9. MORATORIUM ON THE TAKING OF SPERM WHALES (1980)

9. MORATORIUM ON THE TAKING OF SPERM WHALES

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

Following the failure of the proposal for a moratorium on all commercial whaling to receive sufficient support to be adopted by the Commission, the Technical Committee discussed a proposal for a moratorium on sperm whaling. After long discussion it recommended by a majority vote an amendment to the Schedule proposed by the Seychelles for zero quotas for sperm whales, to remain in force for three years from 1980/81 in the Southern Hemisphere and 1981 in the Northern Hemisphere.

The Scientific Committee believed that it had made some qualitative advances in the development and testing of assessment techniques this year, but the Seychelles stated that the new analyses had not added much confidence to the results in general. These confirmed that the Western North Pacific and Southern Hemisphere Division 9 stocks should be protected. In the North Atlantic there were insufficient data available to allow the stock to be classified, and there is a huge inequity in the way in which the Commission regulates the catches in the North Atlantic and North Pacific, where Japan has supplied sufficient data for an adequate assessment.

The Seychelles proposed an amendment, seconded by the USA, which changed the date of introduction of the three year moratorium on sperm whaling to the 1981/82 season in the Southern Hemisphere and the 1982 season in the Northern Hemisphere.

Japan stated its opposition to the proposal. In the North Pacific sperm whales are only taken in the Japanese coastal fishery which extends over only 4% of the North Western part of the ocean. The new analytical model has been questioned by some scientists, but even that estimated the exploitable sperm whale population in the region to number over 190,000 whales. It therefore believes that the current catch limit which represents 0.7% of the exploitable population size is not unreasonable. In addition, member Governments must give serious thought to any proposed changes which have implications for coastal state jurisdiction.

Sweden and the Netherlands commented on the problems of global commons and coastal state jurisdiction which they believe must be considered together and within appropriate international bodies where the question of possible extinction of stocks is concerned.

The Republic of Korea stated that it does not believe that a moratorium is appropriate or based on an objective approach.

The amended proposal received 14 votes in favour and 6 against, with 4 abstentions. This was insufficient for the three-quarters majority necessary to change the Schedule. The original proposal for an immediate three year moratorium was then voted on, and received the same numbers of votes and thus was not adopted.