(from "Chair's Report of the 55th Annual Meeting")

(f) Notwithstanding the other provisions of this paragraph, the taking of 150 minke whales from the Okhotsk Sea-West Pacific stock shall be permitted for each of the 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007 seasons.

As background, Japan recalled that it had been sixteen years since the imposition of the moratorium on commercial whaling in Japanese coastal waters and that during this time, it had repeatedly requested an interim relief allocation of 50 minke whales to alleviate the hardships of its small-type coastal whaling communities. It noted that even though the Commission had recognised the severe impacts of the moratorium on the four small-type whaling communities and had agreed to work expeditiously to alleviate their distress, the Commission had rejected these requests. In the meantime, Japan believed that whale abundance has increased, while its coastal fisheries have become impoverished, leading to considerable discontent among fishermen over the competition between fisheries and whales.

Japan noted:

(1)

the Scientific Committee's Comprehensive Assessment of the Okhotsk Sea-West Pacific stock of the North Pacific minke whales completed in 1991 showed the stock to be robust;

(2)

that although the RMP had been adopted in 1994 it had not been implemented; and

(3)

that effective monitoring and control measures have been discussed exhaustively and have now turned into unrealistic excessive demands to delay completion and implementation of the RMS.

In view of the above, Japan indicated that it had decided to change its approach. It wished to resume community-based whaling for the sustainable use of robust whale stocks, the management of fishery resources, and the revitalization of the impoverished community-based coastal whaling communities. It noted that all the edible parts of the harvested whales would be used as food, and a substantive part of them distributed primarily among the four community-based coastal whaling communities and neighbouring areas, as well as Kushiro, where a land station would be built. It considered that the resumption of community-based whaling would promote the local processing industries and stimulate distribution of whale products and tourism, leading to more employment opportunities, which would help to vitalise the local economy. It also believed that the resumption of community-based whaling would reinstate traditional practices associated with sales of whale meat, and revitalize traditional festivals and rituals of the regions.

Japan went on to give specifics of the proposed whaling operation (whaling ground, season, catch quota) and monitoring and control provisions.

11.2 Commission discussions and action arising
Sweden indicated that it could not support Japan's proposal as it is in contravention of the moratorium and since any catch limit agreed to in the future must be under an RMS agreed by the Commission. It noted that the proposed take of 150 minke whales from the Western North Pacific is in addition to the 150 minke whales taken annually by as part of JARPNII and the 100+ bycaught animals. Sweden considered that the proposal, like that for Bryde's whales (see Item 9.1.3), is not based on the RMP adopted by the Commission but on modifications to it and ignores the phase-out rule and evidence for complex stock structure of minke whales in the North Pacific. It strongly urged Japan to withdraw the proposal and to submit its recent abundance data to the Scientific Committee for use in the in-depth assessment planned for next year. In addition to the problems highlighted by Sweden, Monaco believed that an essential flaw of Japan's proposal was that it would effectively open a new category of whaling and would suffer the same fate as previous proposals in previous meetings. It asked Japan how much of the 150 minke whales taken in JARPNII is despatched to meet the needs of the coastal whaling communities. The UK shared Sweden's views. Recalling that in the past Japan appeared to require only 50 minke whales per year to alleviate the distress of its coastal whaling communities (which it is now taking through expansion of the JARPNII programme), the UK noted that Japan is now requesting a take of a further 150 minke whales per year. It therefore questioned how many whales are actually needed to alleviate distress, taking into account that Japan's coastal communities are harvesting other cetaceans such as Baird's beaked whale (which it considered should be covered by the moratorium). The UK indicated that it would have more sympathy with Japan if the proposal was on a much smaller scale and if the products derived were distributed to these communities on a non-commercial basis. The USA also agreed with Sweden. It considered the proposal to be for commercial whaling and encouraged Japan to develop an Action Plan consistent with the moratorium and based on advice from the Scientific Committee. Switzerland associated itself with the remarks of Sweden and the USA. It considered Japan's proposal to be premature and supported work to complete the RMS. Germany and Mexico also associated themselves with previous speakers. Indicating that, as a general rule, resumption of commercial whaling should await completion of the RMS, Denmark noted that it had in the past supported Japan's request for an interim relief allocation of 50 minke whales. However, it considered the latest proposed Schedule amendment to be very different (5-year period rather than one year; 200% increase in the number of whales to be taken) and was not able to support it. The Republic of Korea insisted that small-type coastal whaling should not be carried until after completion of the RMS and should be based on scientific advice.

Norway, Iceland, Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica, the Solomon Islands, the Republic of Guinea, Benin and the Russian Federation all supported Japan. Norway referred to Monaco's remark regarding establishment of a new whaling category and agreed that this could be a problem. It did not wish to see another category created but believed that Japan's proposal could be considered as a way of accommodating the legitimate needs of the coastal communities particularly in view of the failure of IWC to meet its management responsibilities. Iceland noted that there are only two types of whaling, sustainable and non-sustainable. Since Japan's proposal was for sustainable whaling, Iceland could support it. Antigua and Barbuda considered the stock in question to be abundant. It noted that Japan had demonstrated the hardship of its coastal communities and considered that it was time to respect their rights. Dominica and the Solomon Islands made similar remarks. The Republic of Guinea and Benin questioned why the Japanese whaling communities were being treated differently to aboriginal subsistence whaling communities. The Russian Federation supported Japan's proposal since it had a serious scientific basis and complies with the principle of sustainable use and acknowledges the traditional needs of the community.

Japan thanked those governments supporting its proposal. In responding to Sweden, Japan believed that modifications to the RMP were scientifically sound and that the phase-out rule had been taken into account. It noted that since the proposal would restrict takes to the 'O' stock, an in-depth assessment is not necessary. With respect to comments from Monaco, Japan recalled that Articles V and VIII of the Convention address whaling and therefore it is not proposing a new whaling category. It reported that 15 of the minke whales currently taken are provided to the coastal communities, commenting that this is not sufficient to meet need. In responding to the UK, it noted that its take of Baird's beaked whales is a legal whaling activity, that its request could not be reduced and that quotas should be based on stock abundance, and that the commercial element is necessary for the livelihoods of the coastal communities.

Japan's proposed Schedule amendment was not adopted when put to a vote. There were 19 votes in support, 26 against and one abstention.

_