(from "Chairman's Report of the Thirty-Fifth Annual Meeting")

The Governments of Denmark and the USA provided detailed documentation prepared in consultation with the indigenous peoples concerned, which gave a valuable insight into the complexity of inter-related factors that must be considered. The USSR agreed to make its best efforts to provide equivalent documented information for the next meeting relating to gray whales taken by its indigenous population.

The sub-committee reported the Danish belief that maintaining a catch limit of 10 humpback whales would be appropriate in meeting the needs of Greenlanders; while the USA delegation presented documentation which showed, in its view, that the Alaskan Eskimos' need would be met by 26 landed bowhead whales per year, which could be satisfied by 35 strikes.

The sub-committee agreed that it should examine the methods used for estimating need with a view to refining the methods and providing guidance on the acceptable form of presentations to be made in the future. A procedure has been initiated to this end. Attention was also drawn to small scale coastal operations with similar characteristics to those which are currently referred to in Schedule paragraph 13.

It also recommended changes to its terms of reference as follows (new wording in bold):

'to consider relevant information and documentation on nutritional, subsistence and cultural needs relating to aboriginal subsistence whaling and the uses of whales taken for such purposes, and to provide advice on the dependence of aboriginal communities on specific whale stocks to the Technical Committee for its consideration and determination of appropriate management measures.'

This was endorsed by the Technical Committee and approved by the Commission. It was noted that whaling at Bequia was not reviewed and the work of the sub-committee had resulted in a fruitful exchange of views leading to more definitive advice.

The Netherlands, Mexico and Oman emphasised the request for documentation from the USSR and mentioned their concern over the question of the utilisation since very little information has been received, although catches now are greater than they were in the 1940s. The USSR commented that it is a large task to accumulate the necessary data, as was amply demonstrated in the Danish and USA documents. There are 7 - 9 dispersed settlements along the coast at which gray whales are landed, and in fact the people prefer bowheads although these are now prohibited from capture since 1975 and are substituted by gray whales. This has affected the assessment of the need and dependence of the people on the gray whales. It is also attempting to increase the output of products for human consumption from the carcasses.

14.2 Report of the Scientific Committee
The Scientific Committee found that consideration of the minimum level required for Schedule paragraph 13 cannot be adequately addressed given the present state of knowledge. Questions of genetic diversity and past population levels cannot be answered currently.

A concept useful in principle was agreed for giving advice on rates of increase where values of the necessary biological parameters are available. The Technical Committee endorsed and the Commission accepted the research recommendations in the following sections and noted stock classification and catch limit recommendations for consideration under the item Action Arising.

14.2.1 Bowhead whales: Bering - Chukchi - Beaufort Sea
The Scientific Committee noted the continuing high struck and lost rate. The problem of estimating natural mortality using the inter-specific relationship with length, the interpretation of total mortality rates and the estimate of juvenile mortality rate require a thorough review.

Current stock size estimates from ice camp census with a new method of analysis to correct biases led to a best estimate of 3,871. The Scientific Committee strongly recommended that aerial surveys should be implemented as a matter of urgency to obtain information on whales that may be missed by observers particularly beyond 4,000 metres.

Estimates of initial population size by modelling range from 14,000 to 20,000, with more likely values towards the upper end of that range.

There is no evidence of a western Chukchi Sea substock. The Scientific Committee was unable to advise on minimum stock level but, since the stock is now between 19% and 28% of its initial size, recommends that it continues to be classified as a Protection Stock. It also recommended extreme caution in setting catch limits which should be for one year only; the number of struck animals for 1984 should be less than 22 with any removals restricted to sexually immature animals of either sex (less than 13 metres) to maximise population growth.

The Scientific Committee also recommended that research be continued to define migration routes and critical habitats precisely; and the effects of offshore oil and gas activities in the Bering, Chukchi and Beaufort Seas especially be investigated.

14.2.2 Humpback whales: western North Atlantic
A suggestion that two stocks exist in the North Atlantic will be reviewed at the next meeting.

Tail fluke photographs have identified some 2,500 whales and indicate no inter-mixing on the feeding areas although individuals may occur in any breeding area. Separate feeding aggregations off West Greenland and in at least three other feeding areas seem to occur, and whales removed from one may not be replaced from the stock as a whole, with consequent implications for management.

The Greenland catch in 1982 was 12 which together with the catch from Bequia and an incidental kill of 4 off Newfoundland gave a total removal of 21 compared with 23 in 1981.

Estimates of population size using photo-identification data give a best estimate of 5,773 which is larger than the estimate of initial population size of 4,700 (known to be undoubtedly conservative). Given the uncertainties in current and initial stock sizes most members of the Scientific Committee believed that the stock should be unclassified or remain PS with a zero catch limit, and no catch should be permitted.

It was recommended that photo-identification of animals off Bequia be undertaken, and St Vincent indicated that it would be happy to cooperate given financial assistance. Antigua stated that evidence of vocalisations indicated a single stock in the North Atlantic and commented that sightings off Bermuda are fewer than in earlier years. It was requested to submit this evidence to the Scientific Committee.

14.2.3 Gray whales: Eastern Pacific
No assessment was carried out this year by the Scientific Committee.

14.2.4 Minke whales: West Greenland
Estimates of CPUE over the period 1974 - 1982 do not give sufficient evidence to make a definite classification. Catches should be reduced and the Scientific Committee recommended that the total catch in the remaining two years 1984 - 85 of the current block quota should not exceed 588.

14.2.5 Fin whales: West Greenland
The reported catch in 1982 was of 6 confirmed and 2 probable animals (originally reported as sei whales). Sightings suggest the stock can be measured in hundreds at least. There is no scientific basis for classification or catch limit but the Scientific Committee recommended a catch limit no greater than 6 as set last year.

14.3 Action arising
14.3.1 Bowhead whales: Bering - Chukchi - Beaufort Sea
The USA identified this as an important issue both for Alaskan Eskimos and the Commission, since what is done now will set the course for future action under the aboriginal subsistence management scheme. This includes consideration of the cultural and subsistence needs, as well as the stock status. It believes that the Alaskan aboriginal needs would be satisfied by 26 landed whales and that such a limit is within the proposal of the protected species sub-committee, which was subsequently reduced by the full Scientific Committee. Since what is decided this year will be reviewed in the following years in the light of new information as it becomes available, it felt justified in proposing a catch limit at this level which could be achieved with 35 strikes in 1984. This proposal was seconded by Denmark which recognised the vital importance of the issue to the Inuit. Mexico congratulated the USA on its research efforts but believes that all non-commercial whaling on protected stocks should end too. It noted that the Scientific Committee recommended extreme caution since this involved the possible survival of the stock.

The Netherlands also congratulated the USA on its documentation and research undertaken, which allows for better evaluation of the matter by the IWC now. It also congratulated the Eskimo people in keeping to the earlier quotas. Its general policy is to follow Scientific Committee advice but it recognises the special aboriginal needs. It reviewed the Scientific Committee evidence on stock levels and any trends and concluded that the stock may now be less than before due to the recent removals, which have been greater than those earlier this century, averaging 22 removals per year. It proposed the following amendment to Schedule paragraph 13(b)(2)(i):

For the years 1984 through 1986 inclusive the total number of whales struck shall not exceed 42 provided, however, that in any one year the number of whales landed shall not exceed 10.

This was seconded by the Federal Republic of Germany. The UK spoke of its broad support for this proposal as did the Seychelles. The latter mentioned the inadequacies of the aboriginal subsistence management scheme and the scientific uncertainties but emphasised that aboriginal needs must not be allowed to exceed the capacity of the stocks and ultimately harm the indigenous people themselves.

New Zealand spoke of its difficulty with the United States' proposal to increase significantly this quota, although it recognised the different considerations applying to isolated aboriginal communities. It cited, however, the example of Tonga, which had abandoned whaling. It also voiced concern at the relatively inefficient and inhumane killing methods employed. Norway referred to the Scientific Committee recommendation for a catch limit for one year only, and Oman while recognising aboriginal need does not support the killing of the bowhead whale. The amendment was then adopted by a majority vote in the Technical Committee.

The Seychelles and the UK asked that removals should be restricted to sexually immature animals less than 13 metres in length, as recommended by the Scientific Committee, and the USA confirmed that its cooperative agreement with the Alaskan Eskimo Whaling Commission does contain size limits.

In the Plenary session the Federal Republic of Germany, seconded by the UK, proposed an amendment to try and meet to a large extent the needs of the Inuit and to encourage efficiency in the hunt, whilst heeding the advice of the Scientific Committee:

For the years 1984 through 1986 inclusive, the total number of whales struck shall not exceed 63 provided, however, that in any one year the number of whales struck shall not exceed 23.

The People's Republic of China recognised the nutritional and cultural requirements, but stressed that any quota must guarantee the conservation and recovery of the stock, and called for improvement in the killing methods.

The USA re-emphasised that aboriginal needs must be considered separately and differently from commercial interests. The Eskimos have played a responsible role in the aboriginal management scheme, and the Executive Director of the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission spoke of her people's sacrifices and their perception of the present situation. The USA indicated that both the Technical Committee proposal and the amendment were inadequate to meet the Eskimo need.

The amendment was then put to the vote, receiving 17 votes in favour, 10 against, with 7 abstentions. Since this failed to receive a three-quarters majority the Technical Committee recommendation was voted on, and received 8 votes in favour, 10 against and 16 abstentions.

Following a recess for private discussions, the USA proposed a one-year limit for 1984 of 30 struck or 22 landed, whichever comes first, which was seconded by Denmark. This failed with 8 votes for, 15 against and 11 abstentions.

Australia then proposed a 1984 limit of 18 struck, in an attempt to achieve a balance between the aboriginal needs and the rare or endangered status of the species. This was seconded by St Lucia and Belize, but failed to gain a three-quarters majority, with 16 votes in favour, 10 against and 8 abstentions.

As an attempt for a more acceptable compromise, the UK then proposed a 1984 limit of 21 struck, which was seconded by the Federal Republic of Germany, but this again failed to receive a three-quarters majority, with 18 votes for, 10 against and 6 abstentions.

Following further adjournments for discussions between delegations and Commissioners, the following proposal was put to the meeting and adopted by consensus:

For the years 1984 and 1985, the total number of whales struck shall not exceed 45 provided that in either year the number of whales struck shall not exceed 27.

*At the end of the first year this figure will be reviewed and, if necessary, amended on the basis of the advice of the Scientific Committee.

14.3.2 Gray whales: Eastern Pacific
Mexico reiterated that this entire stock winters in Baja California waters. Although the stock has recovered Mexico is disturbed by the large Soviet take without documentation of aboriginal or subsistence need.

Oman asked the USSR to accept an international observer in this fishery.

The Technical Committee and the Commission agreed to continue the present classification of SMS and catch limit of 179 available to be taken by aboriginals or a Contracting Government on their behalf pursuant to paragraph 13(b)(3) of the Schedule.

14.3.3 Humpback whales: Western North Atlantic
Denmark considered that maintaining the present quota of 10 humpbacks was appropriate for meeting the needs of the Greenlanders. It noted that the stock estimate had been revised upwards, and though there is a problem of feeding aggregations, there is no satisfactory scientific evidence to justify a change in its view. It is ready to review the position later as necessary.

The Seychelles found the scientific advice unsatisfactory and proposed a minority recommendation from the Scientific Committee of 4, which was seconded by Antigua, and adopted by a majority vote in the Technical Committee.

In the Commission, Denmark proposed an amendment for a 10% decrease on the present catch limit, that is 9, which was seconded by the UK, the USA and France. The Seychelles indicated that it could accept this figure, which was then adopted by consensus.

St Vincent recognised the decline in humpback whales in its area and stated that it is exploring the possibility of converting its whaling activity to other fisheries.

14.3.4 Other stocks
Minke whales: West Greenland
Denmark proposed, and Seychelles seconded, a catch limit in line with the Scientific Committee recommendation that the total catch of minke whales shall not exceed 588 in the two years 1984 and 1985 with a maximum catch of 300 in any one year. This will allow for some variation in catch over the two years and the Technical Committee and the Commission agreed to this by consensus.

Fin whales: West Greenland
Denmark proposed, seconded by Norway, a continuation of the existing catch limit of 6 which was also agreed by consensus.

14.4 Proposal for the suspension of non-commercial whaling on protected species
Mexico introduced a proposal calling upon members to consider the need for establishing zero catch limits on non-commercial whaling for protected species and stocks. This was seconded by St Lucia, the Seychelles and Belize.

After considerable discussion of the procedural aspects, the substance of the proposal and its precise drafting, the proposal was put to the vote but failed to receive a majority, with 11 votes in favour, 11 against and 12 abstentions.

_