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

Japan presented two documents to the Working Group containing and summarising its Action Plan for community based whaling. These documents explained that four Japanese small-type coastal whaling communities have been seriously distressed because of the commercial whaling moratorium and that efforts to develop tourism and other industries have been unsuccessful due to the lack of tourist attraction without whaling and their remote geographic locations. In order to achieve the intention of the 1993 Resolution Japan proposed an Action Plan which it said is a comprehensive and enforceable management programme for an interim relief allocation of 50 minke whales.

The Action Plan consists of three parts: regulation of harvesting and processing; regulation of distribution; and enforcement. No more than nine vessels licensed in one of the four Japanese communities would be engaged in catching operations. From the total allocation of 50 minke whales, each vessel would receive an allocation but that did not mean that the vessel, owner or crew would be vested with property rights to the whale. Instead, a management Council which would be set up in each community would manage the distribution of whale products and would be vested with legal title. The catches would be landed and processed in one of the three designated ports of landing.

The distribution of the whale meat would be managed by the Council in each community. These would be non-profit entities consisting of no more than 15 local and central government and community members. The Council would distribute whale meat in conformity with traditional practices and priorities. The Council would reimburse direct and indirect costs incurred for the catching operations from the levies collected upon distribution of the whale meat.

Finally, each whaling vessel would be equipped with a Global Positioning System and would be required to report for a boarding inspection by a national inspector at the designated port of landing before departure and upon return. If anyone were found to be in non-compliance with any provision of the Action Plan that person would be excluded from the distribution of whale products. It was explained that exclusion is the most effective deterrent in Japan where one's identity with the small community is very important.

A number of the delegations in the Working Group expressed appreciation for Japan's work on its Action Plan and on documenting the needs of the four whaling communities. They believed the Plan addressed concerns that have been expressed in the past and supported Japan's request for an interim relief allocation. Some believed that adoption of the 1993 Resolution by consensus meant that the IWC had committed itself to concrete action and that delegations with objections to the Action Plan should work with Japan to improve that Plan. Other delegations, while expressing sympathy for the distress to the communities occasioned by the moratorium on commercial whaling, still had concerns with Japan's request.

These concerns included the following. First, effect on the stocks as there was still problems with stock identity and uncertainty concerning overlapping stocks. That assertion Japan said it had refuted.

Next, adequacy of the International Observer Scheme, since it is based on the existing articles of the Convention. Japan replied that it would take account of recent developments within the Commission with respect to supervision and control.

There were misgivings that Japan's goal is to increase its small-type whaling fleet from the four vessels now taking Baird's beaked whales back to the pre-moratorium situation. Japan reiterated that its request is for an interim allocation only.

There were also concerns about the failure to prohibit the resale of whale meat. Japan explained that the Plan requires meat and edible products to be processed into portions no larger than 1kg as the means of discouraging resale and that anyone who did resell the meat would not be allowed to participate in the programme the following year. Japan expressed its willingness to incorporate a provision expressly prohibiting the resale of whale products.

Opportunity for profit making was another concern. Japan said the Action Plan allows only the reimbursement of direct and indirect costs to the vessel owners and that the community Councils might set the price for dishes at guest houses to prevent any profit making.

Some delegations were also concerned about an inability to control the marketing of a very expensive commodity which might be mixed with whale meat from other sources. Japan offered DNA and isozyme analysis as a means of preventing a mixture of whale meat.

Fundamentally, a substantial number of delegations found the Action Plan to be incompatible with the moratorium on commercial whaling, because it still contained elements of commerciality. They believed that progress could be achieved in alleviating distress to the four Japanese communities by the completion of the RMS.

The Working Group then discussed how to proceed with Japan's request and in the end agreed that Japan might convene an open-ended group of interested countries to discuss further modifications to the Action Plan which might then be presented to the Plenary.

Japan introduced a revised version of the Action Plan to the Commission following these discussions. There followed extensive presentation of views by the various delegations. All recognised the considerable efforts which Japan had made to address the concerns raised and Norway, Denmark, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Grenada, Monaco, People's Republic of China, St Lucia and Dominica all voiced their support for the proposal.

However, India, France, USA, Argentina, New Zealand, UK, Ireland, Brazil, Netherlands, Australia, Germany, Spain, Oman and the Republic of Korea continued to oppose the Plan, largely because of the commercial elements they still saw in the operations and their objection to any resumption of commercial whaling.

Switzerland, South Africa, Sweden and Mexico indicated that they would have to abstain when it came to a vote.

Japan reiterated its responses to the specific issues raised following these interventions.

7.2 Japanese proposal for Schedule amendment
A formal proposal to amend the Schedule was then put forward by Japan, seconded by St. Vincent and the Grenadines and Norway, to insert after paragraph 13 a new paragraph as follows:

'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 1995 season is permitted in order to alleviate the hardship in the community-based whaling communities'

The Commission agreed to vote on this Schedule amendment first and then to decide what to do with the proposed Resolution in light of the outcome of that vote. The proposal was defeated, receiving 10 votes in support, 14 against, with 9 abstentions. It was then agreed to leave the Agenda Item open, together with consideration of the future of the Working Group.

7.3 Action arising
After the failure of its request for an interim relief allocation of 50 minke whales Japan introduced a Resolution and Action Plan for its community-based whaling. Appreciation had been expressed by delegations for the eight years' effort to explain the impact of the moratorium on the coastal whaling communities and the Resolution was designed to recognise the Action Plan as an effective management measure for an interim relief allocation if it is ever given.

The USA remarked that it had voted against the Schedule amendment for the allocation of 50 whales because small-type coastal whaling is fundamentally incompatible with the moratorium on commercial whaling. It did not want to raise false hopes that an allocation would be given before the RMS is completed and the moratorium lifted and therefore opposed the Resolution. India, France and the Netherlands shared these views. Norway shared the sentiment stated by the USA that it is important to work towards an early implementation of the RMS but drew a different conclusion and co-sponsored the Resolution. Ireland, while sympathetic, did not agree with the idea of an interim quota and so would abstain in a vote, a position shared by Sweden.

Switzerland and Monaco suggested that some modification of the wording could make the Resolution more acceptable as recognition of Japan's efforts, and the Item was left open for consultation. On resumption, revised language was introduced in the operative paragraph to recognise the revised Action Plan as a constructive management element in accordance with IWC regulations, explained in response to a query from the UK to mean allocation within the authority of the IWC. The USA, India and New Zealand were still unable to accept the amended proposal and so a vote was taken which resulted in the revised Resolution (shown in Appendix 4) being adopted, with 13 votes in favour, 10 against and 8 abstentions.

Denmark made a statement which recognised the comprehensive work in the Working Groups on Socio-Economic Implications and Small Type Whaling and Supervision and Control. While large-scale pelagic whaling had contributed largely to the past over-exploitation of whale stocks, traditional small-type whaling activities have been a way to sustain local communities and, properly regulated, will not adversely influence the conservation status of the stocks. It therefore saw the completion of the RMS as a very important item on the agenda and suggested focussing the Commission's work, perhaps by combining the work of these groups to solve the problems for small and often remote communities dependent on coastal whaling for their needs through the centuries.

St Lucia congratulated Japan for all the work it had done over the years to reach this stage, and Japan expressed its appreciation to all who had supported their efforts to take into account both the environmental and human factors, and hoped for measures to alleviate the human hardship suffered before the RMS is completed.

_