Source: "Whaling in the North Atlantic - Economic and Political Perspectives," Ed. Gudrun Petursdottir, University of Iceland, 1997, ISBN 9979-54-213-6. Proceedings of a conference held in Reykjavik on March 1st, 1997, organized by the Fisheries Research Institute and the High North Alliance.
Author: Ray Gambell, Secretary to the International Whaling Commission

Recent developments in the
IWC aboriginal subsistence
whaling category

BACKGROUND

The special status of aboriginal subsistence whaling was first formally recognised in a global international treaty in the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling which was opened for signature in Geneva on 16 January 1931 and came into effect on 16 January 1935. This included as Article 3 the statement that the Convention did not apply to coastal dwelling aborigines, provided that they used canoes, pirogues or other exclusively native craft propelled by oars or sail; they did not carry firearms; and the products were for their own use (Birnie, 1985, pp. 681-2). The first Schedule to the 1946 Convention carried this concept forward by a specific exception to the general ban on the commercial catching of gray and right whales when the meat and products are to be used exclusively for local consumption by the aborigines (IWC, 1950, p.15).

Aboriginal subsistence whaling has therefore been recognised in international treaties for at least 60 years as in some ways different, and having a distinctive character which separates it from the larger-scale commercial whaling operations. The current regulations governing commercial catching activities still include specific exemptions for aboriginal subsistence whaling from the general controls and limitations which they spell out (Gambell, 1993, 101-2).

CRITERIA

Aboriginal subsistence whaling is not formally defined within the 1946 Convention or its associated Schedule of regulations, although provisions within the latter speak of establishing “catch limits for aboriginal whaling to satisfy aboriginal subsistence need” (paragraph 13 (a)).

In 1975 the IWC adopted its new management procedure for commercial whaling and this led to recognition of the need for a separate and specific management regime for aboriginal subsistence whale fisheries (Gambell, 1993, pp. 101-4). This occurred during a period of very contentious discussions on the status of the bowhead whale stock hunted off Alaska and the numbers of whales being harvested by the Eskimos (Doubleday, 1989).

An 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 of the IWC agreed to the following definitions:

Aboriginal subsistence whaling means whaling for purposes of local aboriginal consumption carried out by or on behalf of aboriginal, indigenous or native peoples who share strong community, familial, social and cultural ties related to a continuing traditional dependence on whaling and on the use of whales.

Local aboriginal consumption means the traditional uses of whale products by local aboriginal, indigenous or native communities in meeting their nutritional, subsistence and cultural requirements. The term includes trade in items which are by-products of subsistence catches.

Subsistence catches are catches of whales by aboriginal subsistence whaling operations (Donovan, 1982, p.83).

After consideration of the many biological, nutritional and social aspects involved, the 1982 Annual Meeting of the IWC adopted a Resolution agreeing to implement an aboriginal subsistence whaling regime (IWC, 1983, pp. 28-9, 38).

THE ABORIGINAL SUBSISTENCE WHALING SCHEME

The IWC has recognised that the full participation and co-operation of the affected aboriginal peoples are essential for effective whale management. The catch limits to satisfy aboriginal subsistence need are established in accordance with certain principles. For stocks above the maximum sustainable yield (MSY) level, aboriginal subsistence catches are permitted up to 90% of MSY; for stocks below the MSY level, catch levels are set so as to permit the stocks to rebuild to the MSY level; and the Scientific Committee was asked to advise on both a rate of increase towards the MSY level and a minimum stock level below which whales should not be taken from each stock. A standing Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling Sub-committee of the Commission was established to consider documentation on nutritional, ksubsistence and cultural needs relating to aboriginal subsistence whaling and the uses of whales taken for such purposes, and to provide advice to the Technical Committee for its consideration and determination of appropriate management measures (IWC, 1983, p.28-9, 38, 40).

Now that the scientific component of the RMP for commercial whaling has been completed, the IWC has asked its Scientific Committee to begin a review of possible alternative management regimes for aboriginal subsistence whaling (IWC, 1995, pp.22, 42-3).

PRESENT ABORIGINAL SUBSISTENCE WHALING

There are four whale hunting operations presently regulated by the IWC as aboriginal subsistence whaling activities and for which it sets catch limits:

Bowhead whaling off Alaska. The present aboriginal subsistence whaling regime is implemented for the Alaskan bowhead hunt by the Government of the USA calculating subsistence need as the historic harvest per capita of the human population involved, multiplied by the current human population. The IWC has taken this figure as the basis for setting the catch limit as 204 bowheads to be landed in the four years 1995-1998, reflecting the estimated annual Eskimo population growth rate for the ten whaling villages concerned of 4.7% between 1990 and 1992. This catch limit is less than the estimated current annual replacement yield from the stock of 199 animals (95% confidence intervals 97 - 300) (IWC, 1995, p.21-2).

Greenland whaling. Humpback whales were a traditional quarry for whalers in Greenland. The general protection of humpback whales from 1955 carried an exception for Greenlanders using small vessels until 1985. The local minke whale fishery began in 1948 in West Greenland. There is an annual catch limit of 12 minke whales for the people of East Greenland. The present quota of 19 fin whales landed and 165 minke whales struck in each of the years 1995-1997 in West Greenland is equivalent to a yield of 420 tonnes of meat and products but this is less than the accepted need for 670 tonnes by the local population in West Greenland (IWC, 1995, p.22).

Siberian gray whaling. The present limit is 140 gray whales for each of the years 1995-1997 which corresponds to the catch requested by the Government of the Russian Federation (IWC, 1995, p.22). This can be compared with the estimated annual replacement yield of 611 whales with 95% confidence intervals 452 - 786 (Allison et al, 1995).

Caribbean humpback whaling. A small-scale open boat hunt carried out from the island of Bequia in St Vincent and The Grenadines in the Caribbean continues with an annual quota of two humpback whales, which are not always taken (IWC, 1997 in press).

INTERPRETATION

The variety of attitudes which exist in the IWC when it comes to considering catch limits for aboriginal subsistence whaling, in addition to the hunts described above, can be illustrated by the discussions which took place at the 49th (1996) Annual Meeting of the Commission.

Chukchi bowheads
At this meeting the Russian Federation presented a request for an annual catch of 5 bowhead whales to meet the needs of the indigenous people of the Chukotski Autonomous region. The USA supported this request as fully justified under IWC cultural and subsistence needs criteria for aboriginal whaling.

However, a number of delegations sought clarification about the needs of the Chukotka people, given the under-utilisation of the existing quota of gray whales, while others urged caution, because of the endangered state of the bowhead stocks. The Russian Federation responded that economic changes experienced throughout the Russian Federation had impacted on the region and on its food security, temporarily disrupting whaling operations which were now carried out by the whaling villages themselves. The new quota would supplement gray whale meat and was also required for ceremonial and cultural purposes. The current bowhead whale catch limits reflect the needs of other populations in other countries and it believed that it was not appropriate for the IWC to meet Chukotka need in ways detrimental to others. The Russian Federation confirmed that bowhead meat would not be used in fox farms and was solely for human consumption, and while the requested quota would not fully make up the deficit in gray whale meat, it would improve food security.

The Russian Federation took the view that decisions on aboriginal subsistence whaling should be taken by consensus, not by vote as is the case for commercial whaling. Because there was no consensus it indicated that no vote was needed and there would be no request for the item to be considered further (IWC, 1997).

Makah gray whales
The USA presented a request for a catch of 5 gray whales by the Makah Tribe which lives on the Pacific coast in Washington state. Although the commercial exploitation of gray whales in the late 1800s had led to the suspension of whaling by the tribe since 1926, it noted the continuance of aspects of the whaling tradition within the tribe since that time, and it emphasised the strong community and tribal aspects of the whaling proposal.

While some delegations were fully supportive of this proposal, others expressed reservations because of the 70 years of non-whaling which suggested that there was no clearly demonstrated need. Concern was also expressed over a widening of the scope of whaling activities at a time when whaling was thought to be coming to an end, the commercial element in the Makah whaling, and apparent divisions within the tribe itself.

After consultations with Makah representatives the USA withdrew its proposal and asked the Commission to defer consideration until next year when the gray whale quota expires and the needs of the Chukchi people will also be determined (IWC, 1997).

Canadian whaling
Another factor in the management of aboriginal subsistence whaling highlighted by the USA at the IWC’s 1996 meeting was the whaling activities of non-member states. In particular, the possibility of a hunt for bowhead whales in Canada was mentioned. This gives rise for concern both because of the small size of the Davis Strait and Hudson Bay stocks, and the issue of whaling outside IWC control generally. The Canadian observer noted that the aboriginal people of Canada have a constitutionally protected right to harvest fish and marine mammals subject to conservation, and recalled that his government had banned commercial whaling in 1972 and withdrew from the IWC in 1982 concluding it had no reason to remain as a member of the IWC which is mandated to make possible the orderly development of the commercial whaling industry. The aboriginal harvest in no way represents a re-initiation of commercial whaling activity. Canada felt strongly that a Resolution adopted by the IWC encouraging it to reconsider the issuing of permits for such catches and to re-join the IWC if it continues to have a direct interest in whaling, was negative, inappropriate and counter-productive (IWC, 1997).
It may be noted that there is at least a theoretical possibility of a single stock of whales being harvested commercially and under the IWC’s aboriginal subsistence whaling scheme, and by a non-member government of the IWC. Such a situation will need careful consideration and management.


Matching with criteria
The reservations apparent in the IWC over any additional aboriginal subsistence whaling can be related to the unwillingness of the majority of governments to permit a resumption of small-type coastal whaling by Japan and Norway.
Since the 1982 ban on commercial catching of whales came into effect the Government of Japan in particular has made long and strenuous efforts to gain recognition of, and to alleviate, the distress caused in its coastal communities which had formerly relied heavily on small-type whaling. It has presented much documentation on social, scientific and anthropological research supporting the conclusion that Japanese small-type whaling has a character distinct from other forms of industrial whaling and sharing some of the features of aboriginal subsistence whaling. The small-type whaling in Japan is a small-scale limited access fishery involving four coastal communities, taking minke whales within 30 miles of the shore. The whale meat obtained from these catches is claimed to play an important role in the cultural and social cohesion of the communities (Institute of Cetacean Research, 1996).


Norway has also presented evidence that although modern minke whaling was introduced in the 1920s, small cetaceans have been hunted in Norway for millennia. The whalers are also fishermen, generally based on household units of ownership and crew, which gives strong support to the traditions and way of life of the remote northern communities. There is considerable resentment against the prohibition of catching activities imposed by other members of the IWC (IWC, 1993, p.16).

Japan and Norway have argued that the ban on the small-type whaling operations from their coastal communities, because they are at present classified by the IWC as commercial whaling, is unjustified. It is causing problems in the communities because of their dependence on the social and cultural activities associated with the whaling operations and the distribution and consumption of the whale products. These aspects are shared to a significant degree by the aboriginal subsistence hunts which are not prohibited by the IWC because of its recognition of their special socio-economic and cultural roles in the lives of the northern communities concerned.

The difficulty for some other governments in accepting these claims lies in the commercial aspects of the small-type whaling operations, even though the catches taken under the aboriginal subsistence whaling arrangements in both Greenland and St Vincent and The Grenadines undoubtedly are sold commercially, and the Alaskan and Siberian operations must also involve money transactions to cover the costs of equipment and supplies.

Requests for an interim relief allocation of 50 minke whales for the Japanese operations, regulated and controlled through application of the Revised Management Procedure and involving an Action Plan approved by the IWC for a strictly non-commercial distribution system for the products, have not been accepted by the IWC (IWC, 1997).

  Following its failure to persuade the Commission to de-classify the Northeastern Atlantic stock of minke whales (IWC, 1992, pp.26-7) to allow the resumption of the traditional Norwegian coastal whaling where there is a demonstrated cultural and subsistence need, Norway has set its own quotas since 1993 for limited catches. It is able to do this legally because it lodged formal objections to both the Commission’s ban on commercial whaling and the classification of the Northeast Atlantic stock of minke whales as a Protection Stock under the NMP at the time these measures were adopted. A total of 581 minke whales has been killed in the last three seasons.
REVISION OF THE MANAGEMENT SCHEME FOR ABORIGINAL SUBSISTENCE WHALING
The Scientific Committee is continuing the work started in 1995 to draw up an Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling Procedure. The objectives and rationale of the procedure can be summarised as:


1. to ensure that the risk of extinction to an individual stock is not seriously increased by subsistence;
2. to enable harvesting in perpetuity at appropriate levels;
3. to maintain the stocks at or above an optimum level (giving highest net recruitment), or if they are below it, ensuring that they move towards that level;
4. highest priority will be given to objective .


The Scientific Committee is also addressing the issue of need, and has sought guidance from the Commission on what is expected from the Scientific Committee. It seems desirable to develop a model to demonstrate the possible effect of various levels of need, and the Commission has emphasised the importance of feedback from the native hunters and the Commission.
Where possible the Scientific Committee is using the same performance statistics as were used in the trials for the RMP, particularly with respect to risk. However, the differences in the objectives for an aboriginal subsistence procedure and the RMP mean that it is not possible to use an identical set of statistics. As part of the process the Scientific Committee is considering the current aboriginal whaling scheme and variants of the RMP, but is not limiting itself to these options (IWC, 1997).

CONCLUSION
There is a general view within the IWC that aboriginal subsistence whaling has to be seen within the broad concept of sustainable use. A number of governments, including Denmark and the USA, have stated explicitly that the current system is working quite well (IWC, 1997). There is therefore a degree of hesitation in making changes unless these can be seen as clearly representing improvements over the present arrangements. A particular factor thought to be especially important by a number of governments is the evidence of cultural continuity in the hunt and its role in the societies involved. Potential conflicts also arise when the traditional methods of killing may not be as humane as could be achieved by the introduction of improved modern technology. However,
the experience of the introduction of a new grenade containing penthrite explosive, and associated aids to tracking and locating bowhead whales in the Alaskan hunt, illustrate the possibility of retaining the traditional hunting methods and culture and at the same time improving humaneness and efficiency (Øen, 1995).

ABSTRACT
Aboriginal subsistence whaling has been recognised in international treaties since 1931, and although not defined is recognised in the 1946 International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling. The IWC developed a management regime for aboriginal subsistence whaling in 1982 which is distinct from the management procedure designed for commercial whaling. This includes recognition of the nutritional, subsistence and cultural needs of the aboriginal peoples affected. Bowhead whaling off Alaska, whaling from Greenland, Siberian gray whaling and humpback whaling in the Caribbean are regulated by the IWC.

A bowhead catch by the indigenous people in Chukotka and a take of gray whales by the Makah tribe were requested at the 1996 Annual Meeting of the IWC. These were supported by most member governments but others expressed reservations because of worries including the increasing catches and lack of continuity in the catches, and both proposals were withdrawn. Catches by Canadian aboriginal people, outside IWC control, also causes concern. In addition, small-type coastal whalers in Japan and Norway who are subject to the ban on commercial whaling argue that they have cultural traditions similar to the aboriginal people who are permitted to whale.

The aboriginal subsistence whaling management scheme is now being revised, although some governments think the present scheme is working well and there is reluctance to make changes. Cultural continuity in the hunts is thought important, as well as improvements in the humaneness of the killing methods.

---

REFERENCES

Allison, C., Punt, A. E. & Butterworth, D. S. 1995. Census Based Estimates of RY for Gray Whales. Rep. Int. Whal. Commn. 45:162.
Birnie, p. 1985. International Regulation of Whaling. Oceana Pubs., New York.
Donovan, G. P. 1982. The International Whaling Commission and Aboriginal /Subsistence Whaling: April 1979 to July 1981. Rep. Int. Whal. Commn (Special issue 4);79-86.
Doubleday, N. C. 1989. Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling; The Right of Inuit to Hunt Whales and Implications for International Environmental Law. Denver J. Int Law and Policy. 17(2):373-93.
Gambell, R. 1993. International Management of Whales and Whaling: An Historical Review of the Regulation of Commercial and Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling. Arctic 46(2):97-107.
Institute of Cetacean Research, 1996. Papers on Japanese Small-Type Coastal Whaling Submitted by the Government of Japan to the International Whaling Commission 1986-1995. Japan. Pp.296.
International Whaling Commission. 1950. International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling. Rep. Int. Whal. Commn. 1:9-14
International Whaling Commission. 1983. Chairman’s Report of the Thirty-Fourth Annual Meeting. Rep. Int. Whal. Commn. 33:20-42.
International Whaling Commission. 1992. Chairman’s Report of the Forty-Third Meeting. Rep. Int. Whal. Commn. 42:9-50.
International Whaling Commission. 1993. Chairman’s Report of the Forty-Fourth Annual Meeting. Rep. Int. Whal. Commn. 43:11-53.
International Whaling Commission. 1995. Chairman’s Report of the Forty-Sixth Annual Meeting. Rep. Int. Whal. Commn. 45:15-52.
International Whaling Commission. 1997. Chairman’s Report of the Forty-Eighth Annual Meeting. Rep. Int. Whal. Commn. 47: in press.
Øen, E. O., 1995. A New Penthrite Grenade Compared to the Traditional Black Powder Grenade: Effectiveness in the Alaskan Eskimo’s Hunt for Bowhead Whales. Arctic 48(2):177-185.