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

8.1.1 Infractions reports from Contracting Governments
Infractions reports submitted by Denmark, Norway, the Russian Federation, St Vincent and The Grenadines, and the USA indicated no infractions had occurred in their whaling operations.

8.1.2 Reports from Contracting Governments on the sources of and trade in whale meat and products
Under the terms of IWC Resolution 1994-7 (Rep. int. Whal. Commn 45:44-5) the Infractions Sub-committee received a written report of no trade from Mexico and oral reports from New Zealand and the Russian Federation on international trade in whale products.

Japan reiterated its view that the matter is outside the competence of the IWC, while New Zealand and the USA expressed the opposite view, but despite this difference all delegations agreed to provide the information on a voluntary basis.

Japan reported on the seizure of 6.1 tonnes of meat and blubber from a single sperm whale caught by a driftnet vessel in September 1995. It also presented information on two recent cases which appear to be of smuggling, one of which was also being investigated by Norway. Norway reported that charges from an earlier smuggling attempt in 1993 will be dealt with this autumn.

The Republic of Korea was asked about a document submitted to the Scientific Committee suggesting that whale meat of several species, including some not found in its waters, was available in that country. The Republic of Korea had no specific information but confirmed it had prohibited the taking of all whales and small cetaceans in 1986 and its national legislation implemented CITES prohibitions.

8.1.3 Stockpiles of whale meat
IWC Resolution 1995-6 (Rep. int. Whal. Commn 46:45) called for reports on stockpiles of whale meat. Japan again thought this subject outside IWC competence. New Zealand, South Africa and the UK had sent submissions reporting no stockpiles and Denmark, the Netherlands and the USA made similar oral reports. Despite the divergent views over competence, it was agreed that this was a useful forum in which to exchange information and all governments were urged to continue to supply information on these matters.

8.1.4 Other matters
The Netherlands invited comments from Denmark on a recently published paper implying that bottlenose whales may be driven ashore in the Faroe Islands. Denmark responded that for the time being it has no plans to propose a change to the Schedule and only self-stranded bottlenose whales have been utilised since protection was introduced in 1986.

Japan agreed to investigate an alleged illegal taking of a western Pacific gray whale raised by the UK.

8.2 Action arising
The USA indicated that two gray whales it reported as infractions, although within the total catch limit, were outside its own needs request and therefore regarded by it as infractions and fines levied.

Japan reaffirmed its position that management of the domestic market is outside IWC competence under Convention Article I paragraph 2. To prevent illegal activities it is educating market workers and thought the best solution is to reopen sustainable whaling to lower the price and contribute to sustainable development.

The USA introduced a Resolution on improving mechanisms to restrict trade and prevent illegal trade in whale meat put forward by Brazil, New Zealand, Austria and the USA. The Resolution calls on member countries and other entities to report on the status of stockpiles of whale meat, relevant domestic laws governing sale and possession, and enforcement actions; as well as calling on support for IWC recommendations and CITES obligations.

Japan stated that it makes full effort for enforcement action against illegal trade but it opposed the Resolution as a matter of principle as it is outside the Commission's competence. Norway took a similar position. Austria said it cosponsored the Resolution to introduce a rigorous information exchange between CITES and the IWC. The Russian Federation expressed its view that obligations assumed under an international treaty should be fulfilled.

On being put to the vote, there were 20 votes cast in favour, 7 against and 2 abstentions. The Resolution as adopted is shown in Appendix 3.

Denmark explained its no vote because, while supporting the general intention, its opinion is that the matter lies with CITES, and also has nothing to do with aboriginal subsistence whaling. Switzerland abstained because it thought CITES is the competent body and also had problems with the paragraph dealing with domestic markets as outside the scope of this Convention. The Chairman hoped that there would be a more focused debate at the next meeting, and expected the Secretary to follow this and last year's Resolutions on this matter.

_