14. ABORIGINAL SUBSISTENCE WHALING

(from "Chairman's Report of the Fortieth Annual Meeting")



14.1 and 14.2 Report of Scientific Committee and Report of Technical Committee Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling Sub-committee
The Technical Committee had available to it the report of the Scientific Committee and of the Technical Committee Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling Sub-committee. The latter was chaired by Mr P. Aitken (New Zealand) and attended by delegates from Antigua & Barbuda, Australia, Brazil, People's Republic of China, Denmark, Iceland, Japan, Republic of Korea, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, St Lucia, St Vincent & the Grenadines, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Spain, Sweden, UK, USA and USSR. The relevant sections of each Committee's Report were presented by their Chairmen in relation to the following items.


14.2.1 Report of the Definitions Working Group
An Ad Hoc Working Group on Consideration of the Definition of Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling was attended by delegates from Antigua & Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Brazil, People's Republic of China, Denmark, Iceland, Japan, Republic of Korea, New Zealand, Norway, St Lucia, St Vincent & the Grenadines, Sweden, Switzerland, UK, USA and USSR under the Chairmanship of Professor J.D. Ovington (Australia). Considerable discussion of the question of small-type whaling took place and this is considered further under Item 14A of the agenda. The Ad Hoc Working Group made three recommendations:

(1)
that there be no change to the definitions of Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling, Local Aboriginal Consumption and Subsistence Catches as currently applied by the International Whaling Commission;
(2)
that at present no additions be made to the category of Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling;
(3)
that the Commission give consideration to the situation of various kinds of small-type whaling.

These recommendations were endorsed by the Technical Committee. In discussion of the Working Group's report in the Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling Sub-committee, the USSR had stated its view that only aboriginal subsistence and commercial whaling can be recognised under the present Convention; proposals for other categories of whaling can only be considered in the context of a revision of the present Convention. Seychelles had concurred with this on the understanding that such revision may include amendment of the Schedule.

In the Technical Committee, Japan expressed the view contrary to those of USSR and Seychelles. Japan indicated its belief that a new category of whaling could be established because differences exist in the kinds of whaling currently considered aboriginal subsistence whaling. It stressed that Japanese coastal small-type whaling has some elements of both aboriginal subsistence whaling and commercial whaling. It noted that in the course of a natural progression from aboriginal subsistence whaling to small-type whaling even in developed nations such as the USA, USSR and Denmark local communities exist for which it is considered that they have the right to continue a traditional way of life. Japan believes its small-type whaling communities should be allowed the same rights. It expanded its views on this matter under Item 14A.


14.2.2 Bering Sea stock of bowhead whales
The Scientific Committee reviewed the recent catch data and struck and lost rates. The mean length of the catch (12.4m) and the percentage of females in the catch (32%) in 1987 were slightly higher than in 1986. The struck and lost rate (29%) was the same as in 1986,

The Scientific Committee accepted an estimate of current population size of 7,800 (95% confidence interval 5,700 - 10,600). This, together with an updated catch series, was used in a simulation run. This indicated that the stock had increased under an estimated annual average removal since 1910 of 27 animals, but the Scientific Committee had no information on the appropriate MSY rate to use. In the absence of this information it was agreed that the most appropriate range of replacement yield to consider was 56 - 192. It noted that under the provisions of the Aboriginal Whaling Scheme only a proportion of the replacement yield should be taken, to allow the stock to increase to MSY level; the smaller the proportion taken, the greater the rate of population increase. The Committee also continued to recommend that the catch should be directed at smaller (<13m) animals but it will review this matter at its next meeting. In most cases, the simulations indicated classification as a Protection Stock and the Committee therefore recommended that the stock remain a Protection Stock. The Scientific Committee also made a number of research recommendations with respect to this stock.

The Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling Sub-committee considered an updated analysis of the subsistence need of Alaskan Eskimos, which addressed concerns expressed in 1986 with respect to: (i) gaps in the data; (ii) the use of different base periods for different whaling villages; (iii) estimated growth in the Eskimo population.

After some discussion, the Sub-committee accepted the US analysis and agreed to recommend that the aboriginal subsistence need for Alaska Eskimos for 1989 is for 41 landed bowhead whales.

The USA presented a proposal in Technical Committee which it believed was justified by the discussions of the Scientific Committee, the Humane Killing Working Group and the Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling Sub-committee. In view of the improvements in the killing power of its traditional weapon, it noted that its proposal assumed a considerably lower struck and lost rate than had been used in the past. Its proposal was that:

'For each of the years 1989, 1990 and 1991, the total number of whales struck shall not exceed 46 and the total number of whales landed shall not exceed 41, except that if, in either 1989 or 1990, less than 41 whales are landed and less than 46 whales are struck, unused strikes up to a maximum of 3 shall be transferred only to the following year.'

The proposal was seconded by Iceland, Japan, Republic of Korea, St Lucia, St Vincent & the Grenadines and the USSR, all of whom commented on the extensive research work carried out on this stock. Iceland noted that the proposed strike level was lower than the most conservative estimate of replacement yield made by the Scientific Committee.

Australia, while appreciating the research effort and improved efficiency of the hunt, believed that further improvements in efficiency should be encouraged and to this end introduced an amendment to the US proposal. This was seconded by the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Switzerland and Oman. After some revision, this following amendment was adopted by consensus in the Technical Committee and by the Commission:

'For each of the years 1989, 1990 and 1991, the total number of whales struck shall not exceed 44 and the total number of whales landed shall not exceed 41, except that in 1988, 1989 or 1990, any unused strikes up to a maximum of 3 shall be transferred to the following year.'

The Commission agreed that the stock should remain classified as a Protection Stock. It also endorsed the research recommendations of the Scientific Committee.


14.2.3 Eastern North Pacific stock of gray whales
The Scientific Committee accepted a new point estimate of current population size of 21,113 animals. Methodological differences precluded comparison of this estimate with previous estimates at this year's meeting. The Committee noted that this stock is of special importance to its work in the context of the Comprehensive Assessment, because of its demonstrable recovery under harvesting and the considerable information available on stock identity, population size and trends in abundance.

The Scientific Committee agreed that this stock is well above its minimum population size. While its classification will have to await a broad, in-depth assessment, the Scientific Committee noted that the population had increased by about 2.5% per year between 1967 and 1980, despite an annual catch of about 179 animals, which comprises only 0.8% of the best estimate of current population size. Pending such an assessment, the Scientific Committee therefore recommended no change in the catch limit in 1988.

The Scientific Committee also made a number of research recommendations for this stock.

The Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling Sub-committee examined the conclusions of a detailed study submitted last year by the USSR. After discussion, the Sub-committee agreed to recommend that the need of aboriginal populations would be satisfied in each of the years 1989 - 1991 by continuation of the current catch limit of 179 animals.

After a clarification by the USA that it did not intend to take gray whales in the coming season, the Technical Committee endorsed the recommendation of the Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling Sub-committee to establish a three-year quota for 1989 - 1991 providing that the number of gray whales taken for the need of aboriginal populations in any of these years shall not exceed 179. This was approved by the Commission, which also endorsed the research recommendations of the Scientific Committee.


14.2.4 West Greenland Stocks
(a) Fin whales
The Scientific Committee had available an estimate of 1,693 whales from NASS-87. It noted the large CV of the estimate (0.47) and the unknown reliability of the mean surfacing rate used in the estimate. Despite this, the population estimate represented a considerable improvement on previously available information. However, given uncertainty over stock identity and the population estimate, and the lack of information on the stock's status, the Scientific Committee was unable to predict the long-term effect of a continuing take of 10 whales. The Scientific Committee made two research recommendations for the stock.

After the presentation of the Scientific Committee's report, Denmark requested that at its next meeting, the Scientific Committee should discuss the relevance of the minimum size limit currently in force for this stock.


(b) Minke whales
The Scientific Committee accepted an estimate of 1,153 (CV = 0.42) whales as an estimate of the number of whales in the management stock area, although it recognised that some minke whales were known to occur outside the surveyed area. The Scientific Committee reiterated its previous concern about the question of stock identity, noting the considerable evidence (e.g. absence of calves and lactating females, continuing high proportion of females in the catch) that the management stock did not constitute a separate biological stock. Resolving this question was of crucial importance to the assessment of minke whales off West Greenland in relation to the provision of advice to the Commission about the aboriginal subsistence take in this area.

Despite these concerns, the Committee had insufficient information to suggest a change in stock boundary for West Greenland minke whales. It agreed to attempt to provide advice on the basis of the existing stock boundary.

Although some members of the Committee had requested simulation runs using the new abundance estimate, the Committee agreed that it was difficult to interpret the result of these simulations, especially in light of the marked difference between the observed sex ratio in the catch and the predicted sex ratio in the population.

Nevertheless, given that the stock (estimated to be 1,153 animals) was smaller than had previously been thought and that the average annual catch during the last 10 years had been 263 animals per year, the Scientific Committee believed that the stock was severely depleted, below the level believed in 1985. The Scientific Committee recommended that the stock remains a Protection Stock. It agreed that it had no evidence that any catch would allow the stock to move towards its MSY level.

The Scientific Committee made a number of research recommendations concerning this stock.

After requesting some clarification from the Chairman of the Scientific Committee, Denmark noted a number of concerns which led it to doubt the value of the assessment carried out on this stock. These included:

(i)
severe doubts about stock identity and hence the use of the sightings estimate as an estimate of abundance of the total stock and not just an estimate of a segment of the stock;
(ii)
doubts about the appropriateness of the model used, given its prediction that all mature females should have disappeared from the population in 1985. It noted that this model also formed part of the Scientific Committee's assessment in 1985.

The Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling Sub-committee had considered both the fin and minke whale stocks together. It had examined a document from Denmark which stated that the annual need of West Greenlanders is for 670 tonnes of whale meat, blubber and other edible whale products. It noted that one minke whale yields 2 tonnes of edible products and one fin whale 10 tonnes.

There was considerable discussion of this matter in the Sub-committee, with some delegations expressing reservations about expressing need in terms of tonnes of whale products.

During the Technical Committee discussions, Denmark noted the need for Greenlanders of 670 tonnes of edible products. Despite its reservations noted earlier about the Scientific Committee's assessment of minke whales, it recognised the need for striking a balance between the needs of people and conservation of the stocks. It also drew attention to its commitment to research on these stocks. It therefore proposed that for the 1989 season, catch limits of 60 minke whales and 23 fin whales should be set for the West Greenland fishery.

This was adopted by consensus by the Technical Committee and the Commission, with many nations stressing the need for increased research on these stocks. Iceland indicated that it was willing to co-operate in research in this area. The UK noted the potential vulnerability of this group of minke whales, and that its support for the proposal was based upon the understanding that there was to be a significant research effort devoted to determining stock size and stock integrity.


14.2.5 Central Atlantic minke whales
The Scientific Committee had before it estimates of abundance from NASS-87. A provisional estimate of 17,091 (CV = 0.330) or 19,484 (CV = 0.292), depending on the survey area considered, was accepted.

Some members of the Scientific Committee believed that an assessment should not have been carried out for similar reasons to those stated for the northeastern stock: the lack of an acceptable CPUE series and the lack of an agreed basis to choose an appropriate range of MSY rates. Other members believed an assessment should be attempted using the new abundance estimate.

Those members who believed that an assessment should not be attempted at this meeting consequently also believed that no advice on classification of the stock could be given, and that the stock should remain unclassified.

Those members in favour of the assessment believed that the results of this simulation showed that the Central Stock, currently unclassified, should be classified as a Sustained Management Stock.

After the presentation of the Scientific Committee's report, Iceland noted the improved estimates available for this stock from the extensive aerial and shipboard surveys carried out as part of NASS-87. It noted that some members of the Scientific Committee had not agreed that an assessment should be carried out for two reasons. The first, the lack of an accepted CPUE series, is invalid; the model used does not require CPUE data. The second, the lack of a basis for choosing an appropriate range of MSY rates, is more substantial. However, the assessment carried out shows that even the most conservative MSY rate of 1% shows the stock to be a Sustained Management Stock. Iceland shared the view that the stock estimate is provisional, in that further analysis of the shipboard survey data is to be carried out. However, as noted by one member of the Scientific Committee, even if only the accepted estimate from the aerial survey (about 10,000 animals) is considered, consideration of earlier assessments by the Scientific Committee imply that the stock is above the Protection Stock level. In conclusion, Iceland stated that while it believed the stock should be classified as a Sustained Management Stock, it noted that the matter will be discussed at next year's Scientific Committee meeting, and hence it would not propose re-classification of this stock at the present meeting.

The Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling Sub-committee noted that Denmark had reported that the catch limit of 12 set last year was sufficient for the needs of the East Greenlanders. After some discussion on the relevance of the stock boundaries used, the Sub-committee agreed to recommend that the aboriginal subsistence need for East Greenlanders for 1989 is twelve minke whales.

The Technical Committee endorsed this recommendation and the Commission agreed to the continuation of a quota of 12 minke whales for 1989.


14.2.6 St Vincent & the Grenadines humpback whales
The Scientific Committee had available a new best estimate of the total population size of western North Atlantic humpback whales (5,505 ± 2,617 for the years 1979 - 86). The Scientific Committee had agreed that although the direct relationship between animals from the Bequia - St Vincent breeding area and other humpbacks in the northwest Atlantic is unknown, a catch of up to 3 animals would be unlikely to harm the stock unduly.

The Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling Sub-committee had noted that a three-year quota was in effect and that there was therefore no need for it to put forward a recommendation on the question of need. In the Technical Committee the Netherlands noted that legislation to implement IWC regulations is being discussed and that the delegation of St Vincent & the Grenadines had indicated that the phasing-out of whaling would take place naturally as the single harpooner was 67 years of age. The Netherlands therefore understood that the whaling operations will cease when the present harpooner ends his activities.

The Commission noted that no action was necessary as a three-year block quota was in effect.

_