(from "Chair's Report of the 55th Annual Meeting")

7.1 Aboriginal subsistence whaling procedure
7.1.1 Report of the Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling Sub-committee
The Sub-committee noted that the Scientific Committee's progress on developing a strike limit algorithm (SLA) for gray whales was slower than expected, but that with the intersessional workshop planned for early 2004, the Committee hoped to complete its work at next year's meeting.

The Sub-committee also noted that there had been considerable discussion of the Greenland Research Programme during the Scientific Committee meeting and that the Committee had: (1) emphasised the urgent need for information on stock structure and abundance and (2) made strong recommendations on the need to: (a) collect genetic and other biological material from the catch, and if possible from neighbouring waters; (b) continue focussed telemetry studies; and (c) undertake an aerial survey this summer (2003) in West Greenland.

The Scientific Committee had also requested logistical and financial support from relevant governments and authorities.

In the Sub-committee, most of the discussion centred on the financial support mechanisms to enable the research to take place. After an exchange of views, it endorsed the recommendations of the Scientific Committee.

7.1.2 Commission discussions and action arising
The Commission noted this part of the report and endorsed its recommendations.

7.2 Aboriginal subsistence whaling scheme (AWS)
7.2.1 Report of the Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling Sub-committee
Last year, the Scientific Committee had recommended a number of scientific aspects of an eventual AWS¹⁰ and it repeated these this year. During the Sub-committee meeting there was a brief discussion of a 'grace period' (i.e. a mechanism to deal with a hypothetical situation of no abundance estimate being made available within the specified time-frame) but it made no recommendations under this item.

7.2.2 Commission discussions and action arising
The Commission noted this part of the report.

7.3 Aboriginal subsistence whaling catch limits
7.3.1 Report of the Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling Sub-committee
7.3.1.1 BERING-CHUKCHI-BEAUFORT SEAS STOCK OF BOWHEAD WHALES
The Scientific Committee had noted that the adoption of the Bowhead SLA last year has implications for the focus of its indepth assessment of this stock in 2004. It agreed that the primary focus of the in-depth assessment should be: (a) the data required for the Bowhead SLA; and (b) examining whether the present situation is within the tested parameter space for that SLA. The latter effort will include consideration of such issues as stock identity and biological parameters. Previous assessment models can be used to investigate this, but it will not be necessary to determine the 'best' model or to calculate management-related quantities (in the time-consuming manner of previous assessments) as the Bowhead SLA will be used to provide management advice.

It had received a new population estimate for 2001 of around 10,000 whales and a rate of increase of 3.4% for the period 1978-2001. The Scientific Committee agreed that there was no reason to change its previous management advice.

The Sub-committee noted the Scientific Committee's report.

7.3.1.2 NORTH PACIFIC EASTERN STOCK OF GRAY WHALES
The Scientific Committee had reported on recent revised abundance estimates and noted that these will be considered in the AWMP (Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling Management Procedure) trial structure. The Scientific Committee agreed that there was no reason to change its previous management advice.

The Sub-committee noted the Scientific Committee's report.

7.3.1.3 MINKE AND FIN WHALE STOCKS OFF WEST GREENLAND
The Scientific Committee had again noted its great concern that it was unable to provide satisfactory management advice for these stocks, particularly given the long periods since the last abundance estimates. It again called for very high priority to be given to obtaining adequate information for management. Without this, the Scientific 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. It strongly recommended that an abundance survey be carried out this year if possible.

In the Sub-committee, several delegations noted that they shared the Scientific Committee's concern. Denmark indicated that they consider the issue extremely important and reported that they were diverting both manpower and financial assistance, both domestically and in co-operation with IWC, to address the scientific shortcomings. Ways to improve the situation were discussed although no recommendations were made.

7.3.1.4 NORTH ATLANTIC HUMPBACK WHALES OFF ST. VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES
The Scientific Committee had agreed that it was most plausible that the animals off St. Vincent and The Grenadines are part of the West Indies breeding population (over 10,000 animals in 1992/3) although it acknowledged that further data to confirm this are desirable. It repeated its previous recommendations that every effort be made to obtain photographs and genetic samples from animals taken. In this regard, the Scientific Committee had particularly welcomed news that for the first time, genetic analyses of three samples from the hunt (1 in 2001, 2 in 2002) are being undertaken in a collaborative study. It looked forward to receiving the final report at next year's meeting.

The Sub-committee noted the Scientific Committee's report.

7.3.2 Commission discussions and action arising
The Commission noted the Sub-committee's report and endorsed its recommendations. Discussions on specific stocks are summarised in the following sections.

7.3.2.1 BERING-CHUKCHI-BEAUFORT SEAS STOCK OF BOWHEAD WHALES
Japan commented that it considers that there is no scientific consistency between the SLA and the RMP CLA (Catch Limit Algorithm). In its view, the CLA is too conservative compared with the SLA. Japan noted that no catch limits would be set for this stock under the RMP and called for consistency in methods for both commercial and aboriginal subsistence whaling. Norway agreed.

In response to these comments, the Scientific Committee Chair drew attention to Item 5.8 of the Committee's report regarding a comparison of the RMP and AWMP. He noted that at its meeting last year, the Committee had reported that

...a strict comparison of the Bowhead SLA with the CLA is not possible for a number of reasons, particularly with respect to: (1) the different objectives for each, notably the difference between management aimed at producing the highest possible continuing yield and management aimed at satisfying a limited need requirement in perpetuity; and (2) the case-specific nature of the Bowhead SLA that was tailored to manage a data-rich population as opposed to the generic CLA, that has to be able to cope with a variety of situations'

Norway noted that another aspect to take into account in comparisons between aboriginal subsistence and commercial whaling is the scientific information necessary to estimate abundance and to discuss stock structure. Noting the in-depth assessment for the B-C-B bowhead stock planned for 2004, Norway considered that from a scientific point of view, the same criteria as those used for 'commercially-interesting' stocks such as the western North Pacific stock of minke whales should apply.

The USA referred to the revision to Schedule paragraph 13(b)(1), adopted at the 5^th Special Meeting of the Commission in Cambridge in October 2002, that renewed the catch limits for the aboriginal take of bowheads from this stock. It reported that, as suggested by the Chair in Cambridge, there had been consultations regarding clarification of the wording of subparagraph (iv) but that no conclusion had been reached. The USA therefore wished to place on record that it interprets subparagraph (iv) to reaffirm the responsibility of the Commission to review and revise if necessary, the bowhead catch limits following the Scientific Committee's in-depth assessment for 2004. In doing so, the USA considered that the Commission shall be guided by the results of the 2004 assessment.

7.3.2.2 NORTH PACIFIC EASTERN STOCK OF GRAY WHALES
There were no comments on this stock.

7.3.2.3 MINKE AND FIN WHALE STOCKS OFF WEST GREENLAND
Australia noted the Scientific Committee's and the Sub-committee's concerns regarding Greenland's aboriginal subsistence whaling. It also noted its own concerns regarding the Greenland research programme, the possible market element (see Section 5.2 of Sub-committee report), stock estimates and the inability of the Scientific Committee to provide management advice, and the female bias in takes. In view of these concerns it was uneasy about Greenland's aboriginal subsistence whaling and encouraged Denmark to provide information to next year's meeting that might settle this unease.

7.3.2.4 NORTH ATLANTIC HUMPBACK WHALES OFF ST. VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES
The UK indicated its disappointment that St. Vincent and The Grenadines had been unable to attend the meeting of the Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling Sub-committee and requested information on the status of the regulations promised by St. Vincent and The Grenadines last year. In response, St. Vincent and The Grenadines reported that the regulations had been passed in Cabinet on 13 June 2003 and that a copy had been provided to the Secretariat. It noted that the regulations were consistent with the draft made available at IWC/54 last year. The USA complimented St. Vincent and The Grenadines for completing this task.

7.4 The Russian Federation proposed Schedule amendment
7.4.1 Report of the Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling Sub-committee
The Sub-committee had reviewed a proposal from the Russian Federation to amend Schedule paragraph 13 concerning aboriginal subsistence whaling by the addition of a new sub-paragraph (c) as follows:

'13.(c). Notwithstanding any other provision of the Schedule, the meat and products of whales taken by the aborigines are not to be sold or offered for sale, with the exception of blood, plasma, endocrine glands used for biomedical purposes or authentic native articles of handicrafts, including clothing, made wholly or in some respect of whale products.'

During the discussions, the Russian Federation had pointed out an anomaly in the way that the Chukotka peoples are treated compared with other aboriginal groups. It referred specifically to Schedule paragraph 13(b)(2) that states

'The taking of gray whales from the Eastern stock in the North Pacific is permitted, but only by aborigines or a Contracting Government on behalf of aborigines, and then only when the meat and products of such whales are to be used exclusively for local consumption by the aborigines whose traditional aboriginal subsistence and cultural needs have been recognised.'

The Russian Federation proposed to remedy this inequity by deleting the words 'whose traditional aboriginal subsistence and cultural needs have been recognised'. This phrase is not applied to any of the other aboriginal hunts and the Russian Federation suggested that such conditions prevent the important practice of cultural exchange of goods among indigenous peoples. It wished to achieve consistency among all indigenous groups with aboriginal subsistence whaling operations.

While there was some sympathy among the Sub-committee regarding the objectives of the Russian Federation, it was unable to make any recommendations to the Commission. The Sub-committee Chair noted that the new Schedule amendment proposed by the Russian Federation during discussions should be formally submitted to the Commission.

7.4.2 Commission discussions and action arising
In the Commission, the Russian Federation withdrew its proposal to add a new Schedule paragraph 13(c), indicating that it would continue to work intersessionally on this issue with other Contracting Governments.

Commission discussions therefore focussed on the Russian Federation proposal to amend 13(b)(2) of the Schedule as follows:

Replace sub-paragraph 13 (b) (2) of the Schedule to read as follows:

'(2) The taking of gray whales from the Eastern stock in the North Pacific is permitted, but only by aborigines or a Contracting Government on behalf of aborigines, and then only when the meat and products of such whales are to be used exclusively for local consumption by the aborigines whose traditional aboriginal subsistence and cultural needs have been recognised.

(i)

For the years 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007, the number of gray whales taken in accordance with this subparagraph shall not exceed 620, provided that the number of gray whales taken in any one of the years 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, or 2007 shall not exceed 140.

(ii)

It is forbidden to strike, take or kill calves or any gray whale accompanied by a calf.

(iii)

This provision shall be reviewed annually by the Commission in light of the advice of the Scientific Committee.'

The Russian Federation urged adoption by consensus.

Although some countries supported the proposed amendment, others, while again expressing sympathy with the objective to treat all aboriginal peoples equally, believed that more time was needed to adequately address this issue. After further discussion, the Commission agreed that a small group should work intersessionally by email to review the whole of Schedule paragraph 13 to determine how consistency in approach could be achieved and to propose a Schedule amendment for review and decision-making at IWC/56 next year. It was agreed that the small group should comprise the Russian Federation, Denmark, Australia and the USA, working with the Secretariat.

7.5 Other
In the Commission, the UK referred to discussions at last year's meeting regarding packages of whale meat bought on the Japanese market labelled as coming from Greenland and the Russian Federation¹¹. It recalled that the governments of Denmark, the Russian Federation and Japan had agreed to investigate the matter and that Japan had requested samples of the products involved for DNA analysis. The UK noted that the samples had been divided in two, with Japan analysing one set, with the other being stored at the USA's embassy in Tokyo pending issuance of CITES export permits by Japan to enable the second set to be analysed in the USA. It understood that Japan's analyses had revealed that the product labelled as coming from Greenland was in fact minke whale from the Antarctic and that the product labelled as coming from the Russian Federation was Dall's porpoise. The UK requested information from Japan regarding progress in issuing CITES export permits for the second set of samples. Japan responded that since it had analysed one set of samples it did not see any reason to export the second set and indicated that it had no intention of issuing CITES permits. The UK did not doubt Japan's report on the analyses of the samples, but believed that an understanding had been reached that corroborative analysis would be performed. Understanding that it may be difficult for Japan to issue CITES export permits, the UK indicated that it would try to arrange for corroborative analysis to be done in Japan.

Norway and the Russian Federation noted that they believed trade issues to be outside the competence of IWC. The Russian Federation indicated that it was completely satisfied with Japan's report. The UK did not agree with this view on competency, believing such issues to be crucial with respect to the value of any RMS.

¹⁰ Ann. Rep. Int. Whaling Comm. 2002: 74-5
¹¹ Ann. Rep. Int. Whaling Comm. 2002: 22-3

_