(from "Chair's Report of the 54th Annual Meeting")
'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 from the 2001 season in order to alleviate the
hardship in the four community-based whaling communities of Japan.
This provision shall remain in effect until such take is permitted by some
other means under the Convention.'
The Chair recalled that last year, Japan urged the Commission to support this
proposed Schedule amendment for the following reasons:
He noted that views on Japan's request have remained divided, although for a number of years (including last year) Resolutions have been adopted reaffirming the Commission's commitment to work expeditiously to alleviate the distress caused by the cessation of minke whaling to four Japanese coastal communities.
In providing further background to the proposed Schedule amendment, Japan gave an overview of the 1st Summit on Japanese Traditional Whaling held in Nagato in March 2002 that resulted in the Nagato Declaration on Traditional Whaling. The Summit:
Japan recalled that prior to the commercial whaling moratorium, an average of 348 minke whales per year were taken by its small-type coastal whaling operations, a level it believed was sustainable. Japan considered that over the 15 years it has been in place, the moratorium has disrupted the local marine ecosystem, with minke whale populations increasing to the extent that they are now depleting fishery resources causing significant declines in the catches of local small-scale fishermen and inflicting severe damage to the economy, culture and tradition of whaling communities. It reported that efforts to revitalise the economies of these communities by promoting tourism and other industries have been mostly in vain. Younger generations continue to leave the communities disrupting the Japanese tradition, particularly important in rural communities, of passing on the family occupation from generation to generation. The moratorium has deprived these communities of their life-style and pride in their occupation particularly in view of the large numbers of minke whales offshore that they are forbidden to catch, which in turn causes psychological distress. In view of the severe disruptions to the way of life of these communities, Japan considered that IWC should allow them to take a limited number of minke whales as provided for in its proposed Schedule amendment. The mayor of Taiji, one of the four whaling communities involved, echoed these views and reported that the resumption of coastal whaling is urgently needed.
11.2 Commission discussions and action arising
Monaco recalled the Annual Meeting held in Dublin in 1995 when it had expressed
sympathy for the small-type coastal whaling activities in Japan and proposed
that these be included within the aboriginal subsistence whaling category.
It re-iterated these views and asked whether Japan could re-consider its
proposal rather than creating a new small-type whaling category.
The Russian Federation shared these views and supported Japan's proposal that
it hoped could be adopted by consensus.
Norway indicated that it is not generally in favour of increasing the number
of whaling categories.
It considered that Japan's coastal whaling could be accommodated within the
aboriginal subsistence category in view of the emphasis placed by Japan on the
cultural importance of this activity, but stressed that the main issue is the
failure of IWC to act as a responsible management organisation.
Norway considered that IWC should face up to its responsibilities and to honour
its commitment made in past Resolutions to work expeditiously to alleviate the
distress caused by the cessation of minke whaling to Japanese coastal
communities.
Denmark fully understood the tradition, social and cultural needs connected to
minke whaling described by Japan and supported its proposed Schedule amendment.
St. Lucia, St. Vincent and The Grenadines, Antigua & Barbuda, Republic of
Korea, the Republic of Palau, the Solomon Islands, China, Benin, Grenada and
Dominica also spoke in support of Japan's proposal.
A number of countries indicated that they could not support the proposed Schedule amendment. Spain noted that it had voted for establishing the commercial whaling moratorium, had sacrificed its whaling industry and would oppose Japan's request until the RMS is agreed.
Mexico, supported by Austria, believed that before considering the proposed amendment, attention should first be given to understanding some of the concerns expressed in the Scientific Committee regarding the status of the Western North Pacific minke whale stock and the effect that Japan's request would have on it. Mexico asked for clarification from the Scientific Committee Chair on this matter. It also requested Japan to explain why, in the JARPNII programme for 2002 and 2003, an allocation of 50 minke whales for its coastal communities had been included thus apparently prejudging the decision of the Commission on the proposed Schedule amendment.
Italy understood the desire to pass on local cultures and traditions from generation to generation, but also considered that communities have a duty to prepare their future generations so they can adapt to adverse environmental effects caused by increasing human activities. Italy noted that its own local communities have often found themselves in similar situations. While acknowledging the need to address the distress of Japan's coastal communities in a concrete and pragmatic way, it believed that an element of a sustainable fisheries policy must also rely on assisted re-conversion - a matter on which Italy could share its experience. Finally, however, Italy considered that the interim quota requested by Japan is no longer needed in view of the 50 minke whales allocated in the JARPNII programme and the fact that the coastal communities are now allowed to market products from whales caught accidentally in nets. The Netherlands also questioned the need for the interim allocation in view of the allocation within JARPNII, but did express sympathy with the comments made earlier by Monaco. While South Africa was dissatisfied that Japan's repeated request had not been resolved due to delays in completion of the RMS, it indicated that it would continue to oppose the request since it considered the small-type coastal whaling to be a commercial activity. Sweden and Finland expressed similar views.
In response to Mexico, the Scientific Committee Chair explained that advice on the effect of Japan's request on the North Pacific minke whale stock could not be provided until next year when the RMP Implementation Simulation Trials would be completed. In view of this, Mexico proposed that it would be more appropriate to defer Japan's request until next year.
Japan thanked those countries supporting its request and noted the suggestion of Monaco and the Netherlands. It considered that the minke whale stock was sufficiently abundant (at around 25,000 animals) to be able to sustain the proposed take and could not agree to Mexico's proposal to defer discussions. It further considered that questions relating to JARPNII should be dealt with under the agenda item on scientific permits. However, in response to the UK, Japan clarified that even if its request for an interim relief allocation was granted, the take of 50 minke whales from inshore waters would remain in the JARPNII special permit.
On being put to a vote, Japan's proposed Schedule amendment was not adopted. There were 20 votes in favour, 21 against and 3 abstentions. Japan subsequently submitted a draft Resolution but there was no time for the Commission to discuss or take action on it.
22 E.g. see Ann. Rep. Whaling Comm. 2001: 28
23 Ann. Rep. Whaling. Commn. 2000: 55
_