Paralleling this growing awareness of the need for sustainability is recognition of the importance of human rights doctrines in international law, including international covenants regarding rights to use natural wealth and resources (Part 1, Article 1, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights). These doctrines apply both to indigenous or aboriginal peoples - who are recognised as having inherent rights to natural resources, including subsistence rights - and to non-aboriginal peoples whose livelihoods are dependent upon sustainable use of local resources.

Achieving the widely-recognised goal of sustainable development requires broadening our understanding of human/environment relations, on the one hand, and greater sensitivity toward the importance of marine living resources in the livelihoods of diverse coastal communities around the world, on the other. This Report is based on just such discussions by an International Study Group which met in order to share research results relating to small-type or coastal whaling in a number of different countries around the world, and to discuss how sustainable development in these whaling activities might best be achieved¹.

INTRODUCTION
Under the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW) recognises three categories of whaling: whaling for purposes of commerce; aboriginal subsistence whaling²; and whaling for purposes of scientific research. The IWC is empowered by contracting parties to set harvest quotas for stocks of certain species of whale which are the object of either commercial or aboriginal subsistence whaling operations. For the purposes of regulation, the two categories of commercial whaling and aboriginal subsistence whaling are separate and distinct. The term 'commercial whaling' has never been defined by the IWC. However, in its Schedule the IWC has defined a type of whaling which it calls 'small-type whaling' (STW) as:

"... catching operations using powered vessels with mounted harpoon guns hunting exclusively for minke, bottlenose, beaked, pilot or killer whales"³ (Definitions Section C [General], IWC Schedule).

In contrast to commercial whaling, aboriginal subsistence whaling (ASW) is defined by the IWC as:

"... whaling for purposes of local aboriginal consumption carried out by or on behalf of aboriginal, indigenous or native peoples who share strong community, familial, social and cultural ties related to a continuing traditional dependence on whaling and on the use of whales" (IWC 1981: 3).

This Report is based on an International Study Group's evaluation of a number of case studies of whaling activities (other than for research) in Iceland, Japan and Norway, so that participants might arrive at a greater understanding of the multifaceted role of STW as one mode of production in local societies. The Report thus attempts to address in particular:

The problem of a sustainable development strategy for non-aboriginal peoples conducting Small-Type Whaling and involved in what may be termed Simple Commodity Production.

Firstly, let us look at STW. Discussion and comparison of case studies by the International Study Group have revealed that many coastal whaling communities have important characteristics in common. For example, these communities typically:

• are small and relatively remote;
• rely on a wide range of marine resources for subsistence;
• generally have few land-based resources available;
  and
• have a broad pattern of marine resource harvesting.

Similarly, production units (typically households) and whaling practices in these coastal communities also share many common characteristics. Typically, these include:

• vessels used in coastal whaling are relatively small, and generally are owned and operated by small crews recruited on family or personal connections;
• crew members involved in coastal whaling typically participate in a share system, which may include significant amounts of cash, but which also includes extensive non-cash distribution of edible whale products;
• whale meat is an important local source of nutrition and may also be important in local cultural practices and beliefs; and
• whaling typically contributes to a strong sense of community identity and distinctive cultural traits that may themselves distinguish coastal communities from the larger national cultures in which they are situated.

During the symposium, STW practices in Iceland, Japan and Norway were also compared with ASW practices in Greenland. Under IWC provisions, Greenlanders use fishing vessels to catch minke and fin whales (and until recent quota restrictions, humpback whales), and collective whaling techniques to catch minke whales. Greenlandic whaling is clearly recognised by the IWC as aboriginal subsistence whaling. However, the International Study Group found it useful to compare STW with fishing vessel whaling for minke whalers in Greenland because:

(1)

coastal whaling is clearly permitted as ASW in Greenland: and

(2)

vessel whaling for minke whales in Greenland shares certain features with STW in other communities.

As can be seen in the following Report, it became clear from the International Study Group's discussions that:

(1)

like aboriginal peoples whaling under ASW, non-aboriginal people involved in STW may also share strong communal, familial, social and cultural ties related to a traditional dependence on whaling and the use of whales (IWC 1981: 3).
Yet

(2)

unlike ASW, where indigenous rights to resources are clearly recognised in international law, STW practices are treated by the IWC as simply an undifferentiated form of commercial whaling.
The evidence presented in the symposium reveals that:
Small-Type Whaling in Iceland, Japan and Norway is qualitatively different from both high-seas commercial pelagic whaling and from aboriginal subsistence whaling.

Secondly, let us turn to the issue of simple commodity production. All production throughout the world, including that of hunters and gatherers, has been involved in, and affected by, the world capitalist economy for many years⁴. However, in evaluating STW practices, the International Study Group concluded that in economic terms this form of whaling could, and should, be categorised as what social scientists term simple commodity production - in contrast to a kin-based mode of production in pre-capitalist societies (e.g. most indigenous societies), and to a capitalist mode of production in highly industrialised societies (e.g. high seas pelagic whaling). By 'simple commodity production', we mean that mode of production which is:

"... based on relatively small-scale, simple technology; work groups organized around kinship, friendship, or temporary collegiality but with little difference between owners and laborers; widespread sharing of costs, risks, benefits, and windfalls; and a variable subsistence/market allocation of production" (McCay 1981: 2-3).

Simple commodity production is widely recognised in the social science literature as encompassing artisanal production, particularly in fisheries. This is defined as:

"... ownerships of means of production; profits and losses assumed by the artisan; simple and practical technology; decentralized coastal fishing; reduced operation costs; high production in relation to levels of investment; good-quality fish landed, contributing especially to food self-sufficiency; and finally... the creation of numerous jobs for women as well as for men" (Bacle and Cecil 1989: 13).

Both simple commodity production and artisanal production are recognised as constituting a "non-industrial mode of life in which producers are directly and knowledgably related to production" (World Bank 1980). In view of these criteria, and given the data presented at the symposium, it is the considered judgement and conclusion of symposium participants who form the International Study Group that:

In recognition of the need for sustainable and equitable development of coastal communities, a separate management category for 'Small Type Whaling' should forthwith be recognized by the IWC.

COMMON CHARACTERISTICS OF SMALL-TYPE WHALING
Drawing upon the IWC's definition of small-type whaling, the International Study Group compared STW activities in Iceland, Japan and Norway and found that they exhibit a cluster of common characteristics which clearly distinguish them from commercial (industrial) whaling. In the following discussion, these activities are compared and contrasted with certain forms of coastal whaling in Greenland that are clearly recognised as ASW. The following major categories were used in the Group's analysis:

(1) technology and resources,
(2) personnel organisation,
(3) whale product distribution patterns,
(4) local cultural practices, and
(5) community identity.

1. Technology and Resources

In general, STW is conducted using small, multipurpose, powered boats, armed with a harpoon gun generally located in the bow. Hunting seasons are regulated, and the principal target species is the minke whale. Home-ports are usually small and in remote communities, and distances travelled from shore are short.

Vessels vary in length from 20' to 122', the largest being those Norwegian vessels which may travel a considerable distance from home and stay at sea for up to three weeks⁵. Other vessels, however, rarely - if ever - stay at sea for more than two days, and generally sail no more than 30 miles from shore. While Greenlandic boats operate out of their local communities, Icelandic, Norwegian and Japanese boats return to a fixed number of (authorised) landing sites. It is at these sites that whales are generally flensed and processed, although Norwegian vessels flense on board, and boats working in waters off Hokkaido, Japan, may also conduct limited on-board flensing. None of the vessels is used only for minke whaling, since in Greenland, Iceland and Norway they are also used during different seasons to harvest seals, fish and shrimps, whilst in Japan vessels are specialised whaling boats designed to hunt various species of whale (principally minke, but also Baird's beaked and pilot whales). Cannon size on all boats ranges between 50 and 60 mm and some Norwegian boats have a second cannon mounted in the stern. Both Greenlandic and Japanese vessels may use skiffs to assist in different aspects of whale hunting.

The whales themselves are part of a community resource base, and generally comprise a significant component of a local multispecies fishery, providing a major part of the local food base. In each of the fisheries concerned, whales are generally available for a limited period of time each year. In the higher-latitude fisheries of Greenland, Iceland and Norway, whaling seasons are determined primarily by the fact that minke whales frequent inshore waters for relatively short periods of time. Consequently, Greenlandic and Icelandic whalers tend to take whales opportunistically during the course of fishing or shrimping operations. In the case of Norway, the season is also determined to an extent by the state of other fisheries, whether quotas in those fisheries have been filled, and the availability of licences. In Japan, however, the whaling season extends over several months, during which time STW boats travel to different areas to hunt different species of whale, and are used exclusively for this purpose.

2. Personnel Organisation

In general, vessels engaged in STW are owner-operated. Crews, flensers and secondary processors are local people whose recruitment is based primarily on family and personal connections.

In all case except one⁶, owners operate one vessel each and usually work on board together with from one to seven other crew members. In Japan most boats are family owned and crew membership tends to be based more on personal connections that link owner and crew member. In Greenland, Iceland and Norway, kinship connections between owners and crew members predominate.

Unlike large-scale industrial whaling in which job specialisation is the norm, crews in the small-scale operations under study do not usually specialise in the various tasks involved in the hunting and processing of whales. As in all whaling operations, the position of gunner is comparatively specialised, given the importance of this task to the success of the hunt. But gunners are also expected to share other tasks with their fellow crew. This lack of specialisation in no way indicates a lack of professionalism; rather, it is the inevitable consequence of having a small crew with a large number of tasks to perform.

When a whale is caught, it is usually brought to a landing site for flensing and processing. Winching the carcass ashore and flensing are generally performed by crew members with the assistance of other family members. In Japan there is a specialised flensing team of two or three people who are assisted by a number of women and elderly men (retired whalers). In all countries practicing STW and ASW, local people and children will gather to watch the flensing, and this activity thus serves as a focus for community participation and identity. In Norway, flensing is conducted on board and large pieces (ca. 100 kg) of meat are then delivered ashore for further processing. Both landing sites and processing plants in all countries concerned are almost invariable small-scale, located in remote areas, and make use exclusively of local community labour. Importantly, much of this labour is provided by women.

3. Distribution Patterns

In the forms of STW and ASW considered in this report, whale products are distributed through cash and non-cash channels at both local and regional levels. Such distribution patterns tend to reinforce family and other community ties and sustain a distinctive food culture which helps to promote a sense of community or local identity in the areas in which these whaling forms are practiced. The use of cash, as a generalized currency, ensures the efficient and equitable distribution of valued foods throughout these modern cash-based societies.

In general, products deriving from the harvesting of whales by STW and Greenlandic ASW vessels have been distributed at the local, regional, and national levels. The exact distribution of whale products at the present time is not known for any of the countries concerned. In the case of Iceland, Japan and Norway, traditional distribution patterns became progressively distorted from the early 1980s as declining catch quotas both for STW and for industrial whaling led to increased demand for fewer products (e.g. Takahashi 1991). In Greenland, meanwhile, the fall in the supply of whale products has seen whaling communities holding on to more of what they have, and as a result less now goes into wide circulation.

As both STW and ASW occur within the context of modern cash economies, the sale of whale products occurs in each of the countries discussed here. Marketing is conducted through local fishermen's - or in the case of southern Norway, STW - cooperatives or regional associations. Non-cash forms of distribution are practiced in all countries, and involve the handing out of edible whale products to those involved in the hunting and processing of whales.

In Iceland and Norway, crew members are paid according to a share system based on profits deriving from catches of whales and other marine resources, and the principal form of payment is cash. In Greenland, cash may be used, but there is always an element of payment in kind, and often payment is exclusively in kind. In Japan, payment is made in the form of wages, bonuses based on catches, and a distribution of whale products. Flensing teams in all countries are generally paid in wages, although in Japan a combination of wages and whale products is used. Exceptions are close family members involved in flensing in Japan, and flensers who are not crew members in Greenland. Both these groups of people are paid in kind only. The quantities of products distributed in this manner are hard to ascertain, but it is certain that non-cash distribution frequently involves an extremely high percentage of households in and around communities in which STW and ASW are practiced.

As we have seen, initially whale products are distributed to crew members and to those involved in the flensing and processing of each whale. These individuals then divide up parts of their shares among relatives, friends and neighbours who may in turn reciprocate with other, non-whaling, products. In all countries, therefore, STW and ASW give rise to informal barter systems which may - in the case of Norway, for example - be 'egalitarian' and somewhat unstructured, or - in that of Japan - be directed by the owner of a vessel who wishes to build up his social standing within the community. In both systems of barter generated by such exchanges of whale products, there is an extensive involvement of local people who derive a further sense of community identity from such distribution patterns⁷.

4. Local Cultural Practices

Since whales are locally available in accessible coastal waters, they have come to assume importance in the economies, cultural practices and beliefs of those maritime communities specialising in their capture and utilisation. Significant local cultural practices include diet as well as rituals, ceremonies, and beliefs connected with the handing down of traditional knowledge concerned with whales and whaling.

One feature in particular illustrates the cultural importance of whales to the societies under discussion. Due to the large amount of food, and hence security, a whale carcass provides to these small and often isolated, remote communities, edible whale products serve as a seasonally important food staple. In more recent times, the availability of whale meat has extended beyond the hunting season (due to refrigeration, etc.), but this appears not to have diminished its customary use and association with particular seasonal or ceremonial activities. Thus in some parts of Iceland whale meat is used to celebrate the arrival of spring, while in Japan meat or blubber is used at New Year celebrations. Whale meat in Greenland and Norway is associated with the importance of eating locally produced, fresh, 'wild' meat⁸, while the specialised cuisine found in Japanese STW communities is heavily dependent upon fresh (i.e. unfrozen) whale meat. Japanese people classify whales as fish in their folk classification system, though they know them to be mammals⁹. Thus the inhabitants of whaling towns such as Ayukawa can eat whale meat at funeral ceremonies even though the eating of mammals is prohibited at such times¹⁰.

Rituals associated with whaling occur both on board boats and variously on shore, and include annual boat-purification rites, together with taboos and rituals associated with ensuring good luck and turning away bad luck. Prayer and other religious practices associated with whaling occur in all the societies concerned. These are primarily aimed at ensuring the safety of crews, but there are other forms. In Japan, for example, religious observances are directed to the peaceful repose of the souls of whales which have been caught. In Iceland, meanwhile, a stranded whale is referred to as 'a gift from God', and minke whales are considered 'good whales' because they bring herring inshore. Across the Arctic region from Chukotka to Greenland, local foods, including whale, form the basis for Inuit sharing networks and constitute an integral part of household and community celebrations. Inhabitants of remote, isolated communities need detailed knowledge of environmental conditions and the behaviour of local food animals in order to survive. This traditional knowledge is passed down from generation to generation in informal learning situations, often involving direct working experience. This knowledge may take years to acquire, and is continually in the process of being refined since environmental change is both inevitable and ongoing. At the same time, precisely because such knowledge is extremely specialised, it contributes to an overall sense of local identity in those communities in which whaling is practiced.

5. Community Identity

The combination of technology and resources, personnel organisation, distribution patterns and local cultural practices based on whales and whaling contributes towards the establishment and maintenance of community identity.

Individuals in all societies assume a variety of identities which are the product of such factors as circumstances of birth, social networks, place of residence, and occupation. In the case of remote communities, we tend to find that people are born and brought up together and live and work together all their lives. This creates a very strong sense of community identity which is usually further marked by certain linguistic and cultural features peculiar to such communities. At the same time, there is frequently a sense of distinctive identity based on occupation. Thus it is common in whaling communities for whalers to see themselves as a prestigeous sub-group among fishermen and quite distinct from the other hunters and farmers with whom they reside.

Such community and/or occupational identity is reinforced by the development of non-commercial bartering systems involving whale meat, by distinctive local food cultures, and by rituals and beliefs connected with whaling. The creation of such an identity often gives rise to what may be called a local integrated whaling culture¹¹, or marine resource-based society, which under certain circumstances may then itself contribute to a sense of national sentiment and identity¹².

SMALL-TYPE WHALING FOR SUSTAINABLE AND EQUITABLE DEVELOPMENT: THE NEED FOR REDEFINITION
This analysis of coastal whaling operations makes it clear that STW is qualitatively different from both aboriginal subsistence whaling and commercial whaling. Until recently, this distinction was of little importance in the IWC because of the blanket acceptance of commercial whaling quotas. However, with the current moratorium on all commercial whaling, refinement and modification of IWC categories are clearly necessary as a means of providing for sustainable and equitable use of marine resources by coastal communities.

Based on the preceding analysis of characteristics common to STW and other forms of whaling, clusters of characteristics can be used to define the new category of STW within the IWC management regimen. Building on the IWC's existing definition of STW, the International Study Group concluded that STW activities in Iceland, Japan, and Norway share the following characteristics:

• the communities involved are small and remote¹³;
• they have few land-based resources and are thus dependent on the utilisation of marine resources;
• hunts are conducted using relatively small vessels, are short in duration, and are confined to coastal waters;
• the vessels are generally owner-operated, and are manned by small crews recruited on the strength of family or personal connections;
• in addition to catching whales, crew members normally also participate in the flensing; while payment to crew and flensers is usually based on a share system, cash forms an important part of exchange transactions;
• there is also an extensive non-cash distribution of edible whale products in these whaling communities and this serves important social, cultural, economic and dietary needs;
• in such communities whale meat is usually an important source of nutrition and food, and it may also be used in important rituals;
• all communities are characterised, too, by other local religious, ritual and cultural practices and beliefs, involving local history, epics, myths, folk tales, song, music, dance and other art forms emphasising whales and/or whaling. These in turn help foster a strong sense of community identity and distinctive local culture which may set such communities apart from the broader national cultures in which they are found.

These characteristics reinforce the argument that STW is, indeed, a form of simple commodity or artisanal production. By focusing on differing economic strategies relating to the use and exchange of whale products (production for use vis-a-vis production for exchange), and on levels of organisation (company vis-a-vis household, together with property right distinctions in the case of aboriginal subsistence whaling), we can draw up a diagram illustrating three different types of production: aboriginal subsistence, simple commodity and commercial.

In the judgement of the International Study Group, the current IWC taxonomy fails to differentiate clearly between identifiable characteristics - such as those relating to technology (including boat ownership and crew organization), culture, economy and community dependence as listed above - which distinguish STW from other types of commercial whaling, on the one hand, and from aboriginal subsistence whaling, on the other. In the interest of equity, and to further the objective of supporting sustainable development, we believe that it is illogical to ignore the distinctive characteristics of STW. Given these conclusions, the Internal Study Group recommends that:

The IWC recognise Small-Type Whaling as a distinctive and operationally useful category for the purpose of regulating coastal whaling in a sustainable and equitable manner.

CONCLUSION
TOWARDS A NEW APPROACH TO RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
In consideration of on-going deliberations at the IWC of ways to optimise whale stock management, the International Study Group decided to broaden its discussion to embrace wider issues regarding the exploitation, conservation and management of living marine resources in those coastal communities in which STW is practiced.

As revealed in this comparative study of coastal whaling communities, STW is an important component of small-scale diversified local economies dependent upon the utilisation of a variety of marine resources. It is also an important element in the sustainability of these communities in social, cultural and environmental terms. By 'sustainability' we mean improving, maintaining or restoring "the quality of human life while living within the carrying capacity of supporting ecosystems" (IUCN, UNEP, and WWF 1991, p4).

It is the relationship between the people inhabiting a community and the environment which supports that community that concerns us here. Current international initiatives¹⁴ regarding sustainable development oblige us all to re-evaluate previous and present approaches to the exploitation, conservation and management of living resources, including those of the oceans and coastal areas. The object of such a re-evaluation should be to strengthen existing regimes and to investigate the formation of appropriate new regimes in order to ensure sustainable utilisation of these marine resources, both now and in the future. At the same time, we should be aware of Part 1, Article 1 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights which provides inter alia that:

"All peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic co-operation based on the principle of mutual benefit, and international law. In no case may a people be deprived of their means of subsistence."

There is wide-spread recognition, firstly, that the planning and management of regimes for conservation and development of living resources must provide for the effective participation of local communities (IWC 1981)¹⁵; and secondly, that the "rights to use marine resources need to be allocated clearly, and particular weight given to the interests of local communities" (IUCN, UNEP, and WWF 1991: 16). Accordingly, the International Study Group agreed that the existing regimes for management of those marine resources - such as whales - that are of demonstrable importance to coastal communities, should be re-examined according to the following criteria:

(1)

The sustainable utilisation of biological resources should be based upon the best available scientific and local advice;

(2)

Appropriate measures should be adopted to ensure the protection of marine and coastal environments;

(3)

The direct participation of local communities should be ensured in the planning and implementation of resource management regimes;
and

(4)

Management objectives should ensure that benefits from coastal marine resource utilisation go primarily to local communities.

In the opinion of the International Study Group, the management of whale resources according to such criteria would address recent criticisms that the IWC does not reflect current enlightened thinking on resource management. It is imperative and urgent that the IWC address and resolve the issue of equitability and sustainability in resource management, since if it fails to do so, its critics will almost certainly seek alternative means of satisfying those reasonable human needs that present IWC practice is unable to accommodate.

It this situation, it is our reasoned belief that a separate category of whaling, to be known as 'Small-Type Whaling', should be established. Such an additional category would fall squarely within the parameters for the overall management of marine resources outlined above, as well as respect the reasonable needs of those involved in coastal whaling operations in Iceland, Japan and Norway.

End notes

1.

The International Study Group met in Taiji, Japan, from January 21-23, 1992, for a symposium on the 'Utilisation of Marine Living Resources for Subsistence'. Participants, under the chairmanship of Professor Brian Moeran (University of London), were social scientists with a wide range of knowledge and expertise about the conservation and utilisation of marine mammals, and who shared an interest in developing new and more constructive paradigms for sustainable resource management and use. During the symposium, participants presented papers describing their own research regarding utilisation of marine resources, and undertook a process of comparing case studies of small-type whaling in three countries - Iceland, Japan and Norway - both with one another and with one kind of aboriginal subsistence whaling (vessel fishing for minke whalers) in Greenland (see below). Members of the International Study Group would like to take this opportunity to thank Shigeko Misaki (coordinator) and Simon Ward (rapporteur) for their untiring cooperation and support during the symposium. We are also very grateful to Greg Donovan, Scientific Editor of the International Whaling Commission, for his advice.

2.

It should be noted here that current understanding of 'subsistence', as widely used in the scientific literature and in U.S. resource management regimes, does not necessarily restrict this activity to aboriginal people (e.g. Wolfe and Ellana 1983; Fall 1990; Palsson 1991).

3.

It should be noted that this definition includes some species (e.g. bottlenose, beaked and pilot whales) not recognised as under the purview of the IWC, and that the status of such species under the Convention is disputed.

4.

E.g. Headland and Reid 1985: 51; Peterson 1991: 1-7

5.

When vessels are at sea for such long periods, whaling is not conducted continuously. The voyage is prolonged because of adverse weather conditions, and storms often force the suspension of whaling for a week or more at a time.

6.

This exception is in the highly specialised Japanese beaked whale fishery, which developed in one restricted area to supply a regional demand for a special whale meat product (Akimichi et al. 1988: 86-91)

7.

cf. Akimichi et al. 1988, pp41-51; Caulfield 1991 (IWC/TC/43/AS4, p6); Josefsen 1990 (IWC/TC/42/SEST5)

8.

As opposed to 'domesticated' meats produced elsewhere.

9.

cf. Akimichi et al. 1988: 66

10.

cf. Akimichi et al. 1988: 73

11.

Kalland and Moeran 1990, Chapter 7

12.

E.g. Brydon 1990; Caulfield 1991: 114

13.

It may be argued that, in Japan, Abashiri forms an exception to this general rule. However, in the International Study Group's opinion, Abashiri whalers, flensers, distributers and retailers form an occupational community which is both small and remote.

14.

For example, Caring for the Earth, the World Commission on Environment and Development (The Brundtland Commission), and the ongoing work of the United Nations' Declaration on the Right to Development.

15.

cf. the rights of self-determination under the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights which says that: "All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they may freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development" (quoted in Doubleday 1992).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Akimichi, Tomoya et al.

1988: Small-Type Coastal Whaling in Japan: Report of an International Workshop. IWC/40/23

Bacle, Jean and Cecil, Robert

1989: Artisanal Fisheries in Sub-Saharan Africa: Survey and Research. Canadian International Development Agency, November 1989

Brydon

1990: Icelandic Nationalism and the Whaling Issue, North Atlantic Studies 2(1-2): 185-191

Cassell, Mark

1988: Farmers of the Northern Ice: Relations of Production in the Traditional North Alaskan Inupiat Whale Hunt. Research in Economic Anthropology 10: 89-116

Caulfield, Richard

1991: Qeqertarsuarmi arfanniarneq: Greenlandic Inuit Whaling in Qeqertarsuaq Kommune, West Greenland. Report presented to the International Whaling Commission Technical Committee. Number TC/43/AS4

Donovan, Greg (ed.)

1982: Aboriginal/Subsistence Whaling. Cambridge: International Whaling Commission. Special Issue 4

Doubleday, Nancy

1992: Indigenous Subsistence Whaling in Canada: Past, Present and Future. Paper presented at the symposium on Utilization of Marine Living Resources for Subsistence, Taiji, Japan, January 21-23, 1992

Fall, J.A.

1990: The Division of Subsistence of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game: An Overview of Its Research Program and Findings: 1980-1990. Arctic Anthropology 27 (2): 68-92

Greenland Home Rule Government

1989: Greenland Subsistence Hunting. Report submitted to IWC Technical Committee, San Diego

Headland, T.N. & Reid, L.A.

1985: Hunter Gatherers and their Neighbors from Prehistory to the Present. Current Anthropology 30(1): 43-66

International Study Group

1991: Cultural Perspectives of Norwegian Small-Type Whaling. International Study Group on Norwegian Small-Type Whaling. In press. Tromso: Fishery College of Norway

IUCN, UNEP, and WWF

1991: Caring for the Earth: A Strategy for Sustainable Living. The World Conservation Union, the United Nations Environment Programme and World Wide Fund for Nature. Gland, Switzerland

IWC

1981: Report of the Special Working Group of the Technical Committee Concerning Management Principles and Development of Guidelines about Whaling for Subsistence by Aborigines. IWC/33/14, Cambridge

IWC

1990: Distinguishing between Japanese STCW and LTCW in Relation to Coastal Whale-Fishery Management. Prepared by Government of Japan. TC/42/SEST3

IWGIA

1991: Arctic Environment: Indigenous Perspectives. IWGIA Document 69. International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs. Copenhagen, August 1991

Josefsen, E,

1990: Cutter Hunting of Minke Whale in Qaqortoq (Greenland). Paper submitted to the International Whaling Commission Technical Committee. Report Number TC/42/SEST5

Kalland, Arne & Moeran, Brian

1990: Endangered Culture: Cultural Perspectives on Japanese Whaling. Copenhagen: NIAS, Preprints No. 2

McCay, Bonnie M.

1981: Development Issues in Fisheries as Agrarian Systems. Culture and Agriculture 11: 2-3

Palsson, Gisli

1991: Coastal Economies, Cultural Accounts: Human Ecology and Icelandic Discourse. Manchester: Manchester Univ. Press

Peterson, N.

1991: Introduction: Cash Commoditisation and Changing Foragers. Senri Ethnological Studies 30: 1-16

Takahashi, Junichi

1991: Socio-Economic Implications of the International Whaling Ban on a Nationally Regulated Small-Scale Localized Whale Fishery: A Case Study of Baird's Beaked Whale Fishery in Japan. Resource Management and Optimization 8(3-4): 101-108

WCED

1987: Our Common Future. The World Commission on Environment and Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Wolfe, R.J. and Ellanna, L.J. (eds.)

1983: Resource Use and Socio-Economic Systems: Case Studies of Fishing and Hunting in Alaskan Communities. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence. Technical Paper Series No. 61

World Bank

1980: Rethinking Artisanal Fisheries Development: Western concepts, Asian experiences. Prepared by Donald K. Emerson. Staff Working Paper No. 423, October 1980

APPENDIX I
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS AT THE INTERNATIONAL STUDY GROUP FOR SMALL-TYPE WHALING
met at Taiji, Japan, 21-23 January, 1992

_