(from "Chair's Report of the 55th 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.

17.1.1 Infractions reports from Contracting Governments
Infractions reports for 2002 were received from Denmark, the USA, the Russian Federation and the Republic of Korea. Disappointment was expressed by one government that St. Vincent and The Grenadines was not present at the sub-committee meeting³³. Only Denmark and the Republic of Korea reported infractions.

Denmark (Greenland) reported that an adult humpback whale and a humpback whale calf were wounded in separate rifle hunts. In both cases neither whale could be rescued and were killed on the authorisation of the Department of Fisheries, Hunting and Agriculture.

The Republic of Korea reported an illegal deliberate catch of one minke whale by its nationals fishing from a vessel with a longline fishery permit. The whale was killed by a harpoon. The Captain was fined 8 million Korean won (about 7,000 US$) and the vessel owner had his fishing license revoked permanently. The meat was confiscated and sold publicly by the police. The Government stated that it prohibited whale takes and strives continuously to improve measures for the conservation and management of whales in its jurisdictional waters, in accordance with the ICRW and IWC's decisions.

Referring to reports of killer whales being taken in Greenland, several countries expressed the view that a combination of Schedule paragraph 10(d), that forbids the taking of killer whales by factory ships, and paragraph 10(e), that refers to the ban on commercial whaling, made the Greenlandic catches an infraction. Denmark noted that the animals were not taken by a factory ship and in any event are small cetaceans and thus outside the competence of the IWC and consequently takes of this species are not required to be reported as infractions under the Convention³⁴.

While recognising the different views over competency with respect to small cetaceans, several governments also expressed concern regarding a kill of northern bottlenose whales during 2002 in the Faroe Islands as reported in a letter to the UK from the Faroese authorities. These governments noted that this species is listed as a Protection Stock in Schedule Table 3, and is therefore covered by the moratorium. Denmark was not able to reply in detail since it did not have the letter in question and no representative from the Faroes was present. However, it recalled that northern bottlenose whales frequently strand in certain bays in the Faroes and that such animals are utilised if possible.

Several countries expressed concern that arrangements allowing bycaught animals to be killed and to be landed and sold (e.g. new legislation in Japan), could provide an incentive for killing to occur rather than for attempts to be made to free trapped animals. One country believed there should be a clear distinction between an accidental bycatch and the deliberate killing of whales trapped in fishing gear. Attention was drawn to Resolution 2001-4³⁵ whose purpose was to ensure that those responsible for bycatch should not benefit from it.

Other countries considered that non-deliberate killing, such as bycatches do not constitute an infraction and are thus outside the terms of reference of the Sub-committee. Rather they are an inevitable occurrence in normal fishing operations. These countries considered that what happens to a bycaught animal after its death is the responsibility of national governments - some preferred not to waste the animal whereas others prohibited its use.

The Sub-committee Chair had noted that the issue of whether bycatch comprise infractions had been fully discussed last year and the exchange of views recorded³⁶.

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

17.1.3 Checklist of information required or requested under section VI of the Schedule
The following information was provided:

Denmark: Information on date, position, species, length, sex, whether a female is lactating and whether a foetus is present is collected for between 76-100% of the catch, depending on the item. Information on killing methods and struck and lost animals is also collected.

USA: Information on date, species, position, length, sex, killing method and numbers struck and lost is collected for between 90-100% of the catch depending on the item. Other biological information is recorded for about 63% of animals.

Russian Federation: Information provided to the Scientific Committee shows that information on date, species, position, length, sex, whether lactating and hunting methods are collected.

Norway: the required information has been submitted to the Secretariat as noted in the Scientific Committee report.

17.1.4 Submission of national laws and regulations
A summary of national legislation supplied to the Commission was prepared by the Secretariat. One country observed that the table contained no entry from St. Vincent and the Grenadines since 1986 and noted that at last year's meetings of the Infractions Sub-committee and the Commission, St. Vincent and the Grenadines had assured the sub-committee that they would be enacting new legislation. It hoped that St. Vincent and the Grenadines would not undertake whaling operations until the legislation is in place.

17.1.5 Other matters
The Secretariat had received no reports from Contracting Governments and no comments were made during the meeting.

17.2 Commission discussions and action arising
The UK congratulated the new Sub-committee Chair Sung Kwon Soh for his summary and for his handling of the Sub-committee meeting. It expressed its continued concern regarding the issue of bycatch. While in general it does not consider bycatch an infraction, this is not the case for the indiscriminate killing of animals caught in nets. The UK believed that the ability to commercialise bycatch might act as an incentive not to take measures to limit it. It agreed that utilisation of whales found dead in nets is sensible, but questioned whether such animals should be sold. Australia referred to the recent Japanese legislation allowing the deliberate killing of whales caught in nets and believed these should be counted as infractions. It was also of the view that IWC had competency over killer whales since Schedule paragraph 10(d) regarding the moratorium on the use of factory ships specifically mentions killer whales. Given paragraph 10(d), Australia considered that paragraph 10(e) also applied. Germany agreed with the UK and Australia.

Norway repeated its remark made in the Sub-committee, i.e. that it held opposite views to the UK, Australia and Germany regarding bycatch and infractions. Iceland and the Republic of Korea made similar comments. The Republic of Korea considered that some level of bycatch is inevitable, mentioned that it has a mandatory reporting system and that this information is reported to the Scientific Committee. Denmark again noted that it considers the management of small cetaceans to be outside the competence of IWC.

Japan stressed that under the Convention and the Schedule, it is not required to identify bycaught animals as infractions. It did not consider the deliberate killing of bycaught animals to be an infraction. Australia did not doubt that the killing of bycaught animals is legal in Japan but believed it to be an infraction under IWC rules. As it did in the Sub-committee, Japan noted that if commercial utilisation is to be discussed, the sale of items at Auckland international airport in New Zealand made by Maori tribes from whale bones and teeth should also be considered in this context. It welcomed the utilisation of whales in this way. In response, New Zealand reported that under its 1978 Marine Mammal Protection Act, the sale of such items is illegal and that action had been taken against the shop in question. It further noted however, that trading of products made from whale bone prior to 1978 is entirely legal and that under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, a number of Maori tribes have entered into protocol arrangements with the Department of Conservation for the use of whale bone for their own cultural purposes.

Austria commented that Table 1 of the Sub-committee's report regarding details of national legislation provided to IWC needed to be updated.

The UK thanked Denmark/Faroe Islands for the information they had now provided bilaterally on the killing of six bottlenose whales as referred to in the Sub-committee.

The Commission took note of and adopted the Sub-committee's report.

³³ St. Vincent and The Grenadines submitted its infractions report after the Sub-committee met. No infractions were reported.
³⁴ This general issue had also been discussed last year (Ann.Rep.Int. Whaling Comm. 2002: 91).
³⁵ Ann.Rep.Int. Whaling Comm. 2001:55-56.
³⁶ Ann.Rep.Int. Whaling Comm. 2002: 92.

_