さあ！諸君！捕鯨問題だ！

M2. A STATEMENT ON MORATORIUM PROPOSALS
K. R. Allen, D. Butterworth, P. B. Best, M. Cawthorn, M. Fraker, F. O. Kapel,
E. Murphy, T. Oritsland* and C. J. Rorvik* (*は斜線の入ったO)

(a) We do not believe that the degree or nature of the
uncertainties are the same for all whale stocks, or that all
the currently exploited stocks are quantitatively in the
same condition. Hence a stock-by-stock approach rather
than a blanket moratorium is the appropriate course of
action.

(b) Although it is difficult for the Scientific Committee to
classify all stocks currently exploited, or to set catch limits
based on unequivocal estimates of replacement yield, it
does not necessarily follow that these stocks have to be
completely protected to avoid excessive depletion. The
Commission has frequently set interim catch limits and
stock classifications which are not strictly compatible with
the NMP, and we feel there is sufficient flexibility within
the Commission to allow for the setting of conservative
catch limits where necessary.

(c) One problem that faces the Scientific Committee is
that while it is only right that scientific uncertainties should
be exposed where they exist, these have to be somehow
reconciled with the provision of useful advice to the
Commission. Some of the uncertainties only arise during
the meeting when there is insufficient time to determine
their significance and where further work might relatively
easily establish their importance. As a consequence the
Scientific Committee's report tends to be inconclusive or
equivocal on many issues, when a little more time or effort
might have produced a more balanced conclusion. The
assessment of any wildlife population contains uncertalnties,
and it obviously would not be right for the Scientific
Committee to hide these, but the question that concerns us
is whether it is right for the Committee to forward these
uncertainties directly to the Commission without any
attempt at balancing or evaluating them.

(d) The possible effect of a moratorium on our knowledge
of the dynamics of currently exploited whale stocks
obviously depends on the level of research effort that will
be mounted in the absence of a fishery. Previous
experience has shown that protection of a stock usually
results in a substantial drop in the amount of incoming
data, and in the level of effort directed at assessing the
stock. If the moratorium is to be a useful scientific exercise,
we must be sure that there is the possibility of obtaining the
information that we require on the population dynamics of
protected populations, otherwise when the moratorium is
lifted our knowledge will not have improved to any great
extent.
We note that in the Indian Ocean Sanctuary research
programme it has been concluded that it is impractical to
obtain the information on population estimation requested
by the Scientific Committee within five years. While
so-called benign research methods have shown great
advances recently, these have so far been confined mainly
to coastal species. It is not clear how practical such an
approach will be for the more inaccessible pelagic species.
In any case we feel such research is a valuable adjunct to,
rather than necessary replacement for, the information
presently coming from the fishery. It is difficult to see, for
instance, how a moratorium will improve our knowledge of
replacement yield in the Southern Hemisphere minke
whale, unless there is a level of research effort substantially
in excess of that currently mounted.