(from "An Alalysis of Social and Cultural Change in Ayukawa-Hama (Ayukawa Shore Community)", 1994, University of Alberta)

Dr Masami Iwasaki-Goodman
Anthropologist, Hokusei Gakuen Women's Junior College

Because of the size of the meeting as well as the security requirement, the hotel where the meetings were held was occupied only by IWC-related people. Throughout the two weeks, the participants interacted with the same group of people in the meetings, in the hall ways, in the dining rooms, etc.

The decisions of the IWC on various issues are discussed and made during the plenary session. However, the debate in the working group involving a smaller number of participants is crucial because it becomes the basis for the further debate in the plenary session. The production of a report, which summarizes the debate in the working group, is of a special importance, because it is the report of the working group that will be read by the Commissioners who will be making decisions in the plenary session. Before the plenary session, the recommendation that was agreed upon in the working group is discussed in the Technical Committee where all the Commissioners are present. The conclusions and recommendations that were made in the Technical Committee, then, will be passed on to the Plenary meeting, where the final decision is made after the discussion among the Commissioners.

Since 1988 when the researcher attended the 40th annual meeting of the IWC for the first time, interactions in each year's meetings have been recorded and analyzed. The 43rd meeting is the most useful for the purpose of this thesis because this is the year when the back-stage negotiation was openly discussed during the plenary meeting and also because the result of the 43rd meeting of the IWC became the basis of Iceland to withdraw from the IWC in the following year.

An interaction in each of three types of meeting of the 43rd IWC Annual meeting will be summarized: 1) Working Group meeting, 2) Technical Committee meeting and 3) the Plenary meeting.

A. Technical Committee Working Group on Socio-economic Implications of Zero-catch Limit and Consideration of Various Types of Small-type Whaling

Saturday 25, May 1991. The working group meeting is to be held in the morning for a half a day³⁴. Since Japan has been the key country to generate the discussion on the STCW issue, the members of the Japanese delegation have been most active in this working group. We were the first to appear in the meeting room and began to assign ourselves seats at the desk just in front of the chairperson's desk. A significant proportion of the Japanese delegation requires simultaneous translation assistance, which is provided through a portable radio. Such a practical consideration, along with a silent agreement on the hierarchical seating order among the members of the Japanese delegation, determines the over-all seating arrangement for each member of the Japanese delegation. We are told that a chairperson for this working group meeting has not been chosen. As most members of Japanese delegation sit waiting, there is a tense air and worried look. The Secretary of the IWC comes into the meeting room, only to announce that the meeting will resume after a chairperson is appointed. About half an hour later, the newly appointed chairperson restarts the meeting.

The room is still half-full, with substantially lower attendance compared to the meeting last year. As the chairperson proceeds with the agenda items, a rapporteur is appointed. The chairperson further proceeds with admission of observers, terms of reference for the working group, available documents and adoption of the agenda. Interaction in the working group has been extremely low, in that the chairperson has been engaged in an active oral presentation concerning non-controversial matters, while the participants of the meeting play a passive role as the audience.

Under agenda item 7, submissions, the senior member of the Japanese delegation speaks through an interpreter. His clear, rather aggressive tone of voice is emphasized by the use of a microphone. Furthermore, his interpreter recreates the manner of his talk in her translation with her skilful use of language and control of her voice. They are so harmonious to the point that the sex difference almost ceases to exist.

A well-prepared official position is presented, which increases the degree of tension slightly. The content of the statement by the senior member of the Japanese delegation is negative, in that he expresses his dissatisfaction with the lack of understanding in the IWC of the social and cultural importance of STCW, and he points out the possible consequent distrust in the Commission. Although his message is not new to most of the participants, it plays an important role as a visible measure of the degree of commitment to the issue of STCW by the government of Japan. The opening statement by Japan is passively received by the audience.

The mayor of Oshika-cho gives his prepared speech which describes the hardship that the people in his town are experiencing as a result of the moratorium. His speech is interpreted by a young male interpreter whose manner and quality of voice is gentler than the mayor.

Regarding certain parts of the statement made by the mayor, the chairperson points out that the discussion of an interim quota is outside of the terms of reference of this working group meeting. The precise ruling by the chairperson demonstrates a sufficient degree of controlling power that he exercises over the meeting.

Following the mayor's presentation, one of the STCW operators introduces a document concerning the impact of the moratorium. The same male interpreter translates his Japanese speech into English. The slight British accent mixed with the Japanese accent makes his interpretation sound mild and gentle, creating a non-confrontational atmosphere. The STCW operator, having presented a document in the previous year's working group meeting, seems confident in his delivery and reads the prepared paper looking down.

The STCW operator gives the detailed accounts of the impact of the moratorium on individual whalers and the community as a whole. He stresses that the job losses, the reduced attraction of the town as a tourist destination and the consequent out-migration of the people undermines the local people's confidence in the future of their community. The passive-active contrast between the document presenters and the listeners continues and the intensity of interaction remains low.

The chairperson thanks Japan for the presentation and invites comments and questions from the floor. The first question is raised by a member of the New Zealand delegation who has been in the last two years an active participant in this working group discussion. She raises two questions. Her first question concerns a connection between the ban of minke whaling and the possible increase in the catch of Baird's beaked whale and pilot whales. The real agenda behind this question is more than acquiring the answer. One of the purposes of the question is to make a point that the lack of minke whale meat is sufficiently supplemented by the available Baird's beaked whale and pilot whale meat and that the problem can be solved without any resumption of minke whaling. Another intention behind the recurring questioning is an attempt to establish a connection between the banning of minke whaling and the increased Baird's beaked whale and pilot whale harvest. Such a connection could then be used as an argument to justify expanding the IWC's management competence to cover small cetaceans, which are possibly affected by the IWC's decision. Such two or three-sided questions are typically found in an interaction in the working group meeting.

The second question that she asks concerns the other factors, beside the loss of whaling, which contributes to the decline of population in the STCW community. An attempt to shift the focus of the argument to non-whaling causes may accomplish two things: 1) it allows the questioner to make a point about an insufficient causal linkage between the loss of whaling and the population decline, if the other data are not available, and 2) it allows the possibility of arguing that the ban on minke whaling has little effect on local conditions, if the data are available.

After the question raised by the New Zealand participant, there is a pause in the interaction, while the Japanese participants try to understand the question through interpretation. Although employing simultaneous translation, precise understanding of the question requires supplemental explanation in Japanese as to what has exactly been asked. In the back stage, the members of Japanese delegation gather their heads together, whispering to each other what they understood to be the question. Among the members of the Japanese delegation, those who have sufficient understanding of English tell others what they understood to be the question. There is a slight tension among the Japanese delegation, while this supplemental explanation is given. After the question is understood, there is another moment when they decide who presents the answer. This process becomes more efficient as they answer more questions. However, for the first question, there is an increase of tension among the members of the Japanese delegation during this process.

One member of the Japanese delegation, who is a STCW operator, begins his deliberation, presenting the catch record of both Baird's beaked and pilot whales since the moratorium became effective. Realizing that the catch record does not itself explain whether or not Baird's beaked and pilot whale meat actually substitutes for minke whale meat, I raise my hand to catch the chairperson's attention for my turn to add a point about locally diversified whale cuisine. My answer stresses the cultural factor, involved in whale cuisine, in that there exists regional diversity in whale cuisine, with certain types of whale traditionally prepared in certain ways in a given region. Thus, it is of cultural and historical importance to have the proper kind of whale meat cooked, so that a substitution of minke whale meat with Baird's beaked meat is not a culturally acceptable option.

In response to the second question, I indicate the unique nature of the population decline in one STCW community which shows an extremely drastic drop, in comparison to certain other cases, where a gradual decrease of population is typically found. The mayor of the community adds another point: it is not only a simple decrease of population, but also the out-migration of laid-off whalers and their families that causes the structural changes in the local economy due to loosing the group who provide the main labour force. Both I and the mayor do not touch on any other causes of the population decline, as asked by the New Zealand participant. By the time our answers were given, the intensity of interaction has increased. Although the first exchange of question and answer may appear non-confrontational, the intention behind the questions fully suggests that she is not about to accept our argument. Rather, she is laying the foundation to lead to a negative conclusion.

The Australian participant reiterates the same point, as raised by the New Zealand participant, asking whether or not the general decline of coastal fishery is related to the population decline. This question prompted one very important point about the nature of the local fishery in Ayukawa. The STCW operator responds that 80% of the local industry was supported by whaling and that the portion of population decline related to other coastal fisheries is small.

So far, the atmosphere in the room is not overly tense. There is neither overt confrontation, nor consensus in our exchange. Although I am feeling personally tense because of the consistent negative attitude demonstrated by the New Zealand and Australian participants, the over-all tension and the intensity of interaction have been fairly low.

The first confrontation breaks out when the Netherlands participant, makes a statement saying that this is a plea for lifting of the moratorium, rather than a plea to establish a separate category of whaling. The senior member of the Japanese delegation promptly responds, in his usual firm manner, that what we have been addressing is the findings by international social scientists which describes STCW as a type of whaling situated between commercial and aboriginal forms of whaling. Japan has therefore been asking for special consideration on this basis. The Netherlands participant responds by restating his government's position that it recognises no valid distinction between this (STCW) and other forms of commercial whaling. The degree of tension rises rapidly as these two opposing views are made explicit. This contrasting view on the nature of STCW has been consistent, without much modification, since the working group on STW first met in 1989. The position stated by the representative is similar to the position taken by the majority of the IWC membership and the exchange between the senior member of the Japanese delegation and the senior member of the Netherlands delegation indicates continuing deadlock.

The chairperson then calls on Japan for the next presentation, as I am getting ready for my presentation using an overhead slide projector. I have prepared a script for my presentation, so that an accurate summary can be included in the final report. The content of my paper and presentation was to respond to the question from the previous year's discussion why and how the use of whale meat in everyday meals has cultural significance.

After summarizing the first paper (Japan 1991a), I give a summary of another paper (Japan 1991d) which introduces the result of a survey on how different age groups in Ayukawa express preference for eating whale meat. Both presentations are given in English in female voice, which I consider quite clear.

The audience, having passively listen to my presentation, is asked for questions and comments by the chairperson. The UK participant and the New Zealand participant who have asked questions earlier raise their hands. The UK participant makes a few statements in which he restates his conclusion about JSTCW not being different from other forms of commercial whaling. He also repeats his observation from the last years discussion that the bulk of whale meat goes out of the whaling community.

The New Zealand participant starts out by saying that it is very interesting to read these papers. This is a usual opening ritual that most participants conduct at the beginning of each intervention. The typical opening ritual involves a positive introductory statement about unsubstantial matters, which then lead to the negative argument on a substantial matter. The New Zealand participant further continues, referring to the case in New Zealand, that the conflict between traditional use of species and conservation needs was solved by a gradual change of food preference. There is then, a quick change of tension in the atmosphere in the room when the senior member of the Japanese delegation firmly responds to her by saying that in the case of Japanese STCW, we are not talking about an irreversible depletion of resources.

The substance of the exchange between the Japanese participants, the UK participants and the New Zealand participants are a repetition of the discussion which took place in the previous year. The underlying message that is coming across is that the anti-whaling countries have not changed their position opposing recognition of a separate administrative category for JSTCW. This position has been consistent ever since this issue first came forward in 1988.

The list of documents regarding JSTCW which has been tabled at the IWC as official papers is introduced to show the depth and scope of research that has been conducted by the government of Japan. The USA participant requests that new information on the proportion of certain grades of meat not consumed locally but sold in more distant markets be provided as requested in last year's Working Group. Requesting more information and more research is a commonly used stalling tactic within the working group as well as other areas of the Commission's business. Japan has been responding to these continuous requests, and doing much more.

Following the Japanese presentation, the Icelandic delegation makes its presentation on the impact of the moratorium. A whaler representing the Icelandic small-type whalers gives a speech, interpreted by another member of the Icelandic delegation. The speech is received in silence with the exception of the senior member of the Japanese delegation who responds positively, expressing his understanding and sympathy towards the Icelandic situation.

The working group discussion has come to the final stage under agenda item 9 where the group is to give consideration to the situation of various kinds of small-type whaling. It has become apparent that the Working Group would not likely reach a consensus concerning the establishment of a separate category for STCW.

The senior member of the Japanese delegation repeats the request for special consideration for JSTCW and the reasoning behind it. A brief but precise statement is delivered through his interpreter. There followed diverse opinions expressing each government's official position on this issue. Denmark's position is delivered by the senior member of the delegation who proposes an ad hoc solution to allow limited whaling activities for JSTCW. This is an apparent shift of position since the previous year. The UK, New Zealand and the USA have all expressed their position that JSTCW is commercial in nature and that they cannot consider a separate category, nor an interim quota.

Before the closure of the discussion, I ask to speak so that I could respond to the statement made by the UK participant, who had made the same statement in the previous year's meeting. I express my frustration at being repeatedly ignored or my points conveniently forgotten by saying that "These are the same questions raised by the same person last year. I feel awkward in repeating the same answer this year again. However, the answer has not changed." Then I read the paragraph from the last year's report of this working group.

Following my statement, the senior member of the St. Vincent and the Grenadine delegation states his view in support of Denmark's position. The chairperson concludes that there does not appear to be consensus for an establishment of a new category for STCW.

The working group meeting finished before lunch. We were able to supply a summary of our presentation to the rapporteur so that the accurate description of the presentation would be recorded. The rest of the process leading up to the adoption of the report was smooth compared to the previous two years when various manipulations of documents and drafting were attempted.

B. IWC 43rd Annual Meeting (1991); plenary session and Technical Committee meeting

1) Monday: The fist session of the Plenary meeting

After one week of working group meetings and sub-committee meetings, the plenary session opened. The meeting was held in a rather small room, compared with the rooms used in the past annual meetings. Six pillars which stand in the centre of the room prevented an uninterrupted view of the room, limiting the extent of interaction during the meeting. It may be more accurate to say that eye-to-eye contacts between speakers, except with a chairperson who sits on the podium, is generally impossible. Official government delegations are seated in alphabetical order. However, for security reasons, the Japanese delegation has been seated in the area furthest away from the entrance to the meeting room. Behind the government delegations, non-member government delegations and the inter-governmental organization representatives are seated.

The accredited NGO participants are seated at one end of the room opposite from the main entrance to the room. However, there is a back-door behind the area where NGOs are seated. This door opens into a hall leading to the kitchen and back to the main entrance. This path allows traffic in and out of the room during the meeting without having to walk across the room.

Three sides of the room have large-size windows, providing sun-shine and heat to the room, which made the room uncomfortably hot during the meeting. There is a lounge just outside of the meeting room. All participants are asked to show their identity card when passing from this lounge to the meeting room, thus prohibiting the entrance of anyone without proper credentials. Media personnel are excluded from this area.

Throughout the meeting, speakers are asked to hold up their country name plate to indicate their wish to make an intervention and to use the microphone in front of them when speaking. The plenary session is tape recorded, then later transcribed to provide a verbatim record. The media has auditory access to the meeting through a speaker which is installed in the media room. The media have been allowed into the meeting room for a short time on the first morning of the plenary meeting, after which time they are excluded from entering the meeting.

The meeting began on time at 10:00 a.m. on Monday, 27th of May. Unlike previous IWC meetings, there is no anti-whaling protest outside of the building where the meeting is held. Although I encounter one local anti-whaling NGO attending the meeting, there seems to be very little organized protest against whaling in Iceland, which was involved in commercial whaling until 1985.

As all the participants are seated, the chairperson declares open the 43rd Annual Meeting of the International Whaling Commission. Camera crews and reporters have their equipment set up, filming and taking photos of the participants. From where I sat in the back row of the Japanese delegation, I can see various camera crews taking close-up shots of the members of our delegation. The atmosphere in the room is tense, as everyone posing for the cameras looks serious as is expected on such occasions.

The message delivered as the opening statement by the Minister of Fisheries in the Icelandic Government is very strong and threatening, in that he urges the IWC to rededicate itself to the organization's original purpose, namely the conservation and rational utilization of the whale stocks. In the previous years when the IWC annual meeting were held in anti-whaling countries such as New Zealand (1988), the USA (1989) and the Netherlands (1990), the opening messages stressed the over-riding strong conservation needs in the management of whale stocks. Thus, the beginning tone of the 1991 meeting is surely distinct. The end of the opening speech is followed by audience applause. The chairperson thanks the Icelandic government representative and adjourned the meeting for a short while whilst he escorts him from the meeting. On his return to the podium, the chairperson resumes the meeting, at which time the IWC Secretary who sits next to the chairperson, explain the various arrangement for the meeting. The government delegations are passively participating in the meeting by listening to information concerning the logistics of the meeting. The first coffee break was then announced by the chairperson.

Interaction among the people during the coffee break is relaxed. All the media personnel are expected to leave the meeting room at this time. I can see numbers of people staying in their seats, without leaving the meeting room to go for refreshment. The next session resumes. Under the agenda item 5, Appointment of Scientific Committee, each government signifies whether it intends to participate in the meetings of the Scientific Committee during the coming year. This agenda item allows the Icelandic delegation its first opportunity to refer to his country's future participation in the Scientific Committee. In the past Icelandic participation in the Scientific work of the IWC has been very pronounced. The senior member of the Icelandic delegation states:

I understand that it is possible to make this declaration some time before the end of this week and if that is the case I prefer to defer declaring our membership until that time (Verbatim record 1991:5)

As most of the participants are aware of the possible withdrawal of Iceland from IWC, this statement comes out as a clear confirmation of that possibility. The degree of tension rose rapidly as this statement was made, setting a conflicting tone for the meeting.

2) Monday: The first session of Technical Committee meeting

After these procedural matters are concluded, the chairperson calls upon the chairperson of the Technical Committee to convene the Technical Committee meeting. Ten agenda items are covered in the Technical Committee meeting, which lasts about a day and a half. Some agenda items involve rather straightforward reports delivered by the chairs of various committees, sub-committees or working groups that had met earlier. Other agenda items, on the other hand, generate active discussion with varied degrees of tension.

One such contentious discussion occurs with Agenda item 9: The Commission's competence to set catch limits for Baird's beaked whale in the North Pacific, which is an on-going controversial item. A senior member of the USA delegation is the first to ask for the floor. As has been the government position in the past, he proposes that the scope of this agenda item should be broadened to cover all the cetaceans subject to commercial whaling. Japan responds negatively by stating their government position that the IWC's competence is limited to those species of whales actually named in the list of nomenclature attached to the Convention. The Japanese position was supported by Norway, who further stated that regional, rather than global, approaches to managing small cetaceans are more appropriate. Denmark stated its position that the Convention does not give rights to the Commission to manage small cetaceans. New Zealand opposes Japan, Norway and Denmark's position and states that in their view there is no ambiguity in regard to the Commission's competence to manage all whale species (and not just those named in the nomenclature list).

This exchange of government positions is carried out in a low degree of tension, because these positions are understood and have been repeated on various past occasions. The tone of voice of each deliberation is controlled with the least degree of emotional content. The actors are playing their designated roles as government representatives on the front stage, which is set up partly for the audience sitting in the NGO section in the meeting room.

The exchange that the USA initiated prompted others to join in the front-stage play. A senior member of the Netherlands delegation supports the position of the USA, then New Zealand, Sweden, Australia, Germany, the UK, Switzerland, Brazil, Seychelles, Finland, Oman, France, and Ireland all express their view in support of the USA position, while the Japanese, Danish and Norwegian position is supported by Mexico, Spain, Iceland, Peru and St. Vincent and the Grenadines. These statements of the governments' positions is carried out in a calm and controlled manner. However, it is signalling a very strong message indicating the alliance pattern of the countries represented at this meeting this year.

The back-stage group called the "like-minded group" is known for its position opposing the resumption of whaling, and indeed it is in favour of an end to the catching of all cetaceans including small cetaceans which are currently considered by many to be outside of IWC's legal competence. The presentation of government positions on the issue relating to management of Baird's beaked whaling and the possible expansion of the agenda reveals the general orientation of the "like-minded group", who share a common position on most of the issues. It is also known that the "like-minded group" in addition to sharing strong anti-whaling views, also have an animal protection and animal welfare focus, and function under the influence of their domestic interest groups, most of which are present at the meeting as NGOs. Therefore, the reactions in the NGO section provide an interesting clue for understanding the intensity of the influence that some NGO observers exert from the back-stage.

As a normal procedure within the IWC when there is no consensus on an item during Technical Committee discussions, it is decided that the decision on this agenda item will be taken later in the plenary session during the Commission meeting.

The next agenda item that was raised in the Technical Committee is a discussion on the Comprehensive Assessment of whale stocks, which is one of the most important topics for the 1991 meeting. The final decision on the adoption of a new and improved management procedure (the so-called Revised Management Procedure³⁵) is to be made in the plenary session. However, the Technical Committee provides an opportunity for each delegation to express their basic position. The chairperson of the Technical Committee then calls upon the chairperson of the sub-committee of the Scientific Committee on Management Procedures to present the report, which details the five potential Revised Management Procedures (RMP) that the sub-committee has been working on. The report of the Sub-committee concluded with a recommendation that the Commission adopt the so-called C procedure, which is considered the "best" single stock procedure out of the five candidate procedures. The report further states that the Sub-committee agreed on five steps to be taken before this procedure is applied to an actual fishery.

After the lengthy and highly technical accounts of the process and the result of the discussion in the sub-committee with regard to the recommended RMP, the chairperson of the Technical Committee opens the floor for discussion. The initial round of comments from senior members of various delegations express appreciation to the chairperson and the members of the sub-committee for their successful work. This is a typical front-stage opening ritual in the meeting, which occurs as the first step leading to the substantive part of the intervention.

There follow technical questions raised by some delegations which are answered by the chairperson of the sub-committee. Some comments on the acceptability are also made at this point. However, the intensity of interaction is low.

The results of the comprehensive assessment conducted on the first three stocks of whale (considered as a priority by the Commission) and some others, are reported by the chairperson of the Scientific Committee. The report also includes the Committee's future work plans. The report of the Scientific Committee is, needless to say, highly technical, in that it requires specialized knowledge of the work in the Scientific Committee, both in terms of technical aspects and historical development of their work. Among the senior members of each government delegation, there are only a few who are equipped with both aspects of knowledge. In most cases, he or she has to depend on the scientists in their delegation for advice or assistance to understand the work of the Scientific Committee. However, there are also numbers of small delegations that have no scientists in their delegation. Often, the nature of comments or questions from delegations indicates that the work of the Scientific Committee is in fact poorly understood by the majority of those who make the decisions within the Commission.

After the presentation of the Scientific Committee report, there were a few comments made. The most noticeable ones are of support for the adoption of the C procedure made by Japan and Norway. However, there is not a significant increase of tension in their interaction. The controversial and crucial issue such as whether or not to adopt the RMP will obviously be deferred to the plenary session, where more important position statements are expected to be made. This agenda item concludes the first day of the meeting.

3) Tuesday: The second session of the Technical Committee meeting

The second day of the meeting begins with a discussion relating to Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling, which is exempt from the whaling moratorium in recognition of its cultural and subsistence importance to those aboriginal societies involved in whaling. The anti-whaling alliance, the so-called "like-minded group", presents an interesting modification in its alliance pattern on this issue, because one of the prominent members of the "like-minded group" has aboriginal groups who operate their whaling under this category. Furthermore, the countries that represent commercial whaling interests are not the same as those that represent aboriginal subsistence whaling interests.

The agenda item is opened with a presentation of the report of the Scientific Committee, which introduces the most recent scientific data on each stock subject to this type of whaling. The report of the Aboriginal Subsistence Sub-committee is also introduced by the sub-committee chairperson. The other participants remain passive, in that they concentrate on listening to the front-stage presentation or make comments of a non-controversial nature. The degree of intensity is kept low with minimum interaction occurring among the speakers. Statements are made by various speakers, but they do not actively interact among themselves.

The atmosphere in the meeting room changes when Australia presents its government position with regard to Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling under the agenda item Action Arising. While making the point that its government recognizes the subsistence need of aboriginal whalers and community people, the speaker raises the issue of the need for international observers in future operations of this type of whaling. The high-pitched tone in his voice, along with the speed of his speech, which gives a rather aggressive impression to the listeners, seems to have conditioned the interaction that followed his statement. Norway and Iceland followed Australia, presenting varied views on the multi-year block quota idea being proposed by the USA and the issue of safety principles in managing this type of whaling. The level of intensity rises, when the USA gives a lengthy statement reviewing the details of its aboriginal subsistence whaling and repeats its proposal for a three-year-block quota. As New Zealand, Japan, the Netherlands and Spain each make their intervention which oppose the proposed block quota, an interesting alliance against the USA becomes apparent.

The pattern of alliance further develops as Seychelles, Brazil, St. Lucia, Germany, Denmark, the UK and France express their support for the proposed block quota. The intensity of interaction increases as the two opposing positions each gain support, retreating from a possible consensus. Thus, as is the usual practice, the chairperson of the Technical Committee announces that this issue will be deferred to the plenary.

Because of the physical setting of the meeting room, the facial expressions are very difficult to observe. However, various characteristics that human voices carry and the changes in them seem to serve as means of individual expression. As mentioned above, when an interaction intensifies, or begins to intensify, the voice characteristics obviously change, and this seems true with both prepared speeches and spontaneous interventions. Another interesting indicator, which can substitute for non-observed individual facial expressions, is people's movement: when the issue being discussed requires urgent modification and negotiation, members of delegations move to other tables or leave the meeting room for discussions. Such movement is observable among the meeting participants, among the NGO observers and sometimes between the meeting participants and the NGO observers. Examples of such movements will be introduced as the meeting progresses.

Under this agenda item, the USA and Denmark both indicated their intention to make proposals for their quotas in the plenary, which was accepted by the chairperson.

Under the next agenda item, the Socio-economic Implications of the Zero-catch Quota and the Small-type Whaling is discussed. The report of the working group is presented by its chairperson, who reads from the written report, which is presented in full. Unlike the earlier aggressive speaker with a high-pitch tone of voice who presented the previous working group report, this speaker has a non-threatening tone in his voice and his manner. The gentle characteristics in his speech are further emphasized by his slight non-English accent.

The report reviews the main points of the working group discussion. The audience is in a passive mode, while they listen to the chairperson of the working group.

After the presentation of the working group report, Japan presented a prepared speech, indicating their intention to request consideration for establishing a third category of whaling and an emergency quota at another time. Mexico, Iceland, Denmark and St. Vincent & The Grenadines supported the recommendation. On the other hand, the UK stated that it is not satisfied there is a case for a third category.

The level of interaction is quite low during this discussion. Every speaker presents their front-stage performance, stating their official position. The level of tension is quite low and the alliance formation is almost nil.

In contrast to the discussion on the implications of the zero-catch quota and small-type whaling, the discussion which takes place after the presentation of the next agenda item, namely a Summary Review of Small Cetaceans Subject to Significant Takes, generates a much higher degree of interaction and alliance formation. This report contains information relating to four types of takes of small cetaceans: direct catches, incidental catches, deliberate incidental catches and live captures.

When the floor is opened for discussion, active interaction begins. Spain states its position that regulation of small cetaceans is outside of the jurisdictional competence of the IWC. New Zealand, on the other hand, congratulates the scientists and states that there is an ongoing requirement for such compilations of small cetacean takes. New Zealand also states its intention to submit a draft resolution to the plenary to implement further action (Appendix 3.2). USA follows the New Zealand position and indicates its intention to bring up this matter again in the plenary. The UK, Brazil, Chile, Australia, the Netherlands join in the New Zealand and the USA alliance. Japan repeats its government position, rejecting the IWC's competence for matters relating to small cetaceans. Peru reports that it has set up new priorities and introduced legislation protecting cetaceans. Mexico states its intention to report to the plenary on its national measures for the protection of marine mammals.

Government positions are stated one after the other. The level of tension is not high, because they are generally already known and neither interactive nor confrontational. It rather seems that they are presenting themselves on the front-stage for recognition of their position by the audience. Alliance formation is not strong at this point, as the level of interaction is not high.

While the front-stage interaction is carried out in this more ritualistic manner, the NGO back-stage scene is quite reactive. Several rows of long tables are laid out, with 4-5 people sitting at each table. At the very end of the NGO section, there are a few of the more influential persons sitting. One of them is often standing, receiving visits from other NGO observers. He is a well-known senior environmentalist, leading one of the largest international environmental organization. While each government position is stated, NGO observers in the middle area are more intensely reacting, both physically and orally. They nod and shake their heads, write down notes and whisper to each other.

There are a few NGO observers with computers in front of them. One of them is the editor of the newsletter "ECO", which reports daily on the discussion in the meeting from the perspectives of environmental groups represented as NGO observers. The people's physical movements in the NGO section are noticeable. Many people in the NGO section seem to function as one group, supervised by the senior person at the end of the section. They express friendly exchanges to each other as they walk by, indicating intimacy within the group. Frequent visits are paid to the senior person who stands at the back of the NGO section during the meeting. These movements within the NGO section together with the physical position of the senior person and visits to him give the impression that he is, to a large extent, directing the activity of the NGOs.

The last agenda item in Technical Committee is Humane Killing, which has been an ongoing issue for some time in the IWC. The chairperson of the Humane Killing Working Group presents the report of the Working Group, which summarizes the improvements in killing methods in Greenlandic whaling and Alaskan bowhead whaling. The report also presents the discussion on expansion of the terms of reference of the Working Group, which, it was decided, is to be referred to the Technical Committee. The Working Group also discussed a proposal to hold a workshop of technically qualified veterinary and other experts in order to review the development of the penthrite grenade harpoon since 1980, when an extensive technical discussion on this issue last took place. The report notes that the idea was proposed by the UK, supported by Seychelles, the USA, the Netherlands and New Zealand. However, Denmark, supported by Iceland and Norway stated that only technically qualified experts should be invited to the proposed Workshop.

When the floor is open for discussion, Japan states its position, questioning the IWC's competence to deal with humane killing issue, which involves subjective judgements when dealing with "humaneness". It also objected to an extension of the terms of reference for the working group, because of the limitation in the IWC's regulatory competence. The extension of terms of reference is supported by the UK, Switzerland and the USA, while an opposing view is expressed by Denmark, Iceland, St. Vincent & The Grenadines and St. Lucia.

As the exchange of views proceeds, the discussion quickly moves away from any consensus. As is the case with other issues, the participants promptly form two opposing groups, which are composed mostly of the same countries each time. The UK then questions Japan and Iceland about their intention to withdraw their objection to the ban on the use of the cold grenade harpoon, and the level of tension rises. Iceland responds that it will withdraw its objection at the resumption of minke whaling, which is at the present time, banned under the moratorium. Japan also responds negatively. The level of tension became quite high at this point.

Japan reviewed the improvement of whaling technology since 1975 and stated that holding such a workshop is not an urgent matter. Denmark, Norway and Iceland support the Japanese view.

When the two opposing views were expressed, the discussion became deadlocked. However, the situation was remedied by a new suggestion made by Norway, who proposed that the terms of reference of the proposed workshop must include the hunting of other large mammals. Iceland supports Norway's suggestion, which provides the middle ground between the two camps. The chairperson of the Technical Committee concludes the discussion by forwarding the issue to the plenary.

The level of interaction and tension was high throughout the discussion, indicating the importance of the issue and the newly proposed workshop. As with all the other difficult issues, which cannot reach consensus in the Technical Committee, the humane killing issue will also be referred to the plenary.

The rest of the agenda items in the Technical Committee are purely administrative matters which the chairperson promptly deals with. No noteworthy discussion took place. The second day of Technical Committee ended with almost all of the Technical Committee agenda items covered. The remainder are to be covered the following morning preceding the opening of the second Plenary Session.

4) Wednesday morning: The Second session of the Plenary meeting

The chairperson for the plenary session sits at the chair to start the meeting. It is now almost 10:00 a.m.. He announces that the Commission will first discuss matters relating to Finance and Administration and he calls upon the chairperson of the appropriate committee to present the report.

The report contains the important financial accounts of the Commission, revealing accumulative financial difficulties over the past several years. Thus, the major concerns for the Commission at the present time is how to achieve reduction of cost and an increase of revenue. As the chairperson of the Finance and Administration Committee introduces the main financial issues which were discussed in the committee, the audience listens in silence. As the chairperson finishes his presentation, the chairperson of the Commission opens the floor for comments.

Despite the possible financial implication to each member country, participants in the discussion are all cooperative, in that most of the discussion was carried out with high level of positive interaction, and a low degree of tension.

The discussion on most agenda items ended in consensus, without any confronting statements or comments. However, there is one exception to the general pattern of interaction regarding the financial matters. As the chairperson introduces the agenda item regarding the Advanced Budget Estimates for 1992/93, Norway asks for the floor. A senior member of the Norwegian delegation re-introduces, as occurred in the committee meeting, a proposal to double the NGO observer fee for the budget year of 1992/93 to be considered in the next year's meeting. Promptly, disagreement is expressed by New Zealand.

After Iceland seconded the Norwegian proposal, the Netherlands follows New Zealand's position by stating that NGO observers fees have been recently increased and that it is already high in comparison to other international organizations.

While the Netherlands is making a strong statement opposing the proposal, four countries have already asked for the floor. St. Vincent and The Grenadines supports the Norwegian proposal and make an additional comment that some of them have very efficient funds raising systems and that they probably have access to more funds than his government. His point is a personal one and demonstrates his negative view of the NGO's involvement in the whaling issue.

As the UK, Oman, the USA and Brazil speak in support of New Zealand, and Japan supports the Norwegian proposal, the usual alliance is formed with a high degree of confrontation. The list of speakers becomes longer as Australia, Seychelles, Chile and Switzerland speak against the Norwegian proposal. The chairperson concludes this agenda item stating that "...all these comments will be recorded and give food for thought for the deliberations at next year's meeting... (Verbatim Record 1991:23) Thus, the deadlocked situation is ended by the chairperson's ruling to refer the issue to the next year's meeting.

This piece of interaction is an interesting one, as it reveals a back-stage relationship between each government and NGO observers. The high intensity of interaction and high level of confrontation seems to be a front-stage act, aimed at the NGO observers who are both the subject of the discussion and the important audience at the same time. This interaction involves both expressions of official and personal views on the NGOs, which intensifies the interaction, thus prompting such heated debate.

To increase the efficiency of the plenary, the order of the agenda has been re-arranged. The chairperson of the Commission proposes to turn to Agenda item 6: Operation of the Convention. This is the issue that, since 1986, has been most actively pursued by the USSR; however, the interest of other countries has been extremely low. The chairperson of the working group introduces the report, summarizing the discussion that took place earlier in the working group meeting. Following the presentation of the Working Group report, comments are made by various delegations, who are generally not supportive of the USSR's position. Their delivery of their statements is controlled and a low degree of tension is expressed. After a lengthy prepared statement presented by the UK, the USSR speaks out stressing its effort in promoting understanding of the need for modification of the 1946 Convention and its disappointment on its failure to achieve this goal.

The degree of frustration is well expressed in the speech, including the suggestion of possible withdrawal from the Commission, a commonly-used threat tactic. The USSR's position is supported by three other countries; however, the majority of countries who spoke out expressed their opposition to its position. The chairperson adjourns the meeting until 3:15, during which time the Report from the Technical Committee will be completed.

5) Wednesday afternoon: Afternoon session of the Plenary meeting

The afternoon session of the plenary starts with the agenda item dealing with Scientific Permits³⁶. The chairperson of the Commission asks the chairperson of the Scientific Committee, who then summarizes the relevant part of the Scientific Committee report, first reviewing the research programmes conducted under scientific permits in 1990/91, then the new or revised scientific permit proposals. The chairperson of the Commission asks the floor for comments after completion of each sub-item, but no comments are made. The audience remains passive, while the review by the chairperson of Scientific Committee is presented.

The meeting room becomes quite hot in the afternoon. A lot of people have their jackets off, to adjust to the changing temperature in the room, where people are sitting quite close together. The attendance of the meeting has not changed, both in the participants' section and the NGO section, and most of the seats remain taken.

After the chairperson of the Scientific Committee finishes a brief review of the Japanese research proposal, Japan asks for the floor. A senior member of the Japanese delegation presents the well-known government position in this matter.

Iceland makes positive comments in support of the Japanese scientific research in the Antarctic. This is followed by statements by the Netherlands and the UK, both of which are strongly negative towards the proposed research that requires the lethal take of whales. Thus, the statements are intended to condemn the Japanese research activity. Despite the negative message that is carried, the two statements seem to create little tension in the room, as this opposition to whale killing has been stated many times before. No response is made by Japan.

The intensity of interaction increases after the chairperson of Scientific Committee reads the section on the USSR's research proposal which will be conducted in the Okhotsk Sea. The UK strongly questions the readiness of this research proposal and suggests it be withdrawn. The USA, Australia, Switzerland, Spain, Germany, France, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Denmark, India, Ireland and Chile concur with the UK. On the other hand, the countries such as Japan, Iceland and Norway, although they suggest that improvement on the research plan should be made, make their point that conducting research is the right of each state under the Convention.

The intensity of interaction is quite high and the tension increases as the discussion precedes. After the comment by Norway, the USSR asks for the floor and states that it will take account of the criticism raised in the discussion. China, through an interpreter, points out that it is important to consider the scientific advice of the Scientific Committee. The substance and tone of the Chinese language and the English translation with the Chinese accent that follows changes the atmosphere of the room. The tension suddenly becomes eased, and the interaction seems to slow down. Because China usually maintains an unaligned position on most issues, its comments are not predictable. Furthermore, its interventions sometimes do not follow the course of the discussion. In this case, its message separates itself from either group mentioned above and seems to have broken the flow of the confrontational interaction.

Brazil and India join the first group by making their statement in which they oppose the lethal research. The confrontational tension is re-established when Australia asks the chairperson to leave this agenda item open until the resolutions regarding scientific permits will be tabled later. The chairperson of the Commission accepts the request from Australia and moves on to the next agenda item, Cooperation with other Organizations. This agenda item is presented by the Secretary of IWC, who reports on the present and future relationship of IWC with various international organizations. The interaction during the report on this non-controversial item is minimum.

After the coffee break, the chairperson calls upon the Secretary, who briefly announces that the Draft of 42nd Annual Report of the Commission from the previous year is available for corrections.

Before proceeding with the rest of the agenda items, which were already discussed in the Technical Committee, the chairperson of the Commission decides on a time-saving procedure in which, for each agenda item, the chairperson of the Technical Committee presents the report and has it adopted, then the chairperson of the Commission open the floor for the plenary discussion.

The chairperson of Technical Committee goes over the report, one page at a time for amendment. This is an important stage for each controversial issue, because this report will become the basis for the discussion in the plenary as well as the Chairman's report which will be the permanent record of this year's meeting. The procedure is that each speaker is allowed to make amendments to his/her own statement in the report, which will, then, be adopted. The part of the report on the agenda item 8, Infractions, is amended with no disagreement or confrontation. Then, the Chairperson of the Commission takes over the meeting and opens the floor for the plenary discussion.

The chairperson of Technical Committee proceeds with Agenda item 9: Commission's competence to set catch limits for Baird's beaked whale in the North Pacific. An interesting exchange then takes place when Australia raises a question on the interpretation of the UN Law of the Sea [UNCLOS] ( Appendix 1.1.1 ).

The exchange took place regarding the use of words in the report where it is stated "Iceland pointed out that...", which implies that what follows is an unquestionable fact. Australia and New Zealand disagree with Iceland's interpretation of UNCLOS and attempted to change the wording so that the report makes it clear that it is only Iceland's interpretation of the law. The chairperson of the Technical Committee encouraged the others to agree on the original form in the report. However, this issue is raised again in the plenary by the USA reiterating the point made by Australia ( Appendix 1.1.2 ).

The directed disagreement causes tension and increasing confrontation. As the chairperson of the Commission comes to the end of this agenda item, there is no consensus on the issue. Furthermore, the USA and Brazil indicated their intention to table resolutions regarding this agenda item later in the meeting. The tense confrontation is re-enforced by the statement about the up-coming resolutions, although the resolutions had been expected. The chairperson of the Commission closes the meeting until tomorrow.

6) Thursday morning: Morning session of the Plenary meeting

Thursday, May 30. The third day of the plenary session began a little after 9 o'clock. The chairperson of Technical Committee, began reviewing the draft report under Agenda Item 11: Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling.

The procedure to amend the draft Technical Committee report is usually simple and straightforward, with the least amount of direct confrontation. Any delegation can amend what it has said, and leave the rest of the report to others to change if they wish. However, even within this procedure, there is the potential for confrontation. Brazil, after giving an elaborate introductory remark, proposes an amendment of what she thought she said ( Appendix 1.2.1 ).

During the subsequent exchange between Brazil and Denmark, the tone of the voice of the Danish speaker and the manner of speech indicates high degree of frustration and consequent tension. While the Brazilian delegate attempts to change what appears to be a minor part of the wording of her own earlier statements, Denmark detects an intended change in the substance of her deliberation and insists on keeping the original wording. The degree of irritation reaches the highest level when the senior member of Brazilian delegation continues to try to modify the original text, even after the Technical Committee chairperson's ruling. The exchange ends with a rather abrupt response from Brazil, saying "OK, yes". The period of tense interaction ends and the atmosphere of the room is normalized by the chairperson's final statement that the text will remain as it is.

After the chairperson of the Commission takes over the chair, the portion of the Technical Committee report dealing with this agenda item is adopted in the plenary. The plenary discussion involves consideration of various proposals for catch quotas under the Commission's Aboriginal/Subsistence whaling scheme. Presently, there are four countries that are granted catch quotas under this category: Denmark, the USA, the USSR and St. Vincent and the Grenadines. Denmark, the USA and the USSR are seeking to renew their catch quotas, while St. Vincent and Grenadines has been granted a quota until the year 1992/93. The requests by Denmark and the USA are passed with consensus, without much exchange of conflicting opinion.

Right after the introduction of the USSR proposal for it's Aboriginal/Subsistence whaling catch quota, the chairperson of the Commission adjourns the meeting for coffee break until 11:05 a.m. The chairperson calls for a closed-door Commissioners' meeting after the break.

Coffee break, at this stage in the meeting, provides a useful time for lobbying and negotiation regarding the pending issues. This is the time when NGO observers interact directly with the government delegations. Although the content of such discussions is kept secret to an outsider, it is a regular scene for NGO observers, shuffling papers, to talk with members of government delegations over coffee. This is one of the times when observers become participants. Some NGO observers are handing out booklets with polite smiles to members of government delegations. Other NGO observers are talking in friendly fashion with government delegates in some cases with their arms around them.

As the intensity of interaction increases during the meeting, the commissioners have occasions when they can deal with complicated issues in private sessions attended only by commissioners (and in some cases, interpreters). This is the first time during this meeting, when the chairperson has called for a commissioners' closed meeting during the plenary session. The Commissioners' meeting is a closed meeting, and information related to discussions in the meeting is not supposed to go public. Thus, without access to the substance of the discussions by the NGO observers, certain issues of a highly controversial nature are discussed with the hope that consensus may, more likely, be obtained.

After the coffee break and the Commissioners' meeting that follows, the plenary is resumed. The chairperson re-opens the Agenda item concerning the Aboriginal/Subsistence whaling catch proposal by the USSR. It is adopted by consensus, without much debate. The meeting flows smoothly with an exchange of official positions and straight-forward questions seeking clarification of the proposal. A very low tension and a low degree of interaction is observed throughout.

The chairperson of the Commission proceeds to the next Agenda Item: Socio-economic implications and Small-type whaling, and asks the chairperson of Technical Committee to introduce the section in the Technical Committee report.

Following this, Japan makes a short statement regretting that their request for the establishment of the third category was not accepted this year again and that the Commission should continue to discuss this matter. This statement is made without much tension, as if the disappointment was expected. Following Japan, St. Vincent and The Grenadines presents its official position in a prepared speech, reviewing and analyzing the issue from its point of view.

The audience passively listen in silence. Iceland makes a short remark in support of St. Vincent and The Grenadines. St. Lucia also presents its view in support of St. Vincent and The Grenadines. The lengthy statements in support of the Japanese position sets the tone of the discussion on the request for an interim quota that is about to be made by Japan ( Appendix 1.3.1 ; Appendix 3.1).

The full account of the Japanese view of the small-type whaling issue is now presented. Controlled presentation through an interpreter makes the prepared speech a more formal front-stage performance. An expression of sympathy is presented by China, who adds that "However, I hope the Scientific Committee can finish further Comprehensive Assessment on North Pacific minke stocks and the Japan Sea - Yellow Sea - East China Sea stock in the near future, and provide the specific management advice." (Verbatim Record 1991:78) The statement of the USA, which is representative of the like-minded group's position follows China. The USA recognizes JSTCW as a type of commercial whaling and states that the proposal should be addressed as an amendment to the Schedule³⁷.

The statement is made by the second-ranked member of the delegation who has been silent until now. The USA's statement drastically increases the degree of tension in the room, establishing the basis for polarization of the Commission. India, New Zealand and the Netherlands repeated mostly what the USA had just said, establishing their alliance on this issue. The senior member of the Japanese delegation responds to the USA comment with an overt expression of negative emotion in his voice that, "we are seeking the advice from the floor which existing framework could incorporate such emergency case for the relief quota" (Verbatim Record 1991:79).

The tension of the interaction increases as the elaboration and coalescence of the anti-whaling alliance progresses. Germany follows the position of the USA, while making a slightly different point. Although Germany's position essentially follows the like-minded alliance, there is recognition given to the social and cultural aspects of the Japanese STCW, as well as recognition of the improved stock assessment fairly expressed in his statement. Norway speaks out in support of the Japanese request. The confrontation becomes deadlocked. As the usual polarization becomes apparent, Iceland asks for the floor. The senior member of the Icelandic delegation points out three periods that the IWC has experienced, reflecting changes in its whale resource management policy ( Appendix 1.3.2 ). He concludes his statement urging the Commission to develop plans for a fourth period, "when we cooperate in a decent manner to take account of the interests such as we have had identified before" (Verbatim Record 1991:81).

The message that the senior member of the Icelandic delegation expressed in his statement is apparently personal and reflects his observation of the problems in this Commission. He delivers his message in a non-aggressive manner which seems to release the built-up tension. The length of his deliberation, and the resulting pause in spontaneous interaction, further changes the atmosphere of the meeting. The content of the statement is interesting, in that he brings out the well-known back-stage activities into the discussion on the front-stage, when he talked about the "antechambers", where the discussion in the Commission is "choreographed". He expressed the view that such intensive back-stage activities creates a problematic situation in the Commission, where no debate takes place on any important issues.

As a part of the debate on the current agenda item, there has been an exchange of opinions regarding the statement made by India at the opening of the debate concerning "humaneness", which was a part of the basis for the Japanese request for the emergency relief allocation. The point made by a senior member of the Indian delegation was, "I don't know whether that concept [of humaneness] can be introduced in the Whaling Commission at all" (Verbatim Record 1991:79). His point, which implied that a Whaling Commission does not have to concern itself with "people issues", is harshly criticised by senior members of St. Vincent and The Grenadines and Japanese delegations, who remind him that Aboriginal/Subsistence whaling, which is exempted from the moratorium, is based on consideration of human need ( Appendix 1.3.3 ).

As the Commission is unable to come to a consensus regarding the Japanese request for an emergency relief quota, Japan asks for their request to be voted on. This is the first voting in this meeting. The tension increased in the room as the Secretary carries out voting procedure. The result is 6 votes in favour, 14 against with 9 abstentions, thus the request was rejected.

While Denmark makes its intervention, stating the reason for its vote, the Japanese small-type whalers who have been sitting as part of the Japanese delegation, stand up and walk across the room to leave the meeting room. Eight men are showing anger on their faces, protesting against the decision that the Commission has taken. This is one expression of disapproval by those who are affected by the Commission's decision. In the past, the Alaskan Eskimo whalers had walked out of the meeting room after the Commission made an unfavourable decision on a matter that concerned them.

7) Thursday afternoon: The afternoon session of the Plenary meeting

The afternoon session resumes. As the plenary session reaches the final stage, various resolutions are tabled. It is a normal procedure that those who draft certain resolutions attempt to get as many countries involved in the drafting process in order that the resolution will more readily be passed with consensus. In this process, some become co-sponsors for the resolution. In other cases, the drafting process is carried out exclusively within a group and the final draft is distributed to the rest of the participants for their consideration.

The first resolution is tabled under the Agenda Item 14: Adoption of Report of the Scientific Committee. New Zealand introduces a Resolution on small cetaceans (Appendix 3.2), co-sponsored by Australia, Finland, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, Seychelles, South Africa, Sweden, Switzerland, the UK and the USA. The Japanese delegation section looks empty after the group of whalers walked out of the meeting at the end of the morning session and are refusing to attend the rest of the meeting.

The first comment is made by Japan, who repeats the government position that "it is not the competence of the IWC to regulate the small cetaceans" (Verbatim Record 1991:91). St. Vincent and The Grenadines states its reasons for not being able to support the resolution. Brazil supports the resolution as it considers it is a practical approach to small cetacean issue. As Mexico states its intention to abstain from the decision, if the resolution is to be adopted, and the UK, Chile and the USA support the resolution, an alliance pattern becomes evident. The usual polarised pattern is reinforced by Australia's support of the USA statement. The statement of the official government positions is carried out in a non-confrontational manner, in which most speakers read a prepared statement. The interaction progresses at a low level of tension. However, the intensity of the interaction rapidly increases when the chairperson attempts to adopt the resolution by consensus. Spain objects to the Chairperson's ruling by stating that "I think we have not a consensus for adopting this Resolution" (Verbatim Record 1991:94). It is supported by Norway and St. Vincent and The Grenadines. Spain and Norway's interventions and the following interaction with the chairperson are carried out at a high level of intensity. Especially, the deadlock situation at the end of the interaction between the chairperson and the senior member of Norwegian delegation created high tension. The chairperson attempts to break the deadlock by calling for a break. Interestingly, after a 20 minute break, the chairperson proposes that this Agenda Item remain open and that he proceed with the next Agenda Item.

Under Agenda Item 15: Humane Killing, the UK proposes an Expert Workshop convened by the Humane Killing Working Group be held prior to the 44th IWC. The proposal had been discussed earlier in the working group meeting and the Technical Committee meeting. However, there was diverse opinion on the proposal, thus no consensus was reached to hold such a workshop. In the plenary discussion, many countries shifted their position regarding the workshop. First support comes from Denmark. Following Denmark, Iceland supports the proposal with an expansion of the purpose to includes "To compare the methods to those used in the killing of other large wildlife". (Verbatim Record 1991:98) Norway supports the idea of Humane Killing Workshop, and further agrees with Iceland's suggestion to expand the purpose of the proposed workshop. Japan also supports Iceland. Australia and New Zealand and the UK, Oman disagree with the Icelandic proposal. Although there is a general consensus for the proposed workshop, the usual polarised alliance appears regarding an inclusion of other large wildlife species in the terms of reference. The deadlock situation is gradually resolved, firstly by the suggestion made by Denmark who states that ".....This discussion we understand this way that Iceland says that there's no additional wording needed. The words are there in 'assess the methods' - that's the experts that supposedly are going to constitute this workshop are supposed to assess the methods of killing" (Verbatim Record 1991:101) and later by the chairperson's proposal to ask Iceland and the UK to discuss and come to agreement on the wording.

The chairperson, after inviting the Secretary to explain arrangements for the proposed workshop, proceeds to the next agenda item: Register of Whaling Vessels. The part on this agenda item in the Technical Committee report was amended, with only three simple amendments. Once the chairperson opens the floor for the plenary discussion, the lax air in the meeting room quickly tightened as Norway repeats its firm policy to withhold information on the Register of whaling vessels for security reasons.

High tension created by the Norwegian intervention is reinforced by the similar interventions made by Iceland and Japan. The short but firm statements fully express an anger on the part of whaling-related people, who are subject to the anti-whaling harassment.

At this stage in the meeting, there are quite a few agenda items which are left open for discussion. It is expected that resolutions will be tabled for discussion under action arising in each agenda item. The chairperson works out the plan for proceeding, so that the Commission will be able to deal with all the proposed resolutions.

8) Thursday night: The night session of the Plenary meeting

Under Action arising in connection with the agenda item on Scientific Permits, the chairperson introduces two resolutions. Australia asks for the floor to speak to the resolution on Japanese scientific permit (see footnote 36; Appendix 3.3).

Promptly, a predictable alliance begins to form, when the UK, New Zealand, Brazil, France, the USA and Switzerland follow the Australian statement. As the tension is rising, Iceland asks for the floor and points out the illegality of adopting the proposed resolution ( Appendix 1.4.1 ).

Norway supports Iceland's position regarding the resolution, forming an Iceland-Japan-Norway alliance on this matter. The question on legality of the proposed resolution is answered by the senior member of the New Zealand delegation, who speaks fast in a rather aggressive manner. He states that the reason the substance of the resolution was not subject to discussion earlier is that the draft resolution was circulated among the concerned delegations and that it had been revised according to the comments raised during the drafting process. Thus, it is understood that the resolution is to be adopted by consensus. The point that Iceland made provoked an intensive interaction among the sponsoring countries. New Zealand and the USA defend the legality of the resolution ( Appendix 1.4.2. ). An intense interaction and accordingly high tension overwhelmed the meeting room. The chairperson carries on with the meeting and simply adopted the resolution by consensus.

Another resolution, expressing disfavour toward the USSR's proposal for a special permit catch of minke whales in the North Pacific (Appendix 3.4), is introduced by the USA, co-sponsored by Australia, Brazil, France, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland and the UK. Unlike the previous resolution addressed to the Japanese research proposal, this resolution requests the Government of the USSR to refrain from proceeding. Unlike the earlier case with the Japanese scientific permit, USSR asks for a vote on the resolution. The result of vote is 20 in favour, and 4 against and 5 abstentions. Thus, the resolution is adopted.

A mounting tension in interaction in the meeting room has become obvious, as the meeting reaches its end. Such tension is spread throughout the room, including the NGO section, where observers are busy taking notes, and typing into computers. Most noticeably, the movement in the NGO section becomes intensified, both within the NGO section and between the NGO and the Commission section. It is sometimes seen that some people from the NGO section and some members of government delegations get together outside of the meeting room while certain resolutions are being discussed³⁸.

Then, most typically, the level of interaction becomes extremely low when the substantive discussion relating to the content of a resolution takes place. The senior member of each government delegation presents the already-decided position of the issue, which does not allow much negotiation. While the front-stage interaction is carried out without much movement, the physical movement is strikingly apparent in the NGO section.

9) Friday: The last session of the Plenary meeting

The last day of the plenary session is resumed. Following yesterday's discussion, New Zealand introduces the revised draft of the resolution on the small cetacean issue (Appendix 3.5). New Zealand's proposal is followed by well-known statements on the IWC's disputed competence to manage small cetaceans made by Japan, Norway, Spain and Mexico with low tension and a low level of interaction. The chairperson closes the discussion by adopting this resolution by consensus, and he moves on to the next resolution regarding recommendations on small cetaceans proposed by the USA, who asks the chairperson to postpone the discussion to a later time in the day.

Plenary discussion on the agenda item 10, on the Comprehensive Assessment on Whale Stocks, is carried out with the least degree of disagreement until the sub-item on Schedule paragraph 10(e), which deals with the moratorium on commercial whaling, is taken up by the chairperson. The first comment is made by the senior member of the UK delegation who states that a core management procedure is now complete but that the Commission is still not in a position to modify the moratorium until further development is carried out. Following the UK, Iceland states its position that "the Commission is able to establish catch limits and the views of those who feel that it should not be done for the reason of the fact that revised management procedures have not been adopted are of another matter" (Verbatim Record 1991:125).

The question of the possible lifting of the moratorium on commercial whaling is one of the most controversial issues in this year's IWC. The views expressed by the UK and Iceland represent two polarized views which dominate the Commission. Furthermore, the UK view is the overwhelming majority view, which is evident in the following discussion. Simple statements are made in support of the UK position by Australia, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Sweden, Germany and the USA, forming the usual anti-whaling alliance. Japan asks for the floor and urges the Commission to implement the revised management procedure as soon as possible.

Statements of the official government positions are made, without much interaction among the delegations. As was the case in the previous year, the majority view is that the moratorium (Schedule paragraph 10(e) ) should remain in place for this year, thus the Commission maintains the zero quota for commercial catch of whales.

One, indeed the only, draft resolution (Appendix 3.7) sponsored by whaling countries is introduced by Norway and generates an interesting interaction in the Commission. This resolution urges the Commission to adopt the Revised Management Procedure which course of action has been recommended by the Scientific Committee. Iceland and Japan made supporting statement as co-sponsors of this resolution. Opposition to the resolution is raised, first by Australia, followed by the USA, the UK, the Netherlands and Germany. One of the reasons for opposition is expressed by Australia who states that "Unfortunately it [the resolution sponsored by Norway, Iceland and Japan] is so simple and expressed so briefly that I think it has missed some significant points" (Verbatim Record 1991:131).

Strong opposing views are expressed by several delegates, as expected. Since pro-whaling countries are the minority in the Commission, getting enough support to pass this resolution, which requires simple majority of those casting an affirmative or negative vote, is very difficult. On the other hand, the anti-whaling majority can easily pass their resolutions. The voting on this proposed resolution is conducted by the Secretary of IWC. The result is that there were seven votes in favour and nineteen against with three abstentions.

An interesting exchange concerning a procedural problem then takes place when the chairperson moves on to deal with another resolution on the Revised Management Procedure. The second-senior member of the Danish delegation points out that "the Rules of Procedure say that unless copies of this resolution have been circulated to all delegations no later than the day preceding the Plenary session as a general rule no proposal should be discussed" (Verbatim Record 1991:134). He is pointing out that the draft resolution which is about to be discussed was circulated only this same morning and that the lateness of receiving it has caused serious difficulty for his delegation. The senior member of the Australian delegation explains in response that it was distributed the previous night. In response to the explanation given by the Australian delegate, the Danish delegate emphasizes "I was personally watching when this distribution was distributed because I believed we were involved in discussion with the so-called like-minded group." (Verbatim Record 1991:134) The senior member of the UK delegation confirms that she personally distributed the draft resolution the previous night and that the Danish delegate might have witnessed the secondary distribution. The Danish delegate's response shows a high level of frustration: "...it was absolutely not to be found in our pigeonhole neither last night or this morning." (Verbatim Record 1991:135). The situation had become deadlocked, with the tension mounting in the room. The last statement is made by the senior member of the Norwegian delegation who makes his point that the printing on the paper indicates that it was printed a quarter to midnight and that it is not a proper hour to submit a draft resolution. He further suggests a compromise that vote should be postponed until after lunch ( Appendix 1.5.1 ).

The point expressed regarding the Rules of Procedure inevitably brings the back-stage activities onto the front-stage by disclosing the work of the "like-minded" group. Closed discussion and negotiation among the member countries of the "like-minded group" is public knowledge, but the substance of their deliberations had been veiled by their back-stage behaviour. The alliance pattern throughout the plenary session strongly reveals the on-going back-stage activities of this group. However, it has always been kept out of the front-stage discussion in the plenary. The high-pitch tone of voice of the Danish representative in addressing the problem clearly signals a high level of frustration and irritation, which prompts an intense interaction in the discussion.

The short, but extremely intense exchange between the UK, Denmark, Australia and Norway seems to reveal two aspects of the nature of this Commission. First, it reveals the back-stage politics between the like-minded group and Danish delegation, who until very recently was a member of the like-minded group. Now it appears Denmark either left, or was left out from the group. The aggressive accusation by the Danish delegate regarding the procedural matter is a reflection of political difficulty within the "like-minded group", who were responsible for the draft resolution. Another aspect that this interaction reveals is the low level of behavioral morals within this Commission. The confusion regarding the time that the resolution was distributed worsened when events allow an interpretation that someone is behaving dishonestly. Although the Chairperson's ruling, that voting would take place after lunch, puts an end to the argument, this interaction could be interpreted as revealing low moral standards which set the standard of behaviour for some commissioners. Considering that the issue relating to the New Management Procedure is the most important issue for this year's meeting, the adoption of this proposed resolution has crucial importance for many delegations. Thus, an eagerness to pass the resolution by almost any means could be interpreted as justifying the kind of behaviour which lacks total honesty.

After the lunch break which allowed the needed time for some government delegations to communicate with their home governments, the proposed resolution is introduced by Australia, who makes a lengthy statement reviewing the past events from 1975 up to the present and continues to talk about the draft resolution that is tabled ( Appendix 1.6.1 ; Appendix 3.8). In his statement, the senior member of the Australian delegation suggests that "the question of protection levels be further examined by the Scientific Committee and guidance provided to the Commission for consideration next year" (Verbatim Record 1991:136)

The length and the details contained in the prepared speech by Australia and other co-sponsors indicates the importance of this issue. The USA, the Netherlands, Sweden and the UK each make its statement as co-sponsors of the draft resolution. Reading out the prepared speeches sounds monotonous, especially when physical observation of the speaker is not possible, due to the seating arrangement. However, the low level of tension in the meeting room is suddenly broken when Denmark makes another aggressive attack following on its earlier remarks about the lateness of the arrival of this draft resolution ( Appendix 1.7.1 ). Denmark states that there has not been widespread consultation on this particular issue, and stresses the fact that "we were not consulted any more and we just did not receive any other papers and to my best belief none of the former whaling nations were informed or consulted." (Verbatim Record 1991: 140) He further states that what caused the delay was the fact that "there were strong disagreements within the like-minded group. Some of these nations cannot accept the fact that the Scientific Committee almost unanimously has come up with a recommendation for a new management procedure..." (Verbatim Record 1991:140).

Again, Denmark makes a point about a division between the "like-minded group" and the others and makes reference to the back-stage negotiation within the "like-minded group". His statement is strong and convincing because of the force of emotion expressed in his statement and also because of his experience as a member of the "like-minded group", before becoming an involuntary outsider of the group.

As Finland, Germany, Spain, People's Republic of China, the Netherlands, Japan, Chile and Brazil express their government position on the issue of the New Management Procedure, the polarized alliance pattern develops, as in most other controversial issues. The usual deadlocked situation emerges under a high degree of tension. Iceland represents the view of the whaling nations ( Appendix 1.8.1 ), when the senior member of the Icelandic delegation, in his highly articulate manner, points out a possible interpretation of the wording in the resolution which, in his view, is intended to delay implementation of the Revised Management Procedure. The last part of his intervention brings the back-stage activities involving the "like-minded group" and the others in to the front-stage discussion. The atmosphere in the meeting room becomes tense, despite his calm and even-toned voice, as he presents his analysis of the back-stage interaction of the Commission and its lack of full and open negotiation and communication. When the tension reaches its highest level, the Chairperson adjourns the meeting for lunch.

As the plenary resumes in the afternoon, the Chairperson asks the Secretary of IWC to conduct the vote on the proposed resolution on the Revised Management Procedure. The result is eighteen votes in favour, with six against and five abstentions. Thus, the resolution is adopted. New Zealand asks for the floor to explain its abstention ( Appendix 1.9.1 ).

While New Zealand makes its point that the proposed management procedure "may be sensible and acceptable to the majority of the Scientific Committee....in my country it's not politically acceptable" (Verbatim Record 1991:147), the most noticeable reaction is observed in the NGO section. Many NGO observers are busy taking notes, as the speech proceeds. There are a few observers who are physically reacting to the content of the speech by nodding and raising arms up and shaking them, showing support for the points in the speech. The audience that this speech is intended for, is apparently the NGO observers, who respond positively to the New Zealand statement. Reaction from the Commission floor is nil. A few other countries explain their vote, and the Chairperson moves on to the discussion on two proposals that are left on the agenda. The Chairperson asks Iceland to speak on the first proposal ( Appendix 1.10.1 ), in which Iceland asks for catch limits on minke whales off Iceland.

The procedural problem regarding the Icelandic proposal prompted a highly intense set of interactions between the Chairperson and the commissioners. This is a matter of great importance for the Icelandic delegation, as the proposal deals with the request for a catch quota for the Central North Atlantic stock of minke whales, the stock Iceland wishes to take whale from. At the same time, the other delegates thought it was an issue which would be contrary to the existing moratorium, which is the top priority issue for many countries with strong interests against any resumption of commercial whaling at this time. The mounting tension is eased by the adjournment for the private discussion. After the discussion, the Chairperson announced that "the Icelandic proposal contained in IWC/43/31 [Proposal by Iceland for Catch Limits on Minke Whales Off Iceland] can't be voted upon. Cannot be voted upon." Iceland appeals the Chairperson's ruling and asks for a vote. The result of the votes upheld the Chairperson's ruling.

Next, the Norwegian proposal for declassification³⁹ of the northeastern Atlantic minke whale stock based on the population estimate agreed by the Scientific Committee is introduced by the Chairperson. After several comments are made, the proposal is put to the vote. The voting procedure is carried out smoothly and promptly. While voting proceeds, the participants and the observers all take notes of voting. The Norwegian proposal is defeated with four votes in favour, eighteen against with six abstentions.

The last resolution for the 43rd Annual meeting is introduced by the Chairperson. The resolution regarding recommendations on small cetaceans (Appendix 3.6) as discussed earlier in the session. However, the resolution when earlier proposed did not achieve consensus in the Commission, and so was left open for discussion at a later time in the meeting. The USA now re-introduces the resolution.

New Zealand, Australia and Seychelles express their support for the draft resolution in their short statements. The remarks are short, as the full discussion has already taken place earlier. The opposing remarks follow. After Brazil makes its lengthy comments against the resolution, Denmark and Chile reconfirm their opposition to the adoption of this resolution. The main argument against the resolution is expressed by Chile who notes its concern about the IWC becoming involved in the management of small cetaceans that non-member states are also harvesting.

Following the Chilean statement, Mexico, Japan, Spain, St. Vincent and The Grenadines concur with its position. The statement is then made by China, who also opposes adoption of this draft resolution. The speech is delivered through an interpreter, who speaks English with a heavy Chinese accent. The non-aggressive monotonous manner of the speaker and the interpreter and the lengthy introduction makes its point unclear. However, the statement attracted some attention, as the Chinese position is unpredictable and also because it is not often that the senior member of the Chinese delegation speaks out.

Support for the resolution is then expressed by France. However, it becomes apparent that the resolution lacks enough support to be adopted by consensus. Another deadlocked situation has arisen. The Chairperson asks the floor for further comments. After a short pause, he announces that the meeting will adjourn for a tea break.

Consultation during the tea break brought an interesting end to the proposed resolution, as on reconvening, the USA states its intention to withdraw the proposed resolution.

When the Chairperson disposes the Agenda Item 14, the plenary session is at the last phase, when the administrative matters and the ceremonial closing are to be dealt with. The present Chairperson's term is about to end at the close of this meeting. The last Agenda Item is Election of a new Chairperson and Vice Chairperson. There is an automatic accession of the Vice Chair to the Chair position, but a new Vice Chairperson has to be selected. A new Vice Chairperson is quickly selected with full consensus of the Commission. The ceremonial atmosphere is heightened when the new Chairperson gives a throne-type speech. Following the announcement of the newly elected Vice Chairperson who is a prominent member of the like-minded group, big applause occurs. when the meeting comes to the very end, Iceland asks for the floor. A senior member of its delegation make a well-prepared speech in which he states his conclusion that, regrettably, Iceland has no choice but to withdraw from the IWC ( Appendix 1.10.1 ). He carefully analyses the disfunctional nature of the present IWC where the conflict between the majority and minority does not allow consultations required for achieving solutions sufficient to Iceland and other member governments with whaling interests.

The tension overwhelmed the meeting room, during and after the senior member of the Icelandic delegation made his speech. The speech had been apparently prepared in advance, in anticipation of an unsatisfactory ending of the plenary session from the point of view of Iceland and the other whaling nations. As the quiet tension spreads throughout the room, including the NGO section, some NGO observers turn to each other, but no words are uttered. Expressions that are difficult to interpret are seen. The Chairperson's statement, thanking Iceland for its statement and expressing the Commission's regrets concerning Icelandls conclusion breaks the silence in the room. Japan makes its concluding comment, supporting the conclusion that the Icelandic delegation has made. Then, the USA asks for the floor to thank the Icelandic government for hosting the meeting on behalf of the NGO groups from the USA.

The usual ending of the meeting, involving lengthy expression of appreciation to the Chairperson and the host government, with intermittent applause continues. Then, the Chairperson announces the closing of the 43rd Annual Meeting of the International Whaling Commission.

-------------------------------------------------------------

34 This was a significant change from the previous two years when two full days were allocated to this working group. In the year when the working group for small-type whaling was established and met for the first time in 1989 in San Diego, the discussion lasted for one and a half day. At the meeting the following year in the Netherlands, the debate on small-type whaling lasted the two full days allocated by the IWC Secretariat.

35 The Revised Management Procedure (RMP) was developed by the IWC Scientific Committee during the period 1987 to 1992. The procedure which involves a catch limit algorithm as well as methods aimed at addressing multi-stock situations was developed to meet the following criteria established by the Commission: i) stability of catch limits, ii) low risk of depleting stocks below some chosen level and iii) high continuing yield from the stock. It was intended that the RMP would replace the Commission's "New Management Procedure" which was used to classify stocks and establish quotas before the moratorium came into effect. In 1993 the Scientific Committee unanimously advised the Commission that development of the RMP was completed and that it could be implemented for North Atlantic and Southern Hemisphere minke whales. The Commission, however, did not accept this recommendation.

36 Article VIII of the International Convention for Regulation of Whaling 1946, provides for contracting Governments to issue to its nationals a special permit authorizing the killing of whales for scientific purposes. Proposed Scientific permits specifying the objectives of the research, and other details, must be provided to the Secretary of the IWC in accordance with Schedule requirements, for review by the Scientific Committee before they are issued. Notwithstanding this review, the Commission does not have the authority to deny the issuance of such permits.

37 The Schedule is that part of the International convention for the Regulation of Whaling containing regulations related to whaling operations. To effect an amendement to the Schedule requires a three quarters majority of votes cast negatively or affirmatively.

38 This phenomenon was most obvious in the 44th Annual meeting, which took place in Glasgow the following year. The researcher witnessed there a certain NGO representative sending a messenger with a note to a member of a government delegation who takes part in the Commission discussion, while some resolutions on controversial issues were being discussed.

39 According to the Schedule, all stocks of whales shall be classified as one of three categories according to the advice of the Scientific Committee. These categories are Sustainable Management Stock, Initial Management Stock and Protection Stock. The Northeastern Atlantic stock of minke whale was classified as Protection Stock effective beginning 30 January 1986, but this restrictive decision is not binding on the Government of Norway because they filed an objection to this classification.

_