The 54th Annual Meeting of the International Whaling Commission took place from 20-24 May 2002 in Shimonoseki, Japan. These meetings are usually controversial affairs, but the recent meeting was arguably one of the most controversial for many years. This report provides a quick summary to the main discussions and decisions on the main issues at the meeting.

Icelandic membership

As at last year's meeting, the major item discussed on the first morning concerned the adherence of Iceland to the Convention. It will be recalled that this caused controversy last year because Iceland's instrument of adherence contained, as an integral part, a reservation to Paragraph 10(e) of the Schedule, i.e. the moratorium. This led to a heated argument as to whether a State could join the Commission with such a reservation. The argument was eventually resolved by a vote, which went narrowly against Iceland, and it was eventually decided that Iceland could not become a full member but could only "assist in the meeting as an observer". At this year's meeting, Iceland again attempted to join the Commission and a difference of views again emerged. A vote to uphold last year's decision (i.e. that Iceland should assist as an observer) was agreed by 25 votes to 20 votes, a larger margin than last year. This surprised many delegates, because it had been thought that recent membership changes in the Commission would have bolstered support for the pro-whaling bloc and - given the narrow result last year, which came down to one vote - it was believed that Iceland may have succeeded at this year's meeting. (Interestingly, Japan claimed that at least two of its supporters had made a mistake in voting because they had not understood the convoluted phrasing of the motion by the Chair; this issue was not pressed further, however, presumably because it would not have affected the final outcome). Norway and Japan later attempted to resurrect the debate after the vote and challenged the Chair's decision to close the agenda item, but this vote was defeated by 24 votes against to 17 in favour, with 3 abstentions and 1 country absent.

The result was sharply criticized by Icelandic officials, however, who expressed their view that the decision was contrary to international law, spoke of "diminishing respect" for the IWC and stated that they would reassess their relationship with the Commission. This was followed, n the second day, by Iceland leaving the meeting, saying that Iceland might have to consider resuming commercial whaling outside the Commission. This series of events is, in some respects, unfortunate. Although the procedure followed is probably legally justified (in terms of the members of an organization having the right to vote on the acceptance of reservations) it could be destructive in the long-term to the Commission, as it is surely better to have active or potentially active whaling nations within the Commission than on the outside. 

Catch limits for commercial whaling

As it has done at virtually every other IWC meeting since the establishment of the moratorium, Japan again put forward a proposal to grant an "interim relief quota" to four coastal communities in Japan. This year, the proposal was to allocate a relief quota of 50 minke whales. Unsurprisingly, this caused considerable contention amongst the different factions. The anti-whaling States, notably Mexico, argued that not only was the status of the North Pacific minke whale in serious doubt but that this proposal had been rejected year after year by the Commission. After protracted debate, Japan was asked if it would reduce their scientific take by an equivalent amount if they were to be allocated a relief quota. Japan rejected this proposal, however, and the issue was put to a vote. The motion was defeated, with 20 votes in favour, 21 votes against and three abstentions (with one member not voting): far short of the three-quarters majority required.

Revised Management Scheme

Two proposals were presented to the meeting on the Revised Management Scheme which, if adopted, would have paved the way for the resumption of commercial whaling. The first, proposed by Japan, provided for the resumption of commercial whaling but without a number of safeguards and provisions – on matters such as DNA testing and animal welfare issues – which it considers to be outside the competence of the IWC but which a number of IWC member States consider to be essential elements of the RMS. The second text was proposed by a number of so-called "moderate" countries, consisting of Sweden, Finland, Ireland, the Netherlands, Oman, South Africa, Spain and Switzerland. The basis of this proposal is that small-scale commercial whaling will be allowed to resume, by a limited number of ("traditional whaling") States, in their coastal waters but subject to more stringent requirements in the RMS. Both proposals were similar to suggested texts that have been presented before. 

Predictably, however, neither text managed to achieve a simple – let alone a three-quarters – majority at the meeting. The Japanese proposal was defeated by 25 against votes to 16 in favour, with 3 abstentions and one country not participating. The Swedish proposal was defeated by 24 votes against to 12 in favour, with 7 abstentions. Interestingly, Norway abstained on the Japanese proposal, stating that it did not meet all of their needs and (mindful presumably of the ongoing work in the Expert Drafting Group, of which it is a member) that it was premature to adopt a text on the RMS. Also of interest was the fact that the United States and Argentina were among the States that abstained on the Swedish proposal, noting that although the text had loopholes and inadequacies, it was a foundation for future discussion. The Commission agreed to continue these discussions on the RMS, in particular through an intersessional Commissioners' meeting in October 2002.

Sanctuaries

On the issue of whale sanctuaries, the main focus, as at last year's meeting, was on two proposals for the establishment of new sanctuaries: one in the South Pacific (proposed, for the third time, by Australia and New Zealand) and one in the South Atlantic (proposed by Brazil). However, there was also discussion of the two existing sanctuaries in the Indian Ocean (which was established in 1979) and in the Southern Ocean (which was established in 1994). The issue of sanctuaries is, of course, an extremely controversial one within the Commission. In the two sanctuaries which have been established so far, no whaling is permitted, even for scientific research. Legally, there are questions regarding the competence of the IWC to establish areas where no whaling is allowed, on an effectively permanent basis (without reference to the status of stocks). Practically, they are seen by pro-whaling States as a further attempt to prevent whaling permanently, while for some of the more moderate States within the Commission they are seen as a possible basis for a compromise, if some whaling is permitted outside the sanctuary areas.

South Pacific Sanctuary

The South Pacific Sanctuary Proposal was introduced for the third time by the Australian and New Zealand delegations. As before, much work had been done intersessionally to promote the proposal and at the meeting a presentation was made focusing on the scientific merit, economic benefit and, most importantly, the will of the South Pacific range States (for further information, see the Australia/New Zealand Agenda Paper, in Current Materials). Most of the South Pacific range States are not members of the IWC, but a number of them (including most recently Papua New Guinea, the Cook Islands and French Polynesia) have established sanctuaries in their EEZs. 

As in previous years, however, although the proposal was able to achieve a majority in the Commission, it did not receive a sufficient number of votes to pass the three-quarter point. This year the vote was 24 in favour of the sanctuary, 16 against, and 5 abstentions. Interestingly, St Vincent and the Grenadines, which usually votes with Japan as part of the "pro-whaling/pro-Japan bloc", abstained on this proposal (as it did on the South Atlantic sanctuary proposal). Gabon - a new member which was expected to join the pro-Japan bloc - also voted for the South Pacific Sanctuary proposal, although it did vote against the South Atlantic sanctuary proposal. Despite the defeat, Australian and New Zealand Ministers reacted positively to the result, pointing out that it had received greater support than last year (when the vote was 20 in favour and 13 against) and that further work would be done in an attempt to realize the sanctuary.

South Atlantic Sanctuary

The South Atlantic Sanctuary was introduced by the Brazilian delegation. Again, the proposal achieved a simple majority of votes, but not the required three-quarter majority. The vote was 23 in favour of the sanctuary with 18 against, and 4 abstentions.

Southern Ocean Sanctuary

Japan proposed a change to Schedule regarding the existing Southern Ocean sanctuary. While the present wording says that commercial whaling in the sanctuary is prohibited irrespective of the conservation status of whales, Japan suggested that wording should be amended so that the prohibition on commercial whaling in the sanctuary should "not apply unless there is clear advice from the Scientific Committee that it is required for conservation purposes". Predictably this proposal also failed, with 17 votes in favour, 25 against and 2 abstentions.

Indian Ocean Sanctuary

A review of the Indian Ocean Sanctuary by the Scientific Committee was presented to the meeting and discussed. The pro-whaling countries, notably Japan, attempted to discredit the sanctuary as irrelevant (in that no commercial or scientific whaling is currently conducted in the Indian Ocean) and as contrary to the objectives and purpose of the Convention. However, no formal challenge to the sanctuary was made.

Resolution on Guidance to the Scientific Committee on the Sanctuary Review Process

Mexico proposed a Resolution on Guidance to the Scientific Committee on the Sanctuary Review Process. This is a relatively simple Resolution, which calls on the Scientific Committee to include certain additional principles in its review of the sanctuaries, namely (1) the principle that temporary overlap of management measures, such as the moratorium and a sanctuary, cannot be used to invalidate any long-term scientific and conservation value of a given sanctuary; and (2) the application of the precautionary approach. Predictably, this Resolution was objected to by pro-whaling States, but it was adopted by 24 votes in favour to 19 votes against, with 1 abstention. The adoption of Resolutions, unlike amendments to the Schedule, require only a simple majority. Interestingly, this was the only Resolution adopted by the Commission at this year. This appears to have been partly because of a lack of time in relation to some agenda items due to the extended disagreements over aboriginal subsistence whaling (see below) and partly because of a request from the Chair of the Conference that the Commission did not adopt the same Resolutions year after year.

The text of the Resolution is reproduced in Current Materials.

The negotiations on the catch limits for aboriginal subsistence, which were all due for review at this year's meeting, proved to be the most controversial and difficult part of the Meeting. This was, in general, not because of controversies surrounding the hunts themselves, but because Japan and a number of its supporters decided to oppose the quotas for tactical and political reasons to bolster their own position. This prevented some of the quotas being adopted by consensus, which has been the practice in the past, and, in fact, prevented some quotas being adopted at all.

The discussions on aboriginal subsistence quotas focused initially on the progress the Scientific Committee has made towards developing new management regimes for aboriginal subsistence whaling. The Scientific Committee presented details of a new method for determining 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. Although it was accepted by the Commission as a method for determining catch limits, some reservations were expressed. 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 Aboriginal Whaling Management Regime (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 negotiations then moved on to the setting of catch limits for the period 2003-2007. These proved to be highly contentious, and occupied much of the third, fourth and fifth days of the Meeting. This was partly due to a large number of interventions on procedural matters, and also because of difficulty in reaching agreement with respect to two proposals: the St Vincent and the Grenadines proposal for an increased quota for humpback and the United States-Russian proposal for bowhead whales. At one stage it was not clear whether any agreement would be 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. In particular, meat and products of such whales are to be used exclusively for local consumption in St Vincent and the Grenadines; such whaling must be conducted under certain legislative provisions, to be implemented by July 2002, which were submitted to the Meeting and approved by it; and the taking of calves or females accompanied by calves is forbidden. 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.

No agreement could be found on the United States-Russia proposal for a catch of 280 bowhead whales for the period 2003-2007 (up to 68 whales per year) 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 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.

The Scientific Committee presented a review of the status of whale stocks. It noted that despite a long period of protection, several populations of great whales remain highly endangered and number 500 or less. These include all bowhead whale stocks, apart from the Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort Seas stock (which numbers over 9,000); gray whales in the western Pacific (those in the eastern Pacific, by contrast, number over 17,000); all stocks of northern right whales; and various stocks of blue whales. Some of these small Arctic bowhead populations are subjected to direct catches outside IWC regulations (Canadian Eskimos, for example, take one or two bowheads per year), or are killed by ship strikes or incidentally in fishing gear.

Scientific Permits

Two proposed permits by Japan were considered. One is an extension of its continuing programme in the Southern Hemisphere (now 400±10% minke whales from the Antarctic). The second is for a long-term research programme primarily aimed at feeding ecology in the context of contributing to the ‘conservation and sustainable use of marine living resources in the western North Pacific, especially within Japan’s EEZ.’ The programme proposes the taking of 150 minke whales, 50 Bryde’s whales, 50 sei whales and 10 sperm whales in the western North Pacific. Different views on the value of this research were expressed in the Scientific Committee and the Commission. In contrast to previous years, however, no Resolution was proposed or adopted this year, condemning the research programmes.

Whale killing methods and associated welfare issues

In 1998, the Commission passed a Resolution that encouraged nations to supply relevant data on killing times and related issues in future years and also to provide technical assistance to reduce time to unconsciousness and death in aboriginal subsistence fisheries. This year, the Commission reviewed progress in the context of the revised ‘Action Plan’ developed by the Commission in 1998 and will hold an expert workshop on this issue in 2003.

Environmental research

In recent years, the IWC has devoted increasing attention to research on the effects of environmental changes on cetaceans. In particular, last year, it has provided some "seed funding" for two major collaborative research initiatives made by its Scientific Committee with respect to (1) chemical pollutants (POLLUTION 2000+) and (2) baleen whale habitat and prey studies in co-operation with CCAMLR and Southern Ocean GLOBEC (SOWER 2000). The Scientific Committee is also to hold a modelling workshop before the next Annual Meeting to begin looking at the issue of interactions between fisheries and cetaceans. The Scientific Committee reported, however, that these programmes require considerably more funding if they are to succeed. Despite this, the Commission decreased the funding for research this year, asking Governments and others to provide additional funding.

During the year, a Task Force appointed by the Commission worked intersessionally to develop a more equitable scheme for financial contributions. Specifically, a new scheme should reduce the financial burden of membership of small developing countries. At the Meeting, the Task Force reported that it had made good progress but had not yet been able to produce a fully-developed scheme. The Commission directed the Task Force to try to complete its work by the next Annual Meeting in 2003. In the meantime, the Commission adopted an interim scheme which gives a substantial amount of relief to a number of member States.

Future meetings

As has been mentioned, an intersessional meeting on the Revised Management Scheme is planned for October 2002. This will be followed by the 55th Annual Meeting, which will take place in Berlin, Germany, from 26 May to 19 June. Italy offered to host the 56th Annual Meeting, in May 2004.