9. INFRACTIONS, 1999 SEASON

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


9.1 Report of Infractions Sub-Committee
The Chair of the Infractions Sub-Committee, Mr Henrik Fischer (Denmark) summarised their discussions for the Commission. Delegates from 26 Contracting Governments attended the Sub-Committee meeting. As in previous years, despite differences of opinion as to whether the item concerning stockpiles of whale products and trade questions is within the scope of the Convention, it was agreed that an exchange of views was useful.


9.1.1 Infractions reports from Contracting Governments
Infractions reports for 1999 were received from Denmark, St Vincent and The Grenadines, the USA and the Russian Federation.

Most of the discussion concerned the taking of humpback whales in St Vincent and The Grenadines. The UK asked whether last year's take of a humpback whale by St Vincent and the Grenadines was being reported as an infraction. St Vincent and the Grenadines confirmed that it did not believe the take constituted an infraction and had not reported it as such; the male taken was under 8m but there was no milk in its stomach. The Netherlands recalled the agreement of the Scientific Committee last year that there is a high probability that any humpback whale less than 8m in the breeding area during the winter season is a calf, and that therefore this take should be recorded as an infraction.

The Chairman noted that the Sub-Committee was in the same position as last year with differing views on whether or not the take by St Vincent and The Grenadines should be recorded as an infraction. He indicated that he did not wish to have a repetition of last year's debate and reminded the Sub-Committee that the Schedule had been amended last year so that it is now specifically forbidden to take calves in this hunt.

Australia, the USA, Monaco and Austria, noted for the record that in their view last year's take constituted an infraction. Austria further noted that it expected that at next year's meeting, the 2000 season's take by St Vincent and The Grenadines would be reported as an infraction. Furthermore, Austria, supported by the UK, also noted that St Vincent and the Grenadines had reportedly taken a Bryde's whale this year and that if this was true it expected this to be reported as an infraction next year. The Sub-Committee Chairman reminded the Sub-Committee that discussions of infractions for the 2000 season should take place next year.

Norway and Japan did not share the view that last year's take by St Vincent and The Grenadines was an infraction for the legal reasons given in last year's meeting of the Infractions Sub-Committee.

The Sub-Committee Chairman took note of the different points of view on this subject and referred them to the Plenary.

In response to a question from the UK, the Russian Federation confirmed that there had been no infractions recorded during the 1999 aboriginal subsistence hunt.

New Zealand, Monaco and the UK thanked Denmark for the helpful paper submitted on quota monitoring of minke and fin whale hunting in Greenland. New Zealand asked whether a whale, initially thought to be a fin whale but subsequently shown by DNA analysis to have been a sei whale, had been counted against the 1998 quota and whether it should be recorded as an unintentional infraction. It believed this incident showed the importance of DNA-based identification techniques, a view shared by Monaco. Denmark responded that the sei whale had been counted against the fin and/or minke whale quota for 1998 since the hunters had been unaware that they had caught a sei whale (which is very rare in Greenland waters). It did not believe that this constituted an infraction as it was clearly unintentional.

The UK believed that the take of the sei whale should be recorded as an infraction, albeit an unintentional one. Austria and Japan supported the UK's position. In response to a question, the Sub-Committee Chairman noted that such accidental takes are recorded as infractions but that normally no penalties are imposed by national governments. The Secretariat undertook to examine the archives and provide the Sub-Committee with examples of precedents for this at next year's meeting.


9.1.2 Reports from Contracting Governments on availability, sources and trade in whale products
No reports relating to Resolutions 1994-7, 1995-6, 1996-3,1997-2 and 1998-8 had been received by the Secretariat.


9.1.3 Surveillance of whaling operations
The infractions reports submitted by the USA and St Vincent and The Grenadines stated that 100% of their catches were under direct national inspection. Denmark reported that the IWC catch limits for minke and fin whales were not violated for Greenland. In the Sub-Committee, Australia queried the statement from St Vincent and the Grenadines and asked how it correlated to the paper submitted to the Aboriginal Subsistence Sub-Committee by St Vincent and The Grenadines that stated that there were no national regulations for this hunt. The representative of St Vincent and The Grenadines responded that he and others were fully engaged, as required, on a full-time basis during the whaling season taking readings and samples where possible, and that he personally had inspected this whale. The Sub-Committee Chairman noted the opinion of St Vincent and the Grenadines that this hunt is under direct national inspection.


9.1.4 Checklists of information required or requested under Section VI of the Schedule
The available information supplied in the Checklists is summarised below.

DENMARK
Information on date, position, species, length, sex and whether a foetus is present is collected for between 85-100% of the catch, depending on the item. Information on killing methods, struck and lost animals and whether a female is lactating is also recorded for some animals.

USA
Information on date, species, position, length, sex, killing method and numbers struck and lost is collected for 80-100% of the catch depending on the item. Other biological information is recorded for about 60% of animals.

ST VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES
Information on date, time, position, species, length, sex and whether lactating is collected.

RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Information on date, species, position, length, sex and hunting methods, is collected.

NORWAY
Did not submit a Checklist, but submitted the required information to the Secretariat as noted in the Scientific Committee report (IWC/52/4).


9.1.5 Submission of national laws and regulations
A summary of national legislation supplied to the Commission was prepared by the Secretariat.


9.1.6 Other matters
New Zealand raised the matter of the gray whale that was washed up on the coast of Hokkaido in 1996. It had obtained a DNA profile from a gray whale and asked Japan if it was willing to release material it held from the whale found in 1996 for comparison. Japan restated its position regarding competence for domestic markets and trade matters but nevertheless said it was willing to exchange scientific information outside the context of this meeting. Japan further stated that in matters relevant to this Sub-Committee with respect to Japanese authorities' investigations regarding this gray whale, reports had been provided by Japan in timely fashion to several previous Sub-Committee meetings.

New Zealand thanked Japan for its offer but pointed out that in its opinion this was not a trade matter but a possible infraction and one that could highlight the benefits of DNA identification techniques.


9.2 Commission discussions and action arising
In the Commission, New Zealand reminded the meeting that under Paragraph 31 of the Schedule, Contracting Governments are required to provide copies of all their official laws and regulations concerning whaling to the Commission, and commented on whether failure to do so should be considered an infraction. It pointed out that neither the Convention or the Schedule provides guidance in this area. It therefore proposed that the Infractions Sub-Committee be asked to determine the extent to which a failure to provide information about laws or procedures, or a failure to enact them after giving an undertaking to do so, might be considered an infraction. The Commission agreed to include this issue on the agenda of next year's meeting of the Infractions Sub-Committee.

Japan referred to the harsh criticism made during the Sub-Committee meeting against St Vincent and The Grenadines relating to whether the taking of a cow accompanied by a calf constitutes an infraction. It considered that the decision made last year that prohibited this was probably a wrong decision, and drew attention to the Scientific Committee report in which it was predicted that the taking of a cow and a calf would have less impact on the stock than the taking of two cows. Japan therefore believed that with respect to aboriginal subsistence whaling, the taking of a cow and a calf should not constitute an infraction. This position was supported by Norway.

In response, the UK wished to put on record its view that the taking of the cow and calf last year was an infraction, and that if a rule is made it should be observed and any breach considered an infraction. It added that there might be scope to consider the appropriateness of the rule, but that this should be done under another agenda item. The Netherlands made similar comments.

The USA associated itself with the UK. The USA also noted the discussion regarding the DNA profile of the gray whale washed up on the coast of Hokkaido in 1996. The USA disagreed with Japan's view that this is a trade matter - rather that this is an attempt to determine whether or not an infraction has occurred, an important point given the endangered nature of this gray whale stock. It was pleased at Japan's willingness to exchange information. New Zealand supported the USA comments. In response, Japan indicated that they are willing to cooperate with respect to the market information and that if New Zealand returned the information/material they had taken out of Japan, they would be happy to analyse it.

The Commission noted the report of the Infractions Sub-Committee.

_