6. WORLD-WIDE BAN ON WHALING

(from "Chairman's Report of the Thirty-First Annual Meeting")


Two main proposals had been submitted under this agenda item; Australia seeking to bring an end to all whaling and the USA proposing a moratorium on the commercial killing of whales until serious flaws in the design and practice of the Commission's current conservation programme have been remedied.

The Scientific Committee had noted that both proposals involve a blanket approach to management, rather than taking action based on the state of each individual stock which has been the policy of the Commission in recent years. Members of the Scientific Committee saw some advantages and some disadvantages in the two proposals, but there was no agreement on the overall effect of a moratorium on the pace of research leading to a better understanding of whale biology.

The Technical Committee, after extensive discussion, recommended by a majority decision an amendment to the Schedule and a supporting Resolution designed to stop whaling until there is in effect a conservation proposal which will ensure the survival of whales. This motion, proposed by the USA and seconded by Sweden, received strong support from some members although other drew attention to legal problems, the resulting economic hardships and lack of scientific support.

Panama, seconded by Sweden, proposed an amendment to the proposal which had the effect of considering the moratorium in two parts; one dealing with factory-ship whaling and the other with land station operations. Denmark, seconded by Chile, further amended the first part to exclude minke whales and this was agreed by the Commission. The final proposal was thus to add to paragraph 8 of the Schedule the following sub-paragraph:

8 (d) Notwithstanding the other provisions of paragraph 8:
(i)
there shall be a moratorium on the taking, killing or treating of whales excluding minke whales by factory-ships or whale catchers attached to factory-ships
(ii)
there shall be a moratorium on the taking, killing or treating of whales by land stations or whale catchers attached to land stations except as provided for in paragraph 11.
In addition, in Tables 1 and 2 of the Schedule all non-zero catches would be changed to zero and an accompanying Resolution set out the conditions necessary to end the moratorium.

The two sections of the new sub-paragraph were put to the vote separately. The first, on factory-ship whaling, received the necessary three-quarters majority to amend the Schedule, with 18 votes in favour, 2 against and 3 abstentions. However, the second on land stations failed to obtain a sufficient majority, with 11 votes for, 5 against and 7 abstentions.

In this situation the proposed amendments to Tables 1 and 2 and the Resolution were no longer appropriate and so no further action was taken on them.

Both Japan and the USSR registered their resentment and displeasure at what they regarded as a discriminatory measure. The Commission then adopted a two part Recommendation (Appendix 1) proposed by Denmark, seconded by Australia, which the Technical Committee had approved by a majority for the first part and by consensus for the second. Put forward by Australia, this recommended consideration of questions related to implementation of a ban on whaling and to obtain data on the social and economic trends in the whaling industry. Japan registered its dissent to the first part.

It was agreed that a Technical Committee Working Group will meet in the week prior to the 32nd Annual Meeting of the Commission to consider these questions.

_