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

7.1.1 Action on 1993 Resolution
The Commission adopted a Resolution last year in which it recognised the socio-economic and cultural needs of the four small coastal whaling communities in Japan and the distress to these communities which has resulted from the cessation of minke whaling; and resolved to work expeditiously to alleviate the distress to these communities which has resulted from the cessation of minke whaling at its next Annual Meeting.

Japan summarised the issue concerning Japanese small-type whaling since the adoption by the IWC of the moratorium on commercial whaling in 1982. It held the view that its small-type whaling had the same characteristics as aboriginal subsistence whaling, hence a similar treatment should be considered. Its case in 1987 was ignored and the following year an international group of socio-anthropological scientists started comprehensive research which concluded that there were characteristics overlapping with those inherent in aboriginal subsistence whaling, and the Japanese small-type coastal whaling should be recognised as a distinctive third category to which the moratorium should not be applied. Japan's requests for an interim relief allocation of 50 minke whales had been denied every year since 1988. The mayor of one whaling community, Oshika Town, and the Chairman of the Japan Small-type Whaling Association made supporting statements.

Japan then presented a series of documents in support of its case. These papers: examined the concepts of 'commercial', 'subsistence' and 'aboriginal people' to show that the distinction between aboriginal subsistence and commercial whaling is untenable; listed 33 submissions since 1986 from 23 social scientists from 8 countries to show the depth of work carried out; discussed the small scale and localised nature of the operations and emphasised the importance of the diversified regional minke whale-based cuisine in northern Japan; and updated the Action Plan presented last year.

The Action Plan proposes to utilise a non-market distribution system to remove profit motivation from production and distribution of whale products; ensures that the edible whale products would be exclusively consumed in the local communities specified; organises the distribution and consumption of whale products so as to maximise benefits for social communities.

To achieve this the Action Plan proposes that small-type whalers shall catch no more than 50 minke whales in a given season. This restriction will be reinforced by Japanese domestic laws and regulations; the catches will be landed at special ports; the small-type whalers shall flense the landed carcasses and hand over all the whale products to the local management council.

Japan further explained how the local management council established to manage minke whaling would operate.

Various questions were raised and answered in the Working Group, including whether the Scientific Committee in 1990 had established a replacement yield for North Pacific minke whales; none has been accepted by the Scientific Committee.

There was extensive discussion of the proposal for community-based whaling in the Working Group. Arguments in favour included: the fact that the time has come for the IWC to agree on solutions; that small-type whaling is of high importance to many smaller communities to satisfy their socio-economic, cultural and traditional needs; it was only reasonable that customary trade in the modern world must include limited exchanges for cash; subsistence users cannot live in a modern cash economy without some cash exchange; certain cash transactions and marketing exist in the Greenland aboriginal subsistence whaling; a permissive regime is easier to control than a prohibitory one; cultural and social needs have been well documented; these needs bear similarities to those underlying the acceptance of aboriginal subsistence whaling; the IWC's credibility depends on finding a solution to this problem; the Japanese proposal should be considered as there would be no adverse effect on the stock; and the unrealistic biological hypothesis of there being seven sub-stocks in this small fishery.

Arguments against the Action Plan were: that it allows the sale of whale meat for profit; there were no controls to prevent resale or mixing with meat from other sources; a non-commercial harvest could not coexist with a well developed high value market for the same product; until the moratorium ends commerce in whale meat should be prohibited; the IWC's credibility would be affected if it allowed an exception to the moratorium without being sure of the recovery of the stock in question, without having a new whaling regulation in place and without evidence that such an expensive commodity could be distributed non-commercially in parallel with a commercial market for similar products; not all commercial elements had been eliminated from the proposed plan, and indeed whether they could be eliminated; and the Scientific Committee's apparent inability to provide reassurance about the effects on the stock.

The Chairman noted that the Working Group was under instruction from the Commission to work expeditiously to alleviate distress to the four small coastal whaling communities in Japan. Only one proposal to this end had been received, from Japan; 15 of the 19 delegations had spoken in the meeting and the majority were not disposed to accept it, either because they found specific problems or had general doubts. However, no delegation had suggested amendments which would facilitate its acceptability.

The Working Group considered the options open to it and recommended beginning bilateral talks with Japan, which could lead to convening an ad hoc committee.

Finally, the Working Group left with the Plenary the question of whether or not it should reconvene next year.

7.2 Action Arising
An extensive discussion ensued in the Plenary. Denmark thought the Working Group should continue and, noting the way Japan has tried to accommodate within its Action Plan the concerns expressed, was sympathetic. Norway was also supportive of the Japanese proposal. However, the UK could make no commitment to change the moratorium and had concerns about the practicality of a non-commercial operation running alongside a commercial one. The USA also recognised the effort put into this plan by Japan but had a fundamental objection to the sale of the whale meat.

Japan pointed out that it had revised the Action Plan submitted last year in response to the comments made then, and emphasised the religious, cultural and food aspects. It also interpreted the analyses of the Scientific Committee to conclude that a take of 50 animals would not cause an adverse impact on the minke whale population around Japan.

St Vincent and The Grenadines noted the present rigour in sticking to the Convention when there is no definition of commercial whaling, called for flexibility and considered this a demeaning exercise. Grenada also noted that the Commission is not making any effort to comply with the Convention in catching whales. The RMP would allow a take greater than 50 animals and it commented on the colonial destruction of cultures. It requested accommodation on this issue.

The Republic of Korea recalled that it had accepted the moratorium since 1986 and noted the Scientific Committee's Comprehensive Assessment, particularly with respect to the need for extra information on mixing of the stocks. If Japan is given a catch it too will demand a quota and thought the IWC should respond to all coastal communities' needs. The best way to do this is to implement the RMP and RMS.

The Netherlands appreciated the efforts of Japan, but still only recognised two types of whaling and thought any decision should wait until the moratorium is lifted. Chile indicated it would abstain because the action requested implies a partial lifting of the moratorium.

Japan responded to these comments. It noted in particular that the minke whale stock around Korea is classified as a Protection Stock, and offered technical and scientific assistance for further studies. It preferred to stay inside the Commission to argue its case, even though community-based whaling was conducted by Indonesia and others outside the IWC. Before the UK and the Netherlands had ended their commercial whaling activities it had been oil and not whale meat that they had sought, which had no community or social significance. It commented on the ban by Brazil in the joint venture operations with Japan for minke whales and thought replacement of the whale meat might result in deforestation of the Amazon or utilisation of dolphin meat.

Brazil responded that it had taken into account that its whaling operation occurred in a significant breeding area for minke whales with many pregnant females. Protein is available from other sources, but it does not have exact information on direct takes of dolphins.

The People's Republic of China was sympathetic to the distress and hardship caused in the Japanese communities and hoped that consideration can be given to the needs of tradition, culture and religion. It appreciated the efforts made by Japan and at the same time called for IWC observers to monitor the implementation of the management measures.

Switzerland realised that there is no formal definition for small-type coastal whaling and that the establishment of any quotas outside aboriginal subsistence whaling requires lifting the moratorium. It had increasing difficulties in recognising any factual differences between aboriginal subsistence whaling and small-type coastal whaling as organised in the Japanese Action Plan, and therefore would abstain in any vote. It urged an in-depth analysis of the similarities and differences between these forms of whaling.

Argentina stated that it could not support the Japanese proposal because of its commitment to the commercial moratorium and thought the needs of these communities quite different from hunting for subsistence.

The Japanese submission was formally presented and seconded by Norway in three documents. A proposed amendment to the Schedule was to insert after paragraph 13 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 in order to alleviate the hardship in the Community-based Whaling communities.'

All three submissions were put to the vote together, but were defeated with 9 votes in favour, 14 against and 7 abstentions.

After the vote Sweden expressed its view that the Action Plan still does not fully meet all that is required and hoped for further progress next year. Australia suggested that the Working Group should continue next year and this was agreed.

_