In recent years, problems of the fishing industry have drawn continuous interest. Reports are numerous about the mind-boggling amounts in hard currency allegedly fleeing this country through the efforts of our ploughmen of the sea: 500 million dollars a year, then 2 billion, 4 billion and even 10 billion - almost a half of the country's budget! But the trouble is no one seems to be able to get those desirable billions and return them back into the country. No skipper-billionaire was caught in the spotlight; no domestic fisheries industrialist was anywhere near amongst the richest-people-on-planet list. Worse still, the industry is going down the drain. Back in 1990, Russian landings equaled 7.5 million metric ton, while in 1998 only 4.5 million, and less yet this year - somewhere short of 4 million ton. The same situation is registered with the production of fish products, canned seafoods and fishmeal. Simultaneously, the export trade climbed up the hill and reached 1.5 million ton in some years. The import trade exhibited some growth as well - up to 500-700 thousand ton. The per capita fish consumption in Russia lowered drastically from 20 kilos in 1990 to just 9 kilos in 1998. Cost-effectiveness of domestic products, according to the Russian Clearing House, was 19-37 % in 1990-1991, while starting from 1996 it was already negative (-2.2 %) and in 1998 reached the all-time-low of - 7.1 %. It exacerbated by the fact that bills payable of the majority of companies of all property categories are higher than bills receivable. Based on these figures the fishing industry is bankrupt. But how a bankrupt can stash milliards of dollars off-shore. What is really going on in the fishing industry of Russia?

I will try to give my explanation, out of my 45-year experience being the industry's insider.

Gorbachove's perestroika of economy was not uch of a revelation for fishermen. By its start the fishing industry had already numbered over a score of mixed fishing companies and expeditions. Long before the Zlobin's and Travkin's endeavors the system of individual labor shares had already been introduced on all fishing vessels. However, the lion's share of the profit went to the state budget. The fishermen had to bear it, as it still paid off on the account of fishing fleet new building, social welfare programs for the North and other benefits provided by the state. But already then it became clear that the fishing fleet created to the order of the Soviet planning system, turned out to be an economic burden and could not compete with fishing fleets of other nations.

The majority of specialists of the industry found the way out in evolutionary implantation into the market, in simultaneous, at initial stages, functioning of two systems: old fleet abiding by the rules of "easy market" and new fleet acting according to the real market laws. Gradually, the latter should replace the former. However, the nation's leadership thought differently. To break the resistance of fishermen it was decided to liquidate the State Ministry of Fsheries and, in stead, form the State Committee of Fisheries under the aegis of State Ministry of Agriculture. After that already nothing could prevent the total collapse of the industry, dissolution of cadres and waste, by means of privatization, of the state assets. In 1990, Russia harvested 7.5 million tons of fish, while already in 1994 just 3.7 million tons. The industry was breaking apart at the seams. It's management structure, in recent 7 years, have been reorganized 6 times. These innovations were motivated by the necessity of creating an active federal, not industry subject, body regulating commercial fisheries. But even with purpose in mind, the functions should have been changed in the first head, not the names.

And still, even under these conditions the fishermen, leaning on the restored, in 1994, federal body, the State Committee of Fisheries, began gradually to straighten out the situation. Vessel operations at high seas were streamlined, public and fishermen's associations formed, fleet credit arrangement mastered, some fleet upgrades begun, own industrial bank, RybkhozBank, incorporated, new economic relationships with foreign partners fostered. Fish landings increased from 3.5 million tons in 1994 up to 4.5-4.7 million tons in 1996-1997. And here, all of sudden, another round of reforming went off.

At this time the struggle for redistribution of authority among federal bodies was connected with the empowering of the Federal Border Guard Service with protection of and controls over marine biological resources. FBGS was the first to notify the public of fishermen allegedly trafficking abroad about 4 billion dollars annually. Protection of sea borders and watchfulness on the bordering areas is on unquestioned duty of F.B.G.S. While at the same time protection is only a small, however significant, part of the entire complex of the marine resources management problem. This complex includes also monitoring of fish stocks, determining scientifically allowed catch volumes, developing and enforcing the sets of fisheries rules and regulations, establishing fishing methods and seasons, distributing the fishing quotas amongst the federal subjects and industrialists, promoting international communications, setting fishing policies etc. Who will be responsible for all this at the federal level? It is clear, not F.B.G.S. by all means, and not the State Committee of Ecology (Goskomekologiya), but the State Committee of Fisheries, which was recreated now, on the afterthought. Its cadres, however, were disbanded, for their alleged adherence to their subject branch interests, not the overall market approach...

About the reasons why these disbandings were repeated time and time again, in absence of intelligible official explanations, various conjectures and versions have been making rounds among the fishermen. The most recent ones were thre.

Version One is political. The leader of Liberal Democratic Party of Russia (LDPR), Zhirinovskii, already not once exhibited desire "to steer" the fisheries department. Besides, fishermen in every possible way opposed the transfer of the Southern Kurils to Japan. So, hence the attempt to "wipe clean" both "Goskomrybolovstvo" and its staff, so that Zhirinovskii would have nothing to claim, and there would be no one to stand for the interests of the fishermen operating in Southern Kurils.

Version Two is economic. It is time to introduce liberal market relations in the sphere of marine resources use and hand the management controls to other departments. State Committee of Fishery (Goskomrybolovstvo) appears to be a handicap to this money carve-up.

Version Three is force. The criminal activity in the fish industry has reached the off-limit levels and everything related to protection of marine resources has to be endowed on the enforcing bodies - on the border guards. But the trouble is there is no money in the budget for these purposes. But the base is already close at hand: about 2 or 4 or even 10 billion U.S. dollars allegedly flee abroad every year, and the only way to rescue this money is to additionally finance the enforcing structures such as the military forces (in particular, F.B.B.S.), State Committee of Ecology (Goskomekologiya) and public environmental organizations. Here, again, the State Committee of Fisheries (Goskomrybolovstvo) is in the way, whose experts contest the inflated figures and the very accounting method used. Therefore, it was sentenced for dissolution.

I believe, that nevertheless the true reason for the frequent reorganization of the all-national fisheries body lies deeper and combines these three versions altogether. In the foundation of it all is the unfolding, in conditions of weakening state control, hard fight for the rights to dispose of the renewable biological resources within 200-mile exclusive economic zone and continental shelf of Russia and attempts of introducing payment system for the use of those resources by Russian fisheries industrialists. And that might equal, given the possible allowed catch volume of 4.5-6.5 million tons and initial value of the raw fish at the average worldwide level, about 1.3 to 2 billion U.S. dollars depending on the fish species in the catches. Exactly this amount - about 2 billion U.S. dollars - is so much wanted to be leviable by the powers that be and the mafia structures. However the impartial assessments show that the highest amount receivable by the federal bodies from foreign companies and domestic fisheries out of this "trade" in marine resources would reach only 150-200 million U.S. dollars. Frankly speaking, not so bad a result, though. All these expenditures will automatically be debited by the ship owners onto the fish products, resulting in the rise of retail prices for no less than 10-15 percent. Again, the common tax payer, the consumer, all of us, will stand the worst damage.

A number of domestic amateur-economists suggest to veil this payment for resources by presenting it as compensatory charges for fisheries research and protection. The question is where the taxes already paid by the fishermen are supposed to go to? Not for the election campaigns?

The reader has the right to ask where do disappear the rest 1.7-1.8 billion U.S. dollars. That is the expenses of the ship owners for catching, first stage processing, credits on current assets, depreciation, taxes etc. So, no such figures as 2, 4, and even less so, 10 billion U.S. dollars ever existed in reality. However, the supporters of the soonest introduction of the payments-for-resources system promote the corresponding legislation and lobby the project of the Fisheries and Marine Biological Resources Protection Act, currently in State Duma, so as to be able to collect the revenues from the fishermen without doing a thing, or investing a dime. Finally, collecting the payment on resources from own citizens fishing within the 200 miles of the exclusive economic zone has no analogues in international practice, and, certainly, it will put at the verge of bankruptcy, first of all, domestic fisheries industrialists, which would give advantage (by means of the capital and competition) to foreign fishing companies in accessing the resources. In all advanced countries with the market economy the protectionist policy is in effect in relation to national fisheries and everything is done to prohibit foreign fleets from their respective 200-mile zones. In our country it is all to the contrary.

In the boom over the Russian conquest of the Japanese fish market, especially by the products originating from Southern Kurils, the voices are heard of those who strive to reach the soonest and at-all-cost settlement with Japan over the disputed Kuril islands. The major opponents of that territorial transfer are well known. These are fishermen. So, it is them, against whom the next set of goods is had ready on. However, in the very base of it is the absence of the legislative substrate on obligatory customs declaration of the fish and seafood exports shipped out of the Russian EEZ. So what does it have to do with fishermen? They did not break the laws which never did exist. They used to pay the budget all taxes due less the customs declaration charge of 0.15 percent. The task of legislative and executive powers is to develop and enforce legislation that would interest the fisheries industrialists in more efficient production, selling their products in the home markets, and being law-abiding subjects. The authorities are still unable to meet this task. Sales of fish and crab on international markets is mostly a desperate shift. It seems the only way to provide the domestic producers with current assets, to keep their operations afloat and running.

All Russian governments instead of trying to untie this sailor's knot, are still tightening it hardly and heaping up various bureaucratic hooks, at times reaching absurdity. Thus, the government has decided to annually approve the forecast (I point out at the very term!) for the allowed catch volumes for almost 400 targeted species of stocks. It is all the same as to approve at the governmental level the weather forecast in Russia a year in advance. It is not better a situation with the expert examination of the given forecast - whoever is not lazy partakes in its preparation. Moreover, the problems of the commercial fishing industry crop up became the center of attention of every one in the government who ever held in hand the fishing rod.

Certainly, there are many problems in the commercial oceanic fisheries: poaching, non-observance of catching rules, illicit export of raw material and sea products etc. All of this are fruits of pseudo-market economy and social tensions in fishing environment, and also slackening of governmental controls in this industry.

The Russian authorities at all levels could not be determined yet what to manage, under the market conditions, in such a versatile and difficult sphere of activity as commercial fisheries. This, in turn, would not let overcome the existing critical situation here. In the meantime, the total area of the 200-mile exclusive economic zone - 5.1 million kilometers square - positions Russia within the first 5 leading nations. Our country occupies the first place in the world with its stocks of pollock, sturgeon and crab; the second place - on salmon, cod, herring, capelin; and would not be next best to its neighbors on other species. Possible landings of fish and seafoods only within the 200-mile economic zone of Russia, depending on the status of the wild stocks, can make from 4.5 up to 6.5 million tons, and taking into account the research conducted by our scientists in other parts of the world's ocean, up to 9-10 million tons. With this estimation we are also among the 3 leading nations of the world.

As far as the actual landings, Russia, as was already mentioned, during the years of perestroika and reforms cut drastically on its landings from 7.8 million tons in 1990 (volume of landing in the ex-USSR equaled 11 million tons) down to 4.7 million tons in 1997 and further down to 4.5 million tons in 1998. With that figure we occupy the 7-8th place in the world after China, Peru, Japan, Chile, USA, India and Indonesia. If during the Soviet times our share in international fisheries made 10-12 % (1-2nd place), now it hardly achieves 4 % (8th place).

As for the consumption of fish products, here we are cast off sown to the evel of the countries with almost continental territory. In 1997-1998 the per capita consumption of fish on the average in Russia plummeted to 9-10 kg against 18-22 kg in the nearest past. For comparison, in such countries as Norway, Denmark, Iceland, Japan, Spain, France, England, Italy, Canada and others, this figure exceeds 25 kg. Even such country as the United States with huge poultry and stock breeding industries, the last years displayed the increase in per capita consumption of fish and seafoods up to 23 kg. It is mostly due to the highest quality of food and curative properties of sea products, as well as their ecological cleanliness. The latter factor becomes especially attractive to the consumer and many firms of Iceland, Greenland and Norway advertise fish production as based on raw material extracted "in the coldest and purest northern waters". No less important is the fact that the average life expectancy appears the greatest just in those countries where the fish and seafoods are consumed the most - Japan, Iceland and Norway. Besides, in Japan which is among the leaders on fish consumption (up to 65-70 kg) and on life expectancy (77-85 years), the least numbers of heart-vascular diseases, as well as the least numbers of gray-haired men and women are registered. Many scientists believe this to be connected to the eating culture.

During the last decade of the XX century, some three directions of forming and using the resource base of fisheries pronounced themselves in the world as foundations for stable development of national fisheries.

The first direction is accelerated formation of resource base of the fishing industry with the help of scientific and technical achievements in the field of bioengineering and aquaculture. The leaders of this direction are China (grows over 20 million tons of fish in fresh water) and Norway (accordingly, over 350 thousand tons of salmon in sea water).

The second direction is a transition of a number of countries, while exploiting the main targeted species in their respective 200-mile zones, from traditional intensive extraction to more sparing, controlled mode of fishing on the basis of the best scientific data and with the application of the cautious approach principle. To the highest degree these criteria are followed by Iceland, United States and other countries. In the last decade, the catch volumes in the U.S. and Iceland were characterized by stability that testifies to overall correctness of the selected modus operandi for the exploitation and management of the main resources in their respective zones.

The third direction is all about following the pattern of traditional use of natural resource base of fisheries, generated during the in the years past WW2, when the harvesting intensity is increased with the natural growth of the target species stocks, and slowed down to a complete standstill when the stocks show the signs of depletion. Among the adherents of this direction one may name Japan, Peru, Chile and number of other countries. It becomes obvious, that while aspiring to steady development of a national fish industry the majority of nations on the threshold of the XXI century conduct intensive work for developing accelerated purpose-oriented establishment of resource base on the account of freshwater and marine aquaculture and management of their marine resources within their 200-mile zones on the basis of the best scientific data and sparing mode of operation of the main target species with the use of the cautious approach principle. Unfortunately, in these major directions, especially in aquaculture, the domestic fishing industry is lagging far behind the world process. Stable development of Russian fishing industry in the XXI century will depend much on our ability to determine as fast as we can the mechanisms of overcoming this back lag.

From a little over 2500 high seas fishing vessels available in Russia, capable of operating in the most remote oceanic waters, over 80 % were designed and constructed to meet the tasks set by the planned-distributive system. Their majority not only used up their depreciation terms, but also long ceased to correspond to the new economic realities, as well as the latest trends in the world's shipbuilding. At present, within the 200-mile zone many countries use, as a rule, small and medium size fishing vessels. But it does not mean that the international fisheries depart from building large oceanic harvesters. On the contrary, relying on the former Soviet experience a number of European and American fish and seafood producers recently introduced in operation a new generation of large ocean class vessels with daily harvesting and processing capacities of up to 300-500 tons. According to the mass media, these vessels successfully work in market conditions. In the meantime, the Russian commercial fisheries more and more gravitating toward the exclusive use of small and medium size fleet in fishing operations within the 200-mile zone, can find themselves behind the rest of the game in mastering the resources of the open ocean, as we have ceased to build modern oceanic vessels.

According to the forecasts by the experts of UN Food and Agriculture Organization, the demand for fish products in the XXI century will grow constantly, and the gap between supply and demand already now makes no less than 10-15 million tons. In that connection and in view of transition to the market of the majority of nations, the rigid competition for resources of the world's ocean escalates as the important component of food security of any country. This can be testified by the statement made by the U.S. President Bill Clinton in the address before the Congress and the American public regarding the "Strategy of National Security" where he emphasizes that "the further competition between the countries for usage of natural riches, such as pure air, fertile soils, fish stocks etc., that were earlier considered free-of-charge, represents significant threat for regional stability in the world". It is essential, that by their value the fish resources are placed in the third position after the air and the fertile soils. The constant replacement of the Russian fleet from many areas of world's ocean also testifies to the aggravating competition for fish resources. Certainly, some of the areas were abandoned by our fleet due to the changing economic models. However, the constant reduction of fishing quotas for Russia in the Northern Atlantic for harvesting ocean perch, herring, turbot and other kinds of fish, and also in areas of Africa - on a jack mackerel and mackerel speaks books about insufficient attention to these questions on the part of federal bodies.

Notwithstanding the special hearings held thrice by Russian Government in the last year concerning the state of affairs in the fishing industry, there is no clear cut policy in the field of commercial fisheries in Russia. It is known, however, that this question constantly is a center of attention for governments, parliaments and public of the leading nations of the globe. Thus, the countries of the European Union every three years correct the fishing policy. After coming in effect of basic international documents, such as the UN Convention on Maritime Law and the UN Agreement on Transboundary Fish Stocks and Migrating Fish Stocks (Russia ratified them), in the leading countries of the world the legislation in the field of the fishing industry is being reconsidered and the laws are developed which will determine the path for developing national fisheries in the XXI century. Unfortunately, in that respect also Russia lags desperately behind. The law on fisheries and protection of marine biological resources, having been waiting in State Duma already for more than four years, both in its name and content is more oriented toward the de-escalation of the national fishing industry, rather than its growth. It stipulates the paid use of resources located within our own 200-mile zone, tenders and auctions for sale of resources to Russian fisheries industrialists, which is not present in any foreign fishing legislation of any country with the advanced market economy. Many good questions are left up to the discretion of government and federal bodies. There are no clearly defined rights for the coastal subjects of the Federation, and the authority to use the resources is split among and for the benefit of the central bodies. The mode of "three controllers" is preserved still, when three bodies - F.B.G.S., State Committee of Fisheries ("Goskomrybolovstvo") and State Committee of Ecology are engaged in supervision of the fishing industry simultaneously. Such lingering approach under the varying emerging market conditions will constrain development of the fishing industry of the coastal regions of Russia and create confusion in decision-making on applied issues of economic activity for companies, organizations and institutions.

At the Congress of Russian Fishing Industry Workers about 25 serious offers were put forward to the attention of the Russian Government. Besides, the Clearing Chamber of the Federal Assembly brought about 30 recommendations for improvement of the industry's operations. The realization of these offers will allow to develop the Concept of National Fisheries Policy as a systematic process, engaging participation of the regions, the state and the fish industrialists. Without such document the positive course of reforming in the fishing industry of Russia is impossible.

The basis of the Concept of National Fisheries Policy of Russia for the most immediate perspective could be formed of the following statements:

- federal regulation and management of marine biological resources on the basis of the best scientific data with the optimum state financing of forecast research, resource base monitoring and control over commercial fisheries;

- complete use of marine biological resources within the national 200-mile economic zone and continental shelf by the legal entities and natural persons of Russia;

- creation of incentives for Russian fisheries industrialists with the purposes of filling the home market by domestic fish products;

- realization of reasonable policy of trade protectionism in relation to the certain mass fish products for the poorest strata of the population and enforcement structures, produced by domestic fisheries industrialists; removal in the transitive period of the import duties on modern fishing vessels, technological and other equipment appropriate to the international standards;

- protectionist policy of the state concerning sea fisheries and development of coastal infrastructures in separate Northern and Eastern remote regions of Russia through the mechanisms of crediting in taxation policy, and also by creating favorable conditions for workers and scientific personnel of the industry to stay in those areas;

- accelerated development of aquaculture with state support for pilot modular developments and formation of new private joint-stock companies in this area;

- wide international cooperation in the sphere of stable exploitation of marine resources.

It is unconditional, that for all that to take place, the government has to determine the main component of the national fisheries policy of Russia - the set goal of its fisheries industry, i. e. the very ideology, toward which all the activities of the operating subjects will be subordinated. In my profound belief, as target aim of the fishing industry's activity in this country, under modern conditions and in future, it is suggested to accept the criterion of the home market saturation by domestic fish products by no less than 80 % of the standard recommended by the Food Institute of The Medical Sciences Academy, at the rate of the average per capita consumption. The remaining 20 % can be covered on the account of import, which is inevitable under the open market conditions. This approach will not only promote the development of the national fisheries industry, but also strengthen the food security of Russia. As to the external market and, hence, export, here Russian fisheries industrialists not only aught to keep the already won positions, but also to solidify them although not through the abundance of raw materials and semi-finished items, but through the release of ready products with a higher value, that will allow to receive additional currency receipts in the country.