5. SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS AND SMALL-TYPE WHALING (2000)

5. SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS AND SMALL-TYPE WHALING

(from "Chairman's Report of the Fifty-Second Annual Meeting")

5.1 Japanese proposal for Schedule amendment
Japan stated that for the 12^th year it is requesting an interim relief allocation of 50 minke whales for its four small-type whaling communities. Japan added that it has thoroughly documented the socio-economic, cultural, religious and dietary aspects of the minke whaling, which has made this whaling an integral part of the community life in Abishiri, Ayukawa, Wadaura and Taiji. It again referred to the 1993 IWC Resolution that recognised the socio-economic needs of these communities, and to UNCED Agenda 21 and the 1995 Kyoto Declaration, which reinforce the principle of sustainable use of natural resources. It also drew attention to the work being carried out on the major impact that the consumption of fish by cetaceans is having on commercial fisheries. It considered that in this context, the moratorium, which Japan had never considered to be reasonable, was even more unreasonable since it appeared to be risking local ecosystem balance. Japan therefore proposed a Schedule amendment to add a new paragraph 10 (f):

Notwithstanding the other provisions of paragraph 10 and those of paragraph 12, the taking of 50 minke whales from the Okhotsk Sea-West Pacific stock of the North Pacific is permitted in the 2000 season in order to alleviate the hardship in the four community-based whaling communities.

This was accompanied by a proposed Resolution that would have the effect of agreeing that the take of minke whales provided by paragraph 10 (f) of the Schedule be allocated to the Communities of Abishiri, Ayukawa, Wadaura and Taiji.

The People's Republic of China supported Japan's proposals since it believes: (1) that the minke whale stock could support a take of 50; and (2) that the request for these four communities should be considered as aboriginal subsistence whaling. It urged countries that had previously opposed Japan on this issue to reconsider their positions and to understand the true situation in the Northwest Pacific Ocean.

Norway, while stating that it is not generally in favour of creating an increased number of whaling categories, also supported Japan's proposal since failure to implement the Revised Management Procedure (RMP) has led to the situation where people who would have otherwise been able to conduct legitimate commercial whaling are prevented from doing so.

The Netherlands referred to extensive previous discussions on this issue and did not believe it was profitable to repeat them. It reiterated its view that this issue should be resolved within the framework of the discussions about the Revised Management Scheme (RMS) and the moratorium on commercial whaling; as long as the moratorium exists, it could not support Japan's proposed Schedule amendment. In addition, it could not support a Resolution so similar to one adopted in the past as this would imply that the Commission is not working expeditiously. The USA reiterated its view that the community-based operations in Japan are commercial and thus could not support the proposed Schedule amendment. New Zealand, Australia, UK, Ireland and Germany had similar views. As an ex-whaling nation, Brazil commented that the prohibition of whaling has not caused notable negative socio-economic effects to its small coastal communities. It reiterated its opinion that non-lethal use of cetaceans (e.g. whalewatching) has great socio-economic advantages over hunting. South Africa, while not supporting the Schedule amendment, recognised that continuation of the moratorium and slow progress with the RMS is causing hardship to people and expressed sympathy with the Resolution proposed by Japan. The Republic of Korea believed that the issue could only be solved by the adoption of the RMS as soon as possible.

In contrast, Denmark thought it was clear that this small-type whaling could not be equated with large-scale commercial whaling. It had visited two of the communities and recognised that such coastal whaling could satisfy certain socio-cultural needs that are not fully understood in other parts of the world. It would therefore support the proposal. The proposal was also supported by Antigua and Barbuda, St Lucia, Dominica, St Kitts and Nevis and St Vincent and The Grenadines.

On being put to the vote, the Schedule amendment received 12 votes in favour, 18 against, with 2 abstentions and so failed as it did not attract the three-quarters majority required. The Resolution (2000-1 shown in Appendix 1) received 16 votes in favour, 13 against with 3 abstentions and so was adopted by a simple majority.