5. SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS AND SMALL-TYPE WHALING (1996)

5. SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS AND SMALL-TYPE WHALING

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

5.1 New information submitted
Japan presented a paper to the Technical Committee summarising previous discussions on this topic. It emphasised the importance of minke whaling as economic, social and cultural elements in the four community whaling coastal communities. These communities are now in decline because of the moratorium on commercial whaling. It had presented much documentation over the years on this issue, and this is the ninth year in which it had asked for an interim relief allocation. Previously this had been denied because of the commercial aspects in the operation, which were now eliminated by its Action Plan for Community Based Whaling. It noted that the Scientific Committee did not think that a catch of 50 minke whales would cause any harm to the stock.

5.2 Japanese proposal for Schedule amendment
All the delegations which spoke in the Technical Committee indicated that they had not changed their positions from previous years. Those that supported Japan's request for a Schedule amendment for a catch of 50 minke whales recognised the constructive approach taken by Japan and sought to alleviate the hardship caused to the communities. Those opposed to the proposal identified concerns over: the commercial aspects of this request; control of illegal trade; mixing of products with those from bycatches and directed catches of other species; and worries that this would lead to further requests in future years. The legal position that only two types of whaling are recognised in the Schedule, commercial and aboriginal subsistence, was also mentioned; as well as the view that the proposed non-commercial use should be in the Schedule.

Japan stated in response to questions that its request is in addition to its Special Permit catch of 100 minke whales in the North Pacific, which will not increase. There would be no mixing of products with those from other cetacean catches under the Action Plan and enforcement would be by the Government of Japan. Japan further raised the question of the lack of commerciality, stating that the Community Based Whaling carried no commercial aspect, with no profit by Japan's definition. However, others took a different view.

The Technical Committee could reach no consensus on the issue and agreed to forward the differing views to the Plenary.

5.3 Action arising
In the Commission Japan formally submitted its proposal for an amendment to the Schedule, to add after paragraph 13, a new paragraph as follows:

Notwithstanding the provision of paragraph 10, the taking of 50 minke whales from the Okhotsk Sea - West Pacific stock of the North Pacific in the 1996 season is permitted in order to alleviate the hardship in the community-based whaling communities.

It also, supported by Norway, St Lucia, St Vincent and The Grenadines, Grenada and the Solomon Islands, put forward an accompanying Resolution allocating the take of 50 whales to the community based operations in Japan and recognising the distribution and consumption of the products according to the Action Plan approved last year.

New Zealand commented that the proposal is substantially the same as that presented in previous years. Its position is unchanged and it will not support it. It is unfair to Japan to hold out hope that the matter might be more favourably considered in the future if certain issues are addressed. The New Zealand Commissioner's own visit to the area had indicated an economically prosperous community distressed by the inability to continue a centuries old tradition. The USA supported these views. Japan appreciated this visit and emphasised the historical and traditional catch of 300 minke whales a year, prohibited since 1982 despite the healthy status of the stock.

Denmark favoured small type coastal and traditional whaling and therefore supported the proposal. Norway thought the Commission was being unfair to Japan as the stock could be harvested sustainably and cultural preferences should not be imposed. Antigua and Barbuda looked for food security and the harvesting and conservation of marine resources under the framework of UNCLOS (United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea) in balance with tourism. St Lucia understood that a harvest of 50 whales a year would not adversely affect the stock and it supported cultural needs. St Vincent and The Grenadines looked for flexibility over the commercial aspect, and the People's Republic of China and Grenada also gave their support.

The Republic of Korea could only accept a resumption of whaling, except for aboriginal subsistence, after establishment of the RMS, and was concerned that if Japan resumed whaling, its own fishermen would want to catch whales which should be conserved for whalewatching. The Netherlands opposed the proposal because it introduced a third category of whaling before the RMS is completed and it had concerns over some details of the Action Plan.

On being put to the vote the proposed amendment to the Schedule was defeated, with 8 votes in favour, 16 against and 5 abstentions. The Resolution was therefore not considered further.

Subsequently, Japan introduced another Resolution to resolve the distress of the Japanese small-type coastal whaling as community-based whaling. This sought to: address outstanding issues of the commercial aspects of the Action Plan adopted last year; to convene a Workshop to review and identify commercial aspects and socio-economic and cultural needs of the community-based whaling, and to report these to a Working Group held prior to the next Annual Meeting; and to seek to take a decision on an interim relief allocation at the 49th Meeting.

Australia indicated that its policy is to seek an end to all whaling, not to create a new category, nor make such a commitment for next year which made the third part of the Resolution redundant. St Lucia considered that a country wishing to end all whaling was not acting according to the Convention and thought the Resolution moved the issue forward from the 1995 Resolution. The USA pointed out that its concerns included how illegally taken whale meat might be handled, as well as catches of other species and incidental takes, in addition to the commerciality question. The Russian Federation asked about the financial implications of the proposed meetings and the Secretary identified an unallocated sum within the approved budget which could be used for this purpose. Antigua and Barbuda called for compromise to reach a consensus, and Ireland could support the Resolution on the understanding that it did not commit any decision. The UK was opposed to anything which weakens the moratorium, a position also subscribed to by the Netherlands. Switzerland shared the views of Ireland and agreed that the problem of commerciality in present whaling activities should be addressed now.

Further clarifications of the financial implications and Japan agreeing to delete the final paragraph preceded a vote called for by the UK. The Resolution as shown in Appendix 1 was then adopted with 12 votes in favour, 11 against and with 6 abstentions.