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

The Working Group had discussed at length the status of a document submitted to it from a non-governmental source, and concluded that for a paper to be considered by the Working Group it should either be submitted by a Contracting Government or adopted by consensus. The Chairman hoped that this might provide a useful clarification to other Working Groups which may be requested to receive documents with similar standing. The UK, whilst not objecting to the procedure adopted by the Chairman of the Working Group, expressed regret and disappointment that consensus had not been obtained and that a document of potential interest to the Working Group had not been discussed. It could not agree that the procedure which had been followed was helpful and expressed the hope that it would not be followed by other groups.

Norway expressed a different view and noted that documents not formally accepted by the Commission can still be freely available to interested parties. The issue is the status to be accorded to documents prepared by private persons not within the framework of the organisation, and in that context it is reasonable that the groups involved determine their own procedures. Any National Delegation may afford status to a document by submitting it in its name and accepting responsibility for it. Japan concurred with this view and Denmark observed that the opportunity had been given to governments participating in the Humane Killing Working Group to endorse the document in question and none had chosen to do so. Denmark also referred to its endorsement (upon request) of a paper submitted to the Aboriginal Subsistence Sub-committee by the Greenland Government.

Alaskan bowhead hunt
The Humane Killing Working Group noted that positive progress had been made in the Alaskan Eskimo hunt for bowhead whales, specifically in the areas of improved killing power of traditional weapons, the use of sonic devices and continued training of crews. This had led to significant improvements in time to death or loss of consciousness. The Working Group looked forward to a report on further progress in 1989.

In the Technical Committee, Switzerland congratulated the Alaskan Eskimos on the improvements. Japan expressed satisfaction that the Alaskan Eskimos were adopting penthrite projectiles and commented that this technology had been developed in Japan in 1983. It had been enthusiastically received by the IWC and it is ironic that its use is spreading elsewhere when Japanese whaling has ceased.

Replies by Denmark to questions raised on the Greenland hunt
Denmark had submitted a paper in response to questions raised at last year's meeting of the Working Group and indicated that detonating harpoons will be used in 1989 on an experimental basis and progress in training for the use of this weapon will be reported to the Working Group next year. In the Working Group, Australia had noted that many questions remained unanswered and Denmark stated that it is seeking to provide the next Working Group with available information on these questions.

In the Technical Committee, the UK welcomed the information supplied so far by Denmark and its undertaking to pursue the outstanding matters.

Progress report by Denmark on Faroese pilot whale fishery
In response to its commitment to answer two specific questions raised at the 1986 Annual Meeting, Denmark presented to the Working Group a document on the methods used in the hunt. The use of the spear has been eliminated and the use of the gaff from a boat considerably reduced, being employed only in defined circumstances. Authorisation of one bay for the hunt has been withdrawn and two other bays modified to reduce the duration of the hunt. Training for whalers on how to shorten the hunt has taken place and measures for monitoring the activity are in effect.

Additional material on the hunt was available bilaterally but Denmark would not provide it to the Working Group as a whole. It reiterated its view that the IWC does not have competence over small cetaceans and that the IWC should not discuss the pilot whale hunt any further unless it changed its position on small cetaceans, and decided to take up humane killing problems in small cetacean fisheries in a general context. The UK, in the Technical Committee, expressed regret that the progress report supplied by Denmark was not comprehensive and, particularly, that the Danish delegation had, on its own admission, more information available to it which it had not submitted. The UK believed this should be made available to the Commission as a whole and urged Denmark to return to the matter next year and to fulfil the undertaking given at the 39th Annual Meeting. Antigua & Barbuda associated itself with this view as did New Zealand which re-stated its belief that the IWC does have competence with respect to small cetaceans, pointing out that pilot whales are already included in the Schedule to the Convention. Switzerland and the Netherlands expressed appreciation of the information supplied so far but, because of the intense public interest in their countries, considered it vitally important that all relevant information is made available to the Commission. They hoped the Danish and Faroese authorities would reconsider their position on this matter.

Denmark responded by reminding the Technical Committee that in 1986 it had undertaken to answer specific questions relating to the spear and the gaff and certain other questions later. It had confirmed the undertaking in 1987 and with the report presented it has now met those undertakings. Denmark stated that it was willing to provide additional information available bilaterally to interested delegations and considers accordingly that this item should not be a standing item on the Commission's agenda.

The Technical Committee took note of the different views which had been expressed.

In the Commission, the UK reiterated its hope that additional information would be submitted by Denmark next year, and the Netherlands, New Zealand and Australia associated themselves with this position.

Argentina, Brazil, France, Japan and Mexico all stated their belief that questions relating to small cetaceans are outside the competence of the IWC, while Switzerland voiced the opposite conviction.

National laws on killing animals
The Secretary had introduced to the Working Group a summary of the responses received from member governments dealing with humane killing methods used for wild animals in general and whales in particular, and indicated that more detailed information was available in the Secretariat. The Working Group accepted the Secretary's conclusion that there is no global definition for humane killing, noting also that many Contracting Governments had not responded to the questionnaire.

The Technical Committee noted the Working Group's observations and Iceland stressed the need for continued efforts to obtain the relevant information about the national laws of governments which have, so far, not responded to the questionnaire.

Other substances which might be wed for killing whales
No new information had come to light on this subject. The Working Group decided that if any information should be forthcoming the item could be included on next year's agenda. The Technical Committee took note.

Taking of humpback whales by St Vincent & the Grenadines
The USA referred to the reported taking of one humpback whale and one calf in 1987 and possibly a calf in 1988 by St Vincent & the Grenadines. It was concerned about the humane killing aspect of these takes and indicated its understanding that St Vincent & the Grenadines would be willing to provide a paper to next year's Working Group on the subject of the humaneness of the hunting methods used. St Vincent & the Grenadines agreed to this.

18.2 Action arising
The Commission received the report of the Technical Committee on all these matters, and took note of the actions proposed.

_