(from "Chair's Report of the Fifty-Third Annual Meeting")

15.1.1 Infractions reports from Contracting Governments, 2000
Infractions reports for 2000 were received from Denmark, St. Vincent and The Grenadines, the USA, the Russian Federation, the Republic of Korea and Norway. Denmark, the USA, the Russian Federation and Norway reported no infractions.

Most of the Sub-committee discussions focused on the infraction report of St. Vincent and The Grenadines. Referring to discussions at last year's meeting concerning the take of a Bryde's whale by a blackfish crew, several countries thanked St. Vincent and The Grenadines for reporting this take as an infraction. In summarising the subsequent discussions, the Chair stated that there was agreement that St. Vincent and The Grenadines had fulfilled its obligations and that it had no need to take further action (note that the crew had been severely reprimanded). However, he also noted that considerations of this case had led to an interesting discussion of the broader issue of what constitutes an infraction, particularly over the question of bycatches and deliberate versus accidental killing.

The Chair reported that in response to a request from the UK for further information concerning the killing of three northern bottlenose whales in the Faroe Islands last year, Denmark replied that it had not received a report on that issue, but that information may be available during the Commission meeting when a representative of the Faroese Home Rule government would be present. Without additional details, Denmark was unable to comment on whether the take of these animals comprised an infraction, but if this was the case, then it would be reported to the Sub-committee next year. Denmark noted that this species is known to strand occasionally in the Faroe Islands, and under such circumstances, it is the local tradition to utilise rather than waste stranded animals.

15.1.2 Surveillance of whaling operations
Infractions reports submitted by the USA and St. Vincent and The Grenadines stated that 100% of their catches were under direct national inspection. Denmark (Greenland) had reported that its quota monitoring system had functioned successfully and that there had been no infractions in the year 2000. Denmark had also drawn attention to the cases of two humpback whales entangled in fishing gear and provided final information on the case of the animal identified as a sei whale from tissue samples discussed in the Sub-committee last year. It seemed clear that the hunter was unaware that he had caught a sei whale (and not a small fin or a large minke whale) - sei whales are only occasionally found in Greenlandic waters. The Sub-committee had thanked Denmark (Greenland) for its full report.

15.1.3 Checklist of information required or requested under Section VI of the Schedule
The following information was provided:

Denmark: Information on date, position, species, length, sex, whether a female is lactating and whether a foetus is present is collected for between 76-100% of the catch, depending on the item. Information on killing methods and struck and lost animals is also collected.
USA: Information from a variety of documents shows that information on date, species, position, length, sex, killing method and numbers struck and lost is collected for most 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: the required information was submitted to the Secretariat as noted in the Scientific Committee report (IWC/53/4).

15.1.4 Reporting of accidental takes
Following last year's discussions of the whale taken by a Greenlandic hunter that turned out to be a sei whale (see section 15.1.2), the Secretariat had reviewed the archives to investigate how such accidental takes had been reported in the past. That search had revealed that there have been numerous examples of cases where an infraction accidentally occurred. Where it was clear that the infraction was completely accidental, the usual response was that an infraction was reported and that (1) no penalties were imposed but (2) no bonus payments were made. Examples were found from most countries and for many types of infraction, including the taking of protected species.

The Sub-committee had noted that the Scientific Committee addresses the issue of incidental takes and that there are good reasons for the Scientific Committee to provide this information to the Commission. Several countries had taken the view that incidental takes should not be regarded as an infraction, but should be reported. Another had commented that the term 'incidental catches' would be a better term to use in view of the definition of 'take'. The Secretariat had clarified that the Commission urges all member nations to submit data on non-natural mortalities (such as incidental catches in fishing gear and ship strikes) in the National Progress Reports submitted to the Scientific Committee. A compilation of this information is included as an Annex to the Scientific Committee report each year. As noted in the discussion under the item on infraction reports, such mortalities have not traditionally been considered as infractions or reported to the Infractions Sub-committee.

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

As agreed last year, the Chair reported that the Sub-committee had been asked to determine the extent to which a failure to provide information about laws, or a failure to enact them after giving an undertaking to do so, might be considered an infraction. He informed the meeting that two countries (Australia and South Africa) had noted that not all parties had submitted or enacted legislation, that they had encouraged them to do so, and had suggested that a 'failure to enact' might be considered an infraction. Grenada, noting that Article IX of the Convention states that determining and punishing an infraction was the responsibility of the Contracting Government, considered that failure to enact legislation might be considered a breach of contract but in its view it could not be considered an infraction.

15.1.6 Reports from Contracting Governments on availability, sources and trade in whale products
Only Australia had provided information related to Resolutions 1994-7, 1995-7, 1996-3, 1997-2 and 1998-8. Australia had indicated that: (1) it had no stockpiles of whale meat; (2) it still remained illegal to possess or sell whale meat in Australia; (3) no cetacean products had been seized in the period from the beginning of 1999 to the end of 2000; and (4) in 1999 and 2000, 40 import or export permits were granted for cetacean products (36 for scientific or exhibition purposes), mostly teeth and tissue samples.

15.1.7 Other matters
Other matters discussed by the Sub-committee were: (1) mis-labelling of whale meat in Japan as 'product of Australia', which Japan believed would not happen again; (2) the source of whale meat on sale in Icelandic restaurants, which Iceland reported is from bycatch; and (3) Japan's new legislation on bycatches on which the UK, New Zealand and Australia expressed concern that it might result in bycaught animals being killed that might otherwise be freed. These countries considered that if this turned out to be the case, Japan should reconsider its legislation. Japan responded that all bycaught whales must be properly registered on its DNA register and could then be sold.

15.2 Commission discussions and action arising
In the Commission, Australia asked whether Denmark was able to provide more information on the killing of the bottlenose whales. Denmark replied that it had provided information to the UK. It clarified that the animals involved were stranded whales and since this did not constitute an infraction, it had not prepared a report for the Infractions Sub-committee. The UK thanked the Faroese Government for the information, adding that it was satisfied that an infraction had not occurred.

Norway objected to the statement of Australia and South Africa concerning the submission of national laws and regulations (see 15.1.5), and did not believe that 'failure to enact' might be considered an infraction. The Netherlands considered that whales taken accidentally should be reported but not necessarily be treated as infractions.

Australia indicated that it would not provide information in future on the availability, sources and trade in whale products (see 15.1.6) since it had been the only country to do so for the last 3 years. Norway added that this item should not, in any case, be discussed by the Sub-committee.

The Commission took note of, and adopted the report of the Infractions Sub-committee.

_