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

The USA had indicated that in light of the progress made to date on the Revised Management Procedure (RMP), and in anticipation of the adoption of changes in the Schedule to implement these procedures, it wished to discuss the adequacy of the current Inspection and Observation Scheme as well as the adequacy of the information required under Section VI of the Schedule.

There was extensive discussion on whether or not to include this Item on the Agenda. Some delegations considered the issue to be both vital and relevant to this Sub-committee. Iceland, Norway and Japan believed that the appropriate place for discussion of this subject was in the Technical Committee or Commission. Despite these reservations, it was agreed that this matter could be left on the Agenda.

9.1.1 Infractions reports from Contracting Governments
A summary of infractions reports for aboriginal subsistence whaling was available, although no commercial whaling took place in 1991. No infractions reports were received from the Russian Federation. In response to the UK, Denmark advised that the press report in August 1991 of the capture of a humpback whale in Greenland related to a whale entangled in pound nets.

Last year, the Sub-committee had again requested that Peru submit its outstanding Infractions Report from 1984. Although the report has still not been received, Peru has indicated that it will try to obtain the information and forward it to the Commission as soon as possible.

Denmark provided further information on the humpback whale taken in the Maniitsoq municipality of Greenland in 1990. A police investigation had taken place but due to the time lapse, insufficient evidence was found to sentence any individual hunter.

9.1.2 Other matters
The Committee noted the USA report that 90% of its catch was under direct inspection by national programmes. Information on the system in Greenland was also provided.

Inspection and observation schemes
Several delegations expressed the view that the RMP formed part of a package which was not just a way to calculate catches, but also included adequate standards for data and requirements for supervision and control. They considered supervision and control to be a vital corollary of the RMP, not just on practical grounds but also politically, which must be reviewed before setting new quotas for commercial whaling. Only if monitoring was seen to be an effective and open process would the RMP package be seen to be credible.

Other delegations were strongly opposed to introducing at this stage the idea of a linkage between the setting of catch limits and issues of supervision and control. They considered that the purpose of the RMP was to replace the current management procedure as given in Paragraph 10 of the Schedule. Norway stated the view that up to now the RMP had been understood as a procedure for calculating catch limits. It had strong reservations against introducing additional elements at this stage, when the RMP is about to be implemented, and saw this exercise as a further threat to the IWC. It considered that while questions concerning supervision and control were important, they were quite separate and need not necessarily be considered in advance of implementation of the RMP. It noted that a framework for national and international inspection was already in existence. Iceland noted that the IWC has an international inspection and observer scheme which has been functioning satisfactorily.

Australia noted that there were clearly very different views on the relationship between the RMP and the development of an observation and inspection programme. It considered, however, that there was merit in drawing on the experience gained in the earlier development of such programmes and suggested that there would be merit in reviewing those programmes for which information could be obtained. It placed particular importance on identifying operational and practical difficulties that would have to be considered in developing and implementing a scheme for possible future operation.

While most delegations expressed a willingness to consider issues of supervision and control, there was no agreement as to the best forum for such deliberations. Japan expressed the view that it was inappropriate to discuss this item under the infractions heading because it involved the expertise of other committees and because it would negatively prejudge the future surveillance scheme. The USA proposed the establishment of a Working Group which might address some of the issues raised. In particular, it suggested that examining observer and inspection schemes evolved in other organisations might be helpful. It was further pointed out that there would be overlap with issues concerning data standards and the implementation of the Catch Limit Algorithm, which would require input from the Scientific Committee, and that all of these would be of interest to the Revision of the Schedule Working Group. Norway welcomed a discussion on matters relating to supervision and control, but emphasised that this should not take place in the context of the RMP. Further work should proceed on the basis of the relevant Law of the Sea Convention provisions. This was supported by Iceland.

There was general agreement that it is appropriate for the Commission to consider this matter, including the existing regulations and if it is appropriate that they should be modernised. Norway reserved its position on the terms of reference of such a Working Group should the Commission decide one was required.

Checklist of Information required or requested under Section VI of the Schedule
The available information is summarised below:

Denmark: Information on date, position, species, length, sex, whether lactating and whether a foetus is present is collected for between 56-100% of the fin whale catch and 70-86% of the minke whale catch, depending on the item. Information on killing method, vessel size and struck and lost animals is also recorded.

USA: Information on date, position, species, length, sex, whether lactating and whether a foetus is present is collected for the whole catch. Ovaries or testes are collected from 50% of the catch. Information on killing method, vessel size, and struck and lost animals is also recorded.

Submission of national laws and regulations
Following last year's decision, the Secretariat provided a summary sheet of national legislation to the Sub-committee. The full list is available for interested members to consult.

The Secretariat was informed that Ireland had created a Cetacean Sanctuary in its waters. Chile informed the Secretariat that it had signed Protocol II of the Convention to the Prohibition of Fishing with Long Drift Nets in the South Pacific. New Zealand welcomed Chile's action as a sterling example for other countries eligible to support the Convention or its Protocols to follow.

Blubber found on the Falkland Islands
The UK presented a paper describing a large (9.7m long, 2.7m wide and 26cm deep) piece of whale blubber washed ashore on West Falkland in October 1991. Photographs taken of the blubber in November 1991 have been made widely available. It is thought that the blubber was from a fin whale, although no samples have been analysed to confirm this. Investigations to find out more about the circumstances leading to the blubber being washed ashore were carried out but these have now come to a halt. It was stated that this area is regularly patrolled and that the matter serves to highlight the need for surveillance and that there is still cause for concern over whaling by non-contracting parties.

Brazil and Norway thanked the UK for bringing the incident to the attention of the Commission and urged that further research be conducted.

9.2 Action arising
Any action to be taken with respect to inspection and observer schemes, reporting, monitoring and data standards was deferred until later in the meeting when a package of issues might be developed.

_