(from "Chairman's Report of the Forty-Third Meeting")
Five stocks had been provisionally recognised in 1977 i.e. the Bering Sea stock, the Davis Strait stock, the Hudson Bay stock, the Spitsbergen stock and the Okhotsk Sea stock. Central tendencies in distribution and migratory behaviour seem to have remained consistent over time, suggesting that the stocks may be separated by migratory and geographical barriers. Whether or not they were separate at the start of commercial whaling, they appear to be functionally isolated today (despite the lack of genetic information), although the evidence for separation between the Hudson Bay and Davis Strait stocks is particularly weak.
BERING-CHUKCHI-BEAUFORT SEAS STOCK
Bowhead whales were abundant in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas from July to
October, depending on ice conditions, when commercial whaling began there in
the 1840s.
The Committee has in the past concluded that there is no evidence of a western
Chukchi Sea sub-stock.
The Committee agreed that the apparent absence of bowheads in the Chukchi Sea
recently is more likely a reflection of the reduced state of the stock than
evidence of two stocks or sub-stocks.
DAVIS STRAIT 'STOCK'
In summer, the distribution of this 'stock' is centred along the east coast of
Baffin Island and into the Canadian high Arctic.
In winter, the distribution is centred in the Davis Strait pack ice.
Although their summer distributions are quite separate it is possible that
this 'stock' and the Hudson Bay 'stock' mix together in winter.
Current population size is estimated as at least 250. With an initial population size of at least 11,000 in 1820, this 'stock' is apparently still severely depleted, possibly to as low as less than 5% of initial size. There is no basis for judging whether or not it is increasing.
HUDSON BAY 'STOCK'
This is the least well-defined of the five stocks.
The main reason for distinguishing it from the Davis Strait 'stock' is its
different summer distribution.
Its current numbers may be only in the few tens, from an initial population in
1860 of only 450 animals.
There is no basis for judging whether or not it is increasing.
SPITSBERGEN STOCK
This once relatively large stock is also now very small, possibly only tens of
animals. There is no basis for judging whether or not the stock is increasing.
OKHOTSK SEA STOCK
This stock may have numbered 3,000 initially.
A possibly low estimate of current stock size of 250 would still be no more
than 10% of initial, There is no basis for judging whether or not the stock is
increasing.
Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort Seas stock
Catch history
The Scientific Committee accepted an update, prepared at the meeting, of a
previous tabulation of pelagic and shore-based catches.
No changes were made in pelagic catches recorded, and only small ones
in the estimated shore kills.
It noted that the figures represent only recorded catches and zero
catches can refer as equally to no information as to no catch.
Use of a Leslie matrix model in an age-structured back calculation of the historical population size gave an initial population size (in 1848) of 12,400-18,200 animals.
The Committee reviewed the methodology of recent ice-based censuses, including both visual and acoustic procedures and their associated population estimation techniques.
The Committee agreed that the Bayes empirical Bayes approach is the most appropriate. In this, whales censused visually and acoustically in different parts of the season and different zones offshore are treated as random variables from a specified probability distribution. The method accounts for periods of no census effort and for uncertainty in estimates of model parameters, and provides an estimation of and adjustments for errors made by the tracking algorithm by which visually or acoustically located whales are linked together.
CURRENT POPULATION SIZE
The Committee had before it a 1988 population size estimate using a
substantially updated and improved Bayes empirical Bayes method, and an
estimate for the 1986 population size.
While the latter was higher than that obtained for 1988 the two estimates were
neither incompatible nor statistically different.
The 1988 results were preferred because they were less sensitive to changes in
tracking algorithm parameters and estimates of detection probability, the 1986
variance was three times that of 1988 and the 1988 census was the most
complete to date.
That census had the greatest number of observer days, the highest proportion
of days with good to excellent weather, the largest amount of acoustic
monitoring, and the largest number of whales counted from a single sighting
point.
The Committee agreed that the Bayes empirical Bayes 95% interval estimate based on the 1988 data was the best estimate of the size of the Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort Seas stock of bowhead whales. That estimate was 6,400-9,200 whales, with the most probable value being 7,500.
The Scientific Committee reviewed biological parameters, namely mortality rates, age at first parturition, age at recruitment, calving interval, age at reproductive senescence, contaminants, other habitat related issues and trophic dynamics.
Assessment
The net rate of increase of the population from 1978 to 1988 was estimated as
3.1% per year (95% confidence interval 0.1%-6.2%).
Hunting mortality was not considered explicitly.
With an average hunting mortality over the 11 year period of 0.3%, net rate of
increase could have been that much larger had there been no harvest.
The Committee discussed future census frequency. It strongly recommended that the planned visual and acoustic census planned for 1992 should proceed, and be accompanied by an aerial transect survey. It also recommends simulation studies to determine future census frequency.
POPULATION SIMULATIONS
It was initially agreed that the FITTER program should be used for assessment
because time series of abundance data were available.
Two versions of the FITTER program were available: one validated, the other
revised but unvalidated.
The latter provided, among other things, confidence intervals.
Difficulty was experienced in using the validated version, and it was agreed
to use the revised version, noting that the point and confidence interval
solutions obtained would need to be verified by using the validated version.
Half of the 36 input parameter sets gave estimates of initial abundance and MSYL. The runs were completed with total population data mislabelled as exploited, but it was noted that with an age of recruitment of 1 year this makes little difference. The results showed that the output results were largely insensitive to the different input parameter sets. For some input parameter sets there was insufficient time to find acceptable solutions. Sub-optimal solutions occurred for half the parameter sets; most seemed to fit the data equally well. However, allowing the computer to search for better solutions frequently resulted in biologically impossible results (e.g. the population became extinct) or produced confidence intervals where the central value was equal to the upper limit; the computed population trajectories were often oscillatory in those situations.
To confirm that the above conclusions were not changed, several runs were completed with the mislabelling corrected. One run was successful (with age at recruitment 1, age at maturity 13, juvenile mortality 0.06, adult mortality 0,01). It gave an initial population size of about 12,000, a current population size of about 7,000, MSY rate with a 95% CI of about 0.01-0.05, and an acceptable estimated population trajectory. However, other runs resulted in convergence problems and oscillatory behaviour of the total population trajectory.
However, because of the inconsistencies in solutions over the range of parameters adopted, the Committee agreed that it could not use the FITTER program for assessment at this time. The population model currently used is not suitable for the bowhead whale case. The Committee agreed that further work was needed to develop population models for bowhead whales that could integrate the available biological and abundance data.
MANAGEMENT ADVICE
Assuming no dramatic changes in the environment or the age composition of the
catch, and using estimates of recent abundance, observed trends, catch
records, and the age-structured back projection of population trends,
approximate replacement yields can be calculated.
A point estimate using the 1988 posterior mode and the recent net rate of
increase, plus the average annual catch was calculated as 254.
In accordance with its decision last year as to how best to provide advice to the Commission on aboriginal subsistence whaling, the Committee agreed to consider the lower bound on the estimate of RY. The resultant estimate was 92.
11.1.2 Other stocks
Eastern stock of North Pacific gray whales
This stock was last assessed at the Special Meeting held in 1990.
No new information on absolute population size or trends in abundance was
available.
The Scientific Committee agreed that its best estimate of current population
size (1987/88) is 21,000 and that, assuming a constant rate of increase, the
population had increased at an annual rate of 3.2% over the period
1967/68-1987/88 with an average catch of 174 whales.
At the Special Meeting, the Committee had noted a decrease in pregnancy rates in the aboriginal fishery and low calf counts in Mexican waters in 1990.
At the present meeting, a pregnancy rate of 11.1% in 1990 was reported, still considerably lower than in the early 1980s, while Mexico again reported low calf counts in the lagoons. In view of this, the Committee reiterated the following recommendations from the Special Meeting:
With respect to management advice, the Committee referred to its views from the Special Meeting. In particular, the Committee had concluded that this stock is not a Protection Stock. It noted that a lack of information on maximum sustainable yield level meant that it was unable to determine whether the stock was a Sustained Management Stock or an Initial Management Stock.
Although the Committee was unable to determine the minimum level below which catches should not be taken, as required by the aboriginal subsistence management scheme, it agreed that the Eastern stock was well above any such level.
With respect to catch limits, the Committee noted the calculations of average sustainable yield (95% CI 490-850 whales). The current annual catch limit of 179 is thus below the sustainable yield for this stock.
West Greenland minke whales
The Scientific Committee had last provided management advice in 1989.
Although North Atlantic minke whales had been examined in 1990, the problem of
stock identity noted in 1989 remains.
The population estimate of 3,270 obtained from aerial survey data in 1987 and
1988 remains the best estimate of population size available.
In view of the above, the Committee agreed to repeat its previous advice that it was not possible to recommend a classification for this stock because it did not believe that the animals found off West Greenland constituted a separate stock. Even if it were a separate stock, the Committee had no information upon which to determine the status of the stock in relation to MSY level. Given the best estimate of the number of animals in the area of 3,270 whales and its approximate lower bound of 1,700, the Committee believed that such a stock was above a minimum level below which aboriginal subsistence catches could not be taken. The Committee could offer no advice on the size of catches which would allow the stock to move towards MSY level.
West Greenland fin whales
The Scientific Committee had last provided management advice in 1989.
North Atlantic fin whales were addressed at the Special Meeting in February
1991 but no management advice was given on the West Greenland stock.
The Special Meeting had received new information on blow rates that was
incorporated into the previous abundance estimate resulting in a new estimate
from the combined 1987/88 data of 1,050 (approximate 95% CI 520-2,110).
However the Committee had noted some problems with the blow rate data and had
recommended that research be carried out to obtain an appropriate estimate of
blow rate.
The Committee noted that the most serious problem in providing management advice on West Greenland fin whales was the lack of information on stock identity, particularly with respect to determining whether or not the 'stock' was above or below a minimum level below which aboriginal subsistence catches could not be taken. The Committee reiterated the recommendation of the Special Meeting for further work on stock identity of North Atlantic fin whales.
In terms of management advice, the Committee reiterated its views of 1989. In particular, the Committee was unable to provide advice on classification of this stock because (i) there was no information to allow determination of whether or not it constituted a separate stock and (ii) if it was a separate stock there was no information with which to determine its status in relation to MSY level or initial level.
Although the Committee believed that it was unlikely that West Greenland fin whales constituted a separate stock, the small estimate of abundance for the area and its approximate lower bound of 520 were a cause for concern.
Technical Committee discussion
The Technical Committee accepted these reports from the Scientific Committee
and endorsed the various research recommendations.
Japan was pleased that the Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort Seas bowhead stock is coming close to the MSY level although it is still classified as a Protection Stock. It was an indication that depleted stocks can recover even when certain catches are permitted. It expressed its concern about the Spitsbergen stock which has been driven to a low level, and requested continued monitoring. With respect to gray whales it recognised that the stock had increased to near its initial level under a catch regime and commented that all the North Atlantic stocks should continue to have proper assessments.
Spain spoke of the problems of stock separation of bowhead whales and the possibility that they derive from only one common stock. It believed this matter should be given maximum priority and suggested that the Scientific Committee should carry out an assessment as if it were a single stock. It also believed that the Commission should try to fix a minimum level below which whales should not be taken.
11.2 Report of the Technical Committee Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling
Sub-committee
The report of the Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling Sub-committee was presented
by its Chairman Mr F.H.J. von der Assen (Netherlands).
Delegations from 19 member governments, Australia, Brazil, the People's
Republic of China, Denmark, Germany, Iceland, Japan, the Republic of Korea,
Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, St Vincent & The Grenadines,
Seychelles, Spain, Sweden, USSR, UK and USA attended, with observers from
Canada and 14 NGOs.
11.2.1 Review of Schedule paragraph 13(a)
This matter had been discussed quite extensively in 1990 and the Commission
had agreed to the recommendation of the Scientific Committee that discussion
of any new management scheme for aboriginal whaling could only usefully take
place after that for commercial whaling had been settled.
The Scientific Committee had reaffirmed this view and noted the three broad
objectives for the management of aboriginal subsistence whaling accepted by
the Commission in 1981.
It sought further advice from the Commission as to objectives in the light of
progress made in developing a Revised Management Procedure for commercial
whaling.
Recognising the 1990 decision the Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling Sub-committee
decided that it was not appropriate to consider the matter further at this
time.
Technical Committee comments
Spain stated its view that the objectives must be to protect stocks and
pointed out that the bowhead and minke whales off Greenland are both
Protection Stocks.
Catch limits are based on subsistence need and not Scientific Committee
advice.
The Scientific Committee was unable to assess a minimum stock level and Spain
was concerned over the contradictions it saw in the Commission's policy.
Japan pointed out that aboriginal subsistence whaling does not conform strictly to the objectives for commercial whaling of the 1946 Convention. However, it respected the rights of the affected peoples and believes that aboriginal subsistence whaling should be managed under a Revised Management Procedure.
Iceland spoke of what it saw as a dubious legal format for the distinction between aboriginal subsistence and commercial whaling.
11.2.2 Whale meat conversion factors
The Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling Sub-committee received data from Greenland,
Japan and Norway on the amount of meat produced from minke whales.
Denmark, on behalf of Greenland, indicated that its figures are based on
historical catches.
Greenland's needs for whales and the need for 670 tonnes is related to the
conversion factors used by Greenland.
If different conversion factors were used, the number of whales needed to fill
the need would still be the same.
Technical Committee discussion
The UK considered that while looking at the needs it was also important to
bear the situations of the whale stocks in mind.
New Zealand had a continuing concern that the Greenland figures presented have no basis in fact. It would prefer to think in terms of numbers of whales rather than tonnes of meat.
Brazil noted from the Danish Opening Statement that there was an apparent contradiction between the present 400 tonnes of whale meat consumed by Greenland's aborigines and the stated need of 670 tonnes. It wondered if modern methods of preservation in use in Greenland might not justify a reduction in the latter figure. Denmark responded that the catches were based on a long series of historical records.
11.2.3 Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort Seas stock of bowhead whales
The USA presented a case for need satisfied by 41 landed bowhead whales in
1988.
This had been accepted by the Commission and circumstances have not changed so
that the need remains the same.
The Sub-committee discussed the problem of struck and lost rates and noted
that improvements are being instituted though the attachment of radio
transmitters and acoustic pingers so that struck whales can be located.
There have also been some improvements in weapon efficiency.
The USA has made a commitment to continue its monitoring efforts.
Technical Committee discussion
Japan spoke in support of a continued improvement in struck and lost rates.
11.2.4 North Pacific eastern stock of gray whales
The USSR stated that on the basis of detailed information submitted in 1987
the Commission had recognised that the need of its native population would be
satisfied by an annual catch limit of 179 whales.
There has been no change in circumstances since that time and it requested
continuation of a block quota for the next three years of 179 whales a year.
Technical Committee discussion
Japan expressed disappointment that no paper had been presented by the USSR
this year and asked for cooperation, to which the USSR responded that it does
provide the necessary information to the Scientific Committee and the
Commission.
11.2.5 and 11.2.6 North Atlantic West Greenland stocks of minke and fin
whales
Denmark presented a final document on a series of case studies on Greenlandic
whaling.
There was considerable discussion on the reporting procedure and struck and
lost rates in this fishery.
The Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling Sub-committee agreed to recommend that
information on struck and lost rates should be provided at the earliest
possible opportunity as a high priority.
Technical Committee discussion
Japan expressed its concern over the struck and lost rate and thought it
important to have full data, to which Denmark responded that in 1990 there had
been one fin whale struck and lost and one minke whale struck and lost.
Switzerland suggested that there might be a higher loss rate for the rifle
hunt from small boats, but Denmark stated that there was only a small catch in
this fishery with very few losses under the present quota system using the
current technology.
The Netherlands referred to the problems of collecting such information and
shared the concerns on the loss rates.
It emphasised the necessity of providing the Scientific Committee with
accurate data.
Denmark pointed out that whales struck and lost are required to be reported
under Greenlandic law and it will provide more information to the
Sub-committee next year.
11.3 Action arising
Bowhead whales
Technical Committee discussion
Australia outlined its well-known position that it seeks a worldwide ban on
whaling, but recognised aboriginal subsistence need for some communities.
The IWC had adopted Schedule paragraph 13 and balanced the cultural needs
against the biological aspects, especially for depleted whale stocks.
It thought that a periodic assessment of need should be documented.
Australian support is contingent on the provision of information not just on
the level of population but also of need.
Whales taken under aboriginal subsistence provision should be used exclusively
for local consumption and it suggested that international observers might be
appointed in the future to aboriginal subsistence operations.
It thought that the Commission should respond to the Scientific Committee's
request for guidance in the future.
Norway proposed that catch limits should be set only for one year at a time. When the Revised Management Procedure is adopted, the safety principles contained in that procedure could also be of guidance in aboriginal subsistence whaling. Iceland expressed its sympathy for aboriginal needs and seconded the Norwegian proposal.
The UK agreed that there is a need to adopt a revised procedure for aboriginal subsistence whaling as soon as possible, but it was concerned about the Commission's trying to do too much all at once.
The USA took the Australian point recognising the subsistence and aboriginal needs of aboriginal communities very seriously. It emphasised its special responsibility for its indigenous populations, including the Eskimos on the Alaskan North Slope, whose needs for bowhead whales had not changed since 1988. All whale meat is consumed in local villages. There had been much work on improvements in humane killing thanks to technological assistance from Norway. It has always welcomed observers to the hunt. It believed that it would be useful to continue a block quota for three years or longer because of the flexibility such a system provides in the changing environmental conditions. The need remains for 41 landed bowhead whales a year but that the present strike limit of 44 with a carryover of three implies a 90% efficiency rate. The struck and lost rate had improved from 50 to 70% in recent years, but varied depending on the conditions and it would be difficult to reach a figure of 90% on average. The present catch limit was established three years ago when the lower limit of the replacement yield of the stock was estimated as 56 animals. The new estimate for the stock of 7,500 bowheads has a replacement yield 95% lower confidence interval of 92 whales. It will propose a struck rate block quota for three years with perhaps a 10-15% carryover from one block to the next, but no change to the 41 annual landed block quota.
Iceland stated that it was aware that under the work schedule adopted for the Commission, a revised management procedure could not be adopted next year for aboriginal subsistence whaling but felt that annual catch quotas should be determined taking into account the principles included in the Revised Management Procedure for commercial whaling which will be adopted this year and implemented next year. Higher catches could more likely be justified under an annual quota than under the system proposed. It recalled the behind-the-scenes manoeuvring when the quota was last set and that it was best to let the IWC review the latest catch information next year.
New Zealand expressed its understanding of the need for flexibility stated by the USA. It was not sure if new management procedures for aboriginal subsistence whaling would be in place next year. It proposed that a block quota could be set with a footnote stating that the figure could be amended at any time.
Japan was impressed by the plea of the USA for its people's needs. It has consistently supported such appeals on behalf of the human populations affected. It believed that the Revised Management Procedure for commercial whaling could be reviewed for application to aboriginal subsistence catches and therefore supported the Norwegian proposal for a one year catch limit this year.
Whilst supporting the USA request for a higher struck limit, Norway reaffirmed that it believed it best at this juncture in the history of the IWC to set catch limits for one year since next year the Commission will be in a better position to make judgements based on revised procedures. The USA accepted that a three year block quota can have the proviso for reconsideration, but it doubted if such a plan will arise in the next three years since the subject is not in the Scientific Committee's work plan.
The Netherlands associated itself with the views expressed by the UK and New Zealand. It pointed out that the Scientific Committee believes the stock will continue to increase under the present catch levels. It noted with appreciation that the Scientific Committee had taken a cautious approach by considering both the lower bound of the replacement yield and the lower bound of the population estimate. It further noted there was no change in need but the struck and lost rates are still substantial. Any increase in the number of strikes permitted might hamper improvement in landing efficiency.
Spain pointed out that the Scientific Committee was unable to provide advice under the aboriginal subsistence management scheme, and it cannot accept any increase in the number of strikes or a further three year block quota. It therefore supported the Norwegian proposal.
Seychelles emphasised that the revised management procedures for commercial whaling are being developed for defined objectives. The Commission has defined a different set of objectives for aboriginal subsistence whaling and it will take at least two years to develop a new scheme for the latter. It therefore believed that a block quota as requested by the USA was appropriate since there was good scientific advice available.
Brazil supported the USA proposal for a three year block quota with the New Zealand idea for a yearly review or possible amendment, but it had difficulties with a de facto increase in the number of strikes. Switzerland shared the view expressed by the Netherlands and was worried about the struck and lost rate. Iceland re-emphasised it thought that this matter can be dealt with better next year when the Revised Management Procedure for commercial whaling is established. Three years is a long time to be locked into a procedure and it encouraged year-by-year research results associated with yearly quotas for all stocks subject to aboriginal subsistence whaling.
In the absence of a revised aboriginal subsistence management scheme, St Lucia supported the new scheme for strikes from the USA with a three year block quota, since the Scientific Committee believes that the present catch has not had a negative impact on the bowhead stock.
Germany also favoured a block quota for flexibility, which could be revised at a later stage in the light of new advice or a revised management scheme. It supported a higher strike limit because of the higher stock level estimates now available, but was concerned over the impact on landing efficiency.
Denmark expressed its support for the USA proposal.
France stated that a block quota does not prevent a review but questioned the justification for an increase in the number of strikes.
In response to Iceland, the UK concurred that the Commission could review next year how a Revised Management Procedure for commercial whaling might be applicable to the aboriginal subsistence situation but thought that time would be needed to implement any application to an aboriginal subsistence whaling stock. The UK therefore supported a block quota as a sensible approach at this time.
Mexico was sympathetic to the socio-cultural and aboriginal subsistence needs. It believed that the number of strikes permitted should be an incentive for efficiency and the Commission should review what had been achieved next year. It also expressed the need for information on weather and industrial developments which might affect the efficiency.
Sweden supported the request for a block quota and also felt that a review of the provision would be appropriate. It was concerned that there is much to discuss next year on the Revised Management Procedure for commercial whaling and the Commission should have as much time as possible for this so that a block quota now would be helpful.
India was concerned that setting a block quota may lose the aboriginal subsistence character of the hunt, and give it commercial character.
St Vincent & The Grenadines supported the USA proposal.
The Chairman concluded that the Technical Committee could reach no agreement and would pass the issue to the plenary.
At a later session the USA confirmed that its requirement continues for 41 strikes a year and it needs a significantly increased opportunity for strikes to be allocated amongst the nine whaling villages in the two hunting seasons per year. It will be asking for a three year block quota for 1992-1994 of 141 strikes representing an average of 47 per year and thus no increase on the existing level. It will also ask to carry forward some strikes not used in the previous three years up to a maximum of 10%, i.e. thirteen, strikes into this new block quota. This would result in no more than 54 strikes to land 41 whales per year, and it was prepared for the provision to be reviewed annually as management procedures develop on the basis of scientific advice.
Denmark, St Vincent & The Grenadines, Norway, Chile and St Lucia supported the USA proposal.
Japan indicated that it still has some concerns since the stock is classified as a Protection Stock, but it would accept the USA compromise on the grounds of humanity.
Iceland emphasised the need for an annual review and Brazil hoped that this would be the last compromise on the matter in the IWC. It preferred calculation by scientific means and Mexico shared this view. The UK noted that the bowhead population is recovering but was concerned about the carryover proposal and that more time should be given for consideration of this suggestion.
Spain supported this approach and reserved its position. Oman associated itself with the UK position.
The Chairman concluded that the Technical Committee could note that most delegations who had spoken agreed with the USA proposal, but that some concerns had been expressed which could be resolved at the plenary. Australia supported the idea that more time could be given before resolution in the plenary session.
Plenary discussion
In the plenary, the USA introduced a proposal for the bowhead quota for the
next three years.
This set a combined limit of 141 strikes plus a carry over from the current
quota, with no more than 54 whales struck or 41 landed in any one year.
The USA indicated that the maximum number of unused strikes to be carried
forward of up to 10% of the 1989-91 quota is 13, but the present season is not
yet completed.
It also emphasised that it expected the Scientific Committee to carry out a
full review of the provision each year.
Denmark seconded this proposal, and support was expressed by the UK, St Vincent & The Grenadines, the Republic of Korea, Iceland, Sweden, Japan, Germany, St Lucia and Chile.
Australia expressed its sympathy to aboriginal subsistence needs, but it was still concerned over likely increased strikes. It noted improvements in the struck and landed rates and wished to encourage greater improvements in efficiency. It supported the annual review proposed, assuming that also applies to all other aboriginal subsistence programmes.
New Zealand had a certain concern about the rather high proportion of total strikes allowed to be carried forward from one block to another, but accepted it on the basis that the provision is to be reviewed annually and that the full number of strikes is unlikely to be utilised. Finland associated itself with these ideas, while the Netherlands voiced similar concerns but took into account the efforts to strive for a decrease in the number of struck and lost whales.
The People's Republic of China hoped that communication of advanced technology and scientific methods would improve the hunting efficiency and reduce waste and, in view of the provision of annual review by the Scientific Committee, India agreed to the proposal. Mexico associated itself with both these views.
Ireland was concerned at the high number of strikes to be carried forward, as was Oman which also was concerned about the aboriginal needs on the take of these whales.
Switzerland shared the concerns expressed by Australia, New Zealand and the Netherlands but, since not all strikes may be used and there will be an annual review, it could agree. Brazil did not like to break the consensus, but hoped there would not be more strikes than in the apparent figures, a view shared by France.
Spain noted that so many concerns had been expressed it wondered if there really was a consensus. It was concerned about the subsistence problems of aboriginal populations, their ethnological conditions, cultural and nutritive needs, but accepted the proposal because of the annual review provision.
Seychelles suggested that the Scientific Committee should examine the implications of carrying over catch limits or strikes when it is revising aboriginal subsistence whaling procedures. Brazil and Oman supported this proposal, and Iceland indicated it had no problems with such a sentiment.
On the basis of the wide support received, the Commission then adopted the proposal as shown in Appendix 7. The USA stated that it will take account of the concerns expressed, and will work with the Scientific Committee on the question of the annual review, the effects of the carry-over and all other issues raised in the debate.
Japan noted the Australian position seeking a worldwide ban on whaling, and that it had made an exception for aboriginal subsistence catches. It saw this as a change in the Australian position and, since it took the view that international conventions supersede the force of domestic statutes, it wondered if Australia would leave the IWC. Australia reaffirmed that it does indeed seek a worldwide ban on commercial whaling but always recognised that there are exceptions in terms of aboriginal subsistence, and that position has not changed. It will continue to work as constructively as possible within the Commission using it as a basis to state its policy.
North Atlantic West Greenland stocks of fin and minke whales
Denmark indicated to the Technical Committee that it would make a proposal in
plenary for no change in the fin whale catch limit of 21 in 1992, but it would
request a modest increase for a longer period for minke whales.
In the plenary session, Denmark put forward a proposal for a catch limit in 1992 of 21 fin whales. For the minke whales off West Greenland it proposed that for each of the years 1992, 1993 and 1994 the number of whales struck shall not exceed 115 and the total number of whales struck shall not exceed 315 in these three years. Sweden seconded this proposal.
New Zealand received confirmation from Denmark that a whale struck by a bullet fired from a rifle will be counted as a strike.
Support for the Danish proposal was expressed by Iceland, St Vincent & The Grenadines, USA, USSR, Finland, Germany, St Lucia, Chile, UK, Japan, Australia and Switzerland. The Commission then adopted the proposal and at a later session the formal wording of the Schedule amendment shown in Appendix 7 to implement this agreement was distributed.
North Pacific eastern stock of gray whales
The USSR stated that it had presented a comprehensive review of the needs of
the people in the Chukotka region in 1987.
This had led to recognition that the need of the local populations would be
satisfied by a three year block quota with an annual take no greater than 179
gray whales, of which 10 were subject to mutual consideration with the USA.
The whaling operation was carried out entirely within its 200 mile zone under
national inspection, and there was no change in the local need.
In the plenary, the USA put on record that it is not requesting and will not
in future years request an allocation or use of 10 gray whales.
The Technical Committee noted both of these proposals, and referred them to the plenary.
The USSR then requested a three year quota with an annual take of 169 gray whales. This was supported by Iceland, Japan, Norway, the People's Republic of China, Denmark, USA and Finland. Australia sought clarification that there would be an annual review of the proposal, which the USSR stated it would not oppose, and this was added to the Schedule language adopted by the Commission and shown in Appendix 7.
Australia thought that the annual review should not be restricted simply to scientific considerations but should also cover need, bearing in mind that there had not been a detailed statement from the USSR for some years. The USSR indicated that there have been no substantial changes since its last submission. In response to a request from Australia for continued documentation of need, the USSR suggested any request for specific data might be reviewed by the Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling Sub-committee.
_