(from "Chairman's Report of the Forty-First Annual Meeting")

Descriptions of small-type whaling
Japan, Iceland and Norway presented descriptions of their small-type whaling operations.

Japan
The Japanese presentation outlined the history of coastal whaling in Japan and its place in Japan's whaling complex. The principle characteristics are full utilisation of the whale for human consumption and the close integration of whalers within the land station community, as the operations are strictly in coastal waters, mainly within a day's travel from the landing port. The vessels are small, crew relationships are egalitarian and the product is subject to commercial and non-commercial distribution. The various social, symbolic and cultural functions of whales in maintaining local traditions were emphasised.

Severe impacts on the coastal communities were experienced as a result of the zero catch quota on minke whales, creating serious social and economic hardships following the stable nature of the coastal whale fishery for 50 years. The Japanese Government had taken measures to alleviate local hardship by increasing national quotas for Baird's beaked whale and carrying over an unused pilot whale quota as an emergency measure.

Discussion in the Working Group clarified that the meat from these operations enters the commercial arena in a highly industrialised country, but some delegations stated that it was not clear in what essential respects the Japanese small-type coastal whaling differed from large-type coastal whaling except in respect of the sizes of whales taken and the corresponding sizes of the vessels and cannon used.

In response to the suggestion that the consequences of the moratorium should have been foreseen, Japan reminded the Working Group that it had sought relief for its small-type coastal whaling. It recognised the justified exemption of aboriginal subsistence whaling from the moratorium due to the human rights and cultural needs of the dependent communities which it believes are in many respects similar to its own coastal communities.

Iceland
The Icelandic small-type whaling fishery is considered to have started in 1914 and expanded from an annual catch of 50 minke whales until 1960 to about 200 minke whales in the next 25 years. The fishery has been conducted from small rural communities in the northern part of Iceland based on especially equipped small fishing boats with mounted harpoon guns. The temporary suspension of the fishery has caused social and economic hardship to the families involved due to lack of alternative employment opportunities in these remote areas.

It was noted that the Icelandic vessels were engaged in fishing when not whaling, in contrast to the Japanese vessels which engage only in whaling although on a seasonal basis.

Norway
Norwegian whaling has been exclusively small-type coastal whaling since its Antarctic pelagic whaling was halted in 1967. This fishery, mainly for minke whales along the coast of Norway, has a very long tradition going back to the 9th century. It is the opinion of Norway that this issue is a reminder of the serious consequences and responsibilities of the IWC in ruling on management regulation of whaling.

The UK drew the initial conclusion that any consequences of the moratorium could be alleviated by economic measures, but Norway did not necessarily agree fully with this conclusion.

Definitions related to small-type whaling
The Working Group considered whether it could define a category of small-type whaling that was neither commercial whaling nor aboriginal subsistence whaling, and there was discussion on how to proceed. Seychelles noted that small-type whaling was already defined in the Schedule; small-type minke whaling in Greenland is recognised as aboriginal subsistence whaling; other small-type operations had been continuously identified since 1976 as small-type commercial whaling in the sense of setting catch limits. Any further definition could only be to provide categories to which different management regimes might be applied.

Norway felt that any discussion of this question should not be allowed to interfere with the completion of the Comprehensive Assessment which will serve as a sound basis for rational management. This is in line with its own management policies which are based on scientific advice and biological-ecological criteria. Extended discussion led to the conclusion that it was not possible for the Working Group to reach a consensus on descriptions or definitions of small-type whaling, whether there was a need to define this term, or whether commercial whaling should also be defined. Some delegations proposed that the Working Group should meet again next year while other delegations were concerned that this might detract from the Comprehensive Assessment to be carried out at the 1990 meeting.

15.2 Action arising
In the Technical Committee, Japan restated its position and concerns in this matter. Iceland expressed its belief that there was a lack of understanding of the issues involved and that the Working Group should continue, Norway associated itself with this view and emphasised the need to increase comprehension of the meaning of small-type whaling for the small coastal communities, which are very much aware of the marine ecosystems from which they harvest. The USA noted that it might be useful, in light of budgetary and other considerations, to combine the charge of this Working Group with that of the one which had considered the Socio-economic Implications of a Zero Catch Limit.

The Republic of Korea indicated that the moratorium has resulted in hardship in its country. St Lucia believed that the Working Group should continue, noting that there are overlaps between different types of whaling giving rise to complex issues requiring due consideration. St Vincent & The Grenadines associated themselves with this view and that of Iceland, and in particular they thought it important to include a definition of 'commercial whaling' if something else is to be defined between this and 'aboriginal subsistence whaling'. Following further interventions, Iceland recalled that much time has been spent in the Commission in discussion of aboriginal subsistence whaling and the needs of the local communities. The Comprehensive Assessment is mainly a scientific task so that discussion of small-type whaling does not need to interfere with it. St Vincent & The Grenadines, Norway, France and Mexico also took this position, and Brazil emphasised the link between this issue and the socio-economic aspects. Other delegations found merit in this approach, and this led to a consensus that a Working Group should meet again next year with a mandate to include Socio-economic Implications of a Zero Catch Limit.

The Chairman invited Japan, Australia, Iceland, Norway and the USA to develop appropriate terms of reference and to determine a date by which questions should be received which Japan offered to answer on its small-type coastal whaling, Their draft proposal created considerable discussion when reviewed during adoption of the Report of the Technical Committee. The Netherlands was concerned about expecting the Working Group to consider a distinctive category of whaling, a view shared by Switzerland. Eventually it was agreed to add an alternative form of words proposed by New Zealand so that the plenary could make the final decision in light of the divergent views which had been expressed.

India wished to record its view that the resolution of the Commission's competence with respect to small cetaceans should be included in the terms of reference.

At the conclusion of the discussion, Japan stated that it would request an interim relief allocation for one year from 1 July 1989 of 320 minke whales from the Okhotsk - West Pacific stock to be taken off the coast of Japan and entirely within Japan's 200-mile zone.

In the Commission, Japan reiterated this request on the basis of the human need of its coastal whaling communities, in line with an earlier decision of the Commission to alleviate the sufferings of aboriginal subsistence communities.

Switzerland stated its view that the zero catch limits had been set as a drastic measure until a safer and more efficient basis for management is in place. It could not agree to other catch limits until that time. The USA also recognised the serious impact on the Japanese small-type whalers, but had concerns for anything that would compromise the moratorium before the Comprehensive Assessment, and in amending the Schedule with no adequate scientific advice.

Iceland commented on the broader problems inherent in the political relations between states and the human rights of individuals, and hoped that the Commission could find some way to take account of the Japanese request. Norway shared this hope, and recognised the matter to be an important test for the Commission. Denmark believed only aboriginal subsistence whaling should be permitted during the moratorium in the absence of a third category of whaling. The Netherlands joined with the other delegations in expressing appreciation for all the information provided by Japan, but placed primary importance on the full observance of the moratorium decision and did not want to prejudge any future catch limits.

New Zealand felt that Japanese ingenuity might find a solution, but did not want to make an exception to the moratorium on commercial whaling. This position was shared by the Federal Republic of Germany, Oman and the UK, the latter remarking on the fact that the small-type whaling group had not found any cause to change the moratorium observed already by a number of countries, nor was information presented to the Scientific Committee on the status of the stocks. Sweden associated itself with the views of Switzerland and Denmark and could not accept interim catch quotas.

St Vincent & The Grenadines supported an interim quota comparable with the situation before management of aboriginal subsistence whaling was established. St Lucia asked if the stock is endangered, or is there a safe margin to attend to the human needs.

Brazil, conceptually, could not agree to the Japanese request, but suggested that if Japan would agree not to press for a solution now, the matter could be deferred until the next Annual Meeting when both the socio-economic and small-type whaling issues could be treated together.

Australia recorded its appreciation of the presentation of its case by Japan but found difficulty in doing anything to change the effects of the moratorium. It supported the suggestion by Brazil, as did the USA, the latter clarifying that the emergency bowhead quota had been put in place before the moratorium. Japan emphasised it was referring to the Commission's consideration of the human need in spite of scientific advice.

Argentina, Iceland, Switzerland, St Lucia, Norway, St vincent & The Grenadines and Spain all supported the Brazilian suggestion.

Japan stated that a lot of suffering had been created by what it regarded as an erroneous decision for a moratorium in 1982. Since it withdrew its objection in 1985 it has repeatedly.raised the matter. It regretted that no solution had been found this year, and the government would have to take appropriate measures to alleviate the problems as an interim measure. It appealed for a more productive and constructive approach next year, when it would furnish the data necessary for the scientific analysis of the stock status and the socio-economic aspects of the problem. It asked that the minke whales of the North Pacific and Okhotsk Sea be treated as a priority stock next year.

The Netherlands hoped the Japanese interim measures do not include the taking of whales which in its view would not be in accordance with the Schedule.

Turning to the terms of reference for the Technical Committee Working Group on Socio-economic Implications and Small-type Whaling, Seychelles indicated its view that there may be a need to attempt to define different types of coastal whaling. It appreciated the sociological parameters that might be incorporated in any such definitions, and welcomed the offer by Japan, and encouraged other whaling nations, to provide documents comparing coastal whaling operations. The large whale species had been depleted in the Southern Hemisphere, and it was important that the minke whales in the Northern Hemisphere do not meet the same fate through inadequate management of small-type whaling. In its view, the greatest threat in the long term to a stable whaling industry is the setting of arbitrary quotas with little scientific justification outside a satisfactory management procedure.

Discussion of the alternative wordings put forward by the Technical Committee, and suggested amendments by New Zealand and Japan which had the effect of making the proposal more acceptable to all governments, led to the terms of reference given in Appendix 5. These had the support of the UK, Iceland, Seychelles, France, USA, Switzerland, Netherlands, Norway and St Lucia, and were adopted by the Commission.

_