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

Norway emphasised its long-standing policy of scientific management on a stock by stock basis, which does not accord with the present proposal. It also questioned the legality of the only criterion proposed for determining if whaling should continue, that of it being commercial or not.

Spain supported the views of Japan and Norway, believing that such general and political decisions should defer to science. Peru shared similar views, and the USSR also concurred, adding that such a disguised ban on whaling undermines co-operation within the Commission, would reduce research activities, and called the future of the Commission into doubt. The Republic of Korea also opposed the proposal since it lacked a convincing scientific basis, and it believes the present protection ensures that there is no clear risk of depleting any whale stock.

South Africa spoke as a nation which stopped whaling in 1975 and has subsequently strengthened its national legislation to protect cetaceans. It has contributed towards intensified research and attempts to take a responsible attitude. But there is no clear scientific basis for a moratorium and it would therefore abstain. Mexico stressed its strong conservation position, but would also abstain because of the sovereignty of states within their coastal zones.

Argentina emphasised the need to find a mid-point between the opposing views, while New Zealand called for the benefit of the expressed scientific doubt and uncertainty to be given to the whales.

Brazil stated that it is phasing out its whaling operations but reserved the right to continue in the meantime, and Chile also indicated that it will take no more whales.

Finally, the USA affirmed its continuing commitment to whale protection and an indefinite moratorium on commercial whaling in a message from its President. This position is backed by administrative powers to take action against non-cooperating nations.

On being put to the vote, the proposal received 16 in favour, 8 against, with 3 abstentions, and therefore failed to reach the three-quarters majority necessary to amend the Schedule.

7.2 Indefinite Ban on Commercial Whaling in the North Atlantic
The Technical Committee recommended, by a majority vote, an amendment to the Schedule proposed by the UK designed to introduce a commercial moratorium in the North Atlantic area. This was seconded in Plenary Session by Sweden and the USA.

The UK stated that in its view the failure of the overall moratorium proposal made it even more important that this North Atlantic proposal be adopted. It believes that the data base is worse in the North Atlantic than some other areas and yet substantial catch limits are set for the whaling operations. It noted that fin and sei whales are only caught in this area and it believes that the only prudent course of action is for a moratorium to be instituted.

This view was supported by the USA, who reviewed the history of whaling in the North Atlantic and pointed to the closure of many operations through depletion of the stocks. Jamaica expressed its conviction by this account, and Sweden also voiced its support because of the lack of data, to implement the CITES decision on fin and sei whales and because of the non-IWC whaling in the area.

Iceland spoke against the proposal, arguing that the reasons advanced against a total moratorium are equally applicable in this case. It sees it as a discriminatory measure with no scientific basis. The Icelandic whaling operation since 1948 has been very severely limited by government controls, leading to stable catches and recommendations from the Scientific Committee for continuing catch quotas.

Denmark and Spain also noted the geographical discrimination of the proposal and Spain stated its concern for conservation in the North Atlantic. This concern is reflected in its strict control over catches and the collection and provision of data since joining the Commission in 1979. It would prefer to see other conservation measures based on scientific evidence.

The proposal received 15 votes in favour, with 8 votes against and 4 abstentions. It therefore was not adopted as an amendment to the Schedule, since it did not achieve the necessary three-quarters majority.

7.3 Commercial Moratorium on Pelagic Catch of Minke Whales
A French proposal to ban the taking of minke whales by factory ships after the 1983/84 season was adopted by a majority vote in the Technical Committee, and was seconded in the plenary session by Jamaica.

France commented that minke whales are now the most heavily exploited of the great whales, that females are reproducing at an earlier age and it believes that there may be an increase in perinatal mortality. Comparison with other species suggests that there could be problems of mortality and reproduction which, related to calculations of MSY, all give reason for taking cautious action in setting catch limits while necessary research goes on so as to avoid minke whales meeting with the same fate as blue and humpback whales. It believes that the best course of action is to delay the imposition of the ban on catching, to allow time for redeployment of the fleets affected.

Japan considered that the proposal was an insult to its delegation, considering the efforts its Government has made to obtain knowledge of this species in the international programmes which have been mounted in the Southern Hemisphere. It regarded the French proposal to be contradictory, since it does not advocate zero catch but rather an end to factory ship operations, which is also a discriminatory procedure.

The USSR agreed with Japan that there is no scientific basis for a moratorium, since the scientific evidence on minke whales is the best for all whales and they are in robust condition. The USA indicated that it believes there is scientific information available supporting the moratorium proposal, and South Africa spoke of its active participation in the minke whale surveys which have shown the stocks to be comparatively large. It suggested the uncertainties in assessment could be taken into account when setting catch limits.

The proposal was then put to the vote, but failed to receive the three-quarters majority necessary to amend the Schedule, with 13 votes in favour, 9 against and 5 abstentions.

7.4 Commercial Catching of Sperm Whales
A composite proposal from France, the Netherlands, Seychelles and the UK to amend the Schedule so as to set catch limits for sperm whales at zero as a provisional measure and subject to review at any time was adopted by the Technical Committee on a majority vote.

The Seychelles, speaking on behalf of the four countries, identified this action as an appropriate response to the depletion of some stocks and the uncertainty of assessments. It noted that there are readily available substitutes for sperm whale oil, and international concern has led to trade in sperm products being prohibited by CITES and the import of sperm whale products will also be banned by the EEC from 1982.

Iceland pointed out that the Scientific Committee had recommended caution and catch limits no greater than those set last year, and Japan considered that each stock should be looked at individually. This view was shared by Norway and Spain.

When the proposal came before the Plenary Session, the Netherlands on behalf of the four proposers put forward an amendment designed to overcome difficulties expressed by some delegations. This was seconded by Jamaica and supported by the UK despite its preference for the original moratorium proposal.

The amendment took the form of a new paragraph to replace paragraphs 16 and 17 of the Schedule:

'Catch limits for sperm whales of both sexes shall be set at zero in the Southern Hemisphere for the 1981/82 pelagic season and 1982 coastal seasons and following seasons, and at zero in the Northern Hemisphere for the 1982 and following coastal seasons; except that the catch limits for the 1982 coastal season and following seasons in the Western Division of the North Pacific shall remain undetermined and subject to decision by the Commission following special or annual meetings of the Scientific Committee. These limits shall remain in force until such time as the Commission, on the basis of the scientific information which will be reviewed annually, decides otherwise in accordance with the procedures followed at that time by the Commission.'

It was suggested that this amendment be reflected by zero in Table 3 of the Schedule, except for the Western Division of the North Pacific which will remain undetermined, marked with a dash and with the following footnote:

'No whales may be taken from this stock until catch limits including any limitations on size and sex are established by the Commission.'

Japan proposed a special meeting at a time and place to be agreed by the Commission and stated that its government was prepared to host the Special Meeting of the Commission if agreed. Several delegations expressed their view that the Special Meeting would be more conveniently held in England, and it was left to the Secretary to make the necessary arrangements for a Special Scientific Meeting and a Special Meeting of the Commission about March 1982. The Commission also agreed to the Japanese suggestion that the Scientific Committee should be instructed specifically to consider the effect of the present catch on the Western Division stock of sperm whales in the North Pacific.

The amended proposal was then put to the vote and received the necessary three-quarters majority to amend the Schedule, with 25 votes in favour, 1 against and 3 abstentions.

Chile stated that its vote in favour did not pre-judge its position regarding coastal state jurisdiction.

Iceland then asked for the 1981 sperm whale catch limit in the North Atlantic of 130 to be spread over two years, 1981 and 1982, as a means to facilitate the industry's adjustment to a ban on sperm whaling. This was expressed in the form of a footnote to Table 3 of the Schedule to read:

'Provided that the remainder of 130 male sperm whales from the 1981 coastal season may be taken during the 1982 coastal season.'

This wording was suggested by the Seychelles, seconded by France and Spain, and adopted unanimously by the Commission.

_