(from "Chairman's Report of the Forty-First Annual Meeting")

Alaskan bowhead hunt
The Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission has had three objectives in their weapon improvement programmes:

(1) to improve lethality of the strike;
(2) insure the proper explosion of the projectile;
(3) improve safety in transport and use of the weapon.

Remarkable progress has been achieved through cooperation with Norwegian specialists Dr E. 懊n and Mr H. Henriksen.

In addition there was discussion of the use of pingers and radio floats to prevent the struck whales from getting lost under the ice. With the new improved weapons the problem of losing whales now occurs in the Spring, and the pingers will help to locate such animals and salvage most of the meat.

Dr リen expressed grave reservations about the use of the shoulder gun for safety reasons, and he felt that the most important weapon was the darting gun with the penthrite projectile.

Time to death was discussed, and Dr リen stated that by examining the bodies of the whales killed, it was evident that they died quickly. It was stated that the efficiency of the hunt had improved steadily, but more work needs to be done to determine the proper amount of propellant charge to ensure effective penetration of the projectile.

Greenland whaling
A plan for the introduction of the detonating grenade harpoon in Greenland whaling was discussed, but due to long production and delivery times, the weapons will not be available in 1989. A special experiment will be made in the autumn of 1989 in order to determine the efficiency of the detonating grenade harpoon for the purpose of killing fin whales, since the harpoon was developed for the purpose of killing minke whales.

St Vincent & The Grenadines whale fishery
The Commissioner stated that no attempt is being made to improve the methods used in the hunt because the Government does not wish to encourage its continuation. This year there were no strikes and no catch.

Faroese pilot whale hunt
Considerable discussion took place over whether a document submitted by New Zealand but authored by an NGO group should be a formal discussion paper in the Working Group. New Zealand had submitted the document because it believed that the report contained useful information for the Working Group. Denmark expressed strong objections to having the document formally discussed since New Zealand was not prepared to endorse the views expressed in the paper.

Denmark pointed out that the acceptance of NGO papers had been decided at last year's Working Group in that a document would need to be 'submitted by or on behalf of a member government or have consensus' for its acceptance. It believed the word 'submit' entailed formal governmental endorsement, while New Zealand believed the document had been properly submitted. There was no consensus on this matter and it was referred to the Technical Committee.

The UK requested information on the Faroese pilot whale fishery but Denmark refused to give this in the meeting on the grounds that information had already been provided to the member governments over a three year period, and referred to its view that the IWC has no regulatory competence with regard to pilot whales. Denmark would provide any desired information on a bilateral basis.

Much discussion took place over whether pilot whales are covered in the Convention or not. Some felt that all whales are covered while others believed that only those species in the Table of Nomenclature annexed to the 1946 Convention were subject to IWC management. Some delegations suggested that other nations taking pilot whales should report as well, and Norway suggested that other cetaceans should be discussed in the Humane Killing Working Group, especially the inhumane dolphin kill in the tuna fishery. There was no consensus in these matters and it was decided that the problem should be reported to the Technical Committee.

18.2 Action arising
In the Technical Committee there was an extensive discussion on the question of the submission of documentation to IWC meetings. New Zealand believed that it had acted responsibly and referred to the definition of 'submit' as meaning 'to present for consideration or decision'. It noted that Denmark refused to give information to the Commission and the Faroese authorities do not encourage outsiders to observe the pilot whale hunt. It firmly believed that all cetacean species are within the competence of the IWC. The UK, Netherlands and Switzerland concurred with the New Zealand position. Japan and Denmark noted that the pilot whale is not listed in the Table of Nomenclature, and they believed the submitting nation must endorse the contents of a document since it must take responsibility for the contents.

Norway regarded this question as of a principal character and the USA proposed that it should be deferred to a meeting of Commissioners. Mexico and France agreed with this whilst reserving their position on IWC competence with respect to small cetaceans.

Finally, the UK recorded its appreciation of the positive work on improving the humaneness of killing methods which had been reported.

_