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

8.1 Aboriginal subsistence whaling scheme
8.1.1 Report of the Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling Sub-committee
ABORIGINAL WHALING MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE
The primary topic discussed this year by the Scientific Committee's Standing Working Group on the Development of an Aboriginal Whaling Management Procedure (hereafter referred to as the Standing Working Group - SWG) was the selection of a recommended Strike Limit Algorithm (SLAs) for the Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort Seas stock of bowhead whales. During the Sub-committee meeting, the Chair of the SWG reported that from five SLAs (a total of 13 variants), two excellent candidates (four variants) had been identified, but that given the importance of the decision, the complexity of integrating the performance results and the additional work identified, the Scientific Committee had preferred to postpone a final decision on a single candidate until the 2002 Annual Meeting when it could take into account results from a workshop to be held in Seattle in early 2002.

The Chair of the SWG reported that little progress had been made in considering the eastern gray whales and Type-3 fisheries, but that with respect to Greenlandic stocks, the Scientific Committee had made the following recommendations for future work: (1) planning should proceed for an annual series of inshore surveys starting in late summer 2002, with a view to producing a relative abundance index; (2) preliminary simulation studies be conducted of management procedures utilising a combination of an annual relative index and infrequent absolute abundance estimates; (3) an annual programme of satellite tagging in conjunction with the inshore surveys should be started in 2002, with the aim of gradually building up records of animal movements, based on a target of four informative tracks per year. The Scientific Committee had strongly urged both Denmark (Greenland) and the IWC to fund the proposed work.

In the Sub-committee, the Chair of the SWG clarified that the development of potential SLAs for the fishery for humpback whales carried out by St. Vincent and The Grenadines would not commence until after the completion, hopefully next year, of the Scientific Committee's Comprehensive Assessment of North Atlantic humpback whales. Until that time it was not possible to say which of the three fishery-types it belonged to. Denmark supported the Scientific Committee's views on the Greenland Research Programme.

The Sub-committee accepted the workplan of the Scientific Committee on these issues.

ABORIGINAL WHALING MANAGEMENT SCHEME
The Chair of the SWG had drawn a number of issues to the attention of the sub-committee.

The first concerned the issue of block quotas and carry over. Last year the Commission had agreed the proposal from the Scientific Committee, at least in the context of trials. To allow the Commission to consider this further, the Scientific Committee noted that if under a recommended SLA, current need is met (and there is no indication from the present results that this will not be the case), then a revised Schedule paragraph might look something like that below:

For the years [2003-2007] inclusive, the total number of strikes shall not exceed [330]. The Strike Limit in any one year shall not exceed [100].

The Commission may also wish to incorporate the Scientific Committee's wording for carry-over between blocks presented last year i.e. that a 50% allowance (over the annual average for the block) may be carried over from the last year of one block to the first year of the next but this does not impact on the overall block limit for that block.

The SWG Chair also drew attention to the issues of survey frequency and possible 'phase-out' rules (i.e. progressive lowering of the quota in the absence of survey data) which must be flexible enough to take into account the fact that weather or ice conditions in the Arctic mean that a successful census may not necessarily occur at the first time of trying. The Scientific Committee had suggested that it might be appropriate for any phase-out provision to begin the 10^th year after the last accepted abundance estimate, but since several attempts may be required to obtain a successful estimate, this might mean that an attempt to undertake a census might begin after about 7 years from the most recent success, resulting in a survey interval of about 7-10 years in practice. Attention was also drawn to the fact that the risk and need satisfaction performance of the two candidate SLAs was not diminished in Evaluation trials when surveys occurred at 10-year rather than 5-year intervals.

The SWG Chair explained that a number of factors need to be considered in this regard, not the least, over what time period the phase-out should occur, the magnitude of the phase-out and the quantity (e.g. strike limit or maximum allowable catch) to which it should apply. However, in the limited time available for discussion, the Scientific Committee had noted that there are several potentially useful approaches to phase-out that require further consideration and that it would address these during the coming year. The Scientific Committee sought guidance from the Commission on this issue.

The SWG Chair reported that the Scientific Committee had agreed to the following principles in relation to abundance estimates for use in an SLA:

(1)

Plans for undertaking a survey/census should be submitted to the Scientific Committee in advance of their being carried out, although prior approval by the Scientific Committee is not a requirement. This should normally be at the Annual Meeting before the survey/census is being carried out. Sufficient detail should be provided to allow the Scientific Committee review the field and estimation methodology. Considerably more detail would be expected if novel methods are planned.

(2)

Should it desire, the Scientific Committee may nominate one of its members to observe the survey/census to ensure that proposed methods are adequately followed. This will be more important if novel methods are being used.

(3)

All data to be used in the estimation of abundance should be made available to the Scientific Committee suitably in advance of the Annual Meeting at which an estimate was to be presented. If new estimation methods are used, the Scientific Committee may require that computer programs (including documentation to allow such programs to be validated) shall be provided to the Secretariat for eventual validation by them.

With respect to data and sample collection, the Scientific Committee agreed that data from each harvested animal should be collected and made available to the IWC and that the following information should normally be provided for each whale: species, number of animals, sex, season, date, position of catch (to the nearest village), length of catch (to 0.1m). It further requested that information/samples on reproductive status and samples for genetic studies to be collected where possible. The Chair of the SWG noted that such data are already being provided from the bowhead whale fishery.

In response to a request for clarification by a Sub-committee member, the SWG Chair explained that the rationale for having some type of phase-out rule (i.e. progressive lowering of the quota in the absence of survey data) is that any SLA requires some feedback (i.e. a new estimate) to function satisfactorily. No SLA, however good, could be expected to function in the absence of data. The USA, Denmark, and Russia requested more time for consideration of this new concept and the Chair of the SWG agreed to discuss the matter further outside the meeting with interested parties.

The Sub-committee Chair advised that based on its discussions, the Sub-committee was not in a position to give the Scientific Committee final guidance on the issue of phase-out at this time, but noted the Sub-committee's agreement to the other suggestions and recommendations made by the Scientific Committee regarding carry-over, survey guidelines and data collection.

8.1.2 Commission discussions and action arising
In the Commission, the USA noted that the aboriginal subsistence whaling management scheme in the current Schedule has worked well in guiding IWC in its management of the Alaskan native subsistence hunt of the Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort Seas stock of bowhead whales for the last 25 years. It explained that to implement the current scheme, the Alaskan whaling community had worked hard to address concerns raised over the years, such as the health of the stock, the efficiency level of the hunt and the modifications to traditional equipment needed to improve humanness of the hunt, and that it will continue to address these concerns through participation in the Scientific Committee, in the Sub-committee and by co-operating with all IWC information requests where feasible. The USA noted that the SWG had made significant progress in designing and selecting an SLA for bowheads and that it appeared that whichever is chosen, a good tool will be provided to the Commission.

Regarding the request for guidance on a 'phase-out' rule, the USA saw no problem with a 10-year survey interval, but, as reported by the SWG, the unpredictable conditions in the Arctic make it impossible to guarantee the success of a given survey attempt. It noted that according to the SWG, other potential approaches to the 'phase-out' rule exist, and urged the group to take up this issue. Following consultation with the SWG Chair, the USA suggested that one alternative to consider could be to give a 'grace-period' before the requirement for an implementation review at the end of a 10-year survey interval. Finally, the USA supported the proposed approach to Schedule language for strike limits and to the Scientific Committee's proposed wording for carry-over.

Denmark supported the USA's comments in general terms, particularly in respect to the performance of the current management system, and shared its concerns regarding phase-out periods, further underlining the harsh conditions under which its aboriginal subsistence whaling occurs. It welcomed the Scientific Committee's recommendations for future work on Greenlandic stocks and indicated that it would strive to the extent possible to meet them.

The Russian Federation did not consider 10 years to be a suitable phase-out period, noting the difficult conditions under which its aboriginal subsistence whaling is performed. It noted the progress that had been made for bowhead whales and believed that this could be done for other species, including gray whales and that taking decisions on both stocks in one block should be considered.

The Commission noted the Sub-committee's report and accepted its recommendations and workplan.

8.2 Review of aboriginal subsistence whaling catch limits
8.2.1 Report of the Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling Sub-committee
The Sub-committee Chair reported that noting the advice of the Scientific Committee²⁴, the Sub-committee had agreed that there was no need to revise the current Schedule catch limit provisions for: (1) the Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort Seas stock of bowhead whales; (2) Eastern North Pacific gray whales; (3) minke and fin whales off Greenland and (4) North Atlantic humpback whales off St. Vincent and The Grenadines.

Regarding the Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort Seas stock of bowhead whales, The SWG Chair noted that if the Commission adopted a Strike Limit Algorithm for bowhead whales next year, although a new abundance estimate was necessary, an assessment in the traditional sense was not required. The USA indicated that it expects to present a new abundance estimate to the Scientific Committee at its next meeting (based on a successful census this year) and that it would contribute to, and co-operate fully with, the assessment scheduled for 2004. The UK was disappointed that information on time to death had not been submitted for this hunt since whaling operations should supply all relevant data to the Commission.

Regarding Eastern North Pacific gray whales, the USA advised that, based upon a court decision, the Makah hunt had been closed in June 2000 with no whales taken in 2000. The Russian Federation stated that the SLA system under elaboration, must take into account the very small percentage (approx. 1%) of struck and lost whales in gray whale catches.

Regarding fin and minke whales off Greenland, the Scientific Committee had reported that it has never been able to provide satisfactory scientific advice on either of these stocks - a reflection of the lack of data relating to both stock structure and abundance and the reason why the Scientific Committee called for a Greenland Research Programme to be established in 1998. The inability to provide advice is a matter of great concern, particularly in the case of fin whales where the best available abundance estimate dates from 1987/88 and is only 1,096 (95%CI 520-2,106). The Scientific Committee urged continued funding of the research recommendations at the requisite levels, by both Greenland and the IWC and reminded the Commission that without such information it may be many years before it is able to provide satisfactory scientific advice on these stocks. Even with the success of the programme, the Scientific Committee considered it difficult to envisage that a suitable SLA (or SLAs) could be developed for the Greenlandic fisheries before 2006. In the Sub-committee meeting, Denmark fully accepted the need for research, noted that it would honour its commitments and urged the Commission to do the same.

Regarding North Atlantic humpback whales off St. Vincent and The Grenadines, the Scientific Committee had reiterated its view of the last two years that a catch of up to three whales taken annually would be unlikely to harm this stock. It had also: (1) noted that the question of the abundance and population identity of humpback whales in the south-eastern Caribbean remains unresolved; and (2) reiterated its request that photographs and tissue samples for genetic analysis of animals taken in the hunt be collected and analysed, and the results presented to the Scientific Committee. The Scientific Committee had heard that some samples had been collected from animals taken in St Vincent but that these had not yet been analysed. In the Sub-committee, New Zealand stated that it was willing to offer its expertise in genetic analysis to St. Vincent and The Grenadines.

²⁴ For details of the Scientific Committee's deliberations on this Item see J. Cet. Res. Manage. 4 (Suppl.).

8.2.2 Commission discussions and action arising
In response to a request from Mexico, the USA provided further information on latest developments in the Makah gray whale hunt. It recalled that as reported last year, a US court had ruled that the environmental assessment associated with the Makah hunt should be redone, although the right of the Makah to conduct the hunt was not questioned. The USA reported that the new environmental assessment for 2001/2002 released by the National Marine Fisheries Service on 13 July 2001, concluded that a limited tribal hunt would not threaten the Eastern North Pacific gray whale population, including small feeding groups. The report also concluded that there is no biological reason to restrict the hunt to the whales' migrating period from November to June nor to restrict it to ocean areas. Allowing a hunt in the Straits of Juan de Fuca is based on scientific information indicating that the gray whales feeding locally intermingle with a larger gray whale population and do not constitute a separate stock. The tribe is limited to taking no more than 5 whales yearly until 2002, consistent with the IWC total catch limits for this stock. The hunt at any time in the Straits of Juan de Fuca or anywhere between June and December is limited to 5 whales struck over 2 years. The National Marine Fisheries Service must now work out a new co-operative agreement with the Makah based on this new environmental assessment. Following a question from Austria, the USA confirmed that cultural, subsistence and nutritional needs were taken into account in the environmental assessment.

Japan noted that the comprehensive assessment of North Atlantic humpback whales had started²⁵ and that stock levels are estimated to be high. It considered that the stock would not be harmed by the St. Vincent and The Grenadines hunt and that if the latter wished, the catch limit could be increased. Japan further noted that this hunt was conducted using traditional methods leading to the take of a whale accompanied by a calf, and suggested that a Schedule amendment could be made next year to allow such takes as long as they do not harm the stock.

The Commission noted the Sub-committee's report and accepted its recommendations.

²⁵ See Item 6.5.1.

8.3 Catches by non-member nations
8.3.1 Report of the Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling Sub-committee
In its report to the Sub-committee, the Scientific Committee noted that under the authority of a license issued by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, one bowhead whale from the Hudson Bay/Foxe Basin stock was landed in the eastern Canadian Arctic on 11^th August 2000. In its review of this stock last year, the Scientific Committee had received an abundance estimate of 'at least' 485 animals and identified a number of ways in which the estimate could be improved. It had also received information that the Government of Canada had set a Total Allowable Catch for this stock of 1 animal in three years. Given the low estimated stock size, the lack of information on appropriate methods to manage small populations and the removal of one animal in August 2000, the Scientific Committee urged caution in the setting of any catch limits for this population and recommended that priority be given to research to: (1) obtain improved abundance estimates; and (2) pursue modelling efforts for use in the management of small populations.

In the Sub-committee, Austria and Germany, referring to Resolution 2000-2²⁶ passed last year, expressed their disappointment with the taking of one bowhead whale by Canada and called upon the Canadian Government to refrain from allowing further catches of bowhead whales.

²⁶ See Ann. Rep. Int. Whaling Comm. 2000: 55.

8.3.2 Commission discussions and action arising
In the Commission, Japan commented that in its view, the Canadian hunt would not affect the bowhead stock adversely, and called on the Government of Canada to rejoin IWC.

The Commission noted the Sub-committees's report and accepted its recommendations.

8.4 Contaminated gray whales from the North Pacific eastern stock
8.4.1 Report of the Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling Sub-committee
In reporting to the Sub-committee, the SWG Chair noted that although the title of this Agenda Item used the word 'contaminated', this should not be taken to imply that the cause of the 'strong' smelling gray whales reported last year was known and could be attributed to contamination. Norway concurred with these comments, noting that there are several possible causes for these strong-smelling whales, including natural diseases. The SWG Chair further noted that the Scientific Committee had been informed that no such whales had been reported this year and that a joint Russian Federation/USA project to investigate this issue has been established. The Sub-committee welcomed this report and looked forward to receiving a report of the joint project at a future meeting.

8.4.2 Commission discussions and action arising
Japan was pleased to hear that no 'contaminated' whales had been reported this year. It considered that it is important to investigate the cause of this problem and indicated that it would be willing to help the Russian Federation if requested.

The Russian Federation noted the support of the USA and Japan's offer of help. It further noted that since the whales taken last year were not edible, it considered that a special status could be applied to these with respect to the catch limit.

The Commission noted the Sub-committee's report and accepted it recommendations.

_