9. Provision for World-Wide Moratorium on Commercial Whaling
(from "Chairman's Report of the Twenty-Fifth Meeting")
The proposal for a moratorium on commercial whaling was considered by the
Scientific Committee and the Technical Committee.
For some years the former had advocated the regulation of the whale stocks
on the basis of individual species.
This was now operative and a start had been made to extend it to the
management of the individual stocks.
The Committee considered that at the present time there was no biological
requirement for the imposition of a blanket moratorium on all commercial
whaling and the majority considered that there was at present no biological
justification for such a moratorium.
The Technical Committee had before it a resolution proposed by the United
States and after discussion it was amended in the light of points made.
It was then seconded by the Argentine and France.
It referred to the concern that all the species of great whales were at
present depleted considerably below their original population levels, due not
only to excessive exploitation but also because knowledge was inadequate to
protect the species, and, in order to provide time that the nations could use
to enhance their knowledge of the ecology and population dynamics of whales
and permit the most rapid recovery of whale populations proposed that the
Commission decide that commercial whaling for all species of cetaceans should
cease for a period of ten years beginning not later than three years from the
date of the adoption of the resolution, except aboriginal catches where they
do not endanger the species.
The resolution was approved by the Committee on a majority vote.
In the plenary session, the Soviet Commissioner repeated his country's
opposition to the resolution on the grounds that it was contrary to the
findings of the Scientific Committee, that it was incompatible with the
Convention and its schedule and would lead to the cessation of the Convention
and to unregulate whaling.
The Japanese Commissioner supported this stating that the moratorium was in
contradiction to the spirit of the Convention.
In moving the adoption of the resolution, the United States Commissioner said
that his delegation would not have proposed the moratorium if it felt it
were in contravention of the Convention and it had reservations in respect
of the recommendations of the Scientific Committee.
The motion was seconded by the Commissioners for the Argentine and France.
Eight countries voted in favour of it, five against and one abstained.
The Chairman declared the motion not carried as it did not achieve the
three-quarters majority of those voting as required by the Rules of Procedure.
_