(from "Chairman's Report of the Nineteenth Meeting")

Canada		U.S.A.		U.S.S.R.		Japan
W.M. Sprules   (Commissioner)		J.L. McHugh   (Commissioner)		M.N. Sukhoruchenko   (Commissioner)		Iwao Fujita   (Commissioner)
		S. Blow		V. G. Lafitsky		Yoshio Yamamoto
				V. M. Nicolaev		Toshihiko Ohba
						Yuzuki Kito
						Yoshio Takato
						Suekazu Hamanaka
						Kota Hoketsu
						Juro Ozoegawa
						Hideo Hasegawa
						Shojiro Kuriu
						Yoshiro Teraoka

Several proposals were made for a fin whale quota for 1968, and various formulae were presented for allocating the quota between countries. Some delegations held that the same formula should not apply to land stations and pelagic fleets. The discussions were complicated by the fact that Canada and the United States operate only land stations, the Soviet Union operates only pelagic fleets, and Japan carries on whaling from land stations and on the high seas. Unanimous agreement could not be reached on the fin whale quota for 1968, nor on the formula for dividing a quota. Position papers submitted by the four countries are attached. The Canadian and United States statements refer to a joint proposal made during the meetings. For clarity, a copy of this proposal, which was rejected, is attached.

Reference was made also to the need for setting quotas on sei and sperm whales, and to the question of setting a whaling season for the North Pacific. It was generally agreed that these questions must be held in abeyance pending agreement on fin whales.

(A) Statement by the United States Delegation
The United States has examined, with Canada, various alternative joint methods of limiting catches of fin whales by land stations on the North American coast, within the provisions of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling. We could find no practical joint method by which we could limit the catch at or below present levels, except to set aside a coastal zone in which the estimated sustainable yield would allow us to continue whaling, and in which pelagic whaling would be prohibited. This procedure, however, would require concurrence by other member nations. In jointly sponsoring such a proposal the United States delegation was fully aware of the problems which such a measure might present for the pelagic whaling countries.

In considering with Canada methods outside the terms of the Convention we recognized certain basic differences in national authority which made joint action impossible. Therefore, it is necessary also to present separate statements.

The great expansion of pelagic whaling in the North Pacific Ocean since 1961 has been detrimental to the interests of individual land stations, which are unable to extend their range of operations. For this reason it is obvious to us that land stations deserve special consideration. In responding to our obligation to restore the whale resources to a healthy condition we have already agreed to stop killing blue whales and humpback whales. This was a big price to pay for uncertain future benefits. The United States government does not have authority to place a national quota on the catch of fin whales. Even if we had such authority it would be difficult to select a year as a base for calculation because experience has shown that the supply of fin whales available to a land station varies widely from year to year. If the year 1965 is the base year we can give strong assurance that we will not exceed that amount. If we were to select the year 1966 instead, we could not guarantee that we would not exceed that amount occasionally in succeeding years.

The United States intends to take all reasonable measures to honour its international obligations to conserve whale stocks and all other resources of the high seas. On the basis of the best available scientific evidence and the history of the North Pacific fin whale fishery we can predict with assurance that our average annual catch of fin whales in the next several years will be less than the average annual catch in the past. In addition, we will take every means available to us to hold our catch of fin whales in individual years below recent levels.

The United States is concerned also about the condition of the sei and sperm whale resources of the North Pacific Ocean. We believe that the need for regulation of these stocks should receive critical examination as soon as possible.

(B) The Canadian position regarding regulation of whaling in the North Pacific Ocean
We regret that the joint proposal of the United States and Canada to designate a coastal zone in which whaling by factory ships would be prohibited was not acceptable to Japan or the Soviet Union. It was the opinion of the United States and Canadian delegations that such action could have been taken within the provisions of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling and that the proposal presented the only possibility for the North American land stations to operate within the current estimated sustainable yield of fin whales on an area basis. As has been pointed out by the United States Commissioner, rejection of the joint U.S.-CANADA proposal makes it necessary for the North American whaling nations to make separate responses to the request of the U.S.S.R. Commissioner that Canada and the United States indicate what action would be taken to regulate catches of fin whales in the North Pacific for the 1968 whaling season.

It has been made clear on several occasions that the operations of the Canadian land station at Coal Harbour have been very seriously affected by the necessity to prohibit the taking of blue and humpback whales in the North Pacific Ocean for a minimum period of five years. A review of the published statistics shows beyond reasonable doubt that such drastic action was required because of the heavy over-exploitation of these stocks by the U.S.S.R. pelagic fleets in 1963. In such an instance the desirable principle of equality disappears since one nation receives the major benefits from over-exploitation, while it is necessary for all nations to take identical legislative action to ensure recovery of the stocks regardless of their individual contribution to decimation of the stocks.

Certain statements made at this meeting appear to make it necessary to reiterate that land station operations are quite different from pelagic operations and the effect of prohibiting the taking of any species is much greater on the land stations, which can only conduct operations in a restricted ocean area, than on the mobile pelagic fleets. The published statistics of catch and effort in the North Pacific Ocean support this view. If an analysis of the total pelagic catch of whales by Japan and by the U.S.S.R. and the land station catch by Canada is made for the period 1963 to 1967, when the number of expeditions operated by each nation remained constant, the following statistics emerge. The annual pelagic catch of Japan has risen from an average of 5,052 in the period from 1963 to 1965 to 6,916 for the period 1966 to 1967 when blue and humpback whales were fully protected. Similarly the average annual catch of the Soviet Union has risen from 9,611 to 12,466 for comparable periods. On the other hand comparable data for the Canadian operation shows a decrease from 773 to 606. It would appear obvious from such data that pelagic operations in the North Pacific have not been adversely affected by the current restrictive regulations while the converse is true for the Canadian land station operation. It is for such reasons that the Canadian position has always been that some special consideration must be given to land stations if they are to participate on an equal basis with pelagic fleets in the rational utilization and regulation of stocks of mutual interest. It should be apparent from the catch statistics for the 1967 season that during the period that the taking of blue and humpback whales is prohibited it will not be possible for Canada to place any further restrictions on the operations of the Coal Harbour land station if it is to continue to operate.

With specific reference to what action Canada is prepared to take to restrict the catch of fin whales in 1968, it should be pointed out that the average annual Canadian catch of fin whales has been decreasing. The average annual catch for the period 1963 to 1965 was 148 and this figure has dropped to 118 for the period 1966 to 1967. Although as indicated above no firm undertaking can be given, I wish to assure you that Canada will make every effort to ensure that our 1968 fin whale catch does not exceed levels reached in recent years.

We are also very concerned about the increasing catch of sei and sperm whales by the pelagic fleets in the North Pacific and we hope that agreement on effective conservation measures for these species will be reached before it becomes necessary to close the North Pacific to all whaling operations.
Ottawa, Canada.
14th December, 1967.

(C) The Proposal of the Japanese Delegation
1. The Japanese Delegation holds the view that in considering measures for the conservation of the whale resources in the North Pacific Ocean, full regard should be paid to the fact that land-based whaling is different from pelagic whaling in its scale of operation as well as in its effect on whale resources. In other words, land-based whaling is conducted to take whales which enter a limited area close to the land stations, while pelagic whaling is conducted to pursue freely whales in the vast ocean.

It is also to be noted that the present serious condition of the whale resources in the North Pacific Ocean has been brought about principally as a result of the drastic expansion of pelagic catches in recent years.

Therefore, for the purpose of achieving the rational and effective conservation of the whale resources, it is essential that the regulation of whaling must be initiated first of all in the field of pelagic operations. It is not rational to make mechanically the same approach to two types of whaling, pelagic whaling and land-based whaling. The Japanese Delegation does not deny that in the case of land-based whaling, efforts for stock conservation are equally needed, but this type of whaling must be given a separate treatment for the reasons above. It is needless to say that in any case regulation must be worked out on the basis of precise scientific data. The Japanese Delegation cannot accept any proposal which aims to set Japan's total catch quota including its pelagic and land-based catches on a parity with the Soviet Union's total pelagic catch quota, because such proposal is totally in disregard to the past historical catch records etc. of the two nations.

2. On the basis of the above considerations, the Japanese Delegation proposes that the following measures should be taken in the 1968 season with regard to whaling activities in the North Pacific Ocean:

(1) Fin Whales
It was already agreed to reduce the fin whale catch below the estimated sustainable yield by the 1969 season.

(a)

With regard to the pelagic operations in the 1968 season each of the pelagic whaling nations should, in line with the above-mentioned agreement, hold its fin whale catch 35 per cent below the 1965 catch level. In this connection, attention should be called to the fact that Japan took restrictive measures voluntarily so as

(i)

to hold in the 1966 season its pelagic catch 10 per cent below the 1965 catch level and

(ii)

to hold in the 1967 season its pelagic catch 20 per cent below the 1965 catch level. Thus, Japan's pelagic catch quota was reduced in the 1966 season to the level of 1,266 whales and in the 1967 season to the level of 1,125 whales.

(b)

With regard to its land-based whaling in the 1968 season, Japan is ready, subject to the establishment of an international agreement on pelagic whaling in the above-mentioned line, to hold its fin whale catch below the level of 100 whales, excluding its catch from the East China Sea stock. It is to be noted that the proposed catch level is not only markedly below the sustainable yield for the Asian Coast estimated by the scientists (now 150 whales), but also below its self-imposed catch quota for the 1967 season (120 whales) pronounced at the Washington Meeting of February 1967.

Japan's land-based catch of sei whales is at present held below the sustainable yield which has been estimated by the scientists. Therefore, the Japanese Delegation considers that at the present stage there is no immediate need for regulation. However, in case new data on its stock assessment is made available in the future, Japan will be ready to take restrictive measures faithfully in accordance with such new stock assessment.

(3) Sperm Whales
The Japanese Delegation considers that the stock condition of sperm whales in the North Pacific Ocean does not necessarily justify optimism because a certain country's pelagic catch of sperm whales has been abnormally increased in recent years. Therefore, the Japanese Delegation is waiting with a deep concern the outcome of further stock assessment.

(4) Limitation of the Whaling Season
As a means to achieve an effective conservation of the whale resources in the North Pacific Ocean, the Japanese Delegation proposes to limit the duration of the open season for pelagic whaling in the North Pacific Ocean to the period of about June through September.

(D) Statement of the Soviet Delegation on the Results of the North Pacific Commissioners Meeting
The Soviet Delegation is regretfully stating that again the meeting has not fulfilled the task of the effective protection of North Pacific whale stocks from destruction. Proposals of the Soviet Delegation on further reduction of the catch of whales in 1968 in comparison with the catch in 1967 were not accepted, notwithstanding the fact that they were based on the recommendations of the Working Group of scientists.

Fin Whales
The Working Group recommended that by 1969 the total catch of fin whales should not exceed 1,700 whales. Taking into account the whaling operations conducted by U.S.A. and Canada, the Soviet Delegation proposed that the catch of U.S.S.R. and Japan in 1968 should not be more than 1,700 whales (by 850 whales to each country), having in mind that in 1969 the catches of whales by all four countries would equal to 1,700 whales. Japan insisted on increase in its fin whale catch in comparison with the number of whales caught in 1967, e.g. in 1967 Japan's pelagic catch was 844 fin whales, and land station's catch was 95 fin whales, but Japan proposed for itself to have the right to catch in 1968 914 and 120 fin whales accordingly, i.e. a total of 1,034 fin whales, and 970 whales to be allocated to the Soviet Union.

The compromise Soviet proposal to set the number of whales to be caught in 1968 by each U.S.S.R. and Japan at 1,034, which corresponds to 30 per cent reduction in comparison with the catch level in 1965 both for U.S.S.R. and Japan was also dismissed. The Japanese representative motivated it by the necessity to apply a separate approach to their land stations' whaling operations, and that those catches cannot be summed up into the total Japanese catch. That position is in the direct contradiction with the indisputable fact that not only Japanese land stations but also Soviet pelagic expeditions are exploiting the Asian stock of fin whales, the estimated sustainable yield of which is 150 whales. Therefore, as well as in case with other regions of the North Pacific area, the whales of that stock are the object of joint whaling, and their protection from destruction is the common affair of the countries concerned.

The Soviet Delegation cannot agree with the proposal of the Japanese Delegation, under which in 1968 Japan will increase its fin whale catch with regard to land stations as well as to pelagic expeditions (on average by 10 per cent) in comparison with the level of 1967 and the Soviet Union will have to reduce its catch by 19 per cent in comparison with the same year.

Summary
The Soviet Side agree to reduce its 1968 fin whale catch down to 850 whales (i.e., by 29 per cent in comparison with the actual catch in 1967) under the condition that the total Japanese catch of that species will not exceed that figure too. In case Japan does not review its position and does not accept the Soviet proposal, the Soviet Side will have to determine its level of catch in the number of whales Japan plans to catch by pelagic expeditions and from land stations.

Sei Whales
Although the Working Group of scientists have not estimated the exact sustainable yield of sei whales, they considered the catches in 1966 to be high enough, and that the Commission should be made aware of the fact that the catch above the sustainable yield can be continued not longer than one or two years, if sei whale stocks were not to suffer the same destiny as fin whales. 1967 data of the Soviet whaling expeditions also positively confirm sharp decline in the abundance of that species' stocks. The Soviet Side is extremely worried by the fact that Japan has not listened to the voice of scientists and, using the favourite conjuncture for sei whale meat products, concentrated its major efforts on catching that species, and as a result its 1967 catch increased by 64 per cent in comparison with 1966 (pelagic and land stations catch). The opinion of the Soviet Side is that such sharp increase in the catch of sei whales has already affected their stocks very harmfully, and, therefore, it is necessary to take the most effective measures for protection of that species from full destruction.

The Soviet Side: 1) categorically insists that in 1968 Japan should reduce the level of its sei whale catch, as a first step, by not less than 30 per cent in comparison with the catch in 1967. The total catch of sei whales in the next two years should be reduced to the level, recommended by the Working Group. 2) propose to recommend to the Working Group urgently to prepare recommendations, taking into account the catch in 1967, and to submit them to the Governments concerned and the International Whaling Commission.

Sperm Whales
Since the 1967 season yield of whales stands rather close to the level indicated by the Working Group (12 ths. sperm whales), and there are no exact data on sustainable yield yet, the Soviet Side is prepared not to increase its catch in 1968, provided that other countries do the same. The Soviet Side is also ready to consider any proposals for protecting that species of whales.

(E) Joint Proposal by the Canadian and United States Delegations
The Canadian and United States delegations have given careful consideration to possible solutions to the special problems of the North American land stations in the context of the broad problem of the conservation of North Pacific fin whale stocks. For reasons we have already noted our study has been limited to measures which would accord with the provisions of the International Whaling Convention.

It is obvious to the two delegations that, so long as the prohibitions on the taking of blue and humpback whales continue, the North American land stations cannot maintain operations unless permitted to take between them a number of fin whales which, as it happens, corresponds roughly to the estimated sustainable yield for Area II plus the North American coast - that is, 280 fin whales. Putting it frankly, therefore, the Canadian and U.S. delegations consider that the North American land stations cannot stay in business and operate within the requirements indicated by the scientific data unless permitted to operate within the sustainable yield of the fin whale stocks of Area II and the North American coast.

It appears to us that the most effective means of accomplishing this, having in mind the provisions of the Convention, would be to prohibit pelagic whaling in the areas mentioned. We would therefore propose that this group of North Pacific Commissioners recommend to the International Whaling Commission that pelagic whaling in the North Pacific east of 140° West Longitude be prohibited subject to an annual review of the situation.

_