(from "Chairman's Report of the Forty-Eighth Annual Meeting")
In discussion of documents presented to the Working Group, the UK suggested guidelines for collecting data on the humane killing of whales, emphasising that the guidelines would have to be discussed by experts. In its view such guidelines should, in principle, be included in the supervision and control programme, and it was seeking acceptance of that principle. Some delegations agreed that collection of such data would be useful to the Commission and that observers should be responsible for collecting them, while others noted that the issue of humane killing was dealt with in other fora of the IWC. One delegation could not accept the inclusion of humane killing in the supervision and control programme and the discussion was referred to the Technical Committee or the Commission.
Reference was made to the difficulties of arriving at a common inspection and control scheme under the auspices of the IWC. The North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission (NAMMCO) countries felt a need to harmonize their different control schemes and had developed a common scheme. The NAMMCO Control Scheme might be of use in the further work of the IWC to establish a supervision and control programme.
The Working Group then proceeded to go through the headlines from the discussions at the Dublin meeting. The Chairman referred to the difference in views stated at previous meetings concerning the possibility of transferring enforcement powers to the international observer. It was clear that some delegations had strongly objected to giving the observers such powers. After some discussion the Chairman concluded that there seemed to be agreement in the Working Group that enforcement powers are entrusted in the flag state, which may execute its duties in the manner it deems appropriate. Hence it would be the responsibility of the flag state to decide how to deal with enforcement powers in cases where only international observers were onboard. The Chairman also concluded that new positions or points of view compared to previous meetings of the Working Group had not emerged during the discussion.
One delegation proposed, in an effort to bring the Working Group's work forward, to address the general principles for surveillance and control of whaling activities. The work could then progress to differentiate between different types of whaling based upon these general principles. It was agreed that the Chairman with the aid of the Secretary would compile a list of the general generic principles on which there seemed to be consensus. These were as follows.
Context: Component of the RMS for commercial whaling.
Purpose: Ensure that whaling operations under the jurisdiction of
Contracting Governments comply with IWC regulations and national rules
implementing such regulations.
Coverage: Aim at a system that will be generally applicable, but
concentrate on such whaling operations which might be permitted by the IWC in
the foreseeable future.
Develop different concrete schemes for different forms of whaling to which the
system would apply.
Responsibility: Responsibility of Contracting Governments to implement
scheme(s) into rules binding for its nationals.
Responsibility of Contracting Governments to impose penalties for infractions.
If prosecution or legal actions are required, that would be the responsibility
of national judicial or administrative systems.
Mode of inspection: Contracting Governments to appoint inspectors to
whaling operations to maintain adequate inspection.
IWC to appoint observers to ensure adequate observer coverage of whaling
operations.
Reporting: Contracting Governments report to IWC.
Observers report on the whaling activity, including possible infractions, to
IWC and Contracting Governments.
Qualifications: Guidelines for minimum qualifications for inspectors and
observers.
Data collection: Minimum requirements for items to be included in
whaling logbooks for different schemes.
Technology: Efficient technologies (presently known and implementable)
to fulfil purpose of the schemes.
Cost recovery: Mechanism to be developed for cost recovery from
Contracting Governments and IWC.
Transparency: To be ensured through a mechanism to be developed for IWC
body to deal with reports under scheme(s).
Whaling Register
Several delegations stated that there was a need to maintain the Whaling
Register in order to have a list of vessels engaged in legitimate whaling
operations, in order to identify pirate whaling vessels as well as whaling by
non-IWC-member countries.
The Register would be needed for implementation of a supervision and control
scheme under the RMS.
The list could be kept confidentially to address some members' concerns about
possible attacks by extremists on whaling vessels.
Such a confidentiality should not prevent Contracting Governments from access
to the list.
Some delegations reiterated their view that information on vessels could not be given and queried whether it would be possible to keep such information confidential.
Draft text for schedule amendments
The Working Group concluded that since it had not reached any final conclusion
on many of the matters discussed and that very little common ground seemed to
exist, it was not in a position to prepare any proposals for amendment of the
Schedule.
At the conclusion of his presentation of the report to the Commission, Mr Lemche commented that after four meetings of the Working Group, it was his impression that the Working Group is unable to make further progress. Japan appreciated his efforts and reaffirmed its readiness to pursue further work on the basis of his generic principles. Norway understood the pessimism in trying to further this issue. Its own proposals first put forward in 1993 had finally come to nothing, which was why it had supported consideration of aspects of the NAMMCO scheme as the last remaining element before the RMS can be adopted. The Netherlands thought that examples of inspection schemes from other Conventions might be considered and suggested that interested countries might work on a document based on the generic principles. The Russian Federation suggested that the agreement at the UN Conference on Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks contains sufficient provisions on boarding and inspection so that it is not necessary to incorporate them in the Whaling Convention, but Japan pointed out problems of waiting for IWC states to ratify the new Convention. Denmark believed that progress could be achieved if the very limited number of commercial whaling activities which might be permitted by the IWC were identified and supervision and control systems created for them.
The USA pointed out that there had been virtually no positive reaction or accommodation to the many ideas put forward on inspection and control, the UK agreed and thought part of the frustration arose from the artificial distinction between this work and the arrangements to keep catches over time within the RMS. New Zealand and Mexico shared these views.
12.2 Report of the Working Group on Abundance Surveys and Implementation of
the RMS
Mr F. von der Assen (Netherlands) presented the report of the Working Group
which he chaired immediately before the Annual Meeting.
The Working Group was established last year to discuss:
In addition, the Resolution on Surveys Intended to Provide Abundance Estimates for the Implementation of the RMP adopted by consensus at the 47th Annual Meeting of the IWC (IWC Resolution 1995-7 Rep. int. Whal. Commn 46:45-6) called for the Working Group to consider the requirements that:
Also, the Working Group was to discuss the draft Resolution on reporting bycatches of whales held over from last year, and a letter from the Japanese Commissioner to the Scientific Committee Chairman regarding IWC Resolution 1995-7.
Guidelines for conducting vessel surveys and analysing data
In reviewing the Guidelines, the Scientific Committee stressed that their main
purpose is to aid the process of obtaining estimates of abundance for use in
the Catch Limit Algorithm (CLA) by:
The Scientific Committee reaffirmed its view that only Section 2 should be regarded as compulsory. In order to emphasise this it was agreed to amend the title to: Requirements and Guidelines for Conducting and Analysing Data Within the Revised Management Scheme.
The Scientific Committee also discussed the intent of the term 'oversight' in IWC Resolution 1995-7. It recommended that the level of oversight it provide be directly linked to the methodology used in the survey. Accordingly, for surveys that the Scientific Committee determines are to use 'standard' methodology, 'oversight' by the Scientific Committee need only be at a level sufficient to ensure that these 'standard' methods are adequately followed. This may involve participation in: cruise planning meetings; the survey itself; and the post-cruise meeting. If, however, the Scientific Committee determines that the survey involves novel aspects of survey design, conduct or analysis, it will determine a plan to facilitate the work necessary to obtain an abundance estimate in a timely fashion.
In addition, the Scientific Committee recorded its strong belief that, from the perspective of scientific oversight, any representative or representatives of the Scientific Committee should be chosen on the basis of scientific competence and relevant experience, not nationality.
There was general agreement in the Working Group that the Scientific Committee had developed acceptable revisions to the Requirements and Guidelines document, as called for in IWC Resolution 1994-5. One delegation questioned whether the requirement to provide four months notice to the Scientific Committee before undertaking a survey provided enough time to review the survey adequately. The Scientific Committee Chairman responded that four months was considered the minimum period for notification although more time would be preferable. He noted that the review would normally be carried out at an Annual Meeting. The Secretariat also clarified that, in accordance with standard practice, it would transmit the information to all Members. It was emphasised that the Scientific Committee itself and not the people carrying out the survey would determine if the methodology was 'standard'.
Several delegations also noted their concerns that oversight of survey planning is only of an advisory nature and that prior approval of survey plans by the Scientific Committee is not required. The Scientific Committee Chairman pointed out that if a country failed to follow the advice of the Scientific Committee, it was unlikely that the estimate based on the unrevised survey would then be accepted by the Scientific Committee.
Total catches over time
The Commission wants to ensure that all human-induced whale mortalities,
including such things as incidental mortalities, are accounted for when
setting catch limits under the RMP and the Chairman of the Scientific
Committee explained that the Catch Limit Algorithm fully accounts for
all human-induced mortalities when setting catch limits.
If the Scientific Committee were to lean of additional sources of mortality
after a quota were established, it would account for those mortalities when
making its next calculations.
The Scientific Committee has recommended that national reports should include
estimates of mortality, and concerning the need also to consider whale catches
by non-IWC members, the Secretary pointed out that he had proposed that the
Secretariat work with an international body coordinated by the Food and
Agriculture Organisation (FAO) that collects all known statistics regarding
fisheries.
It was noted that the RMP trials allowed for significant under-reporting of catches in the historical catch series but assumed that the actual catches were taken once the management period has begun. The Scientific Committee's discussion in 1993 of data requirements for the RMP included a section on how avoidance of exceeding catch limits might be achieved (Rep. int. Whal. Commn 44:44).
It was pointed out that it is impossible to account for all mortalities ahead of time when setting quotas. Examples of many unintentional cases of incidental whale catches by several different Member states were noted. It was suggested that if all mortalities should be accounted for when establishing quotas, this principle should hold for aboriginal subsistence quotas as well as commercial ones. Caution was expressed against punishing whalers by reducing their quotas due to incidental mortalities, rather than punishing the fishermen who caused the incidental mortalities.
While it is impossible to predict incidental mortalities and account for such removals when establishing commercial catch limits, the RMP does not allocate its calculated catch limits, which actually are the predicted safe, conservative removal levels, between sources of human-caused mortality. The latter include, besides commercial catches, research and aboriginal catches which may be known in advance. Some delegations expressed the view that this shortcoming must be addressed by an appropriate provision in the RMS.
Resolution on reporting bycatches
It was pointed out that the Guidelines for national progress reports (Rep.
int. Whal. Commn 39:130) currently only recommend that bycatch data for
small cetaceans be reported to the Commission with no explicit mechanism for
larger whales.
The Scientific Committee had recommended that the progress reports include
this information.
While the level of detail specified was adequate for stocks not considered in
the context of the RMP, for the RMP the Scientific Committee has specified
that a much greater level of detail is required.
After further consultations among those delegations which had reservations with regard to Annex K, the Working Group agreed to endorse the Scientific Committee's recommendation that the Commission adopt the revised requirements and guidelines as given in Annex K of the Scientific Committee's Report.
It was further agreed to endorse the Scientific Committee's recommendations concerning the contents of annual national progress reports. As implementation of these recommendations would require amendments to the suggested revised guidelines contained in Rep. int. Whal. Commn 39:130, the Working Group recommended that the Commission request the Scientific Committee to revise those guidelines accordingly at its next meeting.
12.3 Other matters
There were no other matters discussed.
12.4 Action arising
The USA suggested that it would be useful to continue the work on the RMS and
more efficient if the two Working Groups were combined.
The bycatch issue is not part of this and the Commission should request the
Scientific Committee to revise the guidelines as recommended.
Mexico supported the proposal to merge the Working Groups and the Russian
Federation supported the recommendations from the Working Groups.
Japan pointed out that research is a sovereign right and it is not in a position to accept international observers or scientists as a requirement. Continual amendment of the guidelines has cost implications for the countries carrying out research to calculate sustainable catch limits for commercial whaling activities, placing a particular burden on countries with less human resources and finance. It looked forward to finalising the RMS to lift the moratorium but saw some inconsistency in the Commission's work as some countries do not agree with a resumption of commercial whaling under any circumstances.
Norway reserved its position on merging the two Working Groups. It agreed with the USA that Annex K should be adopted, but meaningful discussion on outstanding questions on the RMS requires input from the Scientific Committee.
The USA introduced a Resolution on provisions for completing the RMS, cosponsored by Mexico, Netherlands, Norway and UK. This accepted Annex K as a component of the RMS, reconfirmed last year's understanding that abundance estimates not endorsed by the Scientific Committee will not be used in implementation of the RMP, addressed the placing of scientists to ensure oversight on surveys, combined the two former Working Groups into one to complete the remaining elements of the RMS and established a consultation with the Scientific Committee on arrangements to ensure that total catches over time are within the limits set under the RMS.
The UK commented on the need for the Scientific Committee to operate in an open and transparent way, particularly when new survey methods are involved, to explain its conclusions in clear terms, and to keep abundance estimates under review to correct any errors that emerge. Japan thought the Scientific Committee had acted in this way this year, and it had a strong reservation to a mandatory placement of IWC observers of different nationality from the parties carrying out a survey as challenging the integrity of the scientists who plan, conduct and analyse the research. Its own research will continue to be open to foreign scientists. The Netherlands understood that it was the scientific qualifications rather than the nationality intended in the Resolution, and emphasised the need for scrutiny and validation of novel methods used in surveys and analysis for abundance estimates. Norway referred to the agreed conclusions of the Scientific Committee, although there was always additional work which would be done, and the explanations given for the conclusions reached. It put on record its strong reservation about the possibility for delay in the Scientific Committee by countries opposed to whaling. Denmark supported the Resolution and gave high priority to create solutions for the small-type commercial whaling. It understood the placement of nominated scientists on survey vessels is optional. Australia indicated that its new government is strongly opposed to commercial whaling and its stated goal is a permanent international ban, so that its support for this Resolution should not be interpreted as implicit approval for a resumption at any time in the future. New Zealand's position was the same and Austria also spoke in support.
The Resolution shown in Appendix 6 was then adopted by consensus, Ireland recording that it retained its reservation to IWC Resolution 1994-5.
_