« ÎnapoiContinuați »
figure was admittedly an informed estimate of the maximum sustainable yield of the stock, since precise figures on existing populations were lacking. Relatively few of these small whales had been previously taken. Nonetheless, the quota represented the best judgment of the scientific advisors and was duly adopted by the member nations. The Soviet Union and Japan voted against this quota. They said the figure should be 8,000, and formally objected to the quota. They then announced that each would take 4,000 minke whales during the 1973-1974 season. In fact, the Soviet Union took 4,000 and Japan took 3,713. This represented an excess of 2,713, or approximately 50 percent over quota.
To date, no prohibition has been imposed under the terms of the Pelly amendment. I have decided to impose no such prohibition at this time. My decision is based upon the results of this year's meeting of the IWC in London. At this meeting, most of the member nations adopted an Australian amendment to the United States 10-year moratorium resolution. The amended resolution establishes the principle of a selective moratorium applicable to any stocks of whales which fall below their maximum sustainable yield levels or optimum population levels as these are determined. In effect, the selective moratorium shall prevent any whale stock from becoming endangered. According to its terms, the resolution shall be implemented in the 1975 1976 whaling conservation measures fixed by the IWC next year.
The June meeting also produced an agreement to strengthen the Secretariat and to convene a working level meeting to consider changes in the International Whaling Convention itself. In addition, the Commission's quotas for the 1974–1975 season incorporated some conservation improvements not included in the quotas for the last season. The Soviets and Japanese voted for the 1974–1975 quotas and, in general, appeared to be more conciliatory than during previous meetings. They, therefore, provided some hope that all member nations would comply with the resolution and with the 1974–1975 quotas.
There is, of course, the serious economic impact of trade sanctions to consider, particularly in the case of Japan, which in 1973 shipped $235 million in fishery products, 36 percent (in dollar value) of its fishery exports, to the United States. Domes. tically, withdrawal of Japanese imports, amounting to about 11 percent of our supplies, would result in higher prices for fish products.
Because of the important economic and political ramifications of such sanctions, they should be imposed only after all reasonable alternatives for the achievement of the conservation objective have proven ineffective. With the progress made at this year's IWC meeting, the current situation does not warrant such stringent measures and, therefore, I am taking no action
There is, of course, the possibility that subsequent action by Japan or the U.S.S.R. may require a reassessment. In this event I will expect the Secretary of Commerce to submit such reports
and recommendations as he finds warranted. The Secretary's present certification, prepared by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, recommends the course of action I have decided on.
Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp. 55–56; Cong. Rec., Vol. 121, No. 3, Jan. 16, 1975 (daily ed.).
On July 1, 1975, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, signed March 3, 1973, entered into force, following ratification by 10 countries, including the United States. The Convention is the first international convention designed to protect imperiled species of animals and plants by limiting trade therein.
For further information concerning the Convention and the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (P.L. 93–205; 87 Stat. 884), approved Dec. 28, 1973, which implements it, see the 1973 Digest, pp. 423-425. See S. Ex. H, 93d Cong., 1st Sess., for the text of the Convention and the Dept. of State report thereon.
On November 28, 1975, President Ford transmitted to the Senate, for advice and consent to ratification, the Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears, done at Oslo November 15, 1973 (S. Ex. I, 94th Congress, 1st Session). The Agreement, the first on the subject, was negotiated by the five circumpolar nations, the United States, Canada, Denmark, Norway, and the Soviet Union, and will enter into force when three of them have deposited instruments of ratification, approval, or accession. It prohibits the parties from hunting, killing or capturing polar bears, subject to specified exceptions. One such exception allows the taking of polar bears wherever they "have or might have been subject to taking by traditional means" by nationals of a contracting party. Taking is also permitted for bona fide scientific purposes, for conservation purposes, or to prevent serious disturbance of other living resources. The Agreement provides for the countries involved to cooperate and consult with one another on research involving management and conservation of polar bears.
In his message to the Senate, President Ford stated that no new legislation was required to implement the Agreement, since the protections of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 exceed the requirements of the Agreement.
For the President's message of transmittal, the text of the Agreement, and the Report of the Department of State with respect to it, see S. Ex. I, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. The Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (P.L. 92–522, 86 Stat. 1027, 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) provides in sec. 108 (16 U.S.C. 1378) for development of bilateral or multilateral agreements for the protection and conservation of marine mammals. Polar bears are specifically included in the Act's definition of marine mammal (16 U.S.C. 1362).
On December 17, 1975, President Ford transmitted to the Senate for advice and consent to ratification the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Seals, with Annex, done at London June 1, 1972 (S. Ex. K, 94th Cong., 1st Sess.). The Convention resulted from the efforts of the parties to the Antarctic Treaty (TIAS 4780; 12 UST 794; entered into force for the United States June 23, 1961) to provide protection for seals in the water and on the sea ice in Antarctica. In his message to the Senate, President Ford stated:
Though commercial sealing has not yet begun in the water and on the sea ice in Antarctica, this Convention provides some valuable protection for seals of that region. It prohibits entirely the commercial taking of three species of Antarctic seals and sets conservative limits on three others. It prohibits sealing in the water, except in limited quantities for scientific research. It sets aside reserves where no sealing can take place and forbids sealing entirely during six months of the year. More importantly, it sets up the machinery for giving the necessary warning when catch limits are being approached and obligates the parties at that point to prevent further sealing by their nationals and vessels. Provision is also made for adoption of additional controls, including an effective system of inspection, if commercial sealing begins in the area. There is nothing in the Convention to prevent a party from adopting for its nationals and vessels more stringent controls than provided in the Convention. This the United States has done in the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972. While that legislation is operative, and until the parties decide to adopt controls and inspection procedures, in accordance with Article VI, no new legislation is needed to implement the Agreement.
this Convention represents a unique opportunity for the world community to ... act prospectively to protect the seals of Antarctica.
The Marine Mammal Protection Act was approved Oct. 21, 1972 (P.L. 92_522; 86 Stat. 1027; 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.)..
The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland in Fouke Company v. Mandel, et al., Civil No. 73–1047-K, held on December 5, 1974, that a Maryland statute prohibiting commercial importation of sealskins into the State was unconstitutional because it
conflicted with Federal policies bespoken by a treaty, the Interim Convention on Conservation of North Pacific Fur Seals (TIAS 3948; 8 UST 2283; entered into force for the United States October 14, 1957), as well as by the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, 16 U.S.C. 1361, 1379, and the Fur Seal Act of 1966, 16 U.S.C. 1151 et seq.
Plaintiffs, a sealskin processor and a fur trade association, had challenged the constitutionality of the State statute in the light of the supremacy clause of the Constitution. The Court granted standing on the basis of injury in fact and a showing that plaintiffs were within the zone of interests protected by the Federal statute. The Court found that Congress had adopted a policy of permitting commercial seal fur business on a shared basis with other nations in the belief that controlled harvesting to eliminate surplus animals would better protect seal herds than would a total ban on pelagic sealing, and that the Maryland statute would frustrate that policy. Additionally, the Court held that the import permit system under the Marine Mammal Protection Act preempted any State control over importation, regardless of the fact that 16 U.S.C. 1379, per se, did not evince a congressional intent to preempt State importation laws.
Thirty-five states, including the United States, signed the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) at Helsinki on August 1, 1975, which contains the following statement on environmental cooperation:
The participating states,
Affirming that the protection and improvement of the environment, as well as the protection of nature and the rational utilization of its resources in the interests of present and future generations, is one of the tasks of major importance to the well-being of peoples and the economic development of all countries and that many environmental problems, particularly in Europe, can be solved effectively only through close international cooperation,
Acknowledging that each of the participating states, in accordance with the principles of international law, ought to ensure, in a spirit of cooperation, that activities carried out on its territory do not cause degradation of the environment in another state or in areas lying beyond the limits of national jurisdiction,
Considering that the success of any environmental policy presupposes that all population groups and social forces, aware of their responsibilities, help to protect and improve the environment, which necessitates continued and thorough educative action, particularly with regard to youth,
Affirming that experience has shown that economic development and technological progress must be compatible with the protection of the environment and the preservation of historical and cultural values; that damage to the environment is best avoided by preventive measures; and that the ecological balance: must be preserved in the exploitation and management of natural Aims of cooperation
Agree to the following aims of cooperation, in particular: --to study, with a view to their solution, those environmental problems which, by their nature, are of a multilateral, bilateral, regional or subregional dimension; as well as to encourage the development of an interdisciplinary approach to environmental problems;
-to increase the effectiveness of national and international measures for the protection of the environment, by the comparison and, if appropriate, the harmonization of methods of gathering and analyzing facts, by improving the knowledge of pollution phenomena and rational utilization of natural re sources, by the exchange of information, by the harmonization of definitions and the adoption, as far as possible, of a common terminology in the field of the environment;
-to take the necessary measures to bring environmental policies closer together and, where appropriate and possible, to harmonize them;
-to encourage, where possible and appropriate, national and international efforts by their interested organizations, enterprises and firms in the develop ment, production and improvement of equipment designed for monitoring, protecting and enhancing the environment. Fields of cooperation
To attain these aims, the participating states will make use of every suitable opportunity to cooperate in the field of environment and, in particular, within the areas described below as examples:
Control of air pollution
Desulphurization of fossil fuels and exhaust gases; pollution control of heavy metals, particles, aerosols, nitrogen oxides, in particular those emitted by transport, power stations, and other industrial plants; systems and methods of observation and control of air pollution and its effects, including long range transport of air pollutants;
Water pollution control and fresh water utilization
Prevention and control of water pollution, in particular of transboundary rivers and international lakes; techniques for the improvement of the quality of water and further development of ways and means for industrial and municipal sewage effluent purification; methods of assessment of fresh water resources and the improvement of their utilization, in particular by developing methods of production which are less polluting and lead to less consumption of fresh water;
Protection of the marine environment
Protection of the marine environment of participating states, and especially the Mediterranean Sea, from pollutants emanating from land-based sources and those from ships and other vessels, notably the harmful substances listed in Annexes I and II to the London Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by the Dumping of Wastes and Other Matters; problems of maintaining marine ecological balances and food chains, in particular such problems as may arise from the exploration and exploitation of biological and mineral resources of the seas and the seabed; Land utilization and soils
Problems associated with more effective use of lands, including land amelioration, reclamation and recultivation; control of soil pollution, water and air erosion, as well as other forms of soil degradation; maintaining and increasing the productivity of soils with due regard for the possible negative effects of the application of chemical fertilizers and pesticides; Nature conservation and nature reserves
Protection of nature and nature reserves; conservation and maintenance of existing genetic resources, especially rare animal and plant species; conservation of natural ecological systems; establishment of nature reserves and other protected landscapes and areas, including their use for research, tourism, recreation and other purposes;
Improvement of environmental conditions in areas of human settlement
Environmental conditions associated with transpurt, housing, working areas, urban development and planning, water supply and sewage disposal systems; assessment of harmful effects of noise, and noise control methods; collection, treatment and utilization of wastes, including the recovery and recycling of materials; research on substitutes for nonbiodegradable substances;