(from "Chair's Report of the 54th Annual Meeting")
6.1 Aboriginal subsistence whaling scheme
6.1.1 Report of the Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling Sub-committee
In view of the importance of this work, the Chair of the Sub-committee gave a
detailed report to the Commission on both the work and recommendations from
the Scientific Committee and on the subsequent discussions within the
Sub-committee.
REPORT FROM THE SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE
Since the Scientific Committee was recommending a Strike Limit Algorithm
(SLA) for the Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort Seas stock of bowhead whales as
foreseen last year, the Chair of the Scientific Committee's Standing Working
Group on the Development of an Aboriginal Whaling Management Procedure
(hereafter Chair of the SWG) had given a thorough presentation of the work of
the Committee on this issue over the seven year development process.
The Scientific Committee began addressing this issue in the early 1990s and in 1994 the Commission formally instructed them to work on the development of an aboriginal whaling management procedure (Resolution 1994-4). The Commission reiterated the objectives of such a scheme, i.e., to (1) ensure risks of extinction are not seriously increased (highest priority); (2) enable harvests in perpetuity appropriate to cultural and nutritional requirements; and (3) maintain stocks at highest net recruitment level and if below that ensure they move towards it. The advantages (to both the management body and the users) of a management procedure over 'ad hoc' management were stressed, as was the value of computer simulations to try out potential candidate procedures. The simulation trial structure is designed to test procedures against the inevitable uncertainty in scientific knowledge about the whales and their environment.
In 1998, the Commission agreed that the eventual aboriginal whaling scheme (ASW - which includes both the scientific and non-scientific aspects of management) would include both generic and case-specific elements. In particular, it was agreed that Strike Limit Algorithms (the way in which the need requests forwarded by the Commission to the Scientific Committee are evaluated to determine whether they are acceptable from the point of view of the risk-related objectives given above - it is assumed for the purposes of trials that all strikes result in death) could be case-specific and introduced to the AWS as they became available. The Scientific Committee noted that it would proceed with the data-rich fisheries first i.e. the bowhead and gray whale hunts. Throughout the process, the Scientific Committee placed great emphasis on feedback from the Commission and hunters via the Commission's Aboriginal Whaling Sub-committee, and each year the Chair of the SWG has made a detailed presentation of the development process, requested advice on various matters and been available for consultation with interested delegations and individuals.
The candidate procedures for the bowhead case were tested for a broad range of uncertainty in a variety of factors, including: changes in MSYR (Maximum Sustainable Yield Rates) and MSYL (Maximum Sustainable Yield Level); model uncertainty; time dependent changes in carrying capacity, natural mortality and productivity; episodic events; stochasticity; survey bias and variability; survey frequency and errors in the historic catch series. In 2001, five candidate procedures were reduced to two and the Commission was informed that the Scientific Committee would present its recommended SLA in 2002.
At its meeting this year and after detailed discussions and examination of the results, the Scientific Committee strongly recommended to the Commission the 'Bowhead SLA', i.e., an SLA, which by averaging the results from two excellent procedures with different philosophies, performed best overall in terms of the Commission's objectives. The Scientific Committee agreed that it represents the best scientific tool it has for providing management advice on this stock of bowhead whales and noted the enormous amount of work put in by many members of the SWG and Committee in recent years.
In making this recommendation, the SWG Chair re-iterated that the use of the Bowhead SLA was intimately linked to the generic aspects of the Aboriginal Whaling Management Procedure (AWMP), i.e. operational rules (block quota, carryover, grace period), guidelines for surveys, data and Implementation Reviews. He went on to describe these other elements and explain how they might be put into practice. With respect to block limits and carryover, the Commission had agreed that five-year blocks were appropriate. Inclusion of the concept of carryover had been requested by Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling Sub-committee early in the development process and in 1999, the Scientific Committee had presented a suggestion that tried to encapsulate the variable conditions in the Arctic environment. This involved an inter-annual variation of 50% and a between-block carryover of up to half of the annual maximum strike limit. The Commission had agreed that approach as suitable for trial purposes, noting that it did not commit it to these values in any final AWMP.
The Chair of the SWG provided a number of examples of how this might work in practice, based on the present annual strike limit of 67 [giving a block limit of 335 and a maximum strike limit in any one year of 100 (= 1.5 x 335/5), with a maximum carryover between blocks of 50]. The Bowhead SLA performed satisfactorily under these rules, although ultimately it is a Commission decision as to what is an appropriate carryover provision. The SWG Chair also noted that the Commission also includes a limit to the number of landed animals. This is again clearly a Commission decision (the SLA assumes that all strikes result in death).
The issue of a phaseout 'rule' is familiar in terms of the RMP and was introduced to the Aboriginal Whaling sub-committee by the Scientific Committee last year. It is in essence a mechanism to deal with the absence of data essential to the SLA. The Scientific Committee stressed that it was not acceptable for catches to be set equal to need under such circumstances. Whilst it hoped and expected that any 'grace period' rule would never need to be utilised, it agreed that any AWMP must be prepared for such an eventuality. Given this, the Scientific Committee had developed a list of principles for such a rule that it recommended to the Commission for consideration. In summary, these are: (1) the grace period should not exceed 5 years (after which time, the SLA will set strikes to zero and it is likely that an Implementation Review will be initiated); (2) over the 5-year period, the block limit shall be reduced by 50%; (3) carryover from the last block is permissible (the same conditions that can render a survey unusable can also preclude the hunt); (4) the use and distribution of strikes over the time period is the responsibility of the user; (5) when a survey is successfully conducted during the grace period, the SLA is applied and a quota generated - the quota is then applied retroactively to the current block and the used strikes subtracted from the resultant block limit. The SWG Chair provided several examples of how this might work in practice.
The SLA and the AWMP require data to function and a key piece of information essential to the SLA is the abundance. Last year the Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling Sub-committee accepted the Guidelines for surveys suggested by the Scientific Committee. The Chair of the SWG reminded the Sub-committee of these proposals with respect to: (1) survey/census methodology and design; (2) Committee oversight; data analysis and availability; and estimates to be accepted for use in the SLA. He also described the previously agreed guidelines for data/sample collection. Similar guidelines exist for the RMP.
The final element he introduced is again reflected in the RMP and is integral to the AWMP process - the Implementation Review. Regular Implementation Reviews would occur every five years and normally involve at least reviews of information: (1) required for the SLA (i.e. catch data, abundance estimates); and (2) to ascertain if the present situation is as expected and within tested parameter space. In addition, to enable swift reaction to new information that gives rise to serious concern, Unscheduled Implementation Reviews can be called. He provided a number of examples as to possible 'triggers' for such early reviews. There are a variety of possible outcomes of Implementation Reviews, including (a) the continuation of use of the SLA; (b) the setting of a zero strike limit; (c) the running of further simulation trials; (d) the undertaking of a new census immediately; (e) a combination of some of the above.
The Chair of the SWG then noted the Scientific Committee's conclusion that, from a purely scientific perspective, the Bowhead SLA represented the best tool for providing management advice to the Commission on the bowhead whale harvest. On these grounds alone it would be prepared to use the SLA to calculate block strike limits and present that advice to the Commission. However, it recognised that there are some procedural issues that need to be considered (i.e. that the Commission has not formally approved the approach) and that the strict conditions for the Guidelines for surveys would not have been met in terms of data provision. Given this, the Scientific Committee had requested that the Secretariat be prepared to use the SLA to calculate block strike limits, should the Commission request this. It had been noted that this could easily be done at the Commission meeting either with or without the 2001 census estimate, that, whilst within the tolerance of the SLA trials, was likely to be slightly modified next year.
With respect to incorporation into the Schedule, the Scientific Committee had agreed that this should not be seen as a necessary prerequisite for use of the Bowhead SLA. In or out of the Schedule, it represents the best method for the Scientific Committee to provide advice and could be used as the basis for modification of the current Schedule provisions with respect to bowhead whales which refer to catch and strike limits. This issue was not a Scientific Committee matter and was the responsibility of the Commission.
In concluding his presentation, the SWG Chair, summarised the situation as follows. The Bowhead SLA and associated generic AWMP elements represented culmination of seven year's cooperative work between the Scientific Committee and the Commission. The Committee recommended the SLA to the Commission and noted that early in the development process, the goal was to develop an SLA that fully met the Commission's management objectives; once this had been met, it was agreed that it should not waste resources attempting to achieve some hypothetical level of 'perfection'. Whilst the Committee recognised that further work could be undertaken to refine and 'polish' the constituent SLAs of the Bowhead SLA, it strongly believed that these resources should be dedicated to completing the SLA for the management of the gray whale harvest and addressing the serious issue of the Greenland fisheries, for which the Committee has recognised that it has never been able to provide satisfactory advice.
SUB-COMMITTEE COMMENTS AND DISCUSSIONS
Several delegations had congratulated the Scientific Committee on its work and
the SWG Chair for his informative presentation.
Austria complimented the Scientific Committee on an excellent piece of work. It supported adoption of the Bowhead SLA and the associated elements. It believed that the development of the AWMP was vital to the wise management of aboriginal subsistence whaling by the Commission.
Norway commented on the additional complexity of the unified procedure but endorsed the recommendation of the Scientific Committee in principle. It noted that the SLA had been proposed as part of a package and wondered whether it would be better to wait before implementing it until the other case-specific elements were completed.
Several delegations had asked whether all of the aspects would be linked together in a single document. The Russian Federation also believed that it was better to wait until the gray whale SLA was also completed. The UK wondered whether it was appropriate for the Scientific Committee rather than the Commission to agree the relative weightings of need satisfaction against risk to the stock.
In response to these comments, the SWG Chair noted that the Committee had considered the issue of complexity in choosing the recommended SLA but agreed that the advantages of the unified SLA far outweighed the additional complexity. He also noted that the additional elements had in fact been thoroughly discussed by the Committee in the last three years and had also been presented to, and endorsed by, the Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling Sub-committee and the Commission over last two years. With respect to the weighting question, the SWG Chair noted that the Scientific Committee had from the outset been guided by the Commission's objectives, giving highest priority to objective 1 (to ensure that the risks of extinction are not seriously increased) as the Commission had indicated. He noted that the performance statistics used to evaluate the SLAs had been designed with the Commission objectives clearly in mind, particularly with respect to risk to the stock and the need for the population to increase towards an optimal level.
In response to the question concerning a single document containing all the additional elements, the SWG Chair noted that they were all included in the Scientific Committee's report. Prior to the adoption of the Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling sub-committee report, the Chair of the SWG produced such a document for information (see Appendix 4 of Annex C).
With respect to waiting for SLAs for the other fisheries to be completed, the SWG Chair noted that, with an intersessional workshop, the Scientific Committee hoped be able to present an SLA for the gray whale at next year's meeting. Although he could not say for certain, he expected that such an SLA would be similar to at least one of the components of the Bowhead SLA. He noted that although the gray whale was a similarly data-rich case to the bowhead whale, there were differences, in particular due to the fact that the gray whale may be approaching, or at, carrying capacity.
Finally, the SWG Chair reiterated the importance of the Greenland Research programme to the ability to develop an SLA for the Greenland Fisheries, noting that this will be a priority topic at next year's meeting.
6.1.2 Commission discussions and action arising
In the Commission, a number of Contracting Governments congratulated the
Scientific Committee on its work.
Switzerland recalled that for several years, the Commission has requested that aboriginal subsistence whaling be subjected to a robust scheme and noted that it strongly supported the adoption of the Bowhead SLA and associated elements.
The USA was pleased with the progress made by the Scientific Committee on the Bowhead SLA and thanked, in particular, Greg Donovan (Secretariat) for his role as SWG Chair in achieving a successful outcome. It believed that the Bowhead SLA satisfies the criteria adopted in Resolution 1994-414 and the Commission's highest priority, i.e., to ensure that the risks of extinction are not seriously increased. The USA considered that the Commission should adopt the SLA in principle at this stage. However, noting the concerns expressed by some countries during the Sub-committee meeting regarding the overall package and that existing provisions in Schedule paragraph 13(b) have worked well, the USA could not support adoption of the whole package until it is convinced that it represents an improvement in meeting both conservation goals and aboriginal subsistence need. It therefore encouraged the Scientific Committee to complete the AWMP package expeditiously including the gray whale SLA. Denmark indicated that it was in a similar position to the USA. It considered the proposal to adopt the Bowhead SLA but to not implement it until a complete AWMP can be adopted was constructive. With this in mind, Denmark noted two points: (1) that statements had been made in recent years by a number of Contracting Governments that the AWMP should not be implemented before the RMS; and (2) the value demonstrated by the process used for the Bowhead SLA, of including informal discussions with interested members of the Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling Sub-committee including hunters' representatives. Finally Denmark indicated that its acceptance of the Bowhead SLA is on the understanding that the SLA for Greenland may have to be elaborated in a different manner.
Japan supported the adoption of the Bowhead SLA in principle, but like other countries felt that implementation should await the resolution of other issues, e.g. phase-out rules, survey guidelines and data requirements. Although it was prepared to adopt the SLA, Japan pointed out what it considered to be double standards between the RMP and the AWMP. It noted that application of the RMP would result in a catch limit of zero for the next 30 years, whereas application of the SLA would give a limit of 67 per year (i.e. would fulfil the current need request). Finally, Japan believed that the SLA for gray whales should be considered independently from that of bowheads since they are different species with different biologies.
The UK endorsed broadly the remarks of the USA, but it remained concerned that the relative balance in the SLA between risk and need is not quite right. In this respect, the UK referred to the fact that: (1) the SLA's responses to environmental threats had been poor in some instances; and (2) that the SLA produces no strike limit below the need level for the first 30 years of operation. The UK was, however, prepared to adopt the Bowhead SLA in principle and for work to proceed to develop this and the other algorithms required as part of the AWMP. Germany associated itself with the USA and the UK.
The Chair of the Scientific Committee made a few clarifying remarks. She noted that it is not the case that the Bowhead SLA always satisfied need in all trials. With regard to the suggested 'double standard' between the CLA (Catch Limit Algorithm of the RMP) and SLA, she referred to the Committee's explanation of this in its report. In particular, the differences arise out of the fact that (1) the case-specific Bowhead SLA was developed to cope with a data-rich population whereas the generic RMP had to cope with a number of different situations and (2) the different objectives set by the Commission for subsistence and commercial whaling. She drew attention to Schedule paragraph 13(a) where it is clear that the Commission's goals for subsistence whaling allow whaling below the commercial whaling Protection Level. This explains why catches are allowed using the SLA but not the CLA. The AWMP process had deliberately included scenarios where the bowhead whale stock was below the maximum sustainable yield level; the catches allowed under the Bowhead SLA did ensure that the population increased towards it.
On behalf of the Commission, the Chair expressed appreciation for the hard work of the Scientific Committee. The Commission endorsed and adopted the Bowhead SLA.
6.2 Inedible gray whales from the North Pacific eastern stock
6.2.1 Report of the Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling Sub-committee
The Sub-committee had heard of two reports made to the Scientific Committee
concerning two strong-smelling whales (which 'smelled of medicine') during the
2001 season, samples from which are being analysed by Russian and North
American scientists.
The samples shipped to Alaska will be analysed for ketones and anthropogenic
contaminants after the 54th Annual Meeting.
Discussions are underway for Japanese scientists to undertake additional
studies on these samples.
The Sub-committee looked forward to receiving a report next year.
6.2.2 Commission discussions and action arising
The Commission noted the report from the Sub-committee.
6.3 Aboriginal subsistence whaling catch limits
6.3.1 Report of the Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling Sub-committee
6.3.1.1 BERING-CHUKCHI-BEAUFORT SEAS STOCK OF BOWHEAD WHALES
REPORT OF THE SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE
The Scientific Committee reported that the last successful census of this
stock was in 1993.
Census attempts in 1999 and 2000 failed due to unstable ice and closed leads,
respectively.
This year the Committee received a preliminary abundance estimate based on the
successful 2001 census at Point Barrow, Alaska.
The abundance estimate was 9,860 (95%CI 7,700-12,600) and the estimated annual
rate of increase from 1978-2001 was 3.3% (95%CI 2.0-4.7%).
The number of calves counted was almost twice that counted in 1993.
Information on whale counts along the Chukotka Peninsula between 1999 and 2001
was also presented.
Such animals are probably missed by the census at Point Barrow.
In Spring 2001, 149 animals were counted, a similar number to those in 1999
and 2000.
A total of 75 whales was struck during the 2001 harvest and 49 (30 males and 19 females) were landed. Ice conditions had made hunting difficult, leading to a lower efficiency compared to some previous years. One female bowhead whale (15.2m; estimated 46.8 tons) was harvested off Chukotka in 2001.
The Scientific Committee noted that although the current catch limit ends in 2002 and an in-depth assessment of this stock of bowhead whales is not scheduled until 2004, preliminary results from the successful new census indicate that the stock is larger than it has been in the last century and is still increasing. The Committee also noted that the Bowhead SLA is its best tool for providing management advice for this stock. However, even on the basis of the information reviewed by the Committee in its usual way, it agreed that there is no reason to change the management advice it gave last year, namely, that it is very likely that an annual catch limit of 102 whales or less would be consistent with the requirements of the Schedule.
SUB-COMMITTEE COMMENTS AND DISCUSSION
The Sub-committee noted the advice of the Scientific Committee.
Norway commented that the Scientific Committee had also noted: (1) that there was an interest in resolving an apparent conflict between existing age data and the catch and abundance data; and (2) that further genetic data would assist with stock assessment. In this regard, it was noted that the SWG of the AWMP had carried out a thorough review of the sub-stock question and the Committee believes that the single-stock hypothesis is most consistent with existing data.
The remaining discussions focused on the aboriginal subsistence need statements. The Sub-committee Chair focused on the following points in his report to the Commission.
The USA explained that it sought renewal of their ASW quota of bowhead whales, on the same basis as their previous quota (280 landed over a five year period, with an annual strike limit of 67, and a carryover of up to 15 strikes in each year). It was noted that this quota is shared between the Alaskan Eskimos and the Chukotka Communities in Russia. Bearing in mind the needs of the Chukotkan indigenous population, the Russian Federation made a request for 5 landed bowhead whales per year. However, despite a combined documented need for 61 landed whales, both countries were willing to retain the status quo for the next five-year block quota.
The USA stated that the Alaskan Eskimo hunt was an essential part of their culture, dating back thousands of years, and that it is purely subsistence based, with no commercial components. The efficiency for the 2001 hunt was 65.3%, which was less than the average efficiency of 1991-2000, which was 76.5%. Although the 2001 efficiency was below the average, it was far greater than the efficiency of the 1970s (around 50%) and the long term hunting efficiency is still, on average, above the 75% target suggested by the IWC.
Several countries referred to the declining efficiency of the hunt and it was suggested that allowing use of more modern weapons and boats could increase efficiency. With respect to the efficiency concerns, the USA had reiterated (1) the importance of changing environmental conditions (i.e. sea ice flows and pack ice) and (2) that the hunt was still, on average, above the 75% target.
Responding to comments regarding the need to improve the humaneness of the hunt, the USA reported that the Alaskan Eskimos have undertaken a weapons improvement programme at considerable expense to try to improve on the traditional black powder projectile.
The USA clarified that population growth was a significant factor in calculating the current need, but indicated that many more factors were identified in its needs statement, and that the Eskimo's culture and economic status continues to reflect a subsistence lifestyle. The USA were also asked how the traditional communities could afford modern hunting technologies such as penthrite grenades, snow mobiles, outboard motors, etc. The USA reported that the penthrite grenade is in a testing stage as is therefore not an appreciable cost, and that most of the hunting equipment is handed down from generation to generation. Much of it dates back to the 1800s. The USA added that additional perceived costs (such as snow mobiles or outboard motors) were misplaced since whaling is carried out using traditional boats or traditional methods in open skiffs.
Japan commended the success of the 2001 stock abundance estimate of bowhead whales under harsh environmental conditions, noting that although dozens of whales had been harvested, the stock was proved to be increasing demonstrating that whale resources can be used sustainably.
6.3.1.2 EASTERN STOCK OF GRAY WHALES
REPORT OF THE SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE
The Scientific Committee reported that an in-depth assessment of this stock
had been carried out this year. It had also considered the unusual mortality
of eastern North Pacific gray whales in 1999 and 2000.
The number of documented strandings along the west coast of North America
increased to approximately eight times the annual mean calculated between 1995
and 1998.
Several factors may have contributed to the large number of strandings
reported in those years.
Since most of the whales were not examined thoroughly, the actual cause of
death is unknown.
Only 21 strandings were recorded in 2001, which is within the range of annual
strandings in the period 1995-1998.
Based on two assessments of the stock that used similar methods and yielded similar results, the Committee agreed that a take of up to 463 whales per year is sustainable for at least the medium term (~ 30 years) and is likely to allow the population to remain above MSYL.
The Scientific Committee hoped to recommend a gray whale SLA at its next meeting.
SUB-COMMITTEE COMMENTS AND DISCUSSION
The Sub-committee noted the advice of the Scientific Committee and then
focused on the submitted needs statements by the USA and the Russian
Federation.
The Sub-committee Chair included the following points in his report to the
Commission.
In introducing the needs statement for the Makah, the USA pointed out the Treaty with the Makah Tribe is the only U.S. treaty containing a specific reservation of whaling rights and explained that these rights had not been abrogated by any subsequent act of Congress.
The USA discussed the tribe's 1500-year-old whaling tradition and pointed out that the Tribe is actively engaged in restoring its whaling tradition. The hunts are conducted using traditional methods although a high-powered rifle is used to ensure that struck whales are killed humanely. Whale meat and blubber from the first successful hunt were broadly distributed in the community with over 80% of the Tribe's 2,500 members consuming whale products. The USA reported that the results of a survey indicate that 93% of the Tribe's members support whaling and over 86% would like to eat whale meat on a regular basis. The USA noted that the eastern stock of gray whales is healthy enough to sustain this harvest in addition to the harvest by the indigenous peoples of Chukotka.
The presentation on the Makah was broadly welcomed by a number of countries, although some were concerned regarding the substance contained in the documents submitted and a number of questions were raised.
Australia and the UK viewed the resumption of the hunt after a 70-year hiatus with concern, and Mexico argued that the ASW was not designed to cover a situation whereby aboriginal communities who had not continuously engaged in subsistence whaling could access quotas on an ad-hoc basis.
The extent of the community support for the hunt was questioned by New Zealand and the UK. Mexico suggested that the evidence in support of these contentions (from the justifying overall numbers to the assumed social benefits) were flawed, selective and contradictory. In responding, the USA pointed out that the survey was based on a highly representative sample that included 35% of the households on the Makah Reservation. The survey sampled households, not individuals and used methodology consistent with that used in similar surveys in Indian communities throughout the USA over the past 20 years.
The USA further pointed out the strong link between restoration of whaling and other traditional cultural practices and noted that 51% of the village, as reported in the survey, reported a positive moral change in Neah Bay since the pursuit of whaling was revitalised. In addition, members of whaling crews are required to abstain from drugs and alcohol and devote themselves to a clean lifestyle. The USA also explained that gray whales are a consistent subsistence resource in contrast to fisheries where stocks and quotas fluctuate.
New Zealand and Mexico questioned the practice of joint quota proposals, believing it to be inappropriate given the very different situations of the respective indigenous communities. The USA responded that this approach was followed since under the Convention, quotas are not set for nations or groups of whalers, but by stock or population of whales.
Japan and Norway noted the absence in the Convention or Schedule of a definition or criteria for aboriginal subsistence whaling. Norway further noted that there is a continuum between aboriginal subsistence whaling and small-type whaling and that sustainability is the major factor for wise management. Japan, indicated that it supports aboriginal subsistence whaling in principle, if the stock is robust. Nevertheless, it noted that requests for quotas from robust stocks for its own small coastal communities had been continually denied. With this in mind, Japan indicated that it would carefully examine the US request. The UK considered that Japanese small-type whaling was not an appropriate issue to discuss in the Aboriginal Subsistence Working Group.
Although similar to the need assessment made in 1997, the Russian Federation submitted a new needs statement for 620 gray whales (including the 20 for the Makah) for a five-year quota. The importance of co-operation with the USA at multiple levels (from stock census to lowering times to death) was highlighted.
The active participation of the Chukotka population in the preparation of the needs statement was noted, as was their nutritional needs, which had been particularly severe since the break up of the former Soviet Union. Indeed, it was asserted that these communities do not have as much meat as they had ten years ago. The cultural importance of the hunt, dating back 2,000 years was emphasised.
The Russian Federation proposal was broadly welcomed by a number of countries.
6.3.1.3 GREENLANDIC FISHERIES
REPORT OF THE SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE
The Scientific Committee noted that it has never been able to provide
satisfactory management advice for either the fin or minke whales off
Greenland.
This reflects the lack of data on stock structure and abundance and is the
reason for the Committee to first call for the Greenland Research Programme
in 1998.
The inability to provide any advice on safe catch limits is a matter of great concern for the Scientific Committee, 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 noted that there is to be an abundance survey this year and further satellite tagging attempts. The Committee stressed that obtaining adequate information for management should be seen as of very high priority by both the national authorities and the Commission. It reiterated its previous recommendation that every effort be made to obtain tissue samples for genetic analysis from the catch and that effort to compare these samples with those from neighbouring countries is continued. Without this information, the Committee will not be able to provide safe management advice in accord with the Commission's management objectives, or develop a reliable SLA for many years, with potentially serious consequences for the status of the stocks involved.
SUB-COMMITTEE COMMENTS AND DISCUSSION
The Sub-committee noted the advice of the Scientific Committee. Denmark
reported that it shared the views of the Scientific Committee and was
allocating increased funding for research into this area.
It looked forward to co-operating with the Scientific Committee on the
Greenland Research Programme.
The remaining discussions focused on the needs statement submitted by Denmark.
Denmark's proposal for a five-year quota involved 175 minke whales per year, 19 fin whales from the West coast and 12 minke from East Greenland. Greenland pointed out that although the total result of this catch was 540 tons of edible whale meat, a total of 670 tons would be closer to their needs. It noted that in 1990, the IWC had recognised and fully endorsed the needs of aboriginal populations in West Greenland of 670 metric tons of whale meat from minke whales and larger whales.
Greenland's overall needs statement was prefaced by a general discussion of sustainability, as a multi-dimensional process. The 4,000-year history of whaling by the indigenous communities of Greenland was highlighted, along with its importance in social cohesion. It was explained that the majority of the utilisation is on a non-commercial basis (although in some small cases it can be purchased in local stores) and on a non-export basis. The utilisation of penthrite bombs (since 1991) was noted as clear indication of Greenland's intention to improve the humaneness of its hunt, by lowering time to deaths (over traditional methods).
Denmark's/Greenland's needs statement was broadly welcomed and supported by a number of countries, although it also provoked some discussion.
This primarily centred on UK comments on the practice of whale products being exported to Denmark from Greenland. A number of countries did not approve of this practice, believing that it contradicted the philosophy that aboriginal subsistence products must be consumed locally. Denmark explained, as it had previously, that the process is in accordance with CITES and is considered a transfer within the Kingdom of Denmark, not an export. Such transfers are for Greenlanders living temporarily in Denmark, typically students or hospital patients. It is on a small scale and non-commercial. Several countries supported this practice and expressed surprise at the UK objection. The UK drew attention to the precedent this might set and to the Scientific Committee's comments on the status of these stocks.
6.3.1.4 NORTH ATLANTIC HUMPBACK WHALES OFF ST.
VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES
REPORT OF THE SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE
The Scientific Committee had received a report of a catch of a 55ft
non-lactating female and a 28ft male (no milk present in stomach) at Bequia
on 27 March 2002.
Some Committee members noted that a length of 55ft for a North Atlantic
humpback whale was improbable and suggested that this reflected a measurement
error.
Based on the available data, the Committee believed it is most plausible that eastern Caribbean humpbacks are part of the West Indies breeding population; records of a match between the area and the northeastern Atlantic were received this year. However, it also noted its view of last year that the question of abundance and population identity of humpback whales in the eastern Caribbean remains unresolved.
The Committee considered the likely impact on the stock of an annual take of four whales. Assuming that the humpback whales found in the eastern Caribbean are part of the West Indies breeding population, the Committee agreed that a catch of up to four whales taken annually would be unlikely to harm this stock.
SUB-COMMITTEE COMMENTS AND DISCUSSION
The Sub-committee noted the advice of the Scientific Committee. Subsequent
discussion focused on the needs statement submitted by St. Vincent and The
Grenadines.
St. Vincent and The Grenadines informed the Sub-committee that it had notified the Secretariat of its intention to request an increased quota from two to four North Atlantic humpback whales at the present meeting. The needs statement provided an historical background of the development of the Bequian humpback fishery, a summary of the social and cultural aspects, and the establishment of nutritional need, and for the supply of locally produced animal protein and fat to offset in part the foreign exchange drain on the local economy, which is not self-sufficient in terms of food production. The background to the current needs statement stems from the 19th century, when a number of local inhabitants learned the whaling trade from Yankee whalers and returned to the islands with this knowledge. Up to the 1920s, humpbacks were hunted freely until the marketability began to disappear. Only one station remained open, which operated primarily to satisfy local demand via a low quota of 2 whales per year until 1981/82 when IWC recognised the activity as aboriginal subsistence whaling and the quota was increased to 3 whales.
St. Vincent and The Grenadines noted that the cultural importance of the hunt is apparent in the festivals that follow a successful hunt and the subsequent local distribution of the whale meat. It drew attention to nutritional deficiencies in the Islands, which are not self-sufficient in food, and stated that nutritional need also includes access to healthy food. It further remarked that rich countries frequently export the poorest quality of meats (fat mutton flaps, beef and poultry legs and tails) to developing countries, whereas whale meat is high in protein, and whale fat and blubber has some proven and some speculated health benefits.
St. Vincent and The Grenadines explained that need was quantified using a presumption of past need based on per capita consumption of whales raised to the current need by the ratio of present to past population of the island. Two whales supplied approximately 12% of the animal protein need for the island in 1982. This has declined to 6% in 2002 owing to population increase in Bequia. A quota of four whales is required to bring the level up to current need. St. Vincent and The Grenadines suggested that a take of 4 animals from this stock of humpbacks would not represent any problems in terms of overall sustainability of the stock.
The needs statement was broadly welcomed and supported by a number of countries, although other countries raised issues regarding the overall status of the stock, the absence of national regulations and the history of the whaling activity in St. Vincent and The Grenadines.
Australia, New Zealand and the UK considered that a precautionary approach should be taken given the uncertainty over the scientific status of the stock. Antigua & Barbuda considered that the status of this stock was more secure than the bowhead whale stock, but the examination of uncertainty on these was not as acute. New Zealand did not agree, noting that certainty on stock numbers and identification was much stronger in the former requests.
In response to criticism from Australia, UK, USA, Germany, Switzerland and Finland regarding the ongoing failure to develop and implement an overall regulatory approach for hunting, in accordance with the Schedule, St. Vincent and The Grenadines explained that draft regulations exist, and that information on their current status should be available before the IWC Plenary (see below). The UK suggested that an important factor in deciding to continue allocating a quota was an assurance given by St. Vincent and The Grenadines in 1990 that there would be no continuation of this industry following the retirement of the then 69 year old harpooner. It noted that contrary to these assurances it now appeared the hunt is expanding.
New Zealand and Monaco had commented that the needs statement reflected a heritage of taking large whales dating back 150 years. They noted that this whaling was undertaken by the descendants of Scottish and French settlers and was a continuation of whaling from the colonial period. Denmark responded that such objections should have been made when the quota was first given in 1982. Dominica objected to the implication that St. Vincent and The Grenadine's hunt was a colonial relic rather than an aboriginal hunt. It noted that the indigenous peoples of the Caribbean, the Caribs, had hunted whales long before the advent of slavery and colonialism.
Finally, in response to concern expressed by Austria over the lack of tissue samples coming from the hunt, St. Vincent and The Grenadines referred to the Report of the Scientific Committee and confirmed that samples have been collected and are being processed. It further reported that scientists from the Eastern Caribbean Islands have been engaged in a joint sighting survey with Japanese scientists, and that a co-operative photo-identification survey is being planned beginning next season. The UK drew attention to the further take of 2 humpbacks in 2002 and the discussion in the Scientific Committee that suggested that there was a measurement error in the length of the larger animal. It informed the Sub-committee that a photograph it had of the smaller animal tended to suggest that it was a calf.
6.3.2 Commission discussions and action arising including proposals to
amend the Schedule
Prior to addressing the proposals to renew aboriginal subsistence catch
limits, the order in which the proposals should be taken was discussed at some
length.
Rather than taking them in the order given in the agenda and as dealt with by
the Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling Sub-committee, St. Vincent and The
Grenadines requested that its proposed Schedule amendment be taken first.
This request was supported by some countries but not others.
These countries could not understand the need to break with the traditional
sequence.
A suggestion to take all Schedule amendments as a package was also not
supported.
The Chair therefore ruled that the Commission address the proposals in the
order they appeared on the agenda.
His ruling was challenged but upheld when put to a vote.
6.3.2.1 BERING-CHUKCHI-BEAUFORT SEAS STOCK OF BOWHEAD WHALES
The Commission noted the report of the Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling
Sub-committee.
The Commission's discussions on the joint USA/Russian Federation proposal to renew the existing aboriginal subsistence whaling quota for this stock of bowhead whales were lengthy, taking place over 3 days (Wednesday 22 to Friday 24 May 2002). To assist in comprehension, the report is divided into the discussions taking place on each day.
WEDNESDAY 22 MAY
The USA introduced the following USA/Russian Federation joint proposal
(IWC/54/20) to renew the existing aboriginal subsistence whaling quota for
this stock of bowhead whales for five more years i.e. by changing the dates
but leaving the remainder of the paragraphs the same.
The total effect of these changes is given below for clarity:
The taking of bowhead whales from the Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort Seas stock by
aborigines is permitted, but only when the meat and products of such whales
are to be used exclusively for local consumption by the aborigines and further
provided that:
1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002 2003, 2004, 2005,
2006, and 2007, the number of bowhead whales landed shall not
exceed 280. For each of these years the number of bowhead whales
struck shall not exceed 67, except that any unused portion of a
strike quota from any year (including 15 unused strikes from the
1995-97 1998-2002 quota) shall be carried forward and added
to the strike quotas of any subsequent years, provided that no more
than 15 strikes shall be added to the strike quota for any one year.
The USA explained that the request was to provide for the traditional, cultural and subsistence needs of the Alaskan Eskimos of the USA and the Chukotka native people of the Russian Federation. Noting that the Scientific Committee had not changed its management advice and that the annual maximum strike limit is well below the annual limit of 102 bowhead whales that the Scientific Committee agreed would be consistent with the requirements of the Schedule, the USA urged adoption of the proposed Schedule amendment by consensus.
Japan remarked that the USA recognises the needs of its Alaskan Eskimos and asked whether the USA could understand that the Japanese small-type coastal whalers also have needs. It also questioned whether the USA had considered the possibility of sub-stocks within the bowhead stock and reiterated its earlier comment under Item 6.1.2 that application of the RMP would not provide a catch limit for several decades. Japan therefore considered the stock to be in a very dangerous situation and remarked that at this point in discussions, it was not in favour of approving a catch limit for a 5-year period.
In reacting to Japan's comments, the Russian Federation noted the close links between the Chukotkan and Alaskan Eskimo hunter communities and indicated that any objection against the USA is also an objection against the Chukotkan people. Regarding Japan's question on possible sub-stocks, the Russian Federation drew attention to the fact that the Scientific Committee had indicated that this would make no difference to its management advice on this bowhead stock. Like the USA, it urged that the proposal be adopted by consensus, noting the importance of the bowhead hunt to aboriginal people.
The USA responded to the questions and comments made by Japan in the following manner: (1) it considered the question on its views regarding Japanese small-type whaling to be out of order since this issue would be addressed under another agenda item; (2) like the Russian Federation it noted that the Scientific Committee had already addressed the single stock issue and that based on current genetic evidence the Committee had not changed its management advice; and (3) it did not consider that the stock is in a dangerous situation noting that it has been increasing at an annual rate of 3.3% for a long time and that the recent census gave the largest ever estimate of abundance.
Norway commented that it recognises and respects the nutritional and cultural needs of all people and believed that ethnicity has no place in deciding catch limits. Rather, it believed that the deciding factor in setting catch limits is whether they are sustainable. Norway sympathised with the contents and substance of the joint USA/Russian Federation proposal, but taking into account the various uncertainties raised during the Commission's deliberations, believed it wise to adopt a slightly more precautionary approach. It therefore proposed amendments to the USA/Russian Federation to the effect that a catch limit be set for 2 rather than for 5 years (i.e. for 2003 and 2004), and that the number of bowhead whales landed over this period not exceed 112.
Neither the USA nor the Russian Federation supported Norway's proposed amendment. The USA did not agree that there are any uncertainties to be resolved, but noted that if there are any, Schedule paragraph 13(b)(1)(iii) allows for the provision to be reviewed annually. It also felt that Norway's proposal would place an unjust burden on its native people (e.g. forcing them to leave their hunts to defend their quotas earlier than anticipated) and an unwarranted burden on the Commission (e.g. taking up the issue prematurely thus increasing amount of time used in discussions). The Russian Federation noted that the needs statement and proposed 5-year quota had not been questioned during discussions of the Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling Sub-committee, and considered that raising concerns in the plenary is a dangerous precedent that invalidates the Sub-committee's work.
Oman, Denmark and the Netherlands fully supported the original proposal tabled by the USA and the Russian Federation. Like the USA, the Netherlands also drew attention to the provision in Schedule paragraph 13(b)(1)(iii) and to the planned assessment of the bowhead stock in 2004.
Antigua & Barbuda indicated that it wanted to support consensus adoption of the proposed Schedule amendment but reserved its position until it knew the fate of the amendment proposed by St. Vincent and The Grenadines. St. Lucia had a similar view. It would support Norway's amendment on the understanding that due consideration and reciprocity would be granted to St. Vincent and The Grenadines.
In response to a question from Grenada on the status of the bowhead stock, the Chair of the Scientific Committee noted: (1) the best advice is that the animals of the Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort Seas comprise a single stock; (2) assessments have shown that the stock is increasing; (3) there is some possibility that it is already above MSYL; and (4) in any event, the stock is above the 'certain' minimal level below which takes would not be allowed. She reiterated that the principles governing aboriginal subsistence whaling do not require a stock to be above MSYL but that it should be moving towards it, as is the case here.
When asked by the Russian Federation if it would withdraw its proposed amendment, Norway indicated that it would do so if this would pave the way to consensus. It suggested that one way to achieve consensus might be that if, for example, St. Vincent and The Grenadines were granted a request for a period of three years, then they and their supporters would accommodate a request from the USA and the Russian Federation for 5 years. Norway indicated that it would also be prepared to withdraw its amendment if other acceptable proposals existed. It added, however, that if withdrawal of its proposed amendment simply resulted in other members making counter proposals, then it saw no point in doing so.
As no basis for consensus existed, Norway declined to withdraw its proposed amendment. The Chair indicated that Norway's proposal should therefore be put to a vote and asked the Secretary to explain the Commission's rules in this respect. The Secretary drew attention to the Rules of Debate, section E, paragraph 2 indicating that when an amendment is moved to a proposal, then it is the amendment that is voted on first. She noted that if one or more amendments are adopted, the amended proposal shall then be voted upon, implying that two votes are required in this process, i.e. (1) a vote on the amendment is conducted first, which requires a simple majority to be successful; (2) if the amendment is successful then a vote is taken on the whole amended proposal that, in this case, would require a three-quarters majority to be successful.
Norway, on a point of order, noted that its understanding of the Rules of Debate did not correspond with that of the Secretary. It considered its amended proposal as a Schedule amendment requiring a three-quarter majority and wanted it to be treated as such. Some countries supported Norway's understanding, while others supported that of the Secretary. The Chair ruled that the vote be conducted as described by Norway. His ruling was challenged and was not upheld when put to a vote. Norway's amended proposal was therefore put to a vote in accordance with the explanation given by the Secretary. The proposal failed to achieve a majority, there being 14 votes in favour, 27 against and 3 abstentions. Japan explained its reasons for abstaining. It indicated that while setting a catch limit for 2 rather than 5 years would be preferable, doubt remained on whether this period would be scientifically optimal. The Russian Federation expressed surprise at the number of countries supporting Norway's proposal.
Following the defeat of Norway's proposed amendment, the Chair asked whether the original USA/Russian Federation proposal could be adopted by consensus. Since Japan indicated that this would not be possible, the USA asked whether the session could be adjourned in favour of a private Commissioners' meeting to discuss this matter further. The meeting agreed to this request.
The private Commissioners' meeting lasted several hours. On recommencing the plenary session, the Chair announced that an agreement had been reached, i.e. that the Schedule amendment proposed by the USA/Russian Federation could be adopted by consensus. However, despite this apparent agreement, confirmed by Denmark and Mexico (but later contested by Japan), Japan indicated that it could not participate in a consensus and insisted that the Chair proceed to a vote. Antigua & Barbuda considered that although there was movement towards a consensus during the private Commissioners' meeting, the meeting had finished before some finer points had been resolved.
Following the suggestion of several Contracting Governments, the Chair adjourned the meeting to allow time for further negotiations.
THURSDAY 23 MAY
On resumption of discussions, it was clear that there was still no consensus
and the USA/Russian Federation proposed Schedule amendment was put to a vote.
There were 30 votes in favour, 14 against and one abstention.
It thus did not achieve the required three-quarter majority of those voting
for or against the proposal.
Many countries, regardless of whether they had voted in favour or against the proposed Schedule amendment, spoke of their regret over the outcome of the vote.
Of the countries voting against the proposal, Antigua & Barbuda explained that it supported the right of the aboriginal people involved to use whale resources. However, it objected to the discriminatory approach being taken within IWC regarding which countries are allowed to take whales are which are not. It urged those governments having aboriginal populations to accept responsibility for the outcome of the vote. Mongolia did not wish to deprive aboriginal people of their needs, was disappointed that a compromise had not been reached and explained that it had voted against the double standards employed within IWC. St. Vincent and The Grenadines had voted against the proposal because of the lack of trust it saw within IWC. It considered that for consensus to be reached, there is a need to ensure equality of treatment, e.g. if 5-year block quotas are accepted for some situations they should be accepted for all. The Solomon Islands also spoke of the existence of double standards, highlighting what it considered to be the unfair treatment of the coastal people of Japan and the request by St. Vincent and The Grenadines. It called for consensus to be reached on all requests. Like others, St. Lucia called for the equitable distribution of resources.
Several countries that had supported the proposal expressed great disappointment and distress at how the compromise consensus that had been reached during the private Commissioners' meeting on Wednesday had been broken. Denmark was concerned that the needs of two groups of aboriginal people would not be accommodated. Referring to the comments of Antigua & Barbuda, the UK indicated that it would be the record of the meeting that would indicate where blame lay for the outcome of the vote. It considered that certain delegations had manipulated the operation of the Commission in ways that would result in suffering all round and was appalled by the display of bad faith. Oman expressed deep regret and sympathy for the affected aboriginal people. Drawing attention to the fact that similar requests had been granted in the past, it wondered how the outcome of the vote could be explained. The Netherlands considered that the outcome was not only bad for the aboriginal people but also for the way business is conducted in IWC and urged that the agenda item be kept open. Other countries supported this request. New Zealand remarked that it had come to the meeting prepared to support any requests for aboriginal subsistence whaling provided that they met the Commission's requirements. It recalled that this is the first time for many years that an aboriginal subsistence whaling request had been denied and that the responsibility for this outcome lay with those countries voting 'no'. South Africa considered that the only rationale for voting against the proposal was either: (1) that a country did not understand the issue; or (2) that it was willing to sacrifice aboriginal peoples needs for political gain. Sweden also thought it regrettable that the requests of these people had been sacrificed. Spain spoke against the mixing of other parts of the agenda with this particular item. Switzerland drew attention to the harsh climatic conditions experienced by the Alaskans and Chukotkans, their old cultural rights to hunt whales for a living and to the fact that the Scientific Committee considered the proposed take to be sustainable. It considered that if anyone needed these resources, then it is these aboriginal peoples. Morocco indicated that it could not go against providing food for innocent people who are victims of different points of view within the Commission. Peru, Australia, Finland, Germany and Monaco also spoke against the outcome of the vote. Norway, who had supported the proposal, thought it had been obvious from the outset that it would fail and expressed disappointment that its earlier suggested amendment had not been successful in paving a way for consensus.
The Russian Federation spoke of its deep regret that consensus was destroyed from the very outset and that a vote had been provoked. It believed the outcome had delivered major damage to the interests of the Russian Federation and to the aboriginal peoples involved. It also considered that those countries making accusations about the double standards of others were themselves guilty of applying double standards with respect to this issue. A representative of the Chukotkan people and member of the Duma, commented that he had hoped to be dealing with a serious international organisation that managed whale resources based on sound science. Instead he had found petty politics and intrigues. He noted that there is more information available on this bowhead stock compared with other stocks subject to aboriginal take, and considered that there was no reason to reduce the duration of the block quota from 5 years to 1-2 years. Recalling that instead of providing technical assistance to improve the humaneness of aboriginal subsistence whaling as requested by IWC Resolution 1997-115, he noted that the attitude of some Contracting Governments would result in the native people spending thousands of dollars each year on preparation of more reports, justifications and on travel to meetings. They could not afford to do this. They needed to hunt to feed their families.
The USA were disappointed that some Contracting Governments were opposing the proposed Schedule amendment because of their dissatisfaction with the position of the USA on other issues. It noted that this move ignores the needs of native peoples who have worked hard to comply with every requirement imposed on them by the Commission. Noting that the Alaskan Eskimos have worked with IWC for over 20 years and have contributed greatly to bowhead whale research, they have also: (1) set the standard for documenting needs; (2) undertaken weapons improvements programmes in response to the Commission's concerns regarding humane killing; and (3) are now working closely with the Chukotkan people. The USA indicated that voting against the joint USA/Russian Federation proposal to show displeasure with the USA did not solve any problems, and urged the Commission to leave the agenda item open so that a solution could be found.
The meeting agreed to the USA's request for a private Commissioners' meeting. Further plenary discussions on this issue were therefore postponed.
FRIDAY 24 MAY
Discussions began with consideration of a proposed Schedule amendment from the
UK, based on earlier private discussions of Commissioners, that incorporated
proposals for renewals of all four aboriginal subsistence whaling operations.
However, the UK withdrew its proposal once it was apparent that it could not
be adopted by consensus.
Following agreements to renew catch limits for gray, fin and minke whales off Greenland, and humpback whales off St. Vincent and The Grenadines (see sections 6.3.2.2-6.3.2.4), the Commission returned to discussions on the catch limit for the bowhead whale stock.
The Chair asked whether the slightly revised proposed Schedule amendment (IWC/54/57) submitted by the USA/Russian Federation could be adopted by consensus. Japan considered the proposal to be identical to that voted down on Thursday and indicated that it could not give support. Instead it wanted to propose an amendment which involved adding a new paragraph 10(f) to allow the taking of 25 minke whales from the Okhotsk Sea-West Pacific stock for each of the 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007 seasons to be used for local consumption by the communities of Taiji, Wada, Ayukawa and Abashiri.
Speaking to a point of order, Australia did not believe such an amendment was in order and that two separate issues (i.e. aboriginal subsistence whaling under Schedule paragraph 13 and commercial whaling under paragraph 10) could not be linked in this way. It considered that if Japan wanted to raise this issue it should do so under the appropriate agenda item. The Chair agreed that Japan's proposal mixed two agenda items and ruled that this could not be done.
The Republic of Palau acknowledged that Japan's proposal concerned a separate issue, but considered that it also concerned subsistence whaling. It considered the proposal to be procedurally appropriate, a good compromise and the only way out of a difficult dilemma.
The Chair's ruling was challenged but was upheld when put to a vote. Antigua & Barbuda considered that Japan's coastal whaling could be classified as an aboriginal take and felt that Japan had been treated unfairly. Morocco had supported the proposal since it would have helped Japanese small communities. Japan regretted that its amendment to the USA/Russian Federation proposal had been voted down on procedural grounds despite the concessions made. Both the USA and Australia noted that Japan's proposal had not been voted down and that it could be raised again under agenda item 11. However, Japan reiterated its earlier remarks that it could not support a 5-year block quota over concern for the status of the bowhead stock, but that a quota for 1-2 years would have been acceptable. It added that it would now be forced to vote against the USA/Russian Federation amendment.
Responding to Japan's comments on the status of the bowhead stock, the Chair of the Scientific Committee stressed that the Committee's advice is very clear, i.e. there is no scientific reason not to grant the quota requested. The stock is robust, is increasing under the existing quota and there are no serious issues regarding stock structure.
Noting that the needs of other aboriginal subsistence hunters had been met earlier in the day with the support of the USA, the USA requested reciprocal support for its Alaskan Eskimos.
On being put to a vote, the revised USA/Russian proposed Schedule amendment failed to achieve the necessary three-quarter majority, there being 32 votes in favour, 11 against and 2 abstentions.
Representatives of the USA and Russian Federation aboriginal peoples again expressed their deep disappointment that their request had not been met. The USA thanked countries that had supported them. The Russian Federation noted that the political games that had been played had made people forget the aboriginal peoples and their needs. It stressed that the Alaskan and Chukotkan people would stay together and not be divided.
Mongolia, Dominica and Antigua & Barbuda, who had voted against the USA/Russian Federation request explained their votes. Mongolia indicated that it fully supports aboriginal subsistence whaling by these Arctic people. It noted that virtually the same request had been voted down yesterday and regretted that the Chair had chosen to put the amended version to a vote. Dominica made similar comments. Antigua & Barbuda wished to ensure the people of Alaska and Chukotka that it wanted a resolution to this problem before the end of the meeting. It believed that the fault lay with those countries not supporting consumptive use.
Several countries that had voted in support of the USA/Russian Federation request made a number of remarks. St. Vincent and The Grenadines indicated that it supported fully the aboriginal subsistence take of the USA and the Russian Federation and the request of Japan for its coastal communities. It urged the Commission to find some way to grant both requests. New Zealand suggested that Alaskan and Chukotkan people were being punished because of the Commission's unwillingness to establish a new category for small-type coastal whaling, and that Japan and others were drawing a moral equivalence between prosperous Japanese coastal towns and isolated Arctic communities, a link that, in New Zealand's view, did not exist. Denmark strongly regretted the outcome and like New Zealand, stressed the need to respect the traditional and subsistence needs of high Arctic people living in extreme conditions. The UK commented on what it considered to be the cant and hypocrisy of those voting against the USA/Russian request and wondered what honour was left in the organisation. Mexico considered that the discussions on this issue had nothing to do with the purpose and origins of aboriginal whaling and everything to do with politics. It recalled that since 1966, Mexico has opposed grouping aboriginal subsistence whaling requests by stocks or other criteria that deviate from the four stated requirements specified for this type of whaling, i.e. nutritional, subsistence, cultural and conservation requirements on a case-by-case basis, based on individual submissions by each corresponding Contracting Government justifying need.
6.3.2.2 NORTH PACIFIC EASTERN STOCK OF GRAY WHALES
The Commission noted the report of the Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling
Sub-committee.
It then adopted by consensus the following Schedule amendment proposed jointly
by the USA and the Russian Federation:
In paragraph 13(b)(2) of the Schedule, in paragraph (i),-
There was no discussion.
For the information of Commissioners, paragraph 13(b)(2) of the Schedule is
reprinted below showing the effect of the proposed amendments.
6.3.2.3 MINKE WHALE STOCKS OFF GREENLAND AND WEST GREENLAND STOCK OF FIN
WHALES
The Commission noted the report of the Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling
Sub-committee.
The Minister of Fisheries, Hunting and Settlements from the Greenland Home Rule Government stressed the dependence of Greenland upon the use of marine living resources. Throughout its 4,000-year history, whales, seals and other renewable marine resources have provided the basis for a system of social organisation based on bilateral kinship ties within extended families in which the sharing and exchange of wild foods and other local products are vital elements. The Minister noted that the debate about Greenland's use of whales, seabirds and other living resources is a reminder that managing for sustainability is a profoundly social and interactive process. He noted that while hunters have had to make substantial adjustments to their hunting practices in response to changing and increasing requirements for example on the humane killing of animals, these same changes and requirements have led to very effective hunting techniques that could result in an increased take of living resources. The current challenge for Greenland is therefore to reach a balanced and sustainable management regime through close co-operation with hunters, users, biologists and other stakeholders. Regarding need for research on large whales in Greenland, the Minister reported that he was working with the Government and Parliament to provide the necessary funding.
The UK reported that a few days earlier, the Environmental Investigation Agency (a UK-based NGO) had purchased a package of whale meat in Nagasaki labelled as coming from Greenland. It also referred to another product labelled as coming from Russia. Noting that: (1) whales harvested under IWC aboriginal subsistence catch limits are for local consumption only; and (2) that it was sure neither products were exported illegally with any knowledge or support from either Denmark or Russia; the UK requested confirmation from Denmark that the whale meat labelled as coming from Greenland was in fact mislabelled.
The Danish Commissioner considered that it was extremely unlikely that the product came from Greenland. A representative of the Greenland Home Rule Government confirmed this and referred to local legislation and CITES regulations preventing such export. However, Greenland was willing to investigate the matter further by contacting the company selling the product and performing any necessary analyses in co-operation with the Japanese Government.
Referring to the comment from the UK, the Russian Federation indicated that the need of the Chukotkans is higher than the quotas requested and that consequently there is no excess meat available. It considered that the meat labelled in Japanese stores was not of Russian origin. Like Greenland, it was willing to work with the Japanese government to investigate this matter. It was sure that Japan would not allow trading of illegal whale products. Japan confirmed that in the past products coming from the Antarctic had been mislabelled as coming from Greenland. While noting that it considered this matter outside the mandate of IWC, Japan indicated that it would like to have samples of the products involved so that it could expeditiously investigate the matter.
The UK thanked Greenland and the Russian Federation for their responses and Japan for taking the matter seriously.
The Commission then adopted by consensus the amendments to Schedule paragraph 13(b)(3) and Table 1 proposed by Denmark, the only change being the seasons for which the quotas apply (i.e. the number of takes remains the same). The amended paragraph is as follows:
13.(b)(3) The taking by aborigines of minke whales from the West Greenland
and Central stocks and fin whales from the West Greenland stock is permitted
and then only when the meat and products are to be used exclusively for local consumption.
6.3.2.4 NORTH ATLANTIC HUMPBACK WHALES OFF ST. VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES
The Commission noted the report of the Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling
Sub-committee.
St. Vincent and The Grenadines introduced its proposed Schedule amendment (IWC/54/25 rev2) as follows:
In Paragraph 13(b)(4):
Monaco asked why this latest revision from St. Vincent and The Grenadines did not reflect the agreement reached the previous day in a private Commissioners' meeting that its whaling must be conducted under formal legislation. Recalling that the Scientific Committee had only considered St. Vincent and The Grenadines request for 3 years, the duration initially proposed, Monaco indicated that the Commission was not in a position technically to approve a request for a 5-year period. It noted that in the Commissioners' meeting some countries had asked that the quota for the last two seasons become operative only after receiving advice from the Scientific Committee.
The Russian Federation also referred to the compromise agreement reached in the private Commissioners' meeting and was against changing the rules of the game during the game. It noted that St. Vincent and The Grenadines and other Caribbean countries felt bullied by some countries, but considered that they are dependent on others. It asked them to act independently.
In response, Grenada commented that just because it might support a particular country does not mean it is not independent. It considered that independence confers the right to support whomsoever it chooses. Recalling that St. Vincent and The Grenadines had promised to put appropriate regulations in place, Grenada took them at their word and therefore supported the proposed Schedule amendment. Dominica made a similar comment. Antigua & Barbuda acknowledged the agreement reached in private, but considered that the Schedule amendment proposed that morning by the UK grouping all aboriginal subsistence requests together had broken that consensus (see Item 6.3.2.1). St. Lucia fully supported St. Vincent and The Grenadines. It also referred to insinuations regarding the manipulation of small states but noted that those responsible for making phone calls to Caribbean Prime Ministers throughout the night were not from the Government of Japan. Japan also supported the St. Vincent and The Grenadines proposal. It considered the stock to be abundant and that extension of the period from 3 to 5 years would not cause any problems. It considered St. Vincent and The Grenadines existing fishery legislation to be sufficient for the purposes of monitoring whaling activities.
St. Vincent and The Grenadines pointed out errors in the text of the UK's proposal (Item 6.3.2.1) and stressed that appropriate legislation would be in place by July 2002. It requested clarification from the Scientific Committee as to whether the quota requested over a five-year period would be a problem and whether the Scientific Committee had specifically mentioned a three-year period in its management advice. The Scientific Committee Chair reminded the meeting that the Committee's advice had been that an annual take of up to four whales annually would be unlikely to harm the stock and that it had not referred to any time-period.
Like Monaco and the Russian Federation, the USA, New Zealand and the Netherlands expressed disappointment that St. Vincent and The Grenadines' revised text did not reflect agreements reached in private. New Zealand moved an amendment, seconded by Monaco, to add text that did reflect these agreements and that it had finalised later with St. Vincent and The Grenadines. The UK proposed to add a further amendment by including the joint USA/Russian Federation request for a bowhead quota. However, the UK withdrew this amendment when the USA indicated that, while it very much appreciated the thoughtfulness of the UK, it preferred the more direct approach proposed by New Zealand.
The following Schedule amendment was subsequently adopted by consensus:
13.(b).(4) For the seasons 2003-2007 the number of humpback whales to be taken
by the Bequians of St. Vincent and The Grenadines shall not exceed 20.
The meat and products of such whales are to be used exclusively for local
consumption in St. Vincent and The Grenadines.
Such whaling must be conducted under formal legislation that accords with the
submission of the Government of St. Vincent and The Grenadines (IWC/54/AS 8
rev2).
The quota for the seasons 2006 and 2007 shall only become operative after the
Commission has received advice from the Scientific Committee that the take of
4 humpback whales for each season is unlikely to endanger the stock.
14 See Rep. Int. Whal. Commn. 45: 42-3.
15 See Rep. Int. Whal. Commn. 48: 45.
_