|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
At the last CITES COP 10, Japan proposed the same downlistings but could not get the two-thirds majority vote needed to achieve the downlistings. Opponents argued that as long as the IWC maintains a whaling moratorium (ban on commercial whaling), CITES should follow such decision and should not allow the downlisting of whale species listed in Appendix I. This argument was led by anti-whaling nations such as the U.S., U.K., Australia, New Zealand, etc., and might have been justified if adoption of the moratorium had a scientific basis. But that was not the case at all. In 1982, the IWC (International Whaling Commission) adopted a blanket moratorium on commercial whaling for all species, no matter how abundant such resources were. The IWC originally started with 15 nations. By 1982, anti-whaling nations and NGOs recruited more than 20 nations to get enough votes to pass the blanket whaling moratorium. IWC's Scientific Committee never recommended such a moratorium because the scientists were convinced that whaling could be managed stock by stock and it was not necessary to ban all whaling. The FAO also commented that the moratorium had no scientific grounds. |
||||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
