  PIONER  LATVI I 
STM  ORLENOK 
BMRT  LUCHEGORSK 
BMRT  KRONSHTADT 
MKTM  LAUKUVA 

KARELIA 

ALPINIST 

TOTAL 


STM 
STM 


Support  Vessels 

Motherships  -  PIONERSK 
Processing  -  TAVRIYA 

TOTAL    3 


Gross 

tonnage 

Number 

Per  vessel  Total 

6 

7,704 

46,224 

13 

3,017 

39,221 

1* 

2,154 

2,154 

5** 

3,170 

19,020 

4 

2,666 

10,664 

7 

1,898 

13,286 

3* 

2,973 

8,919 

2 

2,326 

4,652 

2 

359 

718 

2* 

187 

374 

2 

710 

1.400 

47 

146,632 

2 

13,600 

27,200 

1 

3,556 

3.556 

GRAND  TOTAL 


50 


30,756 
177,388 


Source:  Estonian  Republic.  List  of  the  Ships  of  the 
Estonian  Fishing  Company  OOKEAN.  Tallinn,  1993. 

*  One  of  these  vessels  is  sitting  idle  in  port  waiting  to  be  sold. 

**  One  of  these  vessels  is  a  training  vessel. 

BATM  -  Bolshoi  avtonomnyi  trauler  morozilnyi  (Large 

autonomous  freezer  trawler) 
RTMS  -  Rybolovnyi  trauler  morozilnyi  sredni i  (Medium 

freezer  fishing  trawler) 

Bolshoi  morozilnyi  rybolovnyi  trauler  (Large 

freezer  fishing  trawler) 

Sredni i  trauler  morozilnyi  (Medium  freezer  trawler) 

Malyi  krevetkolovnyi  trauler  morozi Inyi  (Small 

fish-shrimp  freezer  trawler) 


BMRT 

STM  - 
MKTM 


42 


Appendix  4.  Estonia.  Fishing  vessels  owned  by 
privatized  fishery  kolkhozes  and 
companies:  1993. 


Vessel  name 

Class      Gross  tonn 

aqe  Year  built 

MAJAK  JOINT  STOCK  COMPANY 

(located 

in  Tallinn) 

Kondopoga 

MAYAK 

600 

1971 

Kandova 

ORLENOK 

1.895 

1986 

Polva 

ORLENOK 

1.895 

1986 

Paistu 

ZHELEZNYAKOV 

775 

1980 

Paljassaare 

ZHELEZNYAKOV 

775 

1978 

Pinta 

ZHELEZNYAKOV 

775 

1988 

Parallaks 

KOSMOS 

2.944 

1967 

Tiskre 

MAYAKOVSKII 

2.325 

1967 

Onekotan* 

KOSMOS 

2,934 

1967 

Total 

14.919 

DAGOMAR  STOCK  COMPANY  (Hiiumaa) 

Hi lurand** 

ZHELEZNYAKOV 

775 

1977 

Leetmeti 

ZHELEZNYAKOV 

775 

1986 

Lehtma 

ZHELEZNYAKOV 

775 

1987 

Undva* 

OKEAN 

507 

1960 

Hiiumaa 

ZHELEZNYAKOV 

775 

1979 

Total 

3.607 

MOONSUND  STOCK  COMPANY  (Saaremaa) 

Kopli*** 

OKEAN 

508 

1958 

Saaremaa 

ZHELEZNYAKOV 

775 

1982 

Sindi 

ZHELEZNYAKOV 

775 

1985 

Sorve 

ZHELEZNYAKOV 

635 

1981 

Total 

2.693 

VAAL  LEASING 

COMPANY  (Parnu) 

Sangelaid 

LAUKUVA 

359 

1986 

Uzventis 

LAUKUVA 

359 

1987 

Iklarand 

ZHELEZNYAKOV 

775 

1979 

Tahkuranna 

ZHELEZNYAKOV 

635 

1980 

Treimani 

ZHELEZNYAKOV 

635 

1977 

Total 

2.763 

KALMAR  (Tall 

inn) 

Retail  a 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

Serve 

ZHELEZNYAKOV 

635 

1981 

MARVEL  (Tallinn) 
N/A         N/A 


N/A 


N/A 


GRAND  TOTAL  =  25  vessels   TOTAL  GROSS  TONNAGE  =  22,939  GRT 

Sources;  U.S.  Navy.  Office  of  Naval  Intelligence.  29  July 
1993:  US  Embassy.  Tallinn.  6  August  and  2  September  1993. 

*  To  be  eventually  sold  for  scrap  iron. 

**  Sold  to  a  Russian  fishing  company  in  Murmansk 

***  Sold  to  a  United  Kingdom  company  for  scrap  in  1993. 

N/A  -  Not  available 


43 


Appendix  5.  Estonia.  Fishing  and  fishery  support  vessels  by  class,  age,  length,  and 
production  capacity;  1991. 


Vessel 

Year(s) 

Built 

Production  Capacit 

y/d 

ay_ 

by  class 

built 

in 

Age 

Length 

Frozen 

F  i  shmea I 

Canned 

(years) 

(meters) 

(tons) 

(metric  tons) 

(1 

.000  cans*) 

Fishing  Vessels 

MOONZUND 

1985-90 

Stralsund 

3-8 

120.4 

63 

10 

26 

PROMETEI 

1973-83 

Stralsund 

10-20 

101.8 

63 

10 

- 

ATLANTIK  11 

1970 

Stralsund 

23 

82.0 

50 

6 

- 

MAYAKOVSKl 1 

1968-69 

Stralsund 

24-25 

84.7 

30 

2 

- 

PIONER  LATVII 

1970-73 

Nikolaev  1 

20-23 

83.9 

45 

6 

- 

LUCHEGORSK 

1973-75 

Klaipeda 

18-20 

83.6 

30 

12 

- 

KRONSHTADT 

1976 

Nikolaev  1 

17 

83.8 

40 

5 

- 

ORLENOK 

1984-6 

Stralsund 

17-19 

62.2 

30 

2 

- 

LAUKUVA** 

1990 

Petrozavodsk 

3 

35.7 

8 

- 

- 

KARELIA 

1975 

Petrozavodsk 

18 

31.6 

- 

- 

- 

ALPINIST 

1982-83 

Yaroslavl' 

19-20 

53.7 

- 

- 

- 

Fishery  Support 

Vessels 

PIONERSK 

1965 

Gdansk 

28 

164.0 

100 

18 

- 

TAVRIYA 

1965-67 

Nikolaev  11 

26-28 

99.4 

50 

" 

" 

Source:  Estonian  Republic.  List  of  the  Ships  of  the  Estonian  Fishing  Company  OOKEAN.  Tallinn,  1991. 

*  Standard  cans  of  250  grams  each. 
**  Fish-shrimp  freezer  trawler. 

Shipyards: 

Klaipeda  -  Baltiya  Shipyard 

Stralsund  -  Volkswerft  (People's  Shipyards) 

Nikolaev  1  -  Chernomorski i  Sudostroitel 'ni i  Zavod  (Black  Sea  Shipbuilding  Plant) 

Nikolaev  11  -  Imeni  61  Kommunara  Sudostroitel 'ni i  Zavod  (61  Kommunar  Shipbuilding  Plant) 

Petrozavodsk  -  Avangard  Shipyard 

Appendix  6.  Estonia.  Inland,  coastal,  and  high-seas  fisheries  catch;  1975,  1980,  and  1985-1992. 


Area 

Year 

1988 

1989 

1990 

1991 

1975 

1980 

1985 

1986 

1987 

1992 

L 

000  Metric  tons 

Inland 

3.1 

4.7 

3.2 

5.9 

4.4 

4.2 

4.0 

2.4 

2.0 

3.2 

Coastal 

87.7 

77.3 

69.7 

63.4 

58.1 

59.5 

60.0 

59.3 

54.0 

37.2 

High -seas 
OOKEAN  Co. 
Other 

302.8 
47.1 

287.1 
58.2 

275.2 
62.1 

294.5 
55.6 

273.9 

74.3 

298.8 
58.7 

276.4 
58.1 

255.7 
49.7 

230.4 
28.7 

90.9 
19.2 

Subtotal 

349.9 

345.3 

337.3 

350.1 

348.2 

357.5 

334.5 

305.4 

259.1 

110.1 

Total 

440.8 

427.3 

410.2 

419.4 

410.7 

421.2 

398.5 

367.1 

315.1 

150.5 

Source:  Estonian  Fishing  Agency,  September,  1993. 

Note:  The  1991  and  1992  catch  might  be  higher  than  the  catch  shown  in  this  table.  Landings 
statistics  are  unreliable  and  some  catch  landed  in  smaller  Estonian  reports  may  not  have  been 
recorded. 


Appendix  7.  Estonia.  Employment  in  privatized 
former  collective  fishery 
cooperatives  (kolkhozes)  and  in 
private  companies;  September  1993. 


High-seas 

Company 

Fishermen 

Other 

Total 

Cooperatives 

DAGOMAR 

210 

229 

439 

MOONSUNO 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

MAJAK 

500(E) 

N/A 

1, 000(E) 

VAAL 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

Private  Companies 

KALMAR 

24 

N/A 

N/A 

MARVEL 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

TOTAL 

1, 200(E) 

N/A 

3, 000(E) 

Source:  Economic  Section,  U.S.  Embassy,  Tallin, 
Personal  Communication,  September,  1993. 
N/A  -  Not  available  E  -  Estimated 


44 


2.3 


LATVIA 

Latvia  has  recently  become  independent  after  being  part  of  the  Soviet  Union  for  almost 
five  decades.  Latvia's  fishing  industry,  which  was  part  of  the  centrally  planned  economy, 
directed  by  the  Soviet  Ministry  of  Fisheries  in  Moscow,  had  to  readjust  quickly  to  the  new  free- 
market  demands.  Latvia  also  had  to  secure  arrangements  for  access  to  fishing  grounds  in 
foreign  200-mile  zones.  Most  importantly,  it  can  no  longer  count  on  cheap,  subsidized  diesel 
oil,  but  has  to  purchase  it  with  foreign  currencies.  The  difficult  transition  from  a  command  to 
a  free-market  economy  has  been  exacerbated  by  the  need  to  reorganize  the  administrative  staff 
following  the  dissolution  of  the  Soviet  Western  Fisheries  Administration  in  Riga.  Among  the 
most  important  factors  for  the  future  profitability  of  the  Latvian  fishing  industry  is  the 
privatization  program  which  its  Government  has  begun. 

CONTENTS 

I.  Background 45 

II.  Fishing  Fleet 46 

A.  1991 46 

B.  1992 49 

C.  1993 49 

III.  High-seas  Fleet  Dispersal    50 

IV.  Fishery  Support  Fleet 53 

V.  Fleet  Reduction 53 

VI.  Fishing  Grounds    53 

VII.  Catch  and  Production    54 

VIII.  Fishing  Companies 54 

IX.  Bilaterals  and  Joint  Ventures 55 

X.  Outlook 56 

Sources    56 

Endnotes     57 

Appendices 59 


has  a  population  of  2.7  million  people.  Its 
I.  BACKGROUND  land     area     encompasses     64,600     square 

kilometers,  while  its  coastline  extends  for  531 

Latvia,     one     of    the     three     Baltic        kilometers.    Over  one  third  of  the  population 

countries  which  became  independent  in  1991,        lives  in  the  capital,  Riga,  which  has  915,000 


inhabitants. 


45 


A  leading  traditional  sector  in  the 
Latvian  economy,  the  fishing  industry  used  to 
employ  48,000  persons,  according  to  the 
Latvian  Ministry  of  Maritime  Affairs'.  The 
Latvian  fishing  industry  is  based  mostly  in  the 
fishing  port  of  Riga.  The  other  port, 
extensively  used  by  the  fishing  industry,  is 
located  at  Liepaja. 

The  fishing  industry  contributed  almost 
500  million  rubles  to  the  Latvian  economy  in 
1990.  The  value  of  fishery  exports  amounted 
to  359  million  rubles,  which  represented  75 
percent  of  the  total  volume  of  fisheries 
output.^ 


II.    FISHING  FLEET 

The  Latvian  fishing  fleet  consisted  of 
35 1  fishing  and  fishery  support  vessels  as  the 
Soviet  Union  was  breaking  up  in  1991.  The 
three  Baltic  Soviet  republics  each  had  their 
own  fishing  fleet.  Latvia's  fleet  was  by  far 
the  largest,  comprising  almost  50  percent  of 
the  762  vessels  based  in  the  ports  of  the  Baltic 
republics.^ 

The  high-seas  fleet,  owned  by  the 
Government,  is  fishing  primarily  in  the 
Atlantic,  both  northern  and  southern.  The 
principal  fishing  grounds  are  off  Canada, 
Mauritania,  Nigeria,  the  Faroe  Islands  and 
Russia.  The  Government,  however,  is 
exploring  the  possibility  of  concluding 
additional  agreements  with  other  coastal 
countries.  The  main  species  landed  by  the 
high-seas  fleet  are  mackerel,  horse  mackerel, 
squid,  and  redfish.  The  Latvian  high-seas 
fishing  fleet  consists  of  3  different  types  of 
vessels:  distant-water  trawlers,  fish- 
processors,  and  refrigerated  transports. 


Latvia  also  has  a  coastal  fleet  of  small 
tonnage  vessels,  privately  owned  by 
fishermen's  cooperatives.  Their  owners  fish 
the  Baltic  Sea,  both  in  the  Latvian  Exclusive 
Economic  Zone  (EEZ),  and  in  the  EEZs  of 
other  Baltic  countries  with  whom  Latvia  has 
concluded  bilateral  fishery  agreements.  Sprat 
and  cod  are  the  principal  species  landed  from 
Baltic  waters. 

A.  1991 

The  Latvian  fleet,  operating  for  40 
years  under  the  system  of  the  Soviet 
expeditionary  fishing  fleets,  organized  its  own 
fishing  expeditions  consisting  of  high-seas 
trawlers  supported  by  motherships,  fish- 
processors,  tankers,  water  supply  vessels,  and 
other  support  craft. 


Pholo  I.— A  14.00-GRT  processsing  baseship,  built  in  Russia 
supplies  Latvian  high-seas  fishermen. 


This  fleet  was  fishing  under  the  overall 
command  of  the  Western  Fisheries 
Administration  (ZAPRYBA).  A  ZAPRYBA 
fleet  commander,  usually  located  aboard  one 
of  the  large  motherships,  was  responsible  for 
day-to-day  operations  and  for  the  transfer  of 
fish  to  motherships  for  processing,  or  to 
refrigerated  transports  for  delivery  to  home 
ports. 


46 


2 

.^^ 

"w 

/K^ 

"^s 

tf) 

y^ 

\ 

i 

3-       ■ 

V> 

/" 

s 

(/) 

■  <      •* 

««  ^ .'." 

DC  V— 

^^^^  C 

> 

V     . 

■    3' 

/\ 

/ 

V^'~*>i\ 

^^M^ 

'    ^ 

■"•■  .. 

»r-M 

/ 

^         ^*4 

J 

«J 

^> 

iX^ 

T--'       ■  1. 

-    # 

Vil 

^ 

* 

'^ 

r 

''■1  ■■' 

> 

0) 
03 

~  t 

r 

( 

^-. 

c 

Js 

\ 

/» 

h 

ro 

f 

) 

(0 

0>*^'^ 

.1 
n 

Q 

/' 

h 

^ 

X 

f 

•  ■■i 

/ 

c 

y 

> 

J 

w 

0 

/ 

+- 

y 

-itW 

.4 

^ 

(U 

j 

f 

t^) 

■ 

p 

-J 

) 

t 

Uj 

\ 

< 
'oc 

\ 

03 

->f 

to 

> 

) 

C 

.si 

f 

«} 

■     S'-'^ 

5 

9i 

I 

A" 

•"5 

) 

3 

3 

■■r- 

; 

C 

^ 

? 

t    "^ 

? 

y 

^ 

'c 

.■^ 

1 

1 

r 

1  i 

CO 

r  i 

• 

\ 

3 

!  : 

• 

\ 

z'     - 

i  *  s 

'vj 

a 

E. 

\  - 

1        fi 

Z  1  t 

'■T*: 

■^ 

-ra 

1 

^  .■   ■z 

^  i  i 

— *^ 

,3^ 

^ 

9- 

^^ 

f 

■       OC 

ft  ? 

II  f 

CD 

o^ 

> 

0} 

1 

) 

11  r 

/ 

If! 

/ 

.2 


o  ^  o 

«  2  ~  p 

T  'n  — 

o   ..  -a  i^. 

•-   n  c  .. 

ai  3  01    - 

o  c  — 


o. 


t/5  'r- 

il  c 

a  o 

o  Q 

<"  -a 


o  2    c   «  ■--    c 

0*     O     «     O     W     O 

OH  -iUZ  t^ 


0^ 


3 

a 

Ro 
§§ 

O   — 

?| 


e  <^i  ^  ■—  "O 

-  I-,  d  -^  _ 

DC    «   ^     ■ 

ill 

^        O        k.      ._        W 

Q  0.  o  ca  Q 


^  s  s 


°3 


c  "^ 
.2  •*' 
i.    c 

-J  '^ 

=  5 
.2  o 

g  5o 

"7^   •—    '^' 


=         o 


—  a:  u 


U     «     0/     '>! 


!   o  -g  > 

■       C       C  oT) 

l-S^  < 

■  c  c  -^ 
;  -  °  c 

1  .5  -p  i/i 

■  n  -^  u 
M-J  i- 

'-    u 

u 


I  1=^ 


o 
o 
o 


£  «  a  E 

«  ^  ^  g 

iJ  —  ^  "^ 

"-  o  -a  ir, 

^  o  c  -^' 

c  ?f  •=  o- 


4> 


a 
u  .3i 


-yi     D. 
-O    ^ 


in  > 
o  5 


< 


^   o 


0^ 

00 


^  *  E 
5  t;  -^ 

M 

CsC 

■a 

a: 

c 

.,'  =  o 

b 

C/1 

i 

3     O   r-i 
bO  OS  r^ 

(J: 

'c. 

< 

o 

o 
o 

o 


o 
o 

o 


T3     on 


x> 

3 


>-  O 


■s 


So 


:5  E  -2 

>-J  oo    o. 

"^2i  i 

■§.£  ° 

=  =  "2 
2  o  § 


-2  ^ 

S   a  K 

-o  c 

c  o 


c       -5 


a  aO 


This  system  was  in  force  in  1991  when 
the  Latvian  Republic  became  independent  and 
ceased  to  be  under  the  operational  command 
of  ZAPRYBA.  At  this  time,  the  Latvian 
fishing  fleet  appeared  to  be  poorly  maintained 
and  included  many  obsolete  vessels.  The  new 
Latvian  Government,  therefore,  commissioned 
the  Nordic  Investment  Bank  (NIB)  to  review 
its  industries,  including  the  fisheries  sector. 

The  NIB's"*  report  pointed  out  that  the 
fishing  fleet  was  in  poor  condition  when 
compared  to  the  average  standards  of  Western 
fishing  nations.  The  Bank  estimated  that 
nearly  one  half  of  the  fishing  vessels  deployed 
in  the  Baltic  Sea  and  on  the  high-seas  was 
obolete. 

The  processing  fleet  was  in  even  worse 
condition;  only  about  a  third  of  the  vessels 
was  considered  worthwhile  to  upgrade  and 
modernize.  The  NIB,  however,  also 
estimated  that  some  upgrading  could  be  done 
with  relatively  modest  investments  which 
were  estimated  as  follows: 

The  Baltic  Fleet:  The  Baltic  Fleet  could  be 
modernized  at  about  $40,000  per  vessel,  and 
the  catch  level  of  this  restructured  fleet 
maintained  with  about  half  of  the  current 
number  of  vessels.  The  NIB  estimated  that 
the  total  investment  needed  was  $6  million. 

The  High-seas  Fleet:  The  modernization  of 
the  high-seas  fleet  would  require  an  estimated 
$15  million,  mostly  for  modern  fish-finding 
and  navigational  equipment. 

The  Distant-water  Support  Fleet:  The 
upgrading  of  the  distant-water  processing  fleet 
and  support  vessels,  however,  would  be  more 
costly,  and  was  estimated  at  $100  million. 


To  improve  the  situation,  the  Latvian 
Government  arranged  for  several  Western 
groups  to  discuss  vessel  modernization 
projects  with  local  managers.  Despite  several 
attempts  at  joint  ventures  and  various 
feasibility  studies,  no  actual  investment 
projects  have  been  carried  out  as  far  as  is 
known. 

The  NIB  report  listed  the  1991  composition  of 
the  fleet  as:  Trawler  fleet-91  vessels.  Fish- 
processing  FIeet-31  vessels.  Transport  Fleet- 
21  vessels,  Baltic  Fleet-208  vessels.  Total 
fleet  =  351  vessels. 

B.  1992 

Most  of  the  distant-water  fishing  fleet  was 
idled  in  Baltic  ports  during  1992  because  of  a 
lack  of  fuel  and  because  the  traditional 
grounds  of  the  Latvian  fishing  fleet  were  no 
longer  accessible.  The  fleet's  operations  were 
especially  hard  hit  after  the  newly- 
independent  Namibia  declared  a  moratorium 
on  foreign  fishing  in  its  200-mile  zone. 
African  waters  were  in  fact  the  most 
important  fishing  area  for  the  Latvian  distant- 
water  fleet.  The  closure  of  the  West  Saharan 
fishing  grounds  (following  Morocco's 
annexation  of  that  territory)  was  especially 
painful  as  up  to  one-half  of  the  Latvian  high- 
seas  fleet  fished  there.  The  initial  shock, 
however,  was  dissipated  somewhat  towards 
the  end  of  1992  when  the  activities  of  the 
newly-organized  Ministry  of  Maritime 
Affairs,  and  the  increased  diplomatic  efforts 
of  the  new  Latvian  Government,  secured 
renewed  access  to  several  traditional  Atlantic 
grounds. 

C.  1993 

At  the  beginning  of  1993,  the  Latvian 
fishing  fleet  numbered  277  vessels.    Of  this 


49 


total,  79  were  high-seas  vessels,  while  198 
coastal  vessels  fished  only  in  the  adjacent 
Baltic  Sea,  according  to  the  Latvian  Ministry 
of  Maritime  Affairs/  In  late  July  1993, 
however,  the  U.S.  Navy  listed  only  223 
vessels,  with  a  total  gross  registered  tonnage 
(GRT)  of  over  510,000  tons,  as  being  in  the 
Latvian  fishing  fleet  registry  (table  1). 


Table  1.  Latvia.  Fishing  fleet,  by  selected 
vessel  capacity.  1993. 


Capacity 

Number 

GRT   Average  GRT 

Under  500  GRT 
Above  500  GRT 
Total 

71 
152 
223 

9,884     139 
501,935   3.302 
511.819    2.295 

Source:  U.S.  Navy.  Office  of  Naval 
Intelligence.  27  July  1993. 


Pholo  2. -Latvian  fishermen  operate  8  large  autonomous  stem 
factory  trawlers. 


companies,  or  their  vessels, 
privatization  drive. 


under  the  current 


The  152  vessels  above  500  GRT  listed 
in  table  1  are  not  all  fishing  vessels;  7  of 
them  are  specialized  fishery  vessels  and  21 
are  large  fishery  support  vessels.  It  is  also 
likely  that  some  over  500-GRT-vessels  are 
operating  in  the  Baltic  Sea.  (For  vessel 
names,  class,  GRT,  country  and  year  of 
construction,  see  appendices  1  and  2.) 


UI.  HIGH-SEAS  FLEET  DISPERSAL 

By  June  1993,  the  Latvians  had 
deployed  31  of  their  high-seas  fishing  ves.sels, 
mostly  in  the  Atlantic.  These  trawlers  are 
based  in  the  Latvian  ports  of  Riga  and 
Liepaja.  They  are  owned  by  the  Riga 
Trawler  and  Refrigeration  Fleet  under  the 
Director  General  Olgerts  MAURINS,  and  by 
the  Liepaja  High-seas  Fishing  Fleet  under  the 
Director  General,  Dainis  ENGELIS.  Both 
companies  are  owned  by  the  Latvian 
Government  as  no  takers  were  found  for  the 


The  high-seas  fleet  of  Latvia  was 
deployed  in  the  summer  of  1993  in  the 
following  fishing  grounds  and  off  the 
enumerated  countries: 

Northwest  Atlantic:  The  largest  Latvian  fleet 
(13  vessels)  was  fishing  for  ocean  perch  in 
the  international  waters  of  the  Northwest 
Atlantic,  beyond  the  Canadian  200-mile  FEZ. 
The  fishing  in  this  area  is  governed  by  the 
Northwest  Atlantic  Fisheries  Organization 
(NAFO),  which  allocates  the  catch  quotas  to 
various  countries.  During  NAFO's  September 
1992  Fourteenth  Annual  Meeting  in 
Dartmouth  (Canada),  the  quotas  of  the  former 
Soviet  Union  (FSU)  were  allocated  as  a  block 
quota  to  Estonia,  Latvia,  Lithuania,  and 
Russia  as  the  four  countries  were  unable  to 
agree  among  themselves  as  to  the  percentage 
of  distribution.  The  block  quota  scheme  was 
to  be  fished  as  an  "Olympic"  fishery  under  the 
NAFO  rules  for  fishing  "others"  quotas. 
Russia  objected  to  this  scheme  and  later  filed 


50 


its  own  unilateral  quotas  equal  to  95  percent 
of  the  FSU  quotas  in  NAFO.  Russia,  as  the 
successor  state  to  the  Soviet  Union,  received 
an  allocation  of  37,300  metric  tons  (t)  of 
various  species,  mostly  redfish  (27,000  tons). 
In  private  negotiations,  following  the 
conclusion  of  the  Annual  Meeting,  Russia 
transferred  12,000  t  of  its  1993  ocean  perch 
(redfish)  quota  to  Latvia,  Estonia,  and 
Lithuania,  with  each  country  receiving  4,000 
tons.  A  mediation  effort,  led  by  Canada  and 
the  Faroe  Islands,  was  conducted  in  an 
attempt  to  resolve  the  FSU  quota  dispute  in 
NAFO  before  the  1993  Annual  Metting,  but 
it  was  unsuccessful.  At  the  1993  NAFO 
Meeting,  due  to  lack  of  resolution  of  this 
problem  by  the  four  contracting  parties,  the 
same  block  quota  system  was  adopted  for 
Estonia,  Latvia,  Lithuania,  and  Russia  for 
1994,  with  quotas  totaling  approximately 
31,000  tons.  Its  division  among  the  Baltic 
countries  has  not  been  negotiated  as  of  this 
writing. 

Mauritania:  The  second  largest  Latvian  fleet 
(9  vessels)  is  fishing  for  sardinella  in  the  200- 
mile  zone  of  Mauritania.  The  Riga  Trawler 
and  Refrigeration  Fleet  and  a  Mauritanian 
company  have  concluded  a  commercial  joint 
venture  under  which  Latvian  stern  factory 
trawlers  (ATLANTIK  class)  deliver  their 
catch  to  Mauritanian  ports  for  processing  by 
local  plants.  The  Latvian  crews  are  replaced 
every  6  months  by  plane;  they  receive  a  fixed 
salary  and  a  percentage  of  the  value  of  the 
catch  sold.  The  Latvians  are  now  trying  to 
effect  crew  replacements  by  ship  rather  than 
by  plane  to  reduce  expenses.  Most  of  these 
exchanges  will  be  carried  out  through  ports  in 
the  Canary  Islands. 

The  Latvian  state  companies  have 
deployed,  or  would  like  to  deploy,  their 
trawlers  off  several  other  countries.    Among 


these  are  the  following: 

Canada:  Latvia  occasionally  deploys  a  few 
fishing  vessels  in  Canadian  waters.  The 
Latvian  and  Canadian  Governments  concluded 
a  Memorandum  of  Understanding  authorizing 
commercial  arrangements  in  the  Canadian 
EEZ.  However,  the  Canadians  reportedly 
demanded  $350  per  day  per  vessel  for 
observer  fees  and  $50-60  per  ton  of  silver 
hake  as  poundage  fees.  This  would  have 
consumed  34  percent  of  the  total  value  of  the 
catch.  The  Canadians  also  demanded  that  10 
percent  of  the  Latvian  catch  of  silver  hake  be 
delivered  to  Canadian  shore-processing  plants. 
The  Latvians  concluded  that  under  such 
conditions  it  would  not  be  profitable  to  fish  in 
the  Canadian  EEZ. 

Faroe  Islands:  Six  Latvian  stern  trawlers 
have  been  fishing  a  catch  quota  of  12,000  t  of 
blue  whiting  allocated  by  Denmark.  The 
catch  is  headed  and  gutted  and  then  exported, 
mostly  to  the  countries  of  the  former  Soviet 
Union.  The  1993  catch  was  reportedly  good, 
and  the  quota  was  almost  fished  out  by  June 
1993.  When  that  happens,  the  Latvian  fleet 
is  supposed  to  move  to  nearby  international 
waters  and  continue  fishing  for  blue  whiting. 


Photo  3.—Lania  lias  5  Tavriya-class  refrigerated  transports 
(3.500-GRT)  built  in  Russia  in  the  1960s. 


51 


Nigeria:  Two  Latvian  trawlers,  belonging  to 
a  cooperative  (former  kolkhoz)  fleet,  are 
fishing  in  a  joint  venture  with  a  Nigerian 
company.    Details  are  not  available. 

Russia:  The  Riga  Trawler  and  Refrigeration 
Fleet  deployed  2  ATLANTIK-III  class  vessels 
in  the  Russian  EEZ  off  Kamchatka  in  1993. 
The  Latvians  concluded  a  joint  venture 
agreement  with  a  Kamchatka  company  and 
are  leasing  their  vessels  to  that  company 
which  reportedly  pays  for  the  catch  delivered. 

The  Latvian  fishermen  operated  in  the 
Russian  Pacific  200-mile  zone  previously, 
while  the  country  was  still  part  of  the  Soviet 
Union.  Full  details  on  this  fishery  are  lacking 
but,  in  July  1991,  the  Latvian  Ministry  of 
Fisheries  reported  that  6  Latvian  stern  factory 
trawlers  had  been  idling  in  the  Pacific  for 
more  than  2  weeks  because  of  a  diesel  fuel 
shortage.*"  No  information  is  available  on  this 
fishery  in  1992,  but  it  appears  that  most  of 
the  fleet  returned  to  Latvia  except  for  the  two 
vessels  that  had  a  joint  venture  with  a  Russian 
company. 

The  Latvian  companies  are  currently 
experiencing  financial  difficulties  that  have 
resulted  in  several  vessels  being  seized  in  two 
countries. 

Argentina/Uruguay:  Six  Latvian  stern 
factory  trawlers  are  being  held  in  the  ports  of 
Buenos  Aires  and  Montevideo  (3  trawlers  in 
each)  for  nonpayment  of  various  expenses 
incurred  while  fishing  off  Chile,  Argentina, 
and  Peru  (with  2  vessels  in  each  country)  in 
1990-91.  The  Latvian  crews  were  finally 
flown  back  to  Riga  in  April  1993;  the 
trawlers  will  probably  be  sold  at  a  public 
auction  to  the  highest  bidder.  Their  price  will 
most  likely  be  low  because  of  their  age.  The 
names  of  these  6  trawlers  are  not  available. 


United  States:  Two  Latvian  trawlers  (Durbe 
and  Muravjova),  belonging  to  the  Liepaja 
High-seas  Fishing  Fleet,  are  being  held  by  the 
Trinity  Shipyard  in  Beaumont,  Texas.  Trinity 
accepted  the  vessels  in  1992  for 
modernization  through  a  Seattle  law  firm,  but 
was  unable  to  obtain  payments  for  the  work 
completed.  The  case  is  in  court. 

The  remaining  Latvian  high-seas 
vessels,  representing  almost  one-half  of  the 
distant-water  fleet,  are  idle  in  Latvian  ports, 
either  for  lack  of  diesel  fuel  or  because  the 
catch  allocations  by  foreign  countries  are 
insufficient  to  support  their  operations.  The 
upkeep  of  the  idled  high-seas  vessels  is  an 
expensive  proposition  and  the  Latvian 
Government  would  like  to  dispose  of  them  as 
soon  as  possible,  either  by  selling  them  off, 
or  by  scrapping  them.  Most  of  these  vessels 
are  aged,  and  even  if  catch  allocations  m 
foreign  fishing  zones  became  available,  it  is 
not  likely  that  these  vessels  would  be  able  to 
operate  profitably.  Most  Soviet  vessels  were 
not  built  with  diesel  fuel  efficiency  as  a  high 
priority  because  diesel  oil  was  dirt  cheap 
(when  compared  to  Western  prices).  Diesel 
fuel  prices  have  increased  several  times  since 
the  breakup  of  the  Soviet  Union.  Since 
Latvia  currently  receives  its  fuel  from  Russia, 
which  is  increasing  its  price  for  diesel  fuel  to 
the  world  market  level,  the  Latvians  expect 
fuel  costs  to  continue  rising. 

The  Latvian  Government  faces  other 
problems  associated  with  the  fisheries  sector. 
The  fishing  companies  continue  to  pay 
minimum  wages  to  the  fishing  crews  and 
officers  of  the  idled  high-seas  vessels.  This 
represents  a  heavy  burden  on  the  already 
cash-strapped  companies  which  are  actively 
trying  to  dispose  of  the  non-operational 
vessels. 


52 


rV.  FISHERY  SUPPORT  FLEET 

The  Latvian  fishery  support  fleet  is 
mostly  operated  by  the  Riga  Trawler  and 
Refrigeration  Fleet  company.  In  1991,  it 
consisted  of  9  baseships  and  processing 
vessels,  3  fishery  refrigerated  transports,  and 
2  exploratory  research  vessels  for  a  total  of 
14  vessels  (appendix  3).^  The  Latvian 
Government  has  been  reducing  this  fleet  and, 
by  1993,  it  had  only  10  vessels. 

Some  high-seas  fishery  support  vessels 
are  most  likely  also  based  at  Liepaja.  The 
exact  number  is  not  known,  but  various 
sources  estimate  it  at  4  large  (over  4,000 
GRT)  vessels.  They  are  probably  I 
mothership  and  3  refrigerated  transports. 
Their  names  are  not  available. 

The  Lloyds'  of  London  lists  in  its 
latest  December  1992  statistics  only  9  fishery 
support  vessels,  with  a  total  gross  tonnage  of 
41,100  GRT  as  being  in  the  Latvian  registry. 
These  statistics  probably  show  the  reduction 
of  3  fishery  support  vessels  discussed  in  the 
footnotes  of  appendix  3  and  listed  in  appendix 
five.  Their  total  tonnage  of  34,680  GRT 
added  to  the  41,100  GRT  comes  close  to  the 
gross  tonnage  reported  by  the  U.S.  Office  of 
Naval  Intelligence  (76,900  GRT).- 


V.  FLEET  REDUCTION 

According  to  the  U.S.  Navy,  during 
the  past  two  years  Latvia  reduced  the  size  of 
its  fishing  fleet  by  6  vessels  and  a  total  of 
15,330  gross  tons  (appendix  5).  Of  this  total, 
4  vessels  were  reflagged  to  other  countries:  a 
small  fishing  vessel  (Darya  Zar)  was  sold  to 
Iran;  a  SIBIR-class  processing  vessel 
(Plutonas)  is  now  operated  by  the  Lithuanian 


fishing  fleet;  the  fisheries  training  vessel, 
Sedov,  and  a  medium  trawler  were  turned 
over  to  the  Russian  Federation*.  In  addition, 
two  large  stern  factory  trawlers  of  the 
MAYAKOVSKII  class  were  decommissioned, 
but  it  is  not  known  whether  they  were 
scrapped  for  iron  or  sold  abroad.  It  is  likely, 
in  light  of  the  decrease  in  the  number  of 
vessels  between  1991  and  1993,  reported  by 
various  sources,  that  additional  Latvian 
vessels  have  been  decommissioned.  Full 
information  on  this  process,  however,  is  not 
available. 


VI.  FISHING  GROUNDS 

The  Latvian  fleet  is  widely  dispersed, 
primarily  on  Atlantic  grounds.  The  country's 
high-seas  fishing  fleets  now  operate  only  in 
the  northern  and  southern  Atlantic;  the 
distant-water  fisheries  in  Antarctica  and  in  the 
southeastern  Pacific  have  been  abandoned 
because  the  increasing  cost  of  fuel  and  the 
length  of  the  trips  made  fishing  there 
unprofitable.  A  small  fishery,  however,  is 
maintained  in  the  Northwest  Pacific  and  is 
based  in  Kamchatka  ports. 

The  distant  waters  of  the  North  and 
South  Atlantic  are  fished  by  large  stern 
factory  trawlers,  supported  by  processing 
vessels  and  refrigerated  transports. 

Northwest  Atlantic:  This  fishery,  regulated 
by  NAFO,  has  been  reduced  during  the  past 
few  years  with  the  Americanization  and 
Canadianization  of  the  fishing  grounds  by 
both  countries.  Latvian  fishermen  can 
operate  now  only  in  international  waters 
beyond  the  200-mile  Canadian  FEZ  where 
they  catch  Atlantic  ocean  perch  under  a 
NAFO  quota. 


53 


Northeast  Atlantic:  Regulated  by  the 
International  Commission  for  the  Northeast 
Atlantic  Fisheries  (ICNEAF),  these  grounds 
became  a  prime  fishery  for  the  Latvian  fleet 
until  the  European  Community  (EC)  extended 
its  jurisdiction  to  200  miles  in  1977, 
excluding  all  of  the  former  Soviet  vessels 
from  its  EEZ.  No  Soviet  fishing  was  allowed 
in  the  EC  zone  for  the  past  16  years.  After 
Latvia  became  independent,  however, 
neighboring  Denmark  extended  not  only 
considerable  aid  to  Latvian  fishermen,  but 
also  allowed  them  in  1993  to  fish  off  the 
Faroe  Islands  for  blue  whiting.  The  catch  is 
processed  and  exported  to  the  countries  of  the 
former  Soviet  Union.  The  Latvians  also  fish 
in  the  international  waters  of  the  northeastern 
Atlantic. 

Central  East  Atlantic:  The  fishery  off  the 
West  African  coast  was,  in  recent  decades, 
the  most  important  Latvian  fishing  ground. 
Operations  centered  on  the  waters  off  the 
disputed  Western  Sahara,  off  Mauritania 
(under  a  bilateral  agreement  with  the  former 
Soviet  Union  which  also  benefitted  Latvia), 
and  off  Namibia  (the  former  UN  Trust 
Territory  of  Southwest  Africa).  Namibia's 
independence  and  Morocco's  annexation  of 
Western  Sahara  spelled  the  end  of  these 
operations. 

Southwestern  Atlantic:  The  Latvians  fish  for 
squid  beyond  the  conservation  zone  (150 
miles)  of  the  Falkland  Islands,  which  is 
administered  by  the  United  Kingdom.  The 
catch  is  sold  on  the  grounds  to  Japanese 
refrigerated  transports  at  $1,200-1,400  per 
metric  ton  for  frozen,  cleaned  squid  tubes. 

Northwest  Pacific:  Latvian  fishermen  catch 
Alaska  pollock  in  Russian  waters  for  delivery 
to  Kamchatka  processing  plants.  Only  two 
large  stern  factory  trawlers,  on  lease  to  a 


Kamchatka    joint    venture    company,     are 
currently  deployed  in  this  fishery. 


VII.    CATCH  AND  PRODUCTION 

Latvian  fishermen  traditionally 
contributed  about  5  percent  of  the  former 
Soviet  Union's  fishery  landings,  or  from 
500,000-550,000  metric  tons  (t).  The  peak 
was  reached  in  1987  when  Latvian  fleets 
brought  in  571,000  t  of  fish  and  shellfish 
(appendix  6). 

In  1991,  Latvian  fishery  landings 
amounted  to  366,000  tons.  Of  this  total, 
310,000  t  was  harvested  on  the  high-seas  and 
in  the  economic  zones  of  various  other 
countries,  while  56,000  t  was  caught  in  the 
Baltic  Sea.  Data  for  1992  are  not  available, 
but  the  catch  is  estimated  to  have  been  about 
150,000  tons.  The  estimated  fishery  landings 
for  1993  are  approximately  200,000  tons. 

In  1991,  a  total  of  211,000  t  of 
processed  seafood,  203  million  standard  cans 
and  24,000  t  of  fishmeal  was  produced. 
Latvian  fish  hatcheries  release  annually  over 
7  million  fish  fingerlings,  including  700,000 
Atlantic  salmon  and  trout  smolts;  these  are 
released  in  the  Baltic  Sea. 

The  Latvian  Republic  has  5  fish- 
processing  plants,  8  fish  farms,  and  a 
fisheries  ship-repair  yard  as  well  as  a  plant 
that  manufactures  fish-processing  equipment. 


VIII.  FISHING  COMPANIES 


The  Latvian  fishing  companies  are 
divided  into  private  and  state-owned  firms. 
The  private  sector  consists  mainly  of  1 1 
fishing  cooperatives;  these  are  multipurpose 


54 


companies,  independently  conducting  their 
economic  activities.  They  own  about  18 
high-seas  fishing  vessels  which  operate  in  the 
Atlantic  Ocean;  the  cooperatives  also  own  the 
entire  Latvian  fleet  fishing  in  the  Baltic  Sea. 
in  addition,  the  cooperatives  own  fish- 
processing  plants,  harbors,  a  fishery  support 
fleet,  warehouses,  and  freezing  plants.  Some 
also  engage  in  ship  repair,  the  building  of 
recreational  boats,  net  making,  fish  farming, 
growing  fur  animals,  and  floriculture. 

In  1992,  they  were  transformed  into 
share-holding  and  joint-stock  companies,  and 
each  member  obtained  a  part  of  the  common 
property.  In  the  future,  the  members'  income 
will  depend  on  the  number  of  shares  in  the 
stock-holding  company.  The  share-holding 
company  LOMS,  which  manufactures  nets 
and  ropes,  is  another  company  belonging  to 
the  private  sector;  employees  own  all  of  its 
shares.  The  number  of  private  companies  and 
fishermen  who  catch  small  quantities  of  fish 
in  the  Baltic  with  their  own  vessels  is 
growing.  Several  joint  ventures  with  French, 
Danish,  Belgian  and  U.S.  companies  have 
also  been  registered  in  Latvia. 

The  state-owned  fleet  in  Latvia  is 
managed  by  two  large  organizations  whose 
vessels  fish  primarily  in  the  Atlantic  Ocean. 
Their  fleet  is  composed  of  an  estimated  66 
high-seas  fishing  vessels  55  to  120  meters 
long  with  engines  having  1,300  to  7,000 
horsepower  (appendices  3  and  4).  They  can 
carry  out  their  operations  in  any  part  of  the 
world's  oceans  and  catch  any  species  of  fish. 
This  fleet  processes  and  delivers  frozen, 
filleted  and  canned  fish,  as  well  as  fish  meal 
and  fish  oil.  Fishery  products  are  shipped 
from  the  fishing  grounds  by  cargo  carriers 
and  refrigerated  transports  of  the  Latvian 
transport  fleet. 


IX.  BILATERALS  &  JOINT  VENTURES 

Following  the  unsuccessful  coup  d'etat 
in  Moscow  in  August  1991,  Latvia  gained  its 
independence  and  thus  entered  the  world's 
fishery  management  systems.  The  Parliament 
decided  that  Latvia  should  join  the  relevant 
international  fishery  conventions  after  the 
country's  independence  was  recognized  by  the 
Soviet  Union  on  6  September  1991.  The 
Republic  has  become  a  contracting  party  to 
the  Baltic  Sea  Fisheries  Commission, 
International  Commission  for  the  Exploration 
of  the  Seas  (ICES),  North  Atlantic  Fisheries 
Organization  (NAFO)  and  other  international 
fishery  bodies.  Latvia  also  signed  bilateral 
fishery  agreements  with  Russia,  Denmark  and 
the  Faroe  Islands,  Sweden,  Finland,  Canada, 
the  European  Community,  and  the  United 
States  of  America.  The  possibility  of  signing 
similar  agreements  with  additional  countries  is 
being  discussed. 

Faroe  Islands:  The  bilateral  fisheries 
agreement  with  the  Faroe  Islands  (with  the 
consent  of  Denmark)  provides  Latvian 
fishermen  with  a  1993  catch  quota  of  12,000 
t  of  blue  whiting  in  the  Faroese  EEZ.  In 
exchange,  the  Faroese  fishermen  will  receive 
a  1993  catch  quota  of  4,600  t  of  various 
species  in  the  Latvian  EEZ  in  the  Baltic.'" 

Sweden:  At  the  end  of  January  1992,  a 
quadripartite  agreement  was  signed  between 
Sweden  and  the  fishery  administrators  of 
Estonia,  Latvia,  and  Lithuania  in  Stockholm. 
The  document  defines  the  contested  fishing 
grounds  in  the  coastal  areas  of  the  Baltic  Sea. 
An  estimated  75  percent  of  fishery  stocks  in 
the  area  will  be  managed  by  the  Baltic 
states." 


55 


Latvia  is  open  to  cooperation  and  joint 
ventures  with  foreign  partners.  It  can  offer 
for  sale  a  wide  range  of  fish  and  fishery 
products.  Good  possibilities  exist  for  repairing 
fishing  vessels  in  Latvian  shipyards  at  low 
cost;  high-quality  servicing  and  maintenance 
of  foreign  vessels  in  Latvian  ports  is  another 
possibility.  Latvia  is  inviting  foreign  private 
companies  interested  in  fisheries  cooperation 
to  establish  contacts  and  joint  ventures,  and  to 
make  capital  investments. 

The  main  areas  of  potential  common 
interest  are  as  follows:  joint  fishing  in  foreign 
exclusive  economic  zones,  marketing  of  fish 
and  fishery  products  in  industrially  developed 
countries,  fishing  fleet  modernization, 
modernization  of  fish-processing  plants,  joint 
construction  of  low-tonnage  fishing  vessels, 
manufacturing  of  fishing  nets,  and 
development  of  salmon  and  trout  farming,  as 
well  as  the  culture  of  other  fish  species. 


X.  OUTLOOK 

Latvian  fisheries  are  an  important 
sector  in  the  Latvian  economy.  The  industry 
is  endowed  with  satisfactory  ports  and 
adjacent  processing  facilities  which  were 
expanded  rapidly  from  the  1950s  to  the 
1970s.  The  delivery  of  fishing  vessels  from 
Soviet,  Polish,  and  East  German  shipyards 
was  instrumental  in  the  expansion  of  Latvian 
fisheries  throughout  the  world.  This  fleet, 
however,  was  part  of  Soviet  fishery 
expeditions  which  were  supported  by  a 
centralized  structure  in  Moscow.  The 
inexpensive  fuel,  transportation  from  fishing 
grounds  back  to  domestic  markets,  and 
regular  air  exchanges  of  the  crews,  made  such 
far-flung  operations  possible,  if  not  profitable. 
(Under  the  Soviet  system,  any  deficits  were 


absorbed  by  the  State.)  Following  Latvia's 
independence  from  the  USSR  in  September 
1991 ,  however,  the  situation  began  to  change. 
Latvia  was  now  a  foreign  country  and  Soviet, 
later  Russian,  oil  was  sold  to  it  at  world 
prices,  if  it  was  available  at  all.  The  large 
USSR-wide  marketing  system  disappeared. 
Ukraine  and  the  Russian  Federation  now 
import  Latvian  fishery  products  as  they  would 
from  any  other  foreign  country.  The  worst 
problem  is  probably  the  loss  of  access  to 
fishing  grounds  which  were  previously 
available  under  bilateral  fishery  agreements 
with  many  coastal  countries  in  Latin  America, 
Asia,  and  Africa.  Another  problem  is  the 
lack  of  diesel  fuel.  The  resulting  inability  to 
sail  for  distant-water  fishing  grounds  has 
forced  almost  half  of  the  high-seas  fleet  to 
remain  idle  in  Latvian  ports. 


SOURCES 

FAO.  Fishery  Country  Profile.  Latvia.  Rome,  April 
1992. 

Latvian  Ministry  of  Maritime  Affairs.  "Latvian 
Fisheries."  Riga,  December  1992. 

Latvian  Ministry  of  Maritime  Affairs,  Personal 
Communications,  1993. 

Lloyd's  Registry  of  Shipping.  Fleet  Statistics  as  of  31 
December  1992.  London,  1993. 

National  Technical  Information  Service.  Lat\'ia:  An 
Economic  Profile.  Washington,  D.C.,  August 
1992. 

Nordic  Investment  Bank.  Baltic  study.  September  1991. 

U.S.  Navy,  Office  of  Naval  Intelligence. 


56 


ENDNOTES 


1.  This  figure  probably  included  the  families  of  the  fishermen  since,  in  December  1992,  the  Latvian  Ministry  of 
Maritime  Affairs  estimated  the  1989  employment  in  the  fisheries  sector  at  30,000  persons.    By  1993,  this 
number  had  decreased  to  25,200  persons.  (See  appendix  6  for  details.) 

2.  FAO.  Fishery  Country  Profile.  Latvia.  Rome,  1992. 

3.  Nordic  Investment  Bank,  Baltic  study,  September  1991. 

4.  The  main  source  for  the  1991  section  is  the  Nordic  Investment  Bank  (NIB)  study. 

5.  The  figure  of  79  high-seas  fishing  vessels,  obtained  from  an  unpublished  report  of  the  Latvian  Ministry  of 
Maritime  Affairs,  may  not  be  the  total  number  of  such  vessels.    FAO  gives  the  total  number  of  Latvian  high- 
seas  vessels  as  89  trawlers  in  1991.    For  the  same  year,  the  Nordic  Investment  Bank  (NIB)  counted  91  units  in 
the  high-seas  trawler  fleet. 

6.  Radio  Riga,  12  July  1991. 

7.  Latvian  Ministry  of  Maritime  Affairs,  Personal  Communication,  December  1992. 

8.  The  total  number  of  fishery  support  vessels  in  the  Latvian  fleet  is  uncertain.    This  is,  in  part,  because  various 
sources  mention  them  under  different  classifications.    The  NIB  lists  31  fish-processing  vessels  and  21 
refrigerated  transports.    FAO,  on  the  other  hand,  lists  20  "cargo  vessels"  and  30  fish-processing  units.    An 
updated  FAO  profile  of  Latvian  fisheries  (using  new  statistics  supplied  by  the  Latvian  Sea  Fisheries  Research 
Institute)  lists  16  fishery  cargo  and  23  fish-processing  vessels.    In  July  1993,  the  U.S.  Navy  listed  14 
refrigerated  fish  transports  and  2  general  cargo  fish  transports  which  corresponds  with  the  figure  given  by  the 
Latvian  Sea  Fisheries  Research  Institute  for  "fishery  cargo"  vessels.    The  9  vessels  listed  by  Lloyd's  as  of 
December  31,  1992,  reflect  additional  reductions  of  these  vessels.    A  complete  and  reliable  picture,  however, 
can  only  be  obtained  from  the  Latvian  Ministry  of  Transportation.    Unfortunately,  requests  for  clarification  were 
unanswered. 

9.  The  Sedov  (3,709  GRT)  was  built  in  1921  in  Germany.    It  was  seized  by  the  Soviet  Armed  Forces  in  1945, 
and  converted  into  a  training  ship  for  fisheries  and  merchant  marine  cadets. 

10.  Faroese  Statistical  Bulletin,  May  1993. 

11.  Radio  Russia,  27  January  1993. 


57 


58 


APPENDIX  SECTION 


59 


60 


Appendix  1,  Latvia.  Fishing  and  fishery  support  fleet,  by  vessel  name,  class, 
gross  tonnage,  and  country  and  year  of  construction:  1993 


Vessel  name 


Class 


"GRT 


Country  bui It 

Year 

USSR 

1976 

GDR 

1986 

USSR 

1964 

USSR 

1961 

Germany 

1966 

GDR 

1959 

Poland 

1967 

USSR 

1983 

USSR 

1984 

USSR 

1984 

USSR 

1991 

USSR 

1990 

Bulgaria 

1971 

USSR 

1986 

USSR 

1965 

GDR 

1989 

USSR 

1989 

GDR 

1986 

Russia 

1991 

USSR 

1975 

USSR 

1981 

USSR 

1987 

GDR 

1988 

USSR 

1984 

USSR 

1972 

USSR 

1987 

USSR 

1986 

GDR 

1970 

USSR 

1988 

Sweden 

1970 

USSR 

1984 

USSR 

1970 

USSR 

1985 

USSR 

1984 

USSR 

1985 

USSR 

1984 

GDR 

1959 

USSR 

1987 

USSR 

1974 

USSR 

1985 

USSR 

1988 

USSR 

1989 

USSR 

1987 

GDR 

1959 

GDR 

1981 

USSR 

1990 

USSR 

1990 

GDR 

1977 

GDR 

1974 

Bulgaria 

1971 

Sweden 

1969 

GDR 

1953 

USSR 

1988 

USSR 

1967 

USSR 

1972 

USSR 

1973 

USSR 

1967 

USSR 

1989 

GDR 

1982 

GDR 

1978 

GDR 

1974 

USSR 

1984 

USSR 

1975 

GDR 

1975 

USSR 

1983 

USSR 

1974 

USSR 

1972 

USSR 

1983 

GDR 

1974 

GDR 

1960 

USSR 

1961 

USSR 

1990 

GDR 

1981 

USSR 

1989 

USSR 

1961 

Abava 

Abruka 

Afanasijs  Nikitins 

Anga 

Aizkraukle 

Alants 

Aleksey  Pozdnyakov 

Alfa 

Altairs 

Amula 

Arats 

Anes 

Annas 

Arena 

Aspazija 

Atmoda 

Auda 

Augusts  Berzins 

Aun 

Aynazhi 

Balakhna 

Baltezers 

Baltijas  Gels 

Baltijas  Petnieks 

BaltTka 

Barta  I 

Bartava 

Bazalt 

Bella 

Bennga  Sal  a 

Beta 

Betel  gen  ze 

Biksti 

Blome 

Bomvars 

Bravo 

Breksis 

Bnedis 

Bnviba 

Broceni 

Bukaisi 

Burtmeki 

Busmeki 

Bute 

Cecerska 

Daugava 

Daugavgnva 

Diana 

Dimants 

Djuni 

Doles  Sal  a 

Druzhba 

Durbe  I 

Dzintarjura 

Dzmtarkrasts 

Dzintarzeme 

Dzulija 

Eglaine 

Fjodors  Jerozidn 

Ga re  1  ems 

Garupe 

Gaysma 

Globuss 

Gramts 

Grif 

Grot 

Gunars  Akis 

Hoglande 

Ilukste 

Imanta 

Inciems 

Indra 

Inzemens  Judincevs 

Irlava 

Islica 


BALTIKA 
ORLENOK 
MAYAKOVSKIY 

RYBATSKAYA  SLAVA 

OKEAN 

PIONERSK 

BALTIKA 

PULKOVSKIY  MERIDIAN 


SHUSHVE 

BALTIKA 

TAVRIYA 

KARL  LIBKNEKHT 

ALPINIST 

ORLENOK 

BALTIKA 

BALTIKA 

PULKOVSKIY  MERIDIAN 

BALTIKA 

KARL  LIBKNEKHT 

ZHELEZNYAKOV 

BALTIKA 

ALPINIST 

ATLANTIK 
BALTIKA 
OSTROV  RUSSKIY 
BALTIKA 
LUCHEGORSK 

BALTIKA 

BALTIKA 
OKEAN 

BALTIKA 


OKEAN 
PROMETEY  MOD  A 

PULKOVSKIY  MERIDIAN 

PROMETEY 

KARL  LIBKNEKHT 

SHUSHVE 

OSTROV  RUSSKIY 

DRUZHBA 

ALPINIST 

MAYAKOVSKIY 

LUCHEGORSK 

LUCHEGORSK 

MAYAKOVSKIY 

PULKOVSKIY  MERIDIAN 

PROMETEY  MOD  A 

PROMETEY  MOD  A 

PROMETEY 

BALTIKA 

BALTIKA 

PROMETEY 

BALTIKA 

BALTIKA 

LUCHEGORSK 

BALTIKA 

PROMETEY 

OKEAN 

BOLOGOYE 

PROMETEY  MOD  A 

KIROVETS 

BOLOGOYE 


3. 
11. 

1. 


108 
1.513 

2.433 
107 

16.532 
508 

14.340 
108 

4.407 
104 
359 
117 
179 
117 
556 
755 
720 
513 
117 
108 

3.272 
108 

12.403 
775 
108 
720 
117 

2.177 
108 

9.795 
108 

2.581 
117 
108 
117 
108 
508 
117 
108 
117 
117 
117 
117 
508 

3.977 
117 

4.407 

3.977 

11.755 

179 

9.752 
669 
720 
170 
581 
581 
407 
407 
146 

3.977 

3.933 
108 
108 

3.931 
108 
108 

2.322 
117 

3.017 
508 
334 
104 

3.977 
190 
334 


61 


Appendix  1.   Latvia.  Continued. 
Vessel  naliie 


Class 


13Rr 


Country  built 

Year 

GDR 

1974 

GDR 

1975 

GDR 

1972 

GDR 

1976 

USSR 

1990 

USSR 

1986 

GDR 

1981 

USSR 

1968 

GDR 

1959 

GDR 

1982 

GDR 

1959 

Sweden 

1970 

USSR 

1966 

USSR 

1980 

USSR 

1969 

GDR 

1972 

GDR 

1971 

GDR 

1986 

USSR 

1974 

USSR 

1965 

USSR 

1991 

GDR 

1960 

USSR 

1967 

USSR 

1965 

USSR 

1987 

USSR 

1974 

GDR 

1959 

USSR 

1969 

USSR 

1971 

USSR 

1974 

USSR 

1973 

GDR 

1960 

USSR 

1990 

GDR 

1986 

GDR 

1982 

USSR 

1968 

USSR 

1974 

USSR 

1975 

USSR 

1976 

USSR 

1981 

USSR 

1985 

USSR 

1986 

GDR 

1959 

USSR 

1968 

Germany 

1957 

USSR 

1961 

USSR 

1971 

USSR 

1977 

GDR 

1985 

GDR 

1984 

GDR 

1983 

GDR 

1983 

GDR 

1972 

GDR 

1984 

USSR 

1965 

GDR 

1984 

GDR 

1976 

Poland 

1967 

USSR 

1988 

USSR 

1986 

USSR 

1976 

USSR 

1988 

USSR 

1976 

Poland 

1968 

USSR 

1988 

GDR 

1958 

Poland 

1980 

GDR 

1975 

GDR 

1959 

USSR 

1976 

USSR 

1983 

USSR 

1968 

USSR 

1966 

Sweden 

1971 

USSR 

1970 

GDR 

1974 

Finland 

1973 

Jams  Rainbergs 

Jukums  Vacietis 

Jurnieks 

Kalngale 

Kalvene 

Kapteinis  Jedemskis 

Kapteinis  Kulinics 

Karl  is  Bude 

Karpa 

Kaugun 

Kaupo 

Kipsala 

Kira 

Kolka 

Komsomol  Latvn 

Kondors 

Korunds 

Kursa 

Kvarcs 

Laguna 

Laimdota 

Latgale 

Ledus 

Ligatne 

Ligita 

Limbazhi 

Lims 

Luga 

Lunohods  I 

Manga! i 

Mars  2 

Miers 

Mikelbaka 

Mil  gravis 

Misa 

Mr amor 

MRTK  1008 

MRTK  1020 

MRTK  1025 

MRTK  1063 

MRTK  1098 

Muravjova 

Negis 

Nelson  Stepanyan 

Nemuna 

Nika 

Nikolayevskiy  Komsomolets 

Nitsa 

Ochamuri 

Odincova 

Olaine 

Orciks 

Orlecs 

Orska 

Otrog 

Ozen 

Pabazi 

Pardaugava 

Pavilosta 

Pegas 

Perse 

Peteris  Plesums 

Plamja 

Plavniekl 

Plienciems 

Priekule 

Pruzam 

Radonits 

Rauda 

Rauna 

Regul s 

Roberts  Eidemanis 

Rohuneeme 

Ronu  Sal  a 

Rotans 

Rozula 

Rumbula 


PROMETEY 
PROMETEY 
ATLANTIK 
PROMETEY 

PULKOVSKIY  MERIDIAN 

KARL  LIBKNEKHT 

MAYAKOVSKIY 

OKEAN 

PROMETEY  MOD  A 

OKEAN 

OSTROV  RUSSKIY 

MAYAKOVSKIY 

ALPINIST 

MAYAKOVSKIY 

ATLANTIK 

ATLANTIK 

ORLENOK 

LUCHEGORSK 

MAYAKOVSKIY 

OKEAN 

TAVRIYA 

MAYAKOVSKIY 

ALPINIST 

BALTIKA 

OKEAN 

MAYAKOVSKIY 

LUCHEGORSK 

RADUZHNYY 

LUCHEGORSK 

OKEAN 

PULKOVSKIY  MERIDIAN 

ORLENOK 

PROMETEY  MOD  A 

MAYAKOVSKIY 

BALTIKA 

BALTIKA 

BALTIKA 

BALTIKA 

BALTIKA 

ALPINIST 

OKEAN 

MAYAKOVSKIY 

YANA 

KHOBI 

LUCHEGORSK 

ALPINIST 

ORLENOK 

ORLENOK 

ORLENOK 

ORLENOK 

ATLANTIK 

ORLENOK 

MAYAKOVSKIY 

ORLENOK 

PROMETEY 

PIONERSK 

ALPINIST 

ZHELEZNYAKOV 

BALTIKA 

ALPINIST 

KARELIYA 

PROFESSOR  BARANOV 

KONTUR 

SPRUT 

ATLANTIK 

OKEAN 

BALTIKA 

PULKOVSKIY  MERIDIAN 

MAYAKOVSKIY 

OSTROV  RUSSKIY 
MAYAK 
PROMETEY 
ALTAY 


3. 
3. 
2. 
3, 

4 

11 

2 


980 

977 

657 

977 

117 

407 

755 

352 

507 

3.977 

502 

9,795 

2,406 

720 

3,170 

2,531 

2,177 


1,895 


3,014 

3.170 

104 

507 

3,556 

2,433 

738 

108 

508 

3,170 

2,581 

633 

3,152 

508 

4,407 

1,513 

3.977 

3,170 

108 

108 

108 

108 

108 

738 

508 

3,170 

3,550 

795 

2.581 

720 

1.513 

1.513 

1.898 

513 

154 

513 

170 

513 

977 

13.604 

720 

775 

108 

738 

206 

13.571 

117 

264 

4.769 

2,154 

507 

108 

3.272 

3.162 

100 

9.795 

638 

3.977 

3.468 


62 


Appendix  1.  Latvia.  Continued 


Vessel  name 


Class 


"GRT 


Country  bui  It 

Year 

USSR 

1977 

USSR 

1979 

USSR 

1976 

USSR 

1968 

USSR 

1975 

USSR 

1989 

USSR 

1964 

USSR 

1988 

USSR 

1964 

GDR 

1960 

USSR 

1984 

USSR 

1973 

USSR 

1990 

USSR 

1989 

USSR 

1990 

USSR 

1987 

GDR 

1962 

GDR 

1975 

USSR 

1980 

USSR 

1989 

Germany 

1965 

USSR 

1961 

USSR 

1961 

GDR 

1960 

GDR 

1955 

USSR 

1989 

GDR 

1959 

USSR 

1974 

GDR 

1955 

USSR 

1974 

USSR 

1977 

GDR 

1954 

GDR 

1959 

GDR 

1960 

USSR 

1990 

GDR 

1960 

USSR 

1976 

USSR 

1974 

USSR 

1984 

USSR 

1986 

USSR 

1989 

GDR 

1957 

USSR 

1973 

USSR 

1972 

USSR 

1988 

USSR 

1990 

USSR 

1962 

GDR 

1960 

GDR 

1957 

USSR 

1966 

USSR 

1974 

USSR 

1975 

GDR 

1955 

USSR 

1978 

GDR 

1960 

USSR 

1975 

USSR 

1967 

GDR 

1955 

GDR 

1959 

USSR 

1984 

USSR 

1968 

USSR 

1988 

Rutsava 

Rybnadzor  4 

Rykanda 

Salaca 

Salatsa 

Salatsgriva 

Salna 

Santa 

Sarma 

Saule 

Selden 

Selga 

Selga 

Sencis 

Senite 

Sergejs  Jesenins 

Sigulda 

Sinuss 

Sknven 

Skulte 

Slava 

Sovetskaya  Latviya 

Sovetskaya  Rodina 

Spidola 

Stantsa 

Stende 

Store 

Straume 

Sventa 

Svetupe 

Tantals 

Tauisk 

Tayminsh 

Teviya 

Tobago 

Tsenba 

Ugale 

Uldis 

Ural 

Urga 

Usma 

Uzvara 

Vaidava 

Valka 

Vecmil gravis 

Vega 

Vetrasputns 

Viesturs 

Vita 

Vjaza 

Vytrupe 

Yaunupe 

Yurmala 

Zane 

Zemgale 

Zemgale 

Zheleznyakov 

Zhupanova 

Ziedoms 

Zitars 

Zurbagans 

Zvejmeks 


ALPINIST 

720 

169 

BALTIKA 

108 

MAYAK 

699 

SELGA 

100 

ZHELEZNYAKOV 

723 

TAVRIYA 

3.556 

ZHELEZNYAKOV 

723 

TAVRIYA 

3.556 

OKEAN 

507 

50  LET  SSSR 

13.083 

SELGA 

100 

ZHELEZNYAKOV 

775 

117 

RADUZHNYY 

633 

PULKOVSKIY  MERIDIAN 

4.407 

ANDIZHAN 

3.251 

ATLANTIK 

2.097 

50  LET  SSSR 

10.108 

ALPINIST 

720 

RYBATSKAYA  SLAVA 

16.389 

TAVRIYA 

3.307 

TAVRIYA 

3.230 

OKEAN 

507 

DRUZHBA 

695 

PULKOVSKIY  MERIDIAN 

4.407 

OKEAN 

508 

50  LET  SSSR 

13.083 

RR  151 

258 

BALTIKA 

108 

KRONSHTADT 

3.000 

DRUZHBA 

669 

OKEAN 

502 

OKEAN 

508 

ZHELEZNYAKOV 

775 

OKEAN 

508 

SELGA 

100 

SELGA 

100 

BALTIKA 

108 

BALTIKA 

108 

ZHELEZNYAKOV 

775 

KONTUR 

264 

KARELIYA 

180 

LUCHEGORSK 

2.581 

PULKOVSKIY  MERIDIAN 

4.407 

LAUKUVA 

359 

TAVRIYA 

3.308 

OKEAN 

508 

KONTUR 

264 

MAYAKOVSKIY 

2.406 

BALTIKA 

108 

BALTIKA 

108 

DRUZHBA 

695 

BALTIKA 

108 

OKEAN 

508 

BALTIKA 

108 

ZHELEZNYAKOV 

633 

DRUZHBA 

692 

OKEAN 

507 

BALTIKA 

108 

MAYAK 

680 

ALPINIST 

720 

TOTAL  =  214  vessels 


TOTAL  GROSS  TONNAGE  =  476.802  GRT 


Source   U.S.  Navy.  Office  of  Naval  Intelligence.  29  July  1993. 

GRT  -  Gross  registered  tonnage 

Note:  This  list  does  not  include  the  specialized  vessel-s  (fishery  training, 
vessels,  and  tankers)  listed  in  appendix  2. 


fishery  research 


63 


Appendix  2.  Latvia.  Specialized  vessels  of  the  Latvian  fishing  fleet. 

by  type  and  name  of  vessel,  class,  gross  registered  tonnage, 
country  and  year  of  construction:  1993. 


Vessel  type/name 

Class 

GRT 

Built  in 

Year  built 

TRAINING  VESSELS 

Eholots 

SKRYPLEV 

3.708 

Denmark 

1969 

Aiclnajums 

PROMETEI  MODEL  A 

3.977 

GDR 

1979 

Nikoljas  Zicars 

YANTARNII 

6.455 

Russia 

1968 

Diplote 

ATLANTIK 

2,211 

GDR 

1973 

Kursografs 

ATLANTIK 

2.211 

GDR 

1973 

RESEARCH  VESSELS* 

Bespokoinn 

KARELIA 

206 

Russia 

1966 

Baltijas  Zvaigzne 

ZHELEZNYAKOV 

738 

Russia 

1976 

TANKERS 

Lnepaya 

YEGORYEVSK 

7.949 

Russia 

1960 

Yelsk 

YEGORYEVSK 

7.562 

Russia 

1960 

Source:  U.S.  Navy.  Office  of  Naval  Intelligence.  27  July  1993. 

*  These  2  vessels  are  probably  operated  by  the  biologists  of  the  Latvian  Sea 
Fisheries  Research  Institute,  located  in  Riga,  who  study  mostly  Baltic  Sea 
fishery  stocks  and  conditions. 


Appendix  3.  Latvia.  Riga  Trawler  and  Refrigeration  Fleet,  by  type 
of  vessel,  class,  number,  and  gross  tonnage:  1993. 


Type/class  of  vessels 


Gross  tonnage 
Vessels  Per  vessel  Total (E) 


Number 


GRT 


TRAWLERS 

BATM-PULKOVSKY  MERIDIAN  class 
RTMS-PROMETEI  class 
RTMS-ATLANTIK  II  class 
RTMS-PELENGATOR  class 
BMRT-MAYAKOVSKII  class 
STM-ORLENOK  (ATLANTIK  III) 
SUBTOTAL 

MOTHERSHIPS  AND  PROCESSING  VESSELS 

Motherships-RYBATSKAIA  SLAVA  class 

-PIONERSK  class 
Processing-  TAVRIYA  class 
SUBTOTAL 

REFRIGERATED  TRANSPORTS 

YANA  class  (Nemuna) 

YANTARNII  class  (Nikolajs  Zicars) 

MRT-RADUZHNII  class 

SUBTOTAL 

EXPLORATORY -RESEARCH  VESSELS 

SRTMK 

GRAND  TOTAL 
DECOMMISSIONED  VESSELS 


6 

3.250 

19,500 

16 

3.017 

48,272 

2 

2.652 

5,304 

1 

3.775 

3,775 

5 

3.170 

15,850 

1 

1.900 

1,900 

31 

94.601 

2* 

16.500 

33,000 

2* 

14,000 

28,000 

5** 

3.180 

15,900 

9 

76,900 

1 

3,550 

3,550 

1 

6,455 

6,455 

1 

630 

630 

3 

10,535 

2*** 

750(E) 

1,500 

45 

N/A 

183.536 

4 

Sources;  Latvian  Ministry  of  Maritime  Affairs,  Personal  Communication, 
December  1992:  US  Navy,  Office  of  Naval  Intelligence,  27  July  1993. 

*  The  4  motherships  had  been  reduced  to  2  units  by  1993. 

**  The  5  TAVRIYA-class  vesselss  had  been  reduced  to  4  units  by  1993. 

***  One  exploratory  vessel  had  been  scrapped  or  sold  by  1993. 

BATM  ■  Bolshoi  avtonomnyi  trauler  morozilnyi  (Large  autonomous  freezer  trawler) 
RTMS  -  Rybolovnyi  trauler  morozilnyi  srednii  (Medium  freezer  fishing  trawler) 
BMRT  -  Bolshoi  morozilnyi  rybolovnyi  trauler  (Large  freezer  fishing  trawler) 
STM  -  Srednii  trauler  morozilnyi  (Medium  freezer  trawler) 

SRTMK  -  Srednii  rybolovnyi  trauler  morozilnyi  kormovoi  (Medium  freezer  trawler) 
E  -  Estimated 


64 


Appendix  4.  Latvia.  Trawlers  of  the  Liepaja  High 
-seas  Fishing  Fleet,  by  class  and  name 
of  vessel,  gross  registered  tonnage, 
and  year  of  construction;  1993. 


Vessel  class/name 

GRT 

Year 

PULKOVSKII  MERIDIAN 
Altairs 
Mikelbaka 

4.407 
4.407 

1984 
1990 

ATLANTIK  IV 
Korunds 
Kondors 
Sinuss 

2,177 
2,531 
2.097 

1972 
1971 
1975 

ORLENOK 

Odincova 
Orska 

1.513 
1.513 

1984 
1984 

ALPINIST 
Kolka 

Muravjova* 
Durbe* 
Barta  I 
Pavilosta 

720 
738 
720 
720 
720 

1980 
1986 

1988 
1987 
1988 

SPRUT 

Pruzam 

4.769 

1980 

LUCHEGORSK 
Kvarcs 
Betel geize 
Lunohods  I 
Valka 
Mars-2 

3,014 
2,581 
2.581 
2.581 
3,162 

1974 
1970 
1971 
1972 
1973 

MAYAKOVSKII 
Luga 

3.170 

1969 

KRONSHTADT 

Tantals 

3,000 

1977 

TOTAL  GRT 

47.121 

Class  not  known 
Spnka 

N/A 

TOTAL  NUMBER  OF 

VESSELS  =  21 

Source.  Latvian  Ministry  of  Maritime  Affairs, 
Personal  Communication,  June  1993. 

*  The  2  Alpinist-class  trawlers  are   in  a  U  S 
shipyard  in  Texas  for  modernization 


65 


Appendix  5.  Latvia.  Fishing  fleet  reduction,  by  disposition;  1993. 


Vessel  name     Class 

GRT 

Construct 
Country 

;ion 
Year 

New  owner 

INACTIVE  VESSELS 

Ardava        MAYAKOVSKII 
E.  Veidenbaums  MAYAKOVSKII 

2.406 
2.433 

USSR 
USSR 

1967 
1960 

* 

REFLAGGED  VESSELS 

Darya  Zar  I 
Plutonas      SIBIR 
Sedov        SEDOV 
Virsaitis      ZHELEZNYAKOV 

117 
5.942 
3.709 

723 

USSR 
USSR 
GDR 
USSR 

1986 
1969 
1921 
1990 

Iran 

Lithuania 

Russia 

Russia 

TOTAL  =  6  vessels    TOTAL  GROSS 

TONNAGE  = 

15,330 

GRT 

Source:  US  Navy.  Office  of  Naval  Intelligence.  27  July  1993 

*  These  vessels  became  inactive  in  March  1993. 

Note  Six  stern  factory  trawlers  (names  are  not  known)  are  being 
held  in  Argentina  and  Uruguay.  See  Chapter  III  for  details. 


Appendix  6.  Latvia.  Fisheries  catch,  production,  fleet,  and  employment;  1989-1993. 


Year 

Fisheries  C( 
Baltic  High-seas 

3tch 
Total 

Fisheries 

Production 

High-seas 
vessels 

Employment 

Edible 

Canned 

Total  Industrial (2) 

1.000 

metric  t( 

3ns(t) 

l.OOOt 

cansd; 

1  1 . OOOt 

l.OOOt 

number 

persons 

1987 

N/A 

N/A 

571 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

1988 

N/A 

N/A 

558 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

1989 

60 

483 

^3*** 

244 

235 

327 

97 

92 

30.000 

1990 

58 

409 

457*** 

203 

229 

283 

85 

94 

28.800 

1991 

55 

309 

365 

166 

215 

237 

57 

96 

29.200 

1992* 

N/A 

N/A 

125 

83 

72 

109 

20 

87 

25.000 

1993** 

55 

150(3) 

200(3) 

111 

96 

145 

27 

79 

25.200 

Sources:  Latvian  Ministry  of  Maritime  Affairs.  Personal  Communication.  December  1992  and  June  1993. 
Latvia:  An  Economic  Profile.   Washington.  DC  August  1992  (1987  &  1988  catch  figures  only) 

N/A  -  Not  available 

*  January -September  only 

**  Forecast 

***  In  the  second  source,  the  1989  and  1990  catch  figures  are  given  as  547  and  470.  respectively 

(1)  In  million  of  standard  cans  (350  grams  each) 

(2)  Mainly  fish  meal  and  fish  oils 

(3)  Personal  communication  from  the  Latvian  Deputy  Minister  of  Maritime  Affairs.  June  1993 


66 


2.4 


LITHUANIA 

Lithuania  is  the  largest  of  the  three  Baltic  countries  that  became  independent  from  the  Soviet 
Union  in  1991.  The  Lithuanian  fishing  industry  was  part  of  the  centrally  planned  economy, 
directed  by  the  Soviet  Ministry  of  Fisheries  in  Moscow,  and  its  fishing  fleet  was  sustained  by 
the  Soviet  network  of  fishery  support  vessels  and  representatives  in  foreign  ports.  Lithuania  now 
has  to  secure  access  to  fishing  grounds  in  foreign  200-mile  zones  itself  and  can  no  longer  rely 
on  cheap,  subsidized  Soviet  diesel  oil  and  the  domestic  Soviet  sales  network  which  previously 
sustained  them.  The  transition  from  a  command  to  a  free-market  economy  has  been  exacerbated 
by  the  new  political  situation  and  the  need  to  reorganize  the  fishery  administration.  The 
Lithuanian  fishing  fleet  has  209  vessels  with  a  total  of  449,000  gross  registered  tons  (GRT);  its 
capacity  exceeds  Lithuania's  fishery  resources. 

CONTENTS 

I.  Background 67 

II.  Fishing  Fleet 68 

A.  High-seas  Fleet 68 

B.  Fleet  Reduction 73 

C.  Jiua  State  Fishing  Company 73 

III.  Fishing  Ports 74 

IV.  Fisheries  Catch 75 

V.  Fishing  Grounds    75 

VI.  Fisheries  Administration    76 

VII.  Bilateral  Agreements 76 

VIII.  Outlook 77 

Sources    78 

Endnotes    79 

Appendices 81 


Bordering  in  the  north  on  Latvia,  it  shares  the 
I.  BACKGROUND  shallow  Kursiu  Marios  (the  Bay  of  Kursk) 

with  the  Russian  Kaliningrad  enclave  in  the 
Lithuania   is   the   largest  and  the   most       south.    The  population  of  this  southernmost 
populous  of  the  three  Baltic  states.    With  a        Baltic  state  is  3.7  million  inhabitants, 
land  area  about  the  size  of  West  Virginia 

(65,200  square  kilometers),  its  window  to  the  In  1990,  the  high-seas  fishing  fleet  of  153 

Baltic    Sea    is    small     -    40    kilometers.'        vessels  landed  326,000  metric  tons  of  fishery 

67 


products.  The  small  Baltic  fleet  landed  only 
18,000  tons.  About  9,000  tons  were 
harvested  from  freshwater  ponds.  By  the  end 
of  1992,  however,  the  total  catch  was  halved 
to  170,000  tons. 

The  fisheries  sector  employed  about 
24,000  persons  in  1991;  of  this  total,  9,000 
were  employed  in  the  fishing  fleets,  while 
15,000  were  working  in  the  fish-processing 
industry.  The  percentage  of  fisheries 
contribution  to  the  gross  national  product  is 
not  available,  nor  is  there  any  reliable 
information  on  the  amount  and  the  type  of 
fishery  commodities  exported. 


n.  FISHING  FLEET 

The  Lithuanian  fishing  fleet  consisted  of 
201  fishing  and  fishery  support  vessels  as  the 
Soviet  Union  was  breaking  up  in  1991.  Of 
this  total,  153  vessels  fished  on  the  high-seas 
and  48  in  the  Baltic.  Lithuania  had  the 
smallest  fleet  out  of  the  three  former  Soviet 
Baltic  republics,  comprising  only  about  26 
percent  of  the  762  vessels  in  the  three  Baltic 
fleets.' 

A  study  done  by  the  Nordic  Investment 
Bank  (NIB)  in  1991,  after  the  country 
declared  its  independence,  found  that  the 
fishing  fleet  was  in  poor  condition  when 
compared  to  the  average  standards  of  Western 
fishing  nations.  The  NIB  estimated  that 
nearly  one  half  of  the  fishing  vessels, 
deployed  in  the  Baltic  Sea  and  on  the  high- 
seas,  was  obsolete.  The  processing  fleet  was 
in  even  worse  condition;  only  about  a  third  of 
the  vessels  was  considered  worthwhile  to 
upgrade  and  modernize.  The  NIB  estimated 
that  some  upgrading  could  be  done  with 
relatively  modest  investments.  However,  the 
difficult  economic  situation  currently  facing 


the  Lithuanian  Government  will  likely  mean 
that  funding  for  the  fleet  is  unavailable. 

Of  the  153  high-seas  vessels,  the  state- 
owned  company  JURA\  located  in  the  port 
city  of  Klaipeda,  took  over  the  operation  of 
124  high-seas  vessels  after  Lithuania  became 
independent  in  late  1991.'*  Another  state- 
owned  company,  the  Klaipeda  State 
Transportation  Fleet,  operates  24  fishery 
support  vessels.^  The  5  remaining  vessels 
were  probably  inactive  at  the  time  the  two 
companies  took  over  the  Lithuanian  fishery 
fleet. 

A  separate  fleet  composed  of  51  small 
trawlers,  belonging  mainly  to  3  Lithuanian 
Baltic  fishing  companies  (Neringa  and 
Pajuris,  former  sovkhozes,  and  Baltija,  a 
former  kolkhoz),  fishes  on  the  Baltic  Sea. 
Baltija  is  the  largest  of  the  3  now  privatized 
fishing  companies;  it  owns  40  trawlers  and  4 
support  vessels,  and  receives  the  lion's  share 
of  Lithuania's  Baltic  Sea  catch  quota.* 

A.  High-seas  Fleet 

As  of  late  July  1993,  Lithuania's  high-seas 
fishing  fleet  was  composed  of  1 16  units  (table 
1)  including  92  large  and  medium  trawlers,  as 
well  as  24  refrigerated  transports  and  other 
support  vessels,  including  3  tankers.''  Most 
of  the  vessels  were  built  in  former  Soviet  and 
East  German  shipyards  in  the  1970s.  The 
entire  Lithuanian  fishing  fleet  has  a  total  gross 
registered  tonnage  (GRT)  of  over  448,000 
tons. 


68 


Photo  I.— The  Alitus  is  a  360  gross  ton  medium-sized  Lithuanian  stern  trawler. 


Photo  2.— A  Lithuanian  tanker  of  the  Kaliningradneft-class  supplies  fuel  to  the  country 's  distant-water  fleets. 


69 


70 


\ 

^ 

7 

^M^i^ 

N.                A 

■    s 

J 

^'W 

S    "             ■     ■         v,^*    • 

/ 

P* 

■          f 

7     -        -                         •  #^  :••■ 

%M* 

.--J 

Ci^-  .■•  -'y-^   • 

>/) 

."^ 

0-^^*       . 

/ 

^^.  ■  ■.-^■-  ' 

3 

■   >m    .     ■       ■ 

■m 
(^     CD 

i 

t  3 

^^ 

"■[.■.:■ 

.^- 

^ 

1 

(D 

l^ 

6 

i^a 

Nt 

g^ 

,■"' 

\- 

J 

• 

C 

1                -«« 

J 

-3 

*< 

flj 

<0 

S  r^  VCr-^ 

r  1    y 

-T. 

o 

•  ■M- 

1  c        <y^^y) 

~^^^^—J>      x^ ) 

2 

■  '5    " 

>'-, 

3 

6 

■•-J 

• 

re 
Si 

3                «3 

m 

1     ■                                 '^    ■         ■ 

E=S»- 

o 

1  i. 

^x^ 

• 

1  -""^                                   i 

■  .0- 

"■^ 

'                                                      / 

■:;     m 

1 

-■       J      ^       T 

a* 

C3 


E 


OS 

OS 


c 

c« 

5 

raphic  Indie 
area:  65,20 
boundaries: 

3 

a 

§§ 

p_  — 


ON     S 


2  o 

So    . 

-.5  oo  EJ^ 

-  '^  d 


o  -S  c 
«<  o  n 
Of-  -J 


i«     3 

o   w 


5      E 


^  «  ? 


U  Z    Q  a-  o  oa  Q 


O    •1' 


^' 

(^ 

t-> 

oo 

«J 

n 

x: 

:g 

O 

SeS 


.2  o 

"    c 


!  M  E 

»     (U  <u 

!•«  a 

:    c  c 

■  ■-  o 

1  "^  c 

:  2  o 


o     ,       " 


60  J 


•a  ^   (J 
=  >l 


<^  ,2 
ON  c/l 


'n  N 


C/2  > 


i!        <-  _ 


»  5 

*^  c 

.a  3 

^  o 


o 
o 
o 


■"O        ,.  =  — 


2     M 

2  E 
12. 


'B  -^ ' 

-  o 


0\ 
90 


-a  ^ 


3  -c   -   o 

i  I  -£ 

?    i    aj    flj 


«  _    Ml 


«=«  2 


^o: 


at  K 


J=     M  3 

°  i:  2 

'^.  "  g- 

W-,    O  ■- 

r<-l  B.  ■< 


O  o 

a2 

O    ij 

o  a 
d  rr 

—   <N 

u    .. 

a^ 

O    4J 

J.  i? "« 

01     U     (/^ 

^  o  o 


o 


o.       Z 


M  a 

:e  E 
-)  - 


s  « 


3        a 

■^  t".  1-1 


.2  ^ 


2  X 

D.  oi 

■O  E 

C  O 

^  i 


D.C/2 


Table  1.  Lithuania.  Fishing  fleet,  by 

selected  vessel  capacity;  1993. 


C.  Jura  State  Fishing  Company 


Capaci 

ity 

Numbe 

r  GRT  Average  GRT 

Under 

500 

GRT 

93 

9, 

,784 

213 

Above 

500 

GRT 

116 

428, 

,756 

3.696 

TOTAL 

209 

448, 

,540 

2,146 

Source:  U.S.  Navy,  Office  of  Naval 
Intelligence,  29  July  1993. 


The  116  vessels  listed  as  having  over 
500  GRT  are  probably  engaged  in  high-seas 
fishing,  although  some  of  the  under-500- 
GRT  vessels  are  likely  involved  as  well. 
(For  vessels  by  name,  type  of  vessel,  GRT, 
country  and  year  of  construction,  see 
appendix  1) 

B.  Fleet  Reduction 

Between  1991  and  1993,  Lithuania 
reduced  its  fleet  by  9  vessels;  6  vessels  were 
reflagged  to  other  countries,  and  3  units 
were  decommissioned  (appendix  2).^  The 
largest  of  the  reflagged  vessels,  a 
TAVRIYA-class  refrigerated  transport 
named  Sodel  I,  was  sold  to  a  Nigerian 
owner.  Several  smaller  fishing  vessels  were 
turned  over  to  the  registry  of  the  neighboring 
former  Soviet  republics.  The  well-known 
flagship  of  the  All-Union  Scientific  Research 
Instimte  for  Fisheries  and  Oceanography 
(VNIRO),  the  Akademik  Knipovich,  was 
returned  to  Russian  registry;  its  home  port  is 
now  Kaliningrad  where  the  Russian  Western 
Scientific  Research  Institute  for  Fisheries 
and  Oceanography  (ATLANTNIRO)  is 
located. 

All  three  vessels  withdrawn  from  fishing 
operations  were  over  25  years  old.  Their 
final  disposition  is  not  known. 


The  JURA  company  is  under  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  Fisheries  Department  in 
the  Ministry  of  Agriculture.  Located  in  the 
Baltic  port  of  Klaipeda,  it  is  the  largest  of  all 
state-owned  enterprises  in  the  Baltics.  Its 
vessels  fish  mostly  on  the  high-seas  and 
often  sell  their  catch  abroad  to  obtain  hard 
currency.  The  two  most  important  export 
markets  are  Spain  and  the  Netherlands. 
About  30-50  percent  of  YURA's  catch  is 
sold  in  Western  Europe  and  in  countries  off 
whose  coasts  the  Lithuanians  are  catching 
fish.  These  sales  bring  in  foreign 
currencies.  Another  15-20  percent  is  sold  to 
fish-processing  plants  in  Lithuania  and  the 
remaining  50  percent  is  shipped  to  Russia, 
Ukraine  and  other  former  Soviet  republics 
and  sold  for  rubles  which  can  be  used  to  pay 
for  diesel  oil.  These  proportions  were 
prevailing  in  1991;  more  recent  information 
indicates  that  the  percentages  are  changing  in 
favor  of  more  exports  to  the  West  and  less 
to  the  East,  but  the  authors  have  been  unable 
to  secure  reliable  trade  statistics  documenting 
this  shift. 

YURA's  assets  are  still  Government 
property.  The  enterprise  is  continuing  to 
operate  with  increasing  losses,  yet  as  far  as 
it  is  known,  no  serious  attempts  have  been 
made  to  privatize  it.  The  losses  are  caused 
not  only  by  the  company's  fishery 
operations,  but  also  by  other  businesses  into 
which  it  diversified.  Some  of  these  have 
been  transferred  to  other  Lithuanian 
ministries  (for  example,  the  fishing  port,  the 
shipyard  storage  plants,  etc.),  but  two 
unprofitable  investments  (a  resort  village  and 
a  hotel)  have  not  been  sold  or  otherwise 
divested. 


73 


The  company's  director  is  appointed  by 
the  Lithuanian  Government.  The  current 
incumbent  is  Valdas  Trinkunas,  a  former 
director  of  the  Lithuanian  meat-producing 
combine.  The  management  team  is 
reportedly  well-trained  and  capable,  yet  it 
could  not  prevent  a  loss  of  1  billion  rubles 
(about  US$  4  million)  in  1992,  on  the  gross 
revenues  of  2  billion  rubles. 

In  early  1992,  when  Lithuanian 
fishermen  lost  access  to  many  of  their 
traditional  fishing  grounds,  the  company 
leased  40  high-seas  vessels  to  various  foreign 
countries  to  preserve  them  in  good  order 
until  sufficient  catch  quotas  could  be 
obtained  to  make  it  possible  for  Lithuanian 
fishermen  to  fully  utilize  the  entire  fleet. ^ 

The  JURA  company  also  owns  12 
shrimp  trawlers  which  operate  in  the  Barents 
Sea  and  off  East  Africa.  Shrimp-processing 
lines  have  been  installed  on  all  of  them  by  a 
Danish  company.  Most  companies  fish  for 
shrimp  in  the  Barents  Sea  under  a  Danish- 
Lithuanian  joint  venture.  This  J/V  company, 
established  before  the  dissolution  of  the 
former  Soviet  Union,  apparently  continues  to 
exist  under  the  new  Lithuanian  Government. 
It  is  not  known  whether  the  Russian 
Government  allows  the  company  to  fish 
inside  the  Russian  200-mile  zone,  or  whether 
it  operates  only  in  international  waters  of  the 
Barents  Sea.  Two  Lithuanian  shrimp  vessels 
were  leased  to  a  Malagasy  company  and  fish 
off  East  African  coasts.  All  shrimp  landings 
are  frozen  and  exported  for  hard  currency. 


in.  FISHING  PORTS 

The  Lithuanian  fishing  fleet  operates  out  of 
a  single  port  -  Klaipeda    -  which  has  the 


advantage  of  being  ice-free.  Recently,  the 
European  Community  (EC)  authorized  bids 
for  the  reconstruction  of  this  port. 
Companies  from  Denmark,  the  Netherlands, 
France,  Germany,  Belgium,  and  the  United 
Kingdom  competed  for  the  contract.  The 
British  consulting  firm  William  Halerow  and 
the  Belgian  Antwerpen  Port  Engineering  and 
Consulting  firms  were  selected.  The  project 
is  being  financed  by  the  EC  and  should  be 
completed  in  8  months'". 

Klaipeda,  Lithuania's  only  marine  port, 
serves  both  fishing  and  commercial 
companies.  A  shipyard  and  two  small  vessel 
repair  facilities  are  also  located  in  the  port 
area.  The  large  BALTIKA  Shipyard  which 
previously  built  large  freezer  trawlers 
(BMRT)  of  the  LUCHEGORSK  class  is 
obsolete,  and  currently  does  repair  and 
maintenance  work  only."  In  September 
1991,  however,  the  Shipyard  completed  a 
large  floating  dock  for  the  Kamchatka 
fishing  industry.'^  There  are  plans  to 
modernize  the  Shipyard  with  up-to-date 
equipment  so  that  the  construction  of  fishing 
trawlers  can  again  begin  sometime  in  the 
future.  Government  subsidies  would  be 
needed,  however,  at  least  in  the  initial 
stages,  for  these  plans  to  be  realized.'^ 

In  the  fishing  port,  there  is  also  a  fish- 
processing  plant,  the  BALTIJA.  The  plant 
has  a  capacity  of  20  tons  of  fish  per  day  and 
has  several  canning  lines.  The  canned  fish 
are:  jack  mackerel  (stavrida),  Atlantic 
mackerel,  Baltic  sprats,  and  other  species. 
The  cannery  cannot  obtain  a  sufficient 
amount  of  fish  to  keep  the  600  employees 
fully  employed.  Often  they  work  only  a  half 
day.  However,  full  salaries  have  to  be  paid 
to  all  the  workers,  and  as  a  result  the  plant 
is  not  profitable  and  is  badly  in  debt.''* 


74 


rV.  FISHERIES  CATCH'^ 


Lithuania's  high-seas  fleet  obtains  some 
90  percent  of  its  catch  in  the  international 
waters  of  the  Atlantic,  and  in  the  200-mile 
zones  of  Canada  and  the  Faroe  Islands. 
Some  fishing  is  also  conducted  off  the  coasts 
of  several  West  African  countries, 
presumably  inside  their  200-mile  zones.  The 
1992  high-seas  fisheries  catch  was  170,000 
metric  tons  (t),  down  48  percent  below  the 
326,000  t  catch  in  1990.  At  its  peak,  the 
Lithuanian  catch  was  approximately  400,000 
t  annually.  Much  of  the  1992  decline  can  be 
attributed  to  the  loss  of  access  to  fishing 
grounds  inside  the  200-mile  zones  of  foreign 
countries  that  occurred  as  a  result  of 
Lithuania's  independence  from  the  former 
Soviet  Union. 

An  estimated  55  percent  (170,000- 
180,000  tons  per  year)  of  the  Lithuanian 
high-seas  landings  was  originated  in  the  200- 
mile  zones  of  various  coastal  countries  with 
which  the  former  Soviet  Union  concluded 
bilateral  fishery  agreements.  Among  these 
countries  were:  Angola,  Argentina,  Canada, 
Guinea-Bissau,  Mauritania,  Nicaragua, 
Norway,  Senegal,  and  Sierra  Leone.'*  After 
the  dissolution  of  the  USSR,  its  bilateral 
fishing  accords  ceased  to  apply  to  the  new 
Lithuanian  State  as  of  the  end  of  1991. 
Beginning  in  1992,  the  Lithuanian 
Government  had  to  obtain  permission  of 
coastal  countries  for  access  to  their  EEZ's 
on  its  own.  Given  the  initial  nonexistence  of 
Lithuanian  diplomatic  missions  in  most  of 
the  above  countries,  this  proved  to  be  an 
arduous  and  almost  impossible  task. 

The  annual  onboard  fish-processing 
capacity  of  Lithuania's  fleet  is  currently 
reported  to  be  268,500  t;  its  onshore 
processing     capacity      is     31,500     tons. 


Domestic  demand  approximates  65,000  t  of 
processed  fish  per  year;  the  remainder  of  the 
Lithuanian  production  -  about  200,000  tons  - 
is  exported  mostly  to  Ukraine,  Belarus,  and 
Russia,  as  well  as  to  the  East  European 
markets.  The  fish  landed  from  operations 
off  West  African  and  South  American  coasts 
is  occasionally  sold  on  the  markets  of  the 
nearby  coastal  countries. 

The  1992  Baltic  catch  was  10,000  t, 
which  was  over  44  percent  less  than  the 
18,000  t  landed  in  1990.  Lithuania  gets  less 
than  5  percent  of  its  catch  from  the  Baltic 
Sea. 


V.  FISHING  GROUNDS 

The  high-seas  fleet  operates  mainly  in 
the  Atlantic,  Indian  and  Pacific  Oceans.  The 
distant-water  fisheries  in  Antarctica  and  in 
the  southeastern  Pacific  have  been 
abandoned  because  the  increasing  cost  of 
fuel  and  the  length  of  the  trips  made  fishing 
there  unprofitable. 


The  Lithuanian  high-seas  fleet  also 
operates  in  the  international  waters  of  the 
Northwest  Atlantic,  beyond  the  Canadian 
200-mile  EEZ.  The  fishing  in  this  area  is 
governed  by  the  North  Atlantic  Fisheries 
Organization  (NAFO),  which  allocates  the 
catch  quotas  to  various  countries.  During 
NAFO's  September  1992  Fourteenth  Annual 
Meeting  in  Dartmouth  (Canada),  Russia,  as 
the  successor  state  to  the  Soviet  Union, 
received  an  allocation  of  37,300  t  of  various 
species,  mostly  redfish  (27,000  tons).  In 
negotiations,  following  the  conclusion  of  the 
Annual  Meeting,  Russia  transferred  12,000 
t  of  its  1993  ocean  perch  (redfish)  quota  to 


75 


Latvia,  Estonia,  and  Lithuania,  with  each 
country  receiving  a  catch  allocation  of  4,000 
tons.  At  the  subsequent  annual  meeting,  the 
Russian  Federation  obtained  the  1994  catch 
allocation  of  32,000 1,  but  its  division  among 
the  Baltic  countries  has  not  yet  been 
negotiated  as  of  this  writing. 


VL  FISHERIES  ADMINISTRATION 

Prior  to  the  dissolution  of  the  Soviet 
Union,  Lithuanian  fisheries  were 
administered  as  a  subsidiary  of  ZAPRYBA, 
the  Soviet  Western  Fisheries  Administration. 
The  subsidiary  was  named  LITRYBPROM, 
an  acronym  for  the  Lithuanian  Fisheries 
Administration.  Its  annual  catch  of  about 
350,000  t  was  worth  550  million  rubles  in 
1990.  This  figure  includes  both  the  high-seas 
and  the  Baltic  Sea  catch.  Of  this  total,  about 
US$50  million  worth  of  fishery  products  was 
exported,  mostly  through  the  Russian  fish 
trading  company,  SOVRYBFLOT. 
LITRYBPROM 's  initial  capital  investment 
was  reportedly  600  million  rubles. 

On  August  27,  1991,  LITRYBPROM 
was  taken  over  by  the  newly  established 
Lithuanian  Government  following  the 
declaration      of      independence.  The 

development  of  Lithuania's  fishery  policies 
is  currently  the  responsibility  of  the 
Department  of  Fisheries  which  is  under  the 
administrative  supervision  of  the  Ministry  of 
Agriculture.  The  current  Deputy  Minister  of 
Agriculture  in  charge  of  fisheries  is 
Almontas  Rusakevicius.  The  management  of 
fishery  resources  and  the  licensing  of  vessels 
allowed  to  fish  in  the  Lithuanian  economic 
zone  is  administered  by  the  Ministry's 
Environmental  Protection  Department. 


VII.  BILATERAL  AGREEMENTS 

The  Lithuanians  are  negotiating  new 
fishery  agreements  to  replace  the  Soviet  ones 
that  were  assumed  by  Russia.  In  1992  and 
the  beginning  of  1993,  fishery  agreements 
were  concluded  with  Canada,  Denmark  (for 
the  Faroe  Islands),  and  the  European 
Community;  a  Governing  International 
Fisheries  Agreement  (GIFA)  was  signed 
with  the  United  States. 

Denmark:  In  the  Baltic  Sea,  a  Lithuanian- 
Danish  joint  venmre,  between  the  Baltija 
fishing  company  and  an  unknown  Danish 
company,  operates  40  small  trawlers  and 
lands  up  to  80  percent  of  Lithuania's  1993 
Baltic  catch  quota  of  10,000  t  (which  is 
8,000  t  less  than  it  was  in  1992).  Another 
11  trawlers  are  operated  by  the  two  other 
state-owned  fishery  cooperatives.  The 
species  caught  include  herring,  sprat,  cod, 
salmon,  and  flounder. 


European  Community  (EC):  On  July  14, 
1992,  Lithuania  initialed  the  draft  of  a 
fisheries  agreement  with  the  EC.  The 
agreement  would  have  entered  into  force 
upon  ratification  by  the  Lithuanian  and  EC 
authorities,  but  its  current  status  is 
unknown.'^ 

Faroe  Islands:  Lithuania  concluded  a 
bilateral  fisheries  agreement  with  the  Faroe 
Islands  (with  the  consent  of  Denmark).  The 
agreement  provides  Lithuanian  fishermen 
with  a  1993  catch  quota  of  10,000  t  of  blue 
whiting  in  the  Faroese  EEZ.  In  exchange, 
Lithuania  will  allow  Faroese  fishermen  to 
catch  5,400  t  of  various  species  in  the 
Lithuanian  EEZ  in  the  Baltic."* 


76 


France:  In  late  1991,  the  former  Lithuanian 
state  fishing  company,  LITRYBPROM 
negotiated  a  joint  venmre  agreement  with  the 
French  company,  APOMER.  Under  the 
contract,  the  Lithuanians  would  lease  three 
medium  refrigerated  trawlers  (probably  of 
the  MA  YAK  class)  to  fish  off  Sierra  Leone 
and  Senegal.  The  vessels  would  deliver 
their  catch  either  to  the  adjacent  African 
countries  or  to  La  Rochelle,  the  port  in 
France,  where  the  headquarters  of  the  joint 
venture  have  been  established.'^  It  is  not 
known  whether  this  Lithuanian-French  joint 
venture  continued  its  contractual 
arrangement  after  Lithuania  gained  its 
independence  and  LITRYBPROM  ceased  to 
exist. 

Sweden:  At  the  end  of  January  1992,  a 
quadripartite  agreement  was  signed  between 
Sweden  and  the  fishery  administrators  of 
Estonia,  Latvia,  and  Lithuania  in  Stockholm. 
The  document  defines  the  contested  fishing 
grounds  in  the  coastal  areas  of  the  Baltic 
Sea.  An  estimated  75  percent  of  fishery 
stocks  in  the  area  will  be  managed  by  the 
Baltic  states.^" 


VIII.  OUTLOOK 


Prospects  for  the  Lithuanian  fishing 
industry  are  cloudy.  Its  profitability  appears 
marginal  because  of  the  lack  of  agreed 
access  to  prime  fishing  grounds  under  the 
jurisdiction  of  other  states  and  the  above- 
mentioned  cost  and  supply  uncertainties. 
Substantial  subsidies  from  the  Lithuanian 
Government  are  unlikely  due  to  budgetary 
constraints  and  the  poor  outlook  for  the 
Lithuanian  economy.^' 

Lithuania  still  relies  mainly  on  Russia 
for  deliveries  of  fuel  and  spare  parts  for  its 
fleet.  The  breakdown  of  the  centralized 
trading  relationship  with  the  former  Soviet 
Union  and  price  liberalization  in  the  former 
Soviet  republics,  have  worsened 
uncertainties  in  deliveries  of  spare  parts  and 
other  equipment,  as  well  as  increasing 
significantly  the  cost  of  diesel  fuel.  During 
1992/1993,  many  of  Lithuania's  high-seas 
fishing  vessels  were  idle  in  port  due  to  a 
lack  of  access  to  fishing  grounds  and  the 
high  cost  of  fuel. 


Lithuania's  exclusive  economic  zone  in 
the  Baltic  is  the  smallest  of  the  three  Baltic 
countries,  consisting  of  only  99  kilometers  of 
coastline.  However,  exact  boundaries  are 
still  being  negotiated  with  Latvia,  Russia  and 
Sweden.  Foreign  fishing  in  the  Lithuanian 
zone  is  permitted  on  the  basis  of  exchanges 
of  fishing  quotas  of  equivalent  value.  Such 
exchanges  have  been  concluded  with  most  of 
the  Baltic  littoral  states. 


77 


SOURCES 


Nordic  Investment  Bank.  Baltic  study.  September 
1991. 

U.S.  Embassy,  Vilnius,  9  June  1993 

U.S.  Navy,  Office  of  Naval  Intelligence.  29  July 
1993. 

Valiukenas,  Algimantas.  "Fishery  and  Aquaculture  of 
Lithuania."  Vilnius,  21  October  1991.  This  9- 
page  manuscript  devotes  only  2  pages  to  the 
high-seas  fishing  fleet,  grounds,  and  landings. 
Its  emphasis  is  on  the  Baltic,  freshwater,  and 
pond  fisheries,  even  though  they  contribute  only 
10  percent  of  the  total  Lithuanian  catch.  Mr.  A. 
Valiukenas  was  the  Director  of  Fisheries  and 
Deputy  Minister  in  the  Lithuanian  Ministry  of 
Agriculture  in  1991.  It  is  not  known  if  the 
manuscript  was  ever  published  or  in  what 
publication. 


78 


ENDNOTES 


1.  The  length  of  the  shoreline,  however,  is  almost  double  that  and  measures  99  kilometers. 

2.  Nordic  Investment  Bank.  Baltic  study.  September  1991. 

3.  JURA  means  "the  sea"  in  Lithuanian. 

4.  A  brochure  published  by  the  YURA  company  for  the  1992  AGROBALT  exhibition  gives  a  slightly  different 
figure:  136  high-seas  fishing  vessels  instead  of  124  such  vessels.  At  that  time,  YURA  employed  over  10,000 
persons  and  its  fishermen  were  catching  320,000-350,000  tons  of  fish  and  shellfish. 

5.  Algimantas  Valiukenas,  "Fishery  and  Aquaculture  of  Lithuania, "  Vilnius,  21  October  1991.  Valiukenas,  the  then 
Lithuanian  Deputy  Minister  of  Agriculture  and  the  Director  of  the  Fisheries  Department,  wrote  in  October  1991 
that  the  high-seas  fleet  of  Lithuania  consisted  of  130  vessels,  owned  by  JURA,  and  21  units  owned  by  the  State 
Transportation  Fleet.  The  total  of  151  vessels  which  Valiukenas  cites  is  close  enough  to  the  figure  of  148  high-seas 
vessels  reported  by  the  U.S.  Embassy  in  June  1993. 

6.  U.S.  Embassy,  Vilnius,  9  June  1993. 

7.  U.S.  Navy,  Office  of  Naval  Intelligence,  29  July  1993. 

8.  Ibid. 

9.  Eurofjsh  Report,  August  1992,  based  on  a  Vilnius  Radio  broadcast  of  19  June  1992. 

10.  Radio  Moscow,  18  August  1992.  The  reconstruction  of  Klaipeda  must  be  finished  by  now,  but  the  authors 
could  obtain  no  information  on  this  project. 

11.  U.S.  Embassy,  Vilnius,  9  June  1993. 

12.  Radio  Vilnius,  18  September  1991. 

13.  U.S.  Embassy,  Vilnius,  9  June  1993. 

14.  Manager  of  the  Klaipeda  fishing  port.  Personal  Communication,  May  1993. 

15.  Sections  III  and  IV  are  largely  based  on  a  report  by  the  U.S.  Embassy  in  Vilnius,  dated  June  9,  1993. 

16.  A  large  fishery  off  the  United  States,  which  continued  for  almost  20  years,  was  discontinued  following  the 
Americanization  of  the  fisheries  inside  the  U.S.  200-mile  EEZ  in  the  1980s.  The  Lithuanian  fishery  off  New 
England  also  generated  a  small  crisis  in  US-USSR  diplomatic  relations  when  a  Lithuanian  fisherman  (Mr. 
KUDIRKA)  tried  to  defect  during  a  courtesy  visit  to  the  U.S.  Coast  Guard  vessel.  KUDIRKA  was  forcibly  returned 
when  a  Soviet  detail  which  was  allowed  to  come  aboard  the  Coast  Guard  cutter  dragged  him  back  aboard  the  Soviet 
mothership,  despite  his  claiming  to  be  a  U.S.  citizen.  KUDIRKA  was  later  tried  in  a  Soviet  court  in  Riga  and  given 
a  long  jail  sentence.  However,  when  he  proved  that  he  was  bom  in  New  York,  the  Soviets  relented,  released  him 
and  allowed  him  to  emigrate  to  the  United  States.  After  a  lengthy  Congressional  investigation,  the  U.S.  Coast 
Guard  officers  who  permitted  the  forcible  return  of  the  Lithuanian  were  retired  from  service.  In  the  aftermath  of 
the  scandal.  President  Nixon  issued  a  directive  prohibiting  the  return  of  Soviet  and  other  Communist  defectors. 

79 


17.  Eurofish  Report,  30  July  1992;  U.S.  Embassy,  Vilnius,  9  June  1993. 

18.  Faroese  Statistical  Bulletin,  May  1993. 

19.  Le  Marin,  29  November  1991. 

20.  Radio  Russia,  27  January  1993. 

21.  U.S.  Embassy,  Vilnius,  9  June  1993. 


80 


APPENDIX  SECTION 


81 


82 


Appendix  1.  Lithania.  Fishing  and  fishery  support  fleet,  by  vessel  name,  class, 
gross  registered  tonnage,  and  country  and  year  of  construction:  1993. 


Vessel  name 


Class 


GRT 


Country  built    Year 


1135 

Ablnnga 

Akhtubinskiy 

Akmene 

Alaushas 

Algaiba 

Algenib 

Alitus 

Alksnyne 

Anyksciai 

Archimedas 

Ariogala 

Anogala 

Asva 

Atlasova  Sala 

Aukstaitija 

Aushra 

Ausra 

Aviliai 

Aviris 

Baysogala 

Betigala 

Birstonas 

Birveta 

Birzai 

Botmjos  Ilanka 

Chavycha 

Dainava 

Dane 

Daugai 

Debrecenas 

Disnay 

Dotnuva 

Drusknninkai 

Dubingiai 

Dubisa 

Dukstas 

Dusetos 

Dzukija 

Elektrenai 

Gargzdai 

Girulyay 

Gulbe 

leva  Simonaityte 

Ignalina 

lomshkis 

Jonas  Biliunas 

Jonas  Jablonskis 

Jonava 

Jura 

Jurbarkas 

Kafor 

Kalvanja 

Kapitonas  Alfred  Oja 

Kapitonas  Ceslovas  Bublys 

Kapitonas  Nikifor  Pakulin 

KapTtonas  Nikolai  Ivanov 

Katra 

Kelme 

Kengarags 

Khichik 

Kiardla 

Kintai 

Kriauna 

Knstijonas  Donelaitis 

Kulpe 

Kursenai 


ORLENOK 

MORYANA 

KARELIYA 

KARELIYA 

ZHELEZNYAKOV 

ZHELEZNYAKOV 

LAUKUVA 

ORLENOK 

ORLENOK 

SPRUT 

ORLENOK 

LAUKUVA 

KARELIYA 

OSTROV  RUSSKIY 

PROMETEY 

GIRULYAY 

KARELIYA 

KARELIYA 

SHUSHVE 

BALTIKA 

BALTIKA 

MAYAKOVSKIY 

KARELIYA 

LAUKUVA 

AMURSKIY  ZALIV 

RR  151 

LUCHEGORSK 

KARELIYA 

LAUKUVA 

ALTAY 

KARELIYA 

ALPINIST 

MAYAKOVSKIY 

LAUKUVA 

LAUKUVA 

ORLENOK 

MAYAKOVSKIY 

LUCHEGORSK 

MAYAKOVSKIY 

ZHELEZNYAKOV 

GIRULYAY 

MAYAKOVSKIY 

MOONZUND 

KARL  LIBKNEKHT 

PULKOVSKIY  MERIDIAN 

MAYAKOVSKIY 

PROFESSOR  BARANOV 

PROMETEY 

KARELIYA 

PROMETEY 

ZHELEZNYAKOV 

PROMETEY 

MAYAKOVSKIY 

PROMETEY 

PROMETEY  MOD  A 

MAYAKOVSKIY 

KARELIYA 

LAUKUVA 

RADUZHNYY 

RR  151 

ANDIZHAN 

LAUKUVA 

KARELIYA 

MAYAKOVSKIY 

KARELIYA 

MAYAKOVSKIY 


117 

1.513 

2.405 

206 

180 

629 

775 

359 

1.513 

1,513 

4.769 

1.513 

359 

180 

9.795 

3.932 

282 

206 

180 

179 

108 

108 

2,693 

206 

359 

12.891 

255 

2,581 

180 

359 

3,468 

180 

720 

2,693 

3,519 

359 

1,513 

3,162 


2,581 

3.170 

775 

282 

3.170 

7.656 

11.755 

4,407 

2,590 

13.571 

3.977 

206 

3.977 

775 

3.300 

3.170 

3.977 

3,147 

3.162 

206 

359 

633 

258 

3,251 

359 

206 

3.170 

206 

3,012 


USSR 

1991 

GDR 

1986 

USSR 

1986 

USSR 

1974 

USSR 

1972 

USSR 

1971 

USSR 

1970 

USSR 

1988 

GDR 

1985 

GDR 

1983 

Poland 

1979 

GDR 

1985 

USSR 

1985 

USSR 

1976 

Sweden 

1970 

GDR 

1974 

USSR 

1981 

USSR 

1972 

USSR 

1972 

Bulgaria 

1971 

USSR 

1987 

USSR 

1985 

USSR 

1969 

USSR 

1977 

USSR 

1986 

France 

1970 

GDR 

1953 

USSR 

1970 

USSR 

1976 

USSR 

1987 

Finland 

1973 

USSR 

1973 

USSR 

1981 

USSR 

1969 

USSR 

1987 

USSR 

GDR 

1985 

USSR 

1967 

USSR 

1972 

USSR 

1969 

USSR 

1990 

USSR 

1979 

USSR 

1968 

GDR 

1990 

GDR 

1974 

USSR 

1990 

USSR 

1968 

Poland 

1969 

GDR 

1975 

USSR 

1974 

GDR 

1974 

USSR 

1970 

GDR 

1973 

USSR 

1965 

GDR 

1977 

GDR 

1981 

USSR 

1966 

USSR 

1976 

USSR 

1986 

USSR 

1973 

GDR 

1956 

GDR 

1962 

USSR 

1989 

USSR 

1976 

USSR 

1966 

USSR 

1977 

USSR 

1969 

83 


Appendix  1.  Lithuania.  Continued. 


Vessel  name 

Class 

GRT 

Country  built 

Year 

Kurshenay 

MANEVRENNYY 

169 

USSR 

1976 

Kvedarna 

GIRULYAY 

282 

USSR 

1985 

Kybartai 

LAUKUVA 

359 

USSR 

1989 

Lasisa 

ZHELEZNYAKOV 

775 

USSR 

1989 

Laukuva 

PROMETEY 

3.931 

GDR 

1974 

Laukuva 

LAUKUVA 

359 

USSR 

1985 

Likenay 

KARELIYA 

206 

USSR 

1976 

Likenay 

MANEVRENNYY 

169 

USSR 

1976 

Linkuva 

KALININGRADNEFT 

4,821 

Finland 

1980 

Litkes  Sal  a 

OSTROV  RUSSKIY 

9,795 

Sweden 

1970 

Lukstas 

KARELIYA 

206 

USSR 

1971 

Luodis 

KARELIYA 

206 

USSR 

1973 

Lydeka 

ZHELEZNYAKOV 

775 

USSR 

1982 

Mairoms 

MOONZUND 

7,656 

GDR 

1990 

Menkar 

ZHELEZNYAKOV 

775 

USSR 

1969 

Merkabas 

ZHELEZNYAKOV 

775 

USSR 

1971 

Metelis 

KARELIYA 

206 

USSR 

1972 

Mikalojus  K  Ciurlioms 

MAYAKOVSKIY 

3,170 

USSR 

1966 

Minija 

PROMETEY  MOD  A 

3,977 

GDR 

1981 

Mirfan 

ZHELEZNYAKOV 

775 

USSR 

1970 

Mituva 

KARELIYA 

206 

USSR 

1974 

Moletai 

LAUKUVA 

359 

USSR 

1987 

Motiejus  Valancius 

PULKOVSKIY  MERIDIAN 

4,407 

USSR 

1989 

MRTK  0652 

BALTIKA 

108 

USSR 

1983 

MRTK  0657 

BALTIKA 

108 

USSR 

1984 

MRTK  0694 

BALTIKA 

117 

USSR 

1986 

MRTK  0756 

BALTIKA 

108 

USSR 

1989 

MRTK  1003 

BALTIKA 

108 

USSR 

1974 

MRTK  1009 

BALTIKA 

108 

USSR 

1974 

MRTK  1010 

BALTIKA 

108 

USSR 

1975 

MRTK  1026 

BALTIKA 

108 

USSR 

1976 

MRTK  1027 

BALTIKA 

108 

USSR 

1976 

MRTK  1032 

BALTIKA 

108 

USSR 

1976 

MRTK  1036 

BALTIKA 

108 

USSR 

1976 

MRTK  1042 

BALTIKA 

108 

USSR 

1977 

MRTK  1044 

BALTIKA 

108 

USSR 

1977 

MRTK  1094 

BALTIKA 

108 

USSR 

1984 

MRTK  1113 

BALTIKA 

108 

USSR 

1987 

MRTK  1124 

BALTIKA 

108 

USSR 

1989 

MRTK  3207 

BALTIKA 

108 

USSR 

1974 

MRTR  020 

KARELIYA 

206 

USSR 

1968 

MRTR  021 

KARELIYA 

206 

USSR 

1968 

MRTR  022 

KARELIYA 

206 

USSR 

1968 

MRTR  027 

KARELIYA 

206 

USSR 

1970 

MRTR  028 

KARELIYA 

206 

USSR 

1970 

MRTR  0407 

GIRULYAY 

282 

USSR 

1982 

Muse 

KARELIYA 

206 

USSR 

1977 

Musha 

KARELIYA 

206 

USSR 

1973 

Narvos  Ilanka 

AMURSKIY  ZALIV 

12.891 

France 

1971 

Nemunelis 

ALPINIST 

720 

USSR 

1976 

Neptunas 

SIBER 

5.942 

USSR 

1969 

Neringa 

PULKOVSKIY  MERIDIAN 

4.407 

USSR 

1990 

Neris 

ALPINIST 

720 

USSR 

1973 

Neva 

PERVOMAYSK 

3,321 

Denmark 

1959 

Nevezis 

KASPIY 

1,058 

GDR 

1970 

Nida 

LUCHEGORSK 

2.581 

USSR 

1971 

Obeli ai 

ORLENOK 

1,513 

GDR 

1985 

Okaimai 

ORLENOK 

1.513 

GDR 

1986 

Omar 

KREVETKA 

148 

USSR 

1975 

Onuskes 

ORLENOK 

1.513 

GDR 

1984 

Oven 

ZHELEZNYAKOV 

775 

USSR 

1971 

Pabrade 

TAVRIYA 

3,556 

USSR 

1964 

Pagegiai 

ORLENOK 

1,513 

GDR 

1984 

Pajuris 

ORLENOK 

1.513 

GDR 

1984 

Palanga 

PROFESSOR  BARANOV 

13.123 

Poland 

1971 

Panevezys 

LAUKUVA 

359 

USSR 

1987 

Pasvalis 

SPRUT 

4,769 

Poland 

1980 

Paul i us  Sirvys 

PULKOVSKIY  MERIDIAN 

4.407 

USSR 

1987 

84 


Appendix  1.  Lithuania.  Continued. 


Vessel  name 

Class 

GRT 

Country  built 

Year 

Payuris 

GIRULYAY 

282 

USSR 

1980 

Perlas 

GIRULYAY 

282 

USSR 

1984 

Plateliai 

ZHELEZNYAKOV 

648 

USSR 

1973 

Plutonas 

SIBIR 

5.942 

USSR 

1969 

Radviliskis 

KASPIY 

1.058 

GDR 

1970 

Raguva 

SEVERODVINSK 

10.026 

Poland 

1959 

Rambynas 

TAVRIYA 

3.015 

USSR 

1968 

Ramygala 

ALPINIST 

720 

USSR 

1976 

Raseiman 

ALPINIST 

720 

USSR 

1986 

Rekiva 

SHUSHVE 

199 

Bulgaria 

1971 

Rnetavas 

PROMETEY 

3.933 

GDR 

1974 

Rimkan 

ALPINIST 

720 

USSR 

1974 

Roknskns 

KASPIY 

1.058 

GDR 

1971 

RR  1280 

RR  151 

258 

GDR 

1955 

RR  1298 

RR  151 

258 

GDR 

1956 

Rusne 

LUCHEGORSK 

2,581 

USSR 

1971 

Rusu  Sala 

OSTROV  RUSSKIY 

9.795 

Sweden 

1969 

Sakiai 

ALPINIST 

720 

USSR 

1987 

Salantai 

PROMETEY 

3,933 

GDR 

1974 

Sal  OS 

KARELIYA 

206 

USSR 

1972 

Saturn 

104 

USSR 

1985 

Saturnas 

SIBIR 

5.942 

USSR 

1969 

Seda 

ATLANTIK 

2.154 

GDR 

1975 

Seduva 

ZHELEZNYAKOV 

632 

USSR 

1971 

Sesuvis 

KARELIYA 

206 

USSR 

1974 

Siauliai 

MAYAKOVSKIY 

3,170 

USSR 

1967 

Siesartis 

KARELIYA 

206 

USSR 

1977 

Si  1  ale 

SPRUT 

4,769 

Poland 

1978 

St  lute 

PROMETEY 

3,977 

GDR 

1975 

Siluva 

LAUKUVA 

359 

USSR 

1986 

Simonas  Daukantas 

MOONZUND 

7,656 

GDR 

1989 

Sirvinta 

KARELIYA 

206 

USSR 

1975 

Sisa 

KARELIYA 

206 

USSR 

1973 

Skirvite 

KARELIYA 

206 

USSR 

1975 

Stasys  Girenas 

RYBATSKAYA  SLAVA 

16.389 

Germany 

1965 

Stasys  Seinauskas 

ALPINIST 

720 

USSR 

1977 

Steponas  Darius 

RYBATSKAYA  SLAVA 

16,389 

Germany 

1965 

Sterkas 

ZHELEZNYAKOV 

775 

USSR 

1989 

Streve 

KARELIYA 

206 

USSR 

1974 

Stnmele 

KARELIYA 

206 

USSR 

1975 

Suduva 

LUCHEGORSK 

3.162 

USSR 

1973 

Suomijos  Ilanka 

AMURSKIY  ZALIV 

12,891 

France 

1970 

Sventoji 

ATLANTIK 

2,657 

GDR 

1972 

Taurage 

PROMETEY 

3,977 

GDR 

1976 

Tel  shay 

PULKOVSKIY  MERIDIAN 

3,272 

USSR 

1986 

Telsiai 

PROMETEY  MOD  A 

3.977 

GDR 

1982 

Tituvenay 

GIRULYAY 

282 

USSR 

1985 

Trakai 

LUCHEGORSK 

3,162 

USSR 

1973 

Ula 

KARELIYA 

206 

USSR 

1977 

Utena 

ALPINIST 

720 

USSR 

1977 

Vaigale 

GIRULYAY 

282 

USSR 

1984 

Varduva 

KARELIYA 

206 

USSR 

1975 

Varena 

ALPINIST 

720 

USSR 

1977 

Varmai 

ALPINIST 

720 

USSR 

1976 

Venta 

PROMETEY 

3,977 

GDR 

1977 

Venta 

KARELIYA 

180 

USSR 

1974 

Verkne 

KARELIYA 

180 

USSR 

1974 

Vertikalis 

ZHELEZNYAKOV 

632 

USSR 

1972 

Vevis 

GIRULYAY 

282 

USSR 

1982 

Vidunas 

MOONZUND 

7.656 

GDR 

1988 

Vnlkija 

ORLENOK 

1.513 

GDR 

1984 

Vnrbalis 

GIRULYAY 

282 

USSR 

1982 

Vistytis 

KARELIYA 

180 

USSR 

1974 

Vite 

MANEVRENNYY 

169 

USSR 

1968 

Vladas  Rekashyus 

MAYAKOVSKIY 

3.162 

USSR 

1967 

Yulyus  Yanonis 

PERVOMAYSK 

3,321 

Denmark 

1959 

Zagare 

ZHELEZNYAKOV 

775 

USSR 

1990 

Zalgins 

ALTAY 

3.674 

Finland 

1970 

85 


Appendix  1.  Lithuania.  Continued. 


Vessel  name 

Class 

GRT 

Country  built 

Year 

Zarasai 

LAUKUVA 

359 

USSR 

1986 

Zeimena 

KARELIYA 

180 

USSR 

1974 

Zemalte 

PROMETEY 

3.931 

GDR 

1976 

Zemaitija 

ATLANTIK 

2,654 

6DR 

1970 

Zigmas  Angaretis 

MAYAKOVSKIY 

3.170 

USSR 

1960 

Zuvintas 

ALPINIST 

720 

USSR 

1974 

TOTAL  = 

209 

vessels 

TOTAL 

GROSS  TONNAGE 

=  448, 

.540  GRT 

Source:  U.S.  Navy,  Office  of  Naval  Intelligence,  29  July  1993 


Appendix  2.  Lithuania.  Fishing  fleet  reduction,  by  vessel  name,  class,  gross 
tonnage,  year  and  country  of  construction,  and  disposition:  1993. 

Vessel  name       Class       Tonnage    Year  Built  Built  In  New  Owner 

(gross  registered  tons) 
VESSELS  REFLAGGED 

1964  USSR  Russia 

1971  Bulgaria  Latvia 

1973  USSR  Estonia 

1988  USSR  Latvia 

1976  USSR  Latvia 

1962  USSR  Nigeria 


Akademik  Kmpovich  MAYAKOVSKII 

2,299 

Annas           SHUSHVE 

179 

Carolin          ALPINIST 

720 

Durbe  I          ALPINIST 

720 

Plamja           KARELIA 

206 

Sodel  1          TAVRIYA 

3.308 

VESSELS  NO  LONGER  ACTIVE  IN  FISHERIES 

Brizas           VETER 

4,728 

Pnvolzhsk        AKTYUBINSK 

5,217 

Y.  Greyfenbergeris  MAYAKOVSKII 

3,170 

1964  Germany 
1958       USSR 

1965  USSR 

TOTAL  =  9  vessels    TOTAL  GROSS  TONNAGE  =20.547  GRT 

Source  [TS  Navy,  Office  of  Naval  Intelligence,  29  July  1993 

*  Inactive  as  of  March  1993 
**  Inactive  as  of  April  1992 


86 


3.0 
THE  COMMONWEALTH  OF  INDEPENDENT  STATES 


87 


88 


3.1 


OVERVIEW 

The  Union  of  Soviet  Socialist  Republics  (USSR)  dissolved  in  December  1991,  and  most 
of  the  15  component  republics  established  a  looser  political  association  in  the  Commonwealth 
of  Independent  States  (CIS).  The  Baltic  States  and  Georgia  chose  not  to  join  the  CIS;  as  a 
result,  only  two  republics  with  high-seas  fishing  capabilities  were  included  in  the  CIS  --  the 
Russian  Federation  and  Ukraine.  In  October  1993,  however,  Georgia  also  asked  to  become  a 
CIS  member. 

In  the  former  Soviet  Union,  the  fishery  fleets  of  all  republics  operated  as  a  unit  divided 
only  by  the  various  Soviet  administrative  fishery  regions.  Russian,  Ukrainian,  and  Georgian 
vessels  all  fished  together  in  any  particular  fishing  ground.  Their  fleets  were  under  the 
administrative  command  of  the  regional  administration  which  organized  these  so-called 
expeditions.  A  fleet  of  30  to  40  large  stern  factory  trawlers  was  managed  by  a  fleet  commander 
whose  headquarters  were  aboard  a  large  baseship.  It  did  not  matter  from  what  Soviet  republic 
the  vessels  originated,  they  were  all  part  of  this  highly-organized  fishing  flotilla.  The  baseship 
received  the  catch  from  the  trawlers,  processed  it,  and  passed  it  on  to  refrigerated  fish  carriers 
for  transportation  to  homeport.  The  commander's  flagship,  supplied  with  fuel  and  other  needs 
by  tankers  and  cargo  transports,  distributed  these  supplies  among  its  vessels.  This  system, 
which  prevailed  for  the  past  40  years,  was  suddenly  disrupted  by  the  new  political  arrangements. 
Each  independent  country  now  had  to  organize  its  own  support  and  transportation  activities,  and 
obtain  its  own  fuel  (Georgia  and  Ukraine  have  no  oil  resources  and  must,  therefore,  buy  diesel 
oil  from  Russia  or  other  countries).  In  addition,  the  bilateral  agreements  which  were  formerly 
negotiated  by  the  Soviet  Ministry  of  Fisheries  were  no  longer  valid.  The  Russian  Federation, 
as  the  internationally  recognized  successor  state  to  the  Soviet  Union,  took  over  most  of  these 
agreements.  Ukraine  and  Georgia,  thus,  have  to  make  their  own  arrangements  to  obtain  access 
to  foreign  200-mile  fishery  zones.  Georgia  is  especially  disadvantaged  because  its  diplomatic 
corps  and  political  leverage  are  limited. 


89 


All  three  CIS  countries  are  currently  undergoing  a  major  shake-up  of  their  economic 
systems.  In  Russia,  the  slow  process  of  reform,  until  recently  hindered  by  a  conservative 
parliament,  has  made  privatization  more  of  a  hope  than  a  reality.  In  Ukraine,  a  severe  economic 
depression  has  negatively  affected  the  fishing  industry.  According  to  one  report,  only  a  third 
of  the  Ukrainian  high-seas  fishing  fleet  is  deployed  in  harvesting  aquatic  resources.  Georgia  has 
been  racked  by  civil  war  since  January  1992  and  no  information  is  available  on  the  fate  of  its 
fishing  fleet  following  the  invasion  and  occupation  of  its  main  fishing  port  at  Poti  by  rebel  troops 
on  October  10,  1993.  All  CIS  republics  suffer  from  an  inability  to  provide  their  fishing  fleets 
with  sufficient  quantities  of  diesel  fuel  in  a  timely  manner.  Confirmed  reports  indicate  that  at 
times  as  much  as  a  half  of  the  Russian  fleet  was  idling  in  various  ports  because  of  fuel 
shortages.  Other  reports  describe  an  even  worse  situation  whereby  vessels  already  deployed  on 
the  high-seas  had  to  stop  their  fishing  operations  because  fuel  tankers  did  not  reach  them  on 
time.  The  authors  have  been  unable  to  verify  any  fuel  shortages  in  Ukraine  or  Georgia,  but  it 
must  be  assumed  that  a  similar,  if  not  worse,  situation  also  prevails  there. 

The  future  of  the  CIS  fishing  fleets  will  depend  on  the  ability  of  the  three  countries  to 
obtain  the  necessary  access  to  fishery  resources  to  maintain  the  fleets'  operations  and  provide 
abundant  protein  to  the  domestic  population.  Also  important  is  the  export  of  fishery  products 
to  earn  hard  currencies  with  which  to  modernize  and  replace  the  fleet,  purchase  diesel  fuel,  and 
support  operations  in  foreign  fishing  zones.  Joint  fishery  ventures  with  foreign  companies  and 
arrangements  to  lease,  charter,  or  sell  fishery  vessels  will  become  an  important  part  of  the  future 
activities  of  the  CIS  fishery  administrators.  Russia  has  a  natural  advantage  because  its  200-mile 
exclusive  economic  zone  contains  some  of  the  most  prolific  fishing  grounds  in  the  world. 
Ukrainian  high-seas  fishing  operations  will  probably  have  to  be  reduced  along  with  the  fleet. 
The  prospects  for  the  Georgian  fleet  are  bleak  and  it  remains  to  be  seen  whether  it  can  continue 
functioning. 


Photo  l.—7}ie  former  Soviel  BMRT  Belelgeze  of  the  iMihegorsk  class  litis  been  reflagged  to  the  Russian  Federation. 

90 


Commonwealth  of  Independent  States 


802042 (R00029) 7  92 


3.2 


RUSSIAN  FEDERATION 

Following  the  dissolution  of  the  Union  of  Soviet  Socialist  Republics  (USSR)  in  December 
1991,  the  Russian  Federation  (Russia)  was  internationally  recognized  as  the  Soviet  Union's 
successor  state.  Russia  has  not  only  retained  the  bulk  of  the  Soviet  fishing  and  fishery  support 
fleet  and  at  least  one  major  port  on  all  of  the  bodies  of  water  bordering  on  the  former  USSR; 
it  also  has  a  substantial  200-mile  exclusive  economic  zone  containing  some  of  the  most  prolific 
fishing  grounds  in  the  world.  In  addition,  Russia  inherited  the  extensive  diplomatic  and 
technical  support  network  created  by  the  Soviets  to  maintain  their  fishing  operations  abroad. 
Nonetheless,  Russia's  fishing  industry  has  encountered  many  new  and  old  difficulties  since  the 
country  became  independent.  The  industry  has  had  to  adjust  to  changes  in  the  government's 
fisheries  administration,  economic  reforms  introducing  a  market  economy,  and  the  drive  for 
privatization.  A  major  problem  is  the  Federation's  current  inability  to  provide  its  fishing  fleet 
regularly  with  sufficient  diesel  fuel.  The  average  age  of  the  Russian  fishing  fleet  is  15  years; 
fishery  support  vessels  are  even  older.  The  future  of  the  Russian  high-seas  fleet  will  depend  on 
its  ability  to  obtain  the  necessary  fishery  resources  to  maintain  efficient  operations.  The  export 
of  fishery  products  to  earn  hard  currencies  with  which  to  modernize  and  replace  the  fleet, 
purchase  diesel  fuel,  and  support  operations  in  foreign  fishing  zones,  will  also  play  an  important 
role. 

CONTENTS 

I.  Background    94 

II.  Fleet     94 

A.  Historic  Background 94 

B.  High-seas  Fleet    96 

C.  Fleet  Reduction 98 

D.  Fishermen's  Productivity    98 

E.  Ports  of  Call 99 

III.  Vessel  Construction    101 

A.  Domestic  Shipyards    101 

B.  Foreign  Shipyards 102 

IV.  Catch 106 

V.  Fisheries  Administration    107 

A.  Committee  on  Fisheries 107 

B.  Fishery  Attaches     108 

VI.  Bilaterals  and  Joint  Ventures 109 

VII. Outlook 121 

Sources    122 

Endnotes     123 

Appendices 129 

Map 145 


I.  BACKGROUND 


The  Russian  Federation  (Russia), 
formerly  known  as  the  Russian  Soviet 
Federated  Socialist  Republic,  is  the  largest 
country  in  the  world.  Its  total  area, 
encompassing  17.1  million  square  kilometers, 
borders  on  China,  Mongolia,  North  Korea, 
Finland,  Norway,  Poland  (Kaliningrad 
Oblast),  and  the  former  Soviet  republics. 
Russia  has  a  coastline  of  37,653  kilometers, 
and  its  maritime  boundaries  are  adjacent  to  9 
seas  and  2  oceans.  Its  population  of  over  150 
million  people  in  July  1992  is  among  the 
largest  in  the  world. 

Russia's  fishing  industry  represents  only 
a  small  fraction  of  the  country's  huge 
economy,  but  it  nonetheless  produces 
commodities  worth  billions  of  dollars.' 
Fisheries  production  provides  an  important 
source  of  protein  to  the  population  as  well  as 
much-needed  hard  currency  earnings.  The 
Russian  fishing  industry  is  mainly  based  in 
the  Far  East  (Vladivostok,  Nakhodka, 
Madagan,  Petropavlovsk-Kamchatskii  and 
Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk  ports),  but  about  20 
percent  of  the  catch  is  landed  in  the  North 
(ports  of  Murmansk  and  Arkhangelsk),  in  the 
West  (St.  Petersburg  and  Kaliningrad  ports), 
and  in  the  South  from  Astrakhan  on  the 
Caspian  Sea  to  Novorossiisk  port  on  the  Black 
Sea. 


II.  FLEET 


A.    Historic  Background 

The  Russian  people  have  been  engaged  in 
marine  fisheries  for  centuries.  In  Czarist 
Russia,    before    World    War    I,    the    1913 


fisheries  catch  exceeded  one  million  metric 
tons  (t),  one  of  the  largest  fishery  harvests  in 
the  world  at  that  time.  Following  the  1917 
Revolution  and  the  ensuing  civil  war,  Russia's 
fishing  industry  suffered  severe  setbacks,  and 
by  1920  only  260,000  metric  tons  of  fish, 
shellfish,  and  other  aquatic  products  were 
landed.  The  new  communist  regime, 
however,  began  to  mechanize  the  outdated 
fishing  fleet  by  introducing  powered  craft. 

Pre-World  War  II:  The  Revolutionary 
Government  established  its  first  fisheries 
administration  in  March  1920  and  provided  it 
with  12  fishing  vessels  —  converted 
minesweepers.  During  the  First  Five- Year 
Plan  (1928-32),  the  establishment  of  a  trawler 
fleet  in  the  Barents  Sea  was  given  priority. 
These  programs  were  successful  and  by  1936 
the  Soviet  Union's  fisheries  catch  peaked  at 
1 ,600,000  tons.  Further  modernization  of  the 
fishing  fleet  and  increasing  catches  were 
programmed  for  the  second  and  third  five- 
year  plans,  but  Stalin's  purges  in  the  late 
1930s  stalled  the  rapid  growth  in  all  Soviet 
economic  sectors,  including  fisheries." 

The  Nazi  invasion  of  the  Soviet  Union  in 
June  1941  interrupted  any  further  progress  in 
developing  the  fishing  industry.  Most  Soviet 
fishing  vessels  were  sunk  or  disabled  by 
German  air  or  naval  actions.  The  losses  were 
especially  severe  in  the  Caspian  and  Black 
Sea  fleets  during  the  1942  and  1943  German 
offensives.  The  northern  Barents  Sea  fishing 
fleet,  based  in  Murmansk,  was  also 
decimated.  Only  in  the  Far  East,  where  the 
Soviets  were  not  engaged  in  military 
operations  until  1945,  did  a  small  and 
antiquated  fishing  fleet  remain  intact.  When 
World  War  II  ended  in  1945,  over  5,000 
fishing  vessels  had  been  either  sunk  or 
extensively  damaged. 


94 


Post-World  War  II:  To  rebuild  the 
fishing  fleet  rapidly,  the  Fourth  Soviet  Five- 
Year  Plan  provided  for  a  standardized 
construction  of  150  side  trawlers  and  over 
13,000  smaller  fishing  craft.  Despite  these 
apparently  large  numbers,  only  a  small  part  of 
the  Soviet  shipbuilding  capacity  was  dedicated 
to  the  construction  of  fishing  vessels  as  the 
main  emphasis  was  on  construction  of  ships 
for  the  Red  Navy. 

During  the  early  post-World  War  II 
years,  most  of  the  Soviet  fishing  vessels  were 
built  in  East  Germany,  where  the  Soviet  Red 
Army  was  the  occupying  force.  They  were 
sent  to  the  USSR  as  war  reparations.  Later 
on,  when  the  German  Democratic  Republic 
(GDR)  was  organized  under  a  communist 
leadership,  the  GDR  remained  the  largest 
supplier  of  fishing  and  fishery-support  vessels 
to  the  Soviet  fishermen.  Between  1951  and 
October  1990,  when  it  ceased  to  exist,  the 
GDR  provided  over  382  fishery  vessels  with 
a  total  gross  registered  tonnage  (GRT)  of  1.3 
million  tons  to  the  Soviet  Union. 

As  the  Soviet  Union's  economic  activity 
normalized  somewhat  in  the  late  1940s  and 
early  1950s,  the  USSR  began  to  make  large 
purchases  of  fishery  vessels  abroad, 
especially  from  the  neighboring  Communist- 
ruled  states  (East  Germany  and  Poland), 
where  the  Soviet  Union  had  considerable 
political  and  economic  leverage  and  could 
request  the  building  of  such  vessels  for  its 
own  fleet  on  a  priority  basis.  (For  additional 
details,  see  Part  B  of  Section  III  on  vessel 
construction  in  foreign  countries.) 

Expansion  Southward:  Two  important 
developments  promoted  the  rapid  expansion 
of  the  Soviet  fishing  fleet  buildup.  After  the 
death  of  Stalin  in  March  1953,  the  USSR 
Government   embarked   on   an    increasingly 


aggressive  push  southward  into  the  world's 
oceans.  For  that,  the  fishing  fleet  needed 
large  seaworthy  vessels.  Two  major 
innovations  have  made  this  rapid  expansion 
possible:  the  construction  of  large  stern 
factory  trawlers  and  the  adoption  of  the 
flotilla  fishing  operations. 

The  first  was  the  invention  of  a  new 
method  of  high-seas  fishing  whereby  a  vessel 
brought  its  catch  on  board  through  a  stern 
ramp  rather  than  across  the  side.  These  new 
vessels,  called  stern  factory  trawlers  (because 
they  had  a  fishmeal  processing  plant  on 
board),  had  greater  stability  and 
seaworthiness.  They  could  use  much  larger 
nets  hauling  up  to  ten  times  the  amount  of 
fish  hauled  by  a  side  trawler.  In  addition, 
these  vessels  could  remain  at  sea  for  as  long 
as  one  year  while  the  crews  rotated  to  and 
from  homeports  aboard  fishery  transports. 
The  first  stern  factory  trawler  (the  famous 
Fairtry)  was  developed  by  British  naval 
architects,  but  the  British  industry  did  not 
immediately  see  its  advantages  and  the  idea 
died  on  the  vine.  The  Soviets,  however, 
bought  the  blueprint  from  a  UK  shipyard,  and 
because  they  themselves  lacked  the  advanced 
technology  necessary  for  the  construction  of 
these  trawlers  in  their  own  shipyards,  ordered 
them  from  a  shipyard  in  Kiel  in  the  Federal 
Republic  of  Germany.  These  24  German- 
built  PUSHKIN-class  stern  trawlers  (also 
known  as  the  BMRTs  to  the  Russians^)  were 
the  embryo  of  the  future  giant  Soviet  fishing 
fleet.  As  soon  as  the  PUSHKINs  were 
delivered,  the  Soviet  naval  architects  copied 
the  blueprints  and  soon  the  Soviet  shipyards 
began  to  mass-produce  them.  In  addition,  the 
Soviets  induced  the  Polish  and  the  East 
German  governments  to  follow  suit.  Before 
the  1950s  ended,  these  three  countries  mass- 
produced  BMRTs  at  a  rate  of  7-8  units  a 
month. 


95 


The  rapid  Soviet  expansion  southward  is 
evident  from  these  statistics:  in  1950,  the 
Soviet  fishermen  harvested  fishery  stoclcs  at 
the  average  distance  of  only  200  miles  from 
the  Soviet  coast.  Fifteen  years  later  in  1965, 
the  Soviet  fleets  fished  almost  1,700  miles 
from  the  native  shores,  while  by  1970  this 
distance  was  extended  to  over  4,000  miles." 
Geographically,  Soviet  high-seas  expansion 
was  first  directed  towards  the  Atlantic.  By 
1956,  Soviet  vessels  were  fishing  off  the 
Newfoundland  shores;  by  1961,  their 
operations  extended  to  the  Georges  Bank  off 
New  England  (where  they  surprised  President 
Kennedy  by  fishing  within  sight  of  his  home 
at  Hyannis  just  outside  the  3-mile  territorial 
sea  limit).  In  the  following  year,  the  Soviet 
fishing  fleets  appeared  in  the  Caribbean 
heightening  the  already  strong  anxieties  of  the 
American  public  and  government. 

The  second  important  innovation  was 
the  adoption  of  the  flotilla  fishing.  The 
Soviets  adopted  it  after  studying  Japanese 
fishery  operations.  The  idea  was  that  a  fleet 
of  fishing  vessels  operating  far  from  its 
homeport  should  be  able  to  remain  at  sea  for 
extended  periods  of  time  to  reduce  the  costs 
of  transit  to  and  from  the  grounds.  The 
vessels  must  be  supplied  with  fuel,  water, 
salt,  food,  fishing  gear,  and  maintenance 
facilities,  while  the  fishermen  must  be 
provided  with  hospital  and  medical  care.  The 
Soviets  called  such  flotilla  operations 
"expeditionary  fishing".  A  fleet  of  30  to  40 
large  stern  factory  trawlers  was  managed  by 
the  chief  of  the  fleet  {nachalnik  flota) ,  whose 
headquarters  were  aboard  a  large  base  ship. 
He  was  in  daily  contact  with  the  captains  of 
his  vessels  by  radio.  The  mothership 
received  the  catch  from  the  trawlers, 
processed  it,  and  passed  it  to  refrigerated  fish 
carriers  for  transportation  to  homeport.  The 
nachalnik' s  mothership  was  supplied  with  fuel 


and  other  needs  by  tankers  and  cargo  ships, 
and  distributed  these  supplies  among  the 
vessels  which  it  serviced.  It  also  had  a 
hospital  and  dental  services. 

B.  High-seas  Fleet 

The  Russian  fishing  fleet  consisted  of 
2,754  units  having  a  total  of  over  6  million 
gross  registered  tons  in  1993  (table  1).  Of  this 
total,  the  1,999  units  in  excess  of  500  GRT 
were  high-seas  vessels,  and  the  remaining  755 
units  operated  in  coastal  waters.  The  gross 
tonnage  of  the  coastal  fleet  represented  only 
3  percent  of  the  total  tonnage  of  the  entire 
Russian  fishing  fleet. 

The  total  number  of  Russian  fishing 
vessels,  enumerated  by  the  U.S.  Office  of 
Naval  Intelligence,  is  almost  identical  with  the 
number  of  "Soviet"  vessels  registered  in  June 
1992  by  Lloyd's  of  London  (appendix  1). 
This  would  be  understandable  except  that  the 
Lloyd's  number  supposedly  also  includes  the 
Ukrainian,  Georgian,  Estonian,  Latvian  and 
Lithuanian  vessels.    That  being  the  case,  the 


Table  1.  Russia.  Fishi 
vessel  capaci 

ng 
ty 

fleet,  by 
1993. 

selected 

CaDacity 

Number 

GRT   Average  GRT  | 

100-500  GRT 
Above  500  GRT 
TOTAL 

755 
1,999 
2.754 

5 

6 

156.985 
940.852 
097 . 837 

208 
2,972 
2.214 

Source:  US. 
Intelligence. 

Navy.  Off 
30  July 

ice  of  Naval 
1993, 

total  number  should  be  much  larger,  probably 
by  about  1,000  units. 

Lloyd's      data,      although      seemingly 
unreliable,  are  interesting  in  that  they  give  a 


96 


historical  overview  of  the  Soviet 
fishery  fleets.  The  number  of  the 
Soviet  high-seas  fishing  (figure  1) 
and  fishery  support  vessels  (figure 
2)  was  uneven,  but  basically  was 
increasing  over  the  past  17  years 
(appendices  1,  2,  and  3). 

The  1,999  units  inherited  by 
Russia  include  vessels  of  about 
100  different  classes  which  were 
constructed  in  16  different 
countries  (appendix  4^).  The 
average  age  of  Russia's  fishing 
vessels  is  15  years,  while  the 
fishery  support  fleet  has  an 
average  age  of  17  years.  Many  of 
these  vessels  have  reached,  or  are 
approaching,  obsolescence. 


2,500 


Number  of  vessels 


Figure  1 

92. 


USSR.  Number  of  fishing  vessels,  by  gross  tonnage;  1975- 


One  of  the  major  problems  in  the  years  to 
come  will  be  the  replacement  of  aging  and 
aged     fishery     vessels.  This     can     be 

accomplished  in  two  ways:  first,  by 
restructuring  and  modernizing  existing  fishing 
vessels  and  thus  prolonging  their  useful  life. 


500 


Number  of  vessels 


400- 


300 


200  - 


100  - 


nnnrinnnnnnnnn 


■  500-999  GRT         11:500-1,999  GRT 
01,000-1,999  GRT  □2,000-3,999  GRT 
OOver  4,000  GRT 


and  second,  by  purchasing  new  vessels,  either 
from  domestic  or  foreign  shipyards. 


It  is  believed  that  Russian  fishery 
administrators  will  choose  to  purchase  fishing 
vessels  from  foreign  shipyards  as  the  primary 
replacement  method.  Large  amounts  of 
scarce  foreign  currencies  will  be 
necessary  to  accomplish  this.  It  is 
unlikely  that  such  funds  will  be 
available  from  the  regular  budget 
of  the  Moscow  Committee  on 
Fisheries.  Therefore,      new, 

creative  financing  schemes  will  be 
required. 


Figure  2.  USSR.  Number  of  fishery  support  vessels,  by  gross  tonnage; 
1975-92. 


The  August  1993  proposal  by 
the  Far  Eastern  Fisheries 
Administrator,  Yuriy  I. 
Moskaltsov,  is  an  indication  of 
what  might  be  in  store. 
Moskaltsov  wrote  a  public  appeal 
to  the  Russian  Government 
spelling  out  his  plan  to  modernize 
the  Russian  Far  Eastern  fisheries 


97 


fleet,  the  largest  in  the  nation.^  The  main 
points  of  the  article  related  to  the  fishing  fleet 
are  as  follows: 

1.  The  Russian  Far  East  has  about  3,000 
fishing  and  fishery  support  vessels.  Of  this 
total,  one-half  will  have  to  be  scrapped,  or 
otherwise  disposed  of,  by  1995.  The 
remainder  will  have  to  be  replaced  by  the 
year  2000.  Without  such  a  radical  program, 
the  Russian  Far  Eastern  fleet  cannot  become 
profitable. 

2.  The  Far  East  has  prepared  a  federal 
program  titled  "Ryba"  (fish)  which  proposes, 
among  other  things,  that  the  Far  Eastern 
Fisheries  Administration  (DALRYBA)  be 
given  an  official  annual  catch  quota  allocation 
of  200,000  t  of  Alaska  pollock.  By  selling 
this  catch  quota  to  the  highest  foreign  bidder 
at  auction  in  Vladivostok,  DALRYBA  hopes 
to  obtain  about  US$80  million  which  would 
be  used  to  purchase  replacement  fishery 
vessels  abroad. 


C.  Fleet  Reduction 

According  to  the  U.S.  Navy,  Russia  has 
reduced  its  high-seas  fishing  fleet  by  34  units 
and  183,117  CRT  during  the  last  2  years 
(appendix  5).  Twenty-five  vessels  with  a 
total  of  152,603  GRT  were  reflagged  to 
various  countries,  mainly  Cyprus  and 
Panama.  About  half  of  these  were  fairly  new 
vessels,  including  9  NEVELSK-class  trawlers 
built  in  Norway  in  1991  and  1992.  This  may 
indicate  that  they  were  probably  reflagged  for 
convenience  only.  The  other  9  units  are 
listed  as  inactive,  but  it  is  likely  that  they 
were  scrapped  for  iron  as  they  were  between 
26  and  38  years  old. 

Another  3  units,  2  huge  processing 
baseships  of  the  POSET  class  and  1  large 
stern  factory  trawler,  were  reportedly  for  sale 
in  May  1993  by  the  Vladivostok  Fishing  and 
Trawling  Fleet  Base  (VBTRF)  which  is  trying 
to  earn  hard  currency  (appendix  5).  It  is  not 
known  whether  these  units  have  been  sold. 


To  accumulate  investment  funds, 
Moskaltsov's  plan  also  proposes  that  the 
Russian  fishing  companies  (state-owned  and 
privatized)  which  are  part  of  the  DALRYBA 
regional  organization,  be  exempted  from  the 
customs  duties  until  the  end  of  1996.^  In 
addition,  the  DALRYBA  companies  should 
not  be  required  to  pay  for  diesel  fuel  in 
advance,  and  the  Russian  Government  should 
authorize  a  special  credit  of  25  billion  rubles 
to  cover  half  of  the  debt  which  various 
Russian  companies  and  state  organizations 
outside  the  Far  Eastern  economic  zone  owe 
DALRYBA  for  purchased  fishery  products 
and  other  services. 


The  Russian  high-seas  fleets  suffer  from 
overcapacity,  an  abundance  of  aged  vessels, 
and  a  dearth  of  available  hard  currency.  It  is 
therefore  extremely  likely  that  many  more 
units  than  are  known  to  the  Navy  have 
recently  been  scrapped,  reflagged,  or  sold. 
This  process  of  reduction,  however,  is 
probably  occurring  piecemeal,  and  at  a  rapid 
pace.  As  a  result,  little  information  is 
available  except  from  official  Russian  sources 
which  did  not  cooperate  in  the  preparation  of 
this  report. 

D.  Fishermen's  Productivity 

The  efficiency  of  the  high-seas  fishing 
fleet  of  the  so-called  "socialist"  countries  has 
been  discussed  many  times,  although  there  is 
little  statistical  or  analytical  information  to 


98 


support  an  informed  judgment.  In  1976,  the 
U.S.  Congress  requested  from  the  National 
Marine  Fisheries  Service  a  review  of  the 
Soviet  fishing  industry,  including  an  estimate 
of  the  productivity  of  Soviet  fishermen.^  The 
conclusion  of  this  report  was  most 
unfavorable  for  the  Soviets;  it  showed  that 
every  high-seas  country  selected  for  the  study** 
had  much  higher  productivity  than  the  Soviet 
Union.  The  productivity  of  the  Norwegian 
fishermen  was  1 1  times  greater  than  that  of 
Soviet  fishermen;  the  U.S.  fishermen 
produced  almost  6  times  more  for  the  same 
gross  tonnage,  and  Japan  produced  over  5 
times  more.  While  it  could  be  argued  that  the 
data  for  Norway  and  the  United  States,  both 
coastal  countries  with  small  total  fishing  gross 
tonnage,  cannot  be  easily  compared  with 
those  of  the  widespread  high-seas  Soviet  fleet, 
this  argument  could  not  be  sustained  vis-a-vis 
Japan.  The  latter  operated  its  vessels  in  a 
manner  not  too  different  from  that  of  the 
Soviet  Union.  Both  operated  large  flotillas  of 
fishing  vessels,  accompanied  by  motherships, 
refrigerated  transports,  and  other  support 
vessels  to  distant  fishing  grounds  and  both 
used  large  stern  factory  trawlers  extensively. 

The  authors  have  tried  to  determine 
whether  the  productivity  of  the  current 
Russian  fishing  fleet  has  improved  over  that 
of  the  former  Soviet  fleet. 

In  1992,  the  Russian  high-seas  fishing 
vessels,  numbering  2,217  units'*  with  a  gross 
registered  tonnage  of  3,006,082  tons 
harvested  5.8  million  tons  of  fish  and 
shellfish.  The  same  year,  the  combined  high- 
seas  fleet  of  the  European  Community  (EC), 
numbering  591  vessels  with  718,000  CRT 
capacity  landed  6,834,000  tons.  A  simple 
calculation  shows  that  while  the  EC  catch  per 
one    CRT    equaled    9.5    tons,    the    Russian 


fishermen  delivered  only   1.9  tons  for  the 
same  one  gross  ton,  or  five  times  less. 

If  we  add  to  the  Russian  fishing  tonnage 
also  the  Russian  fishery  support  tonnage  (25 1 
vessels  with  a  gross  tonnage  of  1,454,099 
tons),  the  productivity  of  the  Russian 
fishermen  decreases  further  to  1.1  ton  per 
gross  registered  ton. 

As  the  EC  has  only  a  few  fishery  support 
vessels"*,  the  latter  figure  is  better  compared 
with  the  Japanese  statistical  data  for  the  high- 
seas  fleet. 

In  1992,  Japanese  high-seas  fishing 
vessels  numbered  2,689  units"  with  a  gross 
registered  tonnage  of  779,179  tons  and 
harvested  8.2  million  metric  tons  of  fish  and 
shellfish.  The  Japanese  catch  per  one  gross 
ton  of  fishing  fleet  is  thus  10.5  metric  tons, 
over  5  times  more  than  the  Russian  catch. 

Adding  the  smallish  tonnage  of  the 
Japanese  fishery  support  fleet  (134  vessels 
having  45,571  CRT),  the  picture  becomes 
even  more  favorable  for  the  Japanese,  whose 
fishermen  harvested  10.0  metric  tons  per 
every  ton  of  the  fishery  fleet.''  This  was  9 
times  better  than  the  comparable  1992  harvest 
of  Russian  fishermen. 

These  statistics  are  admittedly  only 
approximate'-',  but  they  do  give  a  good  idea 
of  what  the  current  fishery  administrators  will 
be  faced  with  when  they  try  to  bring  the 
Russian  fishing  industry  up  to  world 
standards. 

E.  Ports  of  Call 

Operating  far  from  their  homeports,  the 
numerous  Russian  large  stern  factory  trawlers 
require      special      conditions      for      the 


99 


transshipment  of  the  catch,  refueling, 
resupplying,  and  vessel  maintenance  and 
repairs.  These  activities  can  become  very 
difficult,  and  even  dangerous,  when  heavy 
wave  action  on  the  high  seas  prevents  the 
vessels  from  anchoring  side-by-side.  On  the 
other  hand,  for  a  fishing  vessel  to  unload  its 
catch  and  refuel  back  in  the  distant  homeport 
is  prohibitively  time-consuming  and 
expensive.  A  fishing  fleet,  operating  in 
distant  waters  may  therefore  seek  the  use  of 
nearby  ports.  From  1950  through  1990,  the 
Soviet  Union  established  many  bunkering  and 
transshipment  points  wherever  its  vessels 
fished.  These  port  arrangements  have  been 
inherited  by  the  Russian  Federation.  Among 
the  most  important  are  Singapore  (servicing 
Russian  fishing  fleets  operating  in  the  Indian 
and  Pacific  Oceans);  the  Canary  Islands 
(servicing  the  fleets  in  the  eastern  Atlantic); 
Havana,  Cuba  (servicing  the  Russian  fleets  in 
the  western  Atlantic),  and  Vaccamonte, 
Panama  (for  vessels  fishing  in  the  eastern 
Pacific).  Although  these  are  the  most 
important  transshipment  points,  it  must  be 
stressed  that  at  one  time  or  another  the 
Russian  fishing  fleets  have  bunkered  in 
practically  every  major  port  of  the  world. 

The  Soviets  usually  establish  joint 
venture  companies  in  the  ports  they  frequent. 
For  example,  in  June  1975,  they  formed  a 
seafood  processing  firm  in  Singapore  jointly 
with  the  Development  Bank  of  Singapore. 
The  company,  Marisco  Ltd.,  built  a  large 
cold  storage  plant  that  processes  and  stores 
fishery  landings  unloaded  from  Soviet 
trawlers.  Singapore's  location,  halfway 
between  the  Indian  and  Pacific  Oceans,  was 
ideal  for  the  Soviet  fishing  fleet,  which 
operated  extensively  in  both. 

Similarly,  a  Soviet  joint  venture  with 
Spain,  SOVHISPAN,  has  been  functioning 


successfully  since  1969  when  it  was 
established.  The  company's  specific  purpose 
was  to  develop  a  supply  and  transshipment 
base  for  the  Soviet  (now  Russian)  fishing 
fleets  in  the  Canary  Islands.  New  port 
installations  have  been  built  at  Las  Palmas 
and  at  Santa  Cruz  de  Tenerife.  The  Soviet 
fishing  crews  were  airlifted  from  the  Canaries 
in  a  system  of  crew  rotations;  the  base  was 
also  used  as  a  rest  and  recreation  point.  Its 
significance  as  a  trading  center  for 
Soviet/Russian  fishery  products  has  been  well 
known  to  the  world's  fish  trading  companies, 
especially  in  Western  Europe. 

In  Havana,  Cuba,  the  establishment  of  a 
Soviet  fisheries  base  soon  became  a  politically 
charged  subject,  especially  when  the  Castro 
regime,  backed  by  the  Soviets,  used  fishing 
vessels  to  launch  terrorist  attacks  in  an  effort 
to  destabilize  the  neighboring  countries  in 
Latin  America.  The  Soviet  flsheries 
agreement  with  Cuba  demanded  a  much 
greater  degree  of  cooperation  than  did  the 
commercial  arrangements  with  the  Canaries 
and  Singapore.  The  Soviet  Ministry  of 
Fisheries,  no  less  than  the  Ministries  of 
Defense  and  Foreign  Affairs,  recognized  the 
excellent  possibility  of  establishing  a  base  for 
distant-water  fishing  fleets  on  that 
strategically  located  island  and,  at  the  same 
time,  cementing  political  relations  with  Cuban 
revolutionaries.  The  Soviet  Union  desired 
Cuba  as  a  fishing  base  as  much  as  the  Cuban 
government  desired  the  rapid  development  of 
its  marine  fisheries.  The  Soviets  promised  to 
build  Cuba  a  modern  fishing  port,  if  the 
Cubans  would  permit  the  USSR  to  use  it  as  a 
major  base  for  its  flsheries  expansion  in  the 
central  and  southern  Atlantic.  The  agreement 
on  the  construction  of  the  Ashing  harbor  was 
signed  in  Havana  on  25  September  1962  by 
the  Soviet  Minister  of  Fisheries,  Alexander 
Ishkov,   and   Cuban   Prime   Minister,    Fidel 


100 


Castro.  The  Cuban  missile  crisis  delayed 
somewhat  the  beginning  of  construction,  but 
after  the  U.S.  naval  blockade  was  lifted, 
excavations  began  and  the  Havana  Fishing 
Port  was  officially  opened  on  26  July  1966, 
the  seventh  anniversary  of  Castro's  rise  to 
power. 

III.  VESSEL  CONSTRUCTION 


The  Russian  fishery  fleet,  inherited  from 
the  Soviet  register,  was  constructed  both  in 
foreign  and  domestic  shipyards.  During  the 
first  decade  after  the  end  of  World  War  II, 
the  priority  emphasis  was  on  the  construction 
of  vessels  for  the  Red  Navy.  When  the 
Soviet  Government  decided  to  expand  its 
fishing  operations  southward  into  the  Atlantic, 
the  Ministry  of  Fisheries  could  not  obtain  a 
sufficient  number  of  vessels  from  domestic 
shipyards  and  began  to  make  large  purchases 
abroad.  It  was  only  natural  that  the  USSR's 
first  orders  were  placed  in  the  neighboring 
countries  of  Finland,  East  Germany  and 
Poland.  Later  on,  many  West  European 
countries  also  built  fishery  vessels  for  the 
Soviet  Union. 

A.  Domestic  Shipyards 

The  former  Soviet  Union  had  at  least  one 
shipyard  to  build  or  repair  fishing  vessels  in 
most  of  its  major  ports,  and  in  many  of  its 
minor  ones  (appendix  6).  Several  shipyards 
had  both  a  construction  and  a  repair  section. 
These  shipyards  built  over  50  classes  of  high- 
seas  fishing  vessels  (appendix  7)  for  the 
Soviet  fleets,  the  fishing  fleets  of  Eastern 
Europe  and  other  countries. 

The  authors  have  not  carefully  followed 
the  construction  of  Soviet  fishery  vessels  in 


domestic  shipyards,  simply  because  it  is  too 
time-consuming  an  effort.  From  recent 
publications,  the  construction  at  two  of  the 
above-listed  shipyards  is  cited  below.  These 
are  simply  illustrations  of  the  fishery  vessel 
construction  still  taking  place  in  Russian 
shipyards.  Complete  information  on  Russian 
additions  would  have  to  be  obtained  from  the 
Russian  Committee  on  Fisheries. 

In  April  1993,  the  KIROV  Shipyard  in 
Khabarovsk  completed  the  9 1st  vessel  in  a 
series  of  refrigerated  transports  that  the 
shipyard  has  been  producing  for  the  last  20 
years.  The  vessels  are  constantly  being 
upgraded  and  the  latest  are  equipped  with 
satellite  communication  and  other 
sophisticated  equipment.  The  new  vessel  is 
going  to  the  port  of  Vladivostok.  The 
Shipyard  plans  to  build  5  more  refrigerated 
transports  and  2  medium  fishing  vessels  in 
1993."* 

The  Volgograd  Shipyard  on  the  Volga 
River  recently  completed  a  medium 
refrigerated  trawler,  the  Avachinsky,  for 
Kamchatka  fishermen.  The  vessel  will  be 
based  in  Petropavlovsk-Kamchatskii  (which 
has  been  steadily  receiving  new  fishing 
vessels  as  replacements  for  the  Kamchatka 
fishing  fleet)  and  will  fish  for  Alaska  pollock. 
In  1991,  this  Shipyard  also  completed  the 
seiner-trawler,  Dmitri  Shevchenko  for  the 
Nadibaidze  Seiner  Fleet  in  Primorye.'^ 

In  1992,  in  response  to  the  end  of  the 
Cold  War  and  the  breakup  of  the  Soviet 
Union,  Russia  planned  to  decrease  its 
military,  while  increasing  its  civilian 
(including  fishing  vessels)  shipbuilding 
production.'*  An  example  of  this  trend  was 
recently  described  in  the  Vladivostok  media: 


101 


In  early  1992,  the  ZVEZDA  Shipyard 
located  in  Bolshoi  Kamen  near  Vladivostok, 
(this  shipyard  was  formerly  building  military 
vessels  ,  especially  nuclear  submarines,  for 
the  Ministry  of  Defense),  began  building 
refrigerated  fishery  vessels.  The  Shipyard 
has  a  contract  to  build  12  such  vessels,  the 
first  of  which  is  scheduled  to  be  completed  in 
early  1993.'' 

B.  Foreign  Shipyards 

A  total  of  3.5  million  gross  registered 
tons  was  added  to  the  Russian  fishery  fleet  in 
756  vessels  built  in  foreign  shipyards.  These 
deliveries  are  described  in  appendix  8  both  by 
country  and  the  class  of  vessels.  It  must  be 
pointed  out  that  this  appendix  lists  only  vessel 
classes  that  were  in  the  Russian  registry  in 
July  1993.  Foreign  shipyards  have  built 
many  more  vessels  during  the  1951-1993 
period,  but  these  have  been  scrapped, 
reflagged,  sunk,  sold,  or  otherwise 
decommissioned  and  are  no  longer  on  the 
Russian  registry  of  fishing  and  fishery  support 
vessels.  To  illustrate  with  a  few  examples:  in 
the  early  1950s,  the  Stralsund  shipyard  in  the 
former  German  Democratic  Republic  built 
over  60  TROPIK  class  stern  factory  trawlers 
for  the  Soviet  registry.  By  1993,  there  is  not 
one  single  vessel  of  this  class  left  and 
appendix  8  does  not  even  list  it.  The  entire 
class  (over  160,000  gross  tons)  was 
scrapped.'*  Similarly,  the  first  series  of  24 
stern  factory  trawlers  (PUSHKIN  class)  which 
were  built  in  the  Federal  Republic  of 
Germany  from  1955  to  1958  are  no  longer 
operational.  This  is  no  wonder  since  this 
vessel  class  was  designed  to  be  in  service  for 
30  years.  Examples  like  the  two  above  could 
be  given  by  the  dozen,  but  neither  time  nor 
space  permits  it.  A  rough  estimate  would  be 
that  the  foreign  shipyards  have  built  another 
million  gross  registered  tons  of  fishing  vessel 


capacity  for  the  Soviet  Union  and  that  most  of 
it  has  been  scrapped  or  otherwise 
decommissioned. 

A  perusal  of  the  16  countries  which 
have  been  selling  fishing  and  fishery  support 
vessels  to  the  Soviets  is  illuminating.  It  is 
clear  at  first  glance  that  two-thirds  of  the 
gross  tonnage  was  built  in  East  Germany  and 
Poland,  where  the  Soviet  Union  had 
considerable  political  and  economic  leverage 
and  may  have  been  bartering  vessels  for  other 
commodities.  A  total  of  2.4  million  gross 
registered  tons  was  constructed  in  those  two 
countries.  These  opportunities,  however, 
have  now  diminished  with  the  disappearance 
of  the  German  Democratic  Republic  and  the 
end  of  the  Communist  regime  in  Poland.  In 
the  last  few  years,  Russia  has  been  ordering 
fishing  vessels  from  Sweden,  Portugal,  Spain, 
and  Norway.  In  these  countries,  the 
payments  must  now  be  made  in  hard 
currency.  It  is  estimated  that  the  Russian 
Federation  has  on  order,  or  had  accepted 
deliveries  for  almost  a  billion  dollars  worth  of 
fishery  vessels  from  West  European  shipyards 
during  the  past  few  years.  Most  of  these 
vessels  are  state-of-the-art  constructions  which 
will  make  future  Russian  fishermen  far  more 
productive  than  their  fathers  were. 

Some  of  the  most  recent  deliveries  are  as 
follows: 

Denmark:  In  1990,  the  former  Soviet 
Ministry  of  Fisheries  received  4 
KOMANDOR-class,  specialized  fishery 
protection  vessels  from  the  DANYARD 
Shipyard.  These  vessels  (2,618  GRT),  which 
were  designed  to  perform  tasks  of  fishery 
inspection  by  helicopter,  offshore 
surveillance,  and  support  work  for  the  Soviet 
fishing  fleet,  were  the  first  vessels  acquired 
by     the     USSR,     especially     for     fisheries 


102 


protection.  These  vessels  operate  in  the 
Russian  fishing  grounds  in  the  Japan, 
Okhotsk,  and  Bering  Seas. 

In  January  1990,  the  USSR  received  the 
first  vessel,  Komandor,  which  was  registered 
in  Vladivostok  and  deployed  in  Arctic  waters. 
The  Komandor  (88.3  meters  long)  is  equipped 
for  towing  and  rescue  work  in  severe 
weather,  and  has  a  helicopter  landing  pad. 
The  second  vessel  was  bought  by 
PRIMORRYBVOD  and  went  to  the  Far  East 
in  February  1990.  The  third  and  fourth 
vessels  both  arrived  in  the  Far  East  in  mid- 
1990. 

These  four  vessels  {Komandor,  Kherluf 
Bidstrup,  Manchzhur,  Shkipper  Gek), 
however,  are  insufficient  to  protect  the 
Russian  Far  Eastern  fisheries.  It  was 
expected  that  the  conversion  of  several 
defense  facilities  to  civilian  production  might 
allow  the  USSR  Ministry  of  the  Shipbuilding 
Industry  to  begin  producing  specialized 
fishery  protection  vessels  in  Russian 
shipyards.-"  The  current  status  of  this  plan, 
however,  is  unknown. 

East  Germany:  The  former  German 
Democratic  Republic  has  been  building 
factory  trawlers  in  its  STRALSUND  People's 
Shipyard  for  the  past  35  years.  Known  as  the 
ATLANTIK-class  stern  factory  trawlers,  these 
highly  adaptable  vessels  are  capable  of 
catching  large  quantities  of  fish  anywhere  in 
the  world's  oceans. 

The  Germans  have  redesigned  the 
ATLANTIK  prototype  three  times  and  each 
modernized  version  was  avidly  bought  by  the 
Soviets.  The  first  version,  the  ATLANTIK  I 
class  was  constructed  from  1966-76;  the 
second,  the  ATLANTIK  II  or  PROMETEI 
class,  was  built  from  1971-83;  the  third,  the 


ATLANTIK  III  or  ORLENOK  class,  was 
built  from  1981-87;  and  the  fourth,  the 
ATLANTIK  IV  or  MOONZUND  class,  was 
introduced  in  1988.  Its  construction 
continued  until  1991  when  STRALSUND 
stopped  building  fishing  vessels. 

Of  an  estimated  600  ATLANTIKs  built  at 
Stralsund,  over  500  trawlers  were  sold  to  the 
former  Soviet  Union.    Together  with  Soviet 


Table  2. 

Distribution  of  ATLANTIK  class  fi 

trawlers  among  the  former  Soviet 
republics:  1993. 

shing 

RUS  UKR  LAT  LITH  EST  GEORGIA 

TOTAL 

ATLANTIK 

PROMETEI 

ORLENOK 

MOONZUND 

TOTAL 

80  46   9    3    2    7 
89  43  10   15    9    3 
99  10  16   11   13 
15   8   -    4    6 
283  107  35   33   30   10 

147 
169 
149 
33 
498 

Source:  U 
July  1993 

S,  Navy,  Office  of  Naval  Intelligence, 

domestic  construction  and  imports  of  similar 
vessels  from  Poland,  the  German  trawlers 
constituted  the  backbone  of  the  Soviet  high- 
seas  fishing  fleet.  When  the  USSR  broke  up, 
the  ATLANTIKs  were  divided  among  the 
successor  republics  (table  2). 

The  last  Soviet  order  was  for  45 
ATLANTIK  IV  supertrawlers  of  which  the 
East  German  shipyard  built  and  consigned  33 
units.  The  deliveries  were  stopped  in  1991 
when  the  East  Germans,  now  unified  with  the 
Federal  Republic  of  Germany,  began  to 
demand  payment  in  hard  currencies  which  the 
Russian  Federation  could  not  provide.'' 

Seven  of  the  12  undelivered  supertrawlers 
are  in  the  process  of  being  released  to  Russia. 
These  7  MOONZUND-class  vessels  were 
ordered  as  part  of  a  previous  multi-vessel 


103 


contract,  but  the  deal  was  renegotiated  twice, 
once  when  the  two  Germanys  united,  and 
again  after  the  Soviet  Union  dissolved.  The 
latest  renegotiated  contract  has  the  Russian 
Committee  on  Fisheries  paying  US$225 
million  for  the  vessels.  The  trawlers  are 
being  delivered  2  each  to  the  trawl  fleets  of 
Murmansk  {Boris  Syromyatnikov  and  Kapitan 
Bogomolov),  and  Arkhangelsk  {Kapitan 
Bubnov  and  Pomor);  these  4  trawlers  left 
Stralsund  on  February  5  and  9,  1993, 
respectively;  the  other  5  were  expected  to 
leave,  one  every  2  weeks  until  May  3.  The 
Kaliningrad  Trawl  Fleet  received  the  Rybak 
and  Nekrasovo,  and  the  seventh  vessel,  the 
Tosno,  will  go  to  the  Leningrad  Fisheries 
Production  Association,  LENRYBPROM.-- 

A  dozen  of  the  ATLANTIK-III  class 
vessels,  purchased  from  Stralsund,  were 
assigned  to  the  Soviet  fisheries  research  fleet. 
They  were  distributed  as  follows:  the  Polar 
Scientific  Research  Institute  for  Fisheries  and 
Oceanography  (PINRO)  in  Murmansk  -  3 
units;  the  Atlantic  Institute  (ATLANTNIRO) 
in  Kaliningrad  -  3  units;  the  Southern  Seas 
Institute  (YUGNIRO)  in  Kerch  -  2  units;  and 
the  Pacific  Institute  (TINRO)  in  Vladivostok 
-  4  units.  Those  still  owned  by  Russia  are: 
PINRO,  TINRO,  Professor  Kaganovskiy, 
Professor  Kizevetter,  Professor  Levanidov, 
Professor  Marti,  Professor  Soldatov, 
ATLANTNIRO,  Atlantida,  Frithof  Nansen. 
The  names  of  the  2  YUGNIRO  units  are  not 
known,  but  they  probably  now  belong  to  the 
Ukrainian  Fisheries  Research  Institute. 

The  German  company,  Elbewerft 
Boizenberg  GmbH  Shipyard,  located  in 
eastern  Germany  on  the  Elbe  River,  is 
constructing  30  longliners  to  be  deployed 
mainly  in  the  Far  East  for  the  Okhotsk 
Fishing  Company  which  is  registered  in 
Cyprus."     The  first  of  these  vessels,   the 


Antias,  was  due  for  delivery  in  August  1993, 
and  the  second,  Kaprodon,  soon  afterward. 
The  vessels  are  being  fitted  with  Norwegian 
autolines  for  longline  fishing,  and  processing 
lines  which  will  allow  the  vessels  to  process 
up  to  25  tons  of  fish  a  day.-" 

Finland:  In  the  mid-1980s,  the  former  Soviet 
agency,  Sudolmport,  ordered  three  large  crab 
processing  motherships  (SODRUZHESTVO 
class,  180  meters  long;  32,096  GRT  each) 
from  the  Rauma-Repola  shipyard  in  Rauma, 
Finland.  The      first     of     these,      the 

Sodruzhestvo'\  was  launched  in  September 
1987,  and  delivered  to  Vladivostok  in  March 
1988  for  the  Sea  of  Okhotsk  and  the  North 
Pacific  fisheries.  The  second  vessel,  Piotr 
Zhitnikov,  was  also  delivered  to  the  Far  East 
in  May  1989.  It  is  identical  to  the 
Sodruzhestvo  except  that  it  underwent  some 
modernization.  The  third  vessel,  Vsevolod 
Sibirtsev,  was  launched  in  March  1989  and 
delivered  by  the  end  of  that  year.-'' 

On  September  10,  1987,  Rauma-Repola 
delivered  a  research  and  survey  vessel, 
Akademik  Fedorov  (140  meters  long),  to 
GOSKOMGIDROMET.  The  vessel  has  full 
ice-breaking  capabilities  for  operation  in  the 
Antarctic.  Another  research  vessel,  Akademik 
loffe,  built  in  Rauma  in  February  1989  is 
based  in  Kaliningrad  to  conduct  research  in 
the  Atlantic.-' 

Norway:  In  late  Summer  1993,  the 
Vladivostok  Trawl  and  Refrigerated  Fleet 
(VBTRF)  received  two  longliners  {Kapitan 
Kartashov  and  Kapitan  Samoilenko)  from  the 
Soviknes  Shipyard  in  Sovik,  Norway,  as  part 
of  a  plan  to  modernize  its  fleet.  Their 
longlines  are  equipped  with  some  30,000 
hooks  to  catch  Pacific  cod,  halibut,  sablefish, 
and  other  bottom  species  in  the  so-called 
"hard"    grounds    with    rocky    bottoms    and 


104 


irregular  depths  where  bottom  trawling  is 
unsafe.-'*  They  are  designed  for  onboard 
processing,  with  sophisticated,  ecologically- 
clean  equipment,  including  fillet-making 
machines  capable  of  processing  25  metric  tons 
of  fish  per  day.  They  are  also  equipped  with 
modern  radar,  navigation,  and  communication 
systems.  The  vessels  were  financed  by  the 
Japanese  firm,  Nichimo  Co.,  Ltd.  of  Tokyo, 
under  a  contract  which  obligates  the  Russian 
owners  to  deliver  the  processed  catch  to 
Nichimo.'" 

Russian  fishermen  will  learn  longlining 
aboard  a  Norwegian  training  vessel  which  is 
due  to  be  built.  This  project  is  part  of  a  joint 
venture  between  six  Norwegian  companies 
and  the  SEVRYBA.^'' 

In  mid-1992,  the  KIMEK  A/S  Shipyard  in 
Norway  signed  a  contract  to  build  and  equip 
100  coastal  fishing  vessels  for  Russia.  The 
contract  is  part  of  an  effort  to  restructure  the 
Russian  fleet  so  that  coastal,  rather  than  high- 
seas,  fisheries  will  be  emphasized.  The 
vessels  will  vary  in  size  from  40-60  meters 
long  and  are  expected  to  be  completed  in  4-5 
years. ^'  No  further  information  on  this 
contract  is  available. 

In  1989,  the  former  Soviet  Ministry  of 
Fisheries  contracted  20  large  stern  factory 
trawlers  (NEVELSK  class,  64  meters  long, 
1,899  CRT)  from  the  STERKODER  Shipyard 
of  Norway  for  deployment  in  the  Russian  Far 
East.  Reportedly,  the  first  16  vessels  were 
delivered  to  the  former  USSR,  but  the  last 
four  were  repossessed  by  a  Norwegian  bank 
because  the  Russians  were  unable  to  pay  for 
them.  One  of  these  four  vessels  was  bought 
by  the  company  of  a  Norwegian  businessman, 
Arne  LARSSON,  and  leased  to  a  Kamchatka 
import-export  company,  KAMCHATIMPEX, 


to  fish  in  the  North  Pacific  under  Russian 
flag,  captain,  and  crew.^- 

Despite  news  reports  that  a  series  of  16 
NEVELSK  class  vessels  were  delivered  to  the 
USSR/Russia,  NMFS  could  confirm  that 
currently  only  9  of  these  vessels  are 
registered  in  Russia."  Another  4  NEVELSK 
class  trawlers,  the  Amaltal  Columbia,  Mys 
Vindis,  Petr  Iljin,  and  Sterkoder,  have  been 
reflagged:  the  Amaltal  Columbia  now  flies  a 
New  Zealand  flag,  the  other  3  operate  under 
the  Cypriot  flag.^*  ONI's  list  of  the  Cyprus 
fishing  fleet  includes  8  NEVELSK  class  units; 
3  are  the  reflagged  vessels  mentioned  above. 
The  names  of  the  others  are:  Admiral 
Zavoika,  Aleksei  Chirikov,  Bukhta  Naezdnik, 
Novik,  and  Vilyuchinskyi.  This  accounts  for 
18  of  the  20  NEVELSK-class  vessels  ordered 
from  Norway. 

Poland:  In  1988,  a  Gdansk  shipyard 
completed  a  series  of  6  large  trawlers  of  the 
IVAN  BOCHKOV  class  for  the  Soviet 
Northern  Fisheries  Administration 
(SEVRYBA)  fleets,  including  the  Sovetskaia 
Konstitutsia,  Zavolzhsk,  and  the  Revolutsiya 
which  joined  the  Arkangelsk  fleet. ^^  Russia 
currently  owns  33  of  these  vessels  which  were 
constructed  between  1979  and  1988.^*  Polish 
shipyards  also  built  many  other  classes  of 
fishing  vessels  purchased  by  the  USSR  for  a 
total  tonnage  of  1.1  million  gross  tons 
(appendix  8). 

Spain:  Since  1989,  the  former  USSR/Russia 
has  ordered  25  vessels,  15  large  stern  factory 
trawlers  and  10  tuna  purse  seiners,  from 
Spanish  shipyards." 

The  former  Soviet  Ministry  of  Fisheries 
ordered  15  stern  factory  trawlers  of  the 
SOTRUDNICHESTVO  class  (7,805  CRT, 
105     meters     long)     through     the     Bergen 


105 


Industries  and  Fishing  Corporation  of 
Monrovia,  Liberia,  from  the  Factorias 
Vulcano  and  the  Naval  Gijon  shipyards  of 
northern  Spain.  The  first  2  trawlers,  the 
Sotrudnichestvo  and  the  Stimul,  were 
delivered  to  Russia  in  December  1991. 
Dantrawl  A/S  of  Denmark  fitted  the  2 
trawlers  with  Alaska  pollock  trawls  newly 
designed  especially  for  these  vessels.^* 

The  9th  vessel  (Vladimir  Starzhinskiy)  in 
the  series  of  15  Spanish-built  trawlers  was 
completed  in  May  1993,  and  the  10th  vessel 
{Mikhail Drozdov)  was  scheduled  for  delivery 
in  August  1993,  when  the  11th  vessel 
(Kapitan  Nazin)  was  to  be  finished.  The  last 
4  vessels  are  expected  to  be  completed  two  at 
a  time  and  scheduled  for  delivery  in  January 
and  June  of  1994.^' 

The  largest  Russian  Pacific  fishing 
company,  the  Vladivostok  Trawler  and 
Refrigeration  Fleet  Base  (VBTRF)  is  to 
receive  10  out  of  the  15  ordered  trawlers 
(including,  the  previously  delivered  Kapitan 
Azarkin,  Stimul,  Sotrudnichestvo,  Suverenitet, 
Solidamost,  Stanovlenie,  and  Sozidaniye)  and 
operate  them  in  the  Bering  and  Okhotsk 
Seas.^ 

The  Vladimir  Starzhinskiy,  was  delivered 
to  the  North-East  Russia  Marine  Resources 
Company  based  in  Sovetskaia  Gavan, 
Khabarovsk  Region.  This  company  has  also 
ordered  several  refrigerated  trawlers  from  a 
shipyard  in  Barcelona."" 

The  former  USSR  ordered  10  tuna  seiners 
(80  meters  long)  from  the  Astilleros  de 
Huelva  Shipyard  in  southern  Spain  through 
the  Pythagoras  Shipping  Company  of  Liberia. 
The  first  vessel  was  delivered  in  July  1991 
and  the  last  in  December  1992.  The  first  five 
vessels     (including     the     Tivela,     Kaouri, 


Purpura,  Tellind*^,  and  Pinna)  pined  Russia's 
Kaliningrad-based  fleet;  the  second  five 
seiners  (Rodios,  Gomer,  Platon,  Aristotel,  and 
Demosfen)  are  operating  out  of  Vladivostok  in 
the  Far  East.  They  will  mainly  fish  for  tuna 
in  the  Atlantic  and  Indian  Oceans."*^ 


IV.  CATCH 


The  Soviet  fisheries  catch  expanded 
rapidly  after  Stalin's  death  in  1953,  and, 
fueled  by  massive  investments  in  the  fishing 
fleet,  exceeded  10  million  metric  tons  (t)  by 
1976.  After  worldwide  extensions  of  fishery 
jurisdictions  to  200  nautical  miles  in  1976-77, 
the  Soviet  fisheries  catch,  much  of  which  was 
harvested  in  now  foreign  waters,  decreased 
for  a  few  years.  Assisted  by  profitable  joint 
ventures  and  useful  bilateral  fishery 
agreements,  Soviet  fishermen  continued  to 
expand  their  catch  in  the  1980s.  In  1989,  the 
Soviet  Union  became  the  world's  largest 
fishing  power  (in  terms  of  catch  landed), 
surpassing  Japan  for  the  first  time.  Soviet 
fishermen  landed  11.3  million  t  of  fish, 
shellfish,  and  other  aquatic  products  in  1989. 
This  glory,  however,  was  short-lived;  in 
1990,  its  was  China  that  harvested  the  world's 
largest  catch. 

In  the  next  few  years,  the  Soviet  catch 
began  to  decline  steadily  by  about  one  million 
tons  a  year,  so  that  by  1991  only  9.2  million 
t  were  landed  (appendix  9). 

In  December  1991,  the  Soviet  Union 
dissolved  and  the  catch  is  now  being  reported 
to  FAO  by  its  former  constituent  republics 
which  engage  in  high-seas  fishing:  the  three 
Baltic  states,  Russia,  Ukraine,  and  Georgia. 
The  FAO  in  Rome  is  reportedly  trying  to 


106 


reconstruct  the  historical  catch  statistics  of  the 
new  independent  countries.  To  accomplish 
that,  the  FAO  will  need  the  full  cooperation 
of  the  former  Soviet  Fisheries  Research 
Institute  (VNIRO)  in  Moscow.  The  authors 
have  been  able  to  obtain  the  recent  statistics 
for  the  Russian  catch  (table  3).  These  data 
show  that  the  catch  began  decreasing  in  1989, 
at  first  slowly,  but  in  subsequent  years  at  an 
increasing  pace.  The  1992  estimated  catch  of 
5.8  million  tons  is  16  percent  below  the 
amount  landed  the  previous  year.  The 
decrease  in  the  catch  will  likely  continue  in 
1993,  but,  hopefully,  not  at  such  a  steep  rate. 


Table  3 

Russia.  Fisheries  catch 
and  percent  change  from 
previous  year:  1987-92. 

Year 

Catch    Chanqe 

1987 
1988 
1989 
1990 
1991 
1992 

Metric  tons   Percent 

8.079.000 
8.102.000     0  1 
7.977.000    -1,5 
7.562.000    -5,2 
6.711.000    -11,3 
5. 800, 000(E)  -15  7 

Source 
publicat 

E  -  Est! 

Various  Russian 
ions 

mated 

Appendix  9  shows  the  Soviet  catch  in 
various  FAO  statistical  areas.  The  largest 
amount  continues  to  be  harvested  in  the  FAO 
statistical  area  61  which  includes  the  fishing 
grounds  within  the  Russian  Pacific  200-mile 
fishery  zone.  The  second  largest  catch  is  off 
the  western  coasts  of  Africa  where  the 
Soviets/Russians  have  traditionally  had 
extensive  fisheries.  The  Barents  Sea  (FAO 
statistical  area  27)  continues  as  the  third 
largest  fishing  ground  for  the  Russian  fleets, 
even  though  its  importance  has  decreased 
greatly  since  1975. 


V.  FISHERIES  ADMINISTRATION 


A.  Committee  on  Fisheries 

The  Committee  on  Fisheries  is  the  direct 
successor  of  the  former  Soviet  Ministry  of 
Fisheries,  but  it  no  longer  controls  the  fishing 
industries  of  the  15  republics  which  were 
constituent  parts  of  the  former  USSR.  The 
Committee  now  maintains  control  only  over 
the  fisheries  of  the  former  Russian  Soviet 
Socialist  Republic.  In  the  Soviet  Union,  the 
fishing  industry  was  organized  into  five  so- 
called  main  regional  directorates.  They  were 
located  in  Murmansk  for  the  north,  in  Riga 
for  the  west,  in  Sevastopol  for  the  south,  in 
Astrakhan  for  the  Caspian  Sea,  and  in 
Vladivostok  for  the  Far  Eastern  Region. 
Almost  800,000  people  were  employed  in  this 
widespread  fisheries  empire. 

After  the  dissolution  of  the  USSR  in 
December  1991,  only  the  Far  Eastern  and  the 
Northern  fishery  administrations  remained 
intact  and  were  absorbed  by  the  newly- 
organized  Committee.  In  the  west,  the  three 
Baltic  states  (Estonia,  Latvia,  Lithuania) 
became  independent  and  organized  their  own 
fishery  administrations.  The  headquarters  of 
the  Western  Fisheries  Administration  were 
transferred  from  Riga  to  Kaliningrad. 
Together  with  the  St.  Petersburg  Oblast 
(Province)  fisheries,  the  Kaliningrad  fisheries 
are  the  only  remaining  parts  of  the  Western 
Administration.  The  Southern  Regional 
Fisheries  Administration,  also  known  under 
the  acronym  YUGRYBA,  is  now  in  the 
Republic  of  Ukraine.  Sevastopol  remains  the 
headquarters  of  this  administration,  but  the 
policy  directions  are  no  longer  received  from 
Moscow,  but  from  Kiev.  The  Caspian  Sea 
has  been  divided  into  four  parts  claimed  by 


107 


the  adjacent  states  of  Turkmenistan, 
Kazakhstan,  Azerbaijan,  and  Russia.  The 
final  delimitations  of  this  sea  are  being 
negotiated.  Being  a  land-locked  sea,  no  high- 
seas  fleet  operates  there.  The  Far  Eastern 
Regional  Fisheries  Administration 
(DALRYBA)  also  remains  intact  and  has  now 
become  the  most  important  fishing  region  in 
the  new  Russian  Federation.  As  much  as  70 
per  cent  of  the  total  Russian  catch  is  now 
being  harvested  by  the  Far  Eastern  fishermen. 

The  Russian  Committee  on  Fisheries 
employed  an  estimated  500,000  persons 
before  the  privatization  of  some  of  its  regional 
components. 

The  political  vicissitudes  of  the 
transformation  of  the  former  Soviet  Union 
into  the  Commonwealth  of  Independent  States 
affected  the  Committee  on  Fisheries  as  well. 
In  August  1991,  the  Soviet  Fisheries  Minister, 
Nikolai  Isaakovich  KOTLYAR,  and  his  six 
assistant  ministers  supported  the  putschists 
and  ordered  the  captains  of  the  fishing  fleets 
to  follow  their  directions.  When  President 
Yeltsin  prevailed,  Kotlyar  was  promptly  fired, 
the  Ministry  of  Fisheries  was  abolished  and 
its  staff  transferred  to  the  Russian  Ministry  of 
Agriculture.  Fishery  executives,  who  were 
used  to  policy  and  budgetary  independence 
and  were  very  powerful  in  the  old  Soviet 
Union,  did  not  like  the  move  and  did  all  they 
could  to  get  from  under  the  Ministry  of 
Agriculture.  They  succeeded  and,  in  early 
1992,  the  Committee  on  Fisheries  of  the 
Russian  Federation  was  organized  as  an 
independent  agency.  Its  staff,  however,  was 
reduced  from  over  1,200  employees  to  only 
about  400  persons. 

The  Committee  took  over  most  of  the 
former  Soviet  bilateral  and  multilateral  fishery 
agreements.    Of  the  59  bilateral  agreements. 


Russia  carried  on  the  privileges  and 
responsibilities  of  40  agreements.  Of  the  14 
multilateral  fishery  organizations  to  which  the 
Soviet  Union  belonged,  Russia  retained  its 
representatives  at  1 1 .  As  one  of  the  largest 
fishing  powers  in  the  world,  the  Russian 
Federation  thus  maintains  a  powerful  presence 
on  the  international  fisheries  scene. 

B.  Fishery  Attaches'" 

The  Russian  Committee  on  Fisheries  also 
retained  30  out  of  32  fishery  offices  in  as 
many  countries  (appendix  10).  These  offices 
are  located  primarily  in  coastal  countries 
where  the  incumbents  play  an  important  role 
in  organizing  support  for  the  wide-ranging, 
distant-water  Russian  fishing  fleets. 

The  total  number  of  Russian  flshery 
attaches  and  representatives  is  much  greater 
since  most  offices  also  have  an  assistant 
fisheries  attache  or  representative.  Some  (like 
Tokyo,  Oslo,  Halifax,  and  Rome)  have  3  or 
more  fishery  attaches.  All  Russian  fishery 
attaches  enjoy  diplomatic  status.  They  are 
located  in  Australia,  Denmark,  Italy,  Canada, 
Norway,  the  United  States,  Japan,  and 
possibly  some  other  posts.  On  the  other 
hand,  representatives  of  the  Russian 
Committee  on  Fisheries  do  not  have 
diplomatic  status.  Both,  however,  remain  the 
employees  of  the  Russian  Committee  on 
Fisheries  and  receive  salaries  from  the 
Committee  directly. 

The  funding  for  this  vast  network  of 
fishery  attaches  and  representatives  is 
provided  by  the  Russian  Committee  on 
Fisheries  (formerly  the  Soviet  Ministry  of 
Fisheries).  It  could  not  be  determined  what 
the  total  budget  amounts  to,  but  it  is  estimated 
at  about  $3  million.  This  includes  salaries 
and   benefits,   office   rents,   paid   vacations. 


108 


travel  expenses,  operational  expenses,  etc. 
The  Committee  receives  these  funds  from 
various  regional  fishery  administrations  (now 
share-holding  "companies")  who  sell  fishery 
products  abroad.  This  includes  the  joint 
venture  company,  SOVRYBFLOT. 

The  administrative  needs  of  fishery 
representatives  and  attaches  are  handled  by 
the  Division  of  International  Affairs  of  the 
Committee,  headed  by  Vadim  NIKOLAEV. 
Each  of  the  4  geographic  sections  of  the 
Division  handles  the  fishery  offices  located  in 
its  region.  The  staff  of  the  Division  is  limted 
and  the  servicing  of  that  many  officers  abroad 
often  represents  an  unbearable  administrative 
burden  for  the  able  and  dedicated  officials  of 
the  Division.  One  must  also  consider  that  the 
Division  handles  foreign  visitors  to  the 
Committee  through  its  efficiently  run  Protocol 
Section. 

The  tour  of  duty  of  a  fishery 
representative  is  4  years,  but  can  be  extended 
or  shortened,  depending  on  the  circumstances. 
When  they  return  to  Russia,  the 
representatives  and  attaches  are  again 
absorbed  into  the  Committee  on  Fisheries,  or 
some  of  its  regional  administrations. 


VI.  BILATERALS  &  JOUST  VENTURES 


After  the  breakup  of  the  USSR,  the 
Committee  on  Fisheries  of  the  Russian 
Federation  assumed  the  rights  and 
responsibilities  of  the  former  Soviet  Union  for 
40  of  the  existing  59  bilateral 
intergovernmental  agreements  and  for  1 1  of 
the  14  international  organizations  to  which  the 
former  USSR  belonged.  Russia  is  also 
keeping  open  30  of  the  32  fishery 
representations  around  the  world. ^■'' 


Former  Russian  fishery  collectives 
(kolkhozes),  as  well  as  large  companies 
looking  abroad  for  business  opportunities, 
have  been  making  deals  and  establishing  joint 
ventures  with  foreign  companies  to  make  up 
for  the  dwindling  fishery  resources  at  home, 
to  gain  access  to  foreign  grounds  and  port 
facilities,  to  receive  capital,  fuel  and  other 
supplies,  and  to  earn  foreign  currencies.  The 
Russian  kolkhoz  leadership  tends  to  lack 
commercial  experience,  and  their  foreign 
ventures  often  meet  with  failure. 

A.  LATIN  AMERICA 

Argentina:  In  1986,  Argentina  signed  a 
fisheries  framework  agreement  with  the 
Soviet  Union,  which  remained  in  force  until 
May  1993.  The  agreement  granted  the 
Soviets  the  right  to  fish  the  Argentine  EEZ 
south  of  the  46th  parallel  where  they  were 
allowed  to  harvest  any  commercial  species 
except  hake.  In  the  early  years  of  the 
agreement,  the  Soviets  were  limited  to  18 
vessels  and  180,000  t  per  year,  and  the 
Argentine  Government  was  paid  3  percent  of 
the  value  of  the  fish  exported.  In  1990,  the 
limits  decreased  to  15  vessels  and  150,000  t, 
and  the  fee  was  raised  to  12  percent  of  the 
value  of  fish  landed.  In  1991,  the  Soviet 
allocation  dropped  further  to  10  vessels  and 
100,000  f,  and  in  1992,  it  decreased  to  5 
vessels  and  50,000  tons.*^ 

The  Soviets  first  entered  the  southwestern 
Atlantic  in  1961,  deploying  research  vessels 
to  assess  stocks  on  the  virtually  untouched 
Patagonian  Shelf.  Based  on  favorable  reports 
from  these  research  cruises,  the  Soviets 
decided  to  deploy  a  substantial  commercial 
fleet.  Soviet  vessels  first  appeared  in 
significant  numbers  off  Argentina  during 
1966.  In  their  first  year  of  fishing  in  the 
area,  the  Soviet  fleet  caught  73,000  t  of  fish. 


109 


This  amount  was  equal  to  one  third  of  the 
entire  1966  Argentine  catch.  The  Argentine 
Government,  concerned  that  the  large  Soviet 
hake  catch  would  decrease  the  yields  of 
Argentine  fishermen,  declared  a  200-mile 
Territorial  Sea  in  1967  and  required  foreign 
fishermen  to  purchase  licenses.  Argentine 
authorities  initially  implemented  licensing 
regulations  that  required  foreign  vessel 
owners  to  pay  only  a  nominal  licensing  fee. 
Soviet  fishermen  in  1967  paid  the  nominal  fee 
($30)  despite  the  orders  of  the  Soviet 
Government  not  to  do  so.  Soviet  catches  in 
1967  reached  677,000  t,  three  times  that  of 
the  Argentine  catch.  In  response  to  this 
massive  Soviet  fishing  effort,  the  Argentine 
Government  increased  licensing  fees  to  $10 
per  net  registered  ton.  Processing  vessels  had 
to  pay  $20  per  net  registered  ton.  The 
Soviets  refused  to  purchase  fishing  permits  at 
these  substantially  increased  rates  and 
withdrew  their  vessels  on  April  1,  1968.  The 
Argentine  Government  reported  a  number  of 
enforcement  problems  during  the  next  few 
years,  but  Soviet  catches  fell  sharply.  The 
Argentine  Navy  seized,  and  at  times  fired 
upon,  Soviet  vessels.  The  Soviet  catch  in  the 
southwestern  Atlantic  continued  at  low  levels 
(less  than  30,000  t)  during  the  1970s  and 
early  1980s.  The  Soviets  began  expanding 
fishing  operations  in  the  southwestern  Atlantic 
again  after  the  1982  Falklands  conflict, 
increasing  their  catch  from  only  19,000  t  in 
1982  to  77,000  t  in  1989.  Almost  the  entire 
catch  until  1986  was  off  the  Falklands,  or 
outside  the  Argentine  200-mile  zone."^  The 
principal  species  taken  were  southern  blue 
whiting,  squid,  and  grenadiers  (other  than 
blue  grenadiers),  depending  on  the  year,  but 
smaller  catches  of  hake,  Patagonian  toothfish, 
and  other  species  were  also  reported.  In 
1986,  the  Soviets  responded  favorably  to  the 
Argentine  proposal  for  a  bilateral  fisheries 
access     agreement     that     allowed     Soviet 


fishermen  to  catch  180,000  t  of  fish  per  year 
off  the  Patagonian  coast,  south  of  46° 
South.'**  The  agreement  precluded  the  Soviets 
from  catching  hake  or  shellfish,  the  two 
species  which  the  Argentine  fishing  fleet 
targets  heavily,  and  required  them  to  purchase 
semi-processed  Argentine  fishery  products.^' 
Beginning  in  1987,  the  Soviets  deployed 
vessels  in  Argentine  waters  under  the  new 
agreement.  The  Soviet  1987  catch  in 
Argentine  waters  was  189,000  tons.  Unlike 
most  other  distant-water  countries,  the  Soviets 
did  not  apply  for  British/Falkland  Island 
Government  licenses  to  fish  off  the  Falklands. 
The  catch  of  the  former  Soviet  Union  and 
successor  states  in  the  southwestern  Atlantic 
has  remained  at  over  200,000  t  through  1991 
(see  Volume  IV,  Latin  America,  appendix 
C4dl).  The  shift  from  the  Falklands  to  the 
Argentine  EEZ  does  not  seem  to  have 
significantly  affected  the  species  taken  by  the 
Soviets  who  continued  to  take  primarily 
squid,  southern  blue  whiting,  and  grenadiers. 
The  Soviets  have  reported  much  larger  squid 
catches  than  they  ever  achieved  in  their 
fishery  off  the  Falklands,  taking  off  Argentina 
a  record  134,000  t  in  1991.  The  only 
important  difference  in  the  Soviet  catch  was  a 
larger  catch  of  blue  grenadiers,  a  species  they 
never  harvested  in  significant  quantities  off 
the  Falklands.  The  Soviet-Argentine  1986 
agreement  expired  in  May  1993  and  has  not 
been  renewed  by  the  successor  states.* 

At  least  three  joint  ventures  between 
Argentine  and  Soviet  companies  have 
continued  operations  since  the  breakup  of  the 
USSR.^'  In  addition,  in  1992,  Russia  and 
Argentina  signed  a  letter  of  intent  to  create 
three  new  joint  ventures  with  the  purpose  of 
exploiting  krill  in  the  South  Atlantic. 

In  October  1992,  a  Russian-Argentine 
joint    venture    agreement    was    signed    in 


110 


Production  Association)  and  the  Governor  of 
the  Tierra  del  Fuego  Province.  The 
agreement  envisions  a  joint  fishing  expedition 
to  take  place  in  the  Argentine  waters  of  the 
South  Atlantic." 

In  accordance  with  this  agreement,  in 
early  1993,  an  expedition  of  six  trawlers  and 
one  mothership  from  DALMOREPRODUKT 
arrived  in  the  coastal  waters  of  Argentina  to 
catch  crabs,  squid,  and  herring.  Reportedly, 
they  caught  about  10-18  metric  tons  of  squid 
a  day." 

Brazil:  Soviet  fishermen  have  not  conducted 
extensive  operations  off  Brazil.  There  were 
some  limited  contacts  during  the  1960s  before 
Brazil  declared  a  200-mile  zone,  but  Soviet 
fishermen  have  not  since  operated  in  Brazilian 
waters.  ,  Press  reports  have  described 
occasional  efforts  by  the  Soviets  to  negotiate 
fishery  cooperation  and  joint  venture 
agreements.  Although  some  negotiations 
were  held,  the  authors  know  of  no  finalized 
agreements." 

In  1987,  SOVRYBFLOT  negotiated  a 
joint  venture  with  a  Brazilian  company  to 
establish  a  joint  venture,  Brasovpesca.  No 
actual  contracts,  however,  were  signed, 
partially  because  the  Brazilian  Navy 
objected.'^'*  Another  Russian  company 
reportedly  formed  a  joint  fishery  venture  in 
1992  with  Brazilian  and  Portuguese 
companies,  but  no  details  are  available. -^^ 

Chile:  The  southeastern  Pacific  off  Chile  and 
Peru  was  one  of  the  principal  Soviet  distant- 
water  fishing  grounds.^*  Chile  has  never, 
however,  permitted  Soviet-flag  vessels  to 
operate  in  Chilean  waters.  The  leftist- 
oriented  Allende  Government  did  permit  one 
Soviet  fishery  research  vessel,  the  Akademik 
Knipovich,  to  operate  under  Chilean  flag  off 


southern  Chile  during  1972-73."  All  such 
cooperative  programs,  including  fishery 
projects,  were  abruptly  terminated  when  the 
Allende  Government  was  overthrown  in  1973 
by  right-wing,  anti-communist  military 
officers.^* 

The  election  of  a  new  democratic  Chilean 
Government  in  1989  has  made  possible 
renewed  fisheries  cooperation.  Soviet  trade 
officials  visited  Chile  in  September  1990 
seeking  permission  to  operate  five  vessels 
under  the  Chilean  flag,  offering  half  of  the 
catch  to  the  Chileans.^'  The  discussions  led 
to  the  signing  of  contracts  with  two  Chilean 
companies  and  a  framework  agreement  for 
fisheries  cooperation  with  a  Government- 
owned  corporation  promoting  economic 
development,  PROCHILE. 

In  1992,  Russia  and  Chile  signed  a 
fishery  cooperation  agreement,  but  the 
agreement  did  not  include  access  to  Chilean 
fishing  grounds."' 

By  1992,  Soviet  and  Russian  fishermen 
ceased  operations  in  the  southeastern  Pacific 
fishery,  reportedly  because  of  the  exorbitant 
fuel  costs  involved. 

Two  Chilean  companies  (Compafiia  de 
Inversiones  y  Comercio  and  Servicios 
Portuarios)  signed  a  joint  venture  agreement 
in  1990  with  the  Soviet  Fisheries  Research 
Institute  (VNIRO)*'  to  catch  and  market  krill. 
The  Russian  Federation  Government  has 
probably  assumed  responsibility  for  this 
agreement. 

Colombia:  The  Soviet  Union  began  pursuing 
joint  venture  agreements  with  Colombia 
during  the  early  1980s.  The  first  Soviet- 
Colombian  joint  venture  was  formed  in  1981 
to  develop   Colombia's   tuna   fishery   using 


111 


several  Soviet-built  720-GRT  seiner-trawlers. 
It  is  not  clear  whether  the  joint  venture  was 
successful.  Unconfirmed  reports  suggest  that 
the  Soviets  had  little  success  with  the  seiners 
they  deployed.  In  1986,  the  Soviets 
reportedly  expressed  an  interest  in 
establishing  further  joint  ventures  with 
Colombian  companies,  but  details  are  not 
available. 

In  1993,  the  Colombian  company, 
Frigomarina,  Ltda.,  is  leasing  four  Russian 
vessels.  They  are  the  Shilale  and  Ramigala 
which  are  LAUKUVA-class  (359  GRT) 
trawlers  and  the  Mureks  and  Marginella  which 
are  TIBIYA-class  (597  GRT)  tuna  clippers." 

Cuba:  The  Russian  Federation  still  maintains 
close  contacts  with  the  Cuban  Fisheries 
Ministry  (MIPES),  but  not  as  extensively  as 
did  the  former  Soviet  Union.  The  Cubans  are 
primarily  concerned  with  the  sharp  cuts  in 
diesel  fuel  supplies,  but  the  Russian 
Federation  places  much  less  importance  on  its 
Cuban  relationship  than  did  the  former  Soviet 
Union  and  is  unwilling  to  continue  the 
massive  Soviet  subsidies.  The  Russian 
Committee  on  Fisheries,  however,  continues 
to  maintain  a  fisheries  attache  office  in 
Havana." 

Falkland  Islands:  In  1992,  the  Russian 
Government  continued  the  Soviet  Falklands 
policy  and  did  not  apply  for  Falklands  fishing 
licenses.  In  1993,  several  Russian  companies 
made  inquiries  to  Falkland  Island  officials 
about  applying  for  Falkland  Islands 
Government  (FIG)  licenses  in  the  future.  In 
addition,  the  fact  that  the  Soviet-Argentine 
bilateral  fisheries  agreement  expired  in  1993 
and  was  not  renewed  by  the  Russian 
Federation  suggests  that  Russia  may  decide  to 
deviate  from  the  Soviet  policy  and  obtain  FIG 
licenses." 


Panama:  Russian  companies  have  reportedly 
registered  many  merchant  and  fishing  vessels 
under     the     Panamanian     flag.  These 

registrations  appear  to  have  been  carried  out 
by  various  groups  with  little  or  no  regulation 
because  of  the  ill-defined  status  of  the  former 
Soviet  state  fishing  companies.**  Russian 
officials  complain  that  many  vessels  have 
been  transferred  to  foreign  flag  registry 
without  following  procedures  established 
under  Russian  law.*^  It  is  possible  that  some 
Russian  officials  who  have  transferred 
Government-owned  vessels  to  countries  like 
Panama,  now  have  a  personal  equity  interest 
in  the  vessels.  Notably,  the  Russians  have 
recently  transferred  10  refrigerated  fish 
transports  to  the  Panamanian  flag.  This 
appears  to  have  been  a  well-thought-out 
commercial  venture  as  the  vessels  are  some  of 
the  most  modern  fish  transports  in  the  Russian 
fishing  fleet;  two  were  built  as  recently  as 
1991-92.  It  is  unclear  if  these  vessels  are 
being  operated  as  a  Panamanian-Russian  joint 
venture,  or  if  the  vessels  have  been  registered 
in  Panama  while  still  primarily  servicing  the 
Russian  distant-water  fleet.  The  authors  have 
noted  reports  of  Taiwan  vessels  transshipping 
their  catch  in  the  southern  Atlantic  to 
Panamanian-flag  refrigerated  transports;** 
some  of  these  transport  vessels  may  be 
reflagged  Russian  fish  carriers. 

Peru:  The  USSR  and  Peru  signed  two 
bilateral  fishery  agreements  on  December  6, 
1988:  a  bilateral  protocol  and  a  joint  venture 
contract  under  that  protocol.  The  two 
documents  gave  Soviet  fishing  vessels  access 
to  Peruvian  fishery  stocks  for  the  first  time 
since  1986  when  the  first  Soviet-Peruvian 
joint  fishery  venture  expired.  The  Peruvian 
Government  canceled  the  Soviet-Peruvian 


112 


joint  venture  (between  the  Soviet  Northern 
Fisheries  Administration,  SEVRYBA,  and  the 
Peruvian  state-owned  fisheries  marketing 
company,  EPSEP)  in  1991,  and  forced  the 
Soviets  out  of  Peruvian  coastal  waters. 
However,  unconfirmed  reports  suggest  that  at 
least  some  Russian  fishing  continued  off  Peru 
as  late  as  December  1992.""  Current 
information  on  Russian-Peruvian  bilateral 
fishery  relations  is  not  available. 

B.  ASIA  AND  OCEANIA 

Australia:  A  Russian-Australian  joint  venture 
(J/V),  Holding  Industry,  has  been  established 
in  Sydney  between  the  Nakhodka  Fishing 
Fleet  Base  and  unknown  Australian  interests. 
The  goal  of  the  J/V  is  to  process  Australian, 
and  later  possibly  New  Zealand,  fishery 
resources  for  export.  The  Russian  side  will 
provide  vessels  and  crews  for  fishing 
operations,  while  the  Australian  side  will 
provide  access  to  the  Australian  EEZ,  as  well 
as  fuel,  foodstuffs  and  other  supplies  for  the 
Russian  fishermen.  One  Nakhodka  trawler, 
Argonit,  began  operations  in  the  Australian 
EEZ  which  is  reportedly  the  first  fishing  ever 
conducted  by  either  the  Russians  or  the 
Soviets  in  the  Australian  zone.™ 

In  early  May  1993,  the  Director  General 
of  DALRYBA,  the  Far  Eastern  Fisheries 
Company,  Yuriy  I.  Moskaltsov,  visited 
Australia  to  negotiate  a  joint  venture  named 
Austral ia-Vostok,  Ltd.  The  Russians  are 
proposing  to  use  the  information  which  they 
have  collected  on  the  fishery  stocks  in  the 
Australian  200-mile  zone  in  exchange  for 
access  to  these  stocks  for  a  limited  number  of 
Russian  vessels.  Several  other  projects  have 
also  been  proposed,  including  one  to 
modernize  a  DALRYBA  stern  factory  trawler 
in  an  Australian  shipyard;  the  vessel  would 
then  fish  for  Pacific  pilchard  and  saury,  can 


the  fish,  and  deliver  it  to  Australian  markets. 
After  offloading  the  canned  fish,  the  vessel 
would  accept  a  delivery  of  frozen  meat  and 
can  it  on  the  return  trip  to  Vladivostok  where 
it  would  be  sold  on  the  Russian  market.^' 

Two  new  Australian  joint  ventures  in 
Primorskii  Krai  are  also  engaged  in  fishing- 
related  operations:  Kvintod  Flai  Co.,  Ltd.  is 
involved  in  fishing  and  fish  processing,  as 
well  as  timber  processing;  and  Paulus,  which 
is  partnered  with  DALRYBA,  will  catch  and 
process  fish  and  squid.  Details  on  the 
activities  of  these  two  ventures  are  currently 
unavailable. '' 

Another  Russian-Australian  J/V,  between 
the  fishing  collective  LENINETS  from  the 
Khabarovsk  Region  and  the  Australian 
company  "Emerald  Fishers,"  concluded  a 
contract  to  modernize  4  LENINETS  vessels  in 
the  Singapore  shipyard  ATLANTIS.  When 
the  J/V  went  bankrupt,  three  vessels  were 
sequestered  at  the  shipyard,  while  the  fourth 
one  disappeared.  It  was  eventually  caught  by 
INTERPOL  in  Australia  —  repainted,  carrying 
false  documents,  and  flying  a  Honduran 
flag." 

China:  The  former  Soviet  Union  and  the 
People's  Republic  of  China  signed  a  bilateral 
fisheries  agreement  in  1988  which  established 
cooperation  between  the  Soviet  Far  Eastern 
Fisheries  Administration  and  the  China 
National  Fisheries  Corporation.  Technical 
exchanges  have  taken  place  in  the  fields  of 
harvesting,  aquaculture  (particularly  of 
seaweed),  processing,  and  fishing  vessel 
repair.  ^'' 

At  the  most  recent  meeting  of  the  joint 
Russian-Chinese  Commission  on  Fishing  held 
in  Moscow  in  December  1992,  an  agreement 
was  reached  on  the  construction  of  a  scientific 


113 


research  center  for  seafood  products  in 
Russia.  The  project  will  be  operated  by  the 
Russian  company  PRIMAKVAPROM,  from 
Vladivostok,  and  an  unnamed  Chinese  fish- 
processing  company.  The  main  objective  of 
the  center  will  be  to  promote  harvests  of 
seaweed,  king  crab,  scallops,  oysters,  sea 
cucumbers,  and  other  underexploited  species 
through  modern  scientific  research.  A 
Chinese  company  will  design  and  construct 
the  center.  In  compensation,  China  will 
receive  a  1,000  t  fish  catch  allocation  in  1993 
and  1994  of  an  unknown  species. 
Construction  is  scheduled  to  begin  in  1994.^^ 

Indonesia:  The  Khabarovsk  Region  kolkhoz, 
PAMIAT  LENINA,  leased  two  seiners  to  the 
Russo-Indonesian  J/V  VLADSINMETHOD, 
LTD.  for  100  days  of  shrimp  and  lobster 
fishing  in  the  Indonesian  economic  zone.  The 
contract,  however,  was  apparently  invalid  and 
the  vessels  were  seized  in  July  1992  by  the 
Indonesian  Coast  Guard  for  illegal  fishing.  In 
February  1993,  the  vessels  were  still  being 
held  in  the  Indonesian  port  Merauke,  while 
the  33  Khabarovsk  fishermen  were  finally 
released  in  January  and  flown  back  to 
Russia.^* 

Japan:  Japanese  and  Soviet/Russian 
fishermen  fish  in  each  other's  zone  under  an 
annual  bilateral  fisheries  agreement.  Under 
the  1993  Agreement,  non-fee  quotas  were  set 
for  both  countries  at  171,000  t,  an  11,000  t 
decrease  from  1992.  An  additional  18,000  t 
(down  12,000  t  from  1992)  was  allocated  to 
Japan  for  a  $5.9  million  cooperation  fee,  the 
same  as  in  1992.  Japanese  negotiators 
reportedly  requested  that  1993  allocations 
remain  the  same  as  in  1992,  but  Russia  was 
determined  to  significantly  decrease  Japanese 
allocations  because  of  allegedly  depleted 
Alaska  pollock,  cod,  and  flatfish  stocks  in  the 
northwestern  Pacific.^' 


With  the  dissolution  of  the  former  Soviet 
Union,  the  number  of  Russia  (former  Soviet 
Union)-Japan  joint  fishery  ventures  doubled 
from  7  in  1989  to  14  in  1991.  They  involve 
a  wide  range  of  activities,  from  herring  roe 
processing  to  crab  pot  fishing.  Other  joint 
ventures  in  Russian  waters  include  joint 
fishing  operations  for  Pacific  cod  and  hair 
crab,  purchases  of  Alaska  pollock  at  sea  from 
Russian  fishing  vessels,  and  joint  seaweed  and 
sea  urchin  harvesting  off  Kaigarajima  Island 
off  Hokkaido.  The  purchase  of  Alaska 
pollock  at  sea  from  Russian  vessels  has 
provided  a  significant  supply  for  the  Japanese 
market,  annually  ranging  between  5,000  to 
70,000  tons  since  1987. 

The  largest  of  these  joint  ventures, 
Pilenga  Godo,  involves  several  Japanese  firms 
which  are  assisting  Russian  companies  in 
salmon  hatchery  development.  In  July  1993, 
the  Russian-Japanese  joint  venture,  Pilenga 
Godo,  will  begin  the  construction  of  its  fifth 
Kamchatka  hatchery,  called  Ketkino.  The 
hatchery  is  expected  to  be  fully  operational  by 
the  end  of  1993.'* 

Day-to-day  bilateral  fishery  matters  are 
handled  by  a  three-man  Office  of  the 
Fisheries  Attache  in  Tokyo. 

New  Zealand:  The  Nakhodka  High-seas 
Fishing  Company  (BAMR)  and  the  New 
Zealand  company,  Geo-Scales,  established  a 
joint  venture  company  called  "BAMR-Scales 
Pacific"  in  New  Zealand.  The  Russians  have 
contributed  50  percent  of  the  capital 
investment  with  the  ATLANTIK-class  stern 
factory  trawler,  the  Poet,  which  will  fish  for 
pautassou  off  New  Zealand  in  the  southern 
part  of  the  Pacific  Ocean.  The  J/V  will  also 
assist  Nakhodka  fishermen  in  finding  other 
joint  venture  partners,  offer  shiphandler 
services,  supply  and  repair  Russian  vessels  in 


114 


New  Zealand,  and  obtain  logistical  support 
for  its  operations  in  the  nearby  fishing 
grounds  of  Australia  and  Oceania." 

North  Korea  (Democratic  Peoples  Republic 
of  Korea,  or  DPRK):  in  November  1992, 
during  the  sixth  meeting  of  the  DPRK-Russian 
Joint  Committee  on  Cooperation  in  Fisheries 
in  Pyongyang,  a  bilateral  fisheries  cooperation 
agreement  was  signed  between  the  Director  of 
the  DPRK  General  Bureau  for  Pelagic 
Fisheries  of  the  State  Fisheries  Commission, 
Han  Yong-on,  and  the  Director  of  the  Far 
Eastern  Fisheries  Administration 
(DALRYBA)  of  the  Russian  Committee  on 
Fisheries,  Yuriy  I.  Moskaltsov/"  The  details 
of  this  agreement  are  not  known. 

In  July  1989,  a  joint  venture  was 
reportedly  established  between  an  unnamed 
fishery  collective  (kolkhoz)  in  Primorskii  Krai 
and  an  unspecified  North  Korean  company  to 
harvest  and  market  sea  urchin.*' 

In  1990,  the  Soviets  became  irritated  by 
the  fact  that  North  Korean  vessels  not  only 
fished  illegally  in  areas  of  the  Sea  of 
Okhotsk  and  off  Kamchatka,  but  also  sold  a 
part  of  their  catch  quota,  mostly  Alaska 
pollock,  to  Japanese  vessels  and  even  allowed 
them  to  fly  the  North  Korean  flag  to  harvest 
the  fish.  In  May  1990,  Soviet  enforcement 
patrols  reportedly  seized  12  Japanese  vessels 
disguised  as  North  Korean  vessels.  The 
Soviets  fined  and  confiscated  the  vessels  and 
arrested  the  crews. ^- 

In  February  1991,  a  South  Korean  source 
alleged  that  at  the  bilateral  fishery  talks,  the 
Soviets  refused  to  allocate  any  quota  to  the 
North  Koreans,  but  would  allow  them  to 
catch  30,000  t  of  Alaska  pollock  for  a  fee. 
The  North  Koreans,  however,  were  allowed 
to  sell  their  quota  to  other  parties  (presumably 


the  Japanese)  and,  in  addition,  were  allocated 
30,000  t  of  sardines  so  that  the  Korean 
vessels  could  remain  deployed  in  Soviet 
waters  and  their  fishermen  employed.**''  It  is 
impossible  to  verify  this  information  and  it  is 
reported  here  as  relata  refero. 

In  1992,  Russia  officially  decreased  the 
North  Korean  fishing  quota  in  the  Russian 
Northwest  Pacific  fishery  to  only  60,000  t  of 
fish,  a  major  drop  from  the  200,000  t  that  the 
Koreans  previously  received.*^ 

In  February  1993,  the  fishing  association 
DALMOREPRODUKT  of  Vladivostok 
established  a  joint  venture  with  the  small 
North  Korean  town  of  Simpho. 
DALMOREPRODUKT  will  provide  raw  fish 
and  cans  to  a  fish-processing  factory  in 
Simpho  (which  was  earlier  modernized  with 
Russian  equipment)  and  the  finished  product 
will  be  sold  to  "Sadko",  a  Russian-French  J/V 
which  will  market  it  in  Western  Europe.**^ 

Republic  of  Korea  (South  Korea,  or  ROK): 

In  February  1992,  representatives  from  the 
ROK  and  Russia  signed  a  bilateral  agreement 
in  Seoul  regulating  fishing  in  the  Sea  of 
Okhotsk.  In  exchange  for  30,000  metric  tons 
of  squid,  pollock,  and  saury  caught  in  Russian 
waters,  Korea  will  supply  Russia  with  the 
same  quantity  of  mackerel,  scad,  and 
sardines,  or  it  will  provide  Russian  vessels 
with  supplies  and  technical  support.*'*' 

The  ROK  and  the  Russian  Federation 
signed  another  bilateral  fisheries  agreement  in 
September  1992.  Under  this  agreement,  each 
side  is  granted  access  to  the  other's  waters; 
joint  ventures  are  encouraged  in  fishing, 
processing,  and  aquaculture.  Joint  resource 
assessment  research  is  also  being  planned.  In 
particular,  Russian  officials  hope  for  ROK 
investment  in  onshore  processing  and  cold 


115 


storage  plants  in  exchange  for  granting  ROK 
vessels  access  to  fisheries  in  Russian  waters. 

The  ROK  North  Pacific  trawler  fleet 
received  Alaska  pollock  allocations  within  the 
Russian  EEZ  in  1992  and  1993,  but  has  so  far 
managed  only  a  negligible  pollock  catch  in 
Russian  waters.  ROK  vessels  were  given 
Alaska  pollock  allocations  in  the  waters  of  the 
disputed  Northern  Territories  in  1992  which 
prompted  the  Japanese  Government  to  urge 
the  ROK  to  respect  the  Japanese  claim  to  the 
territories,  and  thus  the  ROK  actually  caught 
very  little  Alaska  pollock  in  Russian  waters  in 
1992.  In  1993,  the  ROK  was  given  an 
allocation  in  the  Russian  EEZ  of  150,000  t, 
but  the  inability  of  the  two  sides  to  reach 
quick  agreement  on  fees  has  resulted  in 
limited  ROK  fishing  within  Russian  waters. 

ROK  fishing  companies  first  formed  joint 
ventures  with  former  Soviet  organizations  in 
1989  allowing  them  over-the-side  purchases  in 
Russian  waters  of  Russian-caught  fish.  By 
1991,  as  many  as  12  ROK  companies  with  23 
vessels  were  participating  in  these  joint 
ventures.  The  Korean  captains  purchased  an 
estimated  90,000  t  of  Alaska  pollock,  up  one- 
half  from  the  61,000  t  purchased  in  1990.  A 
total  of  25  ROK  vessel  owners  were  expected 
to  purchase  1 10,000  t  of  Russian  fish  through 
these  arrangements  in  1992."  Final  annual 
results,  however,  are  not  available. 

The  giant  ROK  multinational  corporation 
Samsung  has  signed  a  3-year  contract  (August 
1991 -July  1994)  to  purchase  Russia-origin 
Alaska  pollock  from  the  SOVRYBFLOT 
company.  Samsung  plans  to  process  the 
Alaska  pollock  in  China  and  Thailand  where 
labor  is  inexpensive  and  sell  the  product  in 
the  United  States.  Samsung  will  pay 
SOVRYBFLOT  $6  million  per  year  for  8,000 
t  of  Alaska  pollock,  or  about  $760/ton.** 


Cooperation  between  the  ROK  and  Russia 
is  also  taking  place  in  fisheries  science  and 
technology.  At  a  conference  held  in  April 
1992,  Russia  agreed  to  provide  krill 
processing  expertise  in  exchange  for  ROK 
salmon  hatchery  technology. 

Russian  and  ROK  officials  reached 
agreement  on  several  additional  fishery 
cooperation  projects  during  meetings  held  in 
Seoul  in  March  1993.  Joint  projects  include 
surveys  of  the  Alaska  pollock  resource  in  the 
"peanut  hole";  an  assessment  of  cuttlefish 
resources  in  the  waters  of  the  two  countries, 
research  and  tests  of  trawling  gear,  and  the 
exchange  of  marine  fishery  science 
information  and  scientists."' 

The  ROK  fishing  industry  badly  needs 
access  to  Russian  waters,  especially  as  an 
alternative  for  ROK  vessels  that  lost  access  to 
U.S.  and  "donut  hole"  waters.  Future 
expansion  of  this  relationship,  however,  is 
being  threatened  by  the  reportedly 
unreasonable  price  demands  and  contract 
terms  demanded  by  Russian  joint  venture 
partners.  Russia's  determination  to  close  the 
"peanut  hole"  to  foreign  fishing  has  also 
deterred  cooperation. 

In  early  1993,  a  new  Russian-ROK  joint 
venture,  "PreHan  Enterprises  Company,"  was 
established  between  the  Preobrazhenie*' 
Trawling  Fleet  and  an  unknown  Korean 
company.  The  J/V  is  already  engaging  in 
fishing  operations  in  the  Russian  EEZ  using 
the  quota  allocations  of  the  Russian  partner. 
The  Korean  company  provided  the  necessary 
supplies  and  provisions  for  the  J/V  fishermen, 
the  fuel  tanker ing  and  transshipment  of 
production,  and  the  selling  of  landed  fish  and 
fishery  products  on  foreign  markets.*^' 


116 


In  September  1993,  a  new  joint  venture 
called  "SOFKO"  was  registered  in  the  city  of 
Nakhodka  in  the  Russian  Far  East.  The 
venture  partners  are  the  Russian  kolkhoz 
Tikhii  Okean  (Pacific  Ocean),  and  the  South 
Korean  companies  Samsung  and  Oyang 
Fisheries.  The  main  goals  of  the  J/V  will  be 
the  processing  and  selling  of  fishery  products, 
vessel  repair  and  construction,  and  the 
development  of  Nakhodka's  infrastructure.'- 
The  Koreans  are  taking  advantage  of 
Nakhodka's  status  as  a  Free  Economic  Zone 
(FEZ)  within  the  Russian  Federation  which 
means  that  the  J/V  is  exempt  from  certain 
taxes,  among  other  privileges. 

Taiwan:  The  former  Soviet  Union  had  few, 
if  any,  contacts  with  Taiwan  for  40  years. 
Yeltsin  reiterated  Russia's  official  view  of 
Taiwan  on  September  15,  1992,  emphasizing 
that  Taiwan  is  an  inalienable  part  of  China 
and  that  the  Russian  Federation  does  not 
maintain  official  inter-state  relations  with 
Taiwan.  Economic,  scientific,  and  other 
unofficial  ties  between  Russia  and  Taiwan  are 
carried  out  by  individual  citizens  and  non- 
governmental organizations.'-^  Russia, 
however,  has  been  downplaying  the 
significance  of  the  current  joint  ventures  to 
avoid  protests  by  the  People's  Republic  of 
China. 

The  Russian  Pacific  Scientific  Institute  of 
Fisheries  and  Oceanography  (TINRO)  and  the 
Taiwanese  June  Long  Fisheries  company 
signed  an  agreement  to  mount  an  expedition 
to  study  squid  and  fishery  stocks  in  the  South 
Kuril  island  area  starting  in  late  July  1992. 
The  joint  expedition  stemmed  from  the 
August  1991  bilateral  fishery  talks  between 
Russia  and  Taiwan  at  which  both  sides  agreed 
to  cooperate  in  squid,  cod,  and  saury 
harvesting,  processing,  and  research.  The 
signed    agreement    also    allows    Taiwanese 


fishing  companies  access  to  Russian  waters 
against  the  payment  of  a  fee  and  it  provides 
for  access  to  Taiwanese  ports  for  maintenance 
and  repairs  of  Russian  fishery  vessels. 

The  Overseas  Fisheries  Development 
Council  signed  a  memorandum  of 
understanding  with  the  SOVRYBFLOT 
organization  in  August  1991  allowing  Taiwan 
vessels  to  fish  in  the  waters  off  Sakhalin 
Island  and  the  Kamchatka  Peninsula.  The 
catch  in  the  former  Soviet  zone,  however, 
was  not  very  profitable  and  so  the  venture 
was  not  renewed  when  it  expired  on 
November  15,  1992.  There  are  no 
indications  that  Taiwan  will  seek  future  access 
to  the  Russian  EEZ  in  the  near  future.""* 

Thailand:  A  new  joint  venture  was  reportedly 
established  in  Sakhalin  between  an  unknown 
Thai  fishing  company  and  a  local  Russian 
company  to  jointly  process  fishery  products.'^ 

C.  EUROPE 

Bulgaria:  The  former  Soviet  Union  concluded 
three  bilateral  agreements  with  Bulgaria.  (For 
full  details  see  the  Bulgaria  chapter.)  These 
agreements  were  likely  more  beneficial  to 
Bulgaria  than  to  the  USSR  as  the  Soviets  had 
more  to  offer  in  terms  of  equipment  and 
expertise,  but  they  also  served  a  political 
purpose. 

The  Russian  Federation,  the  successor 
state  to  the  USSR,  is  currently  renegotiating 
the  1978  Ocean  Fishing  Agreement  concluded 
between  the  USSR  and  Bulgaria.  The  final 
draft  of  the  agreement  has  not  yet  been 
completed  as  of  this  writing."'' 

In  June  1990,  a  Soviet-Bulgarian  joint 
venture.  SOZOPOL-Kamchatka,  was  created 
in     the     Russian     Far     Eastern     city     of 


117 


Petropavlovsk-Kamchatka.  The  founders  of 
the  J/V  were  the  Bulgarian  state  fishing 
company  RIBNO  STOPANSTVO  (its 
successor  in  the  venture  is  OKEANSKI 
RIBOLOV),  and  the  Russian  fisheries 
company  KAMCHATRYBPROM.  The  J/V 
leases  the  Bulgarian  trawler  Feniks  to  process 
fish  delivered  by  Kamchatkan  fishermen.'^  In 
May  1993,  the  vessel  was  undergoing 
maintenance  and  minor  repairs  in  the  shipyard 
docks  of  Petropavlovsk-Kamchatskii.'*  It  is 
rumored  that  the  Bulgarians  plan  to  sell  the 
vessel  to  a  Kamchatka  company  for  hard 
currency. 

Cyprus:  In  the  last  2  years,  Russia  reflagged 
to  Cyprus  9  Norwegian-built  large  stern 
factory  trawlers  (NEVELSK-class,  1,899 
CRT)  all  of  which  were  built  in  1990  and 
1991,  and  I  East  German-built  refrigerated 
cargo  vessel  (KARL  LIBKNEKHT  class, 
11,755  CRT)  built  in  1990.  The  U.S.  Navy 
lists  the  KARL  LIBKNEKHT  and  at  least  2 
of  the  NEVELSKs  as  still  owned  by  Russia. 

Denmark:  The  City  Council  of  St.  Petersburg 
has  recently  requested  the  help  of  the  Danish 
Government  in  maintaining  the  city 
orphanages.  The  Danes  responded  by 
donating  canned  herring  which  is  trucked 
directly  to  the  City  Council  (under  guard). 
These  goods  are  then  sold  and  the  proceeds 
assigned  to  the  budget  for  the  orphans. 

Faroe  Islands:  Russia  recently  concluded  a 
bilateral  fisheries  access  agreement  with  the 
Faroe  Islands  giving  Russian  fishermen  a 
1993  catch  quota  of  140,000  t  of  blue  whiting 
in  the  Faroese  200-mile  zone.  In  exchange, 
the  Faroese  fishermen  received  1993  catch 
quotas  of  30,000  t  of  various  species  they 
could  catch  in  Russian  waters.'*'* 


Greenland:  Greenland  suspended  plans  for  a 
bilateral  fisheries  agreement  with  the  Soviet 
Union  on  January  13,  1991,  following  the 
aggressive  actions  of  the  Soviet  military  in 
Lithuania. 

After  the  disintegration  of  the  Soviet 
Union  in  December  1991,  however, 
Greenland  renewed  talks  with  Russia  in 
Copenhagen.  An  agreement  was  signed  by 
Russia,  Greenland,  and  Denmark  on  February 
24,  1992.  The  agreement  provides  for  joint 
fishing  in  Greenland's  and  the  Barents  Sea's 
fishing  zones  with  a  1992  catch  allocation  of 
about  40,000  metric  tons.  These  allocations 
were  divided  up  as  follows:  the  Greenlanders 
have  obtained  an  8,500  metric  tons  (t)  catch 
quota  in  the  Barents  Sea  (mostly  cod, 
haddock,  plaice,  and  3,000  t  of  shrimp).  In 
return,  the  Russian  fishermen  have  obtained 
31,400  t  of  fish  in  Greenland's  (Danish)  200- 
mile  zone.  The  most  important  species 
allocated  to  the  Russians  were:  blue  whiting 
(10,000  t),  ocean  perch  (9,000  t),  and 
Greenland  halibut  (6,000  t).  In  addition,  the 
Russians  have  committed  themselves  to  sell 
Greenland  in  1992  at  least  4,000  t  of  cod, 
which  would  be  helpful  to  the  Greenland  fish 
processing  industry;  several  fish  processing 
plants  have  experienced  severe  shortages  of 
cod  deliveries. '°° 

Norway:  In  March  1992,  Norway  and  Russia 
signed  an  umbrella  agreement  in  Oslo 
regarding  bilateral  cooperation  in  fisheries, 
research,  and  environmental  protection.  The 
two  sides  agreed  to  cooperate  in  the 
preservation  and  rational  use  of  marine  life  in 
the  Barents  Sea,  in  the  prevention  of  oil 
pollution  in  the  Barents  Sea,  and  in  promptly 
notifying  the  other  of  nuclear  accidents.  The 
two  sides  also  agreed  to  cooperate  in  polar 
research  of  the  Arctic  and  to  open  a  Russian 
Federation  Consulate  General  in  Tromso  and 


118 


Norwegian  General  Consulates  in  St. 
Petersburg  and  Murmansk.  Under  this 
umbrella  agreement,  the  leaders  of  Norway's 
Finnmark  Province  and  of  the  Arkhangelsk 
Region  met  in  Arkhangelsk  in  June  1992. 
They  agreed  to  create  joint  ventures  in  salmon 
farms,  hatcheries,  and  feed  production,  as 
well  as  in  fishery  processing  plants.  '"' 

During  a  visit  of  Russian  Foreign 
Minister  Andrei  KOZYREV  to  Norway  in 
1991,  it  was  agreed  to  renew  discussions 
concerning  the  demarcation  of  the  maritime 
boundary,  the  economic  zones  and  the 
continental  shelf  in  the  Barents  Sea.  In  1926. 
the  former  USSR  unilaterally  established  a 
boundary  in  the  Barents  Sea  which  Norway 
never  recognized.  Negotiations  between 
Russia  and  Norway  on  this  problem  have 
been  ongoing  for  two  decades,  but  only  in 
early  1993  was  a  preliminary  agreement 
reached  on  the  boundary  in  the  "northern 
part"  (probably  the  area  around  the  Svalbard 
Islands)  of  the  Barents  Sea.  Further 
discussion  will  center  on  a  relatively  small, 
but  economically  vital  area  in  the  Barents 
Sea.'o^ 

In  February  1993,  the  major  issue 
discussed  by  the  Foreign  Ministers  of  Norway 
and  the  Russian  Federation  in  respect  to  the 
Barents  Sea  was  the  problem  of  overfishing. 
The  Ministers  agreed  to  try  to  preserve 
fishery  stocks  in  the  Barents  Sea  by  increasing 
controls  on  fishing  activity  by  both  sides. "'^ 

The  aquaculture  section  of  the  Murmansk 
Fisheries  Administration  and  Norway's  Polar 
Industries  Association  have  agreed  to  establish 
a  50/50  joint  venture  called  Kolnor 
Association.  The  joint  venture  will  culture 
cod  taken  at  sea  by  Russian  trawlers.  Six 
sites  in  northern  Norway  and  in  the 
Murmansk  region  of  northern  Russia  have 


been  selected  for  the  construction  of  sea  pens, 
round  cages  with  a  40-meter  diameter  and  a 
capacity  of  12,000  cubic  meters.  The  first 
pens  will  be  built  in  Kongfjord,  Norway, 
where  a  good  infrastructure,  transportation 
links,  processing  plants,  well-trained  workers, 
and  good  harbor  facilities  exist. "^ 

Romania:  In  February  1978,  Romania  and 
the  Soviet  Union  signed  in  Bucharest  a 
bilateral  fisheries  cooperation  agreement  (see 
appendix  8  in  Romania  chapter  of  this 
volume).  The  5-year  agreement'"^  established 
a  Joint  Commission  to  meet  at  least  once  each 
year  alternately  in  Bucharest  and  Moscow. 
The  Commission  would  coordinate  the 
exchange  of  fishery  experts  and  the  results  of 
exploratory  and  other  fishery  research;  it 
would  also  organize  technical  conferences, 
etc.  One  of  its  most  important  provisions  was 
the  coordination  of  Romanian  and  Soviet 
high-seas  fisheries  in  various  world  oceans.'"* 
Whether  this  agreement  was  continued  by  the 
Russian  Federation  is  not  known. 

D.  AFRICA  &  MIDDLE  EAST 

The  Gambia:  The  fishery  relations  between 
the  Russian  Federation  (or  form.er  Soviet 
Union)  and  the  Gambian  Government  are  not 
fully  known.  According  to  a  June  1993 
report  by  the  U.S.  Embassy  in  Banjul,  4 
Kaliningrad  fishing  vessels  have  been  issued 
licenses  to  fish  within  the  Gambian  FEZ. 
Since  the  Gambian  Government  currently 
lacks  fisheries  enforcement  capabilities,  it 
cannot  be  excluded  that  additional  Russian 
vessels  are  fishing  in  that  country's  EEZ. 

Morocco:  The  former  Soviet  Union 
concluded  a  fisheries  agreement  with  the 
Government  of  Morocco  in  1991  and  obtained 
a  large  annual  catch  quota  (850,000  tons)  in 
the  Moroccan  200-mile  zone.     The  Russian 


119 


Federation  renegotiated  the  former  Soviet 
accord  in  early  1992  and  managed  to  conclude 
a  draft  agreement  allowing  its  fishermen  to 
net  400,000  t  of  sardines  and  mackerel  each 
year  for  the  next  three  years. '°^ 

On  August  28,  1992,  Russia  and  Morocco 
signed  a  bilateral  fisheries  cooperation 
agreement  allowing  the  Russian  fleets  to  fish 
off  southern  Morocco.  The  three-year  accord 
replaced  an  earlier  agreement  that  was 
concluded  with  the  Soviet  Union.  The  new 
agreement  requires  Russian  vessels  to  respect 
several  conditions  set  by  the  Moroccan 
Government  to  regulate  Russian  fishing  and 
ensure  financial  compensation  to  Morocco. 
In  addition,  under  the  terms  of  the  agreement, 
the  two  countries  must  observe  a  moratorium 
on  fishing  for  2  months  each  year  to  allow  the 
stocks  to  reproduce. '"* 

Namibia:  The  Soviet  fleets  have  been  fishing 
off  Southwest  Africa  (as  Namibia  was  called 
before  its  independence)  since  the  1960s. 
Immediately  prior  to  1990,  when  the  fisheries 
off  Namibia  were  still  controlled  by  the 
Republic  of  South  Africa  under  the  UN 
Trusteeship,  the  USSR's  was  one  of  the 
largest  fleets  fishing  for  hake  and  horse 
mackerel.'"^  After  Namibia  declared  a 
moratorium  on  all  foreign  fishing  within  its 
200-mile  zone  in  1991,  foreign  vessel  owners 
began  to  form  joint  ventures  with  Namibian 
companies  to  whom  the  Namibian 
Government  granted  the  catch  quotas.  The 
Namibian  concessionaires  effectively  sell  their 
quotas  to  foreign  vessel  owners  by  chartering 
their  vessels.  Joint  ventures  between  foreign 
fishing  companies  and  local  entrepreneurs  are 
also  common.  This  increasingly  complex 
structure  of  interlocking  front  companies 
makes  ultimate  vessel  ownership  difficult  to 
identify."" 


Nigeria:  The  Nigerian  Government  has  had 
no  negotiations  on  access  fisheries  with  the 
Russian  Federation,  reports  the  U.S.  Embassy 
in  Lagos.'" 

Yemen:  With  the  reunification  of  Yemen,  the 
new  Republic  of  Yemen  is  disposing  of  the 
state-owned  fishing  industry  of  the  former 
People's  Democratic  Republic  of  Yemen. 
This  includes  the  joint  Yemeni-Soviet  fishing 
company  which  will  be  disbanded.  The 
Soviet  Union  contributed  $140  million  in  aid, 
which  was  spent  on  developing  a  large-scale, 
state-owned  fishery  with  35  Soviet-built 
trawlers  and  seiners,  several  cold  storage 
plants,  modernization  of  the  Aden  fishing 
port,  and  two  canneries.  The  Soviet-made 
vessels  are  now  too  costly  to  maintain  and 
operate,  and  with  the  breakup  of  the  Soviet 
Union,  it  is  difficult  to  get  spare  parts.  Only 
two  of  the  vessels  are  reportedly  worth 
operating;  the  others  will  be  either  sold  or 
scrapped."^ 

E.  NORTH  AMERICA 

United  States:  The  United  States  and  the 
Russian  Federation  cooperate  on  fishery 
matters  through  their  Agreement  on  Mutual 
Fisheries  Relations  that  entered  into  force  on 
October  28,  1988.  The  current  Agreement, 
which  expired  on  October  28,  1993,  provided 
fishermen  reciprocal  access  to  the  200-mile 
zones  of  each  country  and  served  as  a  forum 
within  which  to  discuss  issues  of  mutual 
concern.  Steps  to  extend  the  agreement  are 
being  taken  by  both  sides. 

Several  issues  of  great  concern  to  fishery 
interests  of  the  two  countries  are  being 
discussed  intensively  under  the  Agreement  on 
Mutual  Fisheries  Relations.  One  is  the 
conservation  of  salmonids  in  the  North 
Pacific.     The  other  is  the  management  of 


120 


North  Pacific  fishery  resources.  The  two 
sides  established  a  bilateral  "Bering  Sea 
Fisheries  Advisory  Body"  that  has  assessed 
the  status  and  trends  of  pollock  resources, 
including  those  involved  in  the  unregulated 
pollock  fisheries  by  third  parties  in  the 
Central  Bering  Sea  (the  so-called  "donut  hole" 
area).  This  action  has  fed  into  a  continuing 
political  initiative  to  develop  an  appropriate 
management  regime  for  the  donut  hole. 

Large  Soviet  direct  fishing  activities  in 
the  U.S.  EEZ,  which  were  curtailed  by 
President  Carter  in  January  1980  (following 
the  Soviet  invasion  of  Afghanistan  in 
December  1979),  were  not  resumed  in  the 
1980s.  Soviet  fishermen  landed  only  6,649  t 
(against  an  allocation  of  12,708  t)  of  Atlantic 
mackerel  in  1989.  No  direct  allocations  in 
the  Atlantic  have  been  given  to  Soviet/Russian 
fishermen  since  1989.  The  Soviets  had  no 
direct  catch  allocations  in  the  Pacific  after 
1987. 

U.S.  companies  concluded,  during  the  last 
three  decades,  several  joint  fishery  ventures 
with  Russian  companies. 

Day-to-day  bilateral  fishery  matters  are 
handled  by  a  the  Office  of  the  Fisheries 
Attache  of  the  Russian  Federation  in 
Washington,  D.C.  which  is  attached  to  the 
Russian  Embassy. 

Canada:  Time  constraints  did  not  permit  the 
necessary  research  to  describe  the  extensive 
and  traditionally  good  relations  between  the 
former  Soviet  Union/Russian  Federation  and 
Canada. 


Vn.  OUTLOOK 


Russia  is  experiencing  a  transitional 
period  of  economic  and  political  development 
which  has  heavily  impacted  the  fishing 
industry. 

Economic  reforms  which  were  stalled  in 
Russia  have  recently  received  a  boost  by 
favorable  political  developments.  In  the 
future,  more  privatization  can  be  expected. 
The  government  will  discontinue  supporting 
unprofitable  companies  because  of  limited 
budget  funds.  Planned  output  which  used  to 
be  the  alpha  and  omega  of  the  Soviet 
economy  (often  without  much  regard  for 
consumers)  will  no  longer  be  of  any  use.  The 
objective  now  is  to  cover  operating  costs  to 
survive  and  maximize  profits  in  order  to 
modernize  existing  equipment  and  buy  new 
vessels,  gear,  processing  plants,  and  other 
materials. 

In  the  next  few  years,  it  is  likely  that 
Russia  will  limit  somewhat  its  far-flung, 
world-wide  operations.  Access  to  fishery 
resources  of  coastal  countries  will  become 
more  and  more  problematic  as  these  countries 
develop  their  own  fishing  industries.  Russian 
fishermen  have,  in  the  last  10-15  years,  lost 
important  fishing  grounds  off  Canada  and  the 
United  States  (which  are  now  exploited  almost 
exclusively  by  native  fishermen),  off  Namibia 
(where  the  newly  independent  country 
enforced  a  moratorium  on  foreign  fishing),  in 
the  international  waters  of  the  Bering  Sea 
(where  overfishing  led  to  an  international 
moratorium  on  the  Alaska  pollock  fishery  for 
1993  and  1994),  and  elsewhere. 

In  addition,  the  licensing  fees,  demanded 
by    coastal    countries    after    the    access    is 


121 


negotiated,  are  increasing  rapidly  and  are 
especially  burdensome  on  the  hard-currency- 
strapped  countries  of  the  former  Soviet 
Union.  Some  of  the  past  fishing  practices  of 
Soviet  fishermen  have  generated  considerable 
ill-will,  especially  in  African  countries.  They 
are  equally  wary  when  negotiating  with  the 
successor  states  to  the  USSR. 

Of  the  greatest  importance  will  be  the 
fisheries  research  inside  the  Russian  200-mile 
zone  which  was  neglected  in  the  past.  It  is 
this  zone  with  its  abundant  resources  that  will 
become  the  backbone  of  the  Russian  fishery 
landings  and  solid  research  is  needed  to  insure 
its  viability  and  continued  maximum 
sustainable  yield. 

Russian  exporters  will  have  to  carefully 
cultivate  foreign  markets.  In  the  past,  only 
the  most  valuable  commodities  were  exported: 
caviar,  salmon,  and  crab  products.  Recent 
privatization  and  the  loosening  of  central 
control  has  generated  a  veritable  exodus  of  all 
kinds  of  fishery  products.  Individual  vessels 
owners  have  been  dumping  their  catch  abroad 
at  low  prices  to  obtain  hard  currency.  These 
practices  have  caused  an  international  outcry 
and  led  to  blockades  at  fishing  ports  and  the 
destruction  of  imported  commodities  in 
Western  Europe  and  even  in  Poland  where 
local  angry  fishermen  prevented  Russian 
trawlers  from  selling  their  cod  at  one  quarter 
of  the  local  price. 

Russia's  distant-water  fleet,  the  largest  in 
the  world  in  terms  of  gross  tonnage,  will  have 
to  reduce  the  number  of  vessels  considerably 
to  cope  with  the  limited  access  to  suitable 
fishery  stocks.  Russia  will  probably  continue 
buying  fishery  vessels  abroad,  provided  the 
hard  currency  is  available.  In  the  past, 
during  the  Soviet  era,  hundreds  of  vessels 
were  built  in  East  Germany  and  Poland,  but 


in  the  last  2-3  years,  new  additions  to  the 
high-seas  fleet  have  come  mostly  from  West 
European  shipyards  in  Spain  and  Norway. 
These  are  state-of-the-art  vessels  with  the 
modern  equipment  and  fishing  gear. 

Despite  many  negatives,  Russia's  fishing 
industry  has  a  major  advantage:  large  and 
prolific  fishery  resources  in  its  Pacific  and 
Barents  Sea  bodies  of  water.  Endowed  with 
skilled  fishermen  and  adopting  free  market 
methodologies,  its  future  looks  bright  despite 
current  transitional  difficulties. 


SOURCES 


FAO.  Yearbook  of  Fishery  Statistics:  Catches  and 
Landings;  Rome,  various  years. 

GLOBEFISH.   "The  Fishery  Industry  during  the 
Transition  of  the  Former  USSR  to  CIS," 
FAO/GLOBEFISH Research  Programme.  Vol.  24. 
Rome:  FAO,  1993. 

Kravanja,  Milan.  "Soviet  and  Cuban  Fisheries  in  tlie 
Caribbean. "  Published  in:  Soviet  Seapower  in  the 
Caribbean;  Political  and  Strategic  Implications,  pp. 
135-163.  James  D.  Theberge,  Ed.,  Praeger,  New 
York,  1972.  (In  cooperation  with  the  Center  for 
Strategic  and  Inteniational  Studies,  Georgetown 
University.) 

Kravanja,  Milan.  "Tlie  Soviet  Fishing  Industry:  A 
Review".  Published  in:  Soviet  Oceans 
Development.    Prepared  for  die  U.S.  Senate 
Committee  on  Commerce,  94th  Congress,  2nd 
Session:  pp.377-462.  GPO,  Washington,  D.C., 
October  1976. 

Lloyd's  Register  of  Shipping.  Lloyd's  Register  of 
Shipping  Statistical  Tables.  London,  various  years. 

Lloyd's  Register  of  Shipping.  World  Fleet  Statistics  at 
31  December  1992.  London,  1993. 

U.S.  Navy,  Office  of  Naval  Intelligence,  July  1993. 


122 


ENDNOTES 


1.  In  1990,  tlie  gross  value  of  tlie  Russian  fisheries  output  was  estimated  by  GLOBEFISH  at  13.4  billion  rubles, 
or  over  US$  8.1  billion  (at  the  then  exchange  rate  of  US$  1.00  =  R  1.65).  Since  tlie  preparation  of  this  report 
"began  before  the  transformation  of  the  former  USSR  into  15  independent  states,"  it  is  not  clear  whether  this 
estimate  refers  to  the  Soviet  Union,  or  the  Russian  Federation.  The  figure  is  nevertheless  valuable  since  such 
figures  were  hard  to  obtain  in  the  over-secretive  USSR. 

2.  The  poor  results  in  fisheries  cost  the  then-Conmiissar  of  Fisheries,  Zhemchugina,  not  only  her  job,  but  also  her 
freedom.  She  was  arrested  and  interned  in  the  Siberian  GULAG  despite  tlie  fact  that  she  was  the  wife  of 
Vyacheslav  Molotov,  Stalin's  foreign  minister.    She  died  in  Moscow  in  1991. 

3.  The  acronym  BMRT  derives  from  the  Russian  name  for  these  vessels:  Bolshoi  Morozylniy  Rybolovnyi  Trauler 
(large  freezer  fishing  trawler). 

4.  Kravanja,  Milan.  "The  Soviet  Fishing  Industry:  A  Review".  Published  in:  Soviet  Oceans  Development.  Prepared 
for  the  U.S.  Senate  Committee  on  Commerce,  94th  Congress,  2nd  Session:  pp. 377-462.  GPO,  Washington,  D.C., 
October  1976. 

5.  Appendix  4  includes  100  classes  of  vessels  having  over  500  GRT  which  are  believed  to  be  engaged  in  high-seas 
fishing  and  30  classes  of  vessels  having  100-500  GRT  which  are  probably  engaged  in  coastal  fishing. 

6.  Priniorye  Fisherman,  27  August  1993. 

7.  The  duty  on  exports  of  fishery  products  which  previously  amounted  to  a  prohibitive  26  percent  of  the  value  of 
such  products,  has  been  reduced  to  10  percent  in  1993. 

8.  Kravanja,  Milan,op.  cit. 

9.  Japan,  USSR,  Spain,  United  States,  and  Norway  ~  they  were  selected  as  the  five  countries  with  the  largest 
fishing  gross  registered  tonnage. 

10.  This  number  is  taken  from  Lloyd's,  World  Fleet  Statistics  at  31  December  1992;  it  includes  fishing  vessels,  but 
excludes  fishery  support  vessels.  Tlie  vessels  listed  have  a  gross  registered  tonnage  of  at  least  100  tons,  but  most 
have  over  500  GRT,  a  number  that  denotes  high-seas  units. 

11.  The  entire  EC  fishery  support  fleet  of  22  vessels  has  only  a  total  tonnage  of  24,276  gross  tons,  according  to 
Lloyd's  World  Fleet  Statistics  at  31  December  1992. 

12.  These  data  are  also  taken  from  Lloyd's  World  Fleet  Statistics  at  31  December  1992.  Tliey  are  thus  comparable 
with  the  Russian  data. 

13.  To  avoid  any  confusion  in  reader's  minds:  fishing  vessels  are  tliose  vessels  that  actually  engage  in  catching  fish 
and  shellfish  or  harvest  other  aquatic  products  (e.g.,  seaweeds).  Fishery  support  vessels  are  those  that  support  the 
operations  of  fishing  vessels  (motherships,  tankers,  processing  vessels,  floating  factories,  fish  carriers,  etc.,  to 
mention  only  a  few).    Fishery  vessels  are  the  sum  of  fishing  and  fishery  support  vessels. 

14.  Both  figures  for  the  1992  catch  are  preliminary  and  they  include  tlie  freshwater  catch. 

15.  Vtro  Rossii  (Moscow),  29  April  1993. 


123 


16.  Kamchatka  Fisherman,  No.  19,  1993;  and  Rybatskie  Novosti  (Moscow),  No.  2,  January  1993. 

17.  Radio  Moscow,  3  August  1992. 

18.  Vladivostok,  8  August  1992;  and  Red  Banner,  26  November  1992. 

19.  Two  TROPIKs  still  survive  in  the  Uiaainian  registry  of  fishing  vessels. 

20.  Moscow  Radio,  2  February  1990;  and  Fishing  News  International  (London),  December  1989. 

21.  Fishing  News  International,  London  (FAT),  December  1991. 

22.  Eurofish  Report,  30  July  1992;  and  FNl,  March  1993. 

23.  FNl,  March  1993;  and  World  Fishing,  October  1993. 

24.  FNl,  August  1993. 

25.  This  vessel  is  apparently  owned  by  DALMOREPRODUKT,  a  Vladivostok  company. 

26.  World  Fishing,  October  1986;  Design  News,  9  February  1987;  FNl,  November  1987;  World  Fishing ,  July  1988; 
World  Fishing,  June  1989;  and  Soviet  Far  East  Update,  March  1991. 

27.  FNl.  November  1987;  and  Moscow  Radio,  17  February  1989. 

28.  Krasnoye  Znamya,  7  September  1993. 

29.  Russian  Far  East  Update,  August  1993;  and  Soviknes  Verft  AS,  Personal  Communication,  September  1993. 

30.  FNl,  April  1993. 

31.  Eurofish  Report,  2  July  1992. 

32.  FNl,  January  1993. 

33.  Their  names  are:  the  Admiral  Nevelskoi,  Mys  Lamanon,  Navarin,  Nevelsk.  Nordkapp.  Professor  Nansen,  Rybak, 
Vasilii  Goldvin,  and  Vitjus  Bering;  all  were  built  between  1990  and  1992. 

34.  U.S.  Navy.  Office  of  Naval  Intelligence,  30  July  1993. 

35.  Moscow  Radio,  20  October  1988,  1  January  1989  and  14  February  1989. 

36.  U.S.  Navy,  Office  of  Naval  Intelligence,  30  July  1993. 

37.  FNl,  March  1990. 

38.  FNl,  November  1991  and  January  1992. 

39.  FNl,  May  1993. 

40.  Primorye  Fisherman,  No.5  &  No. 7,  February  1993;  Vladivostok.  6  March  1993;  and  Utro  Rossii,  1 1  July  1993. 

124 


41.  FNl.  May  1993;  and  Russian  Far  East  Update,  May  1993. 

42.  This  vessel,  belonging  to  tlie  joint-stock  company,  Nevod  (a  spin-off  of  VBTRF),  was  detained  by  the  Maldives 
Coast  Guard  in  mid-March  1993,  on  an  Indian  Ocean  passage  to  Bangkok.  Mr.  Oleinik,  a  Deputy  Chief  of 
VBTRF,  claimed  that  the  vessel  was  only  passing  by  and  not  fishing.  Primorye  Fisherman,  No.  13,  April  1993. 
In  May  1993,  TASS  reported  that  the  Maldives  authorities  released  the  Tellina  after  discovering  that  it  was  not 
equipped  for  fishing,  but  was  in  reality  used  as  a  transport  vessel. 

43.  FNI,  June  1991,  September  1991,  and  October  1992.  The  only  vessel  matching  this  description  on  the  ONI  list 
of  Russian  vessels  is  the  Kaouri  (TIVELA  class,  1991,  2,129  GRT)  which  was  reflagged  to  Liberia,  but  is  still 
owned  by  Russia. 

44.  Information  for  this  section  was  collected  over  the  years  by  M.  Kravanja,  one  of  the  authors  of  this  report,  and 
was  verified  by  the  U.S.  Embassies  in  various  countries  at  the  end  of  1992. 

45.  Kamchatka  Fisherman,  30  October  1992. 

46.  U.S.  Embassy,  Buenos  Aires,  22  August  1993. 

47.  For  additional  information  see  the  Falkland  Islands  section  in  Vol.  IV  (Latin  America). 

48.  In  the  early  years  of  the  agreement,  the  Soviets  were  limited  to  18  vessels  and  180,000  t  per  year,  and  the 
Government  of  Argentina  was  paid  3  percent  of  the  export  value  of  the  catch.  In  1990,  the  limits  were  dropped 
to  15  vessels  and  150,000  t,  and  the  fee  was  raised  to  15  percent  of  the  export  value.  In  1991,  the  limits  were 
dropped  further,  10  vessels  and  100,000  t;  they  fell  to  5  vessels  and  50,000  tons  in  1992.  U.S.  Embassy,  Buenos 
Aires,  August  4,  1993. 

49.  For  details  on  the  agreement  see  Jacobson  and  Weidner,  "Argentine-Soviet  fishery  relations,"  op.  cit.,  and 
Jacobson  and  Weidner,  "Soviet-Latin  American  Fishery  Relations,  1961-89,"  International  Fishery  Reports,  (IFR- 
89/39),  May  5,  1989. 

50.  U.S.  Embassy,  Buenos  Aires,  August  4,  1993. 

51.  The  names  of  the  two  Russian- Argentine  joint  ventures  were:  Bospor  S.A.  and  Latar  S.A.,  according  to 
"Empresa  mixta  con  U.R.S.S.,"  Redes,  No.  57,  1991,  p.  60. 

52.  Moscow  World  Service  in  English,  26  October  1992. 

53.  Primorye  Fisherman,  April  1993. 

54.  Jacobson  and  Weidner,  op.  cit. 

55.  For  details  see  Jacobson  and  Weidner,  op.  cit. 

56.  Russian  radio  broadcast,  1700  GMT,  January  28,  1992. 

57.  For  details  on  the  Soviet  fishery  Jacobson  and  Weidner,  op.  cit. 

58.  N.  Agtiero  and  Max  and  Vilma  Conea,  "Anilisis  de  Rentabilidad  Relativa  y  Perspectivas  de  los  Barcos 
Factorias  en  Chile,"  in  Teofilo  Melo,  ed.,  Estudios  en  Pesquerias  Chilenas.  Valparaiso:  Universidad  Catolica  de 
Valparaiso,  1985,  p.  89. 


59.  For  background  on  Soviet-Chilean  fishery  relations,  see  Jacobson  and  Weidner,  op.  cit. 

60.  "Soviet  fishing  consortium  deal  under  discussion, "  Radio  Cooperativa  Network,  Santiago  broadcast,  2200  GMT, 
September  26,  1990. 

61.  Esperia  Bonilla,  Under-Secretariat  of  Fisheries,  Personal  Communication,  9  August  1993. 

62.  The  autliors  have  not  been  able  to  identify  the  Soviet  "Global"  Research  Institute  mentioned  in  the  source,  but 
the  Chileans  could  be  referring  to  the  former  AU-Union  Research  Institute  for  Fisheries  and  Oceanography  (VNIRO) 
which  is  now  the  All-Russian  Research  Institute  for  Fisheries  and  Oceanography  (VNIRO). 

63.  Personal  Communication,  Deimis  Weidner,  National  Marine  Fisheries  Service,  Office  of  International  Affairs, 
1993. 

64.  "Cuban  aid  for  Galicia, "  Spanish  Fishing  News.  August  27,  1992. 

65.  See  the  Argentine  chapter  in  volimie  IV  (Latin  America). 

66.  Information  on  the  privatization  process  in  Russia  is  limited.  Tlie  authors  noted  that  the  major  former  Russian 
state  Fishery  Administrations  (SEVRYBA,  DALRYBA,  and  SOVRYBFLOT)  are  now  referred  to  as  "associations. " 
Most  of  the  officials  that  previously  ran  these  state-owned  corporations  appear  to  have  management  control  of  the 
new  associations.  Insufficient  information,  however,  is  available  on  their  current  legal  status.  Some  of  the  vessels 
transferred  to  Panamanian  and  other  flag-of-convenience  flags  may  now  be  owned  and  operated  by  new  private 
corporations  set  up  outside  Russia  by  Russian  citizens. 

67.  "Russian  vessels  raise  'pirate'  flags,"  Izvestiya,  June  4,  1993.  Unsubstantiated  reports  charge  that  some  former 
Soviet  officials  have  made  substantial  sums  by  transferring  fishery  vessels  to  foreign  owners  from  the  Russian  state- 
owned  companies  at  a  fraction  of  their  value. 

68.  One  1990  report,  for  example,  described  a  Taiwan  squid  jigger  with  about  20  other  Taiwanese  vessels.  The 
vessel  and  two  other  Taiwan  fishing  vessels  were  transhipping  their  catch  to  the  Panamanian-flag  reefer,  the  Sea 
Frost  for  shipment  to  Japan.  Jonathan  Gordon,  "Drift  netdng  in  the  vicinity  of  the  Azores,"  International  Fund 
for  Animal  Welfare,  press  release,  1990. 

69.  D.  Weidner  &  D.  Hall,  "Latin  America,"  World  Fishing  Fleets:  An  Analysis  of  Distant-water  Fishing 
Operations,  Past-Present-Future.  Vol.  4,  (NMFS,  Silver  Spring,  MD.,  1993). 

70.  Mayak  Radio  (Moscow),  2  February  1992. 

71.  Primorye  Fisherman.  No.  20,  May  1993 

72.  Russian  Far  East  News.  July  1993. 

73.  Russian  Far  East  Update,  March  1993;  and  Primorye  Fisherman,  February  1993. 

74.  Nikkan  Suisan  Keizai  Shinbun.  May  19,  1989. 

75.  Fishermen  News.  N.  12/93,  as  printed  in  Pacific  Rim  Fisheries  Update.  June  1993,   page  5. 

76.  Krasnoye  Znamya.  21  October  1992;  RIA  News  Agency  (Moscow),  20  December  1992;  and  Primorye 
Fisherman.  February  1993. 


77.  U.S.  Embassy,  Tokyo.  December  22,  1992. 

78.  Kamchatka  Fisherman.  23  July  1993. 

79.  TASS  (Moscow),  25  September  1992;  Primorye  Fisherman.  9  October  1992. 

80.  Pyongyang  KCNA.  9  November  1992. 

81.  Moscow  Radio.  12  July  1989. 

82.  KYODO  in  English  (Tokyo),  1  June  1990) 

83.  Yonhap  in  English,  9  September  1991. 

84.  FBIS,  Pacific  Rim  Economic  Review,  22  September  1993.  pp.  13-14. 

85.  Primorye  Fisherman,  No.  7,  February  1993. 

86.  TASS  News  Agency  (Moscow),  28  February  1992. 

87.  U.S.  Embassy.  Seoul,  15  March  1993. 

88.  Yonliap  News  Service,  August  2.  1991. 

89.  Yonhap  News  Agency,  March  26,  1993. 

90.  Preobrazhenie  is  a  small  town  east  of  Nakhodka  in  the  Primorskii  Krai  (Maritime  Region)  of  the  Russian  Far 
East. 

91.  Primorye  Fisherman,  No.  36.  September  1993. 

92.  Vladivostok,  2  September  1993. 

93.  Free  China  Journal,  3  April,  10  July,  and  21  July  1992;  Rossiskaia  Gozeta,  19  September  1992;  ITAR-TASS 
(Moscow),  27  July,  14  September,  16  September,  23  September  1992;  Radio  Moscow,  World  Service  in  English, 
27  July  1992;  Agence  France  Press,  15  March  1992;  China  Post,  20  August  1992 

94.  American  Institute  in  Taiwan,  7  June  1993. 

95.  Ryhak  Sakhalina,  No.  30.  29  July  1993. 

96.  U.S.  Embassy.  Sofia,  29  September  1993.  The  1979  agreement  is  apparently  no  longer  valid  since  the 
Bulgarians  are  not  permitted  to  fish  inside  the  Russian  200-mile  zone  in  the  Barents  Sea.  The  Bulgarian  fishermen, 
however,  continue  to  fish  in  the  Barents  Sea,  but  in  its  international  waters  rather  than  in  the  Russian  200-mile  zone. 

97.  V.V.  Revnivtsev.  "Poisk  Optimal'noi  Strukturi  SP,"  Rybnoe  KJioziaistvo  (Moscow),  No.  1,  1993.  Although 
the  Russian  source  specifically  mentions  that  the  Feniks  only  "receives  and  processes  the  fish  from  Kamchatkan 
fishermen, "  Bulgarian  catch  statistics,  provided  by  OKEANSKl  RIBOLOV,  show  a  1991  and  1992  catch  of  Alaska 
pollock  (803  t  in  1991  and  410  t  in  1992).  Tlie  Alaska  pollock  could  only  have  been  caught  in  the  Russian  200-mile 
zone  or  the  nearby  international  waters  of  the  "peanut  hole",  since  the  species  is  only  harvested  in  the  North 
Pacific.  Tlie  FAO  stafistics  for  Bulgaria,  however,  show  no  Alaska  pollock  catch  for  those  years.  The  discrepancy 
could  not  be  explained  with  available  data. 

127 


98.  Pari  (Sofia),  12  May  1993. 

99.  Faroese  Statistical  Bulletin,  May  1993. 

100.  TASS  News  Agency  (Moscow),  24  February  1992;  and  Fishing  News  International,  May  1992. 

101.  Diplotnaticheskii  Vestnik  (Moscow),  No.  3-4,  February  1993. 

102.  Interfax  News  Agency  (Moscow),  16  February  1993;  and  Federatsiya  (Moscow),  No.  35,  30  March  1993, 
p.7. 

103.  Eurofish  Report,  25  February  1993. 

104.  Fishing  News  International,  October  1992. 

105.  The  agreement  entered  into  force  on  3  February  1978.  It  remains  in  force  automatically  for  successive  5-year 
periods  unless  one  of  the  contracting  parties  advises  the  other,  in  writing,  6  months  prior  to  the  expiration  of  the 
agreement,  that  it  wants  to  withdraw. 

106.  Sbomik  Dvukhstoronnikh  Soglashenyi  SSSR  po  Voprosam  Rybnogo  Khoziayaistva,  Ryboluvstva  i 
Rybokhoziaystvennikh  Issledovanyi.    VNIRO  (Moscow),  1987. 

107.  This  amount  will  be  reduced  by  50,000  t  for  each  year  of  the  3-year  agreement. 

108.  La  Peche  Maritime,  October  1992,  p.  459. 

109.  During  1986-1988,  the  Soviet  Union  and  Portugal  harvested  80  percent  of  the  Cape  hake  catch  off  Southwest 
Africa,  while  tlie  Soviet  Union,  East  European  high-seas  fishing  fleets  of  Romania,  Bulgaria,  and  Poland,  in  addition 
to  Cuba  and  Spain,  together  harvested  78  percent  of  the  horse  mackerel  catch.  The  fishery  in  this  region  is 
regulated  by  the  International  Commission  for  the  Southeast  Atlantic  Fisheries  (ICSEAF). 

1 10.  U.S.  Embassy,  Windhoek,  23  April  and  15  June  1993.  The  Russian  stem  factory  trawlers  dominate  tlie  mid- 
water  trawling  industry.  A  total  of  42  foreign  and  chartered  vessels  operate  in  this  fishery  which  accounts  for  76 
percent  of  the  gross  registered  tonnage  (192,000  CRT)  of  the  total  tomiage  allowed  to  fish  off  Namibia  (240,000 
CRT).  The  Embassy  reports  tliat  "nearly  the  entire  mid-water  fleet  appears  to  be  ex-Soviet  distant-water  vessels" 
mostly  chartered  by  local  companies.  Tlie  Namibian  branch  of  SOVRYBFLOT  which  supervises  the  joint  venture 
arrangements  fi-om  Moscow  has  reportedly  chartered  12  mid-water  trawlers. 

111.  U.S.  Embassy,  Lagos,  2  July  1993.  Russia  is  no  exception,  Nigeria  also  has  not  negotiated  access  agreements 
with  any  other  of  the  major  high-seas  fishing  powers  (Japan,  Taiwan,  ROK,  EC,  etc.). 

112.  U.S.  Embassy,  Sanaa,  20  March  1992. 


128 


Appendix  1.  USSR.  Number  of  high-seas  fishing  and  fishery 
support  vessels,  1975-92. 


Year 

Fishing 

Support 

Total 

Number  of  vessels 

1975 

1,602 

466 

2.068 

1976 

1,700 

473 

2.173 

1977 

1,811 

474 

2.285 

1978 

1.881 

472 

2,353 

1979 

1,917 

469 

2.386 

1980 

1,975 

478 

2,453 

1981 

1,900 

460 

2,360 

1982 

1,927 

547 

2,474 

1983 

1,950 

449 

2,399 

1984 

1,916 

448 

2.364 

1985 

1,921 

537 

2,458 

1986 

1,945 

526 

2.471 

1987 

1.936 

520 

2.456 

1988 

1,932 

519 

2,451 

1989 

1.870 

501 

2,371 

1990 

2,040 

592 

2,632 

1991 

2,079 

598 

2,677 

1992* 

2,112 

599 

2,711 

Source:  Lloyd's  Register  of  Shipping  Statistical  Tables,  Lloyd's 
Register  of  Shipping,  London,  various  years. 


*  In  December  1991.  the  USSR  ceased  to  exist  and  was  replaced 
by  the  Commonwealth  of  Independent  States  (CIS)  which,  however, 
excludes  the  three  Baltic  republics  (Estonia,  Latvia,  and  Lithuania). 


129 


Appendix 

2.  USSR.  Number  of  high-seas  1 

Ishing  vessels,  ranked  by  tonnage,  1975-92. 

Year 

Gross  Registered  Tons  (GRT) 

Total 



500-999 

1,000-1,999 

2,000-3,999 

Over  4,000 

Number  of  vessels 

1975 

829 

130 

638 

5 

1,602 

1976 

869 

139 

687 

5 

1,700 

1977 

908 

140 

734 

29 

1,811 

1978 

939 

141 

770 

31 

1.881 

1979 

953 

144 

792 

28 

1,917 

1980 

971 

150 

823 

31 

1,975 

1981 

852 

155 

855 

38 

1,900 

1982 

849 

163 

877 

38 

1,927 

1983 

847 

165 

902 

36 

1,950 

1984 

798 

189 

889 

40 

1,916 

1985 

783 

215 

878 

45 

1,921 

1986 

781 

245 

868 

51 

1,945 

1987 

761 

274 

849 

52 

1,936 

1988 

758 

283 

837 

54 

1,932 

1989 

715 

273 

816 

66 

1,870 

1990 

830 

276 

821 

113 

2,040 

1991 

845 

267 

835 

132 

2,079 

1992* 

858 

274 

835 

145 

2,112 

Source:  Lloyd's  Register  of  Shipping  Statistical  Tables,  Lloyd's  Register  of  Shipping,  London, 
various  years. 

*   In  December  1991,  die  USSR  ceased  to  exist  and  was  replaced  by  the  Commonwealth  of 
Independent  States  (CIS)  which,  however,  excludes  the  diree  Baltic  states  (Estonia,  Latvia, 
and  Lithuania). 


130 


Appendix  3.  USSR.  Number  of  high-seas  fishery  support  vessels,  ranked  by  tonnage,  1975-92. 


Year 

Gross  Registered  Tons  (GRT) 

Total 

500-999 

1,000-1,999 

2,000-3,999 

Over  4,000 

Number  of  vessels 

1975 

(90)* 

124 

252 

466 

1976 

(90)* 

119 

264 

473 

1977 

(120)* 

107 

247 

474 

1978 

(130)* 

101 

241 

472 

1979 

(131)* 

102 

236 

469 

1980 

(134)* 

103 

241 

478 

1981 

(127)* 

94 

239 

460 

1982 

(124)* 

92 

241 

457 

1983 

(111)* 

91 

247 

449 

1984 

91 

20 

90 

247 

448 

1985 

92 

20 

88 

256 

537 

1986 

88 

20 

88 

280 

526 

1987 

86 

20 

87 

277 

520 

1988 

88 

19 

85 

277 

519 

1989 

79 

19 

79 

280 

501 

1990 

101 

19 

75 

289 

592 

1991 

103 

18 

75 

288 

598 

1992 

106 

16 

72 

287 

599 

Source:  Lloyd's  Register  of  Shipping  Statistical  Tables.  Lloyd's  Register  of  Shipping,  London, 
various  years. 


*  Lloyd's  did  not  list  separately  two  vessel  categories  (500-999  GRT  and  1,000-1,999  GRT)  for 
the  years  1975-83;  instead,  these  sizes  were  included  in  one  vessel  category  of  100-1,999 
GRT.   The  figures  in  parentheses  were  obtained  by  calculating  the  percentage  of  vessels  in 
tlie  100-499  GRT  class  in  1984  (given  for  the  first  time  that  year)  from  the  total  figure  for  all 
100-1,999  GRT  vessel  classes  (which  was  given  each  year  from  1975-92).    The  same  percentage 
was  then  deducted  each  year  before  1984. 


131 


Appendix  4.  Russia.  Fishing  and  fishery  support  fleet,  by  vessel  class,  number  of  vessels,  total  and 
average  gross  registered  tonnage,  and  country  and  year  of  construction:  1951-1993 


Vessel  class 


Number  of 


Gross  Tonnage 


Construction 


/essel! 

5      Total 

Average 

1 

433 

433 

1 

166 

166 

1 

339 

339 

4 

13.440 

3,360 

238 

171.618 

721 

7 

24.688 

3,526 

30 

98,631 

3,287 

2 

6.487 

3,243 

7 

91,137 

13,019 

3 

39,731 

13,243 

1 

1,803 

1,803 

2 

9,150 

4,575 

1 

6,392 

6,392 

1 

4,042 

4,042 

80 

186,901 

2,336 

1 

642 

642 

53 

5,796 

109 

65 

97,670 

1,502 

8 

13,732 

1,716 

1 

12,588 

12,588 

9 

3,006 

334 

4 

26,428 

6,607 

3 

20,967 

6,989 

1 

2,385 

2,385 

10 

13,550 

1.355 

5 

3,451 

690 

1 

1,722 

1,772 

1 

299 

299 

2 

564 

282 

7 

4,928 

704 

17 

77,129 

4,537 

33 

96,884 

2.935 

1 

10,192 

10,192 

17 

81,957 

4,821 

4 

33,156 

8,289 

4 

38.640 

9.660 

2 

2,158 

1.079 

29 

5,831 

201 

41 

484,963 

11.828 

18 

19,830 

1.101 

13 

1,352 

104 

3 

1,206 

402 

2 

926 

463 

2 

1.590 

795 

26 

4,940 

190 

4 

10,472 

2.618 

6 

94.910 

15,818 

1 

264 

264 

45 

132,677 

2,948 

3 

447 

149 

74 

198,557 

2,683 

1 

4,982 

4,982 

1 

1,435 

1,435 

11 

3,949 

359 

22 

5,060 

230 

4 

20,879 

5,219 

1 

2,802 

2,802 

55 

154,012 

2,800 

1 

2,792 

2,792 

367 

60,351 

164 

204 

130,642 

640 

99 

299,635 

3,026 

1 

2,538 

2,538 

Country 


Years 


ABRUKA 

AGAT 

AKADEMIK  SHOKALSKIY 

AKSAY 

ALPINIST 

ALTAY 

ALTAY  (2) 

ANDIZHAN 

ANDREY  ZAKHAROV 

ANDREY  ZAKHAROV  MOD  A 

ANDRIAS  I  HVANNASUNDI 

ANNA  AKHMATOVA 

ANTARKTIDA 

ATLANTEAN  II 

ATLANTIK 

B  14 

BALTIKA 

BARENTSEVO  MORE 

BASKUNCHAK 

BAUSKA 

BOLOGOYE 

BUKHTA  RUSSKAYA 

BUKHTA  RUSSKAYA  MOD  A 

DAR  MLODZIEZY 

DNEPR 

DRUZHBA 

FRYAZINO 

FUKUYOSHI  MARU  MOD  A 

GIRULYAY 

GOLITSYNO 

GORIZONT 

IVAN  BOCHKOV 

JUNGE  WELT 

KALININGRADNEFT 

KAMCHATSKIY  SHELF 

KAMCHATSKIYE  GORY 

KAPITAN  KARTASHOV  * 

KARELIYA 

KARL  LIBKNEKHT 

KASPIY 

KERCH 

KHABAROV 

KHABAROV  MOD  A 

KHOBI 

KIROVETS 

KOMANDOR 

KONSTITUTSIYA  SSSR 

KONTUR 

KOSMOS 

KREVETKA  MOD  A 

KRONSHTADT 

LAMUT 

LAS KARA 

LAUKUVA 

LEDA 

LENINSKIY  LUCH 

LESKOV 

LUCHEGORSK 

LUCHEGORSK  MOD  A 

MANEVRENNYY 

MAYAK 

MAYAKOVSKIY 

MIKAMI  MARU 


USSR 

1961 

USSR 

1984 

Finland 

1951 

Finland 

1963-65 

USSR 

1971-91 

Finland 

1968-73 

USSR 

1969-75 

GDR 

1962 

USSR 

1961-65 

USSR 

1967-69 

Norway 

1986 

Poland 

1989-90 

USSR 

1985 

Norway 

1987 

GDR 

1966-76 

Poland 

1958 

USSR 

1974-89 

USSR 

1974-85 

USSR 

1964-71 

Poland 

1967 

USSR 

1959-62 

USSR 

1985-88 

USSR 

1990-91 

Poland 

1988 

USSR 

1969-71 

GDR 

1954-56 

Finland 

1960 

Japan 

1973 

USSR 

1983-84 

USSR 

1986-90 

USSR 

1976-83 

Poland 

1979-88 

GDR 

1967 

Finland 

1979-82 

USSR/Ukraine 

1989-92 

Sweden 

1964-65 

Norway 

1993 

USSR/Ukraine 

1971-79 

GDR 

1970-91 

GDR 

1968-71 

USSR 

1985-89 

USSR 

1953-54 

USSR 

1960 

USSR 

1958 

USSR 

1984-90 

Denmark 

1990 

Poland 

1979-81 

GDR 

1955 

Poland 

1966-70 

USSR 

1981-84 

USSR 

1974-78 

Japan 

1959 

Poland 

1972 

USSR 

1989-91 

Poland 

1985-87 

Japan 

1964-65 

Poland 

1961 

USSR 

1969-74 

USSR 

1970 

USSR 

1969-84 

USSR 

1963-81 

USSR 

1958-73 

Japan 

1964 

132 


Appendix  4.  Russia.   Continued. 


Vessel  class 

Number 
Vessels 

of      Gross 

;  Tonnage 

Construct 

ion 

Total 

Average 

Country 

Years 

MIRNYY 

1 

844 

844 

USSR 

1959 

MIYAJIMA  MARU 

1 

6,370 

6.370 

Japan 
GDR 

1986 

MOONZUND 

15 

114.840 

7.656 

1988-91 

MORYANA 

32 

76.971 

2.405 

USSR 

1982-90 

MORYANA  MOD  A 

4 

9.368 

2.342 

USSR 

1990-91 

MYS  TARAN 

1 

404 

404 

FRG 

1954 

NADEZHNYY 

79 

35.924 

454 

USSR 

1978-91 

NEREIDA 

1 

638 

638 

USSR 

1965 

NEVELSK 

9 

17.092 

1.899 

Norway 

1990-92 

OKEAN 

2 

1.010 

SOS 

GDR 

1959-60 

OKHOTSKOYE  MORE 

2 

36,604 

18.302 

France 

1971 

OMA 

9 

1.565 

174 

USSR 

1965-68 

ORLENOK 

99 

150.718 

1.522 

GDR 

1981-87 

OSTROV  RUSSKIY 

5 

48.975 

9,795 

Sweden 

1969-70 

OSTSEE 

2 

1.288 

644 

GDR 

1966-67 

PEVEK 

2 

6.559 

3,279 

Finland 

1974-83 

PIATIDESIATILETIE  SSSR 

10 

130.766 

13,076 

USSR 

1974-83 

PIONERSK 

10 

139.192 

13,919 

Poland 

1956-60 

PLAYYA  KHIRON 

1 

3.105 

3,105 

FRG 

1963-67 

POSET 

4 

73.129 

18,282 

USSR 

1959 

PR I BOY 

6 

65.764 

10,960 

Sweden 

1972-80 

PROFESSOR  BARANOV 

32 

413.024 

12.907 

Poland 

1964 

PROMETEY 

24 

92.669 

3,861 

GDR 

1971-82 

PROMETEY  MOO  A 

65 

254.335 

3,912 

GDR 

1978-83 

PULKOVSKIY  MERIDIAN 

69 

267.763 

3,880 

USSR 

1978-91 

RADUZHNYY 

62 

39.547 

637 

USSR 

1972-90 

RADZIONKOW 

12 

64.392 

5,366 

Poland 

1979-81 

REMBRANDT 

3 

15.075 

5.025 

Netherlands 

1965 

RODINA 

10 

25,990 

2.599 

Poland 

1978-80 

RR  151 

16 

4.102 

256 

GDR 

1951-57 

RYBATSKAYA  SLAVA 

4 

66,148 

16.537 

FRG 

1966-67 

SADKO 

1 

233 

233 

GDR 

1970 

SOS  001 

3 

1,119 

373 

USSR 

1988-90 

SEDOV 

1 

3,709 

3.709 

Germany* 

1921 

SELGA 

2 

200 

100 

USSR 

1977-78 

SEVERODVINSK 

6 

59,882 

9.980 

Poland 

1959-61 

SHUSHVE 

6 

1,174 

195 

Bulgaria 

1969-71 

SIBIR 

27 

155.418 

5.756 

USSR 

1963-72 

SKAT 

1 

210 

210 

USSR 

1983 

SKRYPLEV 

18 

81,821 

4.545 

Denmark 

1962-71 

SODRUZHESTVO 

3 

96.288 

32.096 

Finland 

1985-90 

SOTRUDNICHESTVO 

6 

46.830 

7.805 

Spain 

1991-94 

SOVETSKAYA  UKRAINA  MOD  A 

1 

33.154 

33.154 

USSR 

1962 

SPASSK 

8 

144.110 

18.013 

Japan 
Poland 

1965-66 

SPRUT 

1 

4.769 

4.769 

1979 

STANISLAVSKIY 

1 

3.106 

3.106 

Belgium 

1959 

SVETLOGORSK 

2 

7.100 

3.550 

Netherlands 

1955-56 

TATARSTAN 

4 

9.524 

2.381 

USSR 

1977-84 

TAVRIYA 

19 

65.497 

3,447 

USSR 

1960-68 

TELNOVSK 

3 

3,622 

1,220 

Hungary 

1954-59 

TIBIYA 

11 

6.567 

597 

USSR 

1980-85 

TIVELA  * 

10 

21,290 

2,129 

Spain 

1991-92 

TROPIK 

1 

2,435 

2,435 

GDR 

1965 

TSESIS 

6 

1,828 

304 

GDR 

1955-58 

TUNTSELOV  1 

5 

1,325 

265 

USSR 

1983-85 

TYULEN  1 

4 

1.318 

329 

USSR 

1983-88 

VEGA 

1 

261 

261 

GDR 

1953 

VETER 

1 

4,639 

4.639 

GDR 

1966 

VIKINGS 

1 

1,340 

1,340 

FRG 

1965 

VLADIVOSTOK  MOD  A 

2 

34,122 

17,061 

FRG 

1962-63 

YANA 

3 

11.335 

3.778 

FRG 

1956 

YANTARNYY 

5 

31.383 

6.276 

USSR 

1965-59 

133 


Appendix  4.  Russia.  Continued. 


Vessel  class 


Number  of 
Vessels 


Total 


Gross  Tonnage 


Construction 


Average 


Country 

Years 

FRG 

1968 

Netherlands 

1984 

USSR 

1963-69 

USSR/Ukraine 

1969-92 

Poland 

1973-77 

USSR 

Foreign  Counti 

nes 

USSR 

YEYSKIY  LIMAN 
ZEELAND 
ZELENODOLSK 
ZHELEZNYAKOV 
ZVEROBOY 
MRTK 

UNSPECIFIED  ** 
UNSPECIFIED  *** 


2 
2 

17 
214 
21 
32 
11 
50 


830 
226 


14.650 
160,539 
41,519 
3,744 
14,511 
20,641 


915 
113 
861 
750 
977 
117 
319 
412 


TOTALS 


2,766* 


6,121,285* 


2,213 


Sources:  U.S.  Navy,  Office  of  Naval  Intelligence  (ONI),  July.  1993;  Soviknes  Verft  AS,  Personal 
Communication,  6  September  1993  (for  the  KAPITAN  KARTASHOV  class):  Fishing  News  International   (FNI).   June 
1991,  September  1991  &  October  1992  (for  TIVELA  class), 

*  These  vessels  (2  KAP.  KARTASHOVs  and  12  TIVELAs),  which  have  been  delivered  only  recently,  were  not 

included  in  the  ONI  statistics,  but  were  added  to  this  list  by  the  authors 
**  Vessels  of  unknown  class,  built  abroad. 
***  Vessels  of  unknown  class,  built  in  Soviet  shipyards. 

GDR  -  former  German  Democratic  Republic  (East  Germany) 

Note:  The  classes  constructed  in  the  USSR  also  include  those  built  in  Ukrainian  and  Lithuanian  shipyards. 


134 


Appendix  5.  Russia.  High-seas  fishing  fleet  reduction,  by  name  of  vessel, 
class,  gross  registered  tonnage,  country  and  year  of 
construction,  and  disposition:  1993. 


Vessel  name 

Class 

GRT 

Constr 

uction 

New  Owner 

Country 

Year 

REFLAGGED  VESSELS 

-  25  units 

Admiral  Zavonko 

NEVELSK 

1.899 

Norway 

1991 

Cyprus 

Aleksei  Chinkov 

NEVELSK 

1.899 

Norway 

1990 

Cyprus 

Amaltal  Columbia 

NEVELSK 

1.899 

Norway 

1992 

New  Zealand 

Atlasova  Sala 

OSTROV  RUSSKII 

9.795 

Sweden 

1970 

Lithuania 

Avangard 

AVANGARD 

2.649 

Norway 

1989 

Cyprus* 

Bukhta  Naezdmk 

NEVELSK 

1,899 

Norway 

1991 

Cyprus 

Chukhotka 

SEVERODVINSK 

10.033 

Poland 

1962 

St,  Vincent* 

Kaouri 

TIVELA 

2.129 

Spain 

1991 

Liberia* 

Kapitan  Churl  lev 
Kildinskyi  Proliv 

KARL  LIBKNEKHT 

12.413 

Germany 

1991 

Panama* 

KARL  LIBKNEKHT 

12.406 

Germany 

1989 

Panama* 

Klaipedskii  Bereg 
Kolskyi  Zaliv 

KARL  LIBKNEKHT 

11.755 

Germany 

1990 

Cyprus* 

KARL  LIBKNEKHT 

12,410 

Germany 

1986 

Panama* 

Komtek  II 

BARENTSOVO  MORE 

1,178 

USSR 

1979 

Panama 

Kosmonavt  Gagarin 

SIBIR 

5.942 

USSR 

1968 

Azerbaijan 

Motovskyi  Zaliv 

KARL  LIBKNEKHT 

12.383 

Germany 

1984 

Panama* 

Musson 

PLAYYA  KHIRON 

3,227 

Germany 

1961 

Ukraine 

Mys  Vindis 

NEVELSK 

1,899 

Norway 

1991 

Cyprus 

Nika 

KHOBI 

795 

USSR 

1961 

Latvia 

Novik 

NEVELSK 

1.899 

Norway 

1991 

Cyprus 

Pamyat  Ilyicha 

KARL  LIBKNEKHT 

12.403 

Germany 

1988 

Panama* 

Petr  Iljin 

NEVELSK 

1,919 

Norway 

1992 

Cyprus 

Sterkoder 

NEVELSK 

1,899 

Norway 

1991 

Cyprus* 

Straume 

50  LET  SSSR 

13,083 

USSR 

1974 

Latvia 

Sudmijos  Ilanka 

AMURSKYI  ZALIV 

12,891 

France 

1970 

Lithuania 

Vilyuchinskiy 

NEVELSK 

1,899 

Norway 

1990 

Cyprus 

152,603 


INACTIVE  VESSELS  -  9  units 


Amderma 

ATLANTIK 

2,177 

GDR 

1967 

** 

Davydov 

SKRYPLEV 

4,698 

Denmark 

1963 

*** 

Indigirka 

YANA 

3,788 

Germany 

1955 

@ 

Karpaty 

Mikhail  Ivchenko 

ALTAI 

3,390 

USSR 

1969 

@ 

KOSMOS 

2,987 

Poland 

1966 

0 

Pulkovo 

MAYAKOVSKII 

3.170 

USSR 

1965 

** 

Roslavl 

TROPIK 

2.435 

GDR 

1966 

(30 

Sapfir 

MAYAKOVSKII 

3.170 

USSR 

1952 

** 

Zapolyarniyi 

SKRYPLEV 

4,699 

Denmark 

1965 

** 

VESSELS  FOR  SALE  -  3  units 

Aleksei  Chuev  POSET 
Vasilii  Chernyshev  POSET 
Kosmonavt         TAVRIYA 


30.514 


17.764   USSR 

18.455   USSR 

3,556   USSR 


1980 
1973 
1967 


39,775 


TOTAL  =  37  vessels    TOTAL  GROSS  TONNAGE  =  222.892  GRT 

Sources:  U.S.  Navy,  Office  of  Naval  Intelligence,  30  July  1993:  Russian  Far  East 
Update.   May  1993  (for  vessels  for  sale), 

*  These  vessels  are   listed  as  still  owned  by  Russia. 
**  Listed  as  inactive  in  February/March  1993 

***  Listed  as  inactive  in  October  1992 
0  Listed  as  inactive  in  April  1993, 
00  Listed  as  inactive  in  June  1993 

#  VBTRF  was  selling  these  3  veteran  fish-processing  vessels  for  4  billion, 
3  5  billion,  and  1.5  billion  rubles,  respectively  In  early  1993 


135 


Appendix  6.  Soviet  Union.  Shipyards  building  fishery  vessels,  located  in  the  former 

USSR,  by  republic,  region,  city  of  location,  and  vessel  classes  built,  1975. 

RUSSIAN  SHIPYARDS 

I.  Northern 

A.  Petrozavodsk 

1.  Avangard  (Karelia)* 

B.  Murmansk 

C.  Arkhangelsk 

1.  Maimalesan  (vessels  transporting  live  fish  on  rivers) 

2.  Krasnaia  Kuznitsa  Repair  Shipyard 

II.  Western 

A.  Leningrad 

1.  Admiralteiskii  (Sovetskaia  Rossiia,  Vostok,  Khabarov,  50-let,  Andrei  Zakharov) 

2.  Baltiiskii  (Baltika) 

3.  Zhdanov 

B.  Kaliningrad 

1 .  Svetlovskii  (Experiment  I  and  If) 

2.  Sovetsk-Sovetskii  zavod  promysl.  sudostroeniia  (Setga).  Builds  300-400  horsepower 
catamaran  stern  trawlers. 

III.  Caspian  Sea 

A.  Astrakhan-Imeni  Stalina  Shipyard**  (Baltika,  small  fiberglass  vessels) 

B.  Orenburg  Chkalova  (Luchegorsk) 

C.  Rybinsk  (small  refrigerated  transports,  unknown  class) 

IV.  Pacific 

A.  Mainland 

1 .  Khabarovsk  (SRTM,  RS,  Alpinist) 

a.  Okhotskii 

b.  Kirov  (Raduzhnyi) 

2.  Blagoveshchensk  (seiners) 

3.  Sretenskii  (seiners) 

4.  Kamchatka  (Alpinist) 

5.  Primorskii  Krai  (Alpinist) 

6.  Nikolaevsk  na  Amure  (RS-300,  Alpinist,  Nadezhnii,  small  crab  vessels) 

7.  Tobol'sk 

B.  Sakhalin 


136 


Appendix  6.  USSR.  Continued. 

C.  Gorkii 

1.  Gorokhovets  (Eruslan) 

2.  Gorodets 

D.  Volgograd 

1.  Volzhskii  (502R,  SRTM,  Alpinist) 

V.  Other  Yards 

A.  laroslavl'  (Maiak-800,  Alpinist) 

B.  Sverdlovsk 

C.  Zelenodol'sk  (Laukuva) 

D.  Novorossiisk  (BM/?r  of  unknown  class) 

E.  Petrozavodsk 


UKRAINIAN  SHIPYARDS 


I.  Black  Sea 


A.  Nikolaev 

1.  Oktiabrskii  **  {Maiakovskii,  Meridian) 

2.  Chernomorskii  ***  (Altair,  Pioner  Latvii,  Luchegorsk,  Kronshtadt,  Maiakovskii, 

Pulkovskii  Meridian,  Sovetskaia  Ukraina,  Tavriya) 

3.  61  Komunard  (Sibir,  Beringov  Proliv,  Bukhta  Russkaya,  Antarktida,  Altair,  Gorizont) 

4.  Okean  {Altay) 

B.  Kherson 

1.  Kuibyshev 

C.  Krasnodarsk 

D.  Izmail  (Altair) 

E.  Kiev 

1.  Leninskaia  Kuznitsa  (SRTM,  Maiak-800,  SRTK,  Alpinist,  seine  and  shrimp  trawlers) 


LITHUANIAN  SHIPYARDS 

Klajpeda 


A.  Baltiia  (Matematik,  Maiakovskii,  Luchegorsk,  Barents,  Moryana) 

B.  Zapadnyi 


*  Classes  of  vessels  built  in  a  particular  shipyard  are  noted  in  parentheses. 

**  The  name  of  this  shipyard  has  probably  changed. 

***  This  shipyard  was  also  known  as  the  Nosenko  Shipyard  in  the  1960s. 


137 


Appendix  7  Russia.  Deliveries  of  fishing  and  fishery  support  vessels  from  domestic  shipyards,  by  vessel 
class,  number  of  vessels,  total  and  average  gross  registered  tonnage,  and  country  and  year  of 
construction:  1951-1993. 


VpccpI  rla<?*; 

Number  of 
Vessels 

Gross  Tonnage 

Construction 

V  CooC  1   \-  1  uo  O 

Total 

Average 

Country 

Years 

ABRUKA 

1 

433 

433 

USSR 

1961 

AGAT 

1 

166 

166 

USSR 

1984 

ALPINIST 

238 

171.618 

721 

USSR 

1971-91 

ALTAY  (2) 

30 

98.631 

3.287 

USSR 

1969-75 

ANDREY  ZAKHAROV 

7 

91,137 

13,019 

USSR 

1961-65 

ANDREY  ZAKHAROV  MOD  A 

3 

39,731 

13,243 

USSR 

1967-69 

ANTARKTIDA 

1 

6,392 

6,392 

USSR 

1985 

BALTIKA 

53 

5,796 

109 

USSR 

1974-89 

BARENTSEVO  MORE 

65 

97,670 

1.502 

USSR 

1974-85 

BASKUNCHAK 

8 

13,732 

1.716 

USSR 

1964-71 

BOLOGOYE 

9 

3.006 

334 

USSR 

1959-62 

BUKHTA  RUSSKAYA 

4 

26.428 

6,607 

USSR 

1985-88 

BUKHTA  RUSSKAYA  MOD  A 

3 

20,967 

6,989 

USSR 

1990-91 

DNEPR 

10 

13,550 

1,355 

USSR 

1969-71 

GIRULYAY 

2 

564 

282 

USSR 

1983-84 

GOLITSYNO 

7 

4,928 

704 

USSR 

1986-90 

GORIZONT 

17 

77,129 

4,537 

USSR 

1976-83 

KARELIYA 

2 

5.831 

201 

USSR 

1971-79 

KERCH 

13 

1.352 

104 

USSR 

1985-89 

KHABAROV 

3 

1.206 

402 

USSR 

1953-54 

KHA6AR0V  MOD  A 

2 

926 

463 

USSR 

1960 

KNOB  I 

2 

1.590 

795 

USSR 

1958 

KIROVETS 

26 

4.940 

190 

USSR 

1984-90 

KREVETKA  MOD  A 

3 

447 

149 

USSR 

1981-84 

KRONSHTADT 

74 

198.557 

2,683 

USSR 

1974-78 

LAUKUVA 

11 

3,949 

359 

USSR 

1989-91 

LUCHEGORSK 

55 

154,012 

2,800 

USSR 

1969-74 

LUCHEGORSK  MOD  A 

1 

2.792 

2.792 

USSR 

1970 

MANEVRENNYY 

367 

60.351 

164 

USSR 

1969-84 

MAYAK 

204 

130,642 

640 

USSR 

1963-81 

MAYAKOVSKIY 

99 

299,635 

3,026 

USSR 

1958-73 

MIRNYY 

1 

844 

844 

USSR 

1959 

MORYANA 

32 

76,971 

2,405 

USSR 

1982-90 

MORYANA  MOD  A 

4 

9,368 

2,342 

USSR 

1990-91 

NADEZHNYY 

79 

35,924 

454 

USSR 

1978-91 

NEREIDA 

1 

638 

638 

USSR 

1965 

OMA 

9 

1,566 

174 

USSR 

1965-68 

PIATIDESIATILETIE  SSSR 

10 

130,766 

13,076 

USSR 

1974-83 

POSET 

4 

73,129 

18,282 

USSR 

1959 

PULKOVSKIY  MERIDIAN 

69 

267,763 

3,880 

USSR 

1978-91 

RADUZHNYY 

62 

39,547 

637 

USSR 

1972-90 

SOS  001 

3 

1,119 

373 

USSR 

1988-90 

SELGA 

2 

200 

100 

USSR 

1977-78 

SIBIR 

27 

155.418 

5,756 

USSR 

1963-72 

SKAT 

1  . 

210 

210 

USSR 

1983 

SOVETSKAYA  UKRAINA  MOD  A 

1 

33.154 

33.154 

USSR 

1962 

TATARSTAN 

4 

9,524 

2.381 

USSR 

1977-84 

TAVRIYA 

19 

65,497 

3.447 

USSR 

1960-68 

TIBIYA 

11 

6,567 

597 

USSR 

1980-85 

TUNTSELOV  1 

5 

1,325 

265 

USSR 

1983-85 

TYULEN  1 

4 

1,318 

329 

USSR 

1983-88 

YANTARNYY 

5 

31.383 

6.276 

USSR 

1965-59 

ZELENODOLSK 

17 

14.650 

861 

USSR 

1963-69 

ZHELEZNYAKOV 

214 

160,539 

750 

USSR 

1969-92 

MRTK 

32 

3,744 

117 

USSR 

1987-92 

UNSPECIFIED  * 

50 

20,641 

412 

USSR 

N/A 

TOTALS  =  55  classes 

2,014    2 

,679,913 

Source:  U.S.  Navy.  Office  of  Naval  Intelligence.  30  July  1993, 

*  Vessels  of  unknown  class  built  in  Soviet  shipyards. 

Note;  The  classes  constructed  in  the  USSR  also  include  those  classes  built  in  Ukrainian  and  Lithuanian 
shipyards. 


138 


Appendix  8.  Soviet  Union/Russia.  Deliveries  of  fishing  and  fishery  support 

vessels  from  foreign  shipyards,  by  country  and  year  of  construction, 
vessel  class,  average  gross  registered  tonnage  (GRT) .  type  of  vessel, 
number  of  vessels  delivered,  and  total  GRT:  1951-1993. 


Country/Year  Vessel  class 


GRT* 


Vessel  type 


Number   Total  GRT 


BELGIUM  -  1  vessel 

1959        STANISLAVSKIY 


3,106   transport 


3,106 


BULGARIA 

-  6 

vessels 

1969-71 

SHUSHVE 

200 

trawler 

6 

1.200 

DENMARK  - 

22 

vessels 

1962-71 

SKRYPLEV 

4,545 

trawler 

18*** 

81.821 

1990 

KOMANDOR 

2,618 

fishery 

enforcement 

4 

10,472 
92,293 

FINLAND  - 

35 

vessels 

1951 

AKAD,  SHOKALSKII 

339 

fishery 

research 

1 

339 

1956-60 

PEVEK 

3,279 

tanker 

2 

6,559 

1960 

FRYAZINO 

1,722 

cargo 

1 

1,722 

1963-65 

AKSAY 

3,360 

tanker 

4 

13,440 

1968-73 

ALTAY 

3,526 

tanker 

7 

24,688 

1979-1982 

KALININGRADNEFT 

4,821 

tanker 

17 

81,957 

1985-89 

SODRUZHESTVO 

32,096 

crab  mothership 

3 

96,288 

224,993 

FEDERAL  REPUBLIC  OF  GERMANY  -  20 

vessels 

1912 

Ussun** 

4,597 

transport 

1 

4,597 

1921 

SEDOV 

3.709 

fishery 

training 

2 

7.418 

1941 

Dzhamrat** 

723 

tanker 

1 

723 

1954 

MYS  TARAN 

404 

refrig. 

transport 

1 

404 

1956 

YANA 

3,778 

refrig. 

transport 

3 

11,335 

1956 

Tauysk** 

3,814 

transport 

1 

3,814 

1959 

PLAYYA  KHIRON 

3,105 

refrig. 

transport 

1 

3.105 

1962-63 

VLADIVOSTOK 

17,061 

fish-pr( 

Dcessing 

2 

34,122 

1965 

VIKINGS 

1,340 

trawler 

1 

1.340 

1966 

VETER 

4,639 

refng 

transport 

1 

4,639 

1966-67 

RYBATSKAYA  SLAVA 

16,537 

fish-processing 

4 

66.148 

1968 

YEYSKIY  LIMAN 

4,915 

transport 

2 

9,830 

FRANCE   -  2  vessels 

1971  OKHOTSKOE  MORE 


18,302         refng     transport 


147,475 
36,604 


GERMAN  DEMOCRATIC  REPUBLIC  -  382 

vessels 

1951-57 

RR  151 

256 

trawler 

16 

4,102 

1953 

VEGA 

261 

refrig.  transport 

1 

261 

1954-56 

DRUZHBA 

690 

refrig,  trawler 

5 

3,451 

1955 

KONTUR 

264 

trawler 

1 

264 

1955 

Letnik** 

119 

trawler 

1 

119 

1955-58 

TSESIS 

304 

tanker 

6 

1,828 

1957 

Gumb** 

305 

trawler 

1 

305 

1959-60 

OKEAN 

505 

side  trawler 

2 

1,010 

1962 

ANDIZHAN 

3.243 

cargo 

2 

6,487 

1965 

TROPIK 

2.435 

stern  factory  trawler 

1 

2,435 

1966-67 

OSTSEE 

644 

refrig.  trawler 

2 

1,288 

1966-76 

ATLANTIK 

2.336 

stern  factory  trawler 

80 

186,901 

1967 

JUNGE  WELT 

10.192 

fnsh-processing 

1 

10.192 

1968-71 

KASPYI 

1.101 

refrig.  trawler 

18 

19,830 

1970 

SADKO 

233 

fishery  research 

1 

233 

1970-91 

KARL  LIBKNEKHT 

11,828 

refrig,  transport 

41 

484,963 

1971-83 

PROMETEI 

3,899 

stern  factory  trawler 

89 

347,004 

1981-87 

ORLENOK 

1,522 

stern  factory  trawler 

99 

150,718 

1988-91 

MOONZUND 

7,656 

stern  factory  trawler 

15 

114,840 
1.336.231 

HUNGARY 

1954-59 

TELNOVSK 

1,220 

transport 

3 

3.622 

139 


Appendix  8.  Soviet  Union/Russia.  Continued 


Country/Year  Vessel  class 


GRT* 


Vessel  type 


Number 


ITALY 
1980 

Smena** 

147 

shrimp  trawler 

JAPAN  -  17  vessels 

1959 

LAMUT 

4.982 

fish -processing 

1964 

MIKAMI  MARU 

2,538 

factory  trawler 

1964-65 

LENINSKII  LUCH 

5.219 

fish-processing 

1965-66 

SPASSK 

18.013 

fish-processing 

1969 

Kyuho  Maru** 

284 

1973 

FUKUYOSHI  MARU 

299 

trawler 

1986 

MIYAJIMA  MARU 

6.370 

factory  trawler 

NETHERLANDS 

-  7  vessels 

1955-56 

SVETLOGORSK 

3.550 

refrig.  transport 

1965 

REMBRANDT 

5.025 

factory  trawler 

1984 

ZEELAND 

3.113 

factory  trawler 

NORWAY  -  13  ' 

s/essels 

1986 

ANDRIAS 

1.803 

stern  factory  trawler 

1987 

ATLANTEAN  II 

4.042 

stern  factory  trawler 

1990-1992 

NEVELSK 

1.899 

stern  factory  trawler 

1993 

KAP-  KARTASHOV 

1.079 

processing  longliner 

POLAND  -  205 

vessels 

1958 

B-14 

642 

refrig,  trawler 

1959-61 

SEVERODVINSK  (B-62) 

9.980 

processing  baseship 
stern  factory  trawler 

1961 

LESKOV  (B-15) 

2.802 

1963-67 

PIONERSK  (B-64) 

13.919 

processing  baseship 
stern  factory  trawler 

1966-70 

KOSMOS  (B-26) 

2.948 

1967 

BAUSKA 

12.588 

tanker 

1967-75 

PROF,  BARANOV  (8-69)12.907 

processing  baseship 
stern  factory  trawler 

1972 

LAS  KARA 

1.435 

1973-77 

ZVEROBOY 

1.977 

factory  trawler 

1979 

SPRUT 

4.769 

factory  trawler 

1979-88 

IVAN  BOCHKOV 

2.935 

trawler 

1978-80 

RODINA 

2.599 

tuna  clipper 

1979-81 

KONSTITUTSIYA  SSSR 

15.818 

processing  baseship 

1979-81 

RADZIONKOW 

5.366 

refrig  transport 

1985-87 

LEDA 

230 

shrimp  trawler 

1988 

DAR  MLODZIEZY 

2.385 

fishery  training 

1989-90 

ANNA  AKHMATOVA 

4.575 

trawler 

PORTUGAL 

1992 

Sankt  Peterburg** 

726 

trawler 

SPAIN  -  25  vessels 

1991-92  TIVELA  2.129 

1991-94  SOTRUDNICHESTVO  7.805 

SWEDEN  -  15  vessels 

1964  PRIBOY  10,960 

1964-65  KAMCHATSKIE  GORI  9,660 

1969-70  OSTROV  RUSSKII  9,795 


tuna  seiner 
factory  trawler 


refrig 
refrig 
refrig. 


transport 
transport 
transport 


10 
15 


Total  GRT 
147 


982 
538 


20.879 

144.110 

284 

299 

6,370 


179.462 

2 

7.100 

3 

15.075 

? 

6,226 

28.401 

1 

1.803 

1 

4,042 

9 

17,092 

2 

2,158 

25.095 

1 

642 

6 

59.882 

1 

2.802 

10 

139.192 

45 

132.677 

1 

12.588 

32 

413.024 

1 

1.435 

21 

41.509 

1 

4.769 

33 

96.884 

10 

25.990 

6 

94.910 

12 

64.392 

22 

5.060 

1 

2.385 

2 

9.150 

1.107.291 
726 


21, 
117, 


290 
075 


138,365 

65,764 

38,640 

48,975 

153,379 


TOTAL  GROSS  TONNAGE  =  3,478,390  GRT   TOTAL  VESSELS  BUILT  =  756 

Sources;  U.S.  Navy.  Office  of  Naval  Intelligence,  30  July  1993;  Fishing  News   Intcrnationd  I 
(FNl).   June  1991.  September  1991  &  October  1992  (for  TIVELA  class);  FA//.  March  1990. 
November  1991.  January  1992  &  May  1993  (for  SOTRUDNICHESTVO  class) 

*  The  GRT  of  these  vessels  represents  an  approximate  average  gross  tonnage  of  each  vessel 

in  that  class, 
**  This  is  the  name  of  the  vessel  The  class  is  unknown, 

***  Two  of  these  vessels,  the  Locator  and  the  Pelengdinr.  are  used  for  fisheries  research. 
Note:  This  appendix  lists  vessels  that  are  presently  on  the  Russian  registry.  It  does  not 
include  vessels  previously  delivered  and  since  scrapped,  sold,  or  otherwise  decommissioned. 


140 


Appendix  9. 


Soviet  Union.  Inland,  coastal,  and  distant-water  fisheries  by  FAO  statistical  areas; 
1975.  1980.  and  1985-1991. 


Area 

Year 

1975 

1980 

1985 

1986 

1987 

1988 

1989 

1990 

1991 

1,000  Metnc  tons 

Inland(07) 

944,0 

747  0 

905.6 

926.9 

988.4 

995.6 

1019  7 

974.9 

1030.8 

Coastal 

27 

2406  3 

1983.5 

1239  2 

999.9 

945.3 

781.4 

644,2 

524.4 

967  2 

37 

349.8 

397.2 

344.6 

390.6 

261.3 

347.3 

206.9 

93  0 

53,7 

61 

2719.0 

3195.8 

5462,3 

5823.0 

5457.0 

5296.9 

4957 . 7 

4516.3 

3973  3 

67 

572.6 

59.2 

11.0 

9.0 

11.2 

12,1 

12.9 

0.2 

1,0 

Subtotal 

6047  7 

5635.7 

7057,0 

7222  3 

7500.1 

6437,7 

5821 . 7 

5133.9 

4995,2 

Distant  Water 

21 

1166  9 

108  3 

133.4 

147.7 

152.3 

149,6 

155  4 

197.1 

125,5 

31 

69  0 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

0 

8 

- 

34 

1165  7 

942.3 

708  1 

854  2 

106.3 

1395,0 

1629.0 

1688 

6 

1261  3 

41 

9  0 

27  7 

70.9 

77.1 

168.5 

259,8 

282,3 

242 

2 

226.7 

47 

420  7 

825.2 

697.9 

679.2 

670.5 

634,6 

654.3 

310 

9 

394  2 

48 

- 

424.0 

188  0 

397.4 

348.8 

355,4 

373.4 

342 

7 

199  5 

51 

35.0 

36.8 

32  0 

42  4 

46.4 

39,6 

28.7 

8 

7 

12  1 

57 

- 

0.4 

0  5 

- 

- 

0,03 

- 

- 

- 

58 

2,1 

102.6 

28  3 

31  9 

35  1 

14,5 

30.8 

5.6 

1.3 

71 

- 

3.6 

10  3 

12  4 

16  7 

10,6 

10.5 

5.5 

3.6 

77 

30  6 

- 

11 

2.7 

0.1 

0,08 

3.0 

12.6 

0  1 

81 

44  8 

69.6 

65.6 

152.8 

149,9 

94.9 

97.9 

127.0 

236.8 

87 

- 

552.4 

624  5 

710.9 

844,9 

944,8 

1202  3 

1337  7 

729  8 

88 

- 

- 

- 

1.9 
3110  5 

0,3 
3616.1 

- 

1,1 
4468,7 

0.7 
4280.1 

- 

Subtotal 

2943.8 

3093.0 

2560  6 

3898.9 

3190.9 

Total 

9935  6 

9475.6 

10522  8 

11259.8 

11159.6 

11332,2 

11310,1 

10388.9 

9216  9 

Source  FAO.  Yearbook  of  Fishery  Statistics:  Catches  and  Landings:   Rome,  various  years. 

Note:  The  totals  may  not  add  because  of  rounding. 

Key  to  FAO  statistical  fishing  areas: 

27  -  Northeast  Atlantic  (includes  Baltic  Sea) 

37  -  Mediterranean  Sea  (includes  Black  Sea) 

61  -  Northwest  Pacific  (off  Russian  Far  Eastern  Coast) 

67  -  Northeast  Pacific  (off  the  U.S.  West  Coast  and  Alaska) 

21  -  Northwest  Atlantic  (off  the  United  States  and  Canada) 

31  -  Western  Central  Atlantic  (the  Caribbean) 

34  -  Eastern  Central  Atlantic  (off  West  Africa) 

41  -  Southwest  Atlantic  (off  Brazil,  Argentina.  Falklands) 

47  -  Southeast  Atlantic  (off  Angola,  Namibia,  and  South  Africa) 

48  -  Antarctic.  Atlantic 
51  -  Western  Indian  Ocean  (includes  Seychelles) 

57  -  Eastern  Indian  Ocean  (waters  from  Burma  to  Australia) 

58  -  Antarctic,  Indian  Ocean 

71  -  Western  Central  Pacific  (off  Indonesia  and  adjacent  waters) 

77  -  Eastern  Central  Pacific  (waters  between  Hawaii  and  U.S.  and  Mexican  coasts) 

81  -  Southwest  Pacific  (off  East  Australia  and  New  Zealand) 

87  -  Southeast  Pacific  (off  western  coasts  of  S.  America,  Chile,  Peru) 

88  -  Antarctic,  Pacific 


141 


Appendix  10.  Russia.  Fisliery  attaches  and  representatives,  by  country  of  service  and 
name,  1993. 

COUNTRY: 

Australia  -  IKRIANNIKOV,  Vladimir  Ivanovich,  former  Director  of  the  International 
Treaties  and  Organizations  Division  in  the  Office  of  International  Affairs  of  the  Soviet 
Ministry  of  Fisheries. 

Angola  -  MOKRENKO,  Petr  Savelevich  (replaced  KOLESNIKOV,  Viktor  Mikhailovich) 
Argentina  -  ZINCHENKO,  Aleksei  Alekseevich 

Bulgaria  -  REVNIVTSEV,  V.V.  (replaced  VOLGIN,  Vyacheslav  Petrovich) 

Canada  -  MIKHAILOV,  Anatolii  Aleksandrovich.  The  Assistant  Attache  is 
VIDENEEV,  Yurii  I. 

Cape  Verde  -  PUGACHEV,  Nikolai  Mikhailovich 

China  -  OREL,  lurii  Grigorevich,  former  Director  of  the  Pacific  Fishery  Scientific 
Exploratory  Fleet  Administration  (TURNIF)  in  Vladivostok. 

Cuba  -  SEKRETAREV,  Eduard  Konstantinovich 

Denmark  -  STARCHENKO,  Nikolai  Nikolaevich  (replaced  BELOBRAGIN,  Viktor 
Aleksandrovich,  a  former  secretary  of  the  Primorskii  Krai  Komsomol  Committee.) 

Egypt  -  SIROGA,  Anatolii  Ivanovich 

Germany  -  MESHCHERIAKOV,  Georgii  Vasilevich,  former  Chief  of  the  Kamchatka  High- 
seas  Fishing  Administration. 

Guinea-Bissau  -  SAVIN,  Anatolii  Vasilevich 

Italy  -  MONAKOV,  Boris  Dmitrievich  (Permanent  Russian  Observer  at  the  Food  and 
Agricultural  Organization  (FAO).    A  former  Soviet  Deputy  Fisheries  Minister.    The 
Assistant  Attaches  are:  FOKIN,  Leonid  A.,  and  BOGDANOV,  Sergei. 

Japan  -  SINEL'NIKOV,  Igor  Zakharovich.    The  Assistant  Attaches  are:  KAMENTSEV 
Vladimir  Vladimirovich  and  VOROBIEV,  lurii  D. 

Korea,  South  (ROK)  -  LUZHNIKOV,  Vitalii  Mikhailovich,  former  First  Deputy  Minister 
of  Fisheries  of  the  USSR;  before  that  he  was  the  Head  of  the  Fisheries  Section  in  the  Central 
Committee  of  the  Communist  Party  of  the  USSR. 


142 


Appendix  10.  Russia.  Continued. 


Korea,  North  -  None  currently.    The  last  attache  was  PAUTOV,  Vladimir  Mikhailovich 
who  is  now  Deputy  Director  of  DALRYBA,  responsible  for  International  Affairs.    This 
office  may  be  scheduled  for  closure. 

Morocco  -  TSURANOV,  Vladimir  Aleksandrovich 

Mauritania  -  Present  incumbent  unknown.    Former  attache  KOKOREV,  lurii  Ivanovich  was 
promoted  to  Deputy  Chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Fisheries  of  the  Russian  Federation  in 
September  1993. 

Mozambique  -  RUZOV,  Andrei  Dmitrievich 

New  Zealand  -  TKACHENKO,  Konstantin  Petrovich.  (replaced  BARMUTA,  Vladimir 
Ivanovich) 

Norway  -  LUKA,  Georgii  Ivanovich,  former  Director  of  PINRO  Fisheries  Research  Institute 
in  Murmansk  from  1982-1990. 

Peru  -  KARGIN,  Mikhail  Ivanovich,  formerly  Director  General  of  the  Northern  Fisheries 
Administration,  SEVRYBA. 

Poland  -  KOVASIUK,  Oleg  Aleksandrovich  (replaced  USHAKOV,  Aleksandr  Petrovich) 

Senegal  -  MUKHIN,  Vladimir  Vasilevich.    The  office  is  located  in  Dakar  and  also  covers 

the  neighboring  Gambia. 

Sierra  Leone  -  DEMIANENKO,  Vitalii  Dmitrievich 

Seychelles  -  SOKOLOV,  Boris  Gennad'evich,  former  Director  of  the  Western  Fisheries 
Administration,  ZAPRYBA. 

United  States  -  BOVYKIN,  lurii  Nikolaevich.    The  Assistant  Attache  is  SOLODOVNIK, 

Viktor  Nestorovich. 

Uruguay  -  MEDUSHEVSKII,  Nikolai  Ivanovich 

Vietnam  -  ZLOKAZOV,  Anatolii  VasiPevich  (replaced  SHAIDUROV,  Leonid  Afanas'evich) 

Yemen  -  BABENKO,  Dmitrii  Mikhailovich  (replaced  CHELEGA,  lurii  Pavlovich) 


143 


Appendix  10.  Russia.  Continued. 

RUSSIAN  FISHERY  ATTACHE  QFFICRS    BY  CONTINENTS: 

AFRICA  10 

ASIA  &  OCEANIA  8 

EUROPE  6 

LATIN  AMERICA  4 

NORTH  AMERICA 2 

TOTAL  30 

OFFICES  RECENTLY  CLOSED  DOWN: 

Guinea  (Conakry) 

Nicaragua  (Managua) 

Sao  Tome  and  Principe  (Sao  Tome) 

OFFICES  RECENTLY  OPENED: 

Republic  of  Korea  (Seoul) 
VACANT  OFFICES: 
North  Korea  (Pyongyang) 


Source:  Milan  Kravanja,  Foreign  Affairs  Officer,  Office  of   International  Fisheries,  NMFS, 
NOAA. 

Note:  This  list  was  compiled  in  early  1992  from  various  sources.    Its  reliability  was 
confirmed  in  October  1992  in  a  speech  by  the  Chairman  of  the  Russian  Committee  on 
Fisheries,  Vladimir  Korelskii,  to  Kamchatka  fishermen.    Korelskii  stated  that  the  Russian 
Committee  on  Fisheries  had  taken  over  30  out  of  the  32  representational  offices  of  the 
former  Soviet  Ministry  of  Fisheries.    More  recent  information  indicates  that  the  incumbents 
have  remained  by  and  large  in  their  positions,  except  as  noted  in  the  list. 


144 


3.3 


UKRAINE 


In  the  former  Soviet  Union,  the  fishery  fleets  of  all  republics  operated  as  a  unit  divided 
only  by  the  various  fishing  regions.  This  system,  which  prevailed  for  the  past  40  years,  was 
suddenly  disrupted  by  the  new  political  arrangements.  Each  independent  country  now  had  to 
organize  its  own  support  and  transportation  activities  and  obtain  its  own  fuel.  Ukraine  has  no 
oil  resources  and  must,  therefore,  buy  diesel  oil  from  Russia  or  other  countries.  In  addition, 
the  bilateral  agreements  negotiated  by  the  former  Soviet  Ministry  of  Fisheries  are  no  longer 
valid.  The  Russian  Federation,  as  the  internationally  recognized  successor  state  to  the  Soviet 
Union,  took  over  most  of  these  agreements.  Independent  Ukraine  has  had  to  make  new 
arrangements  to  obtain  access  to  foreign  200-mile  fishery  zones.  Ukraine  has  a  sizeable  fishing 
fleet,  but  it  is  aging  —  the  average  age  of  fishing  vessels  is  14  years  old.  The  future  of  the 
Ukrainian  fishing  industry  is  uncertain  and  will  depend  on  its  ability  to  obtain  sufficient  fishery 
resources  to  maintain  the  fleets'  operations  and  to  provide  abundant  protein  to  the  domestic 
population. 

CONTENTS 


I.  Background    150 

II.  Fishing  Fleet    150 

A.  High-seas  Fleet 151 

B.  Fleet  Reduction 151 

C.  Vessel  Classes 151 

D.  Domestic  Shipyards     151 

III.  Catch  and  Grounds 152 

A.  Fisheries  Catch    152 

B.  Fishing  Grounds     153 

IV.  Fisheries  Administration 154 

V.  Bilateral  Fishery  Agreements  and  Joint  Ventures 154 

VI.  Fishery  Companies    155 

VII.  Outlook 157 

Sources    157 

Endnotes    158 

Appendices 160 


:-"  -1  ■' 

— ^ 

:  5 

^0 

y\K 

r^     \ 

re 
3 

i 

r 

1      ■  V.  *  ■ 

X 

J 

JC 1    ■       S    V   .    . 

ro 

/ 

1   \v^  ^' 

s 

g    ^-«#«. 

>      y 

a 

O 

''\ 

■r^ 

3 

.    1 

1  1 

■1 

7 

>• 

>- 
•a 

:S 

1 

I 

o 

tt 

• 

> 

JK 

QD 

^^            / 

.— .-r 

'^ 

TJ 

j^ 

^rf**^ 

CO 

Qj 

f 

£ 

is 

.     '^  i-      -         ■■^"^^     ^^ 

4 

/ 

//                       Tjt 

c 
2 

^-j 

CO 

•  -■''>■                   ^i 

I 

>    -I 

s  i 

g 

./'      -~^'v.t'' 

-\~M 

SfJ 

1     |i 

^      f 

1 

re 

^/^     J  t 

5) 

4 

1 

"V/l,^ 

-,, .-.■,'■  ^'       y 

'S 

>- 
e 

1^2  > 

5     :3             .       > 

E 

U 

D 

2  z_/r 

ci  1( 

S     I:              ■     J 

fc  ■  5       *■  : 

^^V-f§   ' 

-    ■         "    ■    ,       '"^ 

^V^^' 

/^ 

0)       .'i-.r 

}      t 

w 

CD             ]/ 

1  ( 

V  Sr-    .     . 

w 

(i 

} 

5- 

.«*0l 

C 

- 

-•MM 

2-  -I.  *" 

•j*  5 

:S 

•  .  c 

X   i 

5  1 

1  -- 

> 

(Q 

ys- 

*  ■  X- 

L^,^^*^^^^^^^^  ■                   .     \ 

->t 

< 

S 

u       / 

:  s  ■ 

o 

■    W.I 

S 

"^^ 

re      I 

:l 

/ 

. 

-^".">^ 

f^ 

» 

c 


O       , 

U  ^ 


2  o  ;,^  E  - 


« 

o 

i< 

■u 

r^ 

s 

o 

■- 

vC 

h. 

« 

« 

on 

^ 

<u 

o 

OH 

o 


c  -o 


E 

s  3  -=  'a 


—  _  —  h  J?  -S  '^ 


c    cs 


c    2    c 

ra  ,-  — 
aoU   o 


0^ 

ON 


>.     » 


5§ 

o 


3 
D. 

o  — 


^  2 


— '  O  ■ 


i  Z-^^ 


ill 

'U     o     ^ 

Q  a.  o 


0>    *- 


ffi  Q 


E?^ 


^  ES 


o  ' 


C   •£     3 


_  -a 


<  s 


^    L>    o    eg 


ca 


o 
o 
o 


.Co  N    -^ 

—     r-     U     3    :_ 


-  Ji 


^  U)  ^ 

u-     3 


0.  u  ^  U  :/ 


~  oc 


3   ~ 

il 

«  _ 


r3  ^  rt 

i:  o  h: 

3  r~  '^ 

^  "-^  ^ 

flj  •• 

■u  .a  .22 

-  =  E 

u  aJ  o 

■  =  o 

60  ^  " 


O 

a 

o 


o 
a 


u  c/3  ■ 


r3 


CO 


t:  S  i  - 

oj  ttl  ri  Dm  J3  -a  •^ 


o 
o 
o 
o 


So 


1.        s 
'  2  o 


■—     CO 

■o    oo 


o  c 

.  —  o 

■     CO  O 

1     o  1- 

I    U-)  o. 


2  S 
a* 

C    O 
o    ■« 

-o    ex 

I" 


2i  a. 

s  >* 

D.    Of 

-O  = 

c  O 
CO  *C 

3 


O    M 

D..S 


aU  a(/) 


I.  BACKGROUND 


Ukraine  occupies  603,700  square 
kilometers,  or  2.7  percent  of  the  former 
USSR,  (nearly  the  size  of  Texas),  and  is  the 
largest  country  in  Europe  besides  Russia.'  Its 
coastline  along  the  Black  Sea  and  the  Sea  of 
Azov  extends  for  a  total  of  2,782  kilometers. 

Ukraine  was  the  second  most  populous 
Soviet  republic  with  51.9  million  inhabitants, 
or  about  18  percent  of  the  population  of  the 
former  USSR.' 


Table  1.  Ukraine.  High-seas  fishing  and 
fishery  support  fleet,  by 
number  and  type  of  vessel.  1991. 


Type  of  vessel 


Number 


Fishing  135 

Transport  77 

Floating  factories  4 

Training  3 

Unspecified  45 

TotaT  264 

Source:  Baseinovoe  Proizvodstvennoe 
Ob'edineme  Yugryba  Sevastopol.  1991 


The  fishing  industry  in  Ukraine  is  mainly 
based  in  the  Black  Sea  ports  of  Odessa, 
Sevastopol,  and  Kerch,  while  shipyards 
constructing  fishery  vessels  are  principally 
located  near  the  port  of  Nikolaev. 


!I.  FISHING  FLEET 


Confirmed  data  on  the  number  of 
Ukrainian  fishing  vessels  could  not  be 
obtained  in  time  for  inclusion  in  this  report. 
The  U.S.  Embassy  requested  this  information 
in  June  1993,  but  has  received  no  response 


Table  2.  Ukraine.  Fishing  fleet,  by  selected 
vessel  capacity:  1993. 


Capacity    Number 

GRT 

Average  GRT 

100-500  GRT    107 
Above  500  GRT  247 
TOTAL        354 

16.463 
890.360 
906.823 

154 
3.605 
2.554 

Source:  U.S.  Navy.  Office  of  Naval 
Intelligence.  29  July  1993. 


from  the  Ukrainian  State  Committee  on 
Fisheries  to  which  the  inquiry  was  directed. 
Three  major  statistical  sources  were 
consulted:  a  brochure  published  in  1991  by 
the  Soviet  Southern  Fisheries  Administration, 
YUGRYBA  (table  1);  a  list  of  Ukrainian 
vessels  provided  by  the  U.S.  Office  of  Naval 
Intelligence  (table  2);  and  the  Lloyd's 
Register  of  Shipping  (table  3). 

The  difference  between  the  first  two  sets 
of  figures  for  the  high-seas  fleet  (264  against 
247  vessels)  is  not  great,  and  probably 
resulted  from  the  decommissioning  of  over  20 
Ukrainian  registry  fishing  vessels  from  1991 
to  1993.  One  must  also  remember  that  during 
those  two  years  the  Soviet  fishing  vessels, 
which  belonged  to  the  Ukrainian  Soviet 
Republic,  were  re-registered  under  the  newly 
established  registry  of  Ukraine. 
Unfortunately,  YUGRYBA's  1991  brochure 
did  not  list  vessel  owners,  or  the  names  of 


150 


Table  3.  Ukraine.  Fishing  and 
fishery  support  fleet, 
by  number  and  total  gross 
registered  tonnage.  December  1992. 

Vessel  type  Number    Total  GRT 


Fishing 
Support 
Total 


272 
_23 
295 


469,512 

86.215 

555.727 


Source.  Lloyd' s  Register  of  Shippi ng . 
Fleet  Statistics  at  31  December  1992. 
London.  1993 


individual  vessels,  so  that  the  decommissioned 
vessels  could  not  be  identified  by  comparing 
them  with  the  detailed  information  provided 
by  the  U.S.  Navy  (appendix  1). 

Lloyd's  Register  of  Shipping  reports  the 
Ukrainian  fishery  fleet  at  295  units  on 
December  31,  1992.  Of  this  total,  272  were 
fishing  vessels  and  23  fishery  support  vessels. 
The  gross  tonnage  of  these  vessels  was  not 
identified  and  it  is  likely  that  all  vessels  have 
over  100  gross  tons.  The  best  explanation  for 
the  larger  number  of  vessels  seems  to  be  that 
the  Ukrainians  did  not  notify  Lloyd's  of  all 
decommissioned  vessels. 

A.  High-seas  Fleet 

According  to  the  U.S.  Navy,  the 
Ukrainian  high-seas  fishery  fleet  consisted  of 
247  units  in  July  1993  (appendix  1).  Of  this 
total,  232  units  were  medium  and  large 
trawlers,  refrigerated  transports,  and 
baseships  and  processing  vessels  of  various 
classes.  Another  14  units  were  training  and 
research  vessels,  and  there  was  one  tanker. 
The  vast  majority  of  these  vessels  were  built 
in  the  shipyards  of  the  former  Soviet  Union 
and  the  former  East  Germany.  The  average 
age  of  the  Ukrainian  high-seas  fleet  was  14 
years  for  fishing  vessels  and  17  years  for 
fishery  support  vessels. 

B.  Vessel  Classes 

The  Ukrainian  fleet  has  47  various  classes 
of  fishing  and  fish-processing  vessels 
(appendix  2).  Most  of  them  were  built  in  the 
former  Soviet  Union  (which  included 
Ukrainian  shipyards),  in  Poland,  and  in  the 
former  East  Germany.  Several  tankers  were 
built  in  Finland,  while  large  processing  stern 
trawlers  (SKRYPLEV  and  REMBRANDT 
classes)  were  ordered  from  Denmark  and  the 


Netherlands,  respectively.  The  stern  factory 
trawlers  of  the  N.  KOVCHOVA  class, 
probably  the  largest  such  trawlers  in  the 
world,  were  constructed  in  the  Nantes 
shipyard  in  France. 

C.  Fleet  Reduction 

In  1993,  Ukraine  reduced  its  fishing  fleet 
register  by  6  vessels;  5  were  reflagged  to 
other  countries,  and  1  was  decommissioned 
(appendix  3).  These  6  vessels  represented  a 
total  reduction  of  18,945  gross  registered 
tons.  A  mothership,  the  Piatidesiatilet  SSSR 
and  the  medium  trawler,  Aldebaran,  were 
turned  over  to  the  Russian  Federation.  A 
small  trawler,  Nalle,  was  reflagged  to 
Estonia,  a  small  factory  trawler  was  reflagged 
to  Malta',  while  a  large  stern  factory  trawler 
now  flies  the  Panamanian  flag.  One  trawler, 
the  Al  Audem,  has  been  inactive  since  29 
January  1993.  All  of  these  vessels  were  built 
in  Ukraine  and  are  15-20  years  old.^  As  far 
as  is  known,  none  of  these  vessels  was 
scrapped. 

D.  Domestic  Shipyards 

Ukraine  has  several  shipyards  which  build 
fishery  vessels;  most  are  located  in  the 
southern  city  of  Nikolaev  on  the  Black  Sea, 
but  there  is  also  a  large  shipyard  in  Kiev  and 
in  other  cities  (appendix  4).  These  shipyards 
construct  a  variety  of  trawlers  and  fishery 
support  vessels,  including  the  PULKOVSKII 
MERIDIAN-class  of  large  freezer-trawlers^ 
the  ANTARKTIDA-class  of  large  stern 
factory  trawlers^  and  the  BUKHTA 
RUSSKAYA-class  of  refrigerated  cargo 
vessels^.  A  list  of  all  known  classes  built  in 
Ukrainian  shipyards  (which  were  formerly 
constructing  fishery  vessels  for  the  entire 
Soviet  Union)  is  given  in  appendix  4.  This 
list  is  by  no  means  complete,  but  it  does  give 


131 


an  idea  of  how  extensive  these  shipbuilding 
activities  were  over  the  past  30  years. 
Information  on  the  building  of  fishery  vessels 
(as  well  as  any  other  vessel)  was  a  state  secret 
under  the  old  communist  regime,  as  was  the 
number  of  persons  employed.  The  authors 
made  no  attempt  to  obtain  additional 
information  since  historical  background  will 
not  significantly  help  in  understanding  either 
the  present  or  the  future  activities  of 
Ukrainian  shipbuilding  given  the  changing 
economic  conditions. 

To  modernize  the  Ukrainian  fleet  of  fish 
processing  and  transport  vessels,  the 
Ukrainian  Government  organized  a  conference 
on  June  23,  1993,  in  Nikolayev  on  the  Black 
Sea,  the  center  for  Ukrainian  fishing  vessel 
construction.  Attending  were  fishery  experts 
from  Ukraine  and  the  Russian  Federation  and 
reportedly  also  representatives  of  various 
German  companies.* 

A  West  German  company  has  delivered  to 
the  Nikolaev  shipyards  modern  cold  storage 
and  refrigeration  equipment  to  build  16 
supertrawlers.  Anatolii      KYNAR,      a 

representative  of  the  Ukrainian  President  in 
the  Nikolaev  region,  stated  at  a  press 
conference  that  Ukraine  can  earn  up  to  $900 
million  a  year  (by  the  year  2000)  by 
modernizing  its  shipyards  and  gearing  them 
for  exports. 


ni.  CATCH  AND  GROUNDS 


A.  Fishery  Catch 

Before  the  dissolution  of  the  USSR, 
statistical  data  on  the  Ukrainian  fisheries  catch 
was  collected  by  the  AU-Union  Research 
Institute  for  Fisheries  and  Oceanography 
(VNIRO)     in     Moscow,     transmitted     for 


publication  to  the  Food  and  Agricultural 
Organization  (FAO)  in  Rome,  and 
incorporated  into  the  published  catch  data  for 
the  Soviet  Union.  Each  former  Soviet 
republic,  however,  kept  its  own  set  of 
statistics,  and  historical  data  on  the  Ukrainian 
catch  are  probably  available,  but  the  authors 
have  been  unable  to  obtain  them  from  the 
Ukrainian  State  Committee  on  Fisheries 
despite  repeated  requests.  A  limited  set  of 
January-June  1992  and  1993  catch  statistics 
was  graciously  supplied  by  the  Danish 
Ministry  of  Fisheries  and  FAO  (appendix  5). 

During  the  first  6  months  of  1993,  the 
Ukrainian  high-seas  catch  amounted  to 
155,000  metric  tons  (t),  almost  30  percent 
below  the  catch  harvested  during  the  same 
period  in  1992.  Despite  the  decreased  catch 
in  1993,  the  supply  of  edible  fishery  products 
decreased  only  slightly  (by  0.2  percent).  In 
1993,  the  utilization  of  the  catch  to  produce 
edible  fishery  products  was  almost  equal  to 
the  1992  figure  (110,000  t  in  1992  and 
109,000  t  in  1993).  This  was  possible 
because  the  reduction  of  harvested  fish  to 
fishmeal  during  January-June  1993  decreased 
by  40  percent  (from  17,000  to  10,000  t), 
compared  with  such  catch  reduction  during 
the  comparable  time  period  in  1992. 

To  earn  hard  currencies  and  pay  licensing 
fees  for  access  to  foreign  fishing  zones,  the 
Ukrainian  marine  fishing  companies  exported 
82,000  t  of  the  catch,  or  about  73  percent  of 
the  6-month  landings.  Only  about  1,000  t 
was  exported  to  the  Commonwealth  of 
Independent  States.  The  specific  commodities 
exported  are  not  known,  but  were  most  likely 
frozen  fish.  The  above  statistics  appear  to 
indicate  that  the  Ukrainian  people  received 
precious  little  of  the  country's  fishery  catch 
for  their  own  consumption;  in  the  first  half  of 
1993  only  26,000  t,  or  less  than  25  percent  of 


152 


the  total  catch,  was  processed  and  marketed 
to  the  Ukrainians. 

Unfortunately,  the  Ukrainian  statistics  do 
not  include  information  on  the  catch  by 
species  or  by  fishing  areas.  One  can  only 
presume  that  the  Ukrainian  fishermen  were 
harvesting  their  catch  in  approximately  the 
same  areas  as  in  previous  years. 

B.  Fishing  Grounds 

Ukraine  continues  to  fish  in  the  world's 
oceans,  but  has  recently  reduced  its  operations 
considerably.  Since      1991,     Ukrainian 

fishermen  no  longer  fish  off  Chile  and  Peru. 
Similarly,  operations  off  Morocco  have  been 
suspended  because  Ukraine  has  been  unable  to 
conclude  a  bilateral  fisheries  agreement 
similar  to  the  one  the  Soviet  Union  had  with 
Morocco. ■* 

Northeast   Atlantic   (FAO  statistical   area 

27):  In  August  1993,  the  famous  fish  factory 
mothership,  Vostok,  the  largest  in  the  world 
(26,400  CRT),  was  anchored  off  Lerwick  in 
the  Shetland  Islands  (Scotland)  to  buy  supplies 
of  pelagic  fish  to  process.  "^'  The  Vostok  is 
owned  by  the  ANTARKTIKA  company  of 
Odessa. 

Antarctica     (FAO     statistical     area     18): 

Ukrainian  vessels  have  been  fishing  in  the 
Antarctic  waters,  mostly  for  krill,  in  the  area 
of  the  Convention  on  Conservation  of 
Antarctic  Marine  Living  Resources 
(CCAMLR)  for  several  years. 

During  the  1991/1992  fishing  season  (July 
1,  1991  -  June  30,  1992),  the  vessels  of  the 
Soviet  Southern  Fisheries  Administration 
(YUGRYBA)  operated  38  vessels  in  the 
CCAMLR  area.  Of  this  total,  9  vessels 
belonged    to    YUGRYBPOISK,    16    to    the 


Atlantika  company,  6  to  the  Antartika 
company,  and  7  to  KERCHRYBPROM." 

During  the  1993  Antarctic  season 
(January  1  -  June  30),  8  Ukrainian  vessels 
harvested  fish  in  the  Antarctic  Convention 
Area.  The  Atlantika  company  operated  5 
vessels  (3  ATLANTIKs  and  2 
ANTARKTIDA-class  stern  trawlers), 
YUGRYBPOISK  sent  out  2  vessels  (an 
ATLANTIK  stern  factory  trawler  and  a 
ZHELEZNYAKOV  medium  trawler)  and  the 
Antarktika  company  had  one  medium  trawler 
of  ZHELEZNYAKOV  class  catching  krill. '^ 

Southwestern  Pacific  (FAO  statistical  area 

81):  Ukrainian  fishermen  have  allegedly  been 
fishing  in  a  prohibited  area  25  miles  off  the 
South  Islands'  western  coast.  In  late  1992, 
one  Ukrainian  trawler  and  one  Georgian 
trawler  were  seized  by  New  Zealand  fishery 
enforcement  patrols.  The  Ukrainian  vessel, 
Aleksey  Slobodchikov,  was  released,  but  the 
owners  had  to  post  a  bond  of  NZ$  2.5 
million.  The  fate  of  the  Georgian  trawler 
(Bratya  Stoyanovy)  is  not  known. '^ 

Southeast   Atlantic   (FAO  statistical   area 

47):  Ukraine  conducted  fishing  operations  in 
the  southeastern  Atlantic  off  Africa  until 
Namibia  became  independent  in  1990,  and 
subsequently  declared  a  200-mile  Exclusive 
Economic  Zone  (EEZ).  Soon  after,  a 
moratorium  on  fishing  in  Namibia's  EEZ  was 
announced.  The  last  Ukrainian  fishing  effort 
in  Namibian  waters  was  from  March  to 
December  1991,  when  YUGRYBA  operated 
19  trawlers  there.''* 


153 


IV.  FISHERIES  ADMINISTRATION 


Upon  gaining  its  independence  from  the 
USSR  in  December  1991,  the  fishing  industry 
of  Ukraine,  previously  subordinate  to  the 
Soviet  Ministry  of  Fisheries  in  Moscow,  had 
to  be  reorganized  to  reflect  the  new  national 
sovereignty.  The  Ukrainian  Government 
established  a  State  Committee  on  Fisheries  to 
formulate  and  execute  Ukrainian  fishery 
policies.  The  Committee  was  charged  with: 
establishing  fishery  relations  with  the  other 
CIS  countries;  continuing  international 
cooperation  in  fisheries;  supervising  the 
establishment  of  Ukrainian  fishery  research 
institutions;  conducting  exploratory  fishing; 
maintaining  the  fishing  fleet;  and  improving 
the  supply  of  fishery  products  to  the 
Ukrainian  population.'^ 

The  control  of  the  Ukrainian  fishing 
industry,  including  the  fishing  fleet,  had  been 
under  the  central  direction  of  the  USSR 
Ministry  of  Fisheries  through  YUGRYBA, 
the  Soviet  Southern  Fisheries  Administration. 
In  January  1992,  YUGRYBA  was  broken  up 
and  most  of  the  former  Administration  was 
absorbed  by  Ukraine,  including  YUGRYBA 
headquarters  in  Sevastopol.  The  Black  Sea 
port  of  Novorossiisk,  together  with  its  fishing 
fleet  and  the  fish-processing  infrastructure, 
remained  under  the  Russian  Federation 
jurisdiction,  while  the  port  of  Poti  and  its 
fisheries  administration  was  taken  over  by  the 
independent  Georgian  Republic. 


V.  BILATERAL  AGREEMENTS 


When  the  Soviet  Union  ceased  to  exist, 
Ukraine  lost  access  to  fishing  grounds,  such 
as  the  Barents  Sea  and  the  Sea  of  Okhotsk, 


which  are  now  part  of  the  Russian  FEZ. 
Ukraine  also  lost  access  to  several  foreign 
fishing  zones  because  the  former  Soviet 
Union's  bilateral  fishery  access  agreements 
were  taken  over  by  the  Russian  Federation, 
which  was  considered  the  successor  state  to 
the  Soviet  Union.  For  example,  after  the 
breakup  of  the  USSR,  Morocco  decided  not  to 
negotiate  a  separate  fisheries  agreement  with 
the  Republic  of  Ukraine  even  though  it  did 
conclude  a  new  fishery  access  agreement  with 
the  Russian  Federation  (allowing  its  fishermen 
to  harvest  400,000  t  of  fish  annually). 

Bulgaria:  In  September  1993,  Bulgaria  signed 
a  5-year  fisheries  cooperation  agreement  with 
Ukraine.  The  agreement  provides  for  joint 
efforts  in  the  transportation  of  fish,  the 
construction  of  fishing  and  fishery  support 
vessels,  and  the  delivery  of  new  and  spare 
parts  and  equipment.  Both  countries  have 
also  committed  themselves  to  develop  joint 
patents  and  standards  procedures  in  their 
respective  fishing  industries.'"  One  of  the 
possible  advantages  of  this  agreement  for  the 
Bulgarians  will  be  the  chance  to  repair  and 
modernize  their  5  SIBIR-class  fishery 
transport  vessels  in  the  Ukrainian  shipyard 
where  they  were  originally  built.  Another 
will  be  the  conduct  of  joint  fishery  operations 
in  the  Antarctic. 

Canada:  Ukraine  has  been  holding 
discussions  with  Canada  aimed  at  obtaming  a 
catch  quota  in  the  area  governed  by  the  North 
Atlantic  Fisheries  Organization  (NAFO).  The 
Ukrainians  claim  to  have  fished  the  200-mile 
zone  of  Canada  in  the  past  (as  part  of  the 
Soviet  Union's  fleet)  and  feel  that  they  are 
entitled  to  have  a  portion  of  the  former  Soviet 
NAFO  quota,  which  has  been  "appropriated" 
by  the  Russian  Federation.'^  In  1993,  the 
Russians  gave  a  portion  of  their  inherited 
NAFO  quota  to  each  of  the  3  former  Soviet 


154 


Baltic  Republics,  but  nothing  to  Ukraine.  At 
the  subsequent  NAFO  annual  meeting  in 
October  1993,  the  Russian  Federation 
obtained  the  1994  catch  allocation  of  32,000 
t,  but  its  division  among  former  Soviet 
republics  has  not  yet  been  negotiated  as  of 
this  writing. 

Chile:  Ukrainian  companies  are  believed  to 
be  participating  in  Kerchval,  S.A.,  a  $4.5 
million  joint  venture  negotiated  by  Soviet 
officials.  The  Chilean  partners  are  Sodimin 
Ltd.,  Serpor  S.A.,  and  Conico,  S.A.  The 
joint  venture  will  operate  two  3,000-GRT 
stern  factory  trawlers  that  have  been 
transferred  from  the  former-Soviet  fleet  and 
reflagged  in  Chile.  Kerchval  will  catch, 
process,  and  market  fishery  products  (fresh, 
frozen,  and  canned)  in  international  markets, 
including  those  of  Eastern  Europe.'- 

The  Chilean  firm,  Compafiia  de 
Inversiones  also  signed  a  joint  venture 
agreement  with  the  Soviet  Fishermen's  Union 
of  Kerch,  which  is  in  Ukraine.''  The  authors 
believe  that  Ukrainian  companies  have  taken 
over  this  venture,  but  have  no  specific 
information. 

The  Gambia:  The  U.S.  Embassy  in  Banjul, 
the  Gambia,  transmitted  in  June  1993,  a  list 
of  fishing  licenses  issued  by  the  Gambian 
Government  to  foreign-owned  vessels  during 
the  past  7  years.  Among  these  were  3  "Kiev" 
vessels  (in  addition  to  4  "Kaliningrad" 
vessels).  It  is  presumed  that  the  "Kiev" 
vessels  belong  to  what  is  now  the  Ukrainian 
fishing  fleet,  but  unfortunately  no  information 
is  available  on  when  they  fished  there,  their 
names  and  catch,  or  whether  these  operations 
are  continuing  at  the  present  time. 

Mauritania:  The  Government  of  Ukraine 
concluded  a  bilateral  fisheries  agreement  with 


the  Mauritanian  Government  on  11  April 
1993.  The  agreement  concerns  the 
development  of  marine  fishing,  scientific  and 
technical  research,  training,  the  repair  of 
fishery  vessels,  and  the  creation  and 
promotion  of  joint  fishing  companies.-^ 

Nigeria:  In  early  1992,  the  Odessa  fishing 
company.  Atoll,  concluded  a  contract  with  the 
Nigerian  company  Lanny,  creating  the  Lanny- 
Atoll  fisheries  joint  venture.  This  contract 
was  supposed  to  allow  3  Ukrainian  vessels  to 
fish  in  the  Nigerian  200-mile  zone,  but,  upon 
arrival  in  Port  Harcourt,  the  vessels 
apparently  encountered  "red  tape"  which 
prevented  them  from  carrying  out  fishing 
operations.  The  vessels  and  their  crews  of  24 
Ukrainian  fishermen  languished  in  Nigeria  for 
several  months,  and  by  June  1992,  several 
fishermen  had  contracted  malaria.  Ukraine's 
lack  of  proper  diplomatic  and  economic 
support  in  Nigeria  meant  that  the  sick 
fishermen  remained  there  almost  another  2 
months  before  being  saved  by  the  local 
Russian  Embassy,  which  arranged  for  the  21 
sick  crew  members  and  3  dead  bodies  to  be 
flown  back  to  Kiev.^' 


VI.  FISHERY  COMPANIES 


In  1991,  before  the  dissolution  of  the 
Soviet  Union,  the  major  state-owned 
organizations  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
Soviet  Southern  Fisheries  Administration, 
YUGRYBA,  and  located  in  the  Soviet 
Socialist  Republic  of  Ukraine,  were: 
Antarktika,  Atlantika,  Kerchrybprom, 
Sevazrybprom,  Novorossiiskrybprom, 
Yugrybsudoremont,  Yugrybtechtsentr, 
Yugrybtranssbyt,  and  Yugrybpoisk  (appendix 
6)."  It  is  not  known  whether  a  privatization 
campaign    is    underway    to    convert    these 


155 


companies      into      private      share-holding 
companies. 

The  ANTARKTIKA  Fisheries  Production 
Association  has  its  roots  in  the  Whaling  Fleet 
Administration  set  up  in  the  Black  Sea  port  of 
Odessa  in  1946. 

In  1987,  the  Association  ceased  whaling 
operations  and  its  largest  whaling  vessel, 
which  was  constructed  in  1959,  the  Sovetskaia 
Ukraina  (32,024  GRT),  was  re-equipped  to 
catch,  process,  and  can  fish. 
ANTARKTIKA's  huge  fish  factory 
mothership,  the  Vostok  (26,400  GRT),  carries 
her  own  fleet  of  1 1  fishing  vessels  on  board, 
and  can  produce  25,000  cans  of  fish  daily.'^^ 
The  company's  fleet  comprised  over  40 
trawlers  of  various  classes  (in  addition  to  the 
2  large  motherships),  and  it  also  owned  shore- 
processing  plants,  construction  facilities,  and 
a  ship  repair  yard;  it  employed  11,000 
persons. 


24 


In  1991,  ANTARKTIKA  owned  57 
fishing,  12  transport,  and  2  factory  vessels, 
and  employed  13,400  people. 

The  ATLANTIKA  Fisheries  Production 
Association  was  a  result  of  the  I960 
expansion  of  the  Soviet  fishing  industry  and 
the  creation  of  the  Sevastopol  Ocean  Fishing 
Administration,  which  in  1972  changed  its 
name  to  ATLANTIKA.  In  1991,  the 
Association  employed  8,850  people  and 
owned  over  45  fishing  and  3  training  vessels. 

KERCHRYBPROM,  which  was  formed 
in  1950  as  the  Kerch  State-owned  Base  of 
Fishing  and  Marine  Mammals,  is  one  of  the 
oldest  state  enterprises  in  the  Azov/Black  Sea 
Region.  In  1991,  the  Association  owned  33 
fishing,  5  transport,  and  2  floating  factories, 
and  employed  8,120  people. 


YUGRYBSUDOREMONT      is      a 

commercial  repair  shipyard  founded  in  1981. 
It  repairs  large  vessels  and  owns  3  docks,  1  in 
Kerch  and  2  floating  docks  in  Sevastopol. 

YUGRYBTRANSSBYT,  die  Refrigerated 
Transport  and  Trading  Administration,  was 
formed  in  1967.  It  is  responsible  for 
receiving  fish  and  marine  products  from 
national  and  foreign  vessels  and  transporting 
them  to  Soviet  and  foreign  ports  for 
processing  or  marketing. 

YUGRYBPOISK,  the  Southern  Fisheries 
Exploratory  and  Production  Association, 
specializes  in  fish  prospecting  and  in  marine 
research.  Established  in  1939,  it  owned  45 
vessels  of  various  types  and  classes  carrying 
many  kinds  of  fishing  gear,  fish-finding 
equipment  and  instruments,  and  conducting 
several  research  projects  in  1991.  Its 
research  vessels  perform  hydrographic 
surveys,  search  for  new  potential  catch 
species  and  fishing  grounds,  and  analyze 
geophysical  and  hydrometeorological  data. 

Independent  fishing  companies  began  to 
form  in  Ukraine  as  early  as  1988.  For 
instance,  the  crew  of  the  trawler 
Dneprodzerzhinsk  (ATLANTIK  class  of  2,654 
GRT)  leased  a  vessel  from  the 
ANTARKTIKA  Association  with  plans  to 
operate  it  independently  on  a  contract  basis. 
Details  of  the  activities  of  this  venture  are  not 
known,  nor  whether  others  have  followed  in 
the  steps  of  this  ambitious  and  innovative 
crew." 

Information  on  other  independent  fishing 
companies  and  on  the  current  status  of  the 
above-mentioned  state-owned  enterprises  is 
not  available. 


156 


VII.  OUTLOOK 


The  prospects  for  the  Ukrainian  fishing 
industry  are  difficult  to  determine  because  of 
the  dearth  of  available  information. 
Ukrainian  fishermen  suffer  from  some  of  the 
same  problems  as  those  in  the  three  Baltic 
states  (i.e.,  loss  of  access  to  distant-water 
fishing  grounds,  limited  diplomatic 
representation,  and  the  high  price  of  diesel 
fuel),  but  are  also  further  hampered  by  the 
relatively  slow  pace  of  economic  reform  in 
the     country.  Ukraine's     Government, 

especially  the  parliament,  is  conservative  and 
has  implemented  few  reforms  necessary  to 
create  a  free  market  economy.  It  also  has 
made  little  progress  towards  privatizing  state- 
owned  companies. 

Ukraine  has  a  substantial  fishing  fleet, 
but  apparently  lacks  the  management  skills  to 
utilize  it  efficiently.  An  official  Ukrainian 
Government  source  indicated  that  only  about 
30  percent  of  the  Ukrainian  high-seas  fleet 
was  deployed  in  distant-water  fishing 
operations  in  the  summer  of  1993,  the  height 
of  the  fishing  season.  The  remainder  was 
probably  idle  in  Ukrainian  ports. 


SOURCES 


Baseinovoe  Proizvodstvennoe  Ob  'edinenie 
Yugryba.    Sevastopol,  1991. 

Lloyd's  Register  of  Shipping.  Lloyd's  Fleet 
Statistics  at  31  December  1992.  London, 
1993. 

U.S.  Navy.  Office  of  Naval  Intelligence,  29 
July  1993. 


157 


ENDNOTES 


1.  National  Technical  Information  Service.  Ukraine:  An  Economic  Profile,  November  1991;  BISNIS.  Commercial 
Overview  of  Ukraine,  Washington,  DC,  1993. 

2.  BISNIS.  Commercial  Overview  of  Ukraine.  Washington,  DC,  1993.  The  figure  of  51.9  million  inhabitants  is 
from  the  July  1992  census. 

3.  U.S.  Navy,  Office  of  Naval  Intelligence,  (List  of  reflagged  fishing  vessels  registered  in  Malta,  July  1993). 

4.  Ibid. 

5.  Rybatskie  Novosti  (Moscow),  No.  2,  January  1993. 

6.  Moscow  Radio,  21  December  1988. 

7.  Soviet  TV,  6  July  1988. 

8.  Radio  Ukraine,  English  Broadcast,  June  24,  1993. 

9.  Deputy  Chairman  of  the  Ukrainian  State  Committee  on  Fisheries,  Personal  Conmiunication.  16  July  1993.   See 
the  section  on  Morocco  in  chapter  2  of  this  report  for  more  infonnation. 

10.  Fishing  News  International,  September  1991. 

1 1 .  See  section  VI  for  explanation  of  these  acronyms. 

12.  Convention  on  Conservation  of  Antarctic  Marine  Living  Resources  (CCAMLR),  Inspection  System  Circular, 
27  January  1993. 

13.  Fishing  News  International,  November  1992. 

14.  U.S.  Embassy,  Windhoek,  "Fisheries  of  Namibia,"  1991.    Of  these  19  vessels,  5  belonged  to  the  Antarktika 
company,  5  to  Atlantika  company,  5  to  YUGRYBPOISK,  and  4  to  KERCHRYBPROM. 

15.  Eurofish  Report,  30  January  1992. 

16.  U.S.  Embassy,  Sofia,  29  September  1993.    The  most  recent  data  indicate  tiiat  the  Bulgarian  and  Ukrainian 
fishing  fleets  will  conduct  joint  fishing  operations  in  the  Antarctic  in  the  CCAMLR  Convention  area. 

17.  Canadian  Department  of  Fisheries  and  Oceans,  Personal  Communication,  20  September  1992. 

18.  "Sociedad  Conjunta  Chileano-Sovietica,"  Industrias  Pesquerus,  10  August  1991,  p.  35. 

19.  "Commercial  agreement  with  the  USSR  signed,"  Chile  Economic  Report.  November,  1990,  p.  3. 

20.  Islamic  Republic  of  Mauritania  Radio  (Nouakchott),  1 1  April  1993. 

21.  ITAR-TASS  News  Agency  (Moscow),  24  July  1992. 


22.  Baseinovoe  Proizvodstx'ennoe  Ob'edinenie  Yugryba.  Sevastopol,  1991.  All  information  in  section  VI,  unless 
otlierwise  noted,  is  From  tliis  YUGRYBA  brochure. 

23.  Fishing  News  International,  September  1993.  Tlie  Vostok  is  the  largest  fish  processing  vessel  in  the  world  and 
was  the  flagship  of  the  former  Soviet  fishing  fleet  when  she  was  constructed  22  years  ago  at  the  Admiralteiskyi 
Shipyard  in  Leningrad.  This  vessel  has  26,000  horsepower  and  uses  a  crew  of  484  to  operate  her  processing  lines. 

24.  Moscow  Radio,  16  November  1987. 

25.  Moscow  Radio  for  Seamen,  7  August  1988. 


159 


Appendix  1.  Ukraine.  High-seas  fishing  and  fishery  support  fleet,  by  vessel 
name,  class,  gross  registered  tonnage,  and  country  and  year  of 
construction;  1993. 


Vessel  name 


Class 


GRT 


Country 


Year 


Achuyevskiy 

Adaykhokh 

Aelita 

Akhi 1 1  eon 

Akhtuba 

Al  Garraf 

Aleksandr  Lavrenov 

Aleksei  Slobodchikov 

Alma 

Alsu 

Amurskiy  Zal iv 

Anapskiy 

Anas t as i a 

Anatoliy  Gankevich 

Anatol iy  Khal in 

Antarktida 

Apogey 

Apsheron 

Arabat 

Arneb 

Artek 

Astan  Kesayev 

Ayu  Dag 

Balta 

Barograf 

Bastion 

Belokamensk 

Beriks 

Besshumnyy 

Biosfera 

Bolshevo 

Boris  Alekseyev 

Bukhta  Kamyshovaya 

Bukhta  Omega 

Burevestnik 

Chatyr  Dag 

Chauda 

Cheremosh 

Daryal 

Deneb 

Desyataya  Pyatiletka 

D  i  vnyy 

Dmitry  Stefanov 

Dneprodzerzhinsk 

Dneprovskiy  Li  man 

Donisar 

Dvinskiy  Zal iv 

Elektrogorsk 

E 1 1  i  gen 

Fartak 

Fedor  Korobkov 

Fidlent 

Flotinspektsiya  06 

Foros 

Furat 

Gantiadi 

Garpuner  Prokopenko 

Garpuner  Zarva 

General  Arshintsev 

General  Chernyakhovskiy 

General  Ostryakov 

General  Petrov 

Geroi  Adzhimushkaya 

Geroi  Eltigena 

Geroi  Kyryma 


ZHELEZNYAKOV  bU& 

PROMETEY  MOD  A  3,977 

MAYAK  557 

PROMETEY  3,933 

ATLANTIK  2,177 

ZHELEZNYAKOV  775 

ORLENOK  1,513 
PULKOVSKIY  MERIDIAN  4,407 

ATLANTIK  2,177 

ATLANTIK  2,177 

AMURSKIY  ZAL IV  12,891 

ZHELEZNYAKOV  648 
726 
PULKOVSKIY  MERIDIAN  4,407 
NATALIYA  KOVSHOVA    6,620 

ANTARKTIDA  6,392 

PROMETEY  3,931 

ATLANTIK  2,650 

PROMETEY  3,931 

ZHELEZNYAKOV  649 

ATLANTIK  2,652 

PROMETEY  MOD  A  3,977 

ATLANTIK  2,177 

ATLANTIK  2,652 

ATLANTIK  2,211 

RADUZHNYY  633 

KRONSHTADT  2,327 

MAYAK  600 

MIRNYY  718 

PROMETEY  3,977 

TROPIK  1,920 

PROMETEY  MOD  A  3,977 

BUKHTA  RUSSKAYA  6,607 

BUKHTA  RUSSKAYA  6,607 

ATLANTIK  2,652 

ATKANTIK  2,164 

ZHELEZNYAKOV  775 

ZHELEZNYAKOV  775 

ATLANTIK  2,654 

TROPIK  1,920 
PULKOVSKIY  MERIDAN   4,407 

MIRNYY  718 

ORLENOK  1,513 

ATLANTIK  2,654 

VETER  4,639 

PROMETEY  MOD  A  3,933 

AMURSKIY  ZALIV  12,891 

ZHELEZNYAKOV  775 

BASKUNCHAK  1,611 

ZHELEZNYAKOV  775 

MOONZUND  7,656 

ATLANTIK  2,242 

MAYAK  565 

PROMETEY  3,980 

ZHELEZNYAKOV  775 

REMBRANDT  4,020 

PROMETEY  3,931 

PROMETEY  MOD  A  3,977 

MAYAK  558 

PROMETEY  3,960 

PROMETEY  3,931 

ANTARKTIDA  6,392 

ATLANTIK  2,154 

REMBRANDT  4,199 

RADUZHNYY  633 


USSR 

1976 

GDR 

1978 

USSR 

1967 

GDR 

1973 

GDR 

1967 

USSR 

1976 

GDR 

1985 

USSR 

1991 

GDR 

1968 

GDR 

1967 

France 

1970 

USSR 

1976 

USSR 

1992 

USSR 

1990 

France 

1967 

USSR 

1984 

GDR 

1974 

GDR 

1967 

GDR 

1975 

USSR 

1973 

GDR 

1967 

GDR 

1982 

GDR 

1967 

GDR 

1967 

GDR 

1973 

USSR 

1973 

USSR 

1979 

USSR 

1973 

USSR 

1957 

GDR 

1977 

GDR 

1965 

GDR 

1982 

USSR 

1986 

USSR 

1987 

GDR 

1967 

GDR 

1971 

USSR 

1974 

USSR 

1974 

GDR 

1968 

GDR 

1964 

USSR 

1990 

USSR 

1959 

GDR 

1987 

GDR 

1969 

FRG 

1967 

GDR 

1978 

France 

1971 

USSR 

1975 

USSR 

1971 

USSR 

1979 

GDR 

1989 

GDR 

1971 

USSR 

1973 

GDR 

1973 

USSR 

1973 

Netherlands 

1969 

GDR 

1976 

GDR 

1980 

USSR 

1965 

GDR 

1973 

GDR 

1976 

USSR 

1987 

GDR 

1971 

Netherlands 

1969 

USSR 

1988 

160 


Appendix  1.  Ukraine.  Continued. 


Vessel  name 


Class 


CRT 


Country 


Year 


Geroi  Perekopa 

RADUZHNYY 

633 

Geroyevka 

PROMETEY  MOD  A 

3,977 

Gidrobiolog 

ALPINIST  MOD  A 

787 

Gidronavt 

ALPINIST  HOD  A 

788 

Golub  Mira 

MAYAK 

558 

Gornostayevka 

ZHELEZNYAKOV 

775 

Goryn 

ZHELEZNYAKOV 

648 

Grigoriy  Kovtun 

PULKOVSKIY  MERIDIAN 

4,407 

Grom 

PROMETEY  MOD  A 

3,977 

Ignat  Pavlyuchenkov 

ORLENOK 

1,513 

Ikhtiandr 

MAYAKOVSKIY 

2,847 

I  lichevsk 

ATLANTIK 

2,653 

I lya  Repin 

SIBIR 

5,418 

Imeni  61  Kommunara 

SIBIR 

5,418 

Ivan  Burmistrov 

MOONZUND 

7,656 

Ivan  Golubets 

PULKOVSKIY  MERIDIAN 

Ivan  Kucherenko 

MOONZUND 

7,656 

Ivan  Pribilskiy 

BUKHTA  RUSSKAYA 

6,607 

Ivan  Vernigorenko 

ORLENOK 

1,513 

Izmail 

ATLANTIK 

2,654 

Kacha 

ZHELEZNYAKOV 

775 

Kal imita 

ZHELEZNYAKOV 

775 

Kalper 

PROMETEY  MOD  A 

3,933 

Kamchatskiy  Proliv 

50  LET  SSSR 

13,083 

Kandalakshskiy  Zaliv 

AMURSKIY  ZALIV 

12,891 

<antarus 

ZHELEZNYAKOV 

649 

Kapitan  Bubnov 

MOONZUND 

7,656 

Kapitan  Butrimov 

MOONZUND 

7,656 

Kapitan  Labunets 

MOONZUND 

7,656 

Kapitan  Orlikova 

MOONZUND 

7,656 

Kapitan  Purgin 

PROMETEY  MOD  A 

3,977 

Kara  Dag 

ATLANTIK 

2,164 

Karat 

ZHELEZNYAKOV 

775 

Kazantip 

ATLANTIK 

2,654 

Kekurnyy 

RADUZHNYY 

633 

Kerchenskiy  Komsomolets 

ZHELEZNYAKOV 

775 

Kerchenskiy  Prol iv 

50  LET  SSSR 

13,083 

Khersones 

DAR  MLODZIEZY 

2,385 

Khronometr 

ATLANTIK 

2,657 

Kikineiz 

ZHELEZNYAKOV 

775 

Ki  rovograd 

ATLANTIK 

2,657 

Kodyma 

ZHELEZNYAKOV 

775 

Kometa  Galeya 

ZHELEZNYAKOV 

775 

Komsomolets  Sevastopolya 

ATLANTIK 

2,657 

Konstruktor  Koshkin 

ANTARKTIDA 

6,392 

Krasnyy  Luch 

LENINSKIY  LUCH 

4,950 

Krivaya  Kosa 

726 

Krymskiy 

RADUZHNYY 

633 

Krymskiy  Rabochiy 

PROMETEY  MOD  A 

3,977 

Kuchurgan 

ZHELEZNYAKOV 

775 

Kumachevo 

ZHELEZNYAKOV 

775 

Kurs 

SKRYPLEV 

4,700 

Leninogorsk 

ATLANTIK 

2,652 

Lider 

ZHELEZNYAKOV 

775 

Li  man 

ATLANTIK 

2,657 

Lunga 

ZHELEZNYAKOV 

775 

Lvov 

ATLANTIK 

2,657 

Lyudmila  Pavlichenko 

PROMETEY 

3,977 

Maksim  Khomyakov 

PROMETEY  MOD  A 

3,977 

Mariya  Polivanova 

NATAL  I YA  KOVSHOVA 

8,425 

Marl  in 

MAYAK 

699 

Marshal  Sudets 

ANTARKTIDA 

6,392 

Meganom 

ATLANTIK 

2,177 

Melitopol 

ATLANTIK 

2,177 

Merak 

ZHELEZNYAKOV 

775 

Meridian  1 

PULKOVSKIY  MERIDIAN 

4,407 

Mezosfera 

PROMETEY 

3,977 

Mikhaylovsk 

ZHELEZNYAKOV 

775 

USSR 

1982 

GDR 

1980 

USSR 

1978 

USSR 

1977 

USSR 

1967 

USSR 

1983 

USSR 

1974 

USSR 

1983 

GDR 

1982 

GDR 

1987 

USSR 

1973 

GDR 

1968 

USSR 

1966 

USSR 

1968 

GDR 

1987 

USSR/Ukraine  1992 

GDR 

1988 

USSR 

1988 

GDR 

1985 

GDR 

1969 

USSR 

1990 

USSR 

1990 

GDR 

1978 

USSR 

1984 

France 

1971 

USSR 

1973 

Germany 

1992 

Germany 

1990 

Germany 

1990 

GDR 

1988 

GDR 

1977 

GDR 

1971 

USSR 

1990 

GDR 

1970 

USSR 

1985 

USSR 

1986 

USSR 

1978 

Poland 

1988 

GDR 

1973 

USSR 

1974 

GDR 

1969 

USSR 

1974 

USSR 

1987 

GDR 

1969 

USSR 

1988 

Japan 

1964 

USSR 

1992 

USSR 

1985 

GDR 

1983 

USSR 

1974 

USSR 

1984 

Denmark 

1969 

GDR 

1968 

USSR 

1968 

GDR 

1968 

USSR 

1974 

GDR 

1969 

GDR 

1976 

GDR 

1982 

France 

1966 

USSR 

1964 

USSR 

1987 

GDR 

1970 

GDR 

1970 

USSR 

1981 

USSR 

1991 

GDR 

1977 

USSR 

1975 

161 


Appendix  1.  Ukraine.  Continued. 


Vessel  name 

Class 

GRT 

Country 

Year 

Hikhaylovskiy  Solovev 

ZHELEZNYAKOV 

775 

USSR 

1990 

Mirzam 

ZHELEZNYAKOV 

775 

USSR 

1980 

Hitrldat 

ATLANTIK 

2,653 

GDR 

1969 

Molodaya  Gvardiya 

SIBIR 

5,942 

USSR 

1967 

More  Sodruzhestva 

ANTARKTIDA 

6,392 

USSR 

1986 

Musson 

PLAYYA  KHIRON 

3,227 

FRG 

1961 

Mys  Khrustalnyy 

KALININGRADNEFT 

4,821 

Finland 

1981 

Mys  Nadeshnyy 

LUCHEGORSK 

3,162 

USSR 

1973 

Mys  Ostrovskogo 

KRONSHTADT 

2,327 

USSR 

1978 

Mys  Pavlovskiy 

KALININGRADNEFT 

4,821 

F  i  n I  and 

1982 

Mys  Sarych 

KALININGRADNEFT 

4,821 

F  i  n I  and 

1979 

Myskhako 

PROMETEY 

3,977 

GDR 

1975 

Natal iya  Kovshova 

NATAL IYA  KOVSHOVA 

8,425 

France 

1965 

Nef ri tovyy 

RADUZHNYY 

633 

USSR 

1984 

Nikolay  Fi Ichenkov 

ANTARKTIDA 

6,392 

USSR 

1986 

Nikolay  Pustovoytenko 

PROMETEY  MOD  A 

3,977 

GDR 

1982 

Niolai  Reshetnyak 

ZHELEZNYAKOV 

775 

USSR 

1970 

Nikolayev 

ATLANTIK 

2,657 

GDR 

1970 

Nina  Oni I  ova 

PROMETEY 

3,977 

GDR 

1975 

Nishtun 

ZHELEZNYAKOV 

775 

USSR 

1976 

Novoa I eksandrovsk 

ZHELEZNYAKOV 

775 

USSR 

1978 

Novoukrainka 

PROMETEY  MOD  A 

3,977 

GDR 

1979 

Omalo 

ORLENOK 

1,513 

GDR 

1984 

Onezhskiy  Zaliv 

AMURSKIY  ZALIV 

12,891 

France 

1970 

Oreanda 

ORLENOK 

1,513 

GDR 

1984 

Orkhevi 

ORLENOK 

1,513 

GDR 

1984 

Orlinoye 

ATLANTIK 

2,657 

GDR 

1968 

Ostropol 

ORLENOK 

1,513 

GDR 

1985 

Pantikapey 

MAYAK 

564 

USSR 

1972 

Pechorsk 

RADUZHNYY 

633 

USSR 

1974 

Peredovik 

ATLANTIK 

2,652 

GDR 

1968 

Peri  gey 

PROMETEY 

3,933 

GDR 

1975 

Petr  Buyko 

ORLENOK 

1,513 

GDR 

1985 

Piatidesyati i  Let  Oktyabra 

50  LET  SSSR 

13,083 

USSR 

1977 

Pi  oner  Volkov 

SIBIR 

5,431 

USSR 

1968 

Pitsunda 

ATLANTIK 

2,650 

GDR 

1967 

Pluton 

ATLANTIK 

2,650 

GDR 

1967 

Poiskovik 

ZHELEZNYAKOV 

635 

USSR 

1981 

Poltava 

ATLANTIK 

2,653 

GDR 

1969 

Primorets 

ZHELEZNYAKOV 

775 

USSR 

1969 

Professor  Mesyatsev 

ATLANTIK 

2,242 

GDR 

1972 

Professor  Voyevodin 

PROMETEY  MOD  A 

3,977 

GDR 

1979 

Proliv 

ATLANTIK 

2,650 

GDR 

1968 

Proliv  Longa 

50  LET  SSSR 

13,083 

USSR 

1983 

Proliv  Sannikova 

50  LET  SSSR 

13,083 

USSR 

1975 

Pyatigorsk 

ATLANTIK 

2,657 

GDR 

1968 

Qusayer 

ZHELEZNYAKOV 

775 

USSR 

1977 

Redut 

RADUZHNYY 

633 

USSR 

1974 

Rekord 

ZHELEZNYAKOV 

775 

USSR 

1982 

Ritsa 

REMBRANDT 

5,025 

Netherlands 

1969 

Rizhskiy  Zal iv 

AMURSKIY  ZALIV 

12,891 

France 

1970 

Rybak  Odessy 

MOONZUND 

7,656 

Germany 

1991 

Saor-1 

726 

USSR 

1992 

Sapun  Gora 

ATLANTIK 

2,657 

GDR 

1972 

Semen  Volkov 

ZHELEZNYAKOV 

775 

USSR 

1969 

Sevastopolskaya  Bukhta 

BUKHTA  RUSSKAYA  MOD 

A  6,989 

USSR 

1989 

Sevastopolskaya  Rybak 

ZHELEZNYAKOV 

775 

USSR 

1970 

Shamasan 

ZHELEZNYAKOV 

775 

USSR 

1979 

Sharapovao 

PROMETEY  MOD  A 

3,977 

GDR 

1981 

Shaydurovo 

PROMETEY  MOD  A 

3,977 

GDR 

1981 

Shepetovka 

PROMETEY  MOO  A 

3,977 

GDR 

1981 

Shkval 

4,195 

Sweden 

1963 

Sivash 

ATLANTIK 

2,654 

GDR 

1969 

Slava  Kerch i 

MAYAK 

699 

USSR 

1967 

Sokol inoye 

ATLANTIK 

2,653 

GDR 

1969 

Sovetskaya  Ukraina 

SOVETSKAYA  UKRAINA 

32,024 

USSR 

1959 

Soyuz  3 

ATLANTIK 

2,652 

GDR 

1968 

Srednyaya  <osa 

ZHELEZNYAKOV 

775 

USSR 

1983 

162 


Appendix  1.  Ukraine. 

Continued. 

Vessel  name 

Class 

GRT 

Country 

Year 

Stratosfera 

PROMETEY 

3,931 

GDR 

1977 

Styr 

ZHELEZNYAKOV 

775 

USSR 

1974 

Sugan 

PROMETEY  MOD  A 

3,977 

GDR 

1978 

Supsa 

ZHELEZNYAKOV 

775 

USSR 

1980 

Taganrog 

ATLANTIK 

2,653 

GDR 

1968 

Taganrogskiy  Zal iv 

AMURSKIY  ZALIV 

12,891 

France 

1972 

Tarkhan 

ZHELEZNYAKOV 

775 

USSR 

1974 

Tarkankut 

ALTAY 

3,468 

Finland 

1972 

Tavrida 

ATLANTIK 

2,657 

GDR 

1969 

Tayfun 

VETER 

4,728 

FGR 

1964 

Timofeyevsk 

RADZIONKOW 

5,366 

Poland 

1980 

Titovyy 

RADUZHNYY 

633 

USSR 

1987 

Tkvarchel  i 

REMBRANDT 

5,019 

Netherlands 

1968 

Troposfera 

PROMETEY 

3,977 

GDR 

1977 

Truzhenik  Morya 

PROMETEY 

3,933 

GDR 

1975 

Tsiklon 

VETER 

4,698 

FRG 

1963 

Utan  Ude 

SIBIR 

5,942 

USSR 

1969 

Uragan 

VETER 

4,703 

FRG 

1964 

Ussuriyskiy  Zal iv 

AMURSKIY  ZALIV 

12,891 

France 

1971 

Van  Gog 

REMBRANDT 

4,020 

Netherlands 

1965 

Vasi I iy  Polenov 

SIBIR 

5,418 

USSR 

1966 

Venera  IV 

ATLANTIK 

2,652 

GDR 

1968 

Vereshchagino 

ZHELEZNYAKOV 

775 

USSR 

1978 

Veter 

VETER 

4,716 

FRG 

1964 

Veteran 

TAVRIYA 

3,555 

USSR 

1967 

Vinogradnoye 

ZHELEZNYAKOV 

775 

USSR 

1984 

Vladimir  Kalinin 

ORLENOK 

1,513 

GDR 

1985 

Voroshi lovgrad 

PROMETEY 

3,931 

GDR 

1976 

Vostok 

VOSTOK 

26,400 

USSR 

1971 

Vozrozhdeniye 

PROMETEY  MOD  A 

3,977 

GDR 

1980 

Vzmore 

ATLANTIK 

2,652 

GDR 

1968 

Yaroslav  losseliani 

PROMETEY  MOD  A 

3,977 

GDR 

1982 

Yelsk 

ZHELEZNYAKOV 

649 

USSR 

1972 

Yevgeniy  Polyakov 

PROMETEY  MOD  A 

3,977 

GDR 

1982 

Yunaya  Smena 

ZHELEZNYAKOV 

775 

USSR 

1985 

Zab 

ZHELEZNYAKOV 

775 

USSR 

1974 

Zarechensk 

REMBRANDT 

4,020 

Netherlands 

1967 

Zbruch 

ZHELEZNYAKOV 

648 

USSR 

1974 

Zhukovskiy 

MAYAKOVSKIY 

2,336 

USSR 

1958 

Znamya  Kerch i 

PROMETEY 

3,933 

GDR 

1976 

Znamya  Truda 

PROMETEY 

3,931 

GDR 

1975 

Zodiak 

REMBRANDT 

4,020 

Netherlands 

1967 

Zolotoy  Kolos 

ATLANTIK 

2,654 

GDR 

1969 

Zvezda  Azova 

PROMETEY  MOD  A 

3,977 

GDR 

1981 

Zvezda  Chernomorya 

PROMETEY  MOD  A 

3,977 

GDR 

1981 

Zvezda  Kryma 

ATLANTIK 

2,154 

GDR 

1972 

Zvezda  Sevastopolya 

PROMETEY  MOD  A 

3,977 

GDR 

1981 

TOTAL  =  247 

vessels      TOTAL  GROSS 

TONNAGE  = 

906,823  GRT 

Source:  U.S.  Navy,  Office  of  Naval  Intelligence,  27,  July  1993. 


163 


Appendix  2.  Ukraine.  Fishing  and  fishery  support  fleet,  by  class  of  vessel,  number  of  vessels,  total  and  average 
gross  tonnage,  and  country  and  year  of  construction;  1951-1993. 


Vessel  class 

Nunnber  of 

Gross 

Tonnage 

Construction 

Vessels 

Total 

Average 

Country 

Years 

AGAT 

1 

166 

166 

USSR 

1984 

ALPINIST  MOD  A 

2 

1,575 

787 

USSR 

1977-78 

ALTAY 

1 

3,468 

3,468 

Finland 

1972 

AMURSKIY  ZALIV 

7 

90,237 

12,891 

France 

1970-72 

ANTARKTIDA 

6 

38,352 

6,392 

USSR 

1984-88 

ATLANTIK 

46 

115,968 

2,336 

GDR 

1967-76 

BALTIKA 

1 

108 

108 

USSR 

1989 

BASKUNCHAK 

1 

1,611 

1,611 

USSR 

1971 

BUKHTA  RUSSKAYA 

3 

19,821 

6,607 

USSR 

1986-88 

BUKHTA  RUSSKAYA  MOD  A 

1 

6,989 

6,989 

USSR 

1989 

DAR  MLODZIEZY 

1 

2,385 

2,385 

Poland 

1988 

GIRULYAY 

5 

1,410 

282 

USSR 

1983-85 

KALININGRADNEFT 

3 

14,463 

4,821 

Finland 

1979-82 

KERCH 

31 

3,224 

104 

USSR 

1986-90 

KIROVETS 

2 

380 

190 

USSR 

1987-89 

KONTUR 

1 

264 

264 

GDR 

1957 

KRONSHTADT 

2 

4,654 

2,327 

USSR 

1978-79 

LEDA 

1 

230 

230 

Poland 

1984 

LENINSKIY  LUCH 

1 

4,950 

4,950 

Japan 

1964 

LUCHEGORSK 

1 

3,162 

3,162 

USSR 

1973 

MANEVRENNYY 

15 

2,446 

163 

USSR 

1975-83 

MAYAK 

8 

4,800 

600 

USSR 

1965-73 

MAYAKOVSKIY 

2 

5,183 

2,591 

USSR 

1958,  1973 

MIRNYY 

2 

1,436 

718 

USSR 

1957-59 

MOONZUND 

8 

61,248 

7,656 

GDR 

1987-91 

NATAL  I YA  KOVSHOVA 

3 

23,110 

7,703 

France 

1965-67 

ORLENOK 

10 

15,130 

1,513 

GOR 

1984-67 

PIATIDESIATILETIE  SSSR 

5 

65,415 

13,083 

USSR 

1975-84 

PLAYYA  KHIRON 

1 

3,227 

3,227 

FRG 

1961 

PROMETEY 

19 

75,051 

3,950 

GDR 

1974-77 

PROMETEY  MOD  A 

24 

95,360 

4,407 

GDR 

1978-83 

PULKOVSKIY  MERIDIAN 

6 

22,035 

3,672 

USSR 

1987-91 

RADUZHNYY 

9 

5,697 

633 

USSR 

1973-87 

RADZIONKOW 

1 

5,366 

5,366 

Poland 

1986 

REMBRANDT 

7 

30,323 

4,331 

Netherlands 

1965-70 

RR  151 

11 

2,824 

256 

GDR 

1951-57 

SIBIR 

6 

33,569 

5,594 

USSR 

1968-69 

SKRYPLEV 

1 

4,700 

4,700 

Denmark 

1969 

SOVETSKAYA  UKRAINA 

1 

32,024 

32,024 

USSR 

1962 

TAVRIYA 

1 

3,555 

3,555 

USSR 

1967 

TROPIK 

2 

3,840 

1,920 

GDR 

1964-65 

TSESIS 

3 

914 

304 

GDR 

1956-57 

TUNTSELOV  1 

1 

265 

265 

USSR 

1982 

VETER 

5 

23,484 

4,696 

GDR 

1963-67 

VOSTOK 

1 

26,400 

26,400 

USSR 

1971 

ZHELEZNYAKOV 

47 

35,399 

753 

USSR 

1968-90 

UNSPECIFIED 

39 

10,605 

Number  of 

Classes:  47 

TOTAL  GRT  = 

906,823  GRT 

Source:  U.S.  Navy,  Office  of  Naval  Intelligence,  29  July  1993. 


Note:   The  classes  constructed  in  the  USSR  include  those  built  in  Ukrainian  &  Lithuanian  shipyards. 

FRG  -  Federal  Republic  of  Germany 

GDR  -  German  Democratic  Republic  (East  Germany) 


164 


Appendix  3.  Ukraine.  Fishing  fleet  reduction,  by  vessel  name,  class,  gross  tonnage, 
and  year  and  country  of  construction:  1993. 


Vessel  name 

Class 

Tonna_c]e 

Year  Built 

Built  In 

New  Owner 

VESSELS  REFLAGGED 

50  Let  SSSR 

Aldebaran 

Nalle 

Dnestr 

Odissey 

(gross 

50  LET  SSSR 

ZHELEZNYAKOV 

MANEVRENNYI 

DNEPR 

MAYAKOVSKYI 

registered  tons) 

13,083      1974 

775       1969 

164       1975 

1,360       1970 

2,788       1970 

USSR 
USSR 
USSR 
USSR 
USSR 

Russia 

Russia 

Estonia 

Malta 

Panama 

VESSELS  NO  LONGER  ACTIVE  IN  FISHERIES 

Al  Audem         ZHELEZNYAKOV     775 


1976 


USSR 


TOTAL  =  6  vessels 


TOTAL  GROSS  TONNAGE  =  18.945  GRT 


Source;  U.S.  Navy,  Office  of  Naval  Intelligence.  29  July  1993 

*  Inactive  as  of  29  January  1993 

Note:  This  list  probably  does  not  account  for  all  the  Ukrainian  decommissioned 
vessels  which  may  be  as  many  as  20  or  more. 


Appendix  4.  Ukraine.  Fishing  vessel  construction  in  domestic  shipyards: 
various  years. 


Shipyard 

Citv 

Vessel  class 

GRT 

Ve! 

;sel  type 

Oktyabrskii 

Nikolaev 

PULKOVSKII  MERIDIAN 
MAYAKOVSKYI 

4,407 
2,847 

BMRT 
BMRT 

Chernomorskii 

Nikolaev 

PULKOVSKII  MERIDIAN 
ALTAI R 
LUCHEGORSK 
LUCHEGORSK  MOD  A 
KRONSHTADT 
PIONER  LATVII 

4,407 

2,800 

2,792 

2,327 

N/A 

BMRT 

BMRT 
BMRT 
BMRT 
BMRT 

61  Kommunar 

Nikolaev 

TAVRIYA 

BUKHTA  RUSSKAYA 

SIBIR 

3,447 
6.607 
5,756 

Refr- 
Refr- 
Refr- 

ig  processor 
ig.  transport 
ig.  transport 

Okean 

Nikolaev 

ANTARKTIDA 
ALTAY 
GORIZONT 
ALTAI R 

6,392 

3,287 

4,537 

N/A 

BMRT 

Nosenko 

Nikolaev 

MAYAKOVSKYI 
SOVETSKAIA  UKRAINA 
TAVRIYA 

2,847 

33,154 

3,447 

BMRT 

Leninskaya  Kuzni 

tsa  Kiev 

MAYAK-800 
ALPINIST 

640 
721 

5RTM 
SRTM 

Kuibyshev 

Kherson 

N/A 

N/A 

? 

Krasnodarsk 

N/A 

N/A 

7 

Izmail 

ALTAI R 

N/A 

7 

7 

KAMCHATSKII  SHELF 

8,289 

Refn 

g  transport 

Source:  Office  of  International  Fisheries,  NMFS,  NO/\A,  October  1993  (Information 
IS  based  on  files  collected  over  the  past  30  years  The  list  may  not  be  complete  ) 

BRTM  -  Large  stern  factory  and  freezer  trawler 
SRTM  -  Medium  freezer  trawler 
N/A  -  Not  available 


165 


Appendix  5.  Ukraine.  High-seas  fisheries  catch  and  production; 
January-June  1992  and  1993. 


Commodi tv 

Jan, 

.  -June 

1993 

Jar 

i.-June  1992 

Change* 

(1,000 

metric 

tons) 

(percent) 

FISHERIES  CATCH 

155.2 

219.4 

-29.3 

PRODUCTION 

120.2 

135.5 

-38.5 

Edible  products 
frozen  fish 
gutted  fish  & 

fillets 
canned  fish 
smoked  fish 
salted  fish 

108.8 
88.7 

8.3 

18.0 

1.4 

0.7 

110.1 
73.4 

34.7 

-0.2 
+20.8 

N/A 

-48.1 

N/A 

N/A 

Non-edible  products 
f ishmeal 
other  fodder 

10.3 
1.1 

17.2 

-41.2 
N/A 

EXPORTS 

82.0 

- 

N/A 

Source:  Danish  Ministry  of  Fisheries,  Personal  Communication,  20 
October  1993. 

*  Percentage  of  change  in  1993  from  1992  figures. 
N/A  -  Not  applicable 

Note:  The  figures  for  1993  are  estimates  only. 


166 


Appendix  6.  Ukraine.  Fishery  vessels,  employment,  and  production 
of  the  main  YUGRYBA  companies,  by  company;  1991*, 

Company :_ 

(location) Vessels Employment   Production   Value  (1988) 


ANTARKTIKA 
(Odessa) 


ATLANTIKA 
(Sevastopol! 


KERCHRYBPROM 
(Kerch) 


57  fishing 
12  transport 

2  factories 
71  TOTAL 

45  fishing 

3  trainincf 
4  8  TOTAL 

33  fishing 
5  transport 
2  factories 

4  0  TOTAL 


(persons) 
13,400 


(metric  t)  (million  Rubles] 
153,000       348 


8,  850 


8,  120 


159,000 


113,200 


344 


212 


YUGRYBTRANSSBYT  50  transport     6,400 

YUGRYBPOISK      45  exploratory  and  research  vessels 

SEVAZRYBPROM     10  transport     2,600        28,400        51 


YUGRYBSUDOREMONT  1  dock  (Kerch) 

2  docks  (Sevastopol) 


7  .  7** 
14  .2** 


TOTAL 


NOVOROSSIISK-    24  fishing 
RYBFLOT*** 


264  fishing  and  fishery  support  vessels  and  3  docks 

4,300       101,600       152 


GRUZRYBPROM*** 
(Poti) 


22  fishing 


4,200 


63,500 


126 


Source:  Baseinovoe  Proizvodstvennoe   Ob' edinenie   Yugryba, 
Sevastopol,  1991.* 

*   The   exact   date   when   the   Southern   Region's   Fisheries 
Administration  (YUGRYBA)  brochure  was  published  is  only  estimated. 
The  value  is  for  the  year  1988.   The  vessel  statistics  are  probably 
for  the  year  1991  when  the  Soviet  Union  still  existed. 
**  Value  of  vessel  repairs  is  for  the  year  1989. 

***  These  administrations  are  no  longer  a  part  of  the  Ukrainian 
fishing  industry.  The  Novorossiisk  Fishing  Fleet  Administration  is 
in  the  Russian  Federation  and  is  responsible  to  its  Committee  on 
Fisheries  in  Moscow.  The  Georgian  Fisheries  Administration 
(GRUZRYBPROM)  is  in  independent  Georgia. 


167 


168 


3.4 


GEORGIA 


In  the  former  Soviet  Union,  the  fishery  fleets  of  all  republics,  including  Georgia,  operated 
as  a  unit  divided  only  by  the  various  fishing  regions.  This  system,  which  prevailed  for  the  past 
40  years,  was  suddenly  disrupted  by  the  new  political  arrangements.  Each  independent  country 
now  has  to  organize  its  own  support  and  transportation  activities,  and  obtain  its  own  fuel 
Georgia  has  no  oil  resources  and  must,  therefore,  buy  diesel  oil  from  Russia  or  other  countries. 
Georgia  has  been  plagued  with  internal  political  and  military  conflict  since  achieving 
independence  which  has  severely  damaged  the  country's  economy.  No  information  is  available 
on  the  fate  of  the  Georgian  high-seas  fleet  following  the  invasion  and  occupation  of  its  main  port 
in  Poti  by  rebel  troops  on  October  10,  1993.  The  outlook  for  the  Georgian  fleet  is  bleak  and 
it  remains  to  be  seen  whether  it  can  continue  operating. 


CONTENTS 

I.  Background 172 

II.  Fishing  Fleet 172 

III.  Fishing  Grounds 172 

IV.  Fisheries  Administradon 173 

V.  Outlook 173 

Sources    174 

Appendices 175 


Georgia 


801962 (R00088)  12  91 


I.  BACKGROUND 


The  Republic  of  Georgia  is  a  small 
former  Soviet  republic  with  a  total  area  of 
69,700  km,  or  slightly  larger  than  South 
Carolina,  located  south  of  Russia  and  north 
of  Turkey,  Armenia  and  Azerbaijan. 
Georgia  has  a  coastline  of  310  km  on  the 
Black  Sea  and  three  major  ports:  Poti, 
Batumi  and  Sukhumi.  The  population  in 
1992  was  5.6  million  inhabitants. 

The  Georgian  Fisheries  Production 
Association  (GRUZRYBPROM),  located  in 
Poti,  was  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
Southern  Fisheries  Administration 
(YUGRYBA),  until  the  breakup  of  the 
USSR  at  the  end  of  1991,  but  is  now  an 
independent  organization.  According  to  a 
YUGRYBA  brochure,  GRUZRYBPROM 
employed  4,200persons  in  1990;  in  1988,  its 
output  amounted  to  63,500  tons  of  fishery 
products. 


BMRTs     were     built     in    the     Stralsund 
Shipyard  in  the  former  German  Democratic 
Republic    in  the  late   1970s.    They  were  of 
the  ATLANTIK  class;  seven  were  delivered 
between   1967  and  1972. 

The  second  series  of  German-built 
BMRTs  was  purchased  by  Georgian 
fishermen  in  1980  and  1983  (appendix  2). 
They  were  of  the  PROMETEI  class,  an 
updated  and  larger  version  of  the 
ATLANTIK  class. 

Finally,  in  the  late  1980s,  the 
Chernomorskii  Shipyard,  located  in  the 
nearby  Ukrainian  city  of  Nikolaev  on  the 
Black     Sea,    delivered     4    PULKOVSKII 


II.  FISHING  FLEET 


Table  1.  Georgia.  Fishing  fleet,  by 

selected  vessel  capacity;  1993. 


Capacity 


Number 


GRT   Average  GRT 


Under  500  GRT 
Above  500  GRT 
TOTAL 


20 
15 
35 


2,910 
44.763 
47,673 


145 
2.984 
1,362 


Source:  U.S.  Navy,  Office  of  Naval 
Intelligence,  29  July  1993. 


Georgia  currently  has  35  fishing  vessels 
on  its  registry  (table  1  and  appendix  1)  with 
a  total  capacity  of  47,600  gross  registered 
tons. 

The  20  vessels  of  less  than  500  gross 
registered  tons  (GRT)  are  most  likely 
engaged  in  the  coastal  fisheries  in  the 
southeastern  Black  Sea.  There  is  no 
information  on  the  activities  of  this  fleet  of 
small  vessels  whose  average  gross  tonnage 
is  only  145  tons. 

The  high-seas  fleet  consists  of  13  large 
stern  factory  trawlers  (BMRTs)  and  two 
medium-sized   ones  (appendix  2).   The  first 


MERIDIAN-class     vessels,  each    of  which 
had  over  4,400  gross  registered  tons. 

The  2  ZHELEZNYAKOV-class 
medium  freezer  trawlers  were  delivered  in 
1981  and  1982.  Their  deployment  is  not 
known  -  they  might  be  used  for  exploratory 
and  research  assignments. 


III.  FISHING  GROUNDS 


Information  on  the  fishing  grounds  of 
the  Georgian  high-seas  fleet  of  13  large 
stern     factory    trawlers     (BMRTs)     is    not 


172 


complete.  From  various  sources,  however, 
the  authors  have  been  able  to  piece 
together  an  approximate  picture  of  their 
deployment.  In  1990  and  1991,  the 
Georgian  high-seas  fleet  was  fishing  in  two 
major  areas:  in  the  Southeast  Pacific  off 
Chile  and  Peru  and  along  the  coasts  of 
West  Africa.  The  effort  was  split  about 
evenly. 

It  appears,  however,  that  the  Pacific 
operations  were  discontinued  after  April 
1992  when  the  trawler,  Kolpasfievo,  left  the 
area.  In  1993,  almost  all  of  the  known 
vessels  were  fishing  off  the  African  coast. 
Whether  these  vessels,  on  their  return  to 
the  Georgian  ports,  also  fish  in  the  Black 
Sea  could  not  be  determined.  An  attempt 
to  diversify  their  fishing  operations  has  also 
been  noted.  For  example,  since  February 
1993,  the  trawler,  Akhmeta,  has  been  fishing 
in  the  Persian  Gulf,  possibly  under  a  joint 
venture  with  one  of  the  adjacent  countries. 

The  operation  of  the  BMRT,  Bratya 
Stoyanovy,  became  known  when  a  New 
Zealand  fishery  enforcement  patrol  seized 
the  vessel  sometime  late  in  1992  for  fishing 
in  a  prohibited  area  25  miles  off  the 
western  coast  of  South  Island.  The  vessel 
was  fishing  together  with  an  Ukrainian  stem 
trawler  {Aleksei  Slobodchikov)  whose  owner 
had  to  post  a  bond  of  $NZ  2.5  million  to 
gain  the  trawler's  release.  The  final 
disposition  of  both  cases  is  not  known,  but 
the  Bratya  Stonyanovy  continued  fishing  off 
New  Zealand  throughout  1993  and  was 
reported   there  in  October   1993. 

rV.  FISHERIES  ADMINISTRATION 


The  Georgian  Administration  of  Marine 
Fisheries,     also     known     by     its     former 


acronym,  GRUZRYBPROM,  was  organized 
in  1963  with  headquarters    in  the  Kolkhida 
section  of  the  port  city  of  Poti.    At  first,  its 
vessels  were  small  trawlers   fishing  in  the 
nearby  Black  Sea.    When  the  Soviet  Union 
embarked    on   its  ambitious    expansion    of 
high-seas  fishing  in  1953,  Georgia,   like  all 
other     Soviet     republics,     followed     suit. 
However,  it  was  not  until  1967  that  the  first 
large  stern  factory  trawler  was  purchased  by 
the  Georgian  fishermen,  who  then  entered 
the    distant-water     fisheries,    primarily    off 
Africa  and  in  the  Northwest  Atlantic.    The 
Georgian      vessels     were     part      of     the 
YUGRYBA    expeditionary   fleets  and  were 
supplied  with  fuel,  water,  victuals,  etc.,  by 
baseships    of     that    fleet.      YUGRYBA's 
vessels    also    helped    the    Georgian     fleet 
process     landed     fish    and     transport     its 
products  from  the  fishing  grounds. 

GRUZRYBPROM  was  administratively 
responsible  to  the  Southern  Fisheries 
Administration  in  Sevastopol,  a  part  of  the 
Soviet  Ministry  of  Fisheries,  until  December 
1991,  when  Georgia  left  the  Union  of 
Soviet  Socialist  Republics  to  become  an 
independent    state. 


V.  OUTLOOK 


The  future  of  the  Georgian  fleet  looks 
exceedingly  grim.    Poti,  the  city  where  the 
Georgian  Marine  Fisheries  Administration 
was  headquartered    and  where    most  of  the 
high-seas  fleet  was  based,  was  overrun  by 
the   rebel   troops   of  the   former  Georgian 
President  GAMSAKHURDIA     on  October 
2,  1993.  What  happened    to  the  fleet  is  not 
known.      In   the    north,    the    port    city   of 
Sukhumi,    the    capital    of  the    Abkhazian 
Autonomous   Republic,  was  overrun  by  the 


173 


Abkhazian  rebels  in  September  1993.  The 
Georgian  Republic  thus  has  only  one  small 
port  left  —  Batumi. 

Besides      the      internal      problems 
associated    with   the    civil   war,   Georgia's 
fishing  industry  is  faced  with  two  additional 
problems;  fuel  supplies  and  access  to  high- 
seas   fishing  grounds      located    within  200 
miles  of  coastal   countries.     The  Georgian 
Republic    has    no    oil   or    other    domestic 
energy    sources    apart    from    hydroelectric 
power.    In  the  past,  inexpensive  diesel  oil 
was  available  from  Soviet  sources,  but  this 
situation  has  changed  radically  in  the  last  2 
years.        When     the     Soviet     Union     was 
dissolved    in    December     1991,      Georgia 
elected   not  to  join  the  Commonwealth    of 
Independent    States  and  is  thus  technically  a 
"foreign  country"  for  Russia.    As  a  result,  it 
has  to  pay  world  prices  for  Russian  diesel 
oil.  Whether  or  not  its  Soviet-built  vessels, 
known  as  high  consumers  of  diesel  oil,  can 
be      operated      profitably      under      the 
circumstances,  is  doubtful.    If  one  adds  the 
fees   which  have   to  be  paid   by  high-seas 
fishermen  for  access  to  the  coastal  grounds 
of  other  countries,  the  bottom  line  becomes 
a  deficit.    It  can  not  be  expected   that  the 
Georgian      state,     drained      of    monetary 
resources   and  facing  a  precipitous   decline 
in  its  gross  national  product,  will  be  capable 
of  extending    any  subsidies   to  the   fishing 
industry  in  the  foreseeable   future. 

On  October  8,  1993,  the  Government 
of  Eduard  Shevardnadze  joined  the 
Commonwealth.  What  significance  this  step 
will  have  for  the  future  of  the  high-seas 
fleet  is  impossible  to  predict  at  this  time. 


SOURCES 


Baseinovoe  Proizvodstvennoe  Ob'edinenie 
Yugryba.   Sevastopol,  1991. 

U.S.  Navy,  Office  of  Naval  Intelligence,  29 
July  1993. 


174 


Appendix  1.  Georgia.  Fishing  fleet,  by  vessel  name,  class,  gross 
registered  tonnage,  and  country  and  year  of 
construction;  1993. 


Vessel  name 


Class 


GRT 


Country 

Year 

USSR 

1986 

GDR 

1980 

GDR 

1967 

GDR 

1969 

GDR 

1983 

USSR 

1983 

USSR 

1989 

USSR 

1975 

USSR 

1988 

GDR 

1967 

GDR 

1957 

USSR 

1979 

USSR 

1987 

USSR 

1988 

USSR 

1985 

USSR 

1979 

USSR 

1990 

USSR 

1981 

USSR 

1989 

USSR 

1983 

GDR 

1968 

USSR 

1988 

USSR 

1988 

USSR 

1977 

GDR 

1972 

GDR 

1967 

USSR 

1990 

USSR 

1989 

USSR 

1985 

USSR 

1982 

USSR 

1983 

GDR 

1972 

USSR 

1986 

USSR 

1987 

USSR 

1979 

47,673  GRT 

Adliya 

KERCH 

104 

Akhmeta 

PROMETEI 

3 

,977 

Akhun 

ATLANTIK 

2 

,  177 

Batumi 

ATLANTIK 

2 

,654 

Bazaleti 

PROMETEI 

3 

,  977 

Beshumi 

MANEVRENNYY 

163 

Bratya  Stoyanovy 

PULKOVSKII* 

4 

,407 

Fatiko  Gogitidze 

MANEVRENNI 

164 

Ilori 

KERCH 

104 

Imereti 

ATLANTIK 

2 

,177 

Inguri 

TSESIS 

305 

Isakovo 

KARELIYA 

206 

Khobi 

KERCH 

104 

Kolkhoznik 

KERCH 

104 

Kolpashevo 

PULKOVSKII 

4, 

,407 

Krasnoznamensk 

KARELIYA 

206 

Maltakva 

KERCH 

104 

Mirazh 

ZHELEZNYAKOV 

775 

Ninoshvili 

KERCH 

104 

Odishi 

PULKOVSKII 

4, 

,407 

Oktyabrskoye 

ATLANTIK 

2, 

,  657 

Paliastomi 

KERCH 

104 

Rioni 

KIROVETS 

190 

RS  300  No.  96 

MANEVRENNYY 

163 

Sakartvelo 

ATLANTIK 

2, 

,657 

Salkhino 

ATLANTIK 

2, 

,652 

Senaki 

KERCH 

104 

Shevardeni 

KERCH 

104 

Shprot 

KERCH 

104 

Tekhuri 

ZHELEZNYAKOV 

775 

Tsiskara 

MANEVRENNYY 

163 

Tskhaltubo 

ATLANTIK 

2, 

,657 

Ushba 

KERCH 

104 

Vladimir  Simonok 

PULKOVSKII 

4, 

,407 

Zelenogradsk 

KARELIYA 

206 

TOTAL  =35  vessels 


TOTAL  GROSS  TONNAGE  = 


Source:  U.S.  Navy,  Office  of  Naval  Intelligence,  29  July  1993 
*  The  full  name  of  this  class  is  PULKOVSKII  MERIDIAN. 


175 


Appendix  2.  Georgia.  Delivery  of  large  stern 
factory  trawlers,  by  number, 
class,  gross  tonnage,  and  country 
and  year  of  construction;  1967-89. 


Year 

Number 

Vessel  class 

GRT 

Built  in 

1967 

3 

ATLANTIK 

7,  006 

GDR 

1968 

1 

ATLANTIK 

2,657 

GDR 

1969 

1 

ATLANTIK 

2,654 

GDR 

1972 

2 

ATLANTIK 

5,314 

GDR 

1980 

1 

PROMETEY 

3,977 

GDR 

1981 

1 

ZHELEZNYAKOV 

775 

USSR 

1982 

1 

ZHELEZNYAKOV 

775 

USSR 

1983 

1 

PROMETEY 

3,  977 

GDR 

1 

PULKOVSKII 

4,407 

USSR 

1985 

1 

PULKOVSKII 

4,407 

USSR 

1987 

1 

PULKOVSKII 

4,407 

USSR 

1989 

1 

PULKOVSKII 

4,407 

USSR 

Tot 

al  15 

44,763 

Source:  U.S.  Navy,  Office  of  Naval  Intelligence, 
29  July  1993. 

GDR  -  German  Democratic  Republic  (East  Germany) 


176 


4.0 
EASTERN  EUROPE 


177 


178 


4.1 


OVERVIEW 


The  three  major  fishing  countries  in  Eastern  Europe,  Poland,  Romania,  and  Bulgaria,  were 
associated  with  the  former  Soviet  Union  in  the  so-called  5-partite  agreement  (the  former  East 
Germany  was  the  fifth  member)  to  assist  each  other  in  developing  high-seas  fisheries.  Although 
the  Russian  Soviet  Federative  Socialist  Republic,  now  the  Russian  Federation,  was  the  leading 
force  behind  the  expansion  into  the  world's  oceans,  all  three  East  European  countries  rapidly 
developed  their  own  fishing  fleets.  Poland  also  organized  an  important  and  productive  network 
of  fishery  shipyards  which  built  hundreds  of  vessels  over  the  past  four  decades. 

Romania  and  Bulgaria  are  both  adjacent  to  the  Black  Sea  and  their  fisheries  have  been 
traditionally  based  on  that  body  of  water.  In  the  1960s,  however,  they  began  to  buy  high-seas 
fishing  and  fishery  support  vessels  from  the  Soviet  Union,  Poland,  and  Germany  and  to  build 
an  infrastructure  for  the  processing  of  landed  fish.  Along  with  the  increase  in  fishery-vessel 
tonnage,  their  marine  catch  grew  rapidly  until  the  late  1970s  when  coastal  countries  began  to 
extend  fishery  jurisdictions  to  200  nautical  miles.  Romanian  and  Bulgarian  fishery  administrators 
were  unable  to  adapt  themselves  to  the  new  conditions.  As  a  result,  their  catch  began  to  stagnate 
and  finally  decreased  rapidly  until  their  aging  fleets  became  more  of  a  burden  than  an  asset. 

The  outlook  for  both  industries  is  bleak  and  the  lack  of  rapid  privatization  has  helped  to 
perpetuate  the  inbred  inefficiencies  of  large  government-owned  corporations.  The  Bulgarian 
high-seas  fishing  company  was  forced  into  bankruptcy  and  will  have  to  be  bailed  out  by 
government  funds  to  continue  operations.  In  Romania  also,  the  industry  is  still  government- 
owned  and,  as  in  the  other  former  communist  countries,  its  two  principal  goals  are:  1)  to 
maintain  the  full  use  of  the  fishery  fleet  and  the  concomitant  employment  of  its  fishermen,  and 
2)  the  export  of  fishery  products  to  earn  hard  currencies. 


179 


In  Poland,  the  high-seas  fishing  industry  has  better  maintained  its  viability  and,  although  the 
catch  has  decreased  somewhat  and  the  high-seas  fleet  shrunk,  it  continues  to  maintain  a  powerful 
presence  on  the  world  oceans. 

Supported  by  generous  government  subsidies,  Polish  shipyards,  during  the  last  four  decades, 
built  several  hundred  large  stern  factory  trawlers,  both  for  the  domestic  high-seas  fishing 
companies  and  for  export.  This  enabled  Polish  fishermen  to  expand  their  operations  into  the 
world's  oceans  and  their  continuously  increasing  catch  to  peak  at  800,000  metric  tons  in  1975. 
One  half  of  that  total  was  contributed  by  distant-water  fisheries. 

Following  the  1976-77  extension  of  most  coastal  fishery  jurisdictions  to  200  nautical  miles, 
however,  the  problem  of  obtaining  access  to  needed  fishery  stocks  arose  with  unforeseen 
consequences.  The  geographical  expansion  of  Polish  fishing  was  terminated  and  the  ship- 
building programs  reduced.  By  the  mid-1980s,  the  largest  Polish  fishery  was  located  in  the 
international  waters  of  the  Central  Bering  Sea  which  contributed  an  increasing  percentage  of  the 
total  catch.  After  an  international  moratorium  on  the  Bering  Sea  fishery  was  adopted  in  1992, 
the  large  fleet  of  Polish  stern  trawlers  moved  to  the  international  waters  of  the  Sea  of  Okhotsk, 
near  Russia.  Claiming  that  its  Alaska  pollock  stocks  are  in  danger  of  overfishing,  the  Russian 
Federation  began  to  exert  heavy  diplomatic  pressure  on  the  Poles,  along  with  the  Koreans  and 
the  Chinese,  demanding  that  they  stop  fishing  in  the  Sea  of  Okhotsk.  The  Poles  (and  others) 
refused,  stressing  that  a  fishery  in  international  waters  is  not  subject  to  regulation  by  coastal 
states.  In  mid- 1993,  after  difficult  negotiations,  Poland  and  other  nations  engaged  in  the  Sea 
of  Okhotsk  pollock  fishing  agreed  to  decrease  their  1993  catch  by  25  percent  compared  to  that 
of  1992.  The  future  of  this  fishery  remains  uncertain  and  with  it  the  future  of  Polish  high-seas 
fisheries.  The  Okhotsk  Seas  fishery  js  the  Polish  high-seas  fishery,  contributing  over  80  percent 
of  the  total  high-seas  catch  in  1992.  If  it  loses  this  fishing  ground,  the  Polish  high-seas  fleet  will 
have  to  rapidly  find  new  resources,  or,  even  more  rapidly,  reduce  the  number  of  its  vessels. 

Poland  has  withdrawn  from  the  10  or  more  fishing  grounds  where  it  used  to  fish  in  the  late 
1970s  and  early  1980s.  Only  a  small  fishery  for  krill  and  limited  and  decreasing  operations 
around  the  Falkland  Islands  remain.  These  operations  could  not  possibly  support  the  substantial 
Polish  stern  trawler  fleet  of  53  large  trawlers.  Faced  with  this  difficult  economic  and  political 
problem,  the  Polish  fishing  companies  began  a  forceful  program  of  vessel  reduction.  During 
the  last  7  years  (1985-92),  the  Polish  companies  sold  48  vessels  with  a  total  tonnage  of  over 
85,000  CRT  to  fishermen  from  13  countries.    The  reduction  program  continues. 

Polish  high-seas  fisheries  are  especially  important  because  the  Baltic  Sea  yields  have  been 
decreasing  steadily.  During  the  last  15  years,  the  Baltic  catch  had  decreased  by  two-thirds  from 
330,000  tons  in  1975  to  104,000  tons  in  1992.  There  is  little  hope  for  its  rapid  recovery.  The 
high-seas  catch  is  thus  important  to  the  consumer  and  to  the  government.  About  10  percent  of 
the  distant-water  landings  are  sold  on  domestic  markets.  The  remainder,  sold  in  foreign  ports 
or  to  international  trading  companies,  brought  US$  250  million  into  the  overall  Polish  foreign 
trade  account  in  1991.   By  1992,  these  hard-currency  earnings  amounted  to  only  $150  milUion. 


180 


Polish  fishermen  realize  that  they  will  have  to  adapt  to  the  new  international  political  and 
economic  environment  by  concluding  bilateral  or  joint  venture  agreements  to  tap  into  the 
resources  within  the  200-mile  zones  of  other  coastal  countries.  It  will  be  necessary  to  pay 
compensation  to  the  respective  countries,  yet  it  is  believed  that  the  economics  of  such  fishing 
arrangements  will  be  in  Poland's  favor  and  that  a  profit  can  be  made  by  selling  frozen  or  filleted 
fishery  products.  The  Poles  also  hope  to  make  arrangements  whereby  a  portion  of  the  catch, 
either  in  frozen  blocks,  or  processed  as  fishmeal,  will  partially  cover  the  costs  for  the  license 
fees.  The  Polish  fishing  industry  will  need  strong  negotiating  support  from  the  Polish  Ministries 
of  Transportation  and  Foreign  Affairs  to  achieve  this  goal. 

The  Socialist  Federative  Republic  of  Yugoslavia  (SFRJ)  ceased  to  exist  in  1991  when  Croatia 
and  Slovenia  declared  their  independence.  The  country's  fisheries  were  based  on  the  Adriatic 
Sea  except  for  a  brief,  unsuccessful  attempt  in  the  1970s  to  enter  the  Atlantic  tuna  fishery.  Most 
of  the  2,000  kilometer-long  Adriatic  coast  is  now  in  the  Republic  of  Croatia.  Yugoslavia  has  had 
no  high-seas  vessels  since  1982.  The  newly  formed  states  are  not  expected  to  expand  into  high- 
seas  fishing  in  the  near  future. 


Photo  1. -Hundreds  of  targe  stern  factory  trawlers  were  built  in  Polish  shipyards  for  domestic  and  foreign  fishing  fleets . 


181 


182 


503632  4-78  (5437071 


4.2 


BULGARIA 

Bulgaria  is  adjacent  to  the  Black  Sea  and  its  fisheries  have  been  traditionally  based  on  that 
body  of  water.  In  the  1960s,  however,  it  began  to  buy  high-seas  fishing  and  fishery  support 
vessels  from  the  Soviet  Union,  Poland  and  Germany,  and  to  build  the  infrastrucmre  for  the 
processing  of  landed  fish.  Along  with  the  increase  in  the  fishery  vessel  tonnage,  its  marine  catch 
grew  rapidly  until  the  late  1970s  when  coastal  countries  began  to  extend  fishery  jurisdictions  to 
200-miles.  Bulgarian  fishery  administrators  were  unable  to  adapt  themselves  to  the  new 
conditions.  As  a  result,  its  catch  began  to  stagnate  and  finally  decrease  rapidly;  soon  the  aging 
fleet  became  more  of  a  burden  than  an  asset.  The  outlook  for  the  Bulgarian  fleet  is  bleak  and 
the  lack  of  rapid  privatization  helps  to  perpemate  the  inbred  inefficiency  of  large  government- 
owned  corporations.  The  Bulgarian  high-seas  company  was  forced  into  bankruptcy,  and  for  it 
to  continue  operations  it  will  have  to  be  bailed  out  by  government  funds. 

CONTENTS 

I.  Background    185 

II.  Fishing  Fleet     186 

A.  High-seas  Fleet 187 

B.  Fleet  Reduction    188 

III.  High-seas  Fishing  Grounds  and  Catch    190 

IV.  Inland  and  Black  Sea  Fisheries 192 

V.  Fishing  Companies 193 

VI.  Bilateral  Fishery  Agreements  and  Joint  Ventures  .  194 

VII.  Employment 195 

VIII.  Trade  and  Consumption  of  Fishery  Products    ...  196 

IX.  Shipyards     196 

X.  Outlook 196 

Sources     197 

Endnotes     198 

Appendices 200 

no  ocean  coast;  its  Black  Sea  coastline  runs 

I.    BACKGROUND  for  378  kilometers.  To  reach  the  Atlantic,  the 

Bulgarian  vessels  must  transit  the  Straits  of 

Bosphorus  and  Gibraltar. 

The  Republic  of  Bulgaria,  a  country  with 

a  population  of  9   million,    is   sandwiched  The  gross  value  of  the   1990  fisheries 

between  Romania  in  the  North,  Turkey  and  production  was  estimated  at  US$  20  million'; 

Greece    in    the    South,     and    Serbia    and  a  large  portion  (US$  17.2  million)  of  this  total 

Macedonia  in  the  West.  Bulgaria  also  borders  was    exported.       Fishery    imports,    mostly 

on  the  Black  Sea  in  the  east.   The  country  has  fishmeal,   amounted  to  US$  2.5  million  in 


1990.^  The  fisheries  catch  has  been  declining 
substantially  throughout  the  1990s,  however, 
and  this  trend  is  expected  to  continue,  leading 
to  a  decrease  in  fishery  production  and 
exports.^ 

Traditional  coastal  fishing  in  the  Black 
Sea  continued  after  World  War  II,  but  most 
private  fishery  companies  were  nationalized 
after  a  People's  Republic  was  proclaimed  in 
September  1946.  Since  all  the  riparian  states 
on  the  southern  Danube  River  (Bulgaria, 
Romania,  and  Yugoslavia)  were  under 
communist  control,  it  was  only  natural  that 
they  concluded  an  agreement  on  cooperation 
in  the  Danube  fisheries  in  January  1958.  The 
Soviet  Union,  as  the  paramount  political 
influence  in  Eastern  Europe,  joined  as  a 
signatory.  A  year  later,  the  USSR,  Bulgaria, 
and  Romania  concluded  an  agreement  on  the 
Black  Sea  fisheries  and  established  a 
Commission  regulating  them. 

Having  thus  established  a  close 
relationship  in  fisheries,  Bulgaria  watched 
with  considerable  interest  the  Soviet  expansion 
into  the  world's  oceans  which  began  after 
Stalin's  death  in  1953.  In  1962,  the  Soviet 
Union,  Poland,  and  the  German  Democratic 
Republic  concluded  a  multilateral  agreement 
on  mutual  cooperation  in  the  development  of 
high-seas  fisheries  and  all  three  countries 
began  to  construct  large  stern  factory  trawlers 
at  a  rapid  pace,  copying  the  prototype 
(Fairtry)  whose  design  was  purchased  by  the 
Soviets  from  a  United  Kingdom  shipyard. 
Bulgaria  was  initially  not  a  member  of  the  so- 
called  "tripartite  fisheries  agreement,"  but  its 
officials  attended  as  observers  and  were 
impressed  by  the  rapid  progress  the  three 
countries  were  making. 

In  1967,  Bulgaria  purchased  its  first  large 
trawler  of  the  TROPIK  class  (2,600  gross 


tons)  from  an  East  German  shipyard  and 
entered  the  distant-water  fisheries  (appendix 
1). 


Table  1.  Bulgaria.  Fishing  fleet,  by 

selected  vessel  capacity;  1993. 


Capacity 


Number  GRT   Average  GRT 


Under  500  GRT 
Above  500  GRT 
TOTAL 


10 
34 


1,262 
79.176 
80,438 


126 
3.299 
2,366 


Source:  U.S.  Navy,  Office  of  Naval 
Intelligence,  26  July  1993. 


After  a  meteoric  expansion  of  its  high- 
seas  fisheries  during  the  late  1960s  and  1970s, 
which  brought  the  marine  catch  from  zero  to 
167,097  metric  tons  (t)  in  1976,  Bulgaria's 
fishing  industry  began  to  stagnate  following 
the  extensions  to  200  nautical  miles  of  the 
fishing  zones  by  a  majority  of  coastal  nations. 
Bulgaria's  fishing  operations  had  to  be 
curtailed  off  the  United  States,  Canada,  and 
the  European  Community;  only  off  Africa  and 
South  America  were  fishing  grounds  still 
accessible.  The  catch  stagnated  at  about 
100,000  t  for  the  past  decade,  but  declined 
precipitously  in  1990  and  1991  to  about  half 
of  that  amount. 


II.  FISHING  FLEET 

In  July  1993,  the  Bulgarian  fishing  fleet 
numbered  34  vessels  with  a  total  gross 
tonnage  of  80,400  tons.  (For  a  complete  list 
of  these  vessels  showing  their  names,  class, 
gross  registered  tonnage,  and  country  and  year 
built,  see  appendix  2).  The  high-seas  fleet 
represents  98  percent  of  the  Bulgarian  fishery 


186 


Number  of  vessels 


10 


jaOvor  2000  GRT 
[■500-OaCQRT 

■ 

- 

■ 

■ 

■ 

r-i 

r- 

'Sj.  %.  '9j.'S;^  'Sj,  <».  <9.  <S(,  'A,  <S5,  <ao  's„  's~  'S>^  'S^   *q.  *o  ^o 


Figure  1.  Bulgaria.  Number  of  high-seas  fishing  vessels,  ranked  by  tonnage,  1975-92 


gross  tonnage,  even  though  it  only  has  24 
units. 


The  data  obtained  from 
Lloyd's  of  London  (appendix  3) 
agree  with  those  from  the  U.S. 
Navy,  except  that  for  1992, 
Lloyd's  lists  21  trawlers  rather 
than  the  19  listed  in  Office  of 
Naval  lintelligence's  compilation 
of  July  1993. 


The  composition  of  the 
Bulgarian  high-seas  fishing  fleet 
has  barely  changed  for  almost  2 
decades  (figure  1),  but  beginning 
in  1990,  the  reduction  of  7  vessels 
is  readily  apparent.  The  number 
of  fishery  support  vessels, 
however,  has  not  changed  at  all 
(figure  2).  Fluctuations  in  the 
gross   registered   tonnage   of  the 

high-seas  fleet  over  the  past   17  years  are 

given  in  appendix  3 . 


The  10  vessels  having  less  than  500  gross 
tons  are  actually  small  coastal  vessels  with 
slightly  over  100  gross  tons  each.  Half  of 
them  were  purchased  recently  (1990)  from  the 
former  Soviet  Union;  the  other  half  is  much 
older  (4  cutters  were  bought  from  the  former 
East  Germany  in  1965).  All  10 
most  likely  fish  in  the  Black  Sea, 
but  detailed  information  on  their 
deployment  is  lacking. 


The  24  vessels  which  have 
over  500  gross  tons  are  divided 
into  2  groups:  one,  composed  of 
19  large  stern  factory  trawlers, 
conducts  fishery  operations  on  the 
high-seas;  the  second,  consisting 
of  5  large  base  ships,  supports  the 
fishing  operations  of  the  first 
group.  In  fact,  each  of  these 
vessels  has  over  2,000  gross  tons 
(appendix  2). 


A,  High-seas  Fleet 

In  March  1964,  Bulgaria  purchased  its  first 
large  stern  factory  trawler  of  the  TROPIK 
class  and  entered  the  high-seas  fisheries 
(appendix  1).   This  purchase  was  followed  by 


Number  of  vessels 


■OOver  4,000  GRT 


/7Z 


n 


7777777i 


1_L 


'%\'->/%'%\\\\\\\%\'\\\'% 


Figure  2. Bulgaria. Number  of  high-seas  fishery  suppoit  vessels;  1975-92. 
187 


4  more  TROPIKs,  in  the  next  two  years,  and 
3  MAYAKOVSKII-class  large  stern  factory 
trawlers  in  1967. 

The  next  year,  the  Bulgarians  again  shopped 
in  the  former  German  Democratic  Republic 
where  they  ordered  3  modern  ATLANTIK- 
class  vessels  from  the  Stralsund  shipyard 
(which  began  to  build  this  type  of  vessel 
serially  in  the  1960s).  The  vessels  impressed 
the  Bulgarians  —  reportedly  they  were  more 
advanced  than  the  Soviet-built 
MAYAKOVSKIIs  --  and,  during  the  next  3 
years,  another  8  ATLANTIKs  were  bought. 
By  the  end  of  1971,  Bulgaria's  high-seas 
trawler  fleet  numbered  20  Soviet  and  East 
German-built  units. 

During  the  same  period,  the  Bulgarian 
Government  also  purchased  6  giant  (6,000 
GRT),  SIBIR-class  baseships  from  the  Soviet 
Union  to  support  the  far-flung  distant-water 
operations  of  its  factory  trawlers. 

The  final  phase  of  the  Bulgarian  high-seas 
fleet  expansion  took  place  in  1974-75,  when 
Bulgaria  purchased  another  9  stern  factory 
trawlers  from  Polish  shipyards.  This  was  an 
ill-timed  move  as,  a  year  later,  most  of  the 
world's  coastal  countries,  including  several  off 
whose  coasts  Bulgarians  fished  heavily 
(Canada,  the  United  States,  the  European 
Community  countries)  extended  their  fishery 
jurisdictions  to  200  nautical  miles.  An 
additional  negative  impact  was  caused  by  the 
policies  of  the  Bulgarian  communists  under 
the  leadership  of  General  Secretary,  Todor 
Zhivkov.  Instead  of  allowing  the  profits  of 
the  Bulgarian  high-seas  fisheries  to  be 
reinvested  in  the  modernization  and  renovation 
of  the  high-seas  fleet,  they  skimmed  the 
accumulated  funds  and  used  them  for  other 
purposes.  A  complete  account  of  this  trend, 
which  became  critical  in  1988,  has  not  yet 


been  fully  disclosed,  but  it  is  known  that  the 
Bulgarian  high-seas  fishing  company, 
OKEANSKI  RIBOLOV,  had  to  borrow 
money  to  make  repairs  on  its  vessels  and  was 
charged  usurious  interest  rates  on  these 
loans.'' 

In  July  1993,  the  24- vessel  fleet  of 
OKEANSKI  RIBOLOV,  which  conducts  all  of 
Bulgaria's  high-seas  fishing  operations, 
consisted  of  17  trawlers  and  7  support  vessels 
(appendix  2).  This  fleet  is  composed  of:  6 
ATLANTIK  class  large  stern  factory  trawlers 
built  in  the  former  East  Germany  (about  20 
years  old);  9  KALMAR  class  trawlers  built  in 
Poland  (about  16  years  old-photo  1);  1 
PULKOVSKII  MERIDIAN  class  trawler  built 
in  the  former  Soviet  Union  (about  4  years 
old);  5  SIBIR  class  refrigerated  transport 
vessels  (all  are  over  20  years  old);  and  2 
converted  MAYAKOVSKII  class  trawlers 
which  now  serve  as  transport  and  support 
vessels.^  The     utilization     of     the 

ZHELEZNYAKOV-class  vessel  is  unknown; 
judging  from  its  size,  it  may  be  used  for 
exploratory  fishing. 

The  ATLANTIK,  KALMAR,  and 
PULKOVSKII  MERIDIAN-class  stern  factory 
trawlers  are  equipped  to  fish  for  both 
demersal  and  pelagic  fish  by  using  bottom  or 
mid- water  trawls.  They  can  process  between 
70  and  120  tons  of  landed  fish  each  24  hours. 
The  catch  is  sorted,  gutted  and  headed, 
filleted,  frozen,  and  packed.  The  final 
product  of  whole  or  processed  frozen  fish 
blocks  is  packed  in  cartons  (two  or  three 
blocks  per  carton).  The  offal  is  reduced  to 
fishmeal." 

B.  Fleet  Reduction 

The  Bulgarian  Government  purchased  a 
total  of  36  high-seas  vessels  during  the  1964- 


Photo  1.  Bulgaria.  Bulgaria  ordered  9  KALMAR-class  stem  factory  trawlers  (2,450GRT)  from  a  Polish 
shipyard  in  the  mid-1970s. 


90  period  (appendix  1).  Currently,  the  fishing 
fleet  consists  of  only  24  such  vessels.  (19 
trawlers,  supported  by  5  large  fishery 
transports  and  baseships).  The  12  vessels 
which  are  no  longer  in  the  Bulgarian  registry 
were  mostly  scrapped.  They  were  5  TROPIK 
class,'  1  MAYAKOVSKII  class,^  and  6 
ATLANTIK  class  stern  factory  trawlers.'' 
Their  total  tonnage  amounted  to  32,312  GRT, 
or  about  40  percent  of  the  current  Bulgarian 
high-seas  fleet  tonnage.  The  stern  factory 
trawlers  of  the  ATLANTIK,  KALMAR,  and 
MAYAKOVSKII  class  still  in  the  Bulgarian 
registry  are  by  now  all  about  18-25  years  old, 
but  they  are  well-maintained  and  will  continue 


their  high-seas  operations  in  the  foreseeable 
future.  One  of  Bulgaria's  high-seas  vessels, 
an  ATLANTIK-class  stern  factory  trawler,  the 
Kondor,  sank  in  April  1991  during  a  fishing 
trip  in  the  Atlantic  Ocean. '°  It  is  therefore  no 
longer  listed  in  appendix  1 . 

The  5  large  refrigerated  transports  and 
baseships  of  the  SIBIR  class  (photo  2)  are  also 
about  20  years  old,  but  will  undergo 
modernization  and  continue  to  support  the 
Bulgarian  high-seas  fleet. 

To  obtain  much  needed  hard  currency, 
OKEANSKI  RIBOLOV  plans  to  sell  its  most 


189 


Photo  2.  Bulgaria.  Large  refrigerated  transports  of  the  SIBIR  class  (5,000GRT)  built  in  the  USSR,  carry 
fishery  products  to  Bulgarian  home  ports. 


modern  stern  factory  trawler,  the  Feniks,  built 
in  1988  in  an  Ukrainian  shipyard. 


III.  HIGH-SEAS  CATCH  AND  GROUNDS 

Bulgaria's  fishing  industry  is  dominated 
by  high-seas  fisheries  (appendix  5).  The 
Bulgarian  fisheries  began  to  develop  in  the 
early  1960s  when  the  communist  countries, 
inspired  by  the  Soviet  example,  planned  a 
major  expansion  into  the  world's  oceans  to 
provide  the  domestic  population  with  highly- 
prized  Atlantic  species,  and  create  additional 
occupations  in  an  economic  system  where  full 


employment  was  peremptory.  The  expansion 
was  facilitated  by  the  fact  that  most  countries 
at  that  time  claimed  only  the  traditional  3-mile 
fishery  limits.  Since  most  of  the  demersal 
fishery  resources,  and  many  pelagics,  dwell 
on  the  continental  shelves,  the  extensions  of 
fishery  limits  to  12  miles  in  the  late  1960s, 
and  to  200  nautical  miles  from  1975-77, 
spelled  trouble  for  the  future  of  Bulgarian 
high-seas  fishing  operations.  The  country's 
fishery  officials  and  diplomats  had  to  secure 
access  to  the  fishing  grounds  where  the 
Bulgarian  fishermen  had  previously  fished 
freely.  This  access,  was  increasingly  denied 
over  the  years  by  the  developed  countries 


190 


which  wanted  these  fisheries  for  their  own 
citizens  and  by  the  developing  countries  which 
demanded  payment  for  the  resources.  The 
loss  of  access  to  traditional  distant-water 
grounds  has  meant  the  curtailment  of  high- 
seas  operations  on  some  fishing  grounds  and 
a  significant  decline  in  the  catch. 

In  1991,  Bulgaria's  high-seas  catch  was 
38,500  t,  less  than  half  of  the  1989  catch  of 
81,300  tons.  The  Bulgarian  high-seas  catch 
has  been  decreasing  since  1975,  but  the 
precipitous  declines  in  1990  and  1991  were 
largely  caused  by  a  reduced  fishing  effort  off 
the  coast  of  West  and  Southwest  Africa.  In 
1992,  the  total  catch  will  probably  be  further 
reduced  because  the  Falkland  Islands  fisheries 
catch  has  been  more  than  halved  (appendix  5). 

The  high-seas  catch  has  always 
represented  over  three-fourths  of  the  total 
Bulgarian  catch,  but  its  contribution  has 
decreased  from  90  percent  of  the  total  in  1975 
to  77  percent  in  1991. 

In  recent  years,  Bulgaria's  high-seas  fleet 
has  operated  mainly  in  the  Southeast  and 
Southwest  Atlantic  (FAO  statistical  areas  47 
and  41,  respectively).  These  operations  have 
yielded  an  average  of  between  80,000-90,000 
metric  tons  (t)  of  fish  annually,  principally 
Cape  horse  mackerel,  but  also  blue  whiting, 
grenadier,  and  squid." 

Northwest  Atlantic  (FAO  statistical  area 
21):  In  the  northwestern  Atlantic  off  the 
Canadian  and  United  States  coasts,  the 
Bulgarian  fishery  was  reduced  to  zero  by  1985 
following  the  extensionof  fishery  jurisdictions 
to  200  miles  by  these  two  countries. 
Recently,  however,  Bulgaria  received  a  small 
catch  allocation  of  about  2,000  t  per  year  by 
the  North  Atlantic  Fisheries  Organization 
(NAFO). 


Northeast  Atlantic  (FAO  area  27):  The 
Bulgarian  fishing  effort  in  this  region  declined 
after  the  European  Community  declared  its 
200-mile  FEZ  in  1977.  A  small  operation  is 
maintained  off  the  United  Kingdom  where 
Bulgarian  trawlers  are  permitted  to  fish  for 
Atlantic  mackerel  and  conduct  klondyking 
operations.  The  catch,  however,  is  small;  in 
1991  it  was  about  4,000  tons. 

Central  Eastern  Atlantic  (FAO  area  34): 

The  fishing  grounds  off  West  Africa  supplied 
more  than  half  of  the  total  Bulgarian  fisheries 
catch  as  late  as  1980.  By  1985,  however,  the 
Bulgarians  have  discontinued  fishing  in  this 
area. 

Southwest  Atlantic  (FAO  area  41):  In  the 

early  1980s,  most  fishing  took  place  off 
Argentina  and  the  Falkland  Islands.  When  the 
Falkland  Islands  Government  began  to 
regulate  foreign  fisheries  in  1987,  the 
Bulgarians,  imitating  the  Soviets,  refused  to 
apply  for  fishing  licenses.  In  1989,  they 
reversed  this  position  and  began  to  purchase 
licenses  and  renew  fishing  operations  off  the 
Falklands. 

In  the  second  fishing  season'^  of  1989,  the 
Falklands  Government  issued  licenses  to  9 
large  Bulgarian  stern  factory  trawlers.  They 
landed  9,000  tons  of  fish,  or  about  1 ,000  t  per 
vessel;  the  harvest  of  blue  whiting 
predominated  (5,800  t). 

In  1990,  they  expanded  their  operations  to 
14  vessels  and  more  than  doubled  the  total 
catch  to  22,100  t  (or  about  1,600  t  per 
vessel),  fishing  both  in  the  first  and  the 
second  season. 

In  1991,  the  Bulgarians  deployed  just  8 
vessels  and  fished  only  in  the  second  season 
when  the  area  is  open  for  finfish  operations, 


191 


but  is  closed  for  squid  fishing.  Nevertheless, 
the  Bulgarian  fishermen  landed  almost  the 
same  amount  of  fish  as  the  previous  year 
(appendix  6). 

In  1992,  only  7  Bulgarian  trawlers  were 
granted  licenses  by  the  Falkland  Islands 
Government.  It  is  not  known  how  many 
fishing  days  they  spent  on  the  grounds,  but 
their  catch  was  dismal;  less  than  9,000  tons. 

In  1993,  the  catch  may  be  even  smaller, 
as  only  2  vessels  have  been  issued  licenses  for 
the  squid  fisheries.  Bulgarians  have  not 
fished  for  squid  in  the  past  (except  for  a  small 
amount  in  1990)  and  the  entry  into  this  fishery 
is  probably  an  indication  of  their  desire  to 
earn  foreign  currencies.  It  is  believed  that  for 
the  second  season  of  1993,  the  Falklands  may 
authorize  5  trawlers  to  fish  for  finfish,  the 
same  number  as  in  1992. 

Southeastern  Atlantic  (FAO  area  47):  The 
fishing  grounds  off  Angola,  Namibia,  and  the 
Republic  of  South  Africa  have  been  the  most 
important  fishing  area  of  the  Bulgarian 
industry  from  1985  to  1989.  The  traditional 
catch  of  Bulgarian  fishermen  in  that  area 
amounted  to  about  43,000-45,000  tons  per 
year,  or  more  than  one  half  of  the  total  high- 
seas  catch  (appendix  5).  In  1990  and  1991, 
however,  this  catch  decreased  sharply  (by  80 
percent)  to  only  8,500  t  following  the 
independence  of  Namibia  and  the  subsequent 
moratorium  on  foreign  fishing  in  its  newly 
declared  200-mile  zone.  Fishing  in  this  area 
is  regulated  by  the  International  Commission 
for  the  Southeastern  Atlantic  Fisheries 
(ICSEAF),  of  which  Bulgaria  is  a  member. 

Southwest  Pacific:  In  the  early  1980s,  the 
Bulgarians  also  fished  off  the  coasts  of  Chile 
and  Peru.  The  catch  peaked  at  25,000  tons  in 
1984,  but  was  discontinued  by  1986.  Limited 


fishing  was  resumed  in  1990  and  1991, 
yielding  a  small  amount  (1,700  t)  of  fish  to 
what  appears  to  be  one  stern  factory  trawler. 


rV.  INLAND  &  BLACK  SEA  FISHERIES 

Inland  fisheries  catch  (appendix  5)  comes 
mostly  from  fish  farming  and  reservoirs. 
River  fishing  is  negligible.  The  fishery 
increased  somewhat  in  the  middle  of  the 
1980s,  peaking  in  1986  at  14,100  tons,  but 
has  lately  decreased  to  about  9,000  tons.  It  is 
one  of  the  major  providers  of  fresh  fish  to  the 
population. 

The  resources  of  the  Black  Sea  (FAO 
statistical  area  37)  are  extremely  depleted  and 
increasingly  polluted;  Bulgaria's  recent  levels 
of  fisheries  catch  from  these  waters  are  less 
than  a  third  of  those  harvested  in  the  early 
1980s  and  amounted  to  less  than  3,000  tons  in 
1990/1991  (appendix  5).  In  recent  years,  the 
sprat  fishery  and  trials  of  mussel  culture  could 
not  be  sustained  because  of  pollution.  In  the 
absence  of  improvement  of  the  Black  Sea 
marine  environment,  the  prospects  for 
increased  production  in  this  fishery  are 
unpromising.  Serious  measures  must  be 
implemented,  both  nationally  and  regionally, 
to  manage  Black  Sea  fisheries  and  to  protect 
the  stocks  from  further  degradation,  especially 
by  working  to  reduce  the  discharge  of 
pollutants  into  the  Black  Sea.'^ 

Along  with  the  10  trawlers  of  over  100 
CRT  mentioned  in  table  1  on  page  2,  a 
number  of  other,  even  smaller  Bulgarian 
vessels  also  fish  in  the  Black  Sea  from  the 
ports  of  Varna,  Nesebur,  Sozopol  and  Burgas. 


192 


V.  FISHING  COMPANIES 

From  its  inception,  the  Bulgarian  state 
heavily  subsidized  high-seas  fishing 
operations,  making  it  possible  for  the  state- 
owned  marine  fisheries  company,  RIBNO 
STOPANSTVO,  to  expand  and  continue 
operating.  From  1987-1990,  fishery  subsidies 
amounted  to  112  million  leva,  or  $18.7 
million.'''  After  the  communist  regime  was 
defeated  in  1990  elections  and  free  market 
principles  introduced  into  the  Bulgarian 
economy,  RIBNO  STOPANSTVO  was 
declared  bankrupt,  and  was  forced  to 
restructure  itself  in  an  attempt  to  become 
profitable.'^ 

At  the  end  of  1990,  RIBNO 
STOPANSTVO  was  divided  into  six  state- 
owned  fishing  companies.  The  largest,  the 
OKEANSKI  RIBOLOV  (Ocean  Fisheries) 
Company,  engages  in  high-seas  fisheries. 
These  companies  face  serious  shortages  of 
capital  needed  to  upgrade  and  modernize  their 
fleets.  During  the  last  few  years,  the 
Bulgarian  fishing  industry  has  been  going 
through  a  difficult  period  of  transition  and 
adjustment  caused  partly  by  the  loss  of  access 
to  high-seas  fishing  grounds,  and  partly  by  the 
introduction  of  the  market  economy."' 

In  1991,  OKEANSKI  RIBOLOV 
experienced  a  major  financial  crisis.  The 
increasing  costs  of  operating  its  high-seas  fleet 
(higher  licensing  fees,  costlier  diesel  fuel, 
higher  maintenance  and  repair  costs  abroad, 
etc.)  and  mismanagement  (the  company 
suffered  a  loss  of  34  million  leva  in  its  sales 
department  during  January-July  1991)  brought 
the  company  to  the  brink  of  bankruptcy.  As 
in  the  past,  the  company's  management 
requested  that  the  Bulgarian  Government 
extend   a   subsidy   of   131    million  leva   to 


balance  its  books.  The  Government  appointed 
a  commission  chaired  by  the  Deputy  Prime 
Minister,  LUZHEV,  to  determine  how  the 
company,  which  employed  about  2,000 
persons,  could  be  saved. 

According  to  the  Bulgarian  media' ^  the 
Commission  advised  that  bilateral  agreements 
be  concluded  with  the  (then)  Soviet  Union, 
Canada,  the  United  States,  Namibia,  Angola, 
and  the  Falkland  Islands  to  secure  access  to 
fishery  resources.  Such  a  solution  was 
illusory  as  Canada  and  the  United  States  no 
longer  permitted  foreign  fishing  and  Namibia 
declared  a  fishing  moratorium  in  its  200-mile 
zone.  It  was  also  noted  that  while  domestic 
subsidies  in  leva  made  it  possible  for  the 
company  to  earn  hard  currency,  the  latter 
failed  to  "find  its  way  into  the  Bulgarian 
treasury". 

According  to  the  U.S.  Embassy  in  Sofia, 
the  company  concluded  its  1992  business  year 
with  losses  totaling  79.2  million  leva  (US$  2.8 
million).  The  losses  continued  in  1993,  when, 
during  the  first  quarter,  the  company  lost  24.4 
million  leva.  Faced  with  a  shortage  of 
available  hard  currency,  an  aging  fleet, 
mounting  debts,  and  decreasing  domestic 
demand  for  fishery  products  caused  by  the 
difficult  economic  times  in  Bulgaria, 
OKEANSKI  RIBOLOV  recently  declared 
bankruptcy.  There  was  some  hope  that 
profitable  joint  ventures  or  infusion  of  foreign 
capital  might  prevent  the  liquidation  of  the 
company,  but  it  now  appears  that  any  profits 
from  joint  venmres  will  not  be  sufficient  to 
keep  the  company  operating.  The  company's 
management  hopes  that  it  will  be  restructured 
and  privatized  as  a  limited  liability  company 
and  shares  will  reportedly  be  offered  for  sale 
within  the  year. 


193 


VI.    BILATERAL  AGREEMENTS  & 
JOINT  VENTURES 

Argentina:  Bulgaria  deployed  several  large 
stern  factory  trawlers  on  the  Patagonian  Shelf 
in  the  Southwest  Atlantic  off  Argentina  along 
with  the  much  larger  Soviet  fleet  in  1967-77. 
The  Bulgarian  fleet  was  withdrawn,  however, 
after  Argentina  declared  a  200-mile  zone  in 
January  1967.  Violent  encounters  between  the 
Argentine  Navy  and  Bulgarian  fishermen 
hastened  the  withdrawal  of  the  Bulgarian 
fleet.'*  Bulgaria  resumed  fishing  in  the  region 
in  1984  after  the  Falklands  conflict  forced  the 
Argentine  Navy  to  curtail  its  fishery 
enforcement  patrols.  Most  of  the  Bulgarian 
fishing  during  1984  and  1985  probably  took 
place  off  the  Falklands  or  off  Argentina,  but 
outside  its  200-mile  zone.  The  catch  was 
primarily  southern  blue  whiting  and  squid. 

In  1986,  Argentina  signed  a  bilateral 
fisheries  agreement  with  Bulgaria  permitting 
the  Bulgarians  access  to  the  Argentine  EEZ 
south  of  the  46th  parallel;  the  Bulgarians  were 
limited  to  the  use  of  6  vessels  and  a  catch 
allocation  of  60,000  t  of  fish.  The  Bulgarians 
never  exploited  the  agreement  to  its  full 
extent.''  For  instance,  in  1988  they  caught 
only  42,000  t  of  fish. 

The  Argentines  reported  major 
difficulties  in  their  fishery  relations  with  the 
Bulgarians  in  the  late  1980s,  charging 
specifically  that  the  Bulgarians  delayed  buying 
semi-manufactured  fishery  products  from 
Argentine  shore  processors  as  they  were 
required  to  do  under  the  terms  of  the 
agreement. ^°  In  1989,  when  the  bilateral 
fisheries  agreement  expired,  the  Argentine 
Government  declined  to  renew  it  in  response 
to  Bulgarian  noncompliance  with  its  terms. ^' 
The  Bulgarians  have,  however,  continued  to 


fish  in  the  southwestern  Atlantic,  but  outside 
Argentina's  200-mile  zone.  Their  1992  catch 
in  that  area  is  less  than  25  percent  (9,000  t)  of 
what  it  used  to  be  only  4  years  ago  (appendix 
5). 

Chile:  Bulgarian  fishermen  conducted  some 
fishing  operations  off  Chile  during  the  1970s 
and  1980s.  This  effort  was  deployed  mostly 
outside  Chile's  200-mile  fisheries  zone;  the 
catch  was  jack  mackerel. 

Falklands:  The  United  Kingdom  began  to 
manage  fisheries  within  the  150-mile  Falkland 
Islands  interim  Conservation  Zone  (FICA)  in 
1987,  and  authorized  the  Falkland  Islands 
government  to  begin  licensing  foreign 
fishermen.  Initially,  the  Bulgarians,  following 
the  Soviet  lead,  did  not  purchase  licenses  to 
fish  off  the  Falklands.  After  the  Bulgarian 
communist  government  fell  in  1989, 
however,  Bulgarian  fishermen  began  to  buy 
licenses  and  fish  off  the  Falklands. 

Russia/Former  USSR:  Bulgaria  concluded 
three  bilateral  agreements  with  the  former 
Soviet  Union.  The  most  important  was  the 
April  23,  1973,  agreement  on  cooperation  in 
the  development  of  high-seas  fishing 
(appendix  7).  The  two  countries  agreed  to 
mumally  support  each  other's  high-seas  fleets 
by  supplying  fuel  and  water,  and  to  transport 
fishery  products  with  each  other's  refrigerated 
transports.  It  was  also  agreed  to  cooperate  in 
fisheries  research,  and  training  of  fishery 
specialists,  and  to  coordinate  both  countries' 
positions  in  international  fishery  organizations. 

The  second  agreement,  concluded  in 
October  1978,  gave  the  Bulgarians  the  right  to 
fish  inside  the  200-mile  zone  of  the  USSR  in 
the  Barents  Sea  under  Soviet  catch  quotas  and 
regulations. 


194 


The  third  agreement,  concluded  in  April 
1979,  concerned  the  mutual  catch  of  Black 
Sea  anchovy  and  sprats  in  the  territorial 
waters  of  both  countries. 

According  to  Bulgarian  officials,  the 
agreements  with  the  former  USSR  are  being 
renegotiated  with  the  Russian  Federation,  the 
successor  state  of  the  USSR.  No  final  draft 
of  an  agreement  has  yet  been  concluded. ^^ 

In  June  1990,  a  Soviet-Bulgarian  joint 
venmre  (J/V),  SOZOPOL-Kamchatka,  was 
created  in  the  Russian  Far  Eastern  city  of 
Petropavlovsk-Kamchatka.  The  founders  of 
the  J/V  were  RIBNO  STOPANSTVO  (its 
successor  in  the  venture  is  OKEANSKI 
RIBOLOV),  and  the  Russian  fisheries 
association,  KAMCHATRYBPROM.  The 
J/V  leases  the  Bulgarian  trawler  Feniks  to 
process  fish  delivered  by  Kamchatkan 
fishermen."  In  May  1993,  the  vessel  was 
undergoing  maintenance  and  minor  repairs  in 
the  shipyard  docks  of  Petropavlovsk- 
Kamchatskii.-'*  It  is  rumored  that  the 
Bulgarians  plan  to  sell  the  vessel  to  a 
Kamchatka  company  for  hard  currency. 

Ukraine:  In  September  1993,  Bulgaria  signed 
a  5-year  fisheries  cooperation  agreement  with 
Ukraine.  The  agreement  provides  for  joint 
efforts  in  the  transportation  of  fish,  the 
construction  of  fishing  and  fishery  support 
vessels,  and  the  delivery  of  new  and  spare 
equipment.  The  2  countries  have  also 
committed  themselves  to  develop  joint  patents 
and  standardization  in  their  respective  fishing 
industries.--*'  The  authors  believe  that  this 
agreement  is  similar  to  the  one  concluded  in 
1973  with  the  Soviet  Union.  Furthermore,  it 
is  believed  that  the  pending  agreement  with 
the  Russian  Federation  will  be  similar.  One 
of  the  potential  advantages  of  this  agreement 
will  be  that  the  Bulgarians  will  be  able  to 


repair  and  modernize  its  SIBIR-class  fishery 
transport  vessels  in  the  Ukrainian  shipyard 
where  they  were  originally  built. 

United  Kingdom:  In  June  1993,  OKEANSKI 
RIBOLOV  signed  a  preliminary  joint  venture 
agreement  for  fishing  and  trading  with  the 
British  company  ABBOTSWELL.  The  British 
will  provide  the  capital  (US$  2.5  million)  for 
the  project,  while  Bulgaria  will  provide  10 
stern  factory  trawlers  with  Bulgarian  crews  to 
fish  off  the  Falkland  Islands  and  Scotland.'** 
If  successful,  this  joint  venture  will  secure  the 
deployment  of  one  half  of  the  Bulgarian  high- 
seas  fishing  fleet  and  employ  500  Bulgarian 
fishermen.  This  is  the  second  agreement  that 
OKEANSKI  RIBOLOV  has  signed  with  this 
British  company.  In  October  1992,  the  J/V 
negotiated  with  ABBOTSWELL  permitted  4 
Bulgarian  trawlers  to  fish  off  the  coast  of 
Greenland.   This  fishery  continued  in  1993.^^ 

United  States:  Bulgaria  signed  a  5-year 
Governing  International  Fisheries  Agreement 
(GIFA)  with  the  United  States  which  lasted 
from  February  1977  to  July  1983;  it  was  then 
extended  for  another  5  years  until  1988.  The 
Bulgarian  fishermen,  however,  were  not 
allocated  any  catch  quotas,  nor  did  they 
conclude  any  joint  ventures  with  U.S. 
companies,  and  the  GIFA  expired  on  July  1, 
1988.-** 


VIL  EMPLOYMENT 

In  the  Bulgarian  high-seas  fishing  fleet,  an 
estimated  1 ,200  fishermen  are  working  aboard 
the  19  stern  factory  trawlers,  while  about  600 
persons  are  employed  on  the  5  support 
baseships  and  about  200  persons  constimte 
administrative  and  other  support  personnel. 
This   total   is   less   than  half  of  the   5,600 


195 


employees  which  the  company  had  in  1989,  at 
the  end  of  the  Zhivkov  regime.^' 

In  April  1991,  FAO  reported  the  total 
employment  in  the  primary  (fishermen)  sector 
of  the  fishing  industry  at  7,100  persons.  The 
high-seas  fleet  represented  about  5,000  of  this 
total,  while  the  employment  in  the  Black  Sea 
fisheries  was  estimated  at  about  2,000 
persons.^*' 

The  FAO  source  has  no  information  on 
how  many  employees  there  may  be  in  the 
secondary  (fish  processing)  sector. 

The  rapid  decrease  in  employment  in  the 
fishing  sector  is  having  a  severe  effect  on  the 
local  economies  of  Burgas  and  Varna,  the  two 
cities  where  the  fishing  industry  is 
concentrated.  An  additional  problem  is  that 
many  capable  Bulgarian  fishing  captains  and 
officers  have  accepted  employment  on  vessels 
owned  by  other  countries.^' 


VIII.  TRADE  AND  CONSUMPTION 

Bulgaria  exported  47,000  metric  tons  of 
fishery  products  in  1989,  about  one  half  of  its 
fisheries  catch  (appendix  8).  The  rest  was 
sold  on  domestic  markets.  This  is  the  same 
ratio  as  in  1985,  but  because  fishery  imports 
have  dwindled  to  almost  nothing  in  1989,  the 
available  supply  of  fishery  products  per  person 
decreased  about  30  percent  to  only  6.2  kg 
from  8.7  kg  in  1985. 

The  large  production  of  fishmeal  in  1985 
(44,400  tons,  according  to  FAO")  became 
non-existent  in  1989.  The  importation  of  this 
commodity  also  decreased  greatly  from 
146,000  t  in  1985  to  only  81 ,000  t  in  1989,  or 
by  55  percent.  The  presumed  cause  is  a  lack 
of  foreign  currencies.   The  effect  on  the  local 


cattle  and  hog  industries  could  be  severe. 
More  recent  information  is  not  available. 


IX.  SHIPYARDS 

In  the  late  1960s  and  early  1970s,  the  Ilya 
Boyadzhiev  shipyard  in  Burgas  on  the  Black 
Sea  coast  constructed  a  series  of  small 
refrigerated  trawlers  of  the  SHUSH VE  class; 
the  first  such  vessel  was  launched  in  February 
1968.  Several  of  these  vessels  were 
constructed  under  contract  for  the  former 
Soviet  fishing  fleets  to  be  used  in  the  North 
and  Baltic  Seas."  Details  on  the  current 
activities  of  Bulgarian  shipyards  building 
fishery  vessels,  their  names  or  locations,  are 
not  known. 


X.  OUTLOOK 

The  outlook  for  the  Bulgarian  high-seas 
fishing  industry  is  bleak.  The  lack  of  rapid 
privatization  after  the  demise  of  the 
communist  regime  prolonged  the  inbred 
inefficiency  of  the  large  government-owned 
corporation.  The  high-seas  fishing  company, 
OKEANSKI  RIBOLOV.  has  been  forced  into 
bankruptcy  and  there  is  little  hope  that  the 
current  Bulgarian  Government  will  bail  it  out. 
The  fisheries  catch  has  been  reduced  to  a 
point  where  its  proceeds  cannot  assure  the 
profitability  of  high-seas  operations.  Recently 
concluded  joint  venmres  with  foreign 
companies  have  been  profitable,  but  they  have 
not  been  sufficient  to  enable  the  company  to 
pay  off  its  large  debt  and  restrucmre  itself  into 
a  streamlined  private  enterprise.  Since  much 
of  the  Bulgarian  high-seas  catch  has 
traditionally  been  sold  abroad  for  foreign 
currencies,  the  effect  of  the  diminishing  catch 
on  the  domestic  supply  of  fishery  products  is 
not    particularly     severe.         Bulgaria     has 


196 


previously  supplied  its  citizens  with  imported 
fish.  However,  because  of  the  decreasing 
value  of  the  leva  and  the  discontinuation  of 
government  subsidies  for  foreign  fishery 
imports,  prices  for  imported  fish  have  risen  to 
the  point  where  the  average  Bulgarian  can  no 
longer  afford  it.  The  1989  import  level  of 
almost  30,000  t  of  fishery  products  was 
reduced  to  only  6,000  t  in  1992. 


U.S.  Embassy,  Sofia.  Personal  Communication.    29 
September  1993. 

U.S.  Navy,  Office  of  Naval  Intelligence,  26  July  1993. 


In  addition,  Bulgaria  has  no  oil  resources 
and  its  high-seas  fleet  would  have  been  hard 
hit  by  the  oil  crises  of  1973  and  1979  without 
the  cheap  deliveries  of  oil  from  the  former 
Soviet  Union.  However,  with  the  dissolution 
of  the  USSR,  Russian  oil  prices  have  been 
increasing  steadily  and  are  now  approaching 
world  levels;  the  payment  is  now  demanded  in 
hard  currencies.  The  need  to  buy  expensive 
diesel  fuel  diminishes  the  profitability  of  the 
fleet  and  will  have  a  negative  impact  even  if 
the  state-owned  fleet  is  privatized  since  the 
fuel  costs  may  represent  as  much  as  40-50 
percent  of  the  revenues  earned  from  the  sale 
of  the  catch. 

The  future  of  the  Bulgarian  high-seas 
fisheries  is  in  jeopardy.  It  cannot  be  excluded 
that,  faced  with  large  operational  losses  in  the 
past,  the  Bulgarian  Government  will  abandon 
distant-water  fisheries  and  liquidate  its  fleet. 


SOURCES 


FAO.  Fishery  Country  Profile.  Bulgaria.  Rome,  April 
1991. 

FAO.  Yearbook  of  Fishery  Statistics:  Catches  and 
Landings.  Rome,  various  years. 

Lloyd's  Register  of  Shipping.  Lloyd's  Register  of 
Shipping  Statistical  Tables.  London,  various  years. 


197 


ENDNOTES 


1.  This  was  equivalent  to  120  million  leva  at  the  exchange  rate  prevailing  at  the  time  of  6  Bulgarian  leva  to  1  U.S. 
dollar. 

2.  FAO,  Fishery  Country  Profile.  Bulgaria,  Rome,  April  1991. 

3.  T.K.  Ivanov,  "Bulgarian  High  Sea  Fishery:  Present  and  Future."  Published  in  The  First  East-West  Fisheries 
Conference,  20-22  May  1993,  St.  Petersburg,  Russia,  (Agra  Europe,  Ltd.  London),  1993,  p.  13. 

4.  T.K.  Ivanov,  "Bulgarian  High  Sea  Fishery:  Present  and  Future,"  Op.  cit. 

5.  FAO,  Personal  Communication,  21  July  1993;  U.S.  Navy,  Office  of  Naval  Intelligence  (ONI),  26  July  1993. 

6.  FAO,  Personal  Communication,  21  July  1993. 

7.  The  5  TROPIK  class  trawlers  were  scrapped  in  Varna,  Bulgaria,  and  in  Pakistan. 

8.  The  MAYAKOVSKII-class  stem  trawler  (Lebed)  was  scrapped  in  April  1986  at  Eleisis,  Greece. 

9.  The  disposition  of  the  6  ATLANTIK-class  stem  trawlers  is  not  known. 

10.  U.S.  Embassy,  Sofia,  29  September  1993.  The  Kondor  reportedly  sank  after  hitting  a  rock.  The  location  of 
the  sinking  in  the  Atlantic  was  not  precisely  identified,  but  it  may  have  been  off  West  Africa  where  the  vessel  was 
fishing  on  its  prior  trips. 

11.  FAO,  Fishery  Country  Profile.  Bulgaria,  Rome,  April  1991. 

12.  The  "second  season"  begins  in  June  of  each  year  and  lasts  until  the  end  of  November. 

13.  FAO,  Fishery  Country  Profile.  Bulgaria,  Rome,  April  1991. 

14.  The  1990  exchange  rate  was  US$  1=6  Bulgarian  leva. 

15.  Duma  (Sofia),  21  October  1991,  pp.  1-2. 

16.  FAO,  Fishery  Country  Profile.  Bulgaria,  Rome,  April  1991. 

17.  Duma  (Sofia),  21  October  1991,  pp.  1-2. 

18.  "Shelled  Trawler  Rescued,"  Japan  Times,  4  October  1977;  "Argentina  Opens  Fire  on  Two  Fishing  Vessels," 
Japan  Times,  2  October  1977. 

19.  U.S.  Embassy,  Buenos  Aires,  22  August  1993. 

20.  "Luz  Rojo  Para  el  Acuerdo  Biilgaro,"  Redes,  No.  42,  1989. 

21.  "Fishing  Agreement  with  Bulgaria  Suspended,"  Buenos  Aires  DYN,  2  March  1989. 


198 


22.  U.S.  Embassy,  Sofia,  29  September  1993.  The  1979  agreement  is  apparently  no  longer  valid  since  the 
Bulgarians  are  no  longer  permitted  to  fish  inside  the  Russian  200-mile  zone  in  the  Barents  Sea.  The  Bulgarian 
fishermen,  however,  continue  to  fish  in  the  Barents  Sea,  but  in  its  international  waters. 

23.  V.V.  Revnivtsev,  "Poisk  Optimarnoi  Strukturi  SP,"  Rybnoe  Khoziaistvo  (Moscow),  No.  1,  1993.  Although 
the  Russian  source  specifically  mentions  that  the  Feniks  only  "receives  and  processes  the  fish  from  Kamchatkan 
fishermen,"  Bulgarian  catch  statistics,  provided  by  OKEANSKI  RIBOLOV,  show  a  1991  and  1992  catch  of  Alaska 
pollock  (803  t  in  1991  and  410 1  in  1992).  The  Alaska  pollock  could  only  have  been  caught  in  the  Russian  200-mile 
zone  or  the  nearby  international  waters  of  the  "peanut  hole",  since  the  species  is  only  harvested  in  the  North 
Pacific.  The  FAO  statistics  for  Bulgaria,  however,  show  no  Alaska  pollock  catch  for  those  years.  The  discrepancy 
could  not  be  explained  with  available  data. 

24.  Pari  (Sofia),  12  May  1993. 

25.  U.S.  Embassy,  Sofia,  29  September  1993. 

26.  "UK/Bulgarian  Joint  Fishing  Venture,"  Eurofish  Report,  15  July  1993. 

27.  U.S.  Embassy,  Sofia,  29  September  1993. 

28.  National  Marine  Fisheries  Service,  Fisheries  of  the  United  States,  Washington,  D.C.,  various  years. 

29.  Todor  Ivanov,  Managing  Director  of  OKEANSKI  RIBOLOV,  Personal  Communication,  September  1993. 

30.  FAO,  Fishery  Country  Profile.  Bulgaria.  Rome,  April  1991. 

31.  24  Chasa  (Sofia),  21  June  1993. 

32.  This  figure  is  probably  wrong  as  44,000  tons  of  fishmeal  would  convert  into  a  220,000  t  catch.  The  Bulgarian 
total  fisheries  catch  that  year  was  only  100,200  tons. 

33.  Zemedebko  Zname  (Sofia),  31  March  1965;  Transporten  Glas,   February  1968. 


199 


Appendix  1.  Bulgaria.  Delivery  of  large  high-seas  fishery  vessels, 
by  year  built,  niter,   class,  gross  registered 
tonnage,  and  cointry  of  construction;  1964-90. 


Vessel 

type/Y. 

ear 

Nunbei 

r    Class 

CRT 

Country  bui It 

FISHING 

TRAWLERS 

1964 

1 

TROPIK 

2,640 

GDR 

1965 

2 

TROPIK 

5,280 

GOR 

1966 

2 

TROPIK 

5,280 

GDR 

1967 

3 

HAYAKOVSKII 

9,510 

USSR 

1968 

4 

ATLANTIK 

10,628 

GDR 

1969 

3 

ATLANTIK 

7,971 

GDR 

1970 

3 

ATLANTIK 

7,971 

GDR 

1971 

2 

ATLANTIK 

5,314 

GDR 

1974 

5 

KALMAR 

12,240 

Poland 

1975 

4 

KALHAR 

9,792 

Poland 

1988 

1 

PULKOVSKII 

4,407 

USSR 

1990 

1 
31 

ZHELEZNYAKOV 

726 
81,759 

USSR 

FISHERY 

SUPPORT 

1968 

1 

SIBIR 

4,942 

USSR 

1969 

2 

SIBIR 

9,884 

USSR 

1970 

1 

SIBIR 

4,942 

USSR 

1972 

1 
5 

SIBIR 

4.942 
24,710 

USSR 

GRAND  TOTAL  = 

36 

vessels 

TOTAL  GROSS  TONNAGE  =  106,469  GRT 

Sources:  U.S.  Navy,  Office  of  Naval  Intelligence,  26  July  1993; 
Milan  Kravanja,  NMFS,  Personal  Conmunication,  1  October  1993  (for 
the  years  1964-67). 

Note:  All  5  TROPIKs,  1  HAYAKOVSKII,  and  6  out  of  the  12  ATLANTIKs  were 
decomnissioned  and  are  currently  not  on  the  Bulgarian  fishing  fleet  register. 


200 


Appendix  2.  Bulgaria. 

Fishing  fleet. 

by  class,  vessel  nane. 

gross  registered  tonnage, 

,  and  cointry 

and  year 

of  construction;  1993. 

Construction 

Class/Vessel  name 

GRT 

Count rv 

Year 

NIGH-SEAS  FLEET 

ATLANTIK-  6  vessels 

Limoza 

2,657 

GOR 

1970 

Lorna 

2,657 

GOR 

1970 

Melanita 

2,657 

GDR 

1969 

Pingvin 

2,657 

GDR 

1968 

Rail  da 

2,657 

GDR 

1970 

Zikloniya 

2,657 

GDR 

1970 

KALMAR  (B-418)-  9  vessels 

Afala 

2,448 

Poland 

1974 

Aktinia 

2,467 

Poland 

1974 

Alfeus 

2,448 

Poland 

1974 

Argonavt 

2,448 

Poland 

1974 

Fizalia 

2,448 

Poland 

1975 

Kaprela 

2,448 

Poland 

1975 

Ofelia 

2,448 

Poland 

1975 

Rotalia 

2,448 

Poland 

1975 

Sagita 

2,448 

Poland 

1974 

MAYAKOVSKII-  2  vessels 

Balkan 

3,170 

USSR 

1967 

Fregata 

3,170 

USSR 

1967 

PULKOVSKII  MERIDIAN-  1 

vessel 

Feniks 

4,407 

USSR 

1988 

SIBIR-  5  vessels 

Albena 

5,942 

USSR 

1970 

Kiten 

5,942 

USSR 

1972 

Lazuren  Briag 

5,942 

USSR 

1969 

Slantchev  Briag 

5,942 

USSR 

1968 

Zlatni  Piasatzi 

5,942 

USSR 

1969 

ZHELEZNYAKOV-  1  vessel 

R/KI 

726 

USSR 

1990 

COASTAL  FLEET 

BALTIKA-  5  vessels 

K  37 

117 

USSR 

1990 

K  38 

117 

USSR 

1990 

K   39 

117 

USSR 

1990 

K   40 

117 

USSR 

1990 

K  41 

117 

USSR 

1990 

CLASS  UNKNOWN-  5  vessel 

s 

RK  14 

140 

Germany 

1965 

RK  15 

140 

Germany 

1965 

RK  16 

140 

Germany 

1965 

RK  17 

140 

Germany 

1965 

RK  35 

117 

USSR 

1985 

TOTAL  =  34  Vessels   High-seas:  24   Coastal:  10 

TOTAL  GROSS  TONNAGE  =  80,438  GRT 

High-seas  GRT:  79,176   Coastal  GRT:  1,262 

Source:  U.S.  Navy,  Office  of  Naval  Intelligence,  26  July  1993. 


201 


Appendix  3.  Bulgaria.  Number  of  high-seas  fishing  and  fishery 
support  vessels,  1975-92. 


Year 

Fishing 

Support 

Total 

Number  of  vessels 

1975 

28 

5 

33 

1976 

30 

5 

35 

1977 

30 

5 

35 

1978 

30 

5 

35 

1979 

30 

5 

35 

1980 

30 

5 

35 

1981 

29 

5 

34 

1982 

29 

5 

34 

1983 

29 

5 

34 

1984 

29 

5 

34 

1985 

28 

5 

33 

1986 

28 

5 

33 

1987 

28 

5 

33 

1988 

28 

5 

33 

1989 

28 

5 

33 

1990 

23 

5 

28 

1991 

22 

5 

27 

1992 

21 

5 

26 

Source:  Lloyd's  Register  of  Shipping  Statistical  Tables, 
Lloyd's  Register  of  Shipping,  London,  various  years. 


202 


Appendix  4.   Bulgaria.   Gross  registered  tonnage  of  high-seas 
fishing  and  fishery    support  vessels;  1975-92. 


Vpar 

Total 

ITichina 

Support 

1,000  Gross  Tons 

1975 

72.2 

28.9 

101.1 

1976 

77.2 

28.9 

106.1 

1977 

77.4 

28.9 

106.3 

1978 

77.4 

28.9 

106.3 

1979 

77.4 

28.9 

106.3 

1980 

77.4 

28.9 

106.3 

1981 

75.4 

28.9 

104.3 

1982 

75.4 

28.9 

104.3 

1983 

75.4 

28.9 

104.3 

1984 

75.4 

28.9 

104.3 

1985 

73.0 

28.9 

101.9 

1986 

73.0 

28.9 

101.9 

1987 

73.0 

28.9 

101.9 

1988 

73.0 

28.9 

101.9 

1989 

73.0 

28.9 

101.9 

1990 

60.2 

28.9 

89.1 

1991 

55.6 

28.9 

84.5 

1992 

52.4 

28.9 

81.3 

Source:  Lloyd's  Register  of  Shipping,   Lloyd's  Register 
of  Shipping  Statistical  Tables,  London,  various  years. 


203 


Appendix  5.  Bulgaria.  Inland,  coastal,  and  distant-water  fisheries  catch,  by  FAO  statistical 
areas;  1975,  1980,  and  1985-1992. 

Fishing  Area        Year 


1975 

1980 

1985 

1986 

1987 

1988 

1989 

1990 

1991 

1992 

1.000  Met 

ric  tons 

Inland  (05) 

7.8 

12.4 

11.9 

14.1 

12.9 

12.2 

12.1 

8.5 

8.5 

N/A 

Coastal(37) 

8.6 

17.9 

17.1 

13.0 

12.2 

8.2 

8.6 

2.9 

2.9 

N/A 

Distant  Uater 

21 

28.1 

1.1 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

1.9 

1.9 

N/A 

27 

36.4 

9.2 

7.7 

12.1 

13.5 

10.8 

5.7 

4.0 

4.0 

N/A 

34 

45.6 

49.8 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

0.5 

0.5 

N/A 

41 

- 

- 

17.8 

20.9 

22.8 

42.1 

31.9 

28.1 

21.9 

9.0 

47 

31.6 

19.1 

43.5 

49.0 

49.4 

43.8 

43.7 

8.5 

8.5 

N/A 

48 

- 

1.2 

- 

0.2 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

N/A 

87 

Subtotal 

141.7 

15.6 
96.0 

2.3 

71.3 

82.2 

85.7 

96.7 

81.3 

1.7 
44.7 

1.7 
38.5 

N/A 
27.2(E) 

Percentage* 

89.6 

75.9 

71.2 

75.2 

77.4 

82.6 

79.7 

79.7 

77.2 

N/A 

Total  158.1   126.4    100.2   109.3   110.7   117.1   102.0   56.1   49.9    N/A 

Sources:  FAO.  Yearbook  of  Fishery  Statistics:  Catches  and  Landings:  Rome,  various  years.  The  1992 
estimate  was  obtained  from  the  U.S.  Embassy  in  Sofia  in  September  1992. 

*  High-seas  fisheries  catch  as  a  percentage  of  the  total  catch. 

E  -  Estimated 

N/A  -  Not  available 

Note:  The  totals  may  not  add  because  of  rounding. 


Appendix  6.  Bulgaria.  Fisheries  catch  off  the  Falklands  Island,  by  species 
and  quantity;  1988-92. 

Year 


Species 

1988        1989 

1990 

1991 

1992 

(Metric  tons) 

Hake 

122 

85 

59 

- 

Blue  Whiting 

,  5,820 

18,998 

20,311 

8,938 

Hoki 

796 

878 

40 

44 

Squid 

- 

333* 

- 

- 

Other : 2.327 1.768 1.479 -__ 

Total**  9,069      22,099       21,888     8,981 

Source:  Falklands  Fisheries  Department,  1993. 

*  Includes  328  tons  of  illex  and  5  tons  of  loligo. 
**  Totals  may  not  agree  because  of  rounding. 


204 


APPENDIX  7 


AGREEMENT  ON  COOPERATION  BETWEEN  THE  USSR  AND  THE  PEOPLE'S  REPUBLIC  OF  BULGARIA 
IN  THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  OCEAN  FISHING 

The  Government  of  the  USSR  and  the  Government  of  the  People's  Republic  of  Bulgaria,  noting  the  successes  scored 
in  the  exercise  of  cooperation  between  the  USSR  and  Bulgaria  in  the  development  of  ocean  fishing, 

Guided  by  the  relations  and  friendship  and  close  cooperation  which  exist  between  the  USSR  and  Bulgaria  and 

Proceeding  from  the  assignments  set  in  the  Comprehensive  Program  of  the  Continued  Extension  and  Improvement 
of  Cooperation  and  Development  of  the  Socialist  Economic  Integration  of  the  CEMA  Countries, 

Have  signed  this  agreement  as  follows: 

Article  I 

The  contracting  parties  agree  to  cooperate  in  the  development  of  the  two  countries'  ocean  fishing  in  accordance  with 
the  provisions  of  this  agreement. 

Article  II 

To  this  end  the  contracting  parties  will  instruct  their  competent  organizations: 

a)  to  provide  for  the  delivery,  in  compliance  with  the  principle  of  mutual  compensation,  of  fish  and  fish  products 
to  Soviet  and  Bulgarian  ports  by  passing  runs  of  Soviet  and  Bulgarian  transport  refrigerator  ships,  which  will  operate 
to  schedules  agreed  between  the  parties'  competent  organizations; 

b)  to  practice  on  agreed  terms  cooperation  in  the  production  of  certain  fishing  implements  and  parts  of  their  tackle 
and  certain  types  of  fishing  and  fish-processing  equipment  and  parts  thereof; 

c)  to  render  in  individual  instances  at  sea  mutual  assistance  with  certain  types  of  fishing  and  fish-processing 
equipment  and  spares  and  also  to  render  individual  mutual  packaging  material  preparation  services; 

d)  to  practice  the  coordination  of  their  efforts  in  international  fishing  organizations  and  also  in  the  development  of 
bilateral  relations  with  third  countries  for  ensuring  the  efficient  operation  of  Soviet  and  Bulgarian  fishing  craft  with 
regard  to  the  interests  of  Soviet  and  Bulgarian  fishing; 

e)  to  adopt  measures  for  the  exercise  of  cooperation  in  the  sphere  of  the  maintenance  of  fishing  craft  by  way, 
specifically,  of  the  development  of  ship-repair  capacity  and  also  ship  spare  production  plants. 

Article  III 

In  accordance  with  Article  I,  the  competent  organizations  of  the  two  contracting  parties  will: 

practice  close  coordination  and  cooperation  in  the  work  of  research  and  planning  and  design  organization  on  issues 
and  problems  of  interest  to  the  parties; 

exchange  experience  in  the  field  of  the  planning  of  fish  industry,  invention  and  efficiency  promotion  activity  and 
patenting  and  standardization  and  also  exchange  published  information  on  the  fish  industry;  and 


205 


practice  the  mutual  exchange  of  production  forms  and  records  and  new  models  of  fishing  implements  and  fishing 
and  fish-processing  equipment  and  also  production  records  pertaining  to  the  production  of  new  types  of  fish 
products. 

The  contracting  parties'  cooperation  organization  will  be  guided  here  by  the  "Procedure  for  the  Exercise  of  S&T 
Cooperation  Between  the  USSR  and  the  People's  Republic  of  Bulgaria"  adopted  by  the  ninth  session  of  the  Standing 
Subcommission  for  S&T  Cooperation  Between  the  USSR  and  Bulgaria  on  19  December  1968. 

Article  IV 

The  Government  of  the  USSR  will  ensure  that  Soviet  organizations  render  Bulgarian  organizations  technical 
assistance  in  the  further  development  of  ocean  fishing  and  the  training  of  fish  industry  personnel. 

Technical  assistance  will  be  rendered  by  way  of: 

the  inclusion  of  Bulgarian  fishing  craft  in  Soviet  fishing  expeditions,  their  provision  with  fuel  and  water  and  the 
granting  of  the  necessary  scientific-industrial  information  and  also  Bulgarian  specialists'  participation  in  the  work 
of  departmental  industrial  coordination  meetings  held  by  competent  organizations  of  the  Soviet  party  and  determining 
the  deployment  of  the  fishing  craft  and  support  for  their  operation  at  sea; 

the  assignment  to  Bulgaria  of  Soviet  specialists  to  assist  in  the  training  of  fish  industry  personnel  and  the  acceptance 
in  the  USSR  of  Bulgarian  citizens  for  instruction  and  industrial  training  at  seafaring  schools,  on  ships  and  at 
enterprises  and  in  research  and  planning  and  design  organizations. 

Article  V 

The  terms  and  the  extent  of  the  rendering  of  the  technical  assistance  envisaged  in  Article  IV  of  this  agreement  will 
be  determined  in  contracts  which  will  be  concluded  between  themselves  by  competent  organizations  of  the 
contracting  parties. 

Article  VI 

The  assigiunent  of  Soviet  specialists  to  Bulgaria  and  the  acceptance  of  Bulgarian  citizens  in  the  USSR  provided  for 
in  Article  IV  of  this  treaty  will  be  effected  in  numbers  and  specialties  and  for  periods  agreed  by  the  parties  in 
accordance  with  the  8  April  1957  Agreement  Between  the  Government  of  the  USSR  and  the  Bulgarian  Government 
on  the  Conditions  of  the  Assignment  of  Soviet  Specialists  to  Bulgaria  and  Bulgarian  Specialists  to  the  USSR  for 
Technical  Assistance  and  Other  Services  and  the  8  April  1957  Agreement  Between  the  Government  of  the  USSR 
and  the  Bulgarian  Government  on  the  Conditions  of  the  Industrial-Engineering  Training  of  Soviet  and  Bulgarian 
Specialists  and  Workers. 

Article  VII 

The  contracting  parties  will  appoint  their  representatives,  who  will  meet  as  necessary  on  the  territory  of  each  party 
in  turn  to  elaborate  specific  measures  pertaining  to  implementation  of  this  agreement. 

Article  VIII 

The  provisions  of  this  agreement  do  not  affect  the  contracting  parties'  rights  and  obligations  ensuing  from  current 
bilateral  and  multilateral  fishing  agreements. 

Article  IX 


206 


This  agreement  will  take  effect  as  of  the  date  it  is  signed  and  will  as  of  this  date  replace  the  Agreement  on  the 
USSR's  Rendering  of  the  People's  Republic  of  Bulgaria  Technical  Assistance  in  the  Development  of  Ocean  Fishing 
Signed  on  21  November  1968. 

Article  X 

This  agreement  has  been  concluded  for  the  term  of  8  years.  It  will  remain  in  force  for  each  of  the  5  subsequent 
years  unless  either  contracting  party  denounce  it  no  later  than  6  months  prior  to  the  expiration  of  the  5-year  period. 

This  agreement  may  be  altered  at  the  parties'  mutual  consent. 

DONE  in  Burgas  on  23  April  1973  in  two  copies,  each  in  Russian  and  Bulgarian,  both  copies,  furthermore,  being 
of  equal  validity. 

(Signatures  follow) 


207 


Appendix  8.  Bulgaria.  Sif^ply  of  edible  and  non-edible 
fishery  products  and  per  capita  consiaption 
of  fishery  products;  1985  and  1989. 


Year 


1985 


Edible 
Catch 
Imports 
Exports 
Total  supply 
Per  capita 
consimption 


(1,000  metric  tons) 


1989 


78.2 
38.2 
38.0 
78.4 

8.7  kg 


102.0 

0.3 

46.7 

55.6 

6.2  kg 


81.0 
81.0 


Non-Edible 

Production  44.4* 

Imports  146.0 

Total  supply  190.4 

Source:  FAQ.  Fishery  Country  Profile.  Bulgaria. 
Ronfie,  April  1991. 

*  This  figure  is  probably  a  mistake 
(See  endnote  29  for  details). 


208 


4.3 


POLAND 

The  Polish  fishing  industry,  which  expanded  its  operations  into  the  world's  oceans  in  the 
1960s  and  1970s,  is  currently  in  a  state  of  severe  crisis.  Fishery  landings,  which  peaked  in  1975 
at  800,000  metric  tons,  have  decreased  to  only  514,000  tons  in  1992.  Once  numerous  fishing 
grounds  of  the  Polish  high-seas  fleet  have  now  shrunk  to  a  major  fishery  in  the  Pacific 
Northwest  and  two  smaller  fishing  operations  off  the  Falkland  Islands  and  in  Antarctica.  The 
Pacific  fishery,  however,  is  in  danger  of  being  closed  down  by  insistent  Russian  demands  for 
a  fishing  moratorium  to  prevent  overfishing.  Limited  fishing  opportunities  have  forced  the 
Polish  companies  to  reduce  the  number  of  their  vessels;  during  the  last  7  years  these  companies 
sold  48  vessels  to  fishermen  from  13  other  countries.  Only  53  stern  trawlers  are  now  engaged 
in  high-seas  fishing  and  their  number  is  expected  to  continue  decreasing.  The  Polish  fishing 
industry,  accustomed  to  substantial  financial  subsidies  from  the  government,  and  to  regulated 
prices  for  fishery  products,  has  had  to  learn  to  do  without  them.  Price  regulation  ended  in  1989 
and  most  subsidies  were  discontinued  in  1990.  The  entry  into  a  partially  free-market  system  has 
caused  severe  problems  for  both  high-seas  and  Baltic  fishing  companies  which  now  have  to  rely 
almost  exclusively  on  market  forces  to  survive  in  a  highly  competitive  environment. 


CONTENTS 

I.  Background 210 

II.  Fishing  Fleet 213 

A.  High-seas  Fleet 215 

B.  Fleet  Reduction 215 

C.  Construction  of  Fishing  Vessels 216 

D.  Subsidies 217 

E.  Competition    218 

III.  High-seas  Fishery  Catch 218 

IV.  High-seas  Fishing  Grounds    220 

V.  High-seas  Fishing  Companies 221 

VI.  Fisheries  Administration 223 

VII.  Bilateral  Agreements    224 

VIII. Joint  Ventures 227 

IX.    Outlook 228 

Sources    229 

Endnotes     230 

Appendices 235 


I.  BACKGROUND 


The  Republic  of  Poland,  a 
northern  East  European  country, 
bordering  on  Czechoslovakia, 
Germany,  Lithuania,  Belarus, 
Ukraine,  and  Russia  (at 
Kaliningrad  Oblast)  had  over  38 
million  inhabitants  as  of  July 
1992.  It  covers  a  total  area  of 
312,680  square  kilometers 
(slightly  smaller  than  New 
Mexico),  and  its  coastline  extends 
along  the  Baltic  Sea  for  491 
kilometers.  It  has  4  major  fishery 
ports  on  the  Baltic  Sea  -  Gdansk, 
Gdynia,  Szczecin,  and  Swinoujscie. 


Baltic  catch 

20.4% 

\    Inland  catch 

\        9.9% 

High-seas  catc 
69.7% 


Total  catch  =  514,000  metric  tons 


Figure  1.  Poland.  Fisheries  catch,  by  percent  of  total;  1992. 


Although  the  fishing  industry  in  Poland  is 
an  important  provider  of  food  and  a 
significant  earner  of  hard  currencies,  it  is  not 
a  large  component  of  the  national  economy. 
The  Polish  Marine  Fisheries  Institute  (MIR) 
in  Gdynia  estimated  that  in  1992  only  about 
0.3  percent  of  the  gross  national  product  was 
contributed  by  the  fisheries  sector.'  In  the 
maritime  provinces,  however,  fisheries  and  its 
supporting  branches  of  the  economy 
(shipbuilding,  trade,  etc.)  play  a  leading  role 
and  provide  employment  to  a  large  segment 
of  the  population,  often  in  locations  where  no 
other  employment  opportunities  exist. 

In  1992,  almost  32,000  persons  were 
employed  in  Polish  fisheries,  yet  this 
represented  only  0.2  percent  of  total 
employment.-  The  per  capita  consumption  of 
fishery  products  is  about  6  kilograms.^ 
Consumption  is  expected  to  increase,  mainly 
because  of  herring  and  mackerel  fishery 
imports,  but  also  because  the  Polish  herring 
and  mackerel  catch  is  now  being  processed  by 
private,  competing  companies  which  package 


it  attractively  to  appeal  to  more  consumers." 

In  1992,  the  total  Polish  fisheries  catch 
was  514,000  metric  tons  (t),  most  of  which 
was  harvested  on  the  high-seas  (figure  1). 
Before  World  War  II  and  in  the  early  1950s, 
the  Baltic  catch  represented  the  entire  Polish 
catch,  but  by  1992  it  had  been  reduced  to 
105,000  t,  or  about  20  percent  of  the  total, 
while  the  high-seas  catch  (358,500  t)  had 
grown  to  70  percent  of  the  total.  The  inland 
catch  (51,000  t  in  1992),  although  never  a 
substantial  part  of  the  overall  catch,  has  been 
increasing  steadily  since  1980  when  only 
18,700  t  were  harvested. 

In  1989,  following  the  adoption  of  a 
democratic  political  system  and  movement 
toward  a  free-market  economy,  changes  began 
to  be  implemented  in  the  Polish  fishing 
industry.  The  previous  subsidies'  and  fixed 
prices  for  fishery  products  were  abandoned,  a 
liberal  policy  based  on  market  forces  was 
introduced,  and  foreign  trade  barriers  were 
abolished.* 


210 


In  May  1990,  the  Government  began  a 
program  to  privatize  state-owned  fishery 
enterprises  to  reduce  unit  costs  and  increase 
economic  efficiency.  It  was  envisioned  that 
fishery  enterprises  would  divide,  downsize,  or 
transform  themselves  into  profitable 
independent  companies.^ 


n.  FISHING  FLEET 


In  July  1993,  the  Polish  fishing  fleet 
consisted  of  300  vessels  with  a  total  capacity 
of  276,000  GRT  (table  1).  Of  this  total,  85 
vessels  having  over  250,000  GRT,  or  about 
91  percent  of  the  total  fleet  tonnage,  were 
engaged  in  high-seas  operations.  The  smaller 


Table  1.  Poland.  Fishing  fleet,  by  selected 
vessel  capacity.  1993. 


Capacity 

Number 

GRT 

Average  GRT 

100-500  GRT 
Above  500  GRT 
TOTAL 

215 

85 

300 

25.502 
250,685 
276.287 

119 

2,949 

921 

Source  US  Navy.  Office  of  Naval 
Intelligence.  27  July  1993 


vessels  (100-500  GRT)  are  mostly  cutters 
fishing  in  the  Baltic  Sea.  In  addition,  over 
200  small  vessels  below  100  GRT  capacity 
also  fished  the  Baltic. 

Lloyd's  of  London  lists,  in  its  latest 
statistical  tables  for  June  1992,  the  same 
number  of  85  high-seas  fishery  vessels 
(appendix  1)  and  divides  them  into  73  high- 
seas  fishing  and  12  fishery  support  units. 

Fishing  vessels  are  shown  by  gross 
tonnage  in  appendix  2.  The  statistics  show 
clearly  the  elimination  of  smaller  side  trawlers 
in  the  500-999  GRT  range  from  67  units  in 


1975  to  only  4  units  by  June  1992.  Similarly, 
the  number  of  medium-sized  trawlers  (1,000- 
1,999  GRT  range)  was  less  than  a  half  of 
those  deployed  in  1975  (12  units  compared  to 
27  units).  Although  the  number  of  large  stern 
factory  trawlers  remained  fairly  constant  over 
the  last  two  decades  (50  in  1975  and  56  in 
1992)  their  number  fluctuated  greatly.  It 
increased  from  1975  to  1977  by  22  units,  or 
by  almost  50  percent.  One  must  suppose 
that,  encouraged  by  the  ever-increasing 
fisheries  catch  which  peaked  in  1975  at 
800,000  metric  tons,  Polish  fishing  companies 
ordered  2  dozen  new  stern  trawlers  to  join  in 
the  distant-water  fishing  expansion.  When  the 
extensions  to  200-mile  fishery  zones  occurred 
in  1976  and  1977,  it  was  probably  too  late  to 
stop  the  orders  from  the  shipyards.  The 
reality  had  to  be   faced,   however,   and   in 

1978,  only  3  trawlers  were  added  and  none  in 

1979.  The  high-seas  trawler  fleet  remained 
constant  for  a  few  years  and  then  began  to 
decrease  slowly  until  1985.  Because 
replacements  were  built  in  the  late  1980s,  the 
total  number  of  stern  trawlers  remained  the 
same. 

Poland's  fishery  support  vessels  were 
originally  built  in  the  1960s,  but  their 
modernization  and  constant  replacement  kept 
the  number  at  about  10  units.  A  strong 
building  program  in  1988-89  increased  their 
number  to  13  (appendices  3  and  4). 

For  the  last  few  years,  however,  Lloyd's 
statistics  have  become  unreliable.  The 
changes  in  the  Polish  (and  probably  other  East 
European  fleets)  are  occurring  so  rapidly  and 
unpredictably  that  information  is  not  flowing 
quickly  enough  to  be  registered  in  time.  The 
OECD  statistics  show  much  lower  numbers  of 
Polish  stern  trawlers  in  both  1990  (77  units) 
and  1991  (65  units)  as  can  be  seen  in 
appendix  4. 


213 


Photo  1.  Poland  built  11  large  stern  factory  trawlers  of  tlie  KALMAR  class  (2,400GRT)  for  its  distant- 
water  fishing  operations. 


These  data  were  confirmed  by  official 
Polish  statistics  which  were  received  through 
the  U.S.  Embassy  in  Warsaw  only  a  few  days 
before  the  final  draft  was  typed.  They  show 
that,  at  the  end  of  1992,  the  Polish  fleet  of 
high-seas  vessels  numbered  66  units  (appendix 
5).  Among  these  were  34  fishery  vessels 
having  over  2,500  gross  registered  tons.  If 
we  deduct  from  this  figure  the  13  fishery 
transport  and  processing  vessels  listed  in 
appendix  6^  we  obtain  the  actual  number  of 
Polish  stern  factory  trawlers  at  the  end  of 
1992  -  52  units. 

The  authors  have  described  this  somewhat 
confusing  process  of  analysis  to  point  out  that 
the  various  sources,  though  highly  reliable  in 
most  cases,  may  not  be  fully  trusted  in  the 


case  of  Eastern  Europe  and  the  former  Soviet 
republics.  The  only  foolproof  statistics  are 
those  released  by  the  respective  Governments. 
We  were  fortunate  to  have  the  excellent 
cooperation  of  the  Polish  Ministry  of 
Transportation  and  Maritime  Economy  in 
obtaining  the  statistics  listed  in  appendices  5 
and  6.  Unfortunately,  this  was  not  the  case  in 
any  other  country  covered  in  this  volume. 

The  Polish  high-seas  fleet  is  completely 
separated  from  the  operations  of  the  Baltic 
fleet.  They  have  no  impact  on  each  other  and 
are  also  administered  separately.  The  high- 
seas  fleet  is  owned  by  three  state-owned 
companies  which  do  not  have  any  operations 
in  the  Baltic  (as  is  the  case  in. some  of  the 
other  Baltic  states). 


214 


A.  High-seas  Fishing  Fleet 

The  Polish  high-seas  fishing  fleet 
numbered  66  units  in  1992.  Of  this  total,  53 
units  were  fishing  vessels  (appendix  7).  The 
remaining  13  units  were  used  for  transporting 
harvested  fish  (appendix  8).  A  complete  list 
of  vessel  names,  classes,  gross  registered 
tonnage  (CRT),  and  country  and  year  of 
construction  is  presented  in  appendices  7  and 
8." 

Most  fishing  vessels  are  large  stern 
factory  trawlers  having  in  excess  of  2,000  and 
even  3,000  gross  tons  (photo  1).  The  13 
various  classes  of  trawlers  (appendix  7  lists 
them  alphabetically)  were  all  built  in  Poland. 
The  country's  shipyards  rapidly  developed  the 
capability  to  build  large  high-seas  trawlers 
after  Poland  entered  distant-water  fisheries  in 
the  late  1950s.  Polish  shipyards  eventually 
supplied  fishery  vessels  not  only  to  the  Soviet 
Union,  but  also  to  Romania,  Bulgaria,  and 
even  West  European  countries. 

The  high-seas  fishery  transport  and 
processing  vessels  were  also  built  in  Polish 
shipyards,  except  the  first  one  (the 
Harmattan),  which  was  bought  in  Germany  in 
1966.  Appendix  8  shows  that  the  TERRAL 
class  of  refrigerated  transports,  built  in  the 
early  1980s,  had  a  gross  tonnage  half  the  size 
of  the  ZULAWI  class  built  in  the  1970s,  but 
the  2  KOCIEWIE-class  baseships,  constructed 
in  1986-87,  again  had  a  gross  tonnage 
exceeding  8,800  tons. 

The  fishery  transport  fleet  played  an 
important  role  in  the  expansion  into  high-seas 
fishing  grounds  from  Polish  ports  as  they 
made  possible  the  delivery  of  supplies,  fuel, 
water,  and  the  transportation  of  frozen  fish 
and  other  fishery  products. '°  A  recent  report 
indicates  that  their  deployment  in  supporting 


the  high-seas  fleet  has  been  greatly  reduced, 
but  it  gives  no  details  of  activities  in  which 
they  are  engaged." 

The  entire  Polish  high-seas  fishing  fleet 
was  constructed  in  domestic  shipyards,  and 
the  majority  of  these  vessels  are  15-25  years 
old.'-  Only  23  vessels  (out  of  a  total  of  300) 
were  purchased  abroad.  Their  gross  tonnage 
of  7,170  CRT,  is  less  than  3  percent  of  the 
total  fishery  tonnage  built  in  Poland  during 
the  last  35  years  (appendix  9).  The 
replacement  of  aged  factory  trawlers  with 
new,  more  efficient  vessels  is  the  most 
important  task  for  the  Polish  fishing  industry 
if  it  is  to  remain  economically  viable  in  the 
1990s.'^ 

B.  Fleet  Reduction 

The  Polish  fleet  is  plagued  by 
overcapacity  and  obsolescence.  Many  high- 
seas  vessels  are  20-30  years  old  which  limits 
considerably  their  future  usefulness.  By  the 
year  2000,  most  will  have  to  be  retired.'* 

Over  the  past  few  years,  Poland  has  been 
decommissioning  vessels  fairly  steadily. 
From  a  report  published  by  the  Organization 
for  Economic  Cooperation  and  Development, 
it  is  evident  how  rapid  this  process  has  been. 
From  1990  to  1991,  Poland  has 
decommissioned  13  high-seas  vessels  totalling 
28,000  CRT."  The  reflagging  of  Polish 
high-seas  fishing  and  fishery  support  vessels 
is  accelerating.  During  the  past  2  years,  a 
total  of  28  vessels  were  re  flagged  to  12 
countries  (table  2).  The  names,  gross 
tonnage,  and  the  year  of  construction  are 
given  in  appendix  10.  There  are  many 
reasons  for  reflagging,  but  time  does  not 
permit  the  authors  to  analyze  them  at  this 
time.'* 


215 


Table  2  Poland 

Fishery  vessels  ref lagged  to 

other  countries. 

by  country  and  number 

Country      Number  of  Vessels 

Panama 

4 

China 

3 

Cyprus 

3 

Argentina 

3 

Germany 

3 

Nngena 

2 

Honduras 

2 

Malta 

2 

St.  Vincent 

2 

Liberia 

1 

Russia 

1 

Norway 

1 

Unknown 

1 

Total 

28 

The  replacement  or  modernization  of 
distant-water  vessels  and  equipment  is 
hindered  by  the  current  financial  condition  of 
the  Polish  high-seas  fishing  companies.  Only 
DALMOR  possesses  sufficient  financial 
resources  to  begin  the  replacement  of 
processing  equipment.  ODRA's  financial 
situation,  and  especially  that  of  the  GRYF 
company,  is  poor.  The  general  opinion  in 
Poland  is  that  the  fleet  cannot  be  replaced 
without  considerable  support  from  the 
country's  budget  which  would  provide  the 
initial  capital  and/or  low  interest  credits.  The 
idea  has  been  discussed  by  the  Polish 
parliamentary  committee  dealing  with 
fisheries  and  has  also  been  presented  to  the 
Prime      Minister.  Lobbying      for      its 

implementation  are  the  shipbuilding  interests 
which  hope  to  get  the  orders  for  the  new 
modern  high-seas  fishing  vessels.'^ 

in  1992,  a  total  of  14  vessels  have  been 
sold  to  foreign  buyers  while  no  new  high-seas 
trawlers  were  built  in  domestic  shipyards  or 
purchased  abroad.  Of  the  14  vessels  sold,  2 
were  the  large  motherships  of  the  GRYF 
POMORSKI  class.  These  were  the  last  2 
motherships  the  Polish  high-seas  fleet  still 


owned;  their  combined  tonnage  was  27,000 
gross  registered  tons.  The  remaining  12 
deregistered  trawlers  were  stern  factory 
trawlers.  Two  of  these  trawlers  were  sold  to 
China  which  is  expanding  its  high-seas 
operations;  five  were  purchased  by  German 
companies  and  one  was  sold  to  the  United 
Kingdom.  Between  1985-92,  a  total  of  48 
used  Polish  fishing  vessels  were  sold  with  a 
total  gross  tonnage  of  over  85,000  tons.'* 

C.  Construction  of  Fishing  Vessels 

Beginning  in  the  mid-1960s,  the  Polish 
shipbuilding  industry  was  relatively  strong. 
The  construction  of  fishery  vessels  was 
oriented  not  only  toward  domestic  demand, 
but  also  toward  exports  to  some  20  countries. 
In  the  1990s,  however,  vessel  construction 
began  to  decline  as  a  result  of 
overcapitalization  in  the  Baltic  fishery  and  a 
lack  of  orders  from  EC  countries.  In  1990, 
Polish  shipyards  built  19  fishing  vessels  with 
a  total  gross  tonnage  of  18,475  tons,  but,  by 
1992,  this  output  had  decreased  to  1  vessel 
with  143  GRT  (appendices  11  and  12).  All 
programs  encouraging  fishing  vessel 
construction  have  been  abandoned  and 
instead,  because  of  the  overcapacity  of  the 
Polish  fishing  fleet,  efforts  are  being  made  to 
sell  off  or  scrap  existing  vessels." 

Poland  has  5  shipyards  building  small, 
medium,  and  large  trawlers  (table  3).  The 
total  employment  in  these  shipyards  in  1991 
was  over  19,000  workers,  but  it  is  likely  that 
by  1993  this  total  had  shrunk  considerably. 

The  Gdansk  Shipyard  continues  to  build 
fisheries  support  vessels,  but  has  difficulties 
selling  them.  For  instance,  a  large  fishery 
mothership  was  built  for  the  DALMOR  high- 
seas  company;  however,  in  view  of  the 
uncertainty  surrounding  Polish  high-seas 
fishing,  DALMOR  refused  to  pay  for  it.  The 


216 


Table  3.  Poland.  Shipyards  building  fishery 
vessels  and  the  number  of 
persons  employed;  1993. 


Name 


Employnient* 


Type  of  Vessel 


Stocznia  Gdanska   7.945 


Stoczma  Gdynia 
Stocznia  Polnocna 
Stocznia  Ustka 
Stoczma  Wisla 
Total 


6.689 

3,183 

788 

738 

19.343 


Stern  trawlers 
Motherships 
Stern  trawlers 
Trawlers 
Small  trawlers 
Small  trawlers 


Source  Budnownictwe  Okretowe  i  Gospodarka 

Morska.  September -October.  1993. 

*  Employment  given  is  for  1991. 


Director  General  of  the  Gdansk  Shipyard 
(Hans  Szyc)  had  talics  with  German  interests 
in  an  effort  to  sell  the  vessel  elsewhere,  but  it 
is  not  known  if  these  negotiations  have  been 
successful. "'' 

The  importation  of  fishing  vessels  from 
abroad  is  nonexistent  because  of  the 
overcapitalization  in  the  Baltic  fisheries  and 
because  the  Polish  shipyards  could  easily 
satisfy  the  demand  for  high-seas  vessels.  Any 
Polish  company  wishing  to  import  fishing 
vessels  would  have  to  pay  a  5  percent  import 
duty  and  also  scrap  an  old  vessel  before 
purchasing  another  one.  No  fishing  vessels 
were  imported  in  1992  or  1993.-' 

D.  Subsidies 

The  fishing  industry  of  Poland  has,  in 
addition  to  supplying  fishery  proteins  to  the 
domestic  markets,  also  acted  as  an  important 
earner  of  hard  foreign  currency.  Because  of 
this  export  function,  the  Polish  state-owned 
companies  (which  provided  88  percent  of  all 
fishery  landings)  were  heavily  subsidized  by 
the  Government  from  the  general  budget. ^^ 


programs  supporting  fishing  vessel 
construction  were  suspended  after  1990. 
Price  regulation  schemes  had  been  abandoned 
even  earlier  in  1989.  Private  or  state-owned 
enterprises  must  rely  exclusively  on  market 
forces.  The  following  programs,  however, 
still  receive  support  from  the  Polish 
Government:  1)  repair  and  maintenance  of 
fishing  harbors;  2)  vocational  schools, 
training  sea-going  personnel;  and  3)  scientific 
research  related  to  fisheries  management. ^^ 

Government  subsidies  to  the  Polish 
fishing  industry  were  a  powerful  stimulus  for 
the  rapid  development  of  its  fishing  fleet  and 
the  resulting  increase  in  fisheries  catch.  The 
ever-increasing  influx  of  fishery  products 
brought  back  by  Polish  fishermen  from  the 
proverbial  seven  seas,  would  probably  have 
depressed  prices  severely  had  it  not  been  for 
the  artificial  propping  up  of  prices  set  and 
controlled  by  the  government.  As  in  the 
Soviet  Union,  in  the  final  analysis,  it  was  the 
housewife  buying  a  kilogram  of  fish  at  the 
local  store  that  financed  the  extravagant 
fishery  investments  in  the  1950s  and  1960s. 
Moreover,  state-owned  fishing  enterprises 
(and  shipyards  as  well)  were  given  direct 
subsidies  from  the  state  budget,  i.e.,  the 
taxpayers'  pockets.  When  the  landings  started 
to  decrease  and  the  losses  began  to  increase  in 
the  1970s  and  1980s,  it  was  from  the 
government's  budget  that  the  fisheries  sector 
obtained  its  survival  funds.  Some  subsidies 
are  still  provided  to  fishing  companies  to  help 
them  restructure  and  resolve  their  most 
pressing  financial  problems,  but  the  amounts 
granted  and  other  details  are  not  available. 


After  the  political  changes  in  1990,  these 
subsidies  were  drastically  reduced.    All 


217 


E.  Competition 

Increasing  competition  for  domestic 
markets  has  caused  considerable  anxiety 
among  Polish  fishermen  and  erupted  into 
organized  protests  on  April  5,  1993. 
Following  in  the  footsteps  of  their  West 
European  colleagues,  they  blockaded  Polish 
fishing  ports  demanding  that  the  Polish 
Government  abolish  taxes  on  diesel  fuel  used 
by  fishing  vessels,  introduce  higher  customs 
duties  on  imports  of  cheap  fishery  products 
from  Russia  and  the  Baltic  countries,  and 
reintroduce  a  system  of  price 
support  payments  to  domestic 
producers.  A  few  days  later, 
Polish  fishermen  and  the  Seamen's 
Union  (a  Solidarity  union) 
prevented  Russian  vessels  from 
entering  Polish  ports  to  sell  their 
Baltic  herring  catch  at  a  fraction 
of  the  local  price  demanded  by 
Polish  fishermen.-'*  Finally,  on 
April  13,  union  members  imposed 
a  boycott  of  all  foreign  fishery 
imports  to  last  until  the 
Government  accepts  the 
fishermen's  demands. 


Polish  vessels  and  led  to  the  under-utilization 
of  the  fleet.  In  addition,  the  inability  of  the 
three  Polish  high-seas  fishery  companies  to 
generate  sufficient  profits  to  modernize  and 
replace  their  fleets  has  caused  a  steady 
decrease  in  the  efficiency  of  the  Polish  high- 
seas  fishing  fleet. 

The  Polish  fisheries  catch  is  currently 
almost  40  percent  lower  than  it  was  in  1975 
(appendix  13).  In  1992,  Polish  fishermen 
harvested  over  514,000  metric  tons  (t) 
compared  to  801,000  t  in  1975.     A  careful 


m.  HIGH-SEAS   CATCH 


1 ,000  Metric  tons 


600 


500 


400 


300 


200 


100 


□  Inland 

□  Coastal 
Distant  Water 


\    \   \    \   \    \    \    \    \ 


Figure  2.  Poland.  Fisheries  catch,  by  type  of  fishery,  1975-80, 
1985-92  (in  metric  tons). 


The  Polish  high-seas  fleet  has 
fished,  since  the  1950s,  in  almost  all  of  the 
world's  productive  marine  grounds.  From 
1980  to  1992,  access  to  Atlantic  and  Pacific 
grounds  was  secured  through  a  number  of 
agreements  with  Peru,  Argentina,  Canada,  the 
United  States,  etc.  The  catch,  however,  has 
been  in  slow,  but  inexorable,  decline  since  the 
mid-1980s.  This  trend  is  caused  primarily  by 
the  lack  of  hard  currency  to  pay  for  fishing 
licenses  to  gain  access  to  foreign  200-mile 
zones.     This  has  limited  the  deployment  of 


analysis  of  appendix  13  shows  that  there  have 
been  tremendous  changes,  and  even 
upheavals,  in  Polish  fisheries.  The  Baltic 
coastal  catch  (FAO  statistical  area  27)  is  now 
less  than  one-third  of  what  it  used  to  be  in 
1975  (figure  2).  The  inland  catch  doubled 
during  the  same  period  of  time,  but  it  still 
contributes  only  10  percent  (51 ,000  t  in  1992) 
to  the  total  catch. 


218 


350 


300 


250 


200 


150 


100 


Distant-water  fisheries  have 
fared  somewhat  better.  In  1992, 
the  Polish  high-seas  fishermen 
caught  359,000  t,  only  18  percent 
less  than  the  440,000  t  harvested 
in  1975.  During  those  17  years, 
the  high-seas  catch  fluctuated 
considerably  from  a  peak  of  over 
500,000  in  1987  to  a  low  of 
306,000  in  1991.  Its  percentage 
of  the  total  catch,  however, 
remained  a  constant  60  to  70 
percent. 


The  catch  by  FAO  statistical 
fishing  areas  fluctuated  much 
more,  both  in  quantity  and  in 
geographic  location  (figure  3).  In 
1980,  for  instance,  the  Polish 
high-seas  fleet  fished  in  ten  major  distant- 
water  fishing  areas;  by  1992,  the  Poles 
conducted  substantial  operations  in  only  three 
such  areas.  In  1980,  the  most  important 
fishing  grounds  were  in  the  South  Atlantic, 
off  the  coasts  of  Africa  and  South  America. 
By  1992,  those  grounds  were  insignificant 
compared  to  the  large  Pacific  haul  off 
Russia's  200-mile  zone. 


1,000  Metric  tons 


Figure  3.  Poland.  Distant-water  fisheries  catch,  by  region, 
1985-92. 


1975-80, 


Argentine-British  war  made  any  fisheries 
enforcement  difficult.  In  the  last  few  years, 
however,  the  British  have  introduced  a  strict 
fisheries  management  regime  to  prevent 
overfishing  and,  as  a  result,  have  been 
issuing  fewer  and  fewer  licenses  to  foreign 
vessels.  Consequently,  the  southwestern 
Atlantic  fisheries  now  yield  to  Polish 
fishermen  only  about  a  tenth  of  what  they 


By  far  the  largest  fishery  in 
1992  was  in  the  Northwest  Pacific 
(FAO  statistical  area  61),  where 
298,000  t  of  Alaska  pollock  was 
landed  in  the  international  waters 
of  the  Sea  of  Okhotsk.  The 
second  most  important  fishing  area 
in  1992  was  the  southwestern 
Atlantic  fishing  ground  adjacent  to 
the  Falkland  Islands  (FAO 
statistical  area  41).  A  total  of 
43,000  t  was  caught  there,  mostly 
squid  (26,230  tons).  This  part  of 
the  Atlantic  used  to  be  the  prime 
Polish  harvesting  ground  in  the 
late   1980s   (figure   4)   when   the 


1,000  Metric  tons 


Figure  4.  Poland.  Fisheries  catch  in  the  soutliwest  Atlantic.  1975-91. 


219 


harvested  there  only  a  decade  ago  (appendix 
14). 

The  remainder  of  the  high-seas  catch, 
except  for  a  negligible  1,000  t  off  New 
Zealand,  was  the  17,300  t  of  krill  landed  in 
the  FAO  statistical  area  48,  adjacent  to  the 
Antarctic  continent."^ 

The  Polish  high-seas  fleet  abandoned 
many  grounds  that  were  fished  a  decade  or 
two  ago.  During  the  last  decade,  the  Polish 
vessels  withdrew  from  fisheries  off  the  West 
African  coast  (Mauritania),  off  Canada,  the 
United  States,  Mexico,  and  other  countries. 
A  short-lived  fishery  (1982-84)  in  the 
southeastern  Pacific,  off  Chile  and  Peru,  was 
discontinued  for  unknown  reasons. 


IV.  HIGH-SEAS  FISHING 
GROUNDS 


Polish  vessels  are  concentrating  their 
fishing  effort  principally  in  the  international 
waters  of  the  Sea  of  Okhotsk  ("peanut  hole") 
and  around  the  Falkland  Islands  in  1993. 
This  has  been  necessitated  by  the 
denial      of     access      to      other 


traditional  fishing  grounds"  ,  or 
because  these  grounds  have 
become  commercially  unprofitable 
(for  example,  the  waters  off 
Mauritania  and  the  fisheries  on  the 
Newfoundland  Shelf). '^ 

Southwest  Atlantic  (FAO 
statistical  area  41):  The  area 
around  the  Falkland  Islands  has 
been  Poland's  second  largest 
fishery  (mostly  for  loligo  squid) 
since  1987,  but  the  catch  has  been 
declining  steadily  since  1983,  a 
bumper  year  when  348,000  t  of 


fish  was  harvested.  By  1992,  the  catch  had 
fallen  to  42,500  t,  a  decrease  of  more  than  50 
percent  from  the  1990  catch  figure  (figure 

4).^« 

Northwest  Pacific  (FAO  statistical  area  67): 

From  1985  to  1986,  the  Alaska  pollock 
fishery  in  the  international  waters  of  the 
Bering  Sea  "donut  hole"  contributed 
significantly  to  Poland's  overall  fishing  catch. 
Heavy  fishing  in  the  1980s  by  the  Japanese, 
Koreans,  Chinese,  and  Russians,  as  well  as 
the  Poles,  however,  depleted  the  Bering  Sea 
resources  badly. '^  In  the  1989,  many  Polish 
trawlers  began  to  shift  their  operations  to  the 
Northwest  Pacific  and  this  was  reflected  in 
the  "donut  hole"  catch  statistics  (figure  5).  In 
1988,  Polish  fishermen  caught  almost  300,000 
t  of  Alaska  pollock  in  that  area.  By  1991 ,  the 
Polish  harvest  was  only  54,900  tons^*^';  in 
1992,  the  Poles  ceased  fishing  in  the  "donut 
hole"  altogether  even  before  a  2-year 
international  moratorium  on  this  fishery  was 
adopted. 

The  majority  of  the  Polish  vessels, 
displaced  from  the  Bering  Sea  in  1992, 
moved  their  operations  to  the  international 
waters  in  the  central  Sea  of  Okhotsk  (the  so- 


1,000  Metric  tons 


1985  1986  1987  1988  1989  1990  1991  1992 


Figure  5.    Poland.    Bering  Sea  "donut  hole"  catch,  1985-92. 


220 


called  "peanut  hole").  The  Polish  catch  in  the 
"peanut  hole"  was  175,700  in  1991,  and 
297,700  in  1992.  In  early  1993,  over  40 
Polish  large  stern  factory  trawlers  were 
operating  in  the  "peanut  hole"  harvesting 
Alaska  pollock,^'  about  the  same  number  as  in 
December  1992. 

Antarctic:  Antarctic  waters  are  fished  to  a 
small  extent,  primarily  for  krill.  The  size  of 
these  catches  reflects  a  limited  market.^- 
During  the  1990/1991  Antarctic  season,  8 
Polish  vessels  conducted  fishing  operations, 
mostly  for  krill,  and  harvested  9,591  t  of  fish 
in  the  Atlantic  Sector  of  the  CCAMLR 
Convention  Area.^^  During  the  1991/92 
season,  however,  the  Polish  fishermen 
doubled  their  landings  to  17,300  tons 
(appendix  13). 


V.  FISHING  COMPANIES 


Three  large  fishing  and  processing 
enterprises  (with  a  total  of  about  12,500 
employees)  dominate  the  fishing  industry  in 
Poland:  ODRA  (located  in  Swinoujscie), 
GRYF  (in  Szczecin),  and  DALMOR  (in 
Gdynia).  During  the  communist  era,  these 
enterprises  were  heavily  subsidized.  The 
basic  aim  was  to  increase  the  catch, 
regardless  of  cost.  To  fulfill  the  production 
plans,  generous  subsidies  were  extended  to 
these  companies  year  after  year  by  the 
Government  from  the  state  budget.  When 
government  subsidies  were  withdrawn  in 
1990,  it  became  clear  that  their  operations 
were  unprofitable,  and  major  restructuring 
was  undertaken  to  make  them  economically 
attractive  enough  to  be  sold.  It  was  evident 
that  the  Polish  high-seas  fleet  was 
overcapitalized  for  the  reduced  harvesting 
opportunities  of  the  1990s.  All  three 
companies  began  to  sell  older  fishing  vessels 


and  diversify  into  new  economic  activities, 
some  not  connected  to  fisheries.  They 
continue  to  be  state-owned  companies,  but 
after  1990,  they  became  self- managing  and 
allowed  to  make  their  own  policy  decisions. ^^ 

These  three  fishing  companies  currently 
own  53  stern  factory  trawlers  with  an  average 
of  about  2,500  GRT  (the  total  fleet  has 
292,000  GRT^^);  this  number  represented  a 
significant  reduction  from  the  77  vessels  that 
these  companies  owned  at  the  end  of  1990.''' 
The  1992  catch  of  the  high-seas  fleet 
amounted  to  360,000  t  or  6,792  t  per  trawler. 

DALMOR,  not  only  the  largest,  but  the 
best  managed  of  the  3  high-seas  fishing 
companies,  was  the  quickest  to  adapt  to  the 
new  exigencies.  In  1992,  its  fishermen 
increased  their  catch  by  35  percent"  which 
made  it  possible  for  the  company  to  turn  a 
profit.  DALMOR  also  concluded  several 
joint  ventures:  one,  with  an  Italian  company,^** 
procured  an  infusion  of  foreign  capital  and 
was  used  for  the  modernization  of  the 
company's  processing  plant;  the  other,  with 
the  Gdansk  Repair  Shipyard,  will  repair 
fishing  vessels,  both  for  domestic  and  foreign 
owners. '"^  DALMOR  owned  17  trawlers  in 
1992  and  employed  3,581  persons;  its 
fishermen  caught  169,300  t  of  fish,  or  47 
percent  of  the  total  1992  Polish  high-seas 
fisheries  catch  of  358,500  tons.  The  value  of 
the  catch  was  estimated  at  US$  85  million,  80 
percent  of  which  was  exported  for  hard 
currency."" 

The  ODRA  company  owned  20  factory 
trawlers  and  4  squid  jigging  vessels  with 
processing  facilities  on  board  at  the  beginning 
of  1991  when  it  was  contributing  about  20 
percent  to  Poland's  total  high-seas  fishery 
landings.**'  ODRA  sold  its  fish-processing 
plant  to  a  private  corporation  named  ODRA- 


221 


EUROPE,  but  has  retained  all  of  its  trawlers. 
ODRA  had  major  operational  losses  both  in 

1991  and  1992,  as  well  as  in  the  first  half  of 
1993.  The  Government  of  Poland  was 
considering  its  bankruptcy  and  dissolution, 
but  the  final  decision  has  not  yet  been  made. 

The  GRYF  company  restructured  itself  in 

1992  into  three  companies,^-  hoping  that  it 
would  be  able  to  privatize  three  smaller  units 
with  more  ease  than  a  large  company. 

Financing  operations:  Polish  high-seas 
fishing  companies  have  been  exporting  90-95 
percent  of  their  catch  during  the  past  few 
years,  mainly  to  obtain  rapid  payment  for 
their  products.  This  is  necessary  to  avoid 
carrying-over  charges  on  temporary  loans 
extended  by  Polish  banks  to  cover  the  day-to- 
day operations  of  the  companies.  This  was 
not  a  major  problem  when  the  Polish 
Government  subsidized  these  companies  with 
low  interest  rates  on  its  bank  credits  and,  if 
necessary,  by   direct  subsidies. 

in  August  1990,  however,  the  new 
democratic  government  discontinued  all 
subsidies  and  began  to  privatize  the  industry. 
It  takes  many  months  before  finished  fishery 
products  can  be  sold,  and  the  slow  capital 
turnover  rate  of  the  high-seas  companies  has 
exacerbated  their  tenuous  financial  state.  The 
Polish  fleets  operate  in  distant  waters  which 
are  reached  after  weeks-long  voyages.  The 
catch,  or  semi-processed  products,  are 
brought  back  to  Poland  months  later.  In  the 
meantime,  however,  the  company  has  to 
finance  the  operating  capital  through  bank 
loans. 

This  situation  became  so  critical  that  in 

1993  the  government's  budget  included 
preferential  credits  for  the  operations  of  both 
the  deep-sea  and  Baltic  fleets:  250  million  and 


80  million  zioty,  respectively.  The  cost  to 
the  government  of  these  credit  subsidies  was 
estimated  at  40  million  zloty."*^ 

Privatization:  Only  in  1990,  when  the 
Communist  Party's  dictatorship  and  the 
economic  command  system  collapsed,  were 
the  subsidies  and  fixed  prices  abolished  and 
the  privatization  of  fishery  assets  (processing 
plants,  fishing  vessels,  export  and  import 
trade,  etc.)  begun.  The  process  of  privatizing 
state-owned  fishing  companies  and 
cooperatives  is  progressing  slowly  in  Poland. 
Although  the  state-owned  share  of  assets 
keeps  decreasing,  the  public  sector  continues 
to  dominate  the  field.  No  institutions  exist 
that  can  effectively  carry  out  such 
transactions.  Furthermore,  there  is  a  lack  of 
demand  by  Polish  (and  foreign)  entrepreneurs 
for  fishing  vessels  and  processing  plants."*^ 
Nevertheless,  the  Polish  fishing  companies 
which  have  been  government-owned  until 
recently,  have  made  an  attempt  to  privatize  in 
accordance  with  the  Privatization  Law  of  July 
13,  1990.  Under  this  law,  companies  may 
form  corporations  in  which  foreign  companies 
hold  an  interest.  The  main  obstacles  to 
privatization  are  the  lack  of  available 
investment  funds  (both  foreign  and  domestic) 
and  the  high  interest  charged  on  loans  that 
could  be  secured. ''^  On  the  other  hand,  the 
extensive  contacts,  which  many  Poles  have 
maintained  with  the  West  European  business 
community,  and  commercial  deals  concluded 
with  countries  that  have  market  economies, 
contribute  significantly  to  the  growing  private 
fisheries  sector. 

The  first  among  the  three  high-seas 
enterprises  to  privatize  was  the  ODRA 
company  from  Swinoujscie  which  transformed 
itself  into  a  one-shareholder  limited-liability 
company.  The  single  shareholder,  however,  is 
the  Polish  State  Treasury.'"^ 


222 


With  regard  to  the  control  of  fishing 
companies,  the  state-owned  apparatus 
continues  for  the  most  part  to  remain  intact 
with  only  small  pockets  of  privatization.  The 
DALMOR  high-seas  company,  for  example, 
has  several  employees  who  hold  shares  in  the 
company. 


47 


While  privatization  is  still  at  the  drawing 
board  stage  for  the  fishing  companies,  the 
processing  and  marketing  sector  of  the 
industry  has  made  great  strides.  Private 
enterprises  are  expanding  rapidly  and 
competing     with  former     state-owned 

marketing  monopolists.  The  government 
organizations  which  have  had  a  monopoly  on 
the  processing  and  selling  of  fishery 
products,'**  are  now  faced  with  numerous 
private  wholesale  and  retail  shops  that  are  no 
longer  obliged  to  buy  their  inventories  from 
Polish  companies;  they  can  now  import 
them,  if  the  price  is  right.  Foreign  fish 
wholesalers  have  established  branch  offices  in 
Poland  and  compete  with  both  state-owned 
and  private  Polish  suppliers.  In  the  fish  retail 
sector,  there  has  been  an  explosion  of  new 
private  outlets. ■*'  Already  in  1991  over  68 
percent  of  all  fishery  retail  outlets  were 
privately  owned,  and  by  1993  the  retail 
privatization  is  almost  complete.  It  should  be 
noted  that  private  retail  shops  have 
substantially  better  facilities  than  their  state- 
run  competitors 


50 


The  most  effective  privatization  is  in  the 
smallish  Baltic  fisheries  where,  during  1990- 
93,  private  fisherman  leased  137  cutters  from 
state-owned  companies.^' 

Legislation  is  now  being  discussed  by  the 
Polish  parliament  which  is  designed  to 
introduce  fishery  management  principles, 
policies     and     standards     that     would     be 


comparable  to  those  currently  prevailing  in 
the  European  Community." 


VI.  nSHERIES  ADMINISTRATION 


In  1989,  after  the  downfall  of  Poland's 
communist-led  government,  the  Central  Board 
of  Fisheries,  which  administered  the  entire 
fishing  sector  (including  the  fleets,  processing 
plants,  as  well  as  wholesale  and  retail 
marketing)  was  dissolved.  Following  a  series 
of  changes,  fisheries  were  finally  placed 
under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Ministry  of 
Transport  and  Maritime  Economy  in 
Warsaw."  The  Ministry  immediately  began 
the  process  of  privatizing  as  much  of  the 
fishing  industry  as  possible  in  order  to  adapt 
to  the  new  market  conditions  being  created  in 
Poland. 

RYBEX,  the  state-owned  fishery  export 
company  of  Poland's  Ministry  of  Foreign 
Trade,  monopolized  Polish  fishery  exports  for 
40  years.  It  collected  a  3.5  percent 
commission  on  such  exports.  This  displeased 
the  fishing  companies  that  had  not  only 
produced  the  export  commodities,  but  often 
also  initiated  contacts  with  foreign  importers, 
negotiated  the  contracts,  and  shipped  the 
goods.  They  considered  RYBEX  a  parasitic 
organization,  but  under  the  communist  system 
of  centralized  control  there  was  no  recourse. 
To  make  matters  worse,  RYBEX  paid  the 
exporting  companies  an  average  price  for  the 
same  commodity,  regardless  of  quality. 
DALMOR,  which  exported  the  highest  quality 
of  fishery  products,  felt  that  RYBEX  was 
subsidizing  companies  with  poorer  quality 
goods,  stifling  any  incentive  to  improve  and 
make  a  better  product.  A  new  law,  passed  in 
1990,  allowed  private  companies  to  export  on 
their  own  account.  DALMOR  was  the  first  of 
the  three  large  high-seas  fishing  companies  to 


223 


start  exporting  its  products  in  late  1990;  it 
was  followed  by  GRYF  in  1991,  and  ODRA 
later  that  year.-^ 

The  retail  and  processing  sectors  as  well 
as  the  Baltic  fleet  have  largely  been 
privatized.  The  3  large  high-seas  fishing 
companies  were  difficult  to  privatize, 
however,  and  various  schemes  were  devised 
to  accomplish  this  while  providing  for  the 
greatest  possibility  of  achieving  profitability. 


VII.  BILATERAL  AGREEMENTS 


Poland  has  many  bilateral  fishery 
agreements  and  joint  ventures.  Among  these 
were  an  agreement  allowing  Polish  fishermen 
to  catch  fish  and  squid  in  the  exclusive 
economic  zone  (EEZ)  of  the  United  States 
and  Canada,  as  well  as  a  private  arrangement 
for  buying  fish  directly  from  U.S.  and 
Canadian  fishermen.  Another  arrangement 
allowed  Poles  to  operate  in  UK  waters  around 
the  Falkland  Islands;  bilateral  agreements  with 
Argentina  and  Peru  were  also  concluded. "^^  In 
1993,  in  an  effort  to  retain  its  capability  to 
fish  on  the  high-seas  and  to  utilize  the  large 
capacity  of  its  high-seas  fleet,  Poland  is 
actively  seeking  further  access  to  foreign 
d  istant- water  grounds  through 
intergovernmental  agreements.  Poland  is 
currently  negotiating  bilateral  fishery  accords 
with  several  countries,  but  has  successfully 
concluded  only  a  few. 

Angola:  In  April  1993,  the  Polish  and 
Angolan  Governments  concluded  an 
agreement  allowing  5  fishing  vessels  owned 
by  the  Atlantis  company  of  Gdansk  to  operate 
in  Angola's  exclusive  economic  zone  in  the 
southeastern  Atlantic.^* 


Argentina:  Poland  reportedly  signed  a 
bilateral  fisheries  access  agreement  with 
Argentina  in  1974."  Details  regarding  the 
implementation  of  this  agreement  are  not 
available,  but  the  FAO  catch  statistics  show 
no  Polish  catch  in  the  southwestern  Atlantic 
(FAO  statistical  area  41)  until  1976.  The 
Polish  catch  grew  phenomenally  in  that  area 
from  2,700  t  in  1977  to  357,900  t  in  1983. 
The  increases  in  the  catch  were  unaffected  by 
the  Falklands  conflict  although  some  Polish 
fishing  vessels  were  damaged  or  possibly 
sunk  by  both  the  British  and  the  Argentines.^** 
The  Polish  high-seas  fleet,  with  the 
permission  of  the  Argentine  Government,  at 
first  transshipped  its  large  catch  in  Argentine 
ports.  Only  when  the  Argentine  fishing 
industry  observed  how  large  the  Polish  catch 
was  did  they  withdraw  permission  for  such 
transhipments  (figure  4).^"  Press  reports 
indicate  that  as  many  as  70  Polish  vessels,  the 
majority  of  the  high-seas  fleet,  were  fishing 
just  outside  the  Argentine  200-mile  zone  after 
1977.^^'  There  is  no  information  available  on 
the  current  state  of  the  Polish-Argentine 
bilateral  agreement,  but  a  recent  article  claims 
that  the  arrangement  is  still  in  existence.*' 

Canada:  In  the  early  1980s,  Poland  received 
cod  allocations  from  Canada,  and  was  allowed 
access  to  the  Canadian  200-mile  fisheries 
zone.  As  the  "Canadianization"  of  the 
Atlantic  coast  fisheries  proceeded,  however, 
Polish  fishery  catch  allocations  in  the 
Canadian  EEZ  declined."-  Unusually  severe 
ice  conditions  prevented  cod  fishing  in  1990. 
Polish  cod  fishing  off  Canada  was 
discontinued  in  1991,  because  the  DALMOR 
company,  the  principal  Polish  company 
fishing  in  Canadian  waters,  sold  the  vessels 
engaged  in  that  fishery."^  Unconfirmed 
reports  indicate  that  several  Polish  vessels 
again  fished  outside  Canada's  EEZ  in  1993. 


224 


On  the  Canadian  Pacific  coast,  the 
Canadian  Government  allows  Polish 
fishermen  to  purchase  directly  from  Canadian 
fishermen  at  sea.  These  "klondyking" 
operations  have  been  reduced  somewhat  from 
previous  years,  but  still  yielded  the  Poles 
41,696  t  of  Pacific  hake  in  1992.*' 

Chile:  Chile  has  not  permitted  Polish  vessels 
to  fish  within  its  200-mile  zone  in  recent 
years.  Polish  fishermen  have  conducted  mid- 
water  trawls  for  jack  mackerel  and  other 
species  outside  the  Chilean  200-mile  zone  in 


1,000  Metric  tons 


100 
80 
60 
40 
20 


^/7^:z:zyf5 


did  not  fish  extensively  off  the  Falklands 
because  Argentine  naval  patrols  would  seize 
foreign  fishing  vessels  operating  off  the 
Falkland  Islands,  which  Argentina  claimed  as 
its  territory.  The  Polish  catch  from  1979-81 
thus  never  exceeded  100,000  tons.  This 
situation  changed  dramatically  in  1982  for 
two  reasons.  Firstly,  Poland  redeployed 
vessels  to  the  southwestern  Atlantic  after  the 
United  States  reduced  to  zero  its  catch 
allocations  in  the  northeastern  Pacific 
following  the  proclamation  of  martial  law  by 
the  Polish  Communist  Government.''* 
Secondly,  the  1982  Falklands 
conflict  created  an  opportunity  for 
Polish  fishermen  because  it 
prevented  Argentina  from 
conducting  enforcement  patrols, 
while  the  British  requested  only  a 
"voluntary  curtailment"  of  the 
foreign  fishing  effort.*^  Taking 
advantage  of  these  circumstances, 
Poland  quickly  escalated  fishing 
operations  off  the  Falklands,  and 
the  catch  totaled  nearly  350,000  t 
in  1983. 


yy/'^yziz 


y 


Figure  6.  Poland.  Fisheries  catch  in  the  southeast  Pacific, 
1985-92. 

the  southeastern  Pacific  (FAO  statistical  area 
87);  the  Polish  catch  totaled  over  80,000  t  in 
1984.  This,  however,  was  the  last  year  that 
the  Poles  operated  in  this  region  (figure  6).*'^ 

Falkland  Islands:  Poland  initiated  a  major 
fishery  in  the  southwestern  Atlantic  in  1979, 
although  small  landings  were  harvested  as 
early  as  1976.  Most  of  this  effort  was 
concentrated  outside  the  Argentine  200-mile 
zone.   At  the  time,  Polish  fishermen  probably 


Polish  catches  declined  during 
the  next  few  years,  especially  after 
the  British  declared  the  150-mile 
1975-80,  Falkland  Islands  Interim 
Conservation  and  Management 
Zone  (FICZ)  in  October  1986.  and 
introduced  the  licensing  of  foreign  fishing. 
The  Poles,  unlike  the  Soviets  and  other 
communist  countries  operating  in  the 
southwestern  Atlantic  (Bulgaria,  Cuba  and 
former  East  Germany),  applied  for  licenses  to 
the  Falkland  Islands  Government  (appendix 
14). ^'^  Polish  fishermen  continued  to  catch 
over  100,000  t  annually  during  1987-88,  but 
reported  that  catches  declined  to  about  70,000 
t  in  1989  and  continued  to  decrease  during  the 
next  3  years  (appendix  13  and  figure  4). 


225 


Despite  the  decline,  Poland  remains  one 
of  the  principal  distant-water  countries 
currently  fishing  off  the  Falklands.  The  3 
major  Polish  high-seas  fishing  companies  have 
all  deployed  vessels  there,  targeting  both 
squid  and  demersal  finfish,  mostly  blue 
whiting.  They  deploy  primarily  large 
trawlers  averaging  about  2,500  GRT,  and  use 
Montevideo  as  a  supply  and  transport  base.^' 

In  1993,  Poland  obtained  licenses  for  5 
large  trawlers  to  fish  off  the  Falklands  during 
the  so-called  first  season  (January-June), 
when  the  catch  is  expected  to  include  3,700  t 
of  loligo  squid. ^^'  Another  4  vessels  have 
licenses  to  harvest  finfish  during  the  second 
season  (August  to  October).^' 

New  Zealand:  Two  stern  factory  trawlers, 
one  owned  by  the  ODRA  company,  the  other 
by  DALMOR,  are  fishing  inside  New 
Zealand's  200-mile  zone.  It  is  believed  that 
these  trawlers  are  being  leased  by  a  New 
Zealand  company  under  commercial  contract. 

Norway:  The  Norwegian  Government  has 
allocated  Polish  fishermen  a  saithe  quota 
inside  the  Norwegian  EEZ  for  1992.  Details 
are  not  available. 


cooperation  agreement  (appendix  15)." 
Polish-Russian  fishery  relations  have  been 
strained  recently  because  of  the  Polish 
fishermen's  refusal  to  cease  operations  in  the 
international  waters  of  the  Sea  of  Okhotsk 
("peanut  hole")  despite  repeated  calls  by 
Russia  for  a  moratorium  on  fishing  there. 

A  more  recent  irritant  was  the  boycott 
against  Russian  trawlers  trying  to  sell  their 
Baltic  herring  catch  in  Polish  ports.  The 
Polish  fishermen's  union  prevented  them  from 
entering  and  claimed  that  the  Russians  were 
dumping  fish  at  prices  75  percent  lower  than 
the  prevailing  prices  on  the  Polish  market  (for 
details  see  section  on  competition).^^ 

Nevertheless,  economic  advantages  have 
encouraged  cooperation  between  the  two 
countries'  fishermen.  A  fish  cooperative 
from  Gdansk  (Jednosc  Rybacka)  concluded  a 
contract  with  the  owners  of  4  Russian 
trawlers  based  in  Kaliningrad  for  delivery  of 
their  Baltic  herring  and  sprat  landings.  The 
deal  is  mutually  profitable  as  the  Russian 
owners  will  buy  fuel  in  Kaliningrad  at  low, 
subsidized  prices  and  sell  their  fish  in  Poland 
at  higher  prices  than  they  could  get  in 
Russia. ^^ 


Peru:  According  to  a  knowledgeable  writer''-, 
Poland  has  a  bilateral  fisheries  agreement 
with  Peru,  but  unfortunately  no  details  were 
given.  The  article  was  published  in  early 
1993  when  most  Polish  trawlers  were  fishing 
either  in  the  northwestern  Pacific  or  off  the 
Falkland  Islands.  It  is  believed  that  the 
Peruvian  operation  probably  involves  only  a 
few  vessels  since  most  of  the  Polish  fleet  was 
deployed  in  the  previously  mentioned  two 
fishing  grounds. 

Russia/Fonner  USSR:  In  December  1987, 
the    USSR   and    Poland    signed    a    fisheries 


Sweden:  Following  the  establishment  of 
exclusive  economic  zones  in  the  Baltic  Sea  in 
1977,  Poland  and  Sweden  concluded  a 
bilateral  fisheries  agreement,  which  is 
reviewed  annually.  It  allows  reciprocal 
access  to  each  other  country's  EEZ.  On  the 
average,  Polish  Baltic  trawlers  were  allowed 
to  catch  9,000  t  of  herring  in  the  Swedish 
EEZ  against  3,000  tons  of  Baltic  cod  that  the 
Swedes  were  allocated  in  the  Polish  EEZ.  In 
the  summer  of  1993,  this  agreement  was 
suspended  because  of  a  severe  decline  of  cod 
stocks  in  the  Polish  EEZ.^'' 


226 


United  States:  Poland  signed  a  Governing 
International  Fisheries  Agreement  (GIFA) 
with  the  United  States  on  August  1,  1985;  it 
allowed  Polish  vessels  to  fish  in  U.S.  waters. 
This  agreement  was  extended  several  times;  it 
is  now  valid  until  December  31,  1993.^^ 


entirely  (pollock,  herring.  Pacific  cod,  etc.), 
catch  allocations  to  Polish  fishermen  in  the 
U.S.  200-mile  zone  (appendix  16).  By  1990, 
fishery  allocations  for  Poles  in  the  U.S.  EEZ 
had  dropped  to  only  2,431  t;  in  1991,  these 
allocations  were  reduced  to  zero  .■" 


In  the  late  1970s,  Poland 
expanding  catch  quotas  in  the 
EEZ.  In  1982,  however,  to 
democratic  reforms  begun  by 
movement,  the  Polish  fleet  was 
the  U.S.  EEZ  following  the 
martial  law  in  December  1981 


was  allocated 
United  States 
encourage  the 
the  Solidarity 
expelled  from 
imposition  of 
I  by  the  then- 


1,000  Metric  tons 


250 


200 


150 


100 


w<<^^;¥^<^<^^<^^^^ 


Figure  7.  Poland.  Fishery  allocations  in  the  U.S.  EEZ,  1977-92. 


Vietnam:  Negotiations  were  conducted  in 
1991  by  the  DALMOR  representative  in 
Vietnam  who  was  trying  to  sell  the 
Vietnamese  a  Polish  vessel  to  be  used  as  a 
fishery     research     vessel.  The     Polish 

Government  is  paying  special  attention  to  its 
fishery  relations  with  Vietnam  as  it  would  like 
to  establish  a  fishery  base  in 
Vietnam  so  that  Polish  crews 
fishing  in  the  Pacific  could  be 
rotated  by  air,  with  repairs  and 
maintenance  of  the  vessels 
completed  in  Vietnamese 
shipyards.  The  Polish  side  is 
represented  in  Vietnam  by  the 
Department  of  Fisheries  of  the 
Ministry  of  Transportation  and 
Maritime  Economy,  DALMOR 
company,  and  the  Gdansk 
Shipyards.  Polish  relations  with 
Vietnam  fishery  officials  are 
facilitated  by  the  fact  that  about  a 
half  of  them  were  educated  in 
Poland  and  can  speak  Polish.**' 


Communist  Polish  Government.  The  Polish 
fleet  had  to  discontinue  its  fishing  in  the  U.S. 
200-mile  EEZ  as  it  received  no  catch 
allocations  (figure  7).^** 

The  Polish  Government  rescinded  the 
martial  law  regulations  in  1984,  and  Polish 
fishermen  were  again  allocated  catch  quotas 
in  the  United  States'  waters.^'  In  1987,  the 
United  States  began  to  decrease  (Atlantic 
mackerel,   Pacific  hake,  etc.),  or  eliminate 


VIII.  JOINT   VENTURES 


The  conclusion  of  joint  venture 
agreements  is  vital  for  the  continuation  of 
Polish  high-seas  fishing.  Polish  fishermen 
urgently  need  new  distant-water  fishing 
grounds  on  which  to  operate  their  substantial 
fleet.  Over  10  joint  venture  contracts  were 
concluded  between  1989  and  1993  with 
Australian,      Canadian,      Danish,      Dutch, 


227 


German,  and  Swedish  companies.  Most  of 
these  ventures  were  concluded  between  fish- 
processing  companies,  with  two  joint  ventures 
(both  with  Danish  companies)  established  for 
Baltic  fishing. 

Argentina:  The  Polish-Argentine  joint 
venture,  Arpolco,  S.A.,  which  was  formed  by 
ODRA  company  and  the  Argentine  company 
Harengus,  became  operational  in  1991.  The 
details  of  its  activities  are  not  known." 

Peru:  Polish  fishing  off  Peru  began  in  1973 
through  a  joint  venture  arranged  by  the  Polish 
Fish-Exporting  Company  (RYBEX)  in  1972. 
Under  the  terms  of  the  agreement,  the  Polish 
fishermen  were  permitted  to  deploy  vessels 
within  Peru's  200-mile  zone.  The  catch, 
however,  was  reported  as  part  of  the  Peruvian 
catch  as  the  vessels  were  reflagged  to 
Peruvian  ship  registry.  Polish-flag  vessels 
first  reported  small  catches  in  the  southeast 
Pacific  during  1979,  even  though  their  actual 
catch  was  nearly  200,000  tons.**^  The  joint 
venture  failed  after  the  Peruvian  Government 
implemented  new  restrictive  hake  fishing 
regulations  in  1980.'^  This  would  have 
required  the  Poles  to  shift  operations  beyond 
Peru's  200-mile  limit,  but  they  instead 
negotiated  joint  venture  arrangements  with 
Peruvian  companies  permitting  them 
continued  operations  in  Peruvian  waters. 
Polish-flag  vessels  did  not  report  significant 
catches,  however,  until  1983  when  they 
caught  40,000  t  in  the  region  (FAO  statistical 
area  87).  The  Polish  catch  peaked  at  80,000 
t  in  1984  after  which  Poland  terminated  the 
fishery.  Polish  fishery  officials,  however, 
continue  to  be  interested  in  the  southeastern 
Pacific  and  have  met  with  Peruvian  officials 
to  discuss  access. 

Yemen:  A  fisheries  agreement  was  signed  in 
1992  between  the  governments  of  Poland  and 


Yemen  followed  by  a  letter  of  intent  to 
establish  a  joint  venture  between  the  Polish 
high-seas  fishing  company,  DALMOR,  and  a 
Yemeni  fishing  company.  Included  in  this 
agreement  is  a  cooperative  project  for  joint 
research  and  training  of  Yemen's  biologists  at 
the  Polish  Marine  Fisheries  Institute  (MIR)  in 
Gdynia.'' 


IX.  OUTLOOK 


The  future  of  Polish  fisheries  will  depend 
on  the  government's  ability  to  retain  access  to 
the  high-seas  fishing  grounds  where  the  Polish 
fleets  operate  today.  The  largest  of  these 
fisheries  in  the  international  waters  of  the 
western  North  Pacific  is  being  threatened  by 
the  demands  of  the  Russian  Federation  that 
the  fishing  there  be  severely  curtailed,  if  not 
entirely  stopped.  The  Russians  maintain  that 
the  Alaska  pollock  stocks  are  in  danger  of 
being  overfished,  but  the  Poles  counter  that 
Russian  biologists  have  not  shown  conclusive 
scientific  evidence  that  this  is  the  case.  As  a 
result,  the  Polish  fleet  of  about  30-40  stern 
factory  trawlers  continues  to  fish  there  even 
though  the  government  has  made  the 
concession  of  promising  to  reduce  the  total 
1993  take  by  25  percent  below  the  1992 
catch.  Continued  pressure  by  Russian 
diplomats  and  fishery  administrators, 
however,  does  not  bode  well  for  this  fishery. 

In  the  neighboring  international  waters  of 
the  central  Bering  Sea,  a  moratorium  on 
Alaska  pollock  fishing  was  set  by 
international  consensus  by  six  fishing  nations, 
including  Poland,  for  1993  and  1994.  The 
most  recent  scientific  evidence  shows  no 
significant  recruitment  of  new  yearclasses  and 
it  is  highly  unlikely  that  any  fishery  will  be 
allowed  in  this  area  for  the  next  3-5  years. 


228 


The  small  fisheries  in  the  southwestern 
Atlantic  around  the  Falkland  Islands  will 
probably  continue,  but  the  number  of  Polish 
vessels  allowed  to  fish  there  will  be  minimal. 
The  Antarctic  krill  resources  are  still 
abundant,  but  it  remains  to  be  seen  is  the 
economics  of  fishing  in  this  distant  ground 
will  permit  its  continuation. 

The  Polish  fishery  managers  realize  that 
the  future  potential  for  the  Polish  high-seas 
fleet  is  at  best  limited  and,  at  worst, 
threatened.  They  have  begun  a  program  of 
fleet  reduction  which  has  accelerated  in  recent 
years.  An  estimated  50  Polish  vessels  have 
recently  been  sold,  scrapped,  or  reflagged. 
Many  of  these  vessels  were  aged  and 
unprofitable.  If  this  program  continues  at  the 
current  pace,  the  Polish  high-seas  fleet  will 
not  only  become  "younger",  but  also  more 
efficient  and  therefore  more  profitable. 
Recent  information  indicates  that  two  our  of 
three  Polish  high-seas  fishing  companies  are 
in  dire  straits  as  their  deficits  keep  increasing 
from  year  to  year.  It  is  not  impossible  that 
they  will  declare  bankruptcy  in  the  near 
future.  One  of  them,  the  ODRA,  has  recently 
decommissioned  one  third  of  its  high-seas 
fleet  to  try  to  survive. 

One  bright  spot  in  this  otherwise  gloomy 
picture  is  the  hard  currency  which  the  Polish 
high-seas  fishermen  have  recently  earned.  In 
the  past,  these  monies  went  to  the  Polish 
treasury,  but  if  in  the  future  the  privatization 
of  the  fishing  companies  allows  them  to  retain 
these  earnings,  they  will  at  least  be  able  to 
replace  aged  vessels  with  a  few  modern 
vessels  which  could  operate  profitably. 


SOURCES 


Dutkiewicz,  Daniel  and  Zbigniew  S.  Karnicki.  "Tlie 
Polish  Fishing  Industry".  Gdynia:  MIR,  1993. 
(English  translation  of  the  Polish  original) 

"Empty  Nets,"  Zyde  Gospodarcze  (Warsaw)  No.  22, 
30  May  1993,  p.  4. 

FAO.  Yearbook  of  Fishery  Statistics:  Catches  and 
Landings.  Rome,  various  years. 

Gwiazda,  Adam.  "Uncertain  Future  for  the  Polish 
Fishing  Industry."  World  Fishing.  February  1993, 
pp.  38-39. 

Kaniicki,  Z.S.  "Nie  ma  juz  wolnych  lowisk  [Tliere  are 
no  more  free  fishing  grounds).  Budownictwo 
Okretowe  i  Gospodarka  Morska  (Gdansk),  May- 
June  1993.  (In  Polish) 

Kamicki,  Z.S.  and  D.  Dutkiewicz.  "The  State  of  the 
Polish  Fishing  Industry."  Published  in  Tl]e  First 
East-West  Fisheries  Conference,  20-22  May  1993. 
St.  Petersburg,  Russia.  London:  Agra  Europe, 
1993. 

Organization  for  Economic  Cooperation  and 

Development  (OECD),  "Review  of  Fisheries, 
1990:  Poland."  Paris,  1991. 

Polanski,  Zygmunt.  "The  Fishing  Industry  in  Poland." 
FAO/GLOBEFISH  Research  Programme.  Vol.  19. 
Rome:  FAO.  1993. 

Polanski,  Z.  "The  Polish  Fishery  in  1991,"  Bulletin  of 
the  Sea  Fisheries  Institute.  No.  2.  Gdynia:  MIR. 
1993. 

"The  Polish  Fishing  Industry,"  World  Fishing. 
February  1993.  pp.  33-34. 

U.S.  Navy,  Office  of  Naval  Intelligence,  27  July  1993. 

U.S.  Embassy,  Warsaw.  Letter  of  17  July  1993 
enclosing  an  unpublished  manuscript. 


229 


ENDNOTES 


1.  D.  Dutkiewicz  and  Z.S.  Karnicki.   "The  Polish  Fishing  Industry,"   Gdynia:  MIR,  1993.    (English  translation 
of  the  Polish  original). 

2.  Ibid.  Wliile  only  32,000  persons  are  actually  directly  employed  in  the  fishing  industry.  Dr.  Karnicki,  the 
President  of  the  Polish  Development  As.sociation  (prior  to  his  recent  resignation  to  accept  a  position  with  FAO 
in  Rome)  estimated  in  an  article  presented  at  the  First  East-West  Fisheries  Conference  in  May  1993  in  St. 
Petersburg,  Russia,  that  "the  fishing  industry  provides  a  living  for  about  100,000  persons."    An  article  in  Zycie 
Gospodarcze  of  30  May  1993  implies  that  the  figure  of  100,000  refers  to  "...  people  together  with  families..." 
of  the  3  large  high-seas  fishing  companies. 

3.  In  1991,  the  Polish  Statistical  Bureau  reported  the  consumption  of  fishery  products  at  6.2  kilograms  per 
person. 

4.  Z.S.  Karnicki  and  D.  Dutkiewicz.  "The  State  of  the  Polish  Fishing  Industry."  Published  in:  The  First  East- 
West  Fisheries  Conference,  20-22  May  1993,  St.  Petersburg,  Russia.  (London:  Agra  Europe),  1993. 

5.  Z.  Polanski,  "The  Fishing  Industry  in  Poland,"  Published  in:  FAO/GLOBEFISH  Research  Programme,  Vol. 
19,  Rome,  1993,  p.  10.  The  Polish  Goverimient  did  continue  to  extend  some  fisheries  assistance  in  such  areas 
as  fishing  port  maintenance,  vocational  training  of  fishermen,  fisheries  research,  etc. 

6.  Organization  for  Economic  Cooperation  and  Development  (OECD),  "Review  of  Fisheries,  1990:  Poland." 
Paris,  1991. 

7.  Ibid. 

8.  This  figure  was  also  confirmed  in  appendix  4  and  the  vessels  are  listed  in  great  detail  in  appendix  8. 

9.  The  authors  have  decided  to  publish  the  list  of  Polish  fishery  vessels,  kindly  supplied  by  the  U.S.  Office  of 
Naval  Intelligence,  because  it  was  the  most  complete  in  listing  every  vessel  by  its  name,  class,  and  gross 
registered  tonnage.    The  official  submission  by  the  Polish  Goveriunent  (appendices  5  &  6)  had  no  such  detail 
even  though  it  was  more  accurate  in  giving  the  total  number  of  vessels.    A  recent  report  by  Z.  Polanski  in  the 
Bulletin  of  the  Sea  Fisheries  Institute  listed  20  Polish  trawlers  that  were  decommissioned  in  1990  and  1991. 
This  information  was  incorporated  in  appendices  7  and  10. 

10.  Dutkiewicz  and  Karnicki,  op.  cit. 

11.  Ibid.  Since  these  large  vessels  are  equipped  with  refrigeration,  they  could  be  used  in  transporting  non- 
fishery  commodities  that  require  refrigeration.    One  reason  for  this  development  is  the  fact  that  most  Polish 
vessels  fish  in  thousands-of-miles-distant  Pacific  grounds.    It  would  be  uneconomical  to  send  a  large  transport 
vessel  to  tranship  their  catch  when  foreign  carriers  can  accept  their  products  as  convenience  cargo.    In  the  past, 
under  the  command  system,  high-seas  fishery  companies  had  to  use  Polish  transports  regardless  of  the  cost  and 
regardless  of  other  closer  and  cheaper  transportation. 

12.  Appendix  7  gives  the  age  of  the  Polish  high-seas  fishing  vcs.sels  as  well  as  their  names  and  classes. 

13.  Polanski,  op.  cit. 

230 


14.  Z.S.  Kamicki,  "Nie  ma  juz  wolnych  lowisk"  Budownictwo  Okretowe  i  Gospodarka  Morska  (Gdansk),  May- 
June  1993,  p.  3. 

15.  Among  them  were  5  large  stem  factory  trawlers  having  over  2,000  GRT  each  and  7  smaller  trawlers.    A 
large  fish  carrier  was  also  withdrawn  from  operations.   The  final  disposition  of  these  vessels  is  unknown,  but  it 
is  likely  that  some  were  reflagged  and  others  scrapped. 

16.  For  a  full  discussion  of  flag-of-convenience  registrations,  see  Volume  4  of  this  report,  Weidner  and  Hall, 
Latin  America  Overview,  pp.  20-27. 

17.  Kamicki,  Budownictwo  Okretowe  i  Gospodarka  Morska,  op  cit. 

18.  U.S.  Embassy,  Warsaw,  letter  of  July  17,  1993  enclosing  an  unpublished  manuscript. 

19.  Ibid. 

20.  Budownictwo  Okretowe  i  Gospodarka  Morska,  January-February  1993,  p.  16. 

21.  U.S.  Embassy,  Warsaw,  op.  cit. 

22.  "The  Polish  Fishing  Industry,"  World  Fishing.  Febmary  1993,  pp.  33-34.  This  article  is  one  of  the  better 
recent  reviews  of  the  situation  prevailing  in  Polish  fisheries. 

23.  U.S.  Embassy,  Warsaw,  op.  cit. 

24.  Eurofish  Report,  22  April  1993.  The  Russians  were  offering  herring  at  about  zloty  1,000  per  kilogram, 
vastly  undercutting  the  Polish  market  price  of  zloty  4,000.    Interestingly,  a  Norwegian  vessel  was  nevertheless 
allowed  to  enter  and  sell  haddock  and  mackerel  as  those  two  species  are  not  being  fished  by  Polish  fishermen 
and  were  therefore  not  considered  a  competitive  threat. 

25.  The  managers  of  the  Dalmor  company  had  asked  the  Polish  Fisheries  Institute  (MIR)  technologists  to 
constmct  a  krill-peeling  machine.   The  project  was  successftil  and,  in  1992,  frozen,  peeled  krill  was  exported  to 
the  United  States  where  a  fish-processing  company  is  using  the  raw  material  to  make  krill  burgers. 

26.  U.S.  Embassy,  Warsaw,  op.  cit. 

27.  "The  Polish  Fishing  Industry,"  World  Fishing,  op.  cit. 

28.  FAO,  Yearbook  of  Fishery  Statistics:  Catches  and  Landings.  Rome,  various  years. 

29.  "Empty  Nets,"  Zycie  Gospodarcze  (Warsaw)  22,  May  1993,  p.  4. 

30.  Polanski,  op.  cit. 

31.  Russian  Fisheries  Attache,  Personal  Communication,  14  March  1993. 

32.  Dutkiewicz  and  Kamicki,  op.  cit. 

33.  "Report  of  Member's  Activities  in  the  Convention  Area  1990/1991:  Poland."  CCAMLR.  3  September 
1991. 

34.  Dutkiewicz  and  Kamicki,  op.  cit. 

231 


35.  Eurofish  Report.  24  October  1991. 

36.  Dutkiewicz  and  Karnicki,  op.  cit.  ;  Eurofish  Report,  April  9,  1992. 

37.  Adam  Gwiazda,  "Uncertain  Future  for  tlie  Polish  Fishing  Industry."  World  Fishing,  February  1993,  pp. 
38-39.    Most  of  this  catch  was  harvested  in  the  so-called  peanut-hole  in  the  international  waters  in  the  Sea  of 
Okhotsk.    Gwiazda's  article  is  one  of  the  best  recent  presentations  of  the  current  situation  in  the  Polish  fishing 
industry. 

38.  Ibid.  The  Italian  company  is  PESCALAUDIO  from  Milan.   The  joint  venture  is  named  DALPESCA. 

39.  Ibid.  The  joint  venture  company  is  named  DALREM  which  stands  for  DALMOR/REMONT  (repairs). 

40.  "Dalmor  -  No.  1  in  Poland,"  World  Fishing,  February  1993,  p.  37.  Tlie  $68  million  earned  in  foreign 
currencies  were  payments  for  the  export  of  Alaska  pollock  in  frozen  blocks,  minced  form,  or  reduced  to 
fishmeal. 

41.  World  Fishing,  February  1991,  p.  15. 

42.  Gwiadza,  op.  cit. 

43.  "Empty  Nets,"  Zycie  Gospodarcze  (Warsaw)  No.  22,  dated  30  May  1993,  p.  4. 

44.  Eurofish  Report,  23  April  1993. 

45.  Dutkiewicz  and  Karnicki,  op.  cit. 

46.  Eurofish  Report,  23  May  1991. 

47.  "The  Polish  Fishing  Industry,"  World  Fishing,  op.  cit. 

48.  The  processing  and  canning  of  fish  in  Poland  was  monopolized  by  the  ZAKLADY  RYBNE,  while  the 
CENTRALA  RYBNA  had  a  monopoly  on  fish  marketing  and  owned,  until  recently,  most  of  the  fish  retail 
stores. 

49.  "The  Polish  Fishing  Industry,"  op.  cit.,  p. 34 

50.  ibid. 

51.  Dutkiewicz  and  Karnicki,  op.  cit. 

52.  Ibid. 

53.  Karnicki  and  Dutkiewicz,  op.  cit. 

54.  Personal  Conmiunication  to  M.  Kravanja,  1991. 

55.  World  Fishing,  February  1993. 

56.  Eurofish  Report,  11  April  1993. 


57.  "Tlie  Fishing  Agreement  with  Poland,"  La  Prensa,  1  August  1974,  p.  4. 

58.  "British  May  Have  Sunk  Polish  Fishing  Vessel,"  Noticias  Argentinas,  0309  GMT,  5  May  1982.    The 
reliability  of  tlie  Argentinean  source  is  not  known.    Tliere  was  no  confirmation  of  this  story  from  any  other 
available  source. 

59.  "Explica  a  Polonia  la  Prohibici6n  de  Pescar,"  La  Voz.  13  September  1983;  "Buques  de  Polonia  no  Podr^n 
Trasbordar  Capturas  Pesqueras,"  La  Prensa,  9  September  1983;  "Revocan  Authorizaci6n  a  Pesqueros  Polaco," 
La  Nacion,  7  September  1983. 

60.  "Preocupa  la  Presencia  de  Pesqueros  Polacos,"  Navitecnia,  April  1983,  p.  8;  "Entr6  al  Puerto  de  Bahi'a 
Blanca  un  Pesquero  de  Bandera  Polaca,"  La  Nacion,  29  July  1983,  p.  12. 

61.  "The  Polish  Fishing  Industry,"  World  Fishing,  op.  cit. 

62.  Milan  Kravanja  and  Forrest  Nielsen,  "East  European  Fisheries  Trade  with  the  United  States.  1980-91," 
International  Fisheries  Report  91\101,  National  Marine  Fisheries  Service,  December  31,  1991. 

63.  Ibid. 

64.  Personal  conmiunication  to  M.  Kravanja,  29  October  1993. 

65.  The  Poles  were  also  active  off  neighboring  Peru.    For  details  see  the  Peruvian  chapter  of  Volume  4. 

66.  "Poles  Switch  to  South  Atlantic  Squid  Grounds,"  Eurofish  Report,  6  October  1982,  16. 

67.  Jeremy  Cherfas,  "The  Last  Great  Free-for-all  at  Sea,"  New  Scientist,  7  November  1985,  18-19. 

68.  "Poland  breaks  ranks  with  USSR  and  applies  for  Falkland  licenses,"  Eurofish  Report,  10  December  1987. 

69.  "Falkland  Hostility  to  Argentina  Still  Strong,"  Daily  Yomiuri,  20  February  1986. 

70.  Seafood  International,  August  1993. 

71.  Falkland  Islands  Fishery  Department,  1993. 

72.  "The  Polish  Fishing  Industry,"  World  Fishing,  op.  cit. 

73.  Kaliningrad  teletype  for  Seamen,  18  December  1987. 

74.  Eurofish  Report,  22  April  1993. 

75.  Ibid. 

76.  U.S.  Embassy,  Warsaw,  op.  cit. 

77.  U.S.  Department  of  State,  November  1991. 

78.  Kravanja  and  Nielsen,  op.  cit  . 

79.  Ibid. 


233 


80.  Fisheries  of  the  United  States,  1991,  U.S.  Department  of  Commerce,  NOAA,  NMFS.  Washington,  DC, 
1992. 

81.  Budownictwo  Okretowe  i  Gospodarka  Morska,  op.  cit. 

82.  "Defender  el  Pabelon  es  Garantizar  el  Crecemiento,"  Redes.  No.  54,  1991,  pp.  34-5. 

83.  Technika  i  Gospodarka  Morska,  October  1980. 

84.  U.S.  Embassy,  Warsaw,  10  December  1982. 

85.  Budownictwo  Okretowe  i  Gospodarka  Morska,  op.  cit. 

86.  Ibid. 


234 


Appendix  1.  Poland.  Number  of  high-seas  Hshing  and  fishery  support  vessels,  1975-92. 


Year 

Fishing 

Support 

Total 

Number  of  vessels 

1975 

144 

7 

151 

1976 

149 

9 

158 

1977 

162 

9 

171 

1978 

165 

9 

174 

1979 

154 

9 

163 

1980 

147 

10 

157 

1981 

131 

10 

141 

1982 

120 

11 

131 

1983 

111 

11 

122 

1984 

105 

11 

116 

1985 

100 

12 

112 

1986 

99 

13 

112 

1987 

96 

13 

109 

1988 

94 

14 

108 

1989 

91 

17 

108 

1990 

90 

15 

105 

1991 

83 

14 

97 

1992 

73 

1 

12 

85 

Source:  Lloyd's  Register  of  Shipping  Statistical  Tables,  Lloyd's  Register 
of  Shipping,  London,  various  years. 


235 


Appendix 

2.  Poland.  Number  of  high-seas  Ashing  vessels,  ranked  by  tonnage,  1975-92. 

Year 

Gross  Registered  Tons  (GRT) 

Total 

500-999 

1,000-1,999 

Over  2,000 

Number  of  vessels 

1975 

67 

27 

50 

144 

1976 

61 

29 

59 

149 

1977 

61 

29 

72 

162 

1978 

61 

29 

75 

165 

1979 

50 

29 

75 

154 

1980 

43 

29 

75 

147 

1981 

29 

27 

75 

131 

1982 

27 

27 

66 

120 

1983 

23 

26 

62 

HI 

1984 

20 

24 

61 

105 

1985 

19 

23 

58 

100 

1986 

18 

23 

58 

99 

1987 

16 

21 

59 

96 

1988 

15 

21 

58 

94 

1989 

13 

20 

58 

91 

1990 

9 

20 

61 

90 

1991 

6 

19 

58 

83 

1992 

4 

12 

57' 

73 

Source;  Lloyd's  Register  of  Shipping  Statistical  Tables.  Lloyd's  Register  of  Shipping,  London, 
various  years. 


Includes  1  vessel  over  4,000  gross  registered  tons. 


236 


Appendix  3.  Poland.  Number  of  high-seas  fishery  support  vessels,  ranked  by  tonnage; 
1975-92. 


Year 

Gross  Registered  Tons  (GRT) 

Total 

500-999 

1,000-1,999 

2,000-3,999 

Over  4,000 

Number  of  Vessels 

1975 

- 

- 

- 

7 

7 

1976 

- 

- 

- 

9 

9 

1977 

- 

- 

- 

9 

9 

1978 

- 

- 

- 

9 

9 

1979 

- 

- 

- 

9 

9 

1980 

- 

1 

- 

9 

10 

1981 

- 

- 

1 

9 

10 

1982 

- 

- 

1 

10 

11 

1983 

- 

- 

2 

9 

11 

1984 

- 

- 

2 

9 

11 

1985 

- 

- 

3 

9 

12 

1986 

- 

4 

9 

13 

1987 

- 

- 

4 

9 

13 

1988 

- 

- 

4 

10 

14 

1989 

- 

- 

4 

13 

17 

1990 

- 

- 

4 

11 

15 

1991 

- 

- 

4 

10 

14 

1992 

- 

- 

4 

8 

12 

Source:  Lloyd's  Register  of  Shipping  Statistical  Tables.  Lloyd's  Register  of  Shipping.  London, 
various  years. 


237 


Appendix  4.  Poland.  Fishing  fleet  by  type  of  vessel,  number  and  gross 
registered  tonnage;  1990-91 


1990 

1991 

Type  of  vessel 

Number 

GRT 

Number 

GRT 

TRAWLERS 

0-24  GRT 

5 

112 

2 

44 

25-49  GRT 

212 

8,583 

214 

8,551 

50-99  GRT 

33 

2,585 

43 

3,308 

100-149  GRT 

175 

18,925 

178 

19,299 

150-249  GRT 

16 
441 

2,855 

19 
456 

3,304 

Subtotal 

33,060 

34,506 

500-999  GRT 

5 

3,981 

1 

796 

1.000-1.999  GRT 

15 

21,466 

12 

17,065 

2. 000 -GRT  and  over 

57 
77 

157,840 

52 
65 

146,346 

Subtotal 

183.287 

164.207 

TOTAL,  TRAWLERS 

518 

216.347 

521 

198.713 

FISH  CARRIERS 

1.000-1.999  GRT 

1 

1,689 

1 

1.686 

2,000-3.999  GRT 

4 

11,065 

4 

11.065 

4,000-9,999  GRT 

9 
I4 

69,060 

8 
13 

60,196 

TOTAL,  FISH  CARRIERS 

81,814 

72,947 

MOTHERSHIPS 

1,000-9,999  GRT 

2 

27.747 

2 

27,747 

Non -motorized  vessels   79  91 

Source  Organization  for  Economic  Cooperation  and  Development 
Poland  Fishing  Fleet  and  Fishermen,  p  181. 


238 


Appendix  5.  Poland.  Fishing  and  fishery  support  vessels,  by  gross  registered  tonnage:  1980.  1985-92. 


Gross 

Year 

Tonnage 

1980 

1985 

1986 

198/ 

1988 

1989 

1990 

1991 

1992 

Number 

of  vessels 

Baltic  sea  vessels 

100-200  GRT 

203 

200 

189 

181 

175 

171 

191 

197 

191 

200-500  GRT 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

High-seas  vessels 

500-1.000  GRT 

13 

11 

11 

11 

8 

8 

5 

1 

- 

1,000-2.500  GRT 

83 

57 

57 

57 

54 

51 

45 

39 

32 

over  2,500  GRT 
Subtotal 

30 
125 

36 
104 

36 
104 

38 
106 

41 
103 

43 
99 

43 
93 

40 
80 

34 
66 

TOTAL 

329 

304 

293 

287 

278 

270 

284 

277 

257 

Average  Age 

10.9 

13.4 

13.9 

14.0 

14  4 

14.7 

15  4 

16  0 

16.7 

Source:  Department  of  Sea  Fisheries,  Polish  Ministry  of  Transportation  and  Maritime  Economy,  June  1993. 


Appendix  6.  Poland.  Fishing  and  fishery  support  vessels,  by  type  and  number  of  vessels:  1980. 
1985-92. 


Year 

Type  of  vessel 

1980 

1985 

1986 

-  1987 

1988 

1989 

1990 

1991 

1992 

Number  of  vessels 

Trawlers 
Jiggers 
Transports 
Motherships 

309 

10 

8 

2 

282 

8 

12 

2 

270 

9 

12 

2 

265 
6 

14 
2 

254 

7 

15 

2 

248 

4 

16 

2 

267 

1 

14 

2 

262 

13 
2 

244 
13 

TOTAL 

329 

304 

293 

287 

278 

270 

284 

277 

257 

Source:  Department  of  Sea  Fisheries.  Polish  Ministry  of  Transportation  and  Maritime  Economy, 
June  1993. 


239 


Appendix  7.  Poland.  High-seas  fishing  trawlers,  by  class  and  name  of 
vessel,  gross  registered  tonnage,  year  and  country  of 
construction,  age.  and  owner. 


Class/ 

Gross 
Tonnage 

Built 

Age 
(Years) 

Owner 

Vessel  name 

Year 

Country 

(Company) 

AQUILA  (B-407) 
Aquarius 
Aqui 1  a 
Cassiopeia 

ATRIA  (B-671)  - 

Acamar 

Acrux 

Alphard 

Atna 


-  3  vessels  (age: 
3.719 
3.724 
3.724 

4  vessels  (age: 
3.708 
3.707 
3.707 
3,707 


11  years) 
1983 
1981 
1982 

3  2  years) 
1990 
1990 
1991 
1989 


Poland 
Poland 
Poland 


Poland 
Poland 
Poland 
Poland 


10  DALMOR 
12    GRYF 

11  GRYF 


3  DALMOR 

3  DALMOR 

3  DALMOR 

4  DALMOR 


B-14  -  1  vessel  (age:  36  years) 

Emilia  Gierczak*      592  1957 

CARINA  (B-22)  -  7  vessels  (age:  24.1  years) 

Carina**          2.645  1966 

Lacerta           2,691  1968 

Lepus            2.691  1969 

Libra            2.693  1967 

Lyra             2,687  1968 

Taurus            2,690  1972 

Tucana           2,691  1972 


Poland 


Poland 
Poland 
Poland 
Poland 
Poland 
Poland 
Poland 


36 


27 
25 
24 
26 
25 
21 
21 


Not  in  service 
in  1991 

DALMOR 
DALMOR 
DALMOR 
DALMOR 
DALMOR 
DALMOR 
DALMOR 


FOKA  (B-18) 
Kaszalot 
Narwal 
Pletwal# 


3  vessels  (age 
2,478 
2.480 
2,495 


27  years) 
1968 
1967 
1964 


Poland 
Poland 
Poland 


25  ODRA 

26  ODRA 
29   ODRA 


IVAN  BOCHKOV  (B-408)    -  2  vessels   (age     6  5  years) 

Altai r  3,810  1987  Poland  6        DALMOR 

Dalmor  II  3,861  1986  Poland  7        DALMOR 


KALMAR  (B-418) 

Amarel 

Awior 

Bogar 

Bomto 

Del  fin 

Garnela 

Grinwal 

Hajduk 

Kalmar 

Mors 

Parma 

Rekin 

Walen 


13  vessels 
2,448 
2,448 
2,448 
2,448 
2,448 
2,448 
2,476 
2,448 
2,448 
2,501 
2,448 
2,448 
2,476 


(age 


18  5 
1977 
1977 
1977 
1976 
1975 
1971 
1972 
1977 
1970 
1971 
1977 
1976 
1972 


years) 


Poland 
Poland 
Poland 
Poland 
Poland 
Poland 
Poland 
Poland 
Poland 
Poland 
Poland 
Poland 
Poland 


16 
16 
16 
17 
18 
22 
21 
16 
23 
22 
16 
17 
21 


ODRA 
ODRA 

ODRA 
GRYF 
ODRA 
ODRA 
GRYF 
ODRA 
GRYF 
ODRA 
GRYF 
GRYF 
ODRA 


KALMAR  MODEL  A  (B-417)  -  9  vessels  (age:  16,8  years) 

Kolias  2,395  1977  Poland  16  ODRA 

Manta  2.395  1976  Poland  17  ODRA 

Marl  in  2,410  1977  Poland  16  ODRA 

Mustel  2,395  1977  Poland  16  ODRA 

Orcyn  2,395  1976  Poland  17  ODRA 

Orlen  2,395  1976  Poland  17  ODRA 

Otol  2,395  1976  Poland  17  ODRA 

Tazar  2.395  1975  Poland  18  ODRA 

Tunek  2,395  1976  Poland  17  ODRA 


240 


Appendix  7.  Poland.  Continued. 


Class/ 

Gross 
Tonnage 

Built 

Age 
(Years) 

Owner 

Vessel  name 

Year 

Country 

(Company) 

LANGUSTA  (B-673) 

-  4  vessels 

(age 

:  3.0  years) 

Foka 

3,981 

1991 

Poland 

2 

ODRA 

Homar 

3,600 

1990 

Poland 

3 

ODRA 

Langusta 

3,986 

1989 

Poland 

5 

ODRA 

Sagrain# 

3.965 

1991 

Poland 

2 

ODRA 

LASKARA  (B-29)  - 

11  vessels  ( 

age 

22,7  years) 

Kabryl# 

1,435 

1971 

Poland 

22 

GRYF 

Kanaryjka# 
Kantar## 

1,480 

1968 

Poland 

25 

GRYF 

1,480 

1969 

Poland 

24 

GRYF 

Kniazik# 

1.482 

1969 

Poland 

24 

GRYF 

Kolen 

1.485 

1969 

Poland 

24 

GRYF 

Korwin## 

1.485 

1969 

Poland 

24 

GRYF 

Kunatka 

1.435 

1972 

Poland 

21 

GRYF 

Laskara# 

1.479 

1968 

Poland 

25 

GRYF 

Laterna 

1.434 

1972 

Poland 

21 

GRYF 

Likosar 

1,435 

1973 

Poland 

20 

GRYF 

Luzytanka# 

1,435 

1973 

Poland 

20 

GRYF 

LESKOV  (B-23)  - 

1  vessel  (age 

:  29 

years) 

Andromeda 

2,305 

1964 

Poland 

29 

ODRA 

MIEDWIE  (B-20)  - 

3  vessels  (age: 

31  years) 

Goplo 

797 

1962 

Poland 

31 

ODRA 

Jas1en# 

797 

1962 

Poland 

31 

ODRA 

Mielno## 

797 

1961 

Poland 

31 

ODRA 

RYBAK  MORSKI  (B-l 

39)  -  2  vesse 

Is  ( 

age:  16,5  years) 

Adm.  Arcziszewsk 

1*   2.620 

1977 

Poland 

16 

ODRA 

Rybak  Morskn* 

2,599 

1976 

Poland 

17 

GRYF 

VEGA  (B-419)  -  3 

vessels  (age 

19 

6  years) 

Denebola 

2,564 

1973 

Poland 

20 

DALMOR 

Gennni 

2,680 

1973 

Poland 

20 

DALMOR 

Sirius 

2,564 

1974 

Poland 

19 

DALMOR 

WLOCZNIK  (B-414) 

-  5  vessels 

(age 

16  8  years) 

Arcturus 

2.584 

1977 

Poland 

16 

DALMOR 

Pollux 

2,584 

1976 

Poland 

17 

DALMOR 

Regulus 

2,584 

1976 

Poland 

17 

DALMOR 

Sagitta 

2,584 

1977 

Poland 

18 

DALMOR 

Wloczmk 

2,584 

1975 

Poland 

17 

ODRA 

UNKNOWN  -1  vessel  (age:  2  years) 
Dorada  2,360      1991 


TOTAL  =  72  vessels 


Poland      2 
TOTAL  GROSS  TONNAGE  =  177.996  GRT 


Sources  U  S  Navy,  Office  of  Naval  Intelligence,  27  July  1993 
Polanski.  Z,  "The  Polish  Fishery  in  1991,"  Bulletin  ot  the  Sea 
Fisheries  Institute.   No,  2,  1993  (for  vessels  sold  or  inactive) 

*  The  Emilia  Gierczak,  a  refrigerated  side  trawler,  is  reportedly  no 
longer  operational,  but  its  disposition  is  unknown   This  vessel, 
along  with  the  2  RYBAK  MORSKIs,  was  reportedly  used  as  fishery 
training  vessel 

**  According  to  Polanski,  this  vessel  was  removed  from 
service  in  1991  because  of  unprofitability 

#  According  to  Polanski  ,  this  vessel  was  sold  in  1991 

##  According  to  Polanski,  these. vessels  were  removed  from 

service  and  put  up  for  sale  in  1991 

##  This  vessel  was  removed  from  service  in  1990. 


241 


Appendix  8.  Poland.  High-seas  fishery  support  vessels, 
by  class  and  name  of  vessel,  gross  tonnage, 
and  year  and  country  of  construction:  1993. 


Class/ 

Gross 
Tonnage 

Bi 

Jilt 

Vessel  name 

Year 

Country 

HALNIAK  -2  vessels 

Buran 
Halniak 

5,126 
5,126 

1972 
1971 

Poland 
Poland 

HARMAHAN  -1  vessel 

Harmattan 

1.686 

1966 

Germany 

KOCIEWIE  -2  vessels 

Kociewie 
Powisle 

8.833 
8.864 

1986 
1987 

Poland 
Poland 

TERRAL  -4  vessels 

Solana 
Terral 
Tornada 
Zonda 

3,126 
2.297 
3.126 
2,298 

1984 
1980 
1985 
1982 

Poland 
Poland 
Poland 
Poland 

ZULAWY  (B-68)  -4  vessels 

Kaszuby  II 
Mazury 
Wineta 
Zul awy 

8,032 
8,023 
8,032 
8,120 

1976 
1981 
1976 
1975 

Poland 
Poland 
Poland 
Poland 

TOTAL  =  13  vessels 

GROSS 

TONNAGE  =  72 

.689  GRT 

Source:  US.  Navy,  Office  of  Naval  Intelligence, 
27  July  1993 


242 


Appendix  9.  Poland.  Fishing  and  fishery  support  fleet,  by  vessel  class,  number  of  vessels,  total  and 
average  gross  tonnage,  and  country  and  year  of  construction:  1951-93. 


Vessel  class 


Number  of 


Gross  Tonnage 


'essels 

Total 

Average 

3 

11,167 

3,772 

13 

1,378 

106 

4 

14,122 

3,530 

1 

692 

692 

7  (6) 

18,788 

2,684 

3  (2) 

7.453 

2,484 

2 

10,252 

5,126 

1 

1.686 

1.686 

9 

1.754 

194 

2 

7,671 

3.835 

13 

31 , 933 

2.456 

9 

21,570 

2,396 

2 

17,697 

8,848 

4  (3) 

15,532 

3,883 

11 

16,065 

1,460 

1 

2.305 

2.305 

3  (1) 

2,391 

794 

1 

216 

216 

2 

5,219 

2,609 

4 

10,847 

2,711 

1 

165 

165 

1 

119 

119 

109 

11.544 

105 

1 

185 

185 

3 

7.808 

2,602 

64 

7,636 

119 

5 

12,920 

2,584 

4 

32,207 

8,051 

17 

4,965 

292 

1 

143 

143 

2 

226 

113 

1 

150 

150 

Construction 


Country 

Years 

Poland 

1981-83 

Poland 

1978-79 

Poland 

1989-90 

Poland 

1957 

Poland 

1966-72 

Poland 

1964-68 

Poland 

1971-72 

Germany 

1966 

Poland 

1988-90 

Poland 

1986-87 

Poland 

1971-77 

Poland 

1975-77 

Poland 

1986-87 

Poland 

1989-91 

Poland 

1968-73 

Poland 

1964 

Poland 

1961-62 

Sweden 

1973 

Poland 

1976-77 

Poland 

1980-85 

Poland 

1953 

Poland 

1968 

Poland 

1959-76 

Poland 

1967 

Poland 

1973-74 

Poland 

1976-83 

Poland 

1975-77 

Poland 

1976-1981 

Poland 

N/A 

Denmark 

1968 

Netherlands 

1960.  67 

GDR 

1968 

AQUILA  (B-407) 

ATAIR 

ATRIA  (B-671) 

B-14 

CARINA  (B-22) 

FOKA  (B-18) 

HALNIAK 

HARMATTAN 

HEL  150 

IVAN  BOCHKOV  (B-408) 

KALMAR  (B-418) 

KALMAR  MOD  A  (8-417) 

KOCIEWIE 

LANGUSTA  (B-673) 

LASKARA  CB-29) 

LESKOV  (B-23) 

MIEDWIE  (B-20) 

RENLAND 

RYBAK  MORSKI  (B-89) 

TERRAL 

TYPE  B  11 

TYPE  B  25 

TYPE  B  25S 

TYPE  TR  27 

VEGA  (B-419) 

WLA  300 

WLOCZNIK  (B-414) 

ZULAWY 

UNSPECIFIED 

UNSPECIFIED 

UNSPECIFIED 

UNSPECIFIED 


TOTAL  NUMBER  =  300  vessels 


TOTAL  GROSS  TONNAGE  =  276.287  GRT 


Source  U.S.  Navy,  Office  of  Naval  Intelligence.  July  1993. 

GDR  -  former  German  Democratic  Republic  (East  Germany) 

Note:  The  figures  in  parentheses  indicate  the  number  of  vessels  remaining  in  that  class  on  31  December  1991, 
according  to  an  article  by  Prof.  Z.  Polanski  published  in  the  Bulletin  of  the  Sea  Fisheries  Institute.  No. 2 
(1993).  and  received  only  a  day  before  finalizing  the  report 


243 


Appendix  10.  Poland.  High-seas  fleet  reduction,  by  vessel  name  and  class,  gross 

registered  tonnage,  year  and  country  of  construction,  and  disposition:  1993. 


Vessel  name 

Class 

Tonnage 

Year  Built 

Built  In 

New  Flag 

VESSELS  REFLAGGED 

AishT  1 

FOKA 

2,480 

1968 

Poland 

Nigeria 

Chiquita  Abava 

N/A 

7,390 

1992 

Poland 

Cyprus 

Cidade  de  Aveiro 

LASKARA 

1,478 

1969 

Poland 

Panama* 

Cidade  de  Ilhavo 

LAS KARA 

1.480 

1968 

Poland 

Panama* 

Fu  Xing  Hai 

KALMAR  MOD  B 

2.374 

1977 

Poland 

China 

Gafanha  Do  Carma 

LASKARA 

1.485 

1969 

Poland 

Panama* 

Galina 

LANGUSTA 

4,038 

1992 

Poland 

Cyprus** 

Garbis 

MIEDWIE 

797 

1962 

Poland 

Germany 

Glory 

CARINA 

2.677 

1970 

Poland 

Nigeria 

Gregos 

ALBAKORA 

999 

1964 

Poland 

Germany 

Humbak 

KALMAR 

2.448 

1970 

Poland 

Argentina 

Kai  Fa 

WLOCZNIK 

2.584 

1977 

Poland 

China 

Kai  Feng 

WLOCZNIK 

2.603 

1976 

Poland 

China 

Kulbak 

LASKARA 

1.435 

1972 

Poland 

Russia 

Kurpie 

KOCIEWIE 

8.864 

1988 

Poland 

Cyprus*** 

Mamry 

MIEDWIE 

797 

1961 

Poland 

Honduras 

Mamry  II 

MIEDWIE  B  20 

766 

1961 

Poland 

Honduras 

Mapuche 

LASKARA 

1.480 

1968 

Poland 

Argentina 

Marlin 

KALMAR  MOD  A 

2.410 

1977 

Poland 

N/A 

Nor-FTsk  I 

VEGA 

2.564 

1973 

Poland 

Malta* 

Nor-Fisk  II 

VEGA 

2.680 

1973 

Poland 

Malta* 

Ostna 

MIEDWIE 

797 

1961 

Poland 

Germany 

Peace 

ALBAKORA 

1.005 

1963 

Poland 

St  Vincent 

Podlasie 

KOCIEWIE 

8.886 

1988 

Poland 

Liberia*** 

Porto  de  Avenro 

LASKARA 

1.482 

1969 

Poland 

Panama* 

Smaragd 

SMARAGD 

757 

1978 

Norway 

Norway 

Snow  Goose 

ALBAKORA 

1.000 

1963 

Poland 

St  Vincent 

Tehuelche 

LASKARA 

1.434 

1972 

Poland 

Argentina 

SUBTOTAL  =  28  vessels 

GROSS 

TONNAGE  =  69.190 

GRT 

VESSELS  DECOMMISSIONED 

Antares 

WLOCZNIK 

2,584 

1967(E) 

Poland 

N/A 

Gryf  Pomorski 

GRYF  POMORSKI 

13,872 

1966 

Poland 

N/A 

Indus 

WLOCZNIK 

2,584 

1967(E) 

Poland 

N/A 

Jamno 

MIEDWIE 

797 

1962 

Poland 

Sold 

Likodyn 

LASKARA 

1, 460(E) 

1970(E) 

Poland 

Sold 

Likomur 

LASKARA 

1, 460(E) 

1970(E) 

Poland 

Sold 

Morag 

MIEDWIE 

797 

1961 

Poland 

Sold 

Pomorze 

GRYF  POMORSKI 

13,875 

1967 

Poland 

N/A 

Prof  Bogucki 

KALMAR  MOD  A 

2, 395(E) 

1976(E) 

Poland 

N/A 

Prof  Siedlecki#  PROF  SIEDLECKI 

2,798 

1970 

Poland 

Scrapped 

Sniardwy 

MIEDWIE 

797 

1961 

Poland 

Sold 

SUBTOTAL  =  11  vessels 
TOTAL  =  39  vessels 


GROSS  TONNAGE  =  43.419  GRT 
TOTAL  GROSS  TONNAGE  =  112.609  GRT 


Sources  U  S  Navy,  Office  of  Naval  Intelligence,  27  July  1993;  Polanski,  Z, 
Fishery  in  1991,"  Bulletin  nt   the  Sed  Usheries   Institute.    No.  2,  1993 


"The  Polish 


N/A  -  Not  available 
E-  Estimated 

*  The  current  owner  is  listed  as  Portugal 

**  The  current  owner  is  listed  as  the  Russian  Federation 
***  The  current  owner  is  listed  as  Poland 

#  The  current  owner  is  listed  as  the  United  Kingdom. 

##  This  world-renowned  research  vessel,  built  with  the  help  of  FAO  2  decades  ago,  was  scrapped  in  1992 

Note  The  list  does  not  include  a  trawler  decommissioned  by  the  GRYF  company  which  fished 

in  1986  off  the  US.  Atlantic  coast  (Lutjan)       It  also  does  not  include  13  trawlers  sold  or  decommissioned 

in  1991  which  are   listed  in  appendix  7. 


244 


Appendix  lOA.  Poland.  Fishery  vessels  removed  from  the  Polish  registry  in  1991. 

Number   Vessel  class 


Company/Vessel  type   Vessel  name" 


GRT 


Year  Built 


DALMOR: 

B-22 
B-414 

B-417 


SUBTOTAL  VESSELS: 


ODRA: 
B-20 


B-18 
B-418 


SUBTOTAL  VESSELS: 


GRYF: 


B-29 


SUBTOTAL  VESSELS: 


Carina 

1 

CARINA 

2.645 

1966 

Antares 

2 

WLOCZNIK 

2,584 

1977(?) 

Indus 

2.584 

1976(?) 

Prof.  Bogucki 

1 
4 

KALMAR-A 
SUBTOTAL  GRT: 

2,395 

1975(?) 

10.208 

Jamno 

4 

MIEDWIE 

797 

1962(?) 

Jasien 

MIEDWIE 

797 

1961(?) 

Morag 

MIEDWIE 

797 

1962(?) 

Sniardwy 

MIEDWIE 

797 

1962(?) 

Pletwal 

1 

FOKA 

2,495 

1964 

Humbak 

1 
6 

KALMAR 
SUBTOTAL  GRT: 

2,448 

1971(?) 

8,131 

Likodyn 

10 

LASKARA 

1,435 

1969(?) 

Kabryl 

LASKARA 

1.435(?) 

1971 

Likomur 

LASKARA 

1.480(?) 

1969(?) 

Laskara 

LASKARA 

1,479 

1968 

Kantar 

LASKARA 

1.480 

1968 

Kanaryjka 

LASKARA 

1,480 

1968 

Korwin 

LASKARA 

1.485 

1969 

Luzytanka 

LASKARA 

1.435 

1973 

Kniazik 

LASKARA 

1.482 

1968 

Kulbak 

10 

LASKARA 
SUBTOTAL  GRT: 

1,480(?) 

1968(?) 

14,671 

20  VESSELS 


TOTAL 


33.010  GRT 


Source:  Polanski.  Z.  "The  Polish  Fishery  in  1991,"  Bulletin  of  the  Sea  Fisheries 
Institute.   No-  2.  1993,  pp.  3-4. 

NOTE:  All  vessels  were  built  in  Polish  shipyards. 


245 


Appendix  11.  Poland.  Construction  of  fishery  vessels  in  Polish  shipyards,  by  country  and 
number  of  vessels:  1980.  1985-92. 

Country  Year 

1980    1985    1986    1987    1988    1989    1990    1991    1992 


Number  of  vessels 


FISHING  VESSELS 


Poland      13       -       1       1       2      7     10 
USSR        8      8 


1    1 

2 

7       6 

3 

1 

7 

Niger       7 

Iraq        i                .....  . 

Netherlands   -      1      2      1      1      -  - 

Iran        ------  3 

Iceland      -----      2  2 

Faroe  Islands  - : : : ; : 2_ 

Subtotal  29      9      10      9      13      15  19 

FISHERY  TRANSPORTS 


Poland 
Cyprus 

1 

2 

1 

1 

2 

- 

1 

Subtotal 

1 

L 

1 

1 

2 

- 

1 

- 

TOTAL 

30 

11 

11 

10 

15 

15 

19 

10 

1 

Source  Poland  Ministry  of  Transportation.  June  1993 


Appendix  12.  Poland.  Construction  of  fishery  vessels  in  Polish  shipyards,  by  country  and  gross 
registered  tonnage:  1980.  1985-92. 

Country  Year 

1980    1985    1986    1987    1988    1989    1990    1991    1992 


FISHING  VESSELS 


Gross  registered  tons 


Poland 
USSR 
Niger 
Iraq 
Netherlands 

1 
27 

2, 

,326 

.776 
287 
,405 

Iran 
Iceland 
Faroe  Islani 

ds 

- 

Subtotal 

31, 

794 

FISHERY  TRANSPORTS 

Poland 
Cyprus 

2, 

297 

3.861 

3,862 

356 

8,580 

16,449 

1,743 

5,061 

10,564 

- 

- 

- 

144 

1.106 

948 

316 

5.559 
442    942     498     n/a 


4.027     143 
158 


360      600 
1,640    778 
572 


6,001   6.546    9.565   12.026   11.168  18.475    4,785  143 

6.471   8,864*   8,864*  17.750      -      -       -  - 

7,392 

Subtotal     2T297    6~47T   064    87864   17.750      '-              '-            77392  ~~ 

TOTAL        34709l    12,472  15.410   18.429   29,776   11,168  18,475    TOTT  l43~ 

Source  Poland,  Ministry  of  Transportation,  June  1993 


*  The  2  refrigerated  transports  built  in  1986  and  1987  were  of  the  KOCIEWIE  class  (see  appendix  8), 
The  2  refrigerated  fish  transports  and  baseships  of  the  KOCIEWIE  class  constructed  in  1988  (a  total  of 
17,750  gross  tons), were  reflagged  to  foreign  registration   The  Kurpie  went  to  Cyprus,  while  the  Podlasia 
was  reflagged  to  Liberia 


246 


Appendix  13.  Poland.  Inland,  coastal,  and  distant-water  fisheries,  by  FAO  statistical  areas; 
1975.  1980.  and  1985-1992. 

Area  Year 

1975   1980    1985  1986   1987   1988   1989   1990   1991   1992 

1.000  Metric  tons 

Inland  (05)     23.3   18.7   28.9  29.4   30.7   34.2   34.2   45.0   48.0   51.0 

Coastal  (27)    333.7   235.7   179.0  158  1   138  7   127.6   119.7  112.0  103.9  104.9 

Distant  Water 

21          187,6    4.6    7.9  7.1    7.6    11.9    9.3    0.5 

31          3.0    -      -  ------- 

34          92  3   78.8    -  ------- 

41                          -            94.0      190  1  167.7      165.2      130.9      106.7      86.5      59.4      42.5 

47  76.2        72.7        64.3  20.4        35.0          ----- 

48  -            17.9          5.7  6.0          45          6.8          7.0        18        96       17.3 

57  -              0.3          -  _..---- 

58  -              0.4          -  ------- 

61           -      -     115.9  163.2   230.3   298.7   268.6  223.5  230.6  297.7 

67          58.7   116  0   91.7  93.2   58.8   44.8   19.3   3.8   5.9 

77          25.8    -      -  ------- 


81 
87 

- 

0.4 
0.5 

- 

- 

- 

1.0 

Subtotal 

443.6 

385.6 

475  6 

457.6 

501.4 

493.1 

410.9  316  1  305  5  358.5 

Total 

800.9 

644.0 

683.5 

645.2 

670.9 

654.9 

564.8  473.1  457.4  514.4 

Source:  FAO.  Yearbook  of  Fishery  Statistics:  Catches  and  Landings:   Rome,  various  years. 
Note:  The  totals  may  not  add  because  of  rounding. 

Key  to  FAO  statistical  fishing  areas: 

27  -  Northeast  Atlantic  (includes  Baltic  Sea) 

21  -  Northwest  Atlantic  (off  the  United  States  and  Canada) 

31  -  Western  Central  Atlantic  (the  Caribbean) 

34  -  Eastern  Central  Atlantic  (off  West  Africa) 

41  -  Southwest  Atlantic  (off  Brazil,  Argentina,  and  the  Falklands) 

47  -  Southeast  Atlantic  (off  Angola,  Namibia,  and  South  Africa) 

48  -  Antarctic,  Atlantic 

57  -  Eastern  Indian  Ocean  (waters  from  Burma  to  Australia) 

58  -  Antarctic.Indian  Ocean 

61  -  Northwest  Pacific  (off  Russian  Far  Eastern  Coast) 

67  -  Northeast  Pacific  (off  the  U.S.  West  Coast  and  Alaska) 

77  -  Eastern  Central  Pacific  (waters  between  Hawaii  and  U.S.  and  Mexican  coasts) 

81  -  Southwest  Pacific  (off  East  Australia  and  New  Zealand) 

87  -  Southeast  Pacific  (off  western  coast  of  S.  America.  Chile,  Peru) 


247 


Appendix  14.  Poland.  Fisheries  catch  off  the  Falkland  Islands,  by  species  and 
quantity:  1987-1992. 


Year 

Scecies 

1987 

1988 

1989 

1990 

1991 

1992 

in  metric 

tons 

Squid 

Loll  go 

24,280 

7,569 

10,134 

6,579 

11.234 

9,275 

Illex 

19,618 

32,852 

19,753 

3,382 

7.234 

7,250 

Subtotal 

43.898 

40,421 

29,887 

9,961 

18,468 

16,525 

Hake 

1.396 

543 

1.613 

457 

218 

49 

Blue  Whiting 

46,908 

42.486 

30.073 

49,649 

23,920 

14,901 

Hoki 

18,603 

8,925 

7,331 

4,130 

1,281 

1,500 

Other 

952 

1,167 

242 

83 

32 

12 

Total* 

111,757 

93,542 

69,146 

64,279 

43,908 

32.987 

Source   Fa  Ik  lands  Fisheries  Department,  1993 

*  Includes  328  tons  of  illex  and  5  tons  of  loligo. 


Appendix  14A.  Poland.  Squid  fishing  licenses  received  from  the  Falklands  Government,  by  species, 
number  of  vessels,  total  catch  and  catch  per  vessel;  1987-1993. 


Species 

Loll  go 

Illex 

Total 

Vessel 

s     Ca 
Total 

tch 

Vessel* 

Vessels 

Catch 

Vessel 

s 

Catch 

Total 

Vessel* 

Tot; 

il   Vessel* 

Number 

Metric 

tons 

Number 

Metric 

tons 

Number 

Metric  tons 

1987 

12 

24.280 

2.223 

14 

19,618 

1,401 

26 

43,898 

1.688 

1988 

9 

7,569 

841 

24 

32,852 

1,369 

33 

40,421 

1.225 

1989 

3 

10,134 

3.378 

24 

19,753 

823 

27 

29,887 

1.107 

1990 

3 

6,579 

2.193 

14 

3,382 

241 

17 

9.961 

586 

1991 

3 

11,234 

3,745 

17 

7,234 

426 

20 

18,468 

923 

1992 

3 

9.275 

3,092 

10 

7,250 

725 

13 

16,525 

1.271 

1993 

3 

NA 

NA 

1 

NA 

NA 

4 

NA 

NA 

Source;  Falklands  Fisheries  Department.  1993 
*  The  average  catch  per  vessel 


248 


APPE^a)IX  15 

AN  AGREEMENT  BETWEEN  THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  THE  UNION  OF  SOVIET  SOCIALIST 
REPUBLIC  AND  THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  THE  POLISH  PEOPLE'S  REPUBLIC  ON  COOPERATION  IN 
THE  AREA  OF  THE  FISHING  INDUSTRY 

The  Government  of  the  Union  of  Soviet  Socialist  Republics  and  the  Government  of  the  Polish  People's 
Republic, 

Guided  by  tlie  principles  of  the  long-term  program  for  development  of  economic,  scientific,  and  technological 
cooperation  between  the  Government  of  the  Union  of  Soviet  Socialist  Republics  and  die  Government  of  the 
Polish  People's  Republic  for  the  period  until  the  year  2000,  signed  in  Moscow  on  May  4,  1984, 

Noting  the  positive  results  of  prolonged  cooperation  between  both  counties  in  various  areas  of  die  fishing 
industry. 

Imparting  important  significance  to  the  systematic  increase  of  mutually  beneficial  economic,  scientific,  and 
technological  cooperation  on  the  stable  agreed  basis  and  to  further  enhancement  and  development  of  socialist 
economic  integration  in  the  area  of  fishing  industry  between  both  countries. 

Taking  into  account  the  provision  on  the  1982  UN  Convention  on  the  Law  of  the  Sea,  signed,  in  particular,  by 
the  USSR  and  die  PPR, 

Having  agreed  as  follows: 

Article  I 

The  Contracting  Parties  shall  implement  economic,  scientific,  and  technological  cooperation  in  the  area  of  the  fishing 
industry  along  die  following  main  directions: 

Exchange  of  information  and  consultation  on  issues  of  world  fisheries  and  foreign  economic  activities  of  the 
Contracting  Parties  in  the  area  of  tlie  fishing  industry; 

Conduct  of  reciprocal  fishing  in  maritime  areas  under  the  jurisdiction  of  each  of  the  two  countries  in  the  field  of 
fisheries  in  whicii  their  vessels  have  nonnally  conducted  such  fishing  in  accordance  with  existing  laws; 

Rendering  reciprocal  services  in  joint  fishing  areas  by  provisioning  vessels  with  fuel,   water,  food,   fishing 
equipment,  fishing  tackle,  and  in  the  transportation  of  fish  products; 

Exchange  of  fish  and  fish  products; 

Commercial  fisheries  in  brackish  and  sea  water; 

Mutual  assistance  in  organizing  and  carry  out  repairs  of  vessels  in  fishing  areas; 

Development  and  introduction  of  more  effective  methods  of  conunercial  fishing  fleet  operations,  technology,  and 
equipment  repair; 

Joint  scientific  research  directed  at  discovering,  conserving,  and  rationally  utilizing  living  sea  resources  in  maritime 
areas  under  the  jurisdiction  of  each  of  die  countries  in  the  field  of  fishing  and  on  the  high  seas; 

Forecasting  the  development  of  the  fishing  industry,  including  the  conmiercial  fishing  fleet; 

249 


Research  directed  at  improving  and  modernizing  commercial  fishing  fleet  vessels; 

Development  and  establishment  of  vessels  technology,  commercial  equipment,  and  instruments  and  also  equipment 
for  coastal  enterprises; 

Improvement  of  existing  and  development  of  new  fishing  gear  and  methods  of  catching  fish; 

Automation  of  fish  catching  processes; 

The  technology  of  production  of  high  quality  output  from  living  sea  resources; 

Mechanization  and  automation  of  fish  product  production  processes;  and 

Along  other  direction  in  areas  of  the  fishing  industry  which  represent  mutual  interests. 

Article  2 

For  the  purposes  of  implementing  the  cooperation  mentioned  in  Article  1  of  this  Agreement,  the  Contracting  Parties 
shall: 

Develop  five-year  and  annual  economic,  scientific,  and  technological  cooperation  plans  for  expert  exchanges  and 
organize  fulfillment  of  these  plans; 

Promote  the  establishment  and  increase  of  direct  ties  between  appropriate  bodies,  organizations,  and  enterprises  of 
both  countries; 

In  accordance  with  existing  laws,  permit  each  other's  fishing  vessels  to  conduct  fishing  in  maritime  areas  under  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  appropriate  Contracting  Party  in  the  field  of  fisheries  and  determine  conditions  for  conducting 
such  fishing; 

Establish  joint  enterprises,  scientific  and  production  cost  accounting  associations,  and  interim  scientific-research 
collectives  when  necessary; 

Examine  issues  to  organize  joint  foreign  economic  activity  in  the  fishing  industry  area; 

Convene  scientific  and  technical  conferences  and  meetings  on  various  fishing  industry  issues  when  necessary; 

Detennine  tlie  nature  and  scope  of  exchanges  of  specimens,  statistical  data,  and  other  information  which  it  may  be 
necessary  to  provide  during  the  course  of  implementing  this  Agreement;  and 

Examine  other  issues  of  the  fishing  industry  which  represent  mutual  interests. 

Article  3 

While  carrying  out  economic,  scientific,  and  technical  cooperation,  competent  bodies  and  organizations  of  the 
Contracting  Parties  shall  be  guided  by  existing  Agreements  between  the  two  countries  on  organizational,  economic, 
and  legal  bases  of  cooperation,  and  also  by  active  normative  documents  in  relation  of  both  countries  developed 
within  the  framework  of  the  CMEA  (Council  for  Mutual  Economic  Aid). 

Realization  of  specific  themes  of  economic,  scientific,  and  technical  cooperation  shall  be  carried  out  on  the  basis 
of  treaties  and  contracts  concluded  between  competent  bodies  and  organizations  of  tlie  Contracting  Parties. 


250 


Article  4 

A  Joint  Fishing  Commission,  henceforth  called  the  Commission,  is  being  established  to  attain  the  goals  of  this 
Agreement. 

Each  Contracting  Party  shall  appoint  its  representative,  his  deputy,  and  a  responsible  secretary  to  the  Commission 
and  shall  notify  tlie  other  Contracting  Party  of  their  names  during  the  course  of  the  two  montlis  after  this  Agreement 
comes  into  force. 

Commission  sessions  shall  be  conducted  when  necessary  but  no  less  than  once  per  year,  alternately  on  the  territory 
of  the  nation  of  each  Contracting  Party.  Expenditures  associated  with  conducting  tlie  session  shall  be  borne  by  the 
Contracting  Party  on  whose  territory  the  session  is  being  conducted. 

Expenditures  associated  with  travel  by  session  participants  shall  be  bonie  by  the  Contracting  Parties  who  directs 
their  travel. 

The  Commission  developed  and  adopts  its  rules  of  procedure  and  can  introduce  amendments  to  them  when 
necessary. 

When  necessary,  the  Commission  forms  auxiliary  bodies  on  a  permanent  or  interim  basis  and  determines  their  tasks, 
power,  and  operating  procedures. 

Article  5 

The  Conmiission  examines  all  issues  which  arise  while  implementing  this  Agreement  and  presents  appropriate 
recommendations  to  tlie  Contracting  Parties. 

Reconmiendations  are  adopted  with  the  approval  of  representatives  of  tlie  Contracting  Parties  and  enter  into  force 
if  neither  of  the  Contracting  Parties  expresses  nonconcurrence  with  them  witliin  two  months. 

Decisions  of  the  Commission  on  issues  of  a  procedural  nature  enter  into  force  from  the  moment  of  their  adoption. 

Article  6 

The  Contracting  Parties,  taking  into  account  tlie  demands  which  result  from  this  Agreement,  may  appoint  their 
representatives  on  issues  of  cooperation  in  the  area  of  the  fishing  industry  within  their  diplomatic  institution  or 
consulates  which  are  located  in  the  USSR  and  PPR,  respectively. 

Article  7 

This  Agreement  does  not  affect  the  rights  and  obligations  of  the  Contracting  Parties  which  result  form  bilateral  or 
multilateral  agreements  in  which  they  participate. 

Article  8 

The  Contracting  Parties  agree  that,  at  the  moment  this  Agreement  enters  into  force,  the  following  shall  cease  to  be 
in  force. 

The  Agreement  between  the  Government  of  the  Union  of  Soviet  Union  Socialist  Republics  and  the  Government  of 
the  Polish  People's  Republic  on  Mutual  Relations  in  the  Field  of  Fisheries  in  the  Baltic  Sea  of  May  11,  1978;  and 


251 


The  Agreement  between  the  Government  of  the  Union  of  Soviet  Socialist  Republics  and  the  Government  of  the 
Polish  People's  Republic  on  Fisheries  in  the  Barents  Sea  Adjacent  to  tlie  Coast  of  the  USSR  of  May  11,  1978. 

Article  9 

This  Agreement  is  subject  to  ratification  in  accordance  with  procedures  established  by  the  domestic  laws  of  each 
of  the  Contracting  Parties. 

This  Agreement  shall  enter  into  force  on  the  day  that  diplomatic  documents  are  exchanged  notifying  of  its 
ratification  and  shall  remain  in  force  until  such  time  as  either  Contracting  Party  submits  written  notification  of  this 
desire  to  terminate  it.  In  this  case,  the  Agreement  shall  cease  to  be  in  force  12  months  after  receipt  of  such 
notification  by  the  other  Contracting  Party. 

Termination  of  this  Agreement  shall  not  affect  obligations  of  the  Parties  which  result  from  treaties  and  contracts 
concluded  during  its  execution  by  competent  bodies,  organizations,  or  enterprises  of  the  Contracting  Parties. 

Tliis  Agreement  can  be  amended  or  supplemented  with  the  concurrence  of  both  Contracting  Parties. 

DONE  in  Moscow,  December  15,  1987,  in  duplicate,  each  in  the  Russian  and  Polish  languages,  both  texts  being 
equally  authentic. 

For  the  Government  of  the  Union  For  the  Government  of  the  Polish 

of  Soviet  Socialist  Republics  People's  Republic 


252 


.-H  .-H  >^  Ln  o 

cz>  o  lT)  r-H  n 
cNj  r--  c=3  oo  n 

r-.  ro  CO  CT\  o 
1,0  ld  oo  CO  ro 

CNJ  CNJ 


v^  U^  rO  CD  CO  CTi  .— I 
CO  CTi  -^  CD  -t^  lD  CO 
O  CNJ  O  CO  lT)  CD  ^ 


T-H  CO  lO  ■^  -Tj- 
CD  CD  ^  CTi  CO 
CO  .-H  O^  CO  CD 


,— t  CD  r-(      1    GO  CO  C\J 

CO  o^  CO       CXI  -"^  cr» 
is^  c:>r^       CO  r-H 


C3  CT)  CO  CD  CD 
CD  CO  CM  CD  CD 
CD  O^  CO  CD  CZJ 


C3  CZ>  CD  CD  CZ5 
CD  CD  CD  O  CD 
CD  cr>  CD  CO  UO 


3 


CD  CD  ^ 

CD  CD  ro 

CD  CO  CO 


c 
o 


-t—  r^  CD  r-. 

C\J  CD  GO 
.— I  CnJ  ^ 


O  -t-  LO  CO  LD 

CD  CO  lO  CD 

i/l  CSJ  LD  CO 


<D  - 

L.  -I 


OJCZ)    5 
J->  CO 

■I—  (J>     K/) 


dj  CD  cr>  '^  CO  CO 

:  SI  CD  CO  un  CD  GO 
C3  CD  r--  -^d-  '::t 


CD  CO  -(-> 


CU  CO  ■^  CD  CD 

CD  C7^  CNJ  vt  r-- 

r-H  r-^  CNl  CNJ  iX) 


lO  UD  >^ 
•  CD  CO 


s: 


"O  jD  ^ 

Qj  Oj  O 

i_  ll  <— ) 

0; 

■+-  CZ  £Z 

M-  O  ^ 

o 

L-T  Oj  TJ 

C  n-  3 

o  o 

1—  Qj  <yi 

-•->  Q.  CD 

fU  i/l  u 


CD  CD  CO  CD  .—I 
CD  -^  CNI  CNJ  CD 
CD  GOlO  CT^  CO 


CO  (T>  kO 

.— <  cr>  CNJ 

CTi  r^  CNJ 


vD  Ln  '^d"  CO  ■— 1 

r-H  ■^  r^  CD 

r--  CNJ  r-~ 
Ln  CO 

"        <     CZ>  LO  ^       1 
CD  lO  CNJ 
CD  '^  1^ 

'    CO  CTi  VD 

MD  a>  CNJ 
un  r~~  CNJ 

Ln  \X)  ^ 
CNJ  -^  un 

■^  CNJ  r-. 
in  CO 

c3  CD  CO  un  r--    1 

CD  -t:±  CNJ  -X)  r-- 

CD  cotn  -^  "^ 

,350 

r-.GOcrvcDr— tcNjcov+Ln"Xir--GOcr>cD 
r---r--r-.oococococooococoGOGOcri 

(TNC3^CT^OSC7SClSoSCTiO^Cr»CTvCr>CT>CT* 


-M   Q_  in 
Q.         U 

Qj    ID    O    i/l 

u      . —  c 


u  - 


)  r\j 


Oj 

■<-       o 

"O    t-T  M- 

fU    C  O 

i/i   5   O 

(U         .-  c 

. —  cn+j  o 

o  c  s_  .- 

Q-     r-     O  +-J 

_c:    Oj  <  O 


254 


4.4 


ROMANIA 

Romania  is  adjacent  to  the  Black  Sea  and  its  fisheries  have  been  traditionally  based  on  that 
body  of  water.  In  the  1960s,  however,  it  began  to  buy  high-seas  fishing  and  fishery  support 
vessels  from  the  Soviet  Union,  Poland  and  the  former  East  Germany.  Along  with  the  increase 
in  fishery-vessel  tonnage,  its  marine  catch  grew  rapidly  until  the  late  1970s  when  coastal 
countries  began  to  extend  their  fishery  jurisdictions  to  200  nautical  miles.  The  Romanian  fishing 
industry  could  not  adapt  to  the  new  conditions  and  Romania's  catch  began  to  stagnate  and  finally 
decrease  rapidly.  The  fishing  fleet  aged  and  became  more  of  a  burden  than  an  asset.  The 
outlook  for  Romania's  government-owned  fishing  industry  is  bleak  and  the  lack  of  rapid 
privatization  has  helped  to  perpetuate  its  inbred  inefficiencies.  The  fishing  industry  continues 
to  try  to  meet  its  two  principal  goals:  1)  to  fully  utilize  its  fishery  fleet  and  thus  maintain  full 
employment  of  its  fishermen,  and  2)  to  earn  hard  currencies  through  the  export  of  fishery 
products. 

CONTENTS 

I.  Background    255 

II.  Fishing  Fleet     256 

A.  High-seas  Fleet 256 

B.  Black  Sea  Fleet    257 

III.  Shipyards 258 

IV.  High-seas  Fishing  Grounds  and  Catch 260 

V.  High-seas  Fishery  Organization 262 

VI.  Bilateral  Fishery  Agreements 262 

VII.  Fisheries  Research 263 

VIII.  Outlook     263 

Sources    264 

Endnotes    265 

Appendices 267 


the  fleet  has  to  cross  both  the  Bosphorus  and 

I.  BACKGROUND  Gibraltar   Straits   to   arrive   at   the   Atlantic 

fishing  grounds. 

The  Republic  ofRomania,  a  country  with  Romania   had   a   traditional    Black   Sea 

a  population  of  23  million,  has  a  coastline  of  fj^hery  which  was  continued  after  World  War 

245  kilometers  on  the  Black  Sea.  Its  high-seas  ^        !„    December    1947,    King    Michael 

fishing  industry  is  mainly  located  in  the  port  abdicated  under  communist  pressure  and  a 

of  Tulcea  from  where  People's      Republic      of      Romania      was 


Table  1.  Romania.  Fishing  fleet,  by 
selected  vessel  capacity:  1993. 


Capacity 


Number    GRT   Average  GRT 


100-200  GRT 
Above  500  GRT 
TOTAL 


7 
50 
57 


863 
220.669 
221.532 


123 
4,413 
3.886 


Source  U  S.  Navy.  Office  of  Naval 
Intelligence.  27  July  1993, 


proclaimed.  This     meant    the 

nationalization  of    the    industry, 

including    the  small    Black    Sea 
fisheries. 

After  the  December  1989 
revolution  toppled  the  Ceausescu 
dictatorship,  the  Romanian  fishing 
industry  became  independent  of 
government  control  and  had  to 
restructure  itself  to  survive.  Since 
Ceausescu's  fall,  the  Romanian 
Government  has  not  extended  any 
financial  assistance  to  its  fishing 
industry.' 


II.  FISHING  FLEET 


A.  High-seas  Fishing  Fleet 

Romania  began  to  build  up  its  high-seas 
fleet  rapidly  during  the  1960s  and  1970s 
(appendix  1  and  figure  1).  Its  first  vessels 
were  2  stern  trawlers  of  the  CONSTANTA 
class  --  named  Constanta  and  Galati  - 
purchased  from  Japan  in  1964;  one  of  these 
original  trawlers  (Constanta)  is  still  part  of 
the  fleet  today.  The  growth  of  the  high-seas 
fleet  was  stimulated  from  1971-1975  by  a 
major  government  program  to  expand 
Romanian  food  production  industries  which 
earmarked  20  percent  of  all  investment  funds. 


Number  of  vessels 


□Support 
□  Fishing 


i-^at 


4im£m 


yy 


1 — I — I — I — I — I — I — I — I — I — I     I     r 


'^^ 


Figure  1.  Romania.    High-seas  fishing  fleet.  1975-92. 


The  Romanian  fishing  fleet  register 
consisted  of  57  units  in  July  1993.  Of  this 
total,  7  vessels  were  small  (average  tonnage 
was  123  gross  registered  tons  (GRT))  and 
were  thus  probably  deployed  in  the  Black  Sea 
fisheries  (table  1).  The  other  50  vessels  were 
large  fishing  trawlers  and  refrigerated  fishery 
transports  and  baseships  with  a  total  gross 
tonnage  of  over  220,000  tons;  they  are 
capable  of  operating  on  distant-water  fishing 
grounds. 


or  about  US$30  million  annually,  for  fisheries 
development.-  By  1973,  the  fleet  had 
increased  considerably  to  20  stern  trawlers, 
supported  by  4  refrigerated  transports,  all  of 
which  were  purchased  in  Eastern  Europe.^ 

The  Romanian  high-seas  trawler  fleet 
continued  increasing  until  the  mid-1980s  when 
it  consisted  of  over  40  large  stern  factory 
trawlers  (appendix  2).  This  number  did  not 
increase  much  during  the  next  decade;   in 


256 


1992,  there  were  41   such  vessels,  but  by 

1993,  their    number   had   decreased    to   38 
units/ 

The  fisheries  support  fleet,  however, 
continued  increasing  in  the  early  1980s  and 
almost  doubled  by  1986,  when  the  Romanian 
fisheries  catch  peaked.  It  has  remained  at  12 
large  units  during  the  past  7  years,  according 
to  Lloyd's  Register,  even  though  the  fishery 
landings  have  decreased  by  about  55  percent.^ 
This  means  that  the  productivity  of  the 
fisheries  support  fleet  must  have  decreased  by 
approximately  50  percent  since  1986. 

In  July  1993,  the  Romanian  high-seas 
fishing  fleet  register  consisted  of  50  fishery 
vessels  with  a  total  gross  tonnage  of  221,000 
tons.  Of  this  total,  38  units  are  fishing 
trawlers  (appendix  4),  while  12  units  are 
refrigerated  transports  (appendix  5)  supporting 
the  fishing  operations.  The  trawlers  have  a 
capacity  of  between  2,000  and  4,000  GRT 
each;  the  12  fishery  support  vessels  of 
between  5,000  and  12,000  gross  tons.  Most 
of  these  vessels  are  over  10-20  years  old  and 
were  built  in  the  former  East  Germany, 
Poland,  the  former  USSR,  and  Romania.* 
Despite  the  advanced  age  of  most  of  its 
fishery  vessels,  it  appears  that  Romania  has 
done  little  retiring  or  modernizing  of  its 
vessels  during  the  past  few  years. ^ 

While  the  Romanian  high-seas  fleet 
maintains  50  fishery  vessels  on  the  register,  in 
reality  only  30  vessels  are  engaged  in  distant- 
water  operations.  According  to  a  May  1993 
article  by  an  official  of  the  Romanian 
Development  Agency,  Anca  Sfectcovici,  at 
the  present  time,  the  Romanian  high-seas 
fishing  company  deploys  only  20  trawlers,  10 
fishery  transports,  and  2  tankers  in  high-seas 
fisheries  (table  1).* 


Table  2.  Romania.  High -seas  fishery  fleet 
actually  deployed  in  fishing 
operations.  May  1993. 

Vessel  type      Number   GRT   Average  GRT 

Fishing  trawlers 
Fishery  transports 
Tankers 
Total 

20 

10 

2 

32 

67 

84 

2 

153 

700 
000 

OOOCEst 
700 

3.385 

8.400 

)  1.000 

4.803 

Source:  Sfectcovici 
of  Romania. 

,  A. 
■■  op. 

"The 
cit. 

Fishery 
1993 

Industry 

The  20  trawlers  in  operation  are  all  of  the 
PROMETEI  class  (also  known  as  the  super- 
ATLANTIK  class-photo  1),  the  most  modern 
and  least  aged  stern  factory  trawlers  Romania 
possesses.  The  remaining  18  trawlers  are  not 
used  for  fishing,  according  to  Ms. 
Sfectcovici 's  article,  but  they  have  not  been 
de-registered,  scrapped,  or  sold,  as  far  as  is 
known.  Where  these  vessels  are  physically 
located  is  not  known  either.  A  French 
magazine  reported  in  1990,  that  these  trawlers 
were  "cannibalized"  for  parts,  especially  the 
sonar  equipment,  to  maintain  the  super- 
ATLANTIKs  in  good  operational  condition. 

PROMETEIs  are  over  100  meters  long, 
have  engines  with  3,800  horse  power,  and  a 
can  carry  a  crew  of  85  persons. 


B.  Black  Sea  Fleet 

In  July  1993,  Romania  owned  6  fishing 
cutters  and  1  small  research  vessel  (Delfin) 
which  were  deployed  in  the  Black  Sea 
(appendix  6).  In  addition,  Romania  owns 
another  16  smaller  (less  than  100  GRT) 
fishing  boats  which  were  also  deployed  in  the 
Black  Sea.   During  the  April  to  October  1993 


257 


Photo  1.    Romania  has  20  modem  stern  factory  trawlers  of  the  PROMOTEI  class  (3,900GRT).  They  were 
built  in  East  Germany  and  Romania  around  1980. 


season,  however,  only  13  vessels  out  of  the 
total    23    units   were   active    in    Black    Sea 
fisheries."^ 


Unless  serious  measures  are  implemented  to 
remedy  the  situation,  this  fishery  will  yield 
less  and  less  to  Romanian  fishermen. 


Romania's  Black  Sea  coastal  fishery  does 
not  contribute  substantially  to  the  country's 
overall  fisheries  catch  (appendix  7,  FAO 
statistical  area  37).  Even  in  1986,  Romania's 
best  year  for  "coastal"  catch,  the  Black  Sea 
fishery  contributed  less  than  6  percent  of  the 
total  annual  catch,  while  the  inland  (lakes, 
rivers,  ponds,  aquaculture,  etc.)  fisheries 
catch  represented  over  24  percent.  The  Black 
Sea  has  been  becoming  increasingly  polluted 
and   less   favorable   to  commercial   fishing. 


m.  SHIPYARDS 


Romania  has  eight  shipyards  --  six  on  the 
Danube  and  the  two  largest  ones  on  the  Black 
Sea.  They  build  a  wide  range  of  vessels  for 
both  foreign  and  domestic  markets. 

Most  Romanian  fishing  and  fishery 
support  vessels  were  built  in  the  shipyards  of 
other  communist  countries  (see  appendix  1  for 


258 


Photo  2.  A  giant  refrigerated  transport  (11 ,755GRT)  serviced  Romanian  fishennen  operating  in  distant  waters. 
Romania  bought  4  of  these  vessels  in  East  Germany  during  the  1970s. 


details)  until  1980.  At  that  time,  the 
Romanian  Government  decided  to  begin 
building  both  types  of  vessels  in  domestic 
shipyards,  thus  becoming  independent  of 
other  CMEA  countries  with  which  political 
relations  became  strained  after  Ceausescu's 
Romania  several  times  chose  an  independent 
course  in  its  foreign  relations.  The  last  5 
PROMETEI-class  fishing  trawlers  were  built 
in  the  Braila  Shipyard  on  the  Danube  from 
1980-1984  (appendix  1).  The  last  6  POLAR- 
class  refrigerated  transports  and  baseships 
were  also  built  in  Romania  at  the  Galati 
Shipyard,  which  is  also  located  on  the  Danube 
River    (photo   2).      The   homeport   of   the 


Romanian  high-seas  fleet  is  in  another  Danube 
port  -  Tulcea.  This  was  probably  the  reason 
why  the  Tulcea  Shipyard  was  selected  as  the 
repair  and  maintenance  shipyard  for  the 
Romanian  high-seas  fleet  and  remains  so  to 
this  day.'° 

The  Black  Sea  coastal  trawlers  are 
currently  built  in  the  Tulcea  Shipyard;  the 
19th  such  vessel  was  nearing  completion  in 
March  of  1989."  More  recent  information  is 
lacking.'^ 


259 


IV.  HIGH-SEAS  GROUNDS  AND  CATCH 


High-seas  fishing  by  Romanian  vessels 
began  off  West  Africa  in  1964  (as  soon  as 
Romania  purchased  2  stern  factory  trawlers 
from  Japan),  on  Georges  Bank  off  New 
England  in  1965,  and  in  the  rest  of  the 
Northwest  Atlantic  and  off  Labrador  in 
1969.  The  total  catch  increased  from  8,000 
tons  in  1964  to  over  76,000  t  in  1973.'^ 
Following  the  implementation  of  200-mile 
exclusive  fishery  zones  in  the  late  1970s, 
however,  the  small  fishery  off  the  North 
American  coast  (FAO  statistical  area  21)  was 
reduced  to  negligible  amounts  by  1980,  and 
completely  eliminated  following  the 
Americanization  and  Canadianization  of  those 
fisheries. 

In    the    Northeast    Atlantic    (FAO 

statistical  area  27),  the  Romanians  began  a 
small  fishery  which  yielded  3,700  t  of  fish  in 
1975.  In  1977,  however,  when  the  EC 
countries  extended  their  fisheries  jurisdiction 
to  200  nautical  miles,  the  Romanians,  like  the 
other  Eastern  European  communist-bloc 
countries  —  including  the  Soviet  Union  — 
were  expelled  from  EC  waters  and 
subsequently  received  no  access  permits. 

During  the  past  15  years,  the  Romanian 
fishermen  operated  only  off  West  Africa  in 
FAO  statistical  areas  34  and  47  (appendix  7). 

The  fisheries  in  the  waters  of  the  FAO 
statistical  area  34  are  regulated  by  the 
Central  Eastern  Atlantic  Fisheries 
Commission  (CECAF).  The  Romanians 
fished  mostly  in  the  200-mile  zone  of 
Mauritania  with  which  they  concluded  a 
fisheries  agreement  in  October  1973.'^  By 
June   1974,  they  agreed  to  establish  a  joint 


fishery  venture  in  exchange  for  access  to 
fishery  resources  in  Mauritanian  waters. 
Later  that  year,  9  large  Romanian  stern 
factory  trawlers  were  deployed  off 
Mauritania.  These  fishing  grounds  were  the 
most  important  high-seas  Romanian  fishery 
for  the  past  two  decades.  The  annual  catch 
was  about  80,000  tons,  but  in  1987  and  1988, 
over  100,000  t  of  fish  were  harvested  with  a 
peak  at  125,000  t  in  1988  (appendix  7,  figure 
2).  In  recent  years,  the  Romanian  catch  off 
Mauritania  decreased  considerably  and 
amounted  to  only  57,000  t  in  1992.  its 
significance  to  Romania,  however,  increased 
greatly.  Following  the  discontinuation  of 
foreign  fishing  off  Namibia  in  1990,  the 
fishery  off  Mauritania  remains  the  only 
Romanian  high-seas  harvesting  area. 

Frozen  and  whole,  the  catch  from  West 
African  fishing  grounds  is  transported  by 
refrigerated  cargo  vessels  back  to  Romania. 
These  transports  work  on  the  fishing  grounds 
for  four  years  before  they  return  home, 
although  their  crews  may  be  exchanged  by 
plane  or  ship  every  6  months.  The  average 
catch  per  trawler  was  reportedly  from  2,000 
to  5,000  tons  per  year.  Certain  trawlers  catch 
as  much  as  9,000  tons  per  year.  The  landings 
(horse  mackerel,  sardines,  mackerel,  and  cod) 
were  mostly  sold  on  domestic  markets. 
Following  its  independence  on  21  March 
1990,  Namibia  banned  foreign  fishing  in  its 
waters  which  left  the  Romanians  with  only 
one  fishing  ground:  the  one  off  Mauritania. 
How  successful  will  this  fishery  be  in  the 
future?  According  to  a  French  source, 
Romanian  biologists  noted  a  decrease  of 
blackjack  mackerel  (trachurus),  round 
sardinella  (aurita),  and  mackerel  on  the  high- 
seas  off  Mauritania  in  1990.'^  Could  the 
sharp  catch  decrease  in  1992  be  a  sign  of 
impending  trouble? 


260 


In      the      Convention      area      of     the 
International  Commission  for  the  Southeast 
Atlantic  Fisheries  (ICSEAF),  the  Romanians 
began  fishing  in  1970  with  3  stern  factory 
trawlers  and  continued  this  fishery  with  4 
trawlers  in   1971.'"     The  catch  per  unit  of 
effort  was   so   low   (1.4   tons   per  hour  of 
towing)  that  they  discontinued  this  fishery  for 
four  years  (1972-1975)  and  switched  their 
operations  elsewhere   where   the   harvesting 
success  was  better.    It  was  only  in  1976  that 
the      Romanian      fishermen      returned      to 
southeastern  Atlantic  fisheries  (FAO  statistical 
area  47).      The   move   was   the 
result  of  the  United  States'  —  off 
whose  coasts,  on  Georges  Bank, 
they  developed  an  active  fishery  — 
extension      of      its      fisheries 
jurisdiction  to  200  miles. 

About  15-20  stern  factory 
trawlers  were  deployed  in  the 
ICSEAF  area  in  the  early  1980s. 
Most  fished  off  Namibia  (which 
was  then  known  as  Southwest 
Africa),  but  some  also  operated 
off  Angola.  Poor  catch  results  in 
1976  and  1977  (1.6  t  per  hour  of 
towing)  soon  improved  as  the 
Romanian  fishermen  became  more 
experienced;  by  the  mid-1980s  the  Hgure  i.  r 
hourly  catch  exceeded  4  metric  quantity:  1975-92. 
tons. 


reduced  to  only   12,600  tons  in   1990,  and 
completely  terminated  in  1991  (figure  2).'^ 

In  1991,  Romanian  fishermen  landed 
83,200  t  of  fish  and  shellfish  from  their 
distant-water  operations  in  the  North  Atlantic 
off  West  Africa  (Mauritania).  This 
represented  an  increase  of  10,000  t  over  the 
1990  catch,  despite  the  fact  that  the  fishery 
off  Southwest  Africa  (Namibia)  had  ceased 
that  year.  In  1992,  however,  the  catch 
decreased  by  almost  a  third  to  57,100  t, 
which  represented  only  30  percent  of  the  1986 


1 ,000  Metric  tons 


Convention  Areas 
niCSEAF 


omania.  Fishery  catch  in  the  ICSEAl'  and  CECAI*  convention  areas,  by 


The  grounds  off  Namibia  and  the 
Republic  of  South  Africa  used  to  be 
Romania's  second  largest  fishery.  This 
fishery  peaked  in  1986  with  a  catch  of 
109,000  t;  by  1989  it  was  only  a  half  of  that 
amount.  The  overfishing  of  South  African 
pilchard  off  South  Africa  caused  the  ICSEAF 
to  reduce  the  catch  quotas  there.  The 
Romanian    fishery    was    heavily    affected. 


catch,  Romania's  best  year  (appendix  7).  li 
1991  and  1992,  the  fisheries  off  the  West 
African  coast  were  the  last  Romanian  distant- 
water  fishery  left. 

Despite  these  vicissitudes,  high-seas 
fisheries  contributed  more  than  two-thirds  of 
the  total  Romanian  fisheries  catch  during  the 
past  three  decades.  This  large  percentage 
remained  constant  because  the  Romanian 
inland   fisheries  remained  stagnant  through 


261 


1990  when  they  began  a  steady  decrease, 
while  the  Black  Sea  fisheries  have  been 
collapsing  steadily,  dropping  to  only  3,700  t 
by  1992  (appendix  7). 

The  Romanian  high-seas  fisheries  urgently 
need  to  diversify  and  find  additional  fishing 
grounds.  In  the  past,  the  country's  biologists 
conducted  some  exploratory  fishing  in  the 
Mozambique  Channel  off  eastern  Africa  and 
near  the  Island  of  South  Georgia,  but  without 
satisfactory  results.'*  The  recent  decision  by 
the  Namibian  Government  to  open  its  200- 
mile  zone  to  foreign  fishing  on  January  1, 
1994,  has  potential  for  Romanian  fishermen. 

V.  FISHERY  ORGANIZATION 


Romanian  state-owned  fishery  companies 
were  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Ministry  of 
Transportation  and  Telecommunications  until 
1977  when  they  were  placed  under  the 
Ministry  of  Food  and  Agriculture. 

The  Marine  Fisheries  Company  of 
Romania  (IPO  -  Intreprinderea  de  Pescuit 
Oceanic)  is  located  in  Tulcea,  on  the  Danube 
Delta,  60  kilometers  from  the  Black  Sea. 
IPO  is  the  only  high-seas  fishing  enterprise  in 
Romania  and  owns  the  entire  high-seas  fleet. 
The  December  Revolution  brought  managerial 
independence  to  IPO.  In  1990,  its  personnel 
attempted  to  reorganize  their  enterprise  to 
improve  working  conditions,  make  it 
profitable,  and  adjust  to  autonomy  from 
government  control. 

Its  vessels  are  largely  aged  and  obsolete 
and  the  least  efficient  need  to  be 
decommissioned.  IPO  decided  to  concentrate 
its  resources  on  the  utilization  of  its  20 
supertrawlers  (PROMETEI  class),  15  of 
which  were  built  in  the  former  East  Germany 


with  the  newest  5  built  in  Romania  itself  and 
are  100  meters  long.  Its  other  20  trawlers 
will  be  "cannibalized"  for  parts.  To  create 
better  conditions  for  its  workers,  the  IPO 
management  will  focus  on  the  quality  rather 
than  the  quantity  of  its  products  in  an  effort  to 
retain  the  dwindling  consumer  market  for 
fishery  products.'*^ 

VI.  BILATERAL  AGREEMENTS 


In  January  1958,  Romania  signed  an 
agreement  on  cooperation  in  the  Danube 
fisheries  with  Bulgaria  and  Yugoslavia.  The 
Soviet  Union,  then  the  paramount  political 
influence  in  Eastern  Europe,  joined  as  a 
signatory.  A  year  later,  in  1959,  the  USSR, 
Bulgaria,  and  Romania  concluded  an 
agreement  on  the  Black  Sea  fisheries  and 
established  a  Commission  regulating  them. 

In  July  1962,  the  Soviet  Union,  Poland, 
and  the  German  Democratic  Republic  (GDR) 
signed  in  Warsaw  an  agreement  on  mutual 
cooperation  in  the  development  of  high-seas 
fisheries.  Romania  and  Bulgaria  were  co- 
opted  into  the  agreement  and  participated  in 
all  annual  plenary  sessions,  as  well  as  in 
technical  committees  and  working  groups. 
Unlike  Bulgaria,  however,  the  Romanians 
bought  their  first  high-seas  trawlers  in  1963 
from  Japan  rather  than  from  the  Soviet 
Union.  Whether  the  reason  for  this  purchase 
was  technical/commercial,  or  political,  is  not 
known.  A  glance  at  appendix  1,  however, 
clearly  shows  that,  except  for  2  fishery 
transports  in  1972,  Romanian  officials 
preferred  to  buy  their  fishing  and  fishery 
support  vessels  from  Poland  and  the  GDR. 
Later,  in  the  1980s,  they  began  to  build  both 
types  of  vessels  themselves. 


262 


In  February  1978,  Romania  and  the 
Soviet  Union  signed  in  Bucharest  a  bilateral 
fisheries  cooperation  agreement  (appendix  8). 
The  5-year  agreement^"  established  a  Joint 
Commission  to  meet  at  least  once  each  year 
alternately  in  Bucharest  and  Moscow.  The 
Commission  would  coordinate  the  exchange 
of  fishery  experts  and  the  exchange  of  results 
of  exploratory  and  other  fishery  research, 
organize  technical  conferences,  etc.  One  of 
its  most  important  provisions  (3rd)  was  the 
coordination  of  Romanian  and  Soviet  high- 
seas  fisheries  in  various  world  oceans.^' 
Whether  Romania  continued  this  agreement 
with  the  successor  state  of  the  USSR  -  Russia 
-  is  not  known. 

The  Romanian  Government  attempted  to 
conclude  bilateral  agreements  with  various 
countries,  including  the  United  States," 
Iceland,  and  the  Republic  of  South  Africa,  to 
regain  access  to  fishing  grounds.  Canada 
responded  positively,  extending  Romanian 
fishermen  a  1990  catch  allocation  of  10,000  t 
of  cod  which  was  fished  by  5  IPO 
supertrawlers." 


VU.  nSHERIES  RESEARCH 


The  high-seas  fisheries  research  is  the 
responsibility  of  the  Romanian  Institute  of 
Marine  Research  (RIMR),  located  in 
Constanta  on  the  Black  Sea.  The  RIMR  was 
established  in  1970  from  4  smaller 
organizations  (2  biological  stations  and  2 
laboratories).  Administratively,  the  RIMR  is 
under  the  National  Council  for  Science  and 
Technology  which  coordinates  various 
research  fields. 

The  Institute  has  no  specialized  vessels 
for    high-seas    investigations    and    conducts 


fisheries  research  aboard  commercial  vessels 
during  their  regular  deployment. 

Vm.    OUTLOOK 


Romania's  two  principal  goals  for  its 
high-seas  fishing  industry  are  the  export  of 
processed  fishery  products,  and  the  full  use  of 
its  fishing  and  fishery  support  vessels.""*  Both 
will  depend  on  the  ability  of  Romanian 
fishery  officials  to  negotiate  access 
agreements  for  the  high-seas  trawlers  and  to 
provide  efficient  and  speedy  transportation  of 
landed  catch  to  domestic  and  foreign  markets. 
As  was  the  case  in  the  past,  the  task  of 
providing  fishery  protein  to  the  population 
will  fall  mainly  to  the  distant-water  fleet. 
The  inland  fisheries  will  probably  continue 
decreasing  until  environmental  legislation 
prevents  the  pollution  of  local  lakes  and 
rivers.  The  Black  Sea  fishery  has  been 
decimated  during  the  past  4  years  and  will 
probably  remain  at  low  levels  until  the 
problem  of  the  jellyfish  infestation  of  the 
Black  Sea  waters  is  over.  Despite  the  fact 
that  fish  culture  production  has  been  halved  in 
recent  years,  this  sector  of  the  fishing 
industry  remains  potentially  promising 
because  of  its  proximity  to  the  consumers  and 
relatively  low  investment  needs. 

The  number  of  the  high-seas  fishing 
trawlers  has  already  been  reduced  by  50 
percent  and  in  view  of  the  fact  that  Romania 
produces  its  own  diesel  fuel,  their  operation 
may  prove  to  be  profitable.  They  will  most 
likely  continue  to  operate  off  the  West 
African  coast,  especially  off  Mauritania.  In 
addition,  a  few  trawlers  may  obtain 
permission  from  the  Namibian  Government  to 
reenter  the  fishery  inside  the  200-mile  zone  of 
that  country  in  1994. 


263 


SOURCES 


FAO.  Yearbook  of  Fishery  Statistics:  Catches  and 
Landings.    Rome,  various  years. 

Jezequel,  Bruno.  "Romanian  Fisheries  after  the 
Revolution:  the  Slogan  is  Quality. "  Le  Marin 
(Rennes,  France),  1  June  1990. 

Lloyd's  Register  of  Shipping,  Lloyd's  Register  of 
Shipping  Statistical  Tables ,  London,  various  years. 

Sfectcovici,  Anca.  "The  Fishery  Industry  of  Romania." 
Published  in:  The  First  East-West  Fisheries 
Conference.  20-22  May  1993,  St.  Petersburg. 
Russia.  London:  Agra  Europe,  Ltd.,  1993. 

U.S.  Department  of  State,  cable  No.  154373,  11  June 
1993. 

U.S.  Navy,  Office  of  Naval  Intelligence,  27  July  1993. 


264 


ENDNOTES 


1.  Jezequel,  Bruno,  "Romanian  Fisheries  after  the  Revolution:  the  Slogan  is  Quality,"  Le  Marin  (Rennes,  France), 
1  June  1990;  and  U.S.  Department  of  State,  11  June  1993  (cable  No.  154373). 

2.  Journal  of  Commerce,  (New  York),  2  November  1970.  The  food  production  investment  funds  in  the  5-Year  Plan 
for  1971-75  amounted  to  US$  750  million,  or  $150  million  each  year;  20  percent  of  this  amount  would  be  $30 
million.  Most  of  these  funds  were  used  to  buy  new  fishery  vessels  in  the  former  German  Democratic  Republic  and 
in  Poland.  The  Romanians  were  planning  to  deploy  the  new  modem  processing  vessels  in  the  Atlantic  cod  fishery 
off  New  England  and  sell  the  catch  to  U.S.  fish-processing  plants.  Unfortunately,  these  plans  went  awry  when  the 
United  States  Government  extended  its  fisheries  jurisdiction  from  12  miles  to  200  nautical  miles  in  late  1976. 

3.  Romanian  fisheries  delegation.  Personal  Communication,  5  December  1973.  The  actual  number  of  Romanian 
stem  factory  trawlers  was  18  at  the  end  of  1973,  but  the  Romanians  probably  included  the  1  trawler  which  was  on 
order  in  Poland  and  delivered  in  1974. 

4.  Lloyd's  Register  of  Shipping,  Lloyd's  Register  of  Shipping  Statistical  Tables,  London,  various  years;  U.S.  Navy, 
Office  of  Naval  Intelligence  (ONI),  27  July  1993.  The  two  sources  have  slightly  different  figures  because  ONI  only 
shows  the  Romanian  high-seas  fleet  as  it  existed  on  27  July  1993  and  does  not  include  any  trawlers  which  might 
have  been  decommissioned  prior  to  that  date.  Lloyd's  statistics,  on  the  other  hand,  go  only  through  June  of  1992 
when  they  show  the  number  of  high-seas  fishing  vessels  at  41  imits;  a  year  later  the  ONI  count  gives  38  such 
vessels,  the  "missing"  3  trawlers  were  probably  decommissioned. 

No  such  discrepancies  exist  in  the  number  of  the  12  fishery  support  vessels,  none  of  which  has  yet  been 
decommissioned.  Both  Lloyd's  (appendix  2)  and  ONI  (appendices  1  &  4)  have  the  same  numbers. 

5.  Anca  Sfectcovici  of  the  Romanian  Development  Agency  stated  in  May  1993  that  only  10  fishery  transports, 
having  84,000  GRT,  support  the  high-seas  fleet.  Given  the  difference  between  this  tonnage  and  the  tonnage  reported 
by  Lloyd's  in  appendix  3  (about  95,000  GRT),  it  would  appear  that  the  2  eliminated  fishery  transports  were  the  2 
SIBIR-class  vessels  (Polar  I  and  Polar  11).  Their  total  gross  tonnage  is  10,240  GRT. 

6.  U.S.  Navy,  Office  of  Naval  Intelligence,  27  July  1993. 

7.  The  Office  of  Naval  Intelligence,  in  late  July  1993,  reported  no  knowledge  of  any  Romanian  vessels  being 
reflagged  or  having  been  eliminated  from  the  Romanian  registry  during  the  last  2  years. 

8.  Anca  Sfectcovici,  "The  Fishery  Industry  of  Romania."  Published  in:  The  First  East-West  Fisheries  Conference, 
20-22  May  1993,  St.  Petersburg.  Russia,  (London,  Agra  Europe,  Ltd.),  1993. 

9.  Ibid. 

10.  U.S.  Department  of  State,  11  June  1993. 

11.  Agerpres  in  English,  21  March  1989. 

12.  In  1989,  the  Tulcea  Shipyard  was  modernized  and  reorganized  so  that  it  can  now  build  vessels  as  large  as 
15,000  deadweight  tons.    It  is  not  known  whether  it  still  builds  the  small  Black  Sea  trawlers. 

13.  Romanian  fisheries  delegation.  Personal  Communication,  5  December  1973. 


265 


14.  William  B.  Folsom  and  Dennis  M.  Weidner.  Mauritania 's  International  Fishery  Relations,  published  as  Foreign 
Fisheries  Leaflet  No.  76-4  by  the  Office  of  International  Fisheries,  NMFS,  NOAA,  U.S.  Department  of  Commerce, 
Washington,  April  1997. 

15.  Jezequel,  op.  cit. 

16.  International  Commission  for  the  SE  Atlantic  Fisheries.  Collection  of  Scientific  Papers.  Part  II.  Madrid,  various 
years. 

17.  FAO.  Yearbook  of  Fishery  Statistics:  Catches  and  Landings.  Rome,  various  years. 

18.  Jezequel,  op.  cit. 

19.  Ibid. 

20.  The  agreement  entered  into  force  on  3  February  1978.  It  remains  in  force  automatically  for  successive  5-year 
periods  unless  one  of  the  contracting  parties  advises  the  other,  in  writing,  6  months  prior  to  the  expiration  of  the 
agreement  that  it  wants  to  withdraw. 

21.  Sbomik  Dvukhstoronnikh  Soglashenyi  SSSR  po  Voprosam  Rybnogo  Khoziayaistva,  Rybolovstva  i 
Rybokhoziaystvennikh  Issledovanyi.    VNIRO,  Moscow,  1987. 

22.  Romania  had  a  GIFA  with  the  United  Stotes  since  November  1976,  but  it  expired  in  December  1988. 

23.  Jezequel,  op.  cit. 

24.  U.S.  Department  of  State,  11  June  1993. 


266 


Appendix  1.  Roaania.  Delivery  of  fishery  vessels, 
fay  nmtjer,   class,  gross  tomage,  and 
cfurttrf   of  construction;  1963-1987. 


Year 

NiJit>er 

Class 

GRT 

Built  in 

Fishing 

vessels 

1963 

2 

KONSTANTA 

3,600 

Japan 

1968 

2 

CARINA 

2,700 

Poland 

1969 

1 

CARINA 

2,700 

Poland 

1970 

2 

CARINA 

2,700 

Poland 

ATLANTIK 

2,600 

GDR 

1971 

ATLANTIK 

2,600 

GDR 

1972 

ATLANTIK 

2,600 

GDR 

1973 

VEGA 

2,600 

Poland 

1974 

VEGA 

2,600 

Poland 

1976 

PROMETEI 

3,900 

GDR 

1977 

PRC3METEI 

3,900 

GOR 

1978 

PROMETEI 

3,900 

GDR 

1979 

PROHETEI 

3,900 

GOR 

1980 

PROMETEI 

3,900 

Romania 

1983 

PROMETEI 

3,900 

Romania 

1984 

PROMETEI 

3,900 

Romania 

1987 

PROMETEI 

3,900 

Romania 

Total=39 

Si^iport 

vessels 

1972 

2 

SIBIR 

5,100 

USSR 

LIEBKNEKHT 

11,800 

GDR 

1973 

LIEBKNEKHT 

11,800 

GOR 

1978 

LIEBKNEKHT 

11,800 

GOR 

1979 

LIEBKNEKHT 

11,800 

GOR 

1980 

POLAR 

6,100 

Romania 

1981 

3 

POLAR 

6,100 

Romania 

1983 

2 

POLAR 

6,100 

Romania 

Tot8l=12 

Source:  U.S.  Navy,  Office  of  Naval  Intelligence,  27  July  1993. 

GRT  -  Gross  registered  tonnage  (given  in  approximate 
round  figures) 

Note:  This  chronological  list  of  additions  to  the  Romanian 
high-seas  fleet  does  not  include  vessels  which  might  have 
been  sold,  scrapped  or  reflagged.  It  is  known  that  one  of 
the  2  KONSTANTA  class  trawlers  (the  Galati)  is  no  longer 
operational,  but  its  disposition  is  not  known. 


267 


Appendix  2.   Romania.  Number  of  high-seas  fishing  and  fishery 
support  vessels,  1975-92. 


Year 

Fishing 

Support 

Total 

Number  of  vesseb 

1975 

26 

4 

30 

1976 

27 

4 

31 

1977 

30 

4 

34 

1978 

35 

4 

39 

1979 

37 

6 

43 

1980 

40 

7 

47 

1981 

40 

8 

48 

1982 

40 

9 

49 

1983 

42 

10 

52 

1984 

44 

11 

55 

1985 

43 

11 

54 

1986 

43 

11 

54 

1987 

43 

12 

55 

1988 

45 

12 

57 

1989 

45 

12 

57 

1990 

45 

12 

57 

1991 

45 

12 

57 

1992 

41 

12 

53 

Source:  Lloyd's  Register  of  Shipping  Statistical  Tables,    Lx>ndon,  various  years. 


268 


Appendix  3.  Romania.  Gross  roistered  tonnage  of  high-seas 
fishing  and  Fishery  support  vessels,  1975-92. 


Year 

Fishing 

Support 

Total 

1,000  Gross  Tons 

1975 

69.2 

34.0 

103.2 

1976 

73.2 

34.0 

107.2 

1977 

84.4 

34.0 

118.4 

1978 

104.2 

34.0 

138.2 

1979 

111.3 

58.5 

169.8 

1980 

120.8 

61.5 

182.3 

1981 

120.0 

69.8 

189.8 

1982 

120.0 

75.9 

195.9 

1983 

126.7 

82.1 

208.8 

1984 

134.6 

88.2 

222.8 

1985 

130.7 

88.2 

218.9 

1986 

130.7 

88.2 

218.9 

1987 

130.7 

94.4 

225.1 

1988 

138.6 

94.4 

233.0 

1989 

138.6 

94.4 

233.0 

1990 

138.1 

94.4 

232.5 

1991 

138.1 

94.4 

232.5 

1992 

123.4 

94.4 

217.8 

Source:  Lloyd 's  Register  of  Shipping  Statistical  Tables,  various  years. 


269 


A|]pendix  4.  Roawia.  Hi^-seas  f  ishins  traylers.  by  class, 
naae,  gross  tonnage,  and  cotntry  and  year  of 
constrtjctian;  1993. 


Class/Vessel 

name 

Gross  tonnage 

Country  bui It 

Year  built 

ATLANTIK-  8  vessels 

lalomita 

2,657 

GDR 

1971 

Jiul 

2.657 

GDR 

1972 

Milcov 

2,657 

GDR 

1972 

Mures 

2.173 

GDR 

1970 

Neajlov 

2,156 

GDR 

1972 

Si  ret 

2,657 

GDR 

1971 

Sonies 

2,657 

GDR 

1971 

Trotes 

2.657 

GDR 

1971 

CARINA-  5  vessels 

Caraiman 

2,681 

Poland 

1970 

Cris 

2.681 

Poland 

1970 

Marea  Niagra 

2,715 

Poland 

1968 

Negoiu 

2,682 

Poland 

1969 

Razelm 

2,681 

Poland 

1968 

CONSTANTA-  1 

vessel 

Constanta 

3,631 

Japan 

1963 

PROMETEI-  20 

vessels 

Amaradia 

3,971 

Romania 

1984 

Bahlui 

3,931 

GDR 

1978 

Bistrita 

3,933 

GDR 

1976 

Caliman 

3,977 

GDR 

1977 

Cerna 

3,977 

GDR 

1976 

Cindrelu 

3.977 

GDR 

1977 

Ciucas 

3.977 

GDR 

1977 

Costi  la 

3,977 

GDR 

1977 

Crisul  Alb 

3.977 

GOR 

1979 

Dimbovita 

3.933 

GDR 

1979 

Dorna 

3.977 

GDR 

1976 

Ji  jia 

3,931 

GDR 

1978 

Magura 

3,971 

Romania 

1983 

Oltet 

3,977 

GDR 

1979 

Ozana 

3,977 

GOR 

1978 

Paring 

3.930 

Romania 

1980 

Putna 

3,933 

GOR 

1976 

Rarau 

3.466 

Romania 

1987 

Rodna 

3,930 

Romania 

1983 

T  i  rnava 

3.933 

GDR 

1976 

VEGA-  4  vessels 

Clabucet 

2,632 

Poland 

1973 

Inau 

2.680 

Poland 

1973 

Mindra 

2,629 

Poland 

1974 

Semen ic 

2.631 

Poland 

1973 

TOTAL  = 

38  vesse 

Is  TOTAL  GROSS 

TONNAGE  =  126.569  CRT 

Source:  U.S.  Navy,  Office  of  Naval  Intelligence,  27  July  1993. 


270 


Appendix  5.  Roaania.  His^-seas  fishery  support  fleet,  by 

class,  naae,  gross  tomage,  and  couitry  and  year 
of  construction;  1993. 


Class/Vessel 

name 

Gross  tonnage 

Country  bui 

It   Year  built 

metric  tons 

SIBIR-  2  vessel 

s 

Polar  I 

5.120 

USSR 

1972 

Polar  II 

5,120 

USSR 

1972 

KARL  LIBKNEKHT- 

4 

vessels 

Polar  III 

11,755 

GOR 

1972 

Polar  IV 

11,755 

GDR 

1973 

Polar  V 

11,755 

GDR 

1978 

Polar  VI 

11,755 

GOR 

1979 

POLAR  VII-  6 

vessels 

Polar  VII 

6,140 

Ron»nia 

1980 

Polar  VIII 

6,140 

Romania 

1981 

Polar  IX 

6,140 

Romania 

1981 

Polar  X 

6,140 

Romania 

1981 

Polar  XI 

6,140 

Rotnania 

1983 

Polar  XII 

6,140 

Romania 

1983 

TOTAL  = 

12 

vessels    TOTAL 

GROSS  TONMAGE 

=  94,100 

Source:  U.S.  Navy,  Office  of  Naval  Intelligence,  27  July  1993 


Appendix  6.  Rcaania.  Black  Sea  fishing  fleet, 
by  class,  name,   gross  tannage,  and 
country  and  year  of  construction;  1993. 


Class/Vessel  name 

Gross  tonnage 

Built  in 

Year 

metric 

tons 

ULA  300-  7  vessels 

Del  fin 

120 

Poland 

1981 

Dorada  I 

132 

Poland 

1982 

Dorada  II 

132 

Poland 

1982 

Morunul 

107 

Poland 

1981 

Steaua  de  mare  3 

132 

Poland 

1982 

TC01 

120 

Poland 

1981 

TC02 

120 

Poland 

1981 

TOTAL  =  7  vessels 

TOTAL  GROSS 

TONNAGE  = 

riM   GRT 

Source:  U.S.  Navy,  Office  of  Naval  Intelligence, 
27  July  1993. 


271 


Appendix  7.  Roaania.  Inlaid,  coastal,  and  distant-uater  fisheries  by  FAO  statistical  areas; 
1975.  1980,  and  1985-1991. 


Area 

Year 

1975 

1980 

1985 

1986 

1987 

1988 

1989 

1990 

1991 

1992 

1.000  Metric 

tons 

Inland(05) 

46.7 

52.7 

58.5 

65.8 

66.9 

77.3 

66.8 

48.2 

40.5 

34.5' 

CoastaU37> 

6.3 

10.3 

14.3 

15.8 

14.0 

14.0 

13.8 

6.3 

1.2 

3.7 

Distant  Water 
21 
27 
34 
47 
51 

1.8 

3.7 

78.1 

0.1 

77.5 
33.0 

86.0 

78.5 

0.5 

165.0 

80.6 
108.9 

116.7 
66.8 

125.0 
51.4 

87.5 
56.6 

61.6 
11.6 

73.2 

83.2 
83.2 

57.1 

Subtotal 

83.6 

110.6 

189.5 

183.5 

176.4 

144.1 

57.1 

Percentage** 

61.2 

63.7 

69.4 

69.9 

69.4 

65.9 

64.1 

57.3 

57.3 

66.6 

Total 

136.6 

173.6 

237.8 

271.1 

264.4 

267.7 

224.7 

127.7 

124.9 

95.3 

Source:   FAO.   Yearbook  of 

Fishery 

Statistics:   Catches  and 

Landings.   Rome, 

,   various  years 

. 

•  Of  this  total,  25,000  tons  was  cultured  freshwater  fish,  mostly  conmon  and  grass  carps.  This 

total  was  only  half  of  the  cultured  production  in  1986.  The  reasons  for  this  decrease  are  not  known. 
**  High-seas  (distant-water)  fisheries  catch  as  a  percentage  of  the  total  catch. 

Note:  The  totals  may  not  add  because  of  rounding. 


272 


APPENDIX  8 

AGREEMENT  BETWEEN  THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  THE  UNION  OF  SOVIET  SOCIALIST  REPUBLICS  AND  THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  THE 
SOCIALIST  REPUBLIC  OF  ROMANIA  ON  COOPERATION  IN  THE  AREA  OF  THE  FISHING  INDUSTRY. 

The  Goverrment  of  the  Union  of  Soviet  Socialist  Republics  and  the  Government  of  the  Socialist  Republic  of 
Romania, 

--Proceeding  from  the  friendly  relations  which  exist  between  both  countries, 

--Wishing  to  develop  cooperation  in  the  area  of  rational  utilization  and  reproduction  of  fish  stocks  and 
improvement  of  fishing  equipment  and  fish  processing  technology. 

Have  agreed  as  follows: 

Article  1 

The  Contracting  Parties  agree  to  implement  cooperation  in  the  area  of  the  fishing  industry  and  for  these 
purposes  shall  carry  out  measures  directed  at  increasing  the  production  of  fish  and  fish  products  through 
their  competent  organizations  to  supply  the  demand  in  each  of  their  countries  on  the  basis  of  reciprocity. 
Soviet  and  Romanian  competent  organizations  shall  render  mutual  assistance  in  joint  fishing  areas,  in 
particular,  by  means  of  an  exchange  of  various  types  of  operational  materials  and  spare  parts  according  to 
terms  of  contracts. 

Article  2 

A  Joint  Coninission  is  established  for  the  purposes  of  developing  and  carrying  out  measures  for  implementing 
this  Agreement. 

Sessions  of  the  Joint  Connission  shall  be  conducted  when  necessary  but  not  less  than  once  per  year, 
alternately  on  the  territory  of  each  of  the  Contracting  Parties  with  expenditures  borne  by  the  party  on 
whose  territory  the  session  is  conducted. 

The  Joint  Commission  shall  operate  on  the  basis  of  the  Charter  developed  and  adopted  at  its  first  session. 

The  Commission's  first  session  shall  occur  not  later  than  three  months  after  this  Agreement  has  entered  into 
force. 

The  Commission  adopts  reconmendations  which  enter  into  force  after  their  approval  by  the  Contracting 
Parties. 

Article  3 

The  Joint  Commission  fulfills  the  following  functions: 

a)  Develops  and,  after  their  approval,  organizes  implementation  of  plans  of  cooperation  and  mutual 
assistance  in  the  area  of  the 

fishing  industry,  including  plans  for  mutual  exchanges  of  experts; 

b)  Organizes  mutual  exchange  of  experience  on  issues  of  developing  and  reproducing  raw  material  resources, 
increasing  the  productivity  of  fishing,  intensification  of  fishing  in  domestic  waters,  processing 
technology,  and  increase  of  fish  product  production; 

c)  Develops  proposals  for  convening  scientific  and  technical  conferences  and  meetings  on  various  fishing 
industry  problems  which  are  of  mutual  interest; 

d)  Develops  and  organizes  the  conduct  of  measures  directed  at  the  development  of  Soviet  and  Romanian 
fisheries  in  various  areas  of  the  World  Ocean; 

e)  Determines  the  nature  and  scope  of  statistical  and  other  materials  presented  by  each  of  the  Contracting 
Parties  to  the  Joint  Commission  for  the  purposes  of  implementing  this  Agreement;  and 

f)  Examines  other  issues  which  represent  mutual  interests  in  the  area  of  the  fishing  industry  which  the 
Commission  may  be  charged  with  by  the  Contracting  Parties. 


273 


Article  4 

The  reciprocal  transfer  of  the  results  of  scientific  and  technical  research  provided  for  by  the  plans  of 
cooperation,  scientific  and  technical  docunentation,  and  specimens  or  models  and  materials,  and  also 
reciprocal  exchange  of  experts  and  scientific  researchers  shall  be  carried  out  in  accordance  with  "The 
General  Terms  for  Carrying  Out  Scientific  and  Technical  Cooperation  and  Collaboration  between  the  USSR  and 
the  SRR"  adopted  by  the  Soviet-Romanian  Conmission  on  Scientific  and  Technical  Cooperation. 

Article  5 

The  provisions  of  this  Agreement  do  not  affect  the  right  and  obligations  of  the  Contracting  Parties  which 
result  from  Agreements  in  which  they  participate. 

Article  6 

This  Agreement  can  be  amended  by  the  approval  of  both  Contracting  Parties. 

Article  7 

This  Agreement  is  concluded  for  a  period  of  five  years  and  enters  into  force  upon  signature.  It  shall 
remain  in  force  for  each  successive  five  year  period  unless  either  of  the  Contracting  Parties  provides 
written  notification  of  denunciation  to  the  other  no  later  than  six  months  prior  to  the  expiration  of  the 
current  five  year  period. 

DONE  at  Bucharest.  February  3,  1978,  in  duplicate,  each  in  the  Russian  and  Rootanian  languages,  both  texts 
being  equally  authentic. 

By  Authority  of  the  Government  of  the    By  Authority  of  the  Government  of  the  Union  of  Soviet 
Republic  of  Republic  Romania  Socialist  Republics 


274 


4.5 


FORMER  YUGOSLAVIA 


The  Socialist  Federative  Republic  of  Yugoslavia  (SFRJ)  ceased  to  exist  in  June  1991  when 
Croatia  and  Slovenia  declared  their  independence.  The  country's  fisheries  were  based  on  the 
Adriatic  Sea  except  for  a  brief,  unsuccessful  attempt  in  the  1970s  to  enter  the  Atlantic  tuna 
fishery.  Most  of  its  2,000  kilometer-long  Adriatic  coast  is  now  in  the  Republic  of  Croatia.  The 
former  SFRJ  has  had  no  high-seas  fishing  vessels  since  1982.  The  newly  formed  states  are  not 
expected  to  expand  into  high-seas  fishing  in  the  near  future. 

CONTENTS 


I.  Background    275 

II.  Fleet     276 

III.  Modernization  programs     276 

IV.  Fleet  reduction 276 

V.  Shipyards 276 

VI.  International  agreements 277 

VII.  Outlook 277 

Endnotes     278 

Appendices 279 

shellfish     annually     (appendix      1),     and 

I.  BACKGROUND  employed  about  13,000  workers.     By  the 

end  of   1991,    the   Food   and   Agriculture 

,     .  Organization  (FAO)  of  the  United  Nations 

The   former    Yugoslavia   supported    a  ^^j^^  estimated  that  the  Yugoslavian  catch 

small  fishmg  mdustry  which  harvests  mostly  ^^^^.^^^  ^^  20,000  tons.      In   1992,   that 

sardines  in  the  eastern  part  of  the  Adriatic  ^.         ^^^  ,i^^,y  ^^^^  ,^^^^  j^  ^-^^  ^^  ^^^ 

Sea.   The  vast  majority  of  Yugoslav  vessels  protracted  fighting  between  the  Croats  and 

were  concentrated  in  the  inshore  fishery  in  ^^^  ^^^^^  -^  ^j^^  ^^^^^^  p^^^j^^^  ^^  D^,^^^i^ 

territorial  waters,  but  some  120  state-owned  ^^^^^  ^^^^  ^j^^i      ^^^    1^^^ 
commercial  vessels  ventured  further  into  the 

Adriatic'    Earlier  in  the  1970s,  the  SFRJ  Following  the  dissolution  of  the  SFRJ  in 

and  Poland  signed  an  agreement  to  set  up  a  j^^^  y^g^    ^1^^  ^^^^^^y  l^^^^^  ^^p  -^^^  ^^^^ 

joint  Atlantic  fishing  fleet  of  23  vessels.^  independent  republics;  of  these,  only  three 

As  far  as  is  known,  the  project  was  never  ^^^^  ^  ^^.^^  ^^^^^.  ^^^^^.^    Montenegro 

implemented.     In  recent  years,  before  the  ^^^-^^  -^         ^^ ^^e  new  "Yugoslavia"^)  and 

eruption  of  civil  war  in  1991,  the  Yugoslav  ^j^^^^j^     j^^  ^^^^^-^^  ^^^^^  j^  ^^  ^^^  ^^^ 

fishing  fleet  caught  approximately  40,000  to  ^  ^^  .773  kilometers,  km)  and  Croatian 

50,000    metric    tons    of   marine    fish    and 


fisheries  will  dominate  Adriatic  fisheries  in 
the  future.  The  small  Montenegrin  coasdine 
(199  km)  and  the  even  smaller  Slovenian 
littoral  (32  km)  will  support  some  limited 
fishing,  but  mostly  for  domestic 
consumption. 

II.  FLEET 


Yugoslavia  had  one  high-seas  vessel 
(615  gross  registered  tons,  GRT)  registered 
in  1975  and  decommissioned  in  1976 
(appendix  2).  From  1977  through  1981, 
Yugoslavia  had  two  high-seas  vessels,  both 
registered  at  1,047  GRT.  These  two  vessels, 
tuna  purse  seiners  built  in  Yugoslavia,  were 
crewed  by  Dalmatian  fishermen.  They 
entered  the  tuna  fishery  off  West  Africa  and 
transshipped  their  catch  to  a  U.S.  company 
in  California.  The  venture  was  not 
successful  for  a  variety  of  reasons  and  the 
U.S.  company  bought  one  of  the  seiners  in 
1980,  and  the  other  in  1981.  Yugoslavia 
has  had  no  high-seas  vessels  since  1982 
(appendix  2). 

In  December  1992,  the  Croatian  fleet 
consisted  of  17  fishing  vessels  with  a  total 
tonnage  of  2,284  GRT.  Slovenia  had  8 
vessels  ( 1 ,016  GRT)  and  Montenegro  owned 
2  vessels  (208  GRT).  The  small-tonnage 
Croatian  fleet  was,  on  the  average,  21  years 
old  and  was  supported  by  a  small  vessel 
(113  GRT)  which  was  37  years  old. 
Slovenia's  fishing  fleet,  which  had  no 
support  vessels,  was  much  more  modern  and 
younger  (11  years  on  the  average),  while 
Montenegro's  fleet  was  purchased  only  5 
years  ago. 


III.  MODERNIZATION  PROGRAMS 

During  the  1980s,  the  Yugoslav 
Federal  Government  expressed  an  interest  in 
expanding  and  modernizing  its  fishing  fleet. 
In  1986,  it  proposed  the  construction  of  15 
new  vessels  and  the  modernization  of  61 
others,  the  work  for  which  was  to  be 
completed  in  Yugoslav  shipyards.^  In  1987, 
Belgrade  raised  its  catch  targets  by  60 
percent  to  around  80,000  tons  annually,^  and 
subsequently  announced  that  it  would  add  26 
new  vessels  to  its  coastal  fishing  fleet.* 
Judging  by  the  FAQ  catch  statistics,  these 
plans  did  not  materialize  and,  instead  of 
increasing  by  60  percent,  the  Yugoslav 
marine  catch  decreased  by  more  than  15 
percent  by  1991. 

IV.  FLEET  REDUCTION 


SFRJ  has  had  no  decommissioning 
schemes  since  it  sold  its  last  high-seas  tuna 
vessel  in  1981.  Small  vessels  fishing  in  the 
Adriatic,  however,  are  occasionally 
replaced. 


V.  SHIPYARDS 


Several  yards  specialize  in  building 
vessels  between  10  and  70  meters  long  and 
in  modernizing  vessels  up  to  1,000  GRT.'' 
Some  of  the  shipyards  were  building  small 
coastal  fishing  vessels  both  for  domestic  and 
foreign  clients  (Libya  was  one  of  them). 
Information  on  their  recent  activity  is  not 
available. 


276 


VI.  INTERNATIONAL  AGREEMENTS 


Prior  to  its  dissolution,  the  SFRJ  had  a 
bilateral  fishing  agreement  with  Italy 
governing  fishing  in  the  Adriatic.  The 
agreement  will  probably  be  renegotiated  by 
the  Republic  of  Croatia.  Slovenia  has  no 
bilateral  fisheries  agreement  with  Italy. 


Vn.  OUTLOOK 


The  authors  do  not  expect  Croatia, 
Slovenia,  or  Montenegro  to  expand  into 
distant-water  fisheries  in  the  foreseeable 
future.  The  war  has  interrupted  fishing 
activities  and  any  investments  in  the 
development  of  fisheries.  However,  because 
the  natural  resources  of  the  Adriatic  are 
generally  modest  (the  FAQ  refers  to  them  as 
"fully  exploited"*),  it  is  not  impossible  that 
Croatia  will  seek  to  expand  its  fishing 
grounds. 


277 


ENDNOTES 


1.  United  Nations  Food  and  Agriculture  Organization,  Fishery  Country  Profile— Yugoslavia,  January  1990. 

2.  Tanjug  Press  Agency,  Belgrade,  March  10,  1975,  reported  in  BBC  Summary  of  International  Broadcasting- 
Eastern  Europe,  March  27,  1975. 

3.  Yugoslavia,  though  retaining  the  old  name,  now  consists  of  only  2  republics:  Serbia  and  Montenegro. 

4.  "Yugoslavia  to  Modernize  Fishing  Fleet,"  Eurofish  Report,  June  19,  1986. 

5.  "Yugoslavia  Plans  60  jjercent  Rise  in  Seafood  Production  by  1990,"  Eurofish  Report,  December  4,  1986,  p. 
SP/9. 

6.  Tanjung  News  Agency,  Belgrade,  October  21,  1987,  reported  in  BBC  Review  of  International  Broadcasting- 
-Eastern  Europe,  November  5,  1987. 

7.  "Yugoslavia  to  Modernize  Fishing  Fleet,"  Eurofish  Report,  June  19,  1986. 

8.  United  Nations  Food  and  Agriculture  Organization,  Fishery  Country  Profile— Yugoslavia,  January  1990. 


278 


Appendix  1.  Yugoslavia.  Inland  and  coastal  fisheries  catch  by  FAO  statistical  areas:  1975. 
1980.  and  1985-1991. 


Area 

Year 

1975 

1980 

1985 

1986 

1987 

1988 

1989 

1990 

1991 

1.000 

Metric 

tons 

Inland  (05) 

24.3 

23.4 

25.7 

26.1 

25.2 

26.4 

25.1 

24.1 

12.0 

Coastal  (37)* 

32  3 

35.0 

49.3 

51.4 

56.2 

45.3 

46  7 

41.3 

23  6 

Total 

56.6 

58.4 

5.0 

77.5 

81  3 

71  8 

71  7 

65.4 

35.6 

Source:  FAO. 

Yeai 

"book  of  Pi 

shery 

Statistics: 

Catches  and  Landings. 

Rome,  various  yea 

rs. 

*  Adriatic  Sea  fisheries. 

Note.  The  totals  may  not  add  because  of  rounding. 


279 


Appendix  2.-YUG0SLAVIA.  Number  and  tonnage  of  high-seas  fishing  vessels,  ranked  by  tonnage,  1975-92. 


1 

Year 

Gross  Roistered  Tons  (CRT) 

Total 

500-999 

1,000-1,999 

Over  2,000 

CRT 

No. 

CRT 

No. 

CRT 

No. 

CRT 

No. 

1975 

615 

1 

- 

- 

- 

- 

615 

1 

1976 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

0 

0 

1977 

- 

- 

2 

2,094 

- 

- 

2 

2,094 

1978 

- 

- 

2 

2,094 

- 

- 

2 

2,094 

1979 

- 

- 

2 

2,094 

- 

- 

2 

2,094 

1980 

- 

- 

2 

2,094 

- 

- 

2 

2,094 

1981 

- 

- 

1 

1,047 

- 

- 

1 

1,047 

1982 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

0 

0 

1983 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

0 

0 

1984 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

0 

0 

1985 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

0 

0 

1986 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

0 

0 

1987 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

0 

0 

1988 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

0 

0 

1989 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

0 

0 

1990 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

0 

0 

1991 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

0 

0 

1992 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

0 

0 

Source:  Lloyd's  Register  of  Shipping  Statistical  Tables,  Lloyd's  Register  of  Shipping,  London,  UK,  various  years. 


280 


PHOTOGRAPHS 


281 


282 


00 


00 


'C|