(from "Chairman's Report of the Fortieth Annual Meeting")

Japan had received a voluntary offer of help to those engaged in its small-type whaling activities to provide better information on the subject. As a result an international workshop comprising twelve experts from six countries had been held in April 1988 to examine objectively socio-economic aspects of small-type whaling. The report of this workshop had been submitted to the Commission and contained six main findings:

(1)

that the activity was historically based with centuries of tradition;

(2)

it is small scale but functional, exploiting unendangered species and is remarkably stable;

(3)

a significant proportion of the products is distributed through non-commercial channels including gifting throughout many elements of the community;

(4)

the activity has some commercial characteristics but is not totally market oriented;

(5)

it satisfies regionally diverse diet preferences - no community uses all parts of the whale but a historically organised distribution network ensures total use;

(6)

the activity has a socio-religious basis.

Thus, the workshop, by its holistic approach, identified the socio-economic, cultural, religious and nutritional factors that were important to the continued existence of the small-type coastal whaling communities.

In response to requests for clarification from the UK about the level of products distributed through non-cash channels, Japan commented that because of their welfare, religious, symbolic and cultural values, the products have a unique intrinsic value, but this is qualitative and not easily quantified. St Lucia wished to applaud the authors of the report which identified attributes of Japanese small-type whaling which might deserve consideration separately from commercial whaling or aboriginal subsistence whaling categories. Japan then referred to the rigorous debate on this matter which had occurred in the Ad Hoc Working Group on Consideration of a Definition of Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling and the Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling Sub-committee, and proposed, based upon a Recommendation of the Ad Hoc Working Group, a draft Resolution calling for the establishment of a Technical Committee Working Group 'to consider the situation of various kinds of small type whaling and to report on its deliberations to the 41st Annual Meeting'.

The USSR was generally supportive of this Resolution but wished to propose a number of editorial amendments as well as adding wording which would link the work of the proposed Working Group with the possible examination of questions related to the operation of the Convention. Brazil questioned the wisdom of such a linkage and indicated a preference for the original Resolution with minor amendments. Expressions of support for the Japanese proposal were given by Iceland, Norway, France, Republic of Korea, Mexico, Federal Republic of Germany, People's Republic of China and St Vincent & the Grenadines, which formally seconded the proposed Resolution. A number of these delegations and others also indicated some concern at the suggestion of the USSR to link consideration of small-type whaling with discussions on the operation of the Convention. France pointed out that there was a clear recommendation from the Ad Hoc Working Group to establish the Working Group referred to in the Japanese proposal. The UK considered it important that the IWC was fully informed about all factors which impinge on or are affected by its decisions. The study should however be made without any implications for the current provisions concerning commercial whaling. The Republic of Korea drew some parallels between its former coastal whaling and that described by Japan and accordingly expressed its support for the proposed Working Group.

Australia pointed out that, in discussion in the Ad Hoc Working Group, Japan had insisted that its small-type whaling should not be included within the aboriginal subsistence whaling category, and therefore suggested that the words 'non-aboriginal' might usefully be inserted before 'small-type whaling' in all future references. Switzerland supported this suggestion and also pointed out that the Commission had not yet decided how it would deal with the report from the Working Group to Examine Questions Related to the Operation of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, so that it was premature to attempt to associate work on these separate Issues.

In response to the suggestion from Australia, Japan indicated that its proposed Resolution used the wording from the report of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Consideration of a Definition of Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling which had been developed only after intense discussion within the Working Group, and therefore considered that it was important to retain that original wording.

After further discussion of these points and of the most effective way to proceed, the Chairman adjourned the debate to allow time for consultation and the development of wording which would be distributed in written form.

When the debate was resumed the Technical Committee had before it an amended form of the Japanese proposed Resolution and an alternative resolution submitted by the USSR. There was further extended discussion during which most delegations indicated their support for the concept of the proposed Working Group, noting the importance of developing appropriate terms of reference which adequately define the subject to be addressed without inhibiting consideration of all the complex issues involved. Brazil reiterated its view that it was unwise to associate the work of the proposed Working Group with consideration of the operation of the Convention and many delegations associated themselves with this view.

The USA reverted to the suggestion of Australia that in the title of the Working Group the words 'small-type whaling' be prefaced by the term 'non-aboriginal'. This was supported by Switzerland, Antigua & Barbuda, Australia, New Zealand and the UK. Japan indicated that it would be prepared to accept this on the understanding that such a modification would not preclude consideration of its small-type coastal whaling. The USSR expressed strong opposition to the inclusion of these words and insisted on the inclusion of a paragraph stipulating that consideration of the situation of various kinds of small-type whaling acquires special importance in the context of efforts aimed at improvement of the operation of the Convention.

Sweden questioned whether a resolution is an appropriate medium in this situation and considered that a decision by the Commission would be effective and proper. Switzerland and Brazil supported this view and Norway suggested that the Technical Committee should endorse the first two recommendations of the Ad Hoc Working Group and, in so doing, provide the necessary guidance to the presiding officer of the proposed Working Group for Consideration of the Situation of Various Kinds of Small-type Whaling, After detailed discussions about the best way to proceed and a further intervention by Brazil in support of the Norwegian suggestion, the Technical Committee agreed to adopt this approach and accordingly recommended:

(1)

that there be no change to the definitions of Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling, Local Aboriginal Consumption and Subsistence Catches as currently applied by the International Whaling Commission;

(2)

that at present, no additions be made to the category of Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling;

(3)

the establishment of a Working Group to consider the situation of various kinds of small-type whaling, and to report on its deliberations to the Technical Committee at the 41st Annual Meeting of the Commission.

Japan then asked for an interim relief allocation for the balance of the whaling season, 1 June - 30 September 1988, of 210 minke whales from the Okhotsk Sea - West Pacific stock to be taken off the coast of Japan and entirely within Japan's 200-mile zone. It further requested that, if the Working Group to consider the situation of various kinds of non-aboriginal small-type whaling did not meet or no decision of the Commission on the matter was made before the next whaling season, 1 April 1989, there should be another interim relief allocation of 160 whales in the period 1 April - 30 June 1989.

Japan based its request on the fact that since its small-type coastal whaling operations came to an end on 1 April this year the affected communities are already experiencing hardship and in the absence of any relief will continue to do so. Moreover, the specialised dietary, cultural and traditional needs of many other local communities in remote locations have been recognised by the IWC. For example, special provisions have been made to accommodate the needs of the Alaskan Eskimos and of native communities of the USSR, Denmark (Greenland) and St Vincent & the Grenadines, while Norway is able to meet the needs of its specialised communities through continued whaling under objection. Some non-member countries such as Indonesia are also able to continue their dietary traditions.

Japan asked for compassionate consideration of its position.

The Chairman then adjourned the discussion to allow time for consideration of the Japanese proposal. When the discussion resumed, Japan added that it will abide by the pause in commercial whaling; that is why it has requested an interim relief allocation. Japan continued that the Technical Committee has agreed to recommend the establishment of a Working Group to consider inter alia a category of whaling between aboriginal subsistence and commercial whaling and posed the question of what will happen to those of its people whose livelihoods depend upon whaling during the period in which the Commission is examining these matters. There is a strong human need which must be met. Referring to suggestions that making an exception of this nature would diminish the effectiveness of the pause in commercial whaling, Japan commented that before the moratorium it utilised 15,000 tons of meat and other edible products from Antarctic and small-type whaling, of which only 600 tons came from small-type coastal whaling. It has been trying to cope with this drastic reduction over the last three years and repeatedly presented its case to the Commission. However, the Commission has ignored or evaded the issue and has thus forced the present imminent situation, which threatened the right of livelihoods. The Aboriginal Subsistence whaling category had been set up because the IWC had taken cognisance of the 1946 Convention which recognises the needs of local people. For all of these reasons it again appealed for the most careful consideration of its request.

The Technical Committee took note of the Japanese statement and request and decided to refer the matter to the Plenary for further consideration.

In the Commission, Japan introduced a formal request for an interim relief allocation and restated the basis for its proposal as previously detailed to the Technical Committee. Iceland expressed its sympathy with the request but asked for governments to have more time before making a decision. Many delegations then indicated their sympathy with the Japanese communities affected. However, Brazil thought it inappropriate to give any allocation now lest it prejudice the question of coastal whaling to be examined next year, a view shared by France and Mexico. Norway was sympathetic to the Japanese request, as were St Lucia and St Vincent & the Grenadines. The Federal Republic of Germany voiced the difficulties it saw against the background of the moratorium on commercial whaling, as did Switzerland, a position also taken by the Netherlands and Sweden. The UK shared this view and that of Brazil, and Australia and New Zealand spoke in similar vein. Spain, the Republic of Korea, the People's Republic of China, the USA and Argentina were in favour of creating the Working Group to analyse the problem. Denmark looked for a solution in the light of the moratorium and the Comprehensive Assessment, and Finland associated itself with this statement.

Japan thanked all Commissioners for their expressions of sympathy for the affected communities, but asked for the matter to be referred back to the member governments. After discussion of the practical aspects, it was agreed that 'Governments which, after reflecting on the Japanese request, have further views to express should be invited to convey those views to the Secretary by 31 July 1988 for circulation to Contracting Governments and Commissioners.'

It was further agreed that the Japanese position would be a matter of priority for the Working Group established to consider various kinds of small-type whaling.

_