B -23 



as well in the Antarctic Sealing Convention, which would be a 

 precedent . 



And I think Article II in that convention has — it's 

 a disclaimer in fact — it goes about setting up the regime 

 and the mechanism — and then there is a disclaimer on it 

 which basically says that the provisions of Article IV are 

 not prejudiced by this regime. 



That's a possibility, and then you would just do the 

 rational kind of conservation regime that you, hopefully, 

 could negotiate. That's a possibility. 



But it remains to be seen just how it all comes out — 

 but that's the way it came up in the Sealing Convention. 



MS. SCHARLIN: Are there other alternatives that you 

 might have to be worked out? In other words, in terms of the 

 reaction of a certain -- of the claimant states — would there 

 be other alternatives in dealing with this? 



MS. BAILLY: Well I think that is a point. 



MS. SCHARLIN: That seems to be one — I get the feeling, 

 you know -- "what else?" 



MS. BAILLY: I think at this point we are obviously not 

 going to recognize some kind of 200 mile zone given the United 

 States position. 



CHAIRMAN BREWSTER: That's one alternative which several 

 countries have asked us to embrace. We have declined to move 

 to their position — and will continue to decline. 



MS. BAILLY: Well I think, given this agreed recommen- 

 dation, it was unanimously agreed upon, that kind of approach 

 could be anticipated. 



DR. AUBURN: Has somebody got an idea of what the actual 

 annual catches were of krill -- of either the Soviet Union 

 or Japan — or even over the last five years? Have you any 

 figures on that? 



COMMENT: I think they are relatively slight. 



The Russian one varies from something like the recent 

 years of 2,000; perhaps up to 10,000. 



The Japanese is perhaps one or two thousand. 



