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

8.1.1 Small-type whaling
Two major submissions were received, from Japan and Norway, with statements by representatives of the Japanese whalers and their communities.

Japan summarised five years of research and documentation related to its small-type coastal whaling and distinguishing it from large-type whaling. The principal differences relate to the scale of the operations, as reflected in technology, manpower, financial and management dimensions, and distribution patterns for the harvested products in each fishery. Japan also provided an annotated bibliography of the 29 papers tabled and discussed between 1988 and 1992 at Working Group meetings. It presented an action plan for the four communities involved concerning the distribution of whale products and regulations for whaling under an interim relief allocation which it requested.

Norway presented a plan for the resumption of its traditional coastal whaling where there is a demonstrated cultural and subsistence need. This would be limited to harvesting minke whales on a modest scale and it suggested the criteria to regulate such a fishery.

Discussion in the Working Group revealed that many delegations were willing to work in a constructive manner, but that some delegations had indicated problems with both the proposals, mainly related to their commercial aspects. However, only a few delegations had said that they were not ready to take any action, with the majority believing that the proposals should be considered further.

Japan proposed to recommend to the Commission that the Working Group be continued next year, which was supported by New Zealand and adopted by the Working Group by consensus.

8.2 Consideration on the request of the interim relief allocation of the 50 North Pacific minke whales
Japan noted that many people are now in sympathy with the case of its small-type coastal whaling villages, which have much in common with aboriginal subsistence whaling communities. Great damage was caused to them by the moratorium, and once again Japan requested an interim relief allocation of 50 minke whales in recognition of the socio-cultural and economic needs. The whaling operation and distribution of products would be controlled under the action plan presented.

Grenada supported this proposal, because of its commitment to preserve cultural heritage and indigenous customs, and it also thought non-commercial use of whales is a fiction.

The Russian Federation, while expressing its readiness to consider the proposal for a new category, stated that the 1946 Convention only recognises two categories of whaling operations - commercial and aboriginal subsistence.

Japan pointed out in its action plan the provisions to ensure that minke whales caught by community-based whaling will be exclusively distributed and consumed in the four specified local communities of Abashiri, Ayukawa, Wada and Taiji through controls by the municipalities.

8.3 Action arising
Japan put forward a proposed Schedule amendment for an interim relief allocation of 50 minke whales to alleviate the distress caused by the cessation of whaling in four coastal communities, with the associated action plan for managing the harvest and non-commercial distribution of the products. The proposed amendment, seconded by Grenada, was to insert after paragraph 13 of the Schedule a new paragraph:

'Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 10, the taking of 50 minke whales from the Okhotsk Sea-West Pacific stock of the North Pacific in the 1994 season is permitted provided that there is no commercial distribution of the products of these whales.'

The Russian Federation suggested some substantial additions to this text, which were distributed after the following debate.

Spain identified its two main worries as the commercial issue and completion of the RMS and suggested that the required consideration should be given at next year's meeting. This view was shared by Sweden, Mexico, Chile, UK, Germany, Switzerland, and broadly supported by Australia, while the USA, New Zealand and the Netherlands thought adoption would be premature at this time. Ireland also opposed any resumption of whaling until the RMS has been completed. The Republic of Korea believed that small-type whaling should be accommodated in the framework of the RMS, or else its fishermen will also demand their quota from the stock. The Solomon Islands, St Vincent and The Grenadines, the People's Republic of China and Dominica supported the Japanese proposal, and St Lucia questioned the will of the Commission to address the human need, a view shared by Norway. India stated that its ultimate objective is to phase out even aboriginal subsistence whaling with the introduction of alternative means of living, and so opposed the Japanese proposal.

Japan called for a vote on the revised text as amended by the Russian Federation, St Lucia seconding those amendments. The proposal was to insert after Paragraph 13 a new paragraph as follows:

'Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 10, the non-commercial coastal community based taking of 50 minke whales from the Okhotsk Sea-West Pacific stock of the North Pacific in the 1994 season is permitted provided that there is no commercial use of the products of these whales, which are to be used exclusively for local consumption by the four communities of Abashiri, Ayukawa, Wada and Taiji; and that the Government of Japan presents to the IWC prior to 1 March 1994 its regulations ensuring the non-commercial character of the above mentioned whaling and use of whale products.'

The Secretary pointed out Convention Article V, paragraph (ii), sub-paragraph (c) which states that 'amendments of the Schedule shall not allocate specific quotas to any group of factory ships or land stations'. The Netherlands, Australia and Brazil thought this amendment should not be voted on, while the Russian Federation, New Zealand and Norway wanted to proceed. The Chairman therefore ruled for a vote, but the UK raised a question on the meaning of 'commercial use' relative to the prohibition on commercial whaling in Schedule paragraph 10(e), and echoed the Australian call for caution on this vote.

On taking the vote, the proposal was defeated, with 10 votes in favour, 16 against and 6 abstentions.

Japan expressed its feeling of anguish and anger because its request had again been denied, and Denmark regretted that it was not possible to reach a resolution to this problem.

Norway reported that it had obtained only limited support for its traditional coastal whaling plan and therefore submitted no proposals for action.

The Commission endorsed the continuation of the Working Group next year.

Later in the meeting Japan introduced a Resolution, co-sponsored by Dominica, Grenada, Norway, St Lucia and St Vincent and The Grenadines, which built on the many expressions of sympathy after its request for an interim relief allocation was rejected. Australia, despite some slight discomfort, hoped that the Resolution could be accepted by consensus, a sentiment shared by Spain, Ireland and Germany. The Russian Federation thought the Resolution accommodated all the concerns previously expressed, while the USA was supportive but saw a problem in a mechanism to determine the size of the socio-economic and cultural needs. The Resolution (Appendix 3) was then adopted.

_