(from "Chair's Report of the 54th Annual 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, the Sub-committee agreed that an exchange of views was useful.

16.1.1 Infractions reports from Contracting Governments
Infractions reports for 2001 were received from Denmark, St. Vincent and The Grenadines, the USA and the Republic of Korea. Although the infractions report had not been received from the Russian Federation, information was extracted from the Report of the Scientific Committee and a document submitted by the Russian Federation to the Working Group on Whale Killing Methods and Animal Welfare. Only Denmark and the Republic of Korea reported infractions.

Denmark (Greenland) reported that a group of hunters from the Nutaarmiut settlement had struck and lost a humpback whale in August 2001. Each individual in the group was fined and the quota for the municipality was reduced by one minke whale licence. The case of a second humpback whale reported as struck and lost near the Nuuk municipality is being investigated. Denmark indicated that it would provide further information on this incident in due course.

The Republic of Korea reported that a minke whale had been deliberately taken in its waters using a small hand-held harpoon - the possession of which is illegal. The meat products were confiscated and sold publicly by the local bureau of judicial affairs. The vessel owner was prohibited from fishing for 30 days and its captain sentenced to a six-month prison sentence suspended for two years.

16.1.2 Surveillance of whaling operations
Information submitted by the USA, St Vincent and The Grenadines and the Russian Federation indicated that 100% of their catches were under direct national inspection. Denmark (Greenland) reported on quota monitoring.

16.1.3 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 77-100% 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 63% of animals.
St. Vincent and The Grenadines: Information on date, time, position, species, length, sex, hunting method and whether lactating is collected. St. Vincent and Grenadines noted that they also took photographs of flukes and tissue for genetic analysis although this is not required under the Schedule. Russian Federation: information on date, species, position, length, sex, killing method, whether lactating and hunting methods are collected.
Norway: the required information was submitted to the Secretariat as noted in the Scientific Committee report.

16.1.4 Submission of national laws and regulations
A summary of national legislation supplied to the Commission was prepared by the Secretariat. The Sub-committee Chair had remarked that details of the national legislation supplied by Contracting Governments appeared to be dated in some cases. The Netherlands indicated that in their case this was due to the fact that its policy on whaling was unchanged. St. Vincent and Grenadines noted that they currently have new draft legislation under consideration by their Government and that comments on the draft currently being considered by the Cabinet would be welcomed.

16.1.5 Other matters
REPORTS FROM CONTRACTING GOVERNMENTS ON AVAILABILITY, SOURCES AND TRADE IN WHALE PRODUCTS
The Secretariat had received no reports from Contracting Governments, but during the meeting, the UK indicated that it had no stockpiles of whale products.

THE TAKING OF KILLER WHALES BY GREENLAND AND ST. VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES
The UK referred to reports of two killer whales taken in Greenland and St Vincent and The Grenadines. In its view, a combination of Schedule paragraph 10(d) forbidding the taking of killer whales by factory ships, and paragraph 10(e) referring to the ban on commercial whaling made these catches infractions. A number of countries had shared this interpretation. Others however, noted that the animals were not taken by factory ships and since they were small cetaceans, were in any case outside the competence of the IWC and therefore not required to be reported as infractions under the Convention.

LEVELS OF BYCATCH
Responding to a question from the UK on levels of bycatch and whether there had been any infractions in this regard, Japan noted that non-deliberate killing, such as bycatch were not considered infractions and were thus outside the terms of reference of the Sub-committee.

The UK considered that animals killed under Japan's new legislation, which under certain circumstances, authorises the deliberate killing of whales bycaught in fishing operations, should be reported as infractions. It regretted what it saw as Japan's lack of co-operation in this matter. Mexico considered that Japan's reluctance to provide information was hampering the work of the Commission in several areas.

Austria, Australia and Germany supported the view that bycatch could be of interest to the Sub-committee, particularly where it led to whale products entering the market, and considered bycatch information important for management purposes. Austria stated that information regarding domestic sanctions to reduce bycatch was also relevant. Germany noted that in the EU, as well as in other some countries, fines are imposed on fishermen who exceed bycatch limits.

A number of other countries (Denmark, St Vincent and The Grenadines, Norway, Republic of Korea, Norway) agreed that information on bycatch is of value to management, and that such information provided by a number of nations including Japan, was discussed in length during the Scientific Committee meeting. They believed that the Scientific Committee was the appropriate forum for such discussions and that what happened to a bycaught animal after its death was the responsibility of national governments - some preferred not to waste the animal whereas others prohibited its use.

The UK repeated its assertion that at least some bycaught animals taken in the Japanese trap net fishery could be regarded as intentional takes and thus infractions, citing as evidence the fact that the reported numbers of bycaught animals had increased twofold since the new Japanese legislation was enacted.

Norway expressed some surprise at the concept of 'deliberate' bycatch and noted that other explanations for increased bycatch numbers could be formulated, including the possibility that the increased number of bycaught animals reflected an increase in the population of whales since the prohibition of coastal whaling. Japan shared the views of Norway.

16.2 Commission discussions and action arising
The Commission took note of and adopted the Sub-committee's report. There were no further comments.

_