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

A. Norway
Norway presented the results of a study on whaling in Norwegian waters in the 1980s. The study focussed on the period from 1983 to 1987, when commercial minke whaling stopped in that country. The study provided an examination of the historic, economic and social effects of whaling, its cessation and possible resumption. It also presented an illustrative examination of the possible effects of a cessation of whaling on other components of the marine environment.

The presentation emphasised that while the small-type whaling industry had never been one of great national significance, it was an extremely important industry in several local communities, in which there were seasonal patterns of whaling and whale processing and involvement in other fisheries.

The study showed the social and economic readjustments that had been made following the cessation of whaling. While seasonal involvement in other fisheries had meant that, for some, changes to other fisheries was relatively easy, for others it had been difficult. Serious downturns in major fish stocks had limited the alternatives available to private individuals.

In the Working Group, discussion focussed on the possible ecological effects which Norway explained were purely illustrative and required a considerable amount of refinement, and it considered that yield estimates were as likely to go up as down. The Netherlands considered that existing information presented to ICES indicated that predatory effects of minke whales were negligible compared to those from other components considered in multi-species assessments of the system. Norway stated that they were in close contact with ICES also in this respect, but were unaware of any such information from ICES.

B. Japan
Japan presented several documents. It considered that:

(1)

if aboriginal subsistence whaling is recognised and allowed, at times even on Protection stocks at low levels, small-type coastal whaling (STCW) should also be recognised;

(2)

STCW has very important social, cultural, dietary and gift exchange functions in the community as does aboriginal subsistence whaling, but should, however, be treated somewhat separately, as it has other characteristics;

(3)

Commissioners had expressed sympathy for the serious disruption experienced, but the Commission had made no decision that would relieve it and had not allowed an emergency relief catch requested.

A paper on the socio-economic impact countermeasures in the four Japanese STCW communities outlined the initiative that had been taken at individual, local government and national levels to try to reduce the impact of zero catch limits on the communities of Abashiri, Ayukawa, Wada and Taiji, and the very limited success achieved or possible in each case.

In presenting its document on distinguishing between Japanese STCW and LTCW (large-type coastal whaling) in relation to coastal whale-fishery management, Japan emphasised the difference between the two types of whaling operations in terms of ownership and management, scale of assets, recruitment and career paths and other aspects of the whaling operations. The co-operative and cohesive nature of STCW was emphasised, as was the role in the local community that the activities play as a source of products with important social, gift exchange, religious, symbolic and dietary values, as well as direct economic values.

Research reported on quantification of local need for minke whales was for one area of Japan in which there had been a catch of minke whales by STCW vessels - the Ayukawa area on the main island of Honshu. The study was intended to quantify the local human need in the Ayukawa-based area for minke whale meat for culturally significant end uses. Culturally significant end uses refer to the local food culture in which particular foods provide an important means of signifying a distinctive local or regional identity and includes both unique features of everyday diet and the traditional use of special foods in association with particular culturally-meaningful events. The study ethnographically identified and described some 30 culturally significant events, (including everyday use), at which whale meat was customarily eaten.

There was considerable discussion on all these matters in the Working Group and Japan provided explanations and expansion in response to numerous questions.

C. Greenland
Denmark presented for information two studies prepared for the Greenland Home Rule Government on minke whale hunting in two areas of Greenland. The studies had been prepared in response to a request from the Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling Sub-committee for further studies on hunting in Greenland to focus on case studies. These provided a comparative description of cold harpoon hunting, and meat distribution from 30 - 42ft cutters at a southern Greenland township of some 4,000 people and a mid-western area of small settlements where hunting is from small boats. The Working Group noted the reports.

D. Iceland
A report prepared by the Government of Iceland was introduced as a revision of a preliminary document considered in 1989. At that time further information had been requested on the socio-economic consequences of the zero catch limit decision. Iceland pointed out that the history of modern type whaling in Iceland spans most of this century, but in recent years the operations had all been concentrated in one land station for the large whale fishery and 8-9 villages for the minke whale fishery. A brief description was given of these two different categories of whaling in Iceland. Iceland outlined the socio-economic importance of whaling in terms of employment, export revenues, regional development and general marine resource management. It emphasised that for a small country like Iceland the socio-economic importance of whaling has been quite significant in recent times. Iceland expressed the view that the biological and scientific foundations for the harvesting of whale stocks were of paramount importance, above socio-economic or cultural considerations. It was stressed that it was Iceland's view that provided that these foundations are in order, whale stocks need to be harvested in a disciplined manner along with other marine resources.

New Zealand and the UK suggested that the statement in the document about the role of whaling in multi-species management was related to an extremely complex issue which was not the responsibility of the Working Group.

Conclusion
The Working Group agreed that the information provided to it had confirmed in general the views it had agreed to in the report of its 1989 meeting, which were:

'The Working Group agreed that it was clear that the zero catch limits have several levels of socio-economic impacts and that it is important for the Commission to have these facts and opinions as they proceed with their deliberation. The 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 industrialised communities.'

Consideration of the situation of various kinds of small type whaling
Japan had prepared a draft operational plan for its small-type whaling that was intended to ensure that the activities remain small scale and locally centred as well as functionally distinguishable from LTCW and pelagic whaling. Japan emphasised that presentation of the operational plan should not be interpreted as implying that other forms of whaling did not in the past, or might not in the future, serve other important needs. Japan stated that the operation plan had been planned to set out principles that:

(1)

aim to maximise efficient and humane catching of whales for human consumption on a sustainable basis;

(2)

minimise losses of whales or product quality;

(3)

ensure that benefits from consumption of whale meat occur to the greatest extent presently to be achieved through reorganisation of existing production and distribution arrangements;

(4)

make explicit the differences between STCW and LTCW and other forms of industrial whaling which in the past have coexisted with small type coastal whaling.

In the plan, Japanese offered a definition of Japanese small-type whaling as a

'...category of whaling, where notwithstanding a degree of commercial activity consistent with sustained and efficient resource use, whaling sustains locally important, social, cultural, nutritional and economic institutions in particular whaling communities, and which, if stopped, would have serious and demonstrable adverse impacts on those communities'.

Japan noted that the plan was intended to provide the framework for operating under a special category should it be accepted by the Commission. The Government of Japan had sought since the moratorium to have confirmation from the IWC that STCW communities did have special needs and that they should be relieved of the burden of the moratorium. The operational plan was intended as a basic proposal, which, if action was taken by the IWC and it was implemented, would permit special dispensation for a minke whale catch by STCW. Japan anticipated constructive comment, with a view to improving the plan.

Japan stated that the definition in the plan was intended primarily to describe contemporary Japanese small-type whaling operations, which were intended primarily to meet direct cultural needs. It also noted that in its view, both commercial and aboriginal subsistence whaling operate without acceptable definitions, giving the impression that it is possible to regulate some whaling operation by common understanding rather than strict definition.

Again there was considerable discussion in the Working Group on these issues.

Seychelles stated that the present aim of the Scientific Committee is to seek a system of management which would apply in principle to all commercial operations, including those falling under the Commission's definition of small-type whaling. Seychelles considered it conceivable that eventually, while retaining the integrity of a single management scheme, it may become necessary to 'tune' the regulatory system somewhat differently for coastal and off-shore operations.

The USA said that it did not believe that the proposed operational plan yet provided an appropriate basis for management. The USA then associated itself with the remarks by Seychelles, as did Australia, New Zealand, the UK, the Netherlands and Sweden.

Japan felt strongly that the situation in which the STCW communities found themselves placed could have been avoided and that the present Schedule is not adequate to deal with different types of whaling conducted in coastal waters of Norway, Japan and some other countries.

Technical Committee discussion
In the Technical Committee, Japan emphasised that it had presented reports on the socio-economic impacts of the zero catch limits and the situation of small-type whaling for the past five years. It had presented objective cultural and anthropological studies to show the need for a special category of STCW. In particular it drew attention to the conclusions that:

(1)

salmon-farming has not proven economically viable and had not benefited former STCW operators, either in terms of compensation for lost income or jobs;

(2)

despite a continued fishery based upon small quotas of pilot and beaked whales, more than half the whalers in STCW had lost their jobs as a result of the minke whale zero-catch quota imposed in 1988;

(3)

most positions obtained by whalers losing their jobs were seasonal or part-time, low paying and without security or benefits associated with satisfactory employment ;

(4)

due to the limited (six-month) duration of the STCW season, laid-off whalers are ineligible for more than a few months of compensation under national regulations;

(5)

boat owners were not eligible for part-compensation for the lack of livelihood resulting from the minke zero-catch quota, due to the requirement that they surrender their capital equipment and business licenses in order to qualify for government compensation - the ongoing obligations boat owners have to various institutions and individuals in their home communities rendered this option socially and culturally, as well as in a business sense, quite unacceptable;

(6)

the limited distribution of frozen Antarctic minke meat as a by-product of the Japanese whale research programme into the STCW whaling towns provides much less meat than is required for a normalisation of customary dietary and cultural requirements;

(7)

efforts to promote tourism in the economically-troubled whaling towns did not appear promising due to lack of amenities expected by tourists;

(8)

whale watching as a proposed countermeasure appeared to have little practical value; the species of whale and the types of boats available, the shortness of the season and the sea conditions were all quite unsuited for satisfactory whale watching;

(9)

whaling-operation watching together with the distinctive local whale meat cuisine could help overcome these towns' remoteness from established tour routes when competing nationally for tourists.

Japan identified distinctions between STCW and LTCW on the basis of ownership and management in recent years, scale of assets, recruitment practice and career paths, distribution of whale meat, cooperation and sharing, and difference in non-commercial distribution of whale meat.

Japan also reiterated the evidence and conclusions presented to the Working Group on the methods employed and recently modified for the local control and distribution of the use of meat. It pointed out that it had also responded to specific questions raised by the UK.

Norway offered a strong commendation to Japan for such extensive research and its presentation. This research is breaking new ground in a complex area of study where the IWC is asked to face up to the social, cultural and economic responsibilities of its decisions. It believed that the Commission should also view these concerns with wider perspectives in a global context. Iceland associated itself with the statement by Norway, believing that Japan has amply demonstrated the social and cultural aspects of the situation.

With respect to its own small-type coastal whaling fishery, Iceland emphasised that this had been conducted from small rural communities since 1914. Its cessation had caused a severe impact for people with little alternative employment available. The Scientific Committee Report indicated the healthy status of the Central North Atlantic minke whale stock and it was not logical for this hardship to continue.

Norway was also concerned by the effects of zero catch limits on its coastal communities as well as the impact on the ecological balance in the sea on which these communities depend.

12.2 Action arising
The Technical Committee adopted, and the Commission subsequently endorsed, the recommendations of the Working Group which concluded 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) - the Chairman requested the members wishing to submit new materials between meetings of the Commission do so by November 1990.

Japan gave notice to the plenary session that it will table a request for an interim quota allocation.

In the plenary session Japan spoke of the research conducted over the past five years to document the nature and significance of its small-type coastal whaling fishery. In 1988 and 1989 a number of delegations expressed their understanding of the serious problems faced by residents in these whaling communities. Japan requested an interim relief allocation of 50 minke whales from the Okhotsk Sea- West Pacific stock before the Comprehensive Assessment is undertaken next year. This is substantially below the quantified need and no adverse effect on the stock can be expected. Strict control measures would limit the distribution of the meat from this catch to those communities where need associated with a distinct food culture based upon fresh minke whale meat has been demonstrated. If this interim relief quota is accepted, the Government will voluntarily reduce the quota of Baird's beaked whales to 40 in 1991. The minke whale quota would not be a violation of the moratorium but provision of interim relief for human cultural need for one year.

St Lucia voiced its support of the Japanese proposal, pointing out that members of the scientific community indicated that a catch of 50 whales would have no adverse effect on the stock. Japan had presented a whole series of studies over the past five years, and the Convention had many references to the objectives of management of whale stocks, the regulation of whaling, the need to take account of economic and nutritional aspects, and to take into consideration the interests of the consumers of whale products. Norway, St Vincent & The Grenadines and Iceland also spoke in support of Japan.

The Netherlands, while appreciating the work done by Japan, expressed uneasiness about granting a quota which would be an exception to the existing commercial whaling moratorium, because of the commercial aspects in the fishery. An in-depth assessment of North Pacific minke whales will be done next year and a system of management which would apply to all commercial operations including those defined as small-type is being sought. It thus thought it not right to grant the Japanese request this year. France associated itself with the conclusions drawn by the Netherlands.

The Federal Republic of Germany also could not agree to the Japanese request because it believed it is necessary to fulfil the conditions formulated in paragraph 10(e) of the Schedule, and there is no assessment for this stock.

Japan argued that this case would not set a precedent, because of the numerous social and anthropological research studies carried out on this fishery over the past five years. It hoped that there will be a consensus on the assessment of the stock next year, as well as a revised management procedure, to provide some kind of relief. It explained at length why it did not think that because small-type whaling is commercial whaling it does not deserve any special consideration. It emphasised in particular the non-economic goals and attributes of the mixed economy, and the similarities it saw with the subsistence fishery off southeast Greenland where meat is sold as a means of distribution in the community.

The USA did not support the Japanese proposal, and summarised its views. It was concerned about the proportion of small-type coastal whaling minke meat sold to more distant markets; the multiple species management which would be split between the IWC and Japanese national authorities; that while consumption is culturally very important, harvesting is substantially less so; the extent to which foreign and domestic sources of cetacean meat already satisfy existing demand; and it did not believe the proposed operational plan provided an appropriate basis for sound management.

Japan responded that in the 1980s the export of fresh meat has been only within the provincial Prefecture boundary, and that the socio-cultural importance is the integrated activity of production, distribution and consumption.

Sweden expressed its opinion that the material presented did not warrant the establishment of a special category of whaling. Australia shared this reservation and that described by the Federal Republic of Germany.

The UK indicated that the very detailed reports submitted by Japan gave a much clearer understanding of the situation and the socio-economic consequences of the moratorium on the four communities under discussion. It was not unsympathetic to the problems, but it was clear that a large proportion of the minke whale meat landed was sold commercially and entered complex wholesale and retail chains at inter-regional and national level. This was rather different from the Greenland example with a local market. It could not avoid the conclusion that small-type coastal whaling is essentially commercial in character. The Comprehensive Assessment for the particular stock is taking place next year, and until this assessment gave assurance that the stock is in a healthy state, it thought it would be unwise to move ahead and exempt it from the moratorium. Switzerland associated itself with this statement.

It was the considered view of Denmark that there is a substantial difference between aboriginal subsistence catches and small-type coastal whaling. It pointed out that in most cases in Greenland the catch is not distributed by commercial means.

New Zealand remarked that the sticking point is largely one of principle that the commercial element remains of major significance. To agree to the Japanese proposal would pull the supports out from under the moratorium, and it was not able, therefore, to agree to the request for an interim quota allocation.

The Japanese proposal for an interim relief quota for small-type whaling from the Okhotsk Sea - West Pacific stock of minke whales of 50 whales in 1991 was then put to the vote. It was defeated with 5 votes in favour, 15 against and 8 abstentions.

The USA explained its no vote on the basis that there is no special category established for small-type whaling. Spain explained its abstention because it did not see clearly the differences between aboriginal and small-type whaling, with one allowed and the other not.

_