(from "Chairman's Report of the Fiftieth Annual Meeting")

(1)

the Commission's Resolution in Kyoto (IWC Resolution 1993-3) to work expeditiously to alleviate the distress;

(2)

the Action Plan it had devised in response to concerns raised;

(3)

the Sendai (1997) Workshop on Community-Based Whaling; and

(4)

the well-documented need.

Japan attributed the absence of progress to a lack of goodwill and the dysfunctional nature of the IWC. Because of this, it no longer felt itself bound by the Action Plan, although it remained committed to small-type coastal whaling.

Japan then formally proposed an amendment to the Schedule by adding a new paragraph after paragraph 13:

'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 1999 season is permitted in order to alleviate the hardship in the community-based whaling communities.'

In the Technical Committee, New Zealand indicated that it wished to comment and elaborate its opposition later. However, it could not accept Japan's proposal.

There followed statements of opposition and support from a number of delegations. Arguments advanced for the proposal included: the quality of the case put forward by Japan; the absence of adverse impacts on the stock; that sustainable use of resources by coastal peoples should be encouraged and their cultural tradition enhanced; that the proposal had its basis in scientific principles and sustainable management.

Opposing views centred on: the need to sustain the integrity of the existing moratorium on commercial whaling, unless and until it is lifted, noting the completion of the RMS (Revised Management Scheme) as a necessary first step in that process; the element of commerciality in Japan's small-type coastal whaling; the absence of sufficient knowledge on the status of the stock; and the identification of whale meat from unknown sources in the Japanese market. Several delegations stated their belief that the completion of the RMS and the lifting (or otherwise) of the moratorium were quite separate issues.

Japan sought clarification of the position of those governments that had appeared to signify their opposition to any form of commercial whaling in perpetuity. Japan considered that the absence of any response demonstrated a shameful situation where dual standards damaged the credibility of the IWC. It drew attention to the inequity that existed between aboriginal subsistence whaling being granted catch limits by the IWC, and its own need for small coastal communities in Japan. It was angered by the treatment afforded to these communities.

The Chairman of the Technical Committee concluded that the range of views expressed for and against the proposal would be reflected in the report to the Plenary, noting that several delegations had indicated that they would expand on their position in that forum.

5.2 Action arising
During the Plenary, Japan spoke of the many types of whaling which are outside direct IWC control, including catches taken under objection and the hand harpooning of sperm whales by a non-member state, noting that both of these involve the exchange of money. Despite this, the commercial element in its small-type coastal whaling is criticised and the hardship and distress caused to its people not alleviated. It is cooperating with the Russian Federation in collecting the information required for a complete stock assessment, but the work is not yet finished. As previously, it requested, as an interim measure, a catch from the estimated 25,000 minke whale stock. Thus far this has been rejected by the Commission, which is showing no compassion for the communities concerned.

Grenada seconded the proposal discussed in the Technical Committee, but this was defeated in Plenary by 12 votes in favour to 17 against, with 4 abstentions.

Antigua and Barbuda introduced a Resolution co-sponsored by Dominica, Grenada, Japan, Norway, St Kitts and Nevis, St Lucia, St Vincent and The Grenadines and the Solomon Islands, on Japanese community-based whaling. This sought to permit a take of minke whales to be allocated to four community-based whaling communities to alleviate hardship resulting from the moratorium. Antigua and Barbuda stressed that it found the term 'aboriginal' as it relates to subsistence whaling to be a colonial phrase and repugnant. Grenada shared these sentiments (recognising that Japan had renounced colonialism). It believed that Japan was being discriminated against because the products of community-based whaling were sold. It believed the Commission was exhibiting double standards.

Denmark and the Solomon Islands also expressed their support for the Resolution. Dominica stated that the Convention has been established to regulate whaling, and that management measures must not prevent sustainable use. It was unfair that some countries can consume whales because of a cultural link which includes commercial elements. St Lucia commented that there was considerable frustration that the RMS had still not been concluded. It referred to the commercial element (e.g. the purchase of guns and vessels) in current subsistence operations and stressed that there should be consistency.

New Zealand stated that it believed that passing the Resolution would send an unfair signal to Japan. It was not prepared to agree a quota and indeed opposed the resumption of commercial whaling at any time. From a brief visit to one of the communities, which it saw as a prosperous tourist town, it believed that the distress was at not being allowed to engage in an historic activity; it noted that whaling for smaller species continues. The USA agreed, and Italy, Sweden, Germany, Australia, Brazil, Switzerland, Mexico, Finland, Spain and the UK also could not support the Resolution.

Norway stated that it believed that Japan had been misled by previous Resolutions and recalled that coastal whaling in the USA was supported last year. It also challenged the statement by Italy that the Convention has to be interpreted in the light of the subsequent evolution of international environmental law and the Law of the Sea, which Italy had stated are both against commercial whaling.

The Netherlands, on a point of order, questioned the form of the Resolution which aimed to achieve an amendment to the Schedule and allocated quotas. Japan and Norway argued that the Resolution was an expression of opinions and intentions, not binding policy. The UK disagreed, and the Chairman ruled the Resolution out of order. After an exchange of comments on the issue, the USA called for a vote on the challenge, which was defeated by 20 votes in favour of the Chairman's ruling to 9 against, with 4 abstentions.

A further Resolution on the resumption of coastal whaling, proposed by Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica, Grenada, Solomon Islands, St Lucia and St Vincent and The Grenadines, was challenged by New Zealand on similar grounds, that the final clause spoke of an entitlement to resume commercial whaling for minke whales equivalent to a quota and was therefore a Schedule amendment. The Chairman ruled the draft out of order and adjourned the discussion in order that the wording of the text might be changed.

A revised draft was later introduced by St Lucia, which was disappointed and shocked when it was defeated by 7 votes in favour to 17 against, with 6 abstentions. Japan and St Vincent and The Grenadines expressed similar disappointment at the result. The Republic of Korea thought it better to complete the RMS; Switzerland also took this view, as it was not yet known if catch limits might be set for the stock, and because catch limits could not be allocated to particular communities. South Africa agreed.

_