(from "Chairman's Report of the Thirty-Seventh Annual Meeting")
13.2 Report of Technical Committee Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling
Sub-Committee
The Technical Committee agreed to consider the relevant stocks in succession,
taking into account the advice of the Scientific Committee.
Professor J.D. Ovington (Australia) also presented the report of the
Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling sub-committee which he had chaired prior to the
opening of the Technical Committee, and which was attended by delegates from
Australia, Denmark, Iceland, Japan, Norway, UK, USSR and USA (and an observer
from Canada).
13.3 Action arising
13.3.1 Definition of the term 'strike'
Although the possibility of a definition had been included in the Agenda, no
proposal was forthcoming.
13.3.2 Bering Sea Stock of bowhead whales
The Scientific Committee reviewed the latest catches and noted that 25 strikes
had been made in 1984, compared with 27 remaining from the 2-year catch limit.
18 strikes had been made in the spring 1985 hunt.
The struck and lost rates were 52% in 1984 and 38% in the spring 1985 hunt.
At least 4 of the 11 whales struck and lost in spring 1984 probably died.
The Scientific Committee urged that full details of the circumstances in which struck whales are lost should be provided, including details of whether whaling gear was still attached. It welcomed the continued efforts being made to reduce the struck and lost rate.
Aerial photogrammetry in the Canadian Beaufort Sea gave calf percentages of 8 - 15% and the proportion of mature animals as 29 - 46% although segregation would have affected these results.
An updated estimate of the gross annual reproduction rate is 0.05 - 0.095. No new information is available on the mortality rate and therefore the annual net recruitment. An estimate of fishing mortality from 1978 to 1984 gave a value of 0.006.
Visual census data with revised correction factors led to new population estimates for 1978 and 1982 of 2,909 - 3,971 and 2,590 - 5,170 respectively. These figures are uncorrected for whales beyond range of the ice-based observers.
Comparison of acoustic and visual results for periods of different lead conditions in 1984 and 1985 showed that whales migrated under heavy ice conditions when visual methods are limited, and that many whales swim at distances beyond the range of reliable visual observations. An improved assessment of current population size was calculated as 4,417 (range 2,613 - 6,221). Further studies were recommended to examine the factors in these calculations.
Studies on the effect of seismic operations which may affect the whales' migration path were encouraged.
The current population estimate of 4,417 whales is 22 - 32% of the estimated initial population size of 14,000 - 20,000 derived two years ago. The Scientific Committee therefore recommended that the stock remains a Protection Stock.
The Scientific Committee was unable to determine the minimum population size below which whales should not be taken (as required in the Schedule), but noted that the current size is well above that of some southern right whale populations which may be increasing under protection. A stock trajectory simulation using a reasonable range of biological parameter values showed a minimum population size of 1,200 - 3,800 from 1910 to 1915 increasing until 1970 with an estimated average removal of 22 animals per year. In view of the uncertainties in its calculations and the absence of an estimate for net recruitment rate, the Scientific Committee did not feel confident in projecting the likely effect of catches of the current magnitude on this stock and recommended that any catch limits should be set with caution. Its previous advice that any catch should be directed towards the smaller immature whales will be explored fully next year.
The Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling sub-committee recognised, on the basis of earlier documented submissions from the USA, an Alaskan Eskimo need for bowhead whaling assessed by the USA as 35 strikes to land 26 bowheads annually. The Technical Committee and the Commission agreed to the recommendation that a small working group should examine by correspondence the methods of calculation in the United States submissions and any alternative methods.
The USA spoke of the recognition by the IWC in 1982 of the need not only to protect these whales but also to take into account the aboriginal need, which led to the specific aboriginal subsistence whaling scheme. The Alaskan Eskimos have managed their hunt within the IWC catch limits, have contracted research, and attempted to improve the efficiency of the hunt, thereby exhibiting their extreme responsibility in this matter. It therefore proposed a catch limit of 35 strikes, which was seconded by Denmark.
Finland spoke of its appreciation of the efforts made to enhance knowledge of the bowheads and the cultural needs but considered this increase too great, and proposed an amendment to retain the present 2-year catch limit of 43 strikes with 27 as a maximum in one year. This amendment was seconded by Mexico which, while recognising the efforts of the Eskimo community, took account of the Scientific Committee's recommendation for caution. Australia, the People's Republic of China, Norway, Belize, Kenya and New Zealand all explained their positions related to the scientific uncertainties and the requirement to balance human fleeds against those of a depleted whale stock.
The USA asked if the present footnote allowing the possibility of review and amendment of the catch limit after the first year would be continued, and Finland accepted this addition. On being put to the vote, the Finnish amendment was adopted as the recommendation of the Technical Committee by a majority.
This recommendation was seconded by the UK in the plenary, but Ireland, seconded by Oman proposed an amendment for a total catch limit of 50 whales for the two years 1986 and 1987, with a maximum in either year of 27, and the provision for review and possible amendment.
The USA, through its Commissioner and the Chairman of the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission (AEWC), re-emphasised the Eskimo need for 35 strikes a year and made a plea for understanding of this position, so that it would vote against the amendment. Costa Rica, the Philippines and the Peoples' Republic of China expressed their sympathy for a slightly higher number, but Mexico noted the need for caution recommended by the Scientific Committee. On being put to the vote, the amendment was defeated, with 13 votes in favour, 14 against and 10 abstentions.
After further discussions between the Commissioners, the Chairman presented the following proposal to amend Schedule paragraph 13(b)(2)(i):
For each of the years 1985, 1986 and 1987, 262 whales may be struck. However, strikes not used in one year may be transferred to the subsequent year, provided that no more than 32 whales may be struck in any one year.
2 Each year this figure will be reviewed and if necessary amended on the basis of the advice of the Scientific Committee.
This was adopted by consensus, Mexico reserving its position on the decision.
13.3.3 Eastern Pacific Stock of Gray whales
The Scientific Committee noted that the Soviet aboriginal harvest in 1984 was
169 animals killed (one lost) with a high proportion of females due to hunting
preference and segregation of the sexes.
There was no reported catch by Alaskan Eskimos in 1984, but 33 animals
entangled in nets off the Californian coast between November 1980 and June
1985, 19 of which died.
A new coastal census similar to those of earlier years gave a preliminary population estimate of 18,477, which is not significantly different from the last census in 1979/80. The Scientific Committee recommended further work on this census. New information provided by Mexico from the main breeding lagoons showed large differences in population estimates from the migration routes, and further research was recommended to clarify this situation.
An age-structure model predicted decreases in the population in recent years, unlike the results from earlier counts. his suggests that conventional modelling of a density dependent response is unable to explain the apparent increase indicated by the counts and full re-analysis of the earlier census data was recommended.
The stock has been classified SMS since 1978 on the belief that it has remained stable at about 11,000 whales over an eleven-year period, with approximately constant catches, but there has been no formal reassessment of this classification. If the population was increasing, then the SMS classification is not valid. Some members believed that there is insufficient information on which to recommend the change in classification; others that there was not sufficient information to decide whether the stock was SMS or not and therefore it should be unclassified,
The Scientific Committee recommended that the present catch limit of 179 be retained and undertook to review classification and catch limits next year.
The Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling sub-committee expects to receive a document from the USSR next year reporting on the use of whale products by the aboriginal population of the Chukot region. The current USSR catch limit meets the needs of this aboriginal population.
The Technical Committee agreed to recommend retention of the present catch limit of 179, and this was endorsed by the Commission.
13.3.4 West Greenland Stocks
Humpback whales
The total removals in 1984 were a catch of 15 off West Greenland (6 more than
the catch limit) and 6 dead in net entanglements off East Canada, giving a
total of 21, the same as in 1982 and 1983.
The Scientific Committee again recommended studies on whale flukes and songs in this area. At least four separate feeding aggregations are now accepted, and re-examination of fluke photographs gave a population estimate in the West Greenland aggregation of 276 whales.
The 3,219 whales identified by photographs up to 1984 have been re-analysed to give a population estimate of 5,561, but a second analysis gave anomalous results which may cast doubt on this estimate. There is no new information on the initial population size (previously assessed as at least 4,700), and the Scientific Committee recommended that the stock be unclassified and that no catch should be permitted from the West Greenland feeding aggregation of about 200 - 300 animals.
The Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling sub-committee was informed that Denmark would not seek any change in the annual catch limit of 8 humpback whales. It would also consider before next year a document referred from the Scientific Committee on the catching operations in the area.
In the Technical Committee, Denmark asked that the catch limits established last year should be given a chance to come into effect, including the deduction of any over-run in one year from the catch limit in the following year.
Antigua and Barbuda, seconded by St Lucia, proposed a zero catch limit as recommended by the Scientific Committee and this was endorsed by a majority vote.
Fin whales
The Scientific Committee had no evidence on which to estimate the abundance or
to classify this stock or to apply the provisions of the aboriginal whaling
scheme.
Denmark had indicated to the Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling sub-committee that there was no change in hunting practices or aboriginal subsistence need. In the Technical Committee it proposed that the present block quota should continue, and this was agreed.
Minke whales
The Scientific Committee found no need to revise the present stock boundaries.
Trends in the CPUE suggest a slow decline of 3 - 5.7% per year.
A new stock assessment was based on an analysis of the North Eastern Atlantic
minke stock to derive population parameters which were then applied to the
West Greenland stock.
This indicated a probability greater than 74% that the stock is in the
Protection Stock category, although some members expressed their doubt about
the validity of the model and its use as a basis for making recommendations.
This stock is not expected to be subject to commercial whaling by Norwegian vessels from 1986 and most members of the Scientific Committee recommended classification as a Protection Stock although, because of the uncertainties in the assessments, others thought the stock should remain unclassified. The Scientific Committee recommended that the catch limit be set for one year only at 50 whales, the lower estimate of the current replacement yield.
The Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling sub-committee heard from Denmark that 240 minke whales are needed annually to meet the aboriginal subsistence need but, due to year to year fluctuations in the hunt, it would be better to use floating catch limits.
Denmark commented in the Technical Committee that this stock is the only minke stock not appearing in CITES Appendix I. It was disturbed to find that on the basis of one new paper, which was not well understood by the scientists, designed for the North East Atlantic stock, based on a limited CPUE series of only one vessel, and produced negative and unrealistic results, that only the positive values had been considered.
Australia proposed that the stock should be classified as a Protection Stock, as recommended by most of the Scientific Committee, since commercial whaling is expected to end on this stock. This was seconded by Sweden, Antigua and Barbuda, and Finland and was agreed by the Technical Committee, with Denmark entering its reservation.
Denmark reaffirmed the documented need for 240 whales and, stating that a reduction to the level proposed by the Scientific Committee would be too hard for it to bear, proposed a catch limit of 240. This was seconded by the USA and Iceland. On the request of Antigua and Barbuda, the proposal was put to the vote and defeated by a majority.
Australia, seconded by Seychelles and St Lucia, then proposed a catch limit of 50 which, on being put to the vote at the request of Denmark, was adopted by a majority as the recommendation of the Technical Committee.
Subsistence catch limits at West Greenland
In the plenary session, the Chairman indicated that there had been discussions
among the Commissioners, in which the different opinions were represented.
As a result, and as an amendment to the recommendations of the Technical
Committee, and in view of the advice of the Scientific Committee on the
various stocks concerned, as well as the problems which too rapid and too
drastic a reduction in catch limits could cause for the aboriginal population,
the following compromise proposal was put forward as a possible basis for a
decision by consensus:
This was agreed by the Commission, St Vincent and the Grenadines reserving its position.
The Seychelles made a statement in which it expressed its sympathy with the aboriginal people who had suddenly found that the animals they hunt are not so numerous as thought, referred to the aboriginal subsistence whaling management procedure, and congratulated Denmark for its swift response to this compromise between the immediate and long-term needs of the people affected.
The Commission then approved the classification of the West Greenland minke whales as a Protection Stock, Denmark recording its reservation.
Other matters
(1) Japan considers that its small-type coastal whaling has similar
characteristics to aboriginal subsistence whaling, including the nature and
size of the operations, the history, and to meet the nutritional and cultural
needs of the local people.
It will submit a paper on this type of whaling next year suggesting that these
types of operations should be permitted to continue in order to ask the
Commission's consideration on this matter through its appropriate forum.
(2) Denmark reported that about 10 minke whales are taken annually off East
Greenland from the Central Atlantic stock.
It will prepare documentation for next year's meeting to make provision for
this under Paragraph 13 of the Schedule.
(3) In the Technical Committee, India expressed its view that there is a need
to define aboriginal subsistence whaling in the Schedule, and that the
humpback take off Greenland should be identified as for local consumption.
It prepared draft wording on these matters to be considered further in the
plenary, defining aboriginal subsistence whaling in terms of 19th century or
earlier methods, equipment and utilisation of products.
Denmark, seconded by Japan, proposed that this should be referred to the
Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling sub-committee for consideration next year, but
the Indian proposal was not seconded.
(4) At the end of the plenary session the Commission appointed, on the
nomination of Denmark, Mrs E.A. Blackwell (UK) as the Chairman of the
Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling sub-committee.
_