(from "Chairman's Report of the Fifty-Second Annual Meeting")

10.1 Aboriginal subsistence whaling scheme
10.1.1 Report of Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling Sub-Committee
During the Sub-Committee meeting, the Chair of the Scientific Committee's Standing Working Group on the Development of an Aboriginal Whaling Management Procedure (hereafter called the Standing Working Group) reported that good progress had been made during the last year in implementing the work plan adopted in 1999 and that the Standing Working Group is investigating a number of potential Strike Limit Algorithms (SLAs) for the Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort Seas stock of bowhead whales. Discussions have begun on how to evaluate competing SLAs and choose one for presentation to the Commission. For the eastern North Pacific stock of gray whales no SLA was suggested for this year's meeting, but it may be possible to modify the SLA being adopted for the bowhead whales for the gray whale. With respect to bowhead whales, the Standing Working Group considered that following a faster timetable, they should be able to recommend an SLA at the 2002 Meeting. This will, however, involve considerable work and an intersessional workshop will be essential.

With respect to the Greenland fisheries for minke and fin whales, the Standing Working Group Chair reiterated that with the current data it will be very difficult, if not impossible, to develop an SLA that will address all of the Commission's objectives. Attention was drawn to the Greenlandic Research Programme developed by the Committee. Results from this will feed into the work of several teams of developers in an iterative manner. However, the Standing Working Group Chair noted that for the Greenland fisheries, it is likely to be 2006-2007 before the Group may be able to develop a suitable SLA.

One issue that required further discussion was the treatment of unused strikes or carryovers. An example was provided of how this might be accomplished and in particular the Chair of the Standing Working Group sought advice as to whether this was a generally appropriate way to handle the issue and, if so, specific advice on what the length of the block should be and what percentage value is suitable to allow for interannual variation in catches. A small working group chaired by Chairman of the Standing Working Group met separately to discuss this issue. Participants at this meeting were the UK, the Netherlands, Denmark, the USA and the Russian Federation. The latter delegations contained members familiar with aboriginal subsistence whaling operations. The small working group agreed that blocks of five years with an interannual variation of fifty percent were satisfactory in terms of allowing for the likely variability in hunting conditions. It therefore agreed that these values are appropriate for use in trials. It was recognised that this does not commit the Commission to these values in any final aboriginal whaling management procedure.

10.1.2 Commission discussions and decisions
The Commission accepted the report from the Sub-Committee without comment and endorsed the views of the small working group with respect to block quotas and interannual catch variation.

10.2 Review of aboriginal subsistence whaling catch limits
10.2.1 Report of Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling Sub-Committee
The Chair of the Scientific Committee reported that the Scientific Committee had no reason to change the management advice given previously for any of the aboriginal subsistence whaling catch limits.

10.2.1.1 BERING-CHUKCHI-BEAUFORT SEAS STOCK OF BOWHEAD WHALES
The Scientific Committee had noted that the catch limit for this stock is to be reviewed in 2002 and had recommended that a full census be undertaken in 2001. In 1999, 48 whales had been struck, with 43 landed. These figures included one whale struck and landed by the Russian Federation. The figures for the monitored USA hunt (47 whales struck with 42 landed) give an efficiency factor of 0.89, the highest recorded. The Sub-Committee noted these figures and its Chair congratulated the USA on improvements in efficiency in its hunt.

10.2.1.2 NORTH PACIFIC EASTERN STOCK OF GRAY WHALES
In 1999, 124 whales were struck, with 122 landed. These figures included one whale taken by the Makah (USA) with the rest being taken by the Russian Federation. The Scientific Committee had noted recent information on increases in the number of stranded animals but was unable to say whether this might be related to the population nearing its carrying capacity, an El Niño effect on food sources, or some other cause. The USA is conducting research on this issue and the Scientific Committee will carry out a new assessment of the stock in 2002, a year earlier than previously planned.

In a statement by the Russian Federation, the importance of whales for hunting and of their use as a traditional food was stressed. It also stated its desire to reduce time to death in whaling operations and expressed its appreciation to the USA, Japan and Norway for the help and support they had provided. It reported that since last year, more whales are being found that smell badly and are unfit for human consumption. It asked that ten such whales from the 1999 hunt be given a special status and excluded from the catch limit. Its primary interest in raising the matter was to draw the attention of the Sub-Committee to this issue and provide notice that if the full number of whales allowed are taken in the remaining years of the five year quota, this may be problematic in terms of the total allocated catch (620 whales) in the final year of the period (2002). The Russian Federation also considered that the Scientific Committee should conduct research on these whales. In the longer term it would also like the formula for calculating catch limits changed so that it provides for adjustment in cases where whales caught are not suitable for human consumption.

The Sub-Committee recommended that the Commission request the Scientific Committee to study the problem of contaminated gray whales.

10.2.1.3 GREENLAND FISHERY FOR MINKE AND FIN WHALES
A total of 165 minke whales were landed in West Greenland with five struck and lost. Fourteen minke whales were landed in East Greenland. Seven fin whales were landed in West Greenland, with two struck and lost. As in past years, the Scientific Committee was not able to give management advice on either fin or minke whales off Greenland. It strongly recommended the establishment of the research programme described in its report so that in future years it may be in a position to provide adequate management advice.

10.2.1.4 NORTH ATLANTIC HUMPBACK WHALES
The Scientific Committee reiterated its view that there is a high probability that any humpback whale of less than 8m in length present in the breeding area during the winter season is a calf. It had received catch information concerning two whales, a large female and a male calf, and reiterated its view that a catch of up to three whales taken annually would be unlikely to harm this stock. St Vincent and the Grenadines and St Lucia had both conducted surveys in their waters in addition to a larger multinational survey of the Eastern Caribbean. The Scientific Committee hoped that the survey results and the Comprehensive Assessment planned for 2001 will provide better data than have been available in the past. Further research that would provide data on the fine-scale distribution by sex in the area of the subsistence hunt would be relevant to considerations of the effects of regulations on the hunt.

Within the Sub-Committee, the USA noted that although St Vincent and The Grenadines had been involved in research, it had refused the necessary permit for a research programme endorsed by the Scientific Committee to survey in its waters. The USA considered that in refusing this permit, St Vincent and The Grenadines did not fully comply with its undertaking to cooperate in research given in 1999 when its catch limit was renewed. St Vincent and The Grenadines responded that it is a sovereign state and as such reserved the right to issue or refuse permits and that it has no obligation to automatically sanction any research proposal. It noted that in the research programme referred to by the USA, only two places had been allocated on the research vessel for local scientists. It added that it would support any programme where its national scientists can benefit through training and analysis of data obtained. It had therefore chosen to participate in a programme operated under a trust fund managed by FAO in Rome that included training programmes.

In response to a question from Australia concerning the commitment made in 1999 to ensure proper regulation of the hunt, St Vincent and The Grenadines said that the development of legislation should not be rushed and more time was needed to produce a package of regulations under its Fisheries Act. A number of delegations expressed concern that regulations were not yet in place and that this may have a bearing on their agreement to renewal of the humpback quota in 2002. The same delegations also expressed concern that a humpback calf had been taken again this year in contravention of the Schedule. St Vincent and the Grenadines requested that any discussion of this year's catch cease immediately since it had not submitted its report. It drew attention to the note in the Scientific Committee report stating that taking up to three whales is likely to have no impact on the stock. It noted that it had given a solemn commitment that it will try to implement the Schedule provisions within its capacity and resources and objected strongly to countries querying its commitment. Norway and Japan drew attention to evidence presented to the Scientific Committee that harvests of cow-calf pairs would have less impact than the harvest of cows only (for the same number of takes). Both countries considered that last year's introduction into the Schedule of a sentence forbidding the take of any humpback whale accompanied by a calf was premature.

10.2.2 Commission discussions
The discussion on the need for proper regulation and strict enforcement of the aboriginal hunt and for St Vincent and The Grenadines to honour earlier commitments was repeated in the Commission discussions, with the UK, the Netherlands and the USA speaking strongly on these issues, supported by Switzerland, Germany and Sweden. The UK considered that references made within the Sub-Committee to the Scientific Committee's examination of the effects on stocks of killing calves and the possibility that the taking of calves is better for whale conservation than the taking of adults (for which the UK remains to be convinced) did not affect the obligation for St Vincent and The Grenadines to observe the provisions of the Schedule and should not be used as a reason for ignoring it. The Netherlands and the USA also expressed concern that in addition to the taking of another humpback cow and calf, a Bryde's whale had also been killed by St Vincent and The Grenadines in 2000.

St Vincent and The Grenadines responded that it had dealt satisfactorily with all these points within the Sub-Committee and did not wish to comment on them further. Norway and several other delegations also saw no point in repeating the Sub-Committee discussions. St Vincent and The Grenadines believed that the Commission was losing focus on its real objectives and was wasting time on small matters. It re-emphasised that it was working on developing regulations and would not be coerced by the timetables of others. It repeated that discussion of the catch of a Bryde's whale was inappropriate at this time. Antigua and Barbuda, Japan, St Lucia, Norway and St Kitts and Nevis supported these comments. Japan repeated its view that the regulations meant for modern commercial whaling should not be applicable to aboriginal subsistence whaling and that effort should be spent on amending the Schedule. Japan also added that as part of the Comprehensive Assessment of North Atlantic humpback whales, information on the number of strandings and bycatches should be provided along with information on body length, sex and reproductive condition throughout the North Atlantic. Antigua and Barbuda asked for delegates from developed countries to have some patience with St Vincent and The Grenadines. It noted that other Caribbean countries will be working with St Vincent and The Grenadines during the intersessional period to develop the type of regulations that (1) can regulate that fishery and (2) will be generally acceptable within the framework of the capability of St Vincent to enforce them.

St Vincent and The Grenadines thanked delegations for their support. It repeated that it had been given a commitment to do its best in developing regulations and stressed the need to see regulations in the context of the local situation. In this regard, St Vincent and The Grenadines reported that from a survey of all marine consumption patterns on the island, it was estimated that 61% of islanders consume cetacean meat. Eleven percent of these consumers did so for health-associated reasons, 16% because of tradition and 71.4% because of the taste. Less than 0.6% of these eat marine mammals on a daily basis, while 75% of the consumers do so on a monthly basis.

10.2.3 Action arising
The Commission adopted the report of the Sub-Committee regarding its review of aboriginal subsistence whaling catch limits.

10.3 Catches by non-member nations
10.3.1 Report of Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling Sub-Committee
The Scientific Committee had received information on aerial surveys carried out on the summer range of the Hudson Bay/Foxe Basin bowhead stock that indicated that there may be several hundred whales in the stock - the estimate provided being a minimum of 345. However, the Committee believed that more survey work and analysis was required before a reliable estimate could be provided.

The Scientific Committee considered a review of information on distribution, movements, population size, general biology, recruitment, mortality and behaviour of bowhead whales in the northwestern Atlantic. This suggested that the Baffin Bay/Davis Strait and Hudson Bay/Foxe Basin stocks both number in the low hundreds with isolated age- and sex-structured groups showing strong fidelity to particular habitats. The Hudson Bay population's probable larger size may be due to its nursery ground in Foxe Basin never having been commercially exploited. Killer whales may be a significant source of mortality on the small (ca 100 animals) population in the Baffin Bay/Davis Strait region, particularly on calves and juveniles in the Autumn migration.

Some concern was expressed in the Scientific Committee regarding any subsistence harvest on these stocks, even if extremely small. A Canadian scientist stated that the average annual Total Allowable Removals recommended by Canada for these stocks represents 0.2% of the estimated Hudson Bay-Foxe Basin stock and 0.02% of the estimated Baffin Bay-Davis Strait stock (one whale in thirteen years).

Although the Scientific Committee welcomed information from Canada on surveys carried out in the Hudson Bay/Foxe Basin region it agreed that more information about the Baffin Bay/Davis Strait stock is urgently needed.

During the Sub-Committee meeting, the observer from Canada confirmed that the Canadian Fisheries Minister had agreed with the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board to issue one permit during 2000-2001 to take one bowhead whale or two strikes from the Hudson Bay/Foxe Basin stock if an application is made for such a permit. No such application had been received to date.

10.3.2 Commission discussions and action arising
RESOLUTION ON BOWHEAD WHALES IN THE EASTERN CANADIAN ARCTIC
On behalf of the co-sponsors, Mexico, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and the USA, Austria introduced a Resolution on whaling of highly endangered bowhead whales in the Eastern Canadian Arctic. Austria referred to the Scientific Committee's report that the Hudson Bay-Foxe Basin whale stock is in the low hundreds, but that Canada has agreed to grant one licence on request to take one bowhead from this endangered stock. The purpose of the Resolution was to urge the Canadian Government not to issue this licence and for Canada to rejoin the IWC. Austria acknowledged that there might be an argument that the Hudson Bay stock is 'endangered' rather than 'highly endangered', but reminded the meeting that small stocks are vulnerable to even low levels of take. It also acknowledged that there might be criticism of the Resolution as it is addressed to a non-member state, but since this had been done in previous years, it should be again be possible. The co-sponsors hoped that the Resolution could be adopted by consensus.

Denmark responded that they thought it improper to address a Resolution to a non-member state, and called the co-sponsors attention to Article VI of the Convention that states clearly that Resolutions shall be directed to any or all Contracting Governments. It was the opinion of Denmark that under such circumstances, the co-sponsors should address Canada through normal diplomatic channels. Norway supported these views.

On being invited to respond to the Resolution, the observer from Canada reminded Commissioners that the aboriginal people in Canada had a right to harvest offshore resources subject only to conservation concerns. He recalled previous Resolutions that addressed the continued hunt in Canadian waters, but noted that this latest Resolution was different in that it included the phrase 'highly endangered' - an emotive phrase - and he questioned its use with this particular stock. The Scientific Committee had not reached consensus on stock numbers. He noted that Canadian scientists have concluded that there is a minimum of about 345 whales in the stock and recalled that this stock was not harvested heavily in the past and that it is likely that the original population may not have exceeded around 600 whales. As a result he believed that the phrase 'highly endangered' would give the wrong impression, and he reported that modelling work had indicated that the proposed take of one whale should cause no danger to the stock.

In responding to a question from the Chairman, the observer from Canada stated that although his preference would be to have no Resolution, removal of the word 'highly' would improve the situation. However, consultations among interested parties during a break failed to reach an agreement. Austria reminded delegates that last year the term 'highly endangered' was used in relation to this stock in Resolution 1999-7.

On proceeding to a vote, there were 17 notes in favour, 8 against and 6 abstentions. Resolution 2000-2 was therefore adopted (see Appendix 1).

Following the vote a number of delegations explained the way they had voted. New Zealand had considerable sympathy with many of the sentiments of the Resolution, but preferred that it be dealt with on a bilateral basis at this stage. It had therefore abstained. Japan had voted in accordance with previous years (i.e. against), but would not have blocked the Resolution had there been a consensus view. St Vincent did not support the proposal since it believed the response of the Canadian observer provided sufficient guidance and since it was not comfortable with the reference to UNCLOS as it believed that not all co-sponsors had signed that Convention. Australia was disappointed that the Resolution text had not attracted consensus and had voted yes with some reservation. Antigua and Barbuda, like New Zealand believed that a bilateral approach would be more appropriate and had abstained.

Japan requested that it be noted for the record that it believes that Canada is not being consistent in its attitude towards sustainable use of resources, referring to the Canadian position on the Hawksbill Turtle.

10.4 Other business
10.4.1 Report of Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling Sub-Committee
Under 'other business', Denmark, in reference to IWC Resolution 1998-11 on concern about human health effects from the consumption of cetaceans, presented a paper titled 'Traditional Food - Environment and Health Concerns'. The paper looked at the importance of food in maintaining both good health and cultural identity. It noted the importance of wild living resources, such as marine mammals, for indigenous people in the Arctic and the need to give dietary advice to Arctic people so that they can make informed choices. It also recognised: (1) the problem of contaminants in the environment and their possible effects on humans including via food; and (2) that global contamination has reached a level where it poses a threat to the environment. The paper concluded that both wildlife and man are threatened by the same contaminants and to the same degree and proposed that the solution is to address the problem of contaminants at the source thus benefiting both nature and man and thereby making possible continuing wild harvest which is important to the traditions and culture of indigenous people.

10.4.2 Commission discussions
In the Commission, Mr Simon Olsen, a Minister from the Greenland Home Rule Government, addressed the delegates. He referred to Greenland's long tradition of harvesting bowhead and humpback whales and other marine mammals as a means of survival in the harsh Arctic environment, and stressed that whaling continues to contribute tremendously to its culture and nutrition. Greenland's opinion is that the focus should be on the positive health effects from eating whale meat, maktak and blubber rather than the uncertain side effects from pollution.

The Minister noted that the difference in Greenland's whaling today is that the decisions and limitations on harvesting are made by the IWC. Greenlanders respect this position. However, he recalled that the West Greenland quota is equivalent to 558 metric tonnes of whale meat from minke whales and fin whales - 112 metric tonnes less than the documented need endorsed by the Commission in 1990. Minister Olsen reported that the population of Greenland is growing and with it the need for whale meat. He expected that the Commission would fulfil the previously agreed needs for whale meat in the future. He added that in his view, the increasing number of whales and seals observed in Greenland's waters is causing serious concern in relation to fish stocks - the most economically important resource in Greenland. Greenland supports both balanced and sustainable use of all living resources managed through international or regional bodies and.the Minister expressed support for the socio-economic needs of small type whaling communities in Japan for fifty minke whales.

_