IWC/53/OS JSTWA

On the one hand, anti-

On the other hand, anti-

whaling countries say that the distress of the Japanese whaling communities should only be addressedby the resumption of commercial
whaling...

whaling countries are against ANY
resumption of commercial whaling.

Even IWC recognizes Japanese coastal whaling
communities’ continuing distressIn 1989, the Chairman’s Report of the 41st IWC meeting
pointed out, “In Japan, the zero-catch limit [on minkes] hasaffected individuals, economically, socially, culturally and inrespect to health.... These impacts pose a serious threat to thecontinued survival of these traditional small communities.”
In 1993 — rather belatedly — IWC Commissioners resolved
to work “expeditiously” to alleviate the ever-increasing distress in Abashiri, Ayukawa, Taiji, and Wada. They did so again
in 1995. And in 1996. And again in 2000, seven years after
they had resolved to work “expeditiously.”

But IWC says ‘no’ to the IRA: no commercial
whaling until IWC ends moratorium

commercial whaling under any circumstances. And manyothers too state, at the IWC Annual Meetings and elsewhere,that they are either against the resumption of commercial
whaling or that they will continue to support themoratorium and the whale sanctuaries—both of which
prohibit commercial whaling.

Filibustering against RMS!
The extended moratorium on all commercial whaling iscontrary to the science-based conservation and orderly development of the whaling industry which the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW) mandates. To
complete the RMS would open the way to resuming commercial whaling on sustainable stocks.
Nonetheless, many IWC Members have, for almost tenyears, been filibustering against progress on the RMS by proposing amendments to the RMS which are clearly outside thescope of the ICRW and thus outside IWC’s responsibilities.
Japan has continued to participate in good faith throughout these almost-decade-long discussions aimed at ending
the moratorium by completing and adopting the RMS.
However, a majority of the other Members—including theUS, the UK, New Zealand, Australia, and Monaco—have justdebated RMS proposals endlessly. They do so because they
have no intention of completing the RMS.
In February 2001, an IWC Working Group met on theRMS—yet again. “Progress was made in several areas but
some fundamental differences remain,” IWC reported.

ontradicC’sntioIWC

A majority of IWC Members maintain IWC cannot end theJapanese coastal whalers’ distress except by ending the moratorium. And IWC cannot end the moratorium until IWC Members finish and vote to accept the long-overdue Revised Management Scheme (RMS).

Five Members clearly say ‘No’!
Five Members, Australia, Monaco, NZ, the UK, andthe US clearly state ‘NO’ during IWC Plenary sessions toIWC Members are obviously and knowingly contradicting themselves: saying IWC will allow harvests of sustainablewhale species under an RMS-amended Schedule on the one hand, and continuing to delay the RMS discussion and support the moratorium and whale sanctuaries on the other.
Hypocrisy, not responsibility!

Whaling vessels in the port of Ayukawa.

HYPOCRISY,
Not Responsibility!
Japanese small-type coastal whalers seek only abundant species
None of the species which Japanese small-type coastal whalers have traditionally taken
are—or ever were—endangered.
Yet the world’s non-whaling nations, working through the International Whaling Commission (IWC), insist that the moratorium which IWC declared in 1982 on all whaling
should continue: there should be no more commercial whaling, ever. Why?

Science does not support this IWC moratorium on all species
IWC Scientific Committee findings did not and do not support this position; the minke
whale population is healthy. This all-encompassing moratorium against commercial whaling is a political response from anti-whaling nations (nations which no longer or never did
hunt whales).
Anti-whaling groups, using pseudo-science and emotion, managed to create the mistaken—but widespread—impression that all whales are endangered. Although this is not, andnever has been true, the resulting political pressure on many IWC member governments
led them, first, to vote for the moratorium and then, quite irrationally, to continue to support it.

For its distressed whaling communities, Japan has requested IWC
for interim relief
Since 1988, after the IWC moratorium took effect, Japan has asked every year forsmall interim relief allocation (IRA) of 50 whales annually. This IRA could help to ease thedistress of the four coastal whaling villages which have been devastated by the moratorium. But IWC always says “No, wait... .”Is IWC sustainable in the 21st century? Perhaps not.
IWC has damaged its own credibility as a management authority. It has ignored the scientific findings which would allow commercial whaling on sustainable stocks.
Nor is it credible for a management organization to be advocating mutually exclusive objectives: both passage of the RMS andcontinuing a moratorium on using any resources. The RMS and the moratorium cannot logically or functionally coexist. It is hypocritical—a charade—to pretend otherwise.

Whale management beyond IWC . . .
Because IWC is no longer credible as a responsible management organization, traditional whaling nations are being forced toconsider alternatives. The World Council of Whalers and the North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission (NAMMCO) are examplesof whalers and whaling nations cooperating to improve whale management.
IWC may continue to refuse to recognize that its mandate is not only to protect whales. If it does, then the traditional coastal
whaling nations will, of individual and regional necessity work further on science-based management regimes which will allow
their traditional coastal whaling communities to survive.
Japan’s community-based whalers continue to seek to harvest traditionally-abundant species under a science-based regime
which ensures sustainable use.

JAPAN SMALL-TYPE WHALING ASSOCIATION
4-5-10-506, Honcho, Nakano-ku, Tokyo 164-0012, Japan
TEL: 03-5385-6121 FAX: 03-5385-6122
June 2001. Copyright 2001 Japan Small-type Whaling Association. All rights reserved.

Whaling involves the entire community.

Chronology of Fruitless Discussions
IWC

1988
40thAuckland
NZ

Requestsfor IRA

1st Japaneserequest for aninterim relief
allocation

2ndDeferredDeferredYear1989
1990
1991
41st42nd
43rd
San Diego Noordwijk Reykyavik
USNetherlands Iceland
3rd

1992
44th
Glasgow
UK

1993
45th
Kyoto
Japan

1994
46th
Puerto Vallarta
Mexico1995
47th
DublinIreland

1996
48th
Aberdeen
UK

5th

6th

7th

8th

9th

4th

1997
CBWWS
49th
Sendai Monte CarloJapan
Monaco10th

Voted down Voted down Voted down Voted down Voted down Voted down Voted down

1998
50th
Muscat
Oman
11th

1999
2000
51st
52nd
St. George's Adelaide
Grenada Australia
12th

13th

Voted down Voted down Voted down Voted down

Results
IWC
Resolution
1995-3

IWC/45/51

The IWC . . .
RECOGNISES the revised Action Plan(IWC/47/46) as constructive management elements in accordance with IWC
regulations.

The Workshop:
1. Draws the attention of the Commission tothe 1993 Resolution on Japanese community-based minke whaling (IWC/45/51),
in particular the commitment to work expeditiously to alleviate the distress to thesmall-type coastal whaling communities
which has resulted from the cessation ofminke whaling.
2. Recommends an expeditious completionof the RMS in accordance with resolutions adopted by the IWC on the subject.
3. Recommends that Japan should take account of relevant comments made at theWorkshop if it decides to submit a further
revision of the Revised Action Plan(IWC/47/46) at the 49th IWC AnnualMeeting.

As the Netherlands rightly pointed out during
the Plenary of the 52nd IWC, that the IWC had
to adopt a Resolution so similar to the one
adopted in the past implies that “the Commission is not working expeditiously”.

14th?

The IWC . . .
REAFFIRMS the Commission’scommitment to work expeditiously to alleviate the distress caused by the cessationof minke whaling to thecommunities of Abashiri,Ayukawa, Wadaura and Taiji.

ActionNotubs

The IWC . . .
Resolved to:
1. ADDRESS outstanding issue of commercial aspects found in the community-based whaling as described inIWC/47/46; and2. CONVENE a Workshop on the community-based whaling in the four
small communities in Japan to review
and identify commercial aspects andsocio-economic and cultural needs; theresults and recommendations of theWorkshop be reported to an intersessional Working Group to be held prior
to the 49th Annual Meeting.

Coastal whalers: a status reportubtsNnooitionActResoluThe International Whaling Commission, at its 45th Annual Meeting, RECOGNISES the socio-economic and cultural needs of thefour small coastal whaling communities in Japan and the distress to these communities which
has resulted from the cessationof minke whaling and,RESOLVES to work expeditiously
to alleviate the distress to thesecommunities which has resulted
from the cessation of minke
whaling at its next Annual Meeting.

Resolution

Commercial whaling
moratorium took effect in Japanese waters—coastal minke
whaling suspended.

IWC
Resolution
2000-1

IWC
Resolution
1996-1

2001
53rdLondon
UKIWC

The IWC moratorium on taking all large whales became effective in Japanese waters in 1988, despite
the fact that the minke whales, were not threatened. Because the coastal whalers could no longer takeminkes, as they had traditionally, they were forced by economics to reduce their active vessels almost byhalf from nine vessels to five.
Before the moratorium, the fleet had harvested mainly minkes. This is why Japan has, each year since
the moratorium, asked for an interim relief allocation of 50 minkes. With the moratorium, the whalers
may only take the Baird s beaked and pilot whales. (Japan, not IWC, has management responsibility forthese species.)
In recent years, because minkes are not declining and there has been no harvest of them since the moratorium took effect, many coastal fishermen are reporting that now these whales are eating fish species
which fishermen are also harvesting. Fishermen argue that this is significantly decreasing their landings,
compounding the difficulties which the moratorium has already caused the coastal communities.