|
Reporter: April 2002 No. 15 IWC 54: Analysis of Selected Issues Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling The issue of aboriginal subsistence quotas was undoubtedly the most controversial issue at this year's IWC meeting. This was largely because Japan, supported by other pro-whaling States, sought to gain leverage with respect to its own demands by blocking support for the aboriginal subsistence quotas, which were due for renew at this year's meeting. This note briefly reviews the legal background to aboriginal subsistence whaling in the IWC and the reviews the developments at this year's meeting. Aboriginal subsistence whaling: legal background The IWC recognizes that the catching of whales by indigenous people for local consumption is a distinct issue to that of commercial whaling. Thus, notwithstanding the moratorium on commercial whaling, paragraph 13 the Schedule to the International Convention on the Regulation of Whaling recognizes the rights of certain communities to hunt whales for aboriginal subsistence needs. The concept of "aboriginal subsistence whaling" is not recognized in the IWC Convention itself, nor is there a definition of such whaling in the Convention, but the need to address the needs of aboriginal communities became an important issue for the Commission when, during the late 1970s, it began to formulate the moratorium on commercial whaling. In 1979, the IWC held a meeting of a panel of experts on Aboriginal/Subsistence Whaling, which led to the establishment of the Ad Hoc Technical Committee Working Group on Development of Management Principles and Guidelines for Subsistence Catches of Whales by Indigenous (Aboriginal) Peoples, which met immediately before the 1981 Annual Meeting. That Working Group agreed the definition of aboriginal subsistence whaling, which was accepted by the IWC, as follows: "whaling for the purpose of local aboriginal consumption carried out by or on behalf of aboriginal, indigenous or native peoples who share a strong community, familial, social and cultural ties related to a continuing traditional dependence on whaling and on the use of whales". The Working Group did not however, attempt to define aboriginal subsistence need, nor how it was to be assessed by the Commission. On the above basis, the IWC has been able to set quotas for aboriginal peoples, despite the continuing prohibition on commercial whaling. The catch limits for aboriginal subsistence hunts, like the commercial quotas before them, are set on whale stocks as opposed to specific allocations or quotas to individual countries or communities, although in practice is it is recognized to whom the quotas are directed. The quotas - which are set for a period of time, usually five years - are usually agreed with certain general conditions, such as (in most cases) limits on the number of whales which may be killed (and in some cases, struck) in any one year and a requirement that the whales caught be for local consumption, but other than that very few conditions or conservation and management rules have been developed. In 1997, the IWC passed a Resolution which sought to encourage improvements in the humaneness of aboriginal subsistence whaling operations, but in general progress has been slow as regards hunting methods. For a number of years, however, the IWC Scientific Committee has been attempting to develop a management regime for aboriginal subsistence whaling in accordance with the following objectives identified by the Commission: 1. ensuring that the risks of extinction to individual stocks are not seriously increased by subsistence whaling; 2. enabling aboriginal people to harvest whales in perpetuity at levels appropriate to their cultural and nutritional requirements, subject to the other objectives; and 3. maintaining the status of stocks at or above the level giving the highest net recruitment and to ensure that stocks below that level are moved towards it, so far as the environment permits. As is discussed in the next section, some progress on this system - which is known as the Aboriginal Whaling Management Programme - was made at this year's meeting. IWC Meeting 2002 The discussions on aboriginal subsistence quotas at the 2002 Meeting of the IWC focused initially on the progress the Scientific Committee had made towards developing the new management regime for aboriginal subsistence whaling: the Aboriginal Whaling Management Programme (AWMP). The main development was the finalization of a new method for determining catch quotas, which was applied by the Scientific Committee to the quota for bowhead whales, which are hunted by the Alaskan Eskimos and the native people of Chukotka. Specifically, consideration was given to the "Strike Limit Algorithm" (SLA), which is a mathematical device developed over a number of years by the IWC Scientific Committee to calculate the quota for bowhead whales. This is the first time that a SLA for a whale stock has been recommended by the Scientific Committee and it was, in general, accepted by the Commission members. Less progress was made on finalizing other aspects of the AWMP, however, and some reservations were expressed about its adoption at this stage. In particular, the United States, supported by the United Kingdom, proposed that although the bowhead SLA should be adopted in principle, the adoption of the AWMP would be premature, as further clarification of what that scheme entailed was desirable. The United Kingdom also added that further testing of the SLA against environmental changes was required. The most controversial part of the IWC meeting, however, centred on the setting of catch limits for the period 2003-2007. Although it has been the practice in the past for the Commission to adopt these quotas by consensus with (by IWC standards) relatively little controversy, the negotiations at this year's meeting proved to be highly contentious and occupied much of the third, fourth and fifth days of the Meeting, at the expense of several other items on the IWC Agenda. With the exception of the request of the St Vincent and the Grenadines to increase its humpback quota, the difficulty did not stem from political, legal or ideological objections to the quotas themselves, but the pro-whaling States sought to strengthen their bargaining positions by placing obstacles in the way of the adoption of the aboriginal subsistence quotas. Japan, in particular, took the approach that it was inconsistent for the IWC to approve quotas for aboriginal needs if the needs of its coastal communities were ignored, and, as will be seen, sought to tie-in acceptance of the aboriginal quotas with the acceptance of a small "relief" quota for four of its coastal communities. At one stage it appeared that this dispute would prevent any agreement from being reached, but ultimately, the Commission agreed to the following (by consensus): Eastern North Pacific gray whales (taken by those whose "traditional, aboriginal and subsistence needs have been recognized") - A total catch of 620 whales is allowed for the years 2003 - 2006 with a maximum of 140 in any one year. West Greenland fin whales (taken by Greenlanders) - An annual catch of 19 whales is allowed for the years 2003 - 2006. West Greenland minke whales (taken by Greenlanders) - The annual number of whales struck for the years 2003-2006, shall not exceed 175 (up to 15 unused strikes may be carried over each year). East Greenland minke whales (taken by Greenlanders) - An annual catch of 12 whales is allowed for the years 2003 - 2006 (up to 3 unused strikes may be carried over each year). Humpback whales (taken by St Vincent and The Grenadines) - For the seasons 2003-2007 the number of humpback whales to be taken by the Bequians of St. Vincent and the Grenadines shall not exceed 20. With the exception of the St Vincent and the Grenadines quota, these quotas are the same as for the previous period. The St Vincent and the Grenadines quota allows a take of four whales per year, an increase of two whales per year from the previous period. The proposal to increase the quota proved rather controversial during the Meeting and was only adopted after St Vincent and the Grenadines agreed to certain additional conditions, as follows:
Furthermore, the quota for the seasons 2006 and 2007 shall only become operative after the Commission has received advice from the Scientific Committee that the take of 4 humpback whales for each season is unlikely to endanger the stock. Although agreement was eventually reached on these quotas, there was no resolution to the impasse that emerged as regards the United States-Russia proposal for a catch of 280 bowhead whales from the Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort Seas stock. This was despite agreement by the Scientific Committee that the bowhead whale stock was able to sustain the harvest, and acknowledgement of the cultural, nutritional and subsistence needs of both Alaskan Eskimos and native peoples of Chukotka. The proposals elicited considerable debate and lengthy negotiations amongst the Commissioners. After having initially defeated the proposal, Japan sought, as was mentioned above, to tie-in the renewal of the bowhead quota (although for a reduced period) with an award of 25 minke whales for Japanese small type coastal whaling villages. The proposed amendment was put to a vote but failed by simple majority. The meeting then voted on the United States proposal for the Schedule amendment required to adopt the bowhead quota. Although the proposal received a majority of votes, however, it joined the series of decisions at this year's meeting which failed to achieve the required three-quarters majority: 32 countries voted in favour, 11 against and two countries abstained. The reason given by a number of the countries which voted against the proposal was that they believed Japan should also be allocated subsistence whales for its coastal whaling villages. They stressed that they also believed that the peoples of Alaska and Chukotka should also be granted their catch limits. Interestingly, Norway again voted differently to Japan, in favour of the proposal. This result provoked strong criticisms from the representatives of the Alaska Inuit and the Russian Chukotkans, which took the floor to express their disappointment and concern at the effect this result would have on their food supply. The Russian delegate also took the floor to voice a strong criticism, accusing Japan of bad tactics and double standards. Future prospects It is not likely that Japan will maintain its opposition to the Russian-US quota in the long-term. It has no ideological objections to the quotas and, in reality, has little interest in refusing whaling opportunities to other countries. Furthermore, Russia, which has expressed some interest in resuming commercial whaling, is a potential supporter of Japan. Russia and Japan have both started working at the diplomatic level to build support amongst IWC members to try to reverse the decision at next year's Annual Meeting, or possibly sooner through an extra-ordinary meeting. The United States has expressed its hope that the problem can be resolved by the end of the year. Both countries are also making diplomatic representations to Japan, in an effort to persuade it to remove its opposition at an early stage. As has just been stated, it is likely that Japan will be open to removing its opposition, its point having been made at the IWC meeting. The question is, however, at what cost, since Japan is likely to require some concession in return for amending its position. Chris Hedley |
