(from "Chairman's Report of the Forty-Eighth Annual Meeting")
10.2 Aboriginal subsistence whaling scheme
10.2.1 Report of the Scientific Committee
Dr S. Reilly, Chairman of the Scientific Committee, reported on the
continuation of work begun last year to draw up an Aboriginal Subsistence
Whaling Management Procedure (AWMP).
Two working papers were tabled to the Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling
Sub-committee by G. Donovan, the Secretariat's Scientific Editor, summarising
the Scientific Committee's work thus far and inviting Commission input.
One outlined the objectives and rationale of the procedure, summarised as:
The other document noted that the Scientific Committee had addressed the issue of need and sought guidance from the Commission. The Chairman suggested that focus of discussion should be first on establishing procedures to provide feedback to the Scientific Committee and secondly on specific guidance on the type of need envelope to consider.
Denmark emphasised the crucial importance of hunter input to the decision making process, and urged that the Convenor of the standing Sub-committee should have experience in dealing with both cultural and nutritional aspects of needs matters in aboriginal subsistence whaling. Switzerland said that it had always stressed that the category of aboriginal whaling should be subject to a suitable management scheme. Mexico expressed similar views and the need for rapid progress. Such a scheme would enable the IWC to take decisions in a clear, transparent and objective manner. The UK also supported the process. As to progressing the development of the scheme, it felt an intersessional workshop would be sensible, at an appropriate stage. On needs, it saw the desirability of developing a model purely to demonstrate the possible effect on stocks of various levels of need, but noted that need could not be addressed entirely on a scientific basis. New Zealand welcomed progress and emphasised the need for transparency and comparability to the RMS and asked about the relative levels of risk in the generic part of the AWMP; i.e. Objectives 1 and 3. The Netherlands considered it important to continue this work and supported an intersessional workshop. It noted that the target level in Objective 3 was 72%, as in the RMP. It also flagged the need to consider how to take account of stocks which might be subject to both an aboriginal and a commercial catch. Spain and the People's Republic of China supported work on the development of a management scheme for aboriginal subsistence whaling.
The Russian Federation expressed doubts about such a scheme and considered the IWC should give priority to the RMP. It considered that it would be difficult to consider all aboriginal subsistence needs under one general scheme and did not favour an intersessional workshop. The USA supported the existing management plan for aboriginal subsistence whaling, but indicated it would participate in the development of a management scheme and an intersessional workshop. Denmark agreed that the present system was functioning quite well, but reminded the meeting that in requesting the Scientific Committee to develop a management scheme for aboriginal whaling, the Commission had not confined it solely to RMP principles.
Mr Donovan responded by noting the support and the suggestions made. Where possible, the Scientific Committee will use the same performance statistics as were used in the trials used for the RMP, particularly with respect to risk. However, he noted that the differences in the objectives for an AWMP and the RMP meant that it was not possible to use an identical set of statistics. For the Initial Exploration Trials the same optimal level (72%) will be used as for the RMP. With respect to the question of priority work for the Scientific Committee, he noted that from its perspective, it had completed its work on the RMP and that this had,been adopted by the Commission, although the Commission itself had not completed work on the RMS. The Scientific Committee had indicated last year that it was ready to commence work on the development of an AWMP. Finally, he noted that as part of the process, the Scientific Committee would be considering the current aboriginal whaling scheme and variants of the RMP. However, it was not limiting its considerations to these options.
10.2.2 Action arising
The Commission endorsed the Scientific Committee's plans for its continuing
work on this issue, including a meeting of the Working Group immediately
before the next annual meeting of the Scientific Committee.
It noted the reservations of the Russian Federation on the need for this group
to meet and the concerns of that Government to minimise financial expenditure.
It also noted that an aspect of this work which the Scientific Committee found to be particularly important was regular flow of communication with Commissioners and representatives of native groups. It was agreed that the Scientific Committee's AWMP Working Group should correspond initially with Commissioners from countries with aboriginal fisheries on an informal basis and proceed from there for the following years to see how that works.
10.3 Review of aboriginal subsistence whaling catch limits
10.3.1 Report of the Scientific Committee
Dr Reilly drew the attention of the Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling
Sub-committee to the Scientific Committee report which contained no major
changes in management advice for the Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort Seas stock of
bowhead whales, the North Pacific eastern stock of gray whales, and North
Atlantic humpback whales.
10.3.1.1 BERING CHUKCHI BEAUFORT SEAS STOCK OF BOWHEAD WHALES
The Scientific Committee received a number of papers on important aspects of
the assessment methods used for this stock, including discussion of the Borel
paradox in the Baysian synthesis, the Backwards and Forwards variants, and the
maximum likelihood approach.
There was also a first attempt to estimate the adult survival rate of bowhead
whales from photographs of animals individually identified by scarring on
their backs, giving a point estimate of 0.986 with a 95% confidence interval
of 0.941 to 1.000.
It was recommended that the photographs should be examined to further this
work.
The current best estimate of abundance for this stock is 8,200, with 95%
confidence intervals of 7,200 to 9,400.
Some members of the Scientific Committee expressed serious concerns about the 1994 implementation of the Bayesian synthesis stock assessment method. However, it was noted that other assessment approaches had also contributed to the management advice given at the 1994 meeting. The Scientific Committee agreed that there should be further investigation into the concerns identified. However, it also agreed that there was no reason to change the management advice given previously.
The Scientific Committee noted that the implication of the requested take of five whales in the Chukotski region depended upon stock structure. In previous years it has assumed that all whales in the Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort region consist of a single stock. No information on stock structure in this area is available, and it encouraged the collection of such data.
The Scientific Committee had previously reported that under a scenario of the removal of 75 animals annually from the Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort stock, it was estimated that the population would increase over the 1995 to 1998 period at a rate of 1.46% annually (5% bound of 0.31%). It was also noted that a new abundance estimate and the revised estimate of rate of increase are both higher than estimated before. The Scientific Committee recommended that a major re-assessment should be conducted in 1998.
In the plenary session the Chairman of the Scientific Committee clarified, in response to a question from Japan, that there is no evidence of migration of Greenland/bowhead whales from Spitsbergen to the Bering Sea or between there and the Okhotsk Sea. The Russian Federation replied to a query from Norway on establishing the stock structure in the area that it would encourage and develop scientific research on any whales taken.
OTHER STOCKS OF BOWHEAD WHALES
A total of 40 bowheads were estimated from observations from the air and on
the water, including two cow/calf pairs, in the Shantar archipelago of the
western Okhotsk Sea.
The Scientific Committee recommended that because this stock is one of the
most endangered baleen whales in the world, research on this stock should
continue and that means for establishing a monitoring programme should be
investigated.
The Scientific Committee also remains very concerned about the status and small size of the other Arctic populations of bowhead whales. The Davis Strait and Hudson Bay stocks are conservatively estimated at 450 whales and the Spitsbergen stock may now number only in the tens of animals.
10.3.1.2 NORTH PACIFIC EASTERN STOCK OF GRAY WHALES
The Scientific Committee received a report on a study of gray whales wintering
in Laguna Sam Ignacio.
The number of single whales in the middle lagoon in 1996 was found to be at a
similar level to that reported for 1978, and substantially lower than reported
for 1982.
Fewer cow/calf pairs were also counted in 1996 than in the early 1980s.
There have been no similar studies in other breeding/calving lagoons, so it is
not known if this pattern of decline has been repeated elsewhere.
Northbound calf counts past Pt Piedras Blancas, California during March to May in 1994-96 were discussed. The estimated proportion of calves in the population for two earlier northbound surveys in 1980 and 1981 was around 5%, very close to the rate observed in 1994 and the preliminary rate reported for 1996. However, the rate in 1995 (2.5%) was significantly lower.
A number of papers reported on various aspects of abundance estimation from the southbound migration, which is the standard methodology used for this stock. The preliminary estimate of abundance for 1995/96 is 22,571 whales (95% CI = 20,400 to 25,000).
Bayesian analyses of gray whale population dynamics and stock assessment methods were also reported.
The Scientific Committee agreed that there were no serious inconsistencies between assessments made by the two approaches covered in the papers considered. There was considered to be no need for changing earlier management advice. In particular it was agreed that a take of five extra whales would have no significant impact given previous management advice.
The rationale for retaining current management advice is that the advice given during the Comprehensive Assessment was formulated relative to a higher annual take of animals than has been seen in recent years. Since that assessment, additional information suggests that it is implausible that a further detailed assessment at this stage would lead to the conclusion that a take of 145 whales per year would be too high. Japan received confirmation that the earlier advice referred to a period when the annual catch limit was 179 whales, so that a present catch of 140 or 145 would fall within this number.
The Scientific Committee recommended and the Commission agreed that a detailed assessment of the current status of California gray whales, and of the management advice, should be undertaken by the Scientific Committee in 1997. It encouraged continued research in the breeding lagoons.
OKHOTSK SEA STOCK
Summarised observations on Okhotsk-Korean gray whales on their feeding grounds
northeast of Sakhalin Island were reported to the Scientific Committee.
In a new study, 38 individual whales were photographed during 1994 and 1995
but no population estimate was attempted.
There are major oil and gas reserves in the study area, and a large
multinational project to exploit these reserves is about to start.
A management plan and long-term monitoring programme are therefore needed.
It was noted that habitat degradation is occurring along the migration
corridor of this population, and this stock is identified as one that may be
particularly vulnerable to the effects of climate change primarily due to its
low abundance.
However, the oil and gas development is considered to be the most immediate
and pressing concern.
The Scientific Committee recommended that because this is one of the most endangered baleen whales stocks in the world, research on this stock should continue, and that means for establishing a monitoring programme should be investigated. It further recommended that the Commission arrange to bring scientists together from countries with an interest in or within the range of these whales, to identify the research and measures required to maximise the chances of this stock recovering.
Both these recommendations were accepted by the Commission.
10.3.1.3 NORTH ATLANTIC HUMPBACK WHALES
The Scientific Committee noted that no additional information was available
for this stock and agreed to repeat its advice for previous years that a catch
of three whales would be unlikely to harm this stock.
If whales are caught, every effort should be made to collect as much
information as possible; in particular, photographs of the ventral surface of
the flukes and tissue samples for genetic studies.
It also noted that a comprehensive assessment of northwest Atlantic humpback
whales would provide information on this stock.
10.3.2 Request for a catch of five bowhead (Greenland) whales by the Russian
Federation
The Russian Federation presented its request to the Aboriginal Subsistence
Whaling Sub-committee for an annual catch of five bowhead (Greenland) whales
to meet the needs of the indigenous people of the Chukotski Autonomous region.
The USA supported the Russian Federation's request as fully justified under
IWC cultural and subsistence needs criteria for aboriginal whaling.
Denmark also supported the request, not least due to the obvious subsistence
needs.
In response to a query from the UK about the methods which would be used to take the whales if the request were approved, the Russian Federation said that these would be the same as those already used by the Chukotka people to take gray whales. A document previously presented to the Scientific Committee had given rise to a number of misunderstandings, as in addition to whaling data, it included raw data from vessel manifests required by the port authorities e.g. duration of voyage and ammunition on board. The use of anti-tank weapons and Kalashnikovs by civilian personnel was prohibited under national legislation.
Australia sought clarification about the needs of the Chukotka people, given the under-utilisation of the existing quota of gray whales. The Netherlands urged caution, given the endangered state of the bowhead stocks, and also asked if the Chukotski quota could be taken from the bowhead catch limits for aboriginal subsistence whaling already authorised under Schedule paragraph 13(b)(1). The Russian Federation responded that economic changes experienced throughout the Russian Federation had impacted on the region and on its food security, temporarily disrupting whaling operations which were now carried out by the whaling villages themselves. The new quota would supplement gray whale meat and was also required for ceremonial and cultural purposes. The current paragraph 13 (b)(1) catch limits reflected the needs of other populations in other countries; it was not appropriate for the IWC to meet Chukotka need in ways detrimental to others. In response to questions from Switzerland and Austria, the Russian Federation confirmed that bowhead meat would not be used in fox farms and was solely for human consumption. The requested quota would not fully make up the deficit in gray whale meat, but it would improve food security.
The Chairman of the Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling Sub-committee summarised the discussion and noted that the request involved a Schedule amendment requiring a vote, and that the matter would be referred to Plenary accordingly.
In the Commission the Russian Federation reiterated the corrections to its documents which made reference to previous requests for catches of bowheads and the methods which would be used to take the whales. It re-presented the arguments to support its request for an additional catch of five bowhead whales, and Mr V. Etylin, the Vice-President of the Association of Indigenous Peoples of the North Siberian Forest of the Russian Federation and the representative of the native populations of Chukotka explained the nutritional value of whale meat and the importance of whaling to the native culture. Whaling in the area has existed for at least 2000 years but bowhead whaling was stopped in 1960 against the will of the people. The introduction of a market economy in the Russian Federation has resulted in the communities having to become self reliant, but there are food shortages now due to a decline in the availability of reindeer meat which can only be filled effectively with whale meat. Regaining whale hunting skills will also restore old traditions and customs to preserve this unique culture.
In response to questions from Sweden, Switzerland and Austria, and a comment from Japan, the Russian Federation reconfirmed that the catching would be by small boats carrying out daily trips which already have a very high degree of efficiency in catching gray whales; the meat from the bowheads would be used for human consumption exclusively, with no commercial use of these whale products and none used for fox farms as is the blubber and some other components of gray whales.
There followed an extended presentation of views by delegations.
The Netherlands expressed its concern over this proposal, noting that the bowhead is an endangered species, and there is no information on the Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort Sea stock structure; it had doubts if an additional quota of bowhead whales was really needed given the under-utilised quota of gray whales, and it was unclear what number of whales might be struck and lost. Australia had similar concerns, as well as the commercial aspects of the existing operations it questioned the extent of the real need of the Chukotka people for an additional quota. Mexico agreed with both these delegations, pointing to the under-utilised quota and the increasing requests for aboriginal subsistence whaling, and New Zealand also associated itself with these comments. Monaco expressed similar reservations over the status of the stock and advocated the precautionary principle until a full scientific assessment had been carried out. Chile was also not sure of the need for an increased quota and thought it would be a good idea to put the request in the future. The UK was grateful for the reassurances received on the killing methods used in the aboriginal hunt but urged that everything possible is done to improve the humaneness and reduce the struck and lost rates.
St Vincent and The Grenadines registered its support for the Russian request. Norway took account of the need identified as the strongest driving force in the request; the sustainability of the stock and the willingness for the authorities to cooperate in taking samples to determine stock questions; and the possibilities for development with others of the killing methods. It therefore thought the request was legitimate and supported it. Denmark repeated its support, not least because of the obvious subsistence needs, as did the USA, pointing out that the existing quota is based on the documented needs of the Alaskan Eskimos, and any other native take must first demonstrate need from that stock. Japan indicated that as the USA was not prepared to share its quota with the Russian Federation then it supported the proposal and suggested the USA transferred its knowledge on humane killing to the aboriginal people concerned. The Republic of Korea and the People's Republic of China also supported the request.
France still saw some problems with the information available, particularly on the status of bowhead whales in the Arctic region. It thought that there is a link between this request and that for gray whales, and suggested postponing the matter to next year in order to consider both together. Germany associated itself with these remarks and had doubts about the real needs. Austria agreed with Monaco on the precautionary approach and shared the ideas of France and Germany that more information is needed, while Brazil also thought the decision should be postponed to next year.
At the end of these comments the Russian Federation indicated that it was in favour of a consensus decision, but it found difficulty with the requests for more information which did not specify what is needed. France identified the number of strikes and the situation of the stocks in the various Arctic seas as particular issues. The item was therefore left open for further discussion outside the meeting.
10.3.3 Request for a catch of five gray whales by the USA
The USA presented a request for a catch of five gray whales by the Makah
Tribe.
It outlined the history of Makah whaling.
Although the exploitation of gray whales in the late 1800s had led to the
suspension of whaling since 1926, it noted the continuance of aspects of the
whaling tradition within the tribe since that time.
It emphasised the strong community and tribal aspects of the whaling proposal.
Makah representatives on the USA delegation outlined the importance of whaling
to their culture and supplemented this with an audio-visual presentation.
There was extensive reference to Makah history and culture and the
significance of whaling to Makah identity.
The role of whaling in the modern Makah community and its importance to future
generations were also explained, as was its ceremonial significance.
The problems for indigenous people arising from nineteenth century policies
were emphasised, as were the attempts by the USA and other countries to foster
cultural revitalisation.
The USA indicated that it wished whaling to be conducted under IWC auspices.
An agreement between the government of the USA and the Makah would prohibit
commercial whaling.
It was stated that no conservation issues arose.
The proposal was characterised as falling within the requirements for an
aboriginal subsistence quota.
In addition to the USA, 15 delegations participated in the discussion which followed. Denmark commended and supported the presentation. France acknowledged the importance of whaling to the Makah but asked how subsistence requirements could arise after 70 years of non-whaling, and how a cultural revival could take place if modern whaling technologies were to be used. The Netherlands expressed concern at the widening of the scope of whaling activities and questioned whether the request met the 1981 and 1988 Commission definitions of aboriginal whaling and aboriginal consumption. It asked how the Makah request could be based on a 'continuing tradition' after a 70 year lapse, where the Makah tradition appeared to be one of commercial, rather than subsistence whaling. The Netherlands asked whether the USA was seeking a change to paragraph 13(b)(2) of the Schedule. In respect of the 70 year intermission, Makah representatives responded that many peoples store traditions, including mourning traditions and name usage. Makah examples included storage of names, dance and whaling traditions. On the issue of shared quotas, the USA indicated that the current provisions of paragraph 13(b)(2) had been intended to meet Russian needs; the USA's request was separate.
The Republic of Korea and the Russian Federation indicated support for the request. Japan commended the USA's presentation and expressed understanding of the welfare of the Makah, which was very much a seaborne community. It questioned how monetary transactions could be excluded, bearing in mind the Makah's location close to a large city (Seattle). Japan also asked whether the USA's IWC share would increase should the request be accepted. The USA emphasised the non-commercial nature of the proposal, exclusively for local consumption and cultural purposes. The Chairman of the Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling Sub-committee noted the question of IWC shares, but considered such matters outside the Sub-committee's competence.
Switzerland asked how many Makah there were, and what tonnage of whale meat per capita would be provided by five gray whales. The USA said there were 1,800 members of the tribe, of which 1,000 lived on the reservation; it would calculate tonnage per person. In response to questions from Austria, the USA explained that although now most Makah live on one consolidated site at Neah Bay, some Makah live on each of the traditional sites except Ozette, now a national park, and all five original villages live on in Makah tradition. The USA acknowledged that the dates given in the USA-Makah agreement would need amending to reflect the period for which an IWC quota was set. Japan asked whether USA domestic law prohibited the commercial sale of bone and whale products, as well as whale meat; and whether commercial aspects could be totally excluded in a modern global economy. The USA responded by referring to the IWC's definition of aboriginal subsistence whaling which permits trade in by-products of subsistence whaling.
The People's Republic of China said that the USA request was justified from both a scientific and a resource perspective, explaining the Chinese view of resource use and management under the auspices of the IWC. However it regretted that the request was not completely in accordance with the IWC definition of aboriginal subsistence, having regard to Makah history and tradition. The long period of no whaling suggested there was now no dependence on whaling. The key issue was continuity in practice. An oral whaling culture or tradition could not be recognised under the current IWC arrangements for aboriginal subsistence whaling, unless the IWC established a new, broader definition for it.
Norway expressed support for local coastal cultures. On the evidence set out in the Scientific Committee Report, a quota of five gray whales would not be harmful to the stock. It asked what hunting methods the Makah intended to use. The USA indicated that it would work with the Makah to integrate traditional methods with modern adaptations to achieve the most humane hunt possible, in accordance with IWC concerns.
St Vincent and The Grenadines and Grenada indicated support for the USA proposal. Japan referred to the USA opening statement which it considered conflicted with the proposal in respect of strikes; and asked whether this posed a conservation issue. The USA said that the number of strikes were intended to reduce as the efficiency of the hunt increased, and that even ten strikes would not create conservation problems. Oman asked why the Makah, who had survived without whaling for 70 years, could not continue to survive without whaling; and why the Makah ceased whaling in 1926. The Netherlands reiterated its earlier concerns about the definition of aboriginal subsistence whaling, specifically regarding need (was this real necessity or cultural heritage) and about the precise nature of the Makah whaling tradition. The USA said that the interrupted tradition was a subsistence tradition; commercial whaling was separate, and had died out in the 1880s. The continuing sense of the tradition was maintained in songs and other cultural practices.
St Lucia supported the request emphasising the importance of respect for indigenous peoples and the need for these peoples to define their cultural needs provided that they were not disadvantageous to man and that wider conservation objectives were met. Without questioning the cultural aspects of the application, Australia questioned whether IWC nutritional subsistence criteria had been met. It also sought clarification on the need for a separate quota; this appeared to conflict with Article V of the Convention. The Secretary explained that when Schedule paragraph 13(b)(4) was adopted in 1987, it was made clear that no precedent was intended. The language used was only to identify an area, not to allocate a quota to a particular population. The USA said that it believed that its proposal met IWC criteria; it thanked countries supporting its application, and offered to answer any further questions individually or in other fora.
The Chairman of the Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling Sub-committee summarised the discussion and noted that as the USA's request involved a Schedule amendment, it would be referred to the Plenary for a decision.
In the Commission the USA spoke of the 1,500-year long tradition of subsistence whaling by the Makah Indian Tribe and its wish to continue this as part of the tribe's cultural renaissance and identity, aspects emphasised by Ms M. Parker, an official of the Makah Tribal Council. The USA firmly believes all whaling should be regulated by the IWC and the Makah proposal fits fully within the established category of aboriginal subsistence whaling and will not be a commercial hunt. An additional take of five whales with a maximum of ten strikes will not prevent the stock from continuing to grow.
Denmark, St Vincent and The Grenadines, Norway, Russian Federation, Grenada, Japan, Republic of Korea, Monaco and St Lucia all expressed their support for the proposal. France also fully supported the request and took the opportunity to send a message to try and improve the protection of harbour porpoises badly influenced in the salmon set net fishery. Sweden recognised that there is no uncertainty about the stock and its sustainability and appreciated the clear indication to achieve the most humane hunt possible.
Australia, whilst sympathetic to re-establishing important cultural activities, saw no clearly demonstrated evidence of subsistence need, a position shared by Spain. Chile expressed its doubts concerning the continuity of traditional dependence on whaling with a 70 year gap, the nutritional subsistence need, and the killing methods. The People's Republic of China and New Zealand had similar concerns on continuity and need, a position shared by Mexico which also noted that there was no unanimity within the tribe itself on the issue. The USA pointed out that a vote in the tribe had showed overwhelming support for the whale hunt. Oman expressed doubts on the humane killing of the whales. The Netherlands was not convinced that it was necessary to grant this quota to accommodate the nutritional or cultural requirements of the native people.
Austria looked for a clear base and criteria before taking a decision, and Ireland proposed deferring a decision until next year when issues such as breaks in tradition and other matters can be looked at.
Following these interventions, the item was adjourned for further informal discussions.
10.3.4 Request by St Vincent and The Grenadines for a catch of two humpback
whales each season for the seasons 1996/7 to 1998/9
St Vincent and The Grenadines reported that no whales had been taken in the
1995/96 season, although one had been struck and lost.
No whales had been taken for the last three years.
The old harpooner continues to go out, and this year he was joined by a second
boat, with a younger aspiring harpooner who has not struck a whale before, and
it is hard to say if he will really succeed in becoming his own harpooner who
will carry on the tradition.
The delegation requested that the current quota, reflecting the continuing
cultural needs of the Bequians of St Vincent and The Grenadines, be renewed
for the next three years.
It noted that the Scientific Committee had advised that a catch of three
whales was unlikely to harm the stock.
The USA, Norway, Grenada, Japan, the Russian Federation, St Lucia, Denmark and Korea supported St Vincent and The Grenadines' request. New Zealand, supported by Mexico and Oman, asked St. Vincent and The Grenadines if it could provide a revised needs statement.
St Vincent and The Grenadines responded with a reference to the difficulty in collecting scientific information in a small island state. It referred to earlier papers tabled with the IWC on needs, and also to a recent publication 'Blows, Mon, Blows!'
The Chairman summarised the discussion, concluding that the Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling Sub-committee would invite the Plenary to consider a Schedule amendment to paragraph 13(b)(4) to cover the period 1996/7-1998/9; and in response to a query from the Netherlands, confirmed that the footnote to the current paragraph, requiring an annual review of the quota, would be retained.
The main points of its earlier presentation to the Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling Sub-committee were repeated by St Vincent and The Grenadines to the Plenary session, adding that, as in times past, the marketing of whale products provides hard cash that is in short supply, and the exchange of money does not provide more than a subsistence basis for the fishery.
Australia, while not objecting to the proposed Schedule amendment, commented on the somewhat changed situation with a new young whaler entering the operation. It had believed this aboriginal subsistence operation was being phased out slowly with the old whaler. It suggested that the Commission should examine the nature of this operation a little more closely, particularly the methods used for killing whales, and given that whales have been struck and lost, the possibility of specifying a strike limit in addition to the catch limit. The Netherlands, New Zealand and Mexico shared these views, together with France which had doubts on the aboriginal nature and need for the catch, and Chile.
Japan, Grenada, USA, Denmark, the Russian Federation, Norway and St Lucia reiterated their support for continuation of the tradition and culture, joined by Antigua and Barbuda.
10.3.5 Action arising
REQUEST FOR A CATCH OF FIVE BOWHEAD (GREENLAND) WHALES BY THE RUSSIAN
FEDERATION
In order to gauge the level of support for the request by the Russian
Federation the Chairman asked delegations for expressions of views.
Grenada, Japan, Republic of Korea, Norway, St Vincent and The Grenadines,
Solomon Islands, USA, People's Republic of China, Denmark and Finland
supported the proposal.
France, Germany, Ireland, St Lucia, South Africa, Sweden, UK, Antigua and
Barbuda and Chile indicated that they could join a consensus.
Mexico, Monaco, New Zealand, Spain and Australia had strong reservations.
Netherlands, Oman, Switzerland, Austria and Brazil also had reservations.
Oman, Spain and Brazil then said they could join a consensus, but Australia
and Mexico could not.
The Russian Federation expressed its thanks to those governments ready to join a consensus, but regarded the two in opposition as unfriendly because their attitude would entail economic damage to the Russian Federation and harm to the tribes. It believed decisions on aboriginal subsistence whaling should be taken by consensus, not vote, as for commercial whaling. It would report back to its government and no vote was now needed and there was no request for the item to be considered at the next Annual Meeting.
Mexico and Australia stated that their positions were based on the merits of the case and should not be considered a hostile or political act against the Russian Federation. The Netherlands supported this interpretation.
REQUEST FOR A CATCH OF FIVE GRAY WHALES BY THE USA
The USA made a statement appreciating the sympathy and support from some
delegations, but noting the reservations expressed by others, and announced
that after consultations with Makah representatives it was withdrawing its
proposal and asked the Commission to defer consideration until next year when
the gray whale quota expires and the needs of the Chukchi people will also be
determined.
France thanked the USA for this wise decision and the standard of
documentation it had provided, Mexico expressed its thanks for the decision
and clarified the reasons for its own difficulties with the request, and Japan
encouraged the Makah to continue with their proposal next year.
REQUEST BY ST VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES FOR A CATCH OF TWO HUMPBACK WHALES
EACH SEASON FOR THE SEASONS 1996/7 to 1998/9
Whilst there were some reservations expressed, there was a consensus to amend
the Schedule so as to extend the catch of two humpback whales a year, with
provision for an annual review, for the years 1996/97 to 1998/99.
_