5. SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS AND SMALL-TYPE WHALING

(from "Chairman's Report of the Fifty-First Annual Meeting")


5.1 Japanese proposal for Schedule amendment
Japan recalled that for the past 11 years it has made an application for a modest take of minke whales for its four coastal communities. It has submitted more than 50 documents detailing the importance of minke whales to these communities, and has minimised the commercial aspects of the proposed operations. Agenda 21 emphasises the use of sustainable marine resources, and the 1995 Kyoto Declaration on Food Security gave a broad framework for international cooperation in this area. The 1993 IWC Resolution recognised the socio-economic needs and the distress of the four communities, and Japan requested an interim allocation until the RMS is implemented. It proposed a Schedule amendment to add a new paragraph 10 (f):

Notwithstanding the other provisions of paragraph 10 and those of paragraph 12, the taking of 50 minke whales from the Okhotsk Sea - West Pacific stuck of the North Pacific is permitted in the 1999 season in order to alleviate the hardship in the four community-based whaling communities.

This was accompanied by a proposed Resolution which had the effect of agreeing that the take of minke whales provided by paragraph 10 (f) of the Schedule be allocated to the communities of Abashiri, Ayukawa, Wadaura and Taiji in Japan.

Sweden commented that this could only be accepted as part of the Irish Initiative, a position held by Finland, Switzerland, Spain and South Africa; Austria also could not give support. Australia could not support a new category of commercial whaling. The USA pointed out the similar requests since 1988 and the commercial element; it was sympathetic to the needs and wished to continue a dialogue. The Netherlands, Germany, New Zealand, France and the UK had similar views.

Denmark, Norway, Oman, St Vincent and The Grenadines, St Lucia, Dominica, Solomon Islands and Grenada expressed their support.

On being put to the vote, the Schedule amendment and Resolution received 12 votes in favour, with 15 against and 7 abstentions and so failed.

_