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

12.2.1 Management objectives and procedures for aboriginal subsistence whaling
In the Sub-committee a majority of delegations favoured waiting until work on the RMS was completed before examining the management objectives for aboriginal subsistence whaling; others, however, believed it may not be necessary to wait for completion of the RMS, with discussions starting in parallel. It was recalled that the Scientific Committee could not begin its work without specific advice from the Commission on substance. A review of the objectives of the scheme was regarded as valuable, though some delegations had countered about the inapplicability of the RMS now under development, given its detailed demands.

The Chairman of the Technical Committee recalled the view that finalisation of the RMS should be regarded as a 'time line' to start the review, rather than there being any direct linkage between the RMS and aboriginal subsistence management objectives.

These matters were noted by the Technical Committee.

12.2.2 Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort Seas stock of bowhead whales
The Scientific Committee this year had considered new assessment methods which would provide a substantial improvement in assessment methodology and recommended their use for the planned bowhead whale assessment in 1994. This stock was most recently assessed by the Committee in 1991. As was the situation last year, the Committee had received no new information that would cause it to change its advice of 1991 and it reiterated the recommendations given then.

The Technical Committee agreed that there was no need to modify the present catch limits.

The need documented by the USA last year for the village of Little Diomede was deferred for decision on recognition until next year when the catch limits are to be set again. The question of catches by non-member governments also arose and was referred to Any Other Business on the Commission's agenda.

A request was made by New Zealand for comment on the situation in Canada. Subsequently a Canadian Government observer provided the following statement:

'In response to the question related to future plans for the hunting of bowhead whales in Canada raised by the Commissioner from New Zealand during the meeting of the Commission's Technical Committee, I can inform you that the Government of Canada has not received any notification of plans for the hunting of bowhead whales nor any request for a licence to hunt bowhead whales in 1993 or later. Further it should be noted that there was no bowhead whale hunt in Canada in 1992.

Any further requests for information should be directed to my Government.'

12.2.3 North Pacific eastern stock of gray whales
The Technical Committee agreed there was no need to modify the present catch limits.

12.2.4 North Atlantic humpback whales
In the Sub-committee, St Vincent and The Grenadines described its fishery and the aboriginal need and had made a request for the Commission to establish new catch limits at present levels from 1993. This request was supported by a number of delegations. Japan suggested flexibility on limits while Australia expressed reservations about the case developed for the aboriginal need. It was noted that points raised by some delegations on matters outside the competence of the Sub-committee should properly be pursued as necessary in other fora.

The Technical Committee passed on these remarks to the plenary, where St Vincent and The Grenadines made a substantive statement. It requested continuation of the three year quota which had been set since 1987 from a stock estimated at over 5,000 humpback whales. This was based on a continuing cultural need for the people who had whaled since 1875. The threats of a boycott of the tourist industry had heightened local interest in whaling, and it felt it inadvisable to take legal action against the elderly whaler over the infraction which occurred this year. It preferred quiet persuasion and public education, and thought it prudent to propose a reduction of the quota to two whales per year for the next three years.

12.3 Action arising
The Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling Sub-Committee agreed that its existing terms of reference were adequate for the time being given current Commission procedures for handling this and related topics, and the Technical Committee agreed to keep the matter under review in this period of dynamic reorganisation of the Commission's procedures.

The request for a catch of two humpback whales for each of the next three years by St Vincent and The Grenadines was supported by Norway, Japan, Denmark and Dominica. The USA also supported the proposal, and the Secretary clarified that the amendment was for 2 whales in each of the years 1993/94 to 1995/96, with the same footnote in the Schedule concerning annual review.

Australia requested an updated paper on the cultural need and perhaps annual review by the Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling Sub-committee, while the Netherlands suggested setting a single year catch limit because of the advanced age of the whaler. St Vincent and The Grenadines responded strongly to these suggestions and to a procedural point by New Zealand on the oral presentation of a Schedule amendment. St Lucia and Japan backed St Vincent and The Grenadines. Following further discussion and clarification of these points, including the UK welcoming the offer by St Vincent and The Grenadines to try to resolve the problems raised and to provide documentation for next year, the Commission agreed by consensus to amend the Schedule as first proposed.

Finally, Brazil expressed satisfaction that the discussion on management objectives and procedures for aboriginal subsistence whaling had started. It agreed with the USA that the three principles that govern the present procedure should stand and in the same order, and looked forward to action in the near future.

_