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

The Working Group considered documents submitted by Iceland, Japan and Spain.

Japan reviewed the socio-economic implications of the moratorium in its country. It was pointed out that the moratorium affected the spiritual, psychological, physical and cultural well-being of people who depend upon whaling. A report prepared by Japanese and foreign social scientists characterized the socio-economic dislocations at four levels; the individual, the family, the community and at general (national) levels. While pelagic and large-type coastal whaling stopped in 1987, small-type continued until 1988 when Japan implemented a zero-catch limit for minke whales. In Japan the zero-catch limit has affected individuals economically, socially, culturally and in respect to health. The effects include disruption and failure of small businesses, job loss and employment at less valued positions and/or limited work in temporary or seasonal positions. Because of the nature of small-type whaling the zero-catch limit affects individuals in small villages more than in the industrial centres. The small size of the local economy has required physical moves for individuals and families in order to find employment. High levels of unemployment for former whalers result from the highly specialised nature of their work and barriers to re-employment due to age and the particularities of Japanese employment and fishery practices. As whalers enjoyed prestige, their job loss is especially stressful. Within the family interpersonal stress, disruption of rigid gender related division of labour and stress on children occurs. Local businesses depending on whale products have been severely affected and the loss of revenue threatens the survival of such institutions as fishery cooperative associations. Tourism is highly dependent upon the availability of whale meat which also plays an important role in religious observances and community celebrations. These impacts pose a serious threat to the continued survival of these traditional small communities.

The Republic of Korea indicated that each country has experienced specific problems from the adoption of the moratorium. Its government provided some compensation for the loss of employment, and shifted the industry and labour to fisheries activities where possible in anticipation of the Comprehensive Assessment.

Australia referred to its own experience following the closure of its last whaling station and reported that some unemployment had resulted. Subsequently new 'whale watching' activities have developed in some parts of the country. Australia also noted that interest in non-consumptive uses of cetaceans were beginning to develop in Japan as exemplified by 'Whaleland' in Ayukawa.

Japan stated that although it does not oppose non-consumptive use of whales under the Australian policy, it is felt that encouragement of such policy should be confined to the 200 nautical mile zone of Australia.

Iceland introduced a provisional document that it intends to revise and expand. The Icelandic delegation pointed out that the document should be considered as a basic description of the operations in Iceland as well as the potential long-term socio-economic impact of a zero catch limit. The impact was divided into two categories; the impact associated with the large whale fishery and the impact on small-type whaling (STW). The effects of the elimination of the large whale fishery have been primarily economic with the shift in employment being absorbed in the general economy and into fishing, with some of the impact being deferred due to the special permit catches. In the STW there are greater impacts and resulting unemployment. As in the case of Japan, many of the STW vessels and processors are in small villages and the opportunities to convert to other forms of employment are limited. This has resulted in a shift from the valued minke whale processing mainly into fishing, an industry in Iceland that is currently overcapitalised. These changes have a greater impact in a country such as Iceland because of the limited diversity of the economy and the dependence on the natural resources of the surrounding seas. The Icelandic delegation emphasised that the operations in Iceland were waiting in anticipation of the results of the Comprehensive Assessment. The Icelandic delegation also pointed out the potential implications of a zero-catch limit for the nation's overall marine research and management in the context of an ecological and multispecies approach.

The UK drew attention to the fact that changes in circumstances which lead to socio-economic difficulties are not confined solely to whaling but also to other activities and occupations. Switzerland, whilst expressing sympathy for any individual cases of hardship, agreed with this view and pointed out examples of apparent exaggeration in the case presented by Japan. Switzerland and the UK also drew attention to the fact that the zero catch limits were implemented by the Japanese, who therefore were responsible for the consequences and who were in a position to take alternative actions. The USA associated itself with the substance of these remarks. The UK drew attention to an earlier unilateral whaling moratorium implemented by Iceland and mentioned in the paper. The same delegate, recognising the preliminary nature of the Icelandic report, requested that in due course, information relating to the socio-economic consequences of this moratorium and the means of alleviating its impact should be made available.

Japan stated that the decline of Japanese whaling as a result of the moratorium is quite unlike industrial changes in the other industries mentioned by several other delegates; whaling involves a distinctly integrated sub-culture that has been brought to a sudden and complete halt, but not because of 'natural' or conventional economic forces. The impact is to destroy this unique sub-culture involving special environmental knowledge, a unique view of the world, special relationships with whaling communities and spiritual traditions.

Spain introduced a document prepared following the 1987 meeting. It reported that the major impacts in Spain were associated with retraining of older workers, unemployment in depressed areas and the cessation of unemployment benefits for older workers.

Discussions after each of the presentations indicate that the zero catch limits have several levels of socio-economic impact. It is important for the Commission to have these facts and opinions as it proceeds with its deliberations. The Working Group identified several elements. Some of the socio-economic effects are serious, but governments at times have to take painful actions that affect their citizens. While these decisions are painful, several delegations stressed it is the responsibility of the government to take mitigating measures. Though governments can successfully take actions to mitigate change, some are permanent and cannot be remedied. Under such conditions no consequences of government action can prevent or reverse changes to certain cultural, traditional and religious lifestyles. The impacts of zero-catch limits are greater in sociological terms in rural areas where local economies and traditions are linked to the natural resources, than in larger and more industrialized communities.

Japan reiterated to the Commission the conclusions of the studies it had undertaken and the consequences of the moratorium decision, and Iceland supported the continuation of the Working Group.

7.2 Action arising
The Working Group concluded its deliberations with the recommendations that: (1) the Working Group be continued; (2) the documentation be reviewed and revised between meetings; (3) the Chairman, in consultation with the Chairman of the Commission and the Secretary, determine if an additional meeting needs to be convened before the next Annual Meeting in the light of any new documentation received (such a decision would be communicated in December).

At this stage in its meeting, the Commission adopted recommendation 2, and noted the request of the Working Group Chairman that members wishing to submit new materials between meetings of the Commission do so by November. The other two recommendations were deferred pending completion of Agenda Item 15.2 in the Technical Committee.

_