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

The Commission noted the comments and endorsed the recommendations made as follows:

10.1 Infractions reports from contracting governments
(1)The Infractions sub-committee reviewed the Infractions Reports available and found that the catch limits for the western North Pacific stock of Bryde's whales was exceeded by nine whales. It also discussed the nature of the Philippine whaling operation.

The excess catch had occurred because of a failure to conclude an allocation agreement between the Governments of the Philippines and Japan. The actions taken by the two governments and the Secretariat in this matter were reviewed and the sub-committee noted the obligation of Contracting Governments to conclude effective arrangements for the sharing of catch limits.

With respect to the operational problems, there was some concern that the vessel involved might be able to operate independently of a land station, and it was also unclear if the flensing barge is permanently moored to the shore. The Philippine representative gave his assurance that the barge is permanently moored. The sub-committee made three recommendations:

(i) The International Observer be requested to provide to the Secretariat information on inter alia, the type of harpoon used to kill Bryde's whales from Faith I and on the number of whales brought to the flensing barge each day.
(ii) That all information required by the Schedule and infractions reports for the 1983 and 1984 seasons be submitted to the Secretariat by the Government of the Philippines.
(iii) That the Secretariat advise the Government of the Philippines on the preparation and submission of catch statistics and associated biological data for submission to the next meeting of the Scientific Committee.

(2) The sub-committee noted that no infractions report had been received from Chile for the 1983 season but did not have official information as to whether any whaling operations were conducted by Chile in 1983. The sub-committee agreed that if whaling operations had been conducted by Chile then an infractions report would be required.

As Chile had no new informationn to offer on whether any whaling had been conducted in 1983, the Technical Committee recommended that the substance of a note prepared by the Delegation of Seychelles should be forwarded to the Government of Chile for clarification on the questions raised therein.

(3) No infractions were reported in the 1983/84 season in the Antarctic.

(4) The sub-committee noted with concern that the catch of humpback whales in Greenland had once again exceeded the catch limit, this time by four whales. This was regarded as particularly disturbing in the light of the statement by the Scientific Committee that these animals are members of a small, separate feeding aggregation.

The representative of Denmark offered an explanation as to how this problem arose, and the steps under consideration to solve the problem.

(5) Peru had announced it would start whaling in October 1983 and intended to take the remainder of the catch left from the catch permitted in the previous season.

Peru explained that the early start had been decided because of the possibility of a second peak in the El Nino phenomenon and that it believed that taking the remainder from previous seasons was normal practice.

The sub-committee noted that procedures do exist for altering the Schedule between meetings by means of a postal vote, provided sufficient notice is given. They also noted that the taking of remainders is not permitted except when explicitly authorised in the Schedule. Peru commented on the lack of flexibility of the Schedule when dealing with climatological situations such as this.

In view of the clear wording of the Schedule, the sub-committee agreed that both of the actions by Peru constituted infractions.

The sub-committee requested that the Secretariat provides extracts from previous infractions reports to the Government of Peru in order to ensure they are fully informed of earlier discussions in the Infractions sub-committee on the setting of whaling seasons and the taking of remainders.

10.2 Reports from International Observers
The sub-committee reviewed the summaries of Observers' Reports for North Pacific land stations, North Atlantic land stations and Southern Hemisphere pelagic operations.

One of the International Observers commented upon the difficulty he experienced in applying the definition for lactating whales. This problem is pertinent to the sub-committee only in that some member governments use information on lactating whales to enforce the provision of the Schedule which protects females accompanied by calves.

The sub-committee suggested that the Scientific Committee be invited to consider the definition for lactating whales but under the circumstances did not feel that this item merited a high priority.

10.3 Other matters
1. Surveillance of whaling operations
The sub-committee noted with concern that there was no information on the extent of surveillance of whaling operations in the Philippines.

It urged that this information be submitted, and requested the Secretary to pursue the matter.

The sub-committee noted the suggestion that there were difficulties in calculating a simple index to describe the extent of surveillance in 'small type' whaling operations. Governments are invited to consider how they would wish to present such information.

2. Check list of information required or requested
The sub-committee reviewed the summary of information received by the Secretariat.

3. Percentage of catches taken for local consumption
In examining the data available, the sub-committee observed that a given whale could be classified differently depending on whether it was measured in feet or metres. The sub-committee noted that the Schedule requires that the classification is based on measurements in feet.

4. Review of progress on recommendations of 1983
(1) The sub-committee repeats its earlier recommendations for the Technical Committee to urge the Government of Chile to submit infractions reports for 1980, 1981 and 1982.

(2) In reviewing the question of lost whales in aboriginal subsistence fisheries, the sub-committee noted that with respect to both capture and treatment, the situation appears to be the same for commercial and aboriginal subsistence whaling operations (except in the case of bowhead whales re catch limits and minke whales re utilisation, where there would be no infraction).

(3) It was concluded that the sei whale is an irregular straggler in West Greenland waters (occasional confirmed reports over the period 1924-1957).

(4) In response to discussions in the sub-committee last year, Peru has provided the Secretariat and BIWS with validated catch records for 1981 and 1981/82.

(5) Three humpback whales were reported taken in 1982 and there was an unconfirmed report of four taken in 1983.

St. Vincent had an unofficial report of three whales taken in the latter season, but pointed out that no infrastructure was available for reporting catches. It is trying to discourage the whaling activity which takes place in a remote island.

Japan pointed out that this catch of humpback whales is not illegal domestically and proposed a recommendation that in view of these catches the Government of St. Vincent and the Grenadines should be requested to make enquiries and, if the reports are substantiated, to make appropriate reports at the next Annual Meeting.

St. Vincent accepted this recommendation.

Japan, seconded by the UK, put forward a further recommendation that the Government of St. Vincent and the Grenadines should institute the necessary laws and regulations to ensure the implementation of the decisions of the IWC.

(6) Last year the sub-committee noted that in both 1981 and 1982, three fin whales from the West Norway-Faroe Islands stock, which has a zero catch limit, were taken under a special permit issued by the Faroese Home Rule Authority. The Commission had urged Denmark to conclude discussions with the Authority as soon as possible so that this issue can be resolved.

The representative from Denmark reported that this situation had been clarified within Denmark and that the competence to issue scientific permits was vested in the Faroese Home Rule Authority. Denmark, as the national member of the IWC, had the responsibility of fulfilling the obligations with respect to the issuance of any such permits by the Faroese Home Rule Authority.

The sub-committee noted that such a permit had been submitted to the Scientific Committee for consideration in 1981 in accordance with paragraph 30 of the Schedule. The permit was issued although the Scientific Committee had not endorsed that part of the permit which proposed a take of up to nine fin whales, commenting that biological samples from that number of whales would not add greatly to current knowledge. The sub-committee noted that the issuance of the permit did not constitute an infraction. However, some members felt that this matter should be referred to the Technical Committee for consideration as to whether this practice constitutes an inappropriate use of the scientific permit provisions of the Schedule.

The Netherlands sought clarification of the Danish Government's attitude in this situation and Denmark reiterated the allocation of formal responsibilities and indicated that, following the preliminary report submitted as a progress report to the Scientific Committee, a full report and analysis of all data collected would be made available. Seychelles emphasised the Convention requirements in this matter.

(7) Peru provided information concerning the production of whale meat and other products.

(8) Japan and the Philippines have reached agreement on an Observer Scheme and an observer for the Philippine land station was appointed under the International Observer Scheme on 16 May 1984 for the 1984 season.

(9) The sub-committee reviewed the most recent laws and regulations submitted under paragraph 3 of the Schedule. The sub-committee repeated its recommendation of last year that governments be urged to provide this information.

(10) The sub-committee noted that the traditional practice for nominating membership of the Infractions sub-committee has been exercised by the Chairman of the Technical Committee, although this procedure has in no way restricted participation in the work of the sub-committee by any member government. The Chairman of the Technical Committee explained that it has been his practice to select a core group of members to balance whaling and non-whaling members, regional groupings and to ensure some rotation of membership.

The sub-committee thought it appropriate to review these procedures. They noted that circumstances had changed since these practices originally evolved in that the sub-committee now meets in the week prior to the main meeting of the Technical Committee.

The Infractions Sub-Committee noted that at present the Secretariat:

(1) informs relevant Member Governments of the requests and recommendations of this sub-committee adopted by the Technical Committee and the Commission;

(2) writes to relevant Member Governments requesting the information required for this sub-committee to fulfil its functions.

The sub-committee endorsed this procedure. The Secretariat also agreed to circulate a Provisional Agenda to the Commission in advance of the sub-committee meeting. This will enable Member Governments to notify the Secretariat of any additional proposed items for discussion. The Secretariat can then inform relevant Member Governments and request that they attend the sub-committee and provide it with the information necessary to facilitate its work.

_