(from "Chairman's Report of the Forty-Ninth Annual Meeting")
10.2 Aboriginal subsistence whaling scheme
10.2.1 Report of the Scientific Committee
Because of the technical nature of the discussions, the Scientific Committee
had agreed that it was appropriate for the Chairman of its Standing Working
Group on the Aboriginal Whaling Management Procedure (AWMP), G. Donovan, to
present discussion of this topic.
The Scientific Committee had recognised the importance of being able to compare the AWMP with the RMP, particularly with respect to the question of risk, and it will develop simulation trials with the express purpose of enabling comparison with the RMP.
On the question of dialogue between the Scientific Committee, the Commission and hunters, the formal mechanism is for the Scientific Committee to report to the Commission's Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling Sub-committee. There are well established links between some members of the Scientific Committee and aboriginal subsistence communities (e.g. in Alaska and Greenland) and the development of similar mechanisms for other aboriginal whaling operations should be encouraged. In addition, the Scientific Committee had agreed that it would not be averse to a representative discussing issues related to the development of the AWMP with interested communities and/or harvest managers if a request was made by the appropriate member governments through the Commission.
There are a number of issues on which the Scientific Committee will require input from the Commission, either at this meeting or at sometime in the future. The first concerns the question of 'need' envelopes, a concept that had been endorsed by the Commission at last year's meeting. The idea is that this need envelope sets some bounds on the situations with which the management procedure will have to be able to cope, at least with respect to the objective to fulfil need requirements. The Scientific Committee recognised that the question of need is the responsibility of the Commission and in particular the Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling Sub-committee.
In order to carry out simulation trials, the Scientific Committee must use values for need for the period of the simulations, at present, a 100-year period. There are a number of reasons for choosing this period, including the fact that as whales are long-lived animals with relatively low reproductive capacity, it is not possible to model their populations and predict trends over very short periods in the context of evaluating a management procedure.
The Scientific Committee proposed some alternative need envelopes for consideration for fishery type 1 (loosely based on the West Greenland fishery) and fishery type 2 (loosely based on the bowhead fishery). In both cases the needed strike options after 100 years are 1.5 times greater, 2 times greater and 3 times greater than the current level.
The Chairman of the Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling Sub-committee suggested that a smaller group including those delegations directly involved in aboriginal subsistence whaling and the Chairman of the AWMP, report back on the framework for simulation trials; Denmark, Norway, USA and Japan agreed to participate and provide their input. In Plenary, this group reported that the largest of the example need envelopes provided should be used for the exploration trials.
The next issue addressed was the question of multi-species fisheries. When Greenland had presented its need request to the Commission, it had expressed it as a number of tonnes of whale meat per year, with need not assigned to species. In recent years, Greenlanders have hunted minke, fin and humpback whales. Catch limits for minke and fin whales are set at present. The Scientific Committee recognises both the importance and complexity of this issue and is beginning to try to find a satisfactory way to address it. At present, for example, for fishery type 1 it assumed that the full need (expressed as 670 tonnes of meat) is fulfilled by minke whales. The Scientific Committee recognises that this is not consistent with either past or current practice but is a simplification for its 'disposable' Initial Exploration Trials. In order to help limit the trial scenarios that must be addressed, it would be very helpful if the Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling Sub-committee could give some idea of the maximum proportion of need that minke whales might be expected to provide off West Greenland (e.g. 50%, 75%, 90%).
In discussion, Denmark was strongly of the view that a multi-species model should be considered and developed as a priority and could not agree to initial development of a single species model without simultaneous multi-species consideration.
The Scientific Committee had decided that in the initial stages of development of the AWMP it would constrain itself to single species models due to the complexity of multi-species modelling. It had determined that once a single species model was well developed, multi-species components could be incorporated. The Netherlands supported the approach taken by the Scientific Committee.
The Chairman requested that Denmark and the Chairman of the Standing Working Group have discussions and report to Plenary on this matter, where they indicated that although progress had been made, they had reached no final agreement and would continue to consider the matter further.
Other matters requiring input were as follows. The Scientific Committee had noted the value of block quotas and carry-over in aboriginal fisheries in harsh environments, where annual variations in weather and ice conditions, for example, can affect the success of the hunt. These are both currently specified in the Schedule provisions for bowhead whaling. At present there is no requirement for developers to be required to incorporate such design features into their Strike Limit Algorithms. Should the Commission believe that such features are highly desirable then the Scientific Committee will ensure that developers are made aware that they should incorporate them.
After some discussion and clarification, Denmark, Norway and the USA all stated that they believed that such provisions were extremely important and should be incorporated as design features. It was agreed that the Commission is interested in all effects of total catches over time and that it would include questions of block quotas and carry-over.
On the question of the importance of stability in strike limits, this only arises if it is found that a particular stock is below the level that the full need requirement can be met, in the context of the Commission's risk objective. Delegations were asked to give some consideration to this issue during the year with a view to providing advice at a future meeting.
Concerning the general question of hunting strategies, the need is for general advice to help the Scientific Committee try to limit the different approaches it might have to consider. Two examples that might be considered are:
Delegations were again requested to give some consideration to these issues during the year with a view to providing advice at a future meeting.
The USA noted that it is need, not stable catches, that is important in aboriginal subsistence whaling, that native peoples are sensitive to changes in stock movements and would hunt in the best interests of the stock.
The Scientific Committee had noted that the collection of biological material from the catch can lead to a more successful approach to management and is an important way in which hunters can participate in the management process. However, it is important only to ask hunters to collect data which can be justified as important in a management context. At this stage, it agreed that the following are most important for developing a satisfactory AWMP: sex; length; approximate catch position; and tissue samples for each whale. While perhaps more difficult to collect, tissue samples are particularly important for those fisheries for which stock identity is a problem. In addition, DNA fingerprinting may also allow for mark-recapture population abundance estimates in the future, in conjunction with biopsy sampling.
The Scientific Committee appreciated that such data are already being provided by hunters from some aboriginal fisheries and it requested the cooperation of the Commission, member governments and hunters in facilitating the collection of these data for all fisheries.
The final points raised concerned the future work of the Standing Working Group on the AWMP. The first concerned the need to broaden the expertise available to the group, including the invitation of specialists not normally present at IWC meetings on more than a one-off basis. The second, which had also been raised in the Finance and Administration Committee, concerned the establishment of a small fund to aid developers, similar to the one that had existed for the RMP development process. This had greatly facilitated RMP work and the Scientific Committee has requested that the Commission consider establishing such a fund for the AWMP process.
In conclusion, it was noted that it is difficult to predict when the Scientific Committee might be ready to recommend an AWMP to the Commission, but it would be in at least 2-3 years time. It was dependent on a number of factors, not least advice from the Commission on priorities for the Scientific Committee, its workload and associated financial support.
The USA suggested simulating examples of the existing aboriginal subsistence scheme along with the AWMP proposed scheme to determine whether the new system would have any advantages over the existing one. Netherlands supported this idea and also suggested examining future properties of the AWMP in comparison with the RMP, particularly investigating the differences between the two schemes.
The Chairman thanked the Scientific Committee, and in particular the Standing Working Group on the AWMP, for its work.
10.2.2 Action arising
In the Commission, the USA remarked that it followed the work of the
Scientific Committee very closely.
It found the present aboriginal subsistence whaling scheme effective, and
suggested that the Commission should not move to a new scheme unless it proves
to meet the Commission's objectives.
The RMP had been compared with the old management scheme for commercial
whaling, and it believed a similar comparison should be made with the AWMP.
The Netherlands spoke of the importance of consistency, and also called for a comparison of the RMP and the AWMP. The UK and Monaco supported the Netherlands, and the Chairman of the Scientific Committee pointed out that this had already been agreed.
10.3 Review of aboriginal subsistence whaling catch limits
10.3.1 Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort Seas stock of bowhead whales
The Russian Federation presented a request for an aboriginal subsistence quota
of five bowhead whales from the Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort Seas stock.
It outlined the long-standing harvesting of bowhead whales by the Chukotka
community and the abundance of the species in local waters.
The cultural, spiritual and nutritional needs of the Chukotka peoples and the
importance and purpose of reviving their culture with respect to bowhead
whaling were described, and the impact of economic changes since 1991 on the
indigenous people of this region noted.
In response to questions raised by Brazil, the UK, Australia, Switzerland, South Africa and Denmark, the Russian Federation stated that the last harvests of bowheads by the Chukotka people occurred in 1971 and 1975 with 1-2 whales taken in each year. Bowhead whaling had ceased due to protection of the species, but gray whales had been continuously taken. It confirmed that animals to be taken belong to the same stock as those caught in Alaska. As the stock is now increasing, the initial reason for suspending the bowhead harvest no longer exists. The entire indigenous population (17,000 people) was involved in the catch, consumption of whale products and cultural aspects of whaling activities. In the past, equipment and appropriate technology had not been available but now the Alaskan Eskimo Whaling Commission had supplied the Chukotka people with many boats, engines, weapons and appropriate training. The improvements to killing methods and efficiency are evident by the recent takes of gray whales which had each required only one shot. The permit provided by the Russian Federation last year for two bowhead whales on the grounds of need of the people had not been taken. On the question of why a bowhead quota was requested without full utilisation of the existing gray whale quota, the Russian Federation noted that: the Chukotka people preferred bowhead whale meat over gray whale meat; and bowheads were more accessible and easier to catch. The Chukotka people are working in collaboration with the Alaskan Eskimo people on scientific aspects of the stock. Results of some of the joint studies may be available for the next meeting.
Denmark, Norway and Japan indicated support for the Russian request recognising that the need of the community had been well documented, with Norway noting the importance of obtaining advice from the Scientific Committee on the biological aspects of stock structure and abundance. Brazil expressed its concerns at the recent increase in the number of requests and the number of whales requested under aboriginal subsistence quotas. In answer to questions from Brazil and New Zealand, the Russian Federation stated that all bowhead whale meat would be used for human consumption by the indigenous population.
In response to Switzerland, the USA advised that discussions were underway regarding a joint Russian-USA proposal that would be presented as an amendment to the Russian bowhead request. This proposal would address the concerns expressed by some delegations regarding what might appear to be competing aboriginal subsistence quotas from the one bowhead stock. The existing quota of bowheads from the Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort Seas stock set on need established by the Alaskan Eskimos expires in 1998. The Russian request involves an increase in the total catch and the joint proposal would give the Commission the chance to deal with both native peoples' requests at the same time and the desire of the Alaskan natives to accommodate the immediate needs of the Chukotka people. The USA noted that the needs of the Alaskan people had not changed. The proposal would be for five years with a quota of 67 strikes per year, thus keeping the number of strikes at the 1996 level with limited carry-over. To accommodate the need of the Chukotka people, the number of carry-over strikes would be increased from 10 to 15. The present Schedule language regarding a review of the provision in light of the advice of the Scientific Committee would be retained. This provides flexibility to both groups of native peoples.
The Chairman of the Scientific Committee commented that there was no reason to change the advice given previously on this stock (that, with the removal of 75 animals annually, the population would increase over 1995 to 1998 at a rate of 1.46%), and pointed out that there will be a major reassessment of bowhead whales in the Scientific Committee at the next Annual Meeting. In the past it had been assumed that this was one stock, however the Scientific Committee had recommended studies to clarify this issue.
Norway noted that the assessment of bowheads at the next Annual Meeting would be a major assessment and therefore quotas should not be set for more than one year. The Netherlands, Denmark, Russian Federation, Australia and St Vincent and The Grenadines expressed their support for the joint proposal process. The Solomon Islands and Monaco also supported the proposal.
Australia and Spain sought clarification on the number of strikes and carry-over. The Russian Federation expressed its view that an allocation of 67 strikes would lead to a more efficient harvest. The USA explained that the proposal had been developed in the context of strikes and carry-over rather than landed whales in order to provide flexibility. The Scientific Committee and the IWC consider all whales struck, whether landed or not, as mortalities. This was a more conservative approach than developing a proposal on the number of landed whales. The USA would still report all strikes and landings, and would report to the Humane Killing Working Group on any relevant matters. The Netherlands thought that as hunting efficiency improves the strike rate should be decreased accordingly.
10.3.1.1 REPORT OF THE SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE
The Scientific Committee's comments were reported directly to the Aboriginal
Subsistence Sub-committee as noted above.
10.3.1.2 ACTION ARISING
In the Commission, the USA and the Russian Federation presented their joint
proposal in the form of a new text for Schedule paragraph 13(b)(l).
They both emphasised the local needs and traditions involved, and the
introduction of improved weapons technology to make the hunts more efficient.
In response to comments and concerns on various issues expressed or reiterated by Norway, Denmark, Switzerland, Sweden, Spain, the Netherlands, Australia and Japan, the USA spoke of its recognition of the forthcoming stock assessment; the bilateral arrangements to ensure that quotas are not exceeded; its intention to submit information to the Scientific Committee particularly on stock structure; to submit infractions reports and annual reports on progress; and an updated needs statement which is indexed to the human population and so exacerbates the situation as the population grows. It stated that products such as oil and handicrafts are exempted under US trade laws.
Further interventions from Mexico, Monaco, Japan and Germany on the uncertainties of stock structure and assessment led the USA to stress that it will not only abide by the results of next year's assessment but also annual reviews.
After further consultations, some amendments to the language proposed were submitted, to clarify that 15 unused strikes from the 1995-97 block quota would be carried forward, and that the annual review would take particular account of the 1998 Comprehensive Assessment of the stock.
Following a comment from the People's Republic of China that it supported the proposal according to the cultural traditions of the people and the report of the Scientific Committee, the Schedule amendments shown in Appendix 11 were adopted by consensus.
10.3.2 North Pacific Eastern stock of gray whales
CHUKOTKA REQUEST
The Russian Federation noted that from 1969-92 gray whaling had been carried
out by the Chukotka people.
During the last years of the hunt they had an IWC quota of 169 gray whales.
The full quota had not been taken due to lack of equipment, tools and
appropriate technology and experience.
The isolation of the region is a major contributing factor to the inability to
utilise the quota and the need of the native people to be able to supply
themselves with food from local sources, particularly marine mammals.
Economic change in the Russian Federation had also compounded this effect.
The cultural, religious and social importance of whaling to the Chukotka
people was emphasised.
They use skin boats and have recently benefited from a transfer of technology
(equipment and training) from the Alaskan Eskimo Whaling Commission.
Evidence of the success of this transfer in improving the efficiency of the
hunt was given by the example of three whales harvested this year, each taken
with a single shot.
The issue of gray whale meat being supplied as food for fox farms had been of concern to a number of delegations in the past, particularly as this affected the classification of nutritional need under aboriginal subsistence whaling. The Russian Federation noted that in 1991 there had been 20,000 foxes farmed in the region. By 1996 this had been reduced to 2,000 and by the end of this year the number would be reduced to 1,000. Now only those parts of the gray whale inedible to man (blubber and entrails) were fed to farmed foxes. The traditional hunt takes place 2-20km from shore and smaller animals are taken than was usual in the days of Soviet fleet whaling in the same region. The stock size is estimated at 23,000 and believed to be close to original levels. The native people of the region have been making concerted attempts to become part of the international community and the request is for a quota of 140 gray whales.
The UK, Australia, Spain, Netherlands, Brazil, Austria and a number of other delegations expressed concern at the previous use of gray whale meat in fox farms and the need to improve killing methods and efficiency of the hunt.
The USA commented on the problems faced in this remote region of the Russian Federation and the considerable attempts they had made to address the concerns expressed here and in the previous meeting by many delegations. Of particular note was the transfer of technology from Alaskan Eskimos which had significantly increased the ability of the Chukotka people to hunt more effectively. Denmark recognised the need of the Chukotka people and associated itself with the USA statement.
The Russian Federation repeated that the killing methods were being rapidly improved due to technology transfer; fewer whales were taken than quota due to a lack of fuel and equipment. In response to a question from Switzerland, the Russian Federation advised that, for similar reasons, fewer walruses and seals had also been taken; the numbers of gray whales were increasing as submitted to the Scientific Committee; farming of foxes had been rapidly reduced and only inedible parts of whales were used as food on farms; the indigenous human population lacks meat and uses the whale meat for sustenance; the total aboriginal population in the region is 17,000 people and all are involved in whale meat consumption; meat requirements are 100 kilos per person per annum, this would add up to 340 gray whales if real need was being requested, but only 140 whales can realistically be harvested and so the request is made for this number even though it does not meet the full need of the community.
St Vincent and The Grenadines expressed support for the request by the Russian Federation.
MAKAH REQUEST
The USA renewed its request for a quota of up to five gray whales for the
Makah tribe.
The Makah Tribal Council have determined that there is a need to renew the
cultural tradition of whaling in the community.
The following points were made in support of the application:
The Makah will be coordinating their proposal with the Russian Federation and would present a Schedule amendment to Plenary.
Following a brief address in the Makah and English languages, a representative of the Makah Tribal Council spoke emphasising both the central focus and importance of whaling to Makah culture. A weapons expert gave a presentation showing the weapon, ammunition and techniques to be used in the Makah hunt. Modifications have been made to the weapon to improve killing efficiency (accuracy, penetration and lightening of the weapon for use in boats) and trials had been conducted on carcasses and targets at sea. The trials had resulted in certainty that the greater power of the weapon to the target, combined with increased accuracy, would result in only one shot being required to produce a quick and humane death of the whale.
New Zealand and the UK received assurances to a number of technical questions on the ability to accurately hit the brain stem, and on the use of jacketed ammunition.
The USA acknowledged that some dissent exists in the USA concerning the Makah proposal.
Many delegations welcomed the Makah presentation and the efforts they had made to address concerns expressed last year. They referred to previous debates on this issue concerning the lack of continuation and the inability of the Makah to show that the nutritional need met the criteria required under aboriginal subsistence. They were sympathetic to the efforts of the indigenous people to revitalise their cultural traditions but still felt that the strict aboriginal subsistence criteria had not been met.
Brazil voiced the concern that there appeared to be an increasing demand for new aboriginal subsistence quotas and that approving this request might stimulate many other groups' demands. Monaco stressed the importance of applying transparent principles on conservation criteria, humane killing methods and meeting the need criteria. It also offered the view that western cultural views cannot always be applied to other cultures, making the point that the Makah had discontinued whaling in response to non-Makah commercial whaling, and that discontinuity should therefore not be used as an argument against resumption of their traditional activities. St Lucia echoed the view that the Commission must be sensitive to the plight of a people deprived of their traditional and cultural rights, particularly as the species was not threatened. Germany was of the opinion that the right of a native community to define its cultural needs should be respected.
In response to Brazil, the USA pointed out that no more than five whales were required to meet the spiritual and cultural demands, and noted that it is committed to humane killing methods; the use of modern technology helps achieve this goal.
Spain queried the legal aspects of the domestic treaty and USA international obligations under the ICRW. A number of delegations expressed the view that the domestic obligations of the US Government were not to be considered by the IWC and should in no way affect the USA's obligations under this and other international treaties. The USA commented that although under the Constitution the US Congress may abrogate an Indian treaty, this had not been expressly done.
Replying to Japan, the USA pointed out that the Makah hunt contained no commercial element whereas community based whaling did. It also clarified its position at CITES against the downlisting of whale species which was in line with the IWC moratorium on commercial whaling and the primacy of decisions on whales and whaling related activities resting with the IWC. It was opposed to commercial whaling and had domestic legislation which prevented such activities.
Antigua and Barbuda and Denmark expressed full support for the Makah request, as did St Vincent and The Grenadines, noting that cultural need had been established beyond doubt and should be enough to ensure acceptance of the request.
10.3.2.1 REPORT OF THE SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE
The Chairman of the Scientific Committee reported to the Aboriginal
Subsistence Whaling Sub-committee that the last Comprehensive Assessment of
this stock was in 1993, and substantial new information had become available
since then.
Based on data and analyses examined this year it had been agreed that a take
of up to 482 whales would be sustainable and likely to allow the population to
stabilise above the MSYL.
The Scientific Committee had provided no information on rates of increase
towards MSYL as the stock may already be above that level.
10.3.2.2 ACTION ARISING
In the Commission there was extended discussion of the two requests in the
context of a joint proposal by the Russian Federation and the USA for a catch
of 620 gray whales over five years, with an annual limit of 140.
The Russian Federation recalled that gray whales had been hunted since ancient times, but the people had not been allowed to hunt during the Soviet period. The representative of the Indigenous People's Association spoke of the desire to resume the traditional hunting lifestyle, to build traditional skin boats and to develop the weapons and improve the darting gun with the assistance of the Alaskan Eskimos. There are 15 villages with a long-standing relationship with gray whales, and small whales are being taken now which means that really more are needed than were formerly taken by the government ship to feed the families.
The USA mentioned the 1,500-year tradition of whaling by the Makah tribe, which is secured by the Neah Bay Treaty. The people now live in poverty and the meat will help their nutrition. Weapons development is proceeding and the hunt will be completely non-commercial. It expected the Makah catch to average four whales a year and not to exceed five.
Many delegations drew a distinction between the two requests. Australia recognised that the Chukotka harvest will be by the people themselves and not on their behalf by the Contracting Government. Aboriginal subsistence whaling involves a continuing dependence which it did not think the Makah situation met. It mentioned the internal dissent and court proceedings and called on the USA to prevent a resumption of whaling by its citizens.
Austria asked why there was no differentiation between struck and lost, to which the USA replied that this was the traditional way the limit had been handled in the past. Austria also suggested the addition of the words 'whose subsistence and cultural needs have been recognised by the IWC' to the preambular paragraph describing who can take the whales. Finland supported this addition.
The Netherlands, Switzerland, Spain, Chile, Brazil, South Africa and the Solomon Islands all indicated that they would not break a consensus if one existed, but reservations were expressed on the Makah need. The annual review of the provision and the restriction of use to human consumption only was noted, as was the necessity to complete a new aboriginal whaling management scheme quickly.
The UK accepted the Chukotka need but was not convinced that the Makah need was established and still had concerns over the killing methods. New Zealand also supported the Chukotka request but, on a personal visit, its Commissioner had failed to find the Makah need and it was disappointed with the link between the two requests.
Denmark, Monaco, Norway and Ireland supported both requests, Monaco mentioning the wish to maintain cultural as well as biological diversity.
Mexico found this a difficult decision. The gray whales are born in its waters and are no longer endangered. It had no doubts over the Chukotka request, but the Makah was different, as part of the richest nation in the world in an area of endangered habitat. It could not support a joint quota for the stock and would abstain.
Japan, while supporting the proposal, pointed out that its own request for an interim relief quota continued to be denied and again raised its concerns over the sale of craft products to tourists when gray whales are listed on CITES Appendix 1 as endangered, which it thought ridiculous. The USA stated that handicrafts have a specific exemption in trade.
After further consultations to refine the language, a broad consensus was reached to accept the amendment of Schedule paragraph 13(b)(2) as shown in Appendix 11. This included the addition of the wording 'whose traditional aboriginal subsistence needs have been recognised' in the chapeau paragraph, and noting the extensive comments made by delegations in the preceding debate.
10.3.3 North Atlantic West Greenland stock of fin whales
10.3.4 North Atlantic West Greenland stock of minke whales
10.3.5 North Atlantic Central stock of minke whales
These three items were dealt with together.
Denmark stated that the present catch limits are equivalent to 500 tonnes per annum while the agreed need recognised by the Commission for the West Greenlandic people is for 670 tonnes, a difference of 170 tonnes. It would like to reduce that difference. Through an Action Plan on whale hunting methods introduced in 1991, Greenland started the developments and improvements of hunting methods and gears in cooperation with the hunters, Dr E.O. 懊n, the former Kongsberg Small Arms in Norway, shipyards and ship consultants in Greenland. The concept of the Action Plan is first and foremost to reach a safe use of the existing and new technologies and to improve killing efficiency and in that way to reduce the time to death of minke and fin whales caught with harpoon cannons. The introduction of the penthrite grenade in Greenland from 1991 has reduced the time to death. However, the introduction of this new technology quickly showed that there was a need to recondition harpoon cannons and standardise harpoons used in whaling in Greenland if the goals mentioned above are to be achieved. There are considerable transaction costs in connection with the introduction of new technologies in whaling. The Greenland Home Rule sees whaling as an important part of the livelihood in today's modern Greenland and has therefore provided a significant amount of money over the last seven years.
Switzerland mentioned past questions about killing methods and concerns regarding the real size of the stocks, and also commented that before a quota was increased, the Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling Management Scheme needed to be completed and implemented. The Netherlands noted that it had not previously been aware of the intention to increase the quota and questioned the need given the improvements in technology and hunting efficiency. Denmark was unable to say at this stage whether it would mean an increase in just minke whales or both fin and minke whales. In response to a question from Brazil, Denmark gave approximate figures of 170 tonnes being equal to 85 minke whales or 17 fin whales. Spain was concerned over the uncertainty about the status of the stocks involved and suggested this needed examination as noted by the Scientific Committee, as well as the collection of complete data from the countries involved. In response to Austria, Denmark stated that it was seeking new ways to make the killing process quicker and more humane in line with IWC requests and that the 15.2m minimum size limit for fin whales was set by the IWC. The USA noted that it had previously supported West Greenland in its proposals for aboriginal subsistence and looked forward to seeing the proposed Schedule Amendment. Monaco noted the need to look carefully at the conservation status of stocks and commercial aspects of the meat-to-market process.
St Vincent and The Grenadines supported Denmark.
10.3.5.1 REPORT OF THE SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE
The Chairman of the Scientific Committee reported the most recent management
advice on the first two of these stocks to the Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling
Sub-committee.
The Scientific Committee had recommended that further investigations of stock
structure and size be conducted in this region.
The Scientific Committee had agreed, for both minke and fin whales off West Greenland, that it does not believe the animals comprise single stocks but the area for the whole stock of each is unknown. Both estimates are thus underestimates but it is not known by how much. The estimates are - fin whales: 1,096 (95% CI 520-2,106); minke whales: 6,385 (CV=41%). Fin whale abundance estimates for the central Atlantic have been reported to NAMMCO but have not been reviewed by the IWC Scientific Committee.
For East Greenland minke whales, which the Scientific Committee regards as part of the North Atlantic Central stock, the Commission had in the past noted the information on abundance provided and established a catch limit of 12 animals.
10.3.5.2 ACTION ARISING
In the Commission, Denmark submitted a proposal to retain the fin whale catch
unchanged at 19 per year; the same quota of 12 minke whales from the Central
stock, but with a carry-over of up to 3 unused from any year; and an increase
in minke whales from West Greenland to 175, compared with the present maximum
of 165, with a carry-over of up to 15 unused whales each year; the last two
quotas to be set for the next five years.
This would narrow the gap between the 500 tonnes take and 670 tonnes need
documented, which would be satisfied by an extra catch of 85 minke whales.
Denmark pointed out that the Scientific Committee agrees the stocks are above the levels at which some catches can be taken. It believes that the stock sizes are underestimated, and that these are not separate stocks. It noted that there were annual removals of 250-300 whales per year before the catch limits were established, that studies on stock identity will be intensified and that further surveys are planned. It therefore proposed a footnote relating to review if new scientific data become available.
Switzerland, Spain, New Zealand, Australia, Netherlands, UK, Mexico, Germany, Austria, Oman, France and Monaco all commented on various aspects of the proposal including takes of small cetaceans, their heavy metal content, the uncertainty over stock identity and the killing methods used. They expressed concern over the increase in the minke catch. The USA supported a UK suggestion to elevate the proposed footnote to the main text.
Denmark responded to these points, commenting that:
Finally, it reiterated its plans for further surveys and future development work and pointed out that NAMMCO has analysed the new data.
Norway and Japan expressed their support for the proposal, and the Chairman concluded that while there was some degree of apprehension, there was a consensus to adopt the amendment of paragraph 13(b)(3) with the review footnote elevated to become a substantive part of the text, as shown in Appendix 11.
10.3.6 North Atlantic humpback whales
St Vincent and The Grenadines reported that no humpback whales had been taken
in the past year.
10.3.6.1 REPORT OF THE SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE
The Scientific Committee had no new estimates, and repeated its advice from
previous years that a catch of up to three whales annually will be unlikely to
harm this stock.
It made a number of recommendations, including carrying out a Comprehensive
Assessment in 1999 or 2000.
10.3.6.2 ACTION ARISING
The Commission noted these comments.
TERMS OF REFERENCE
There was some thought given to the terms of reference of the Aboriginal
Subsistence Whaling Sub-committee as shown in Rep. int. Whal. Commn 34:
21.
The Chairman of the Commission noted that this year the Sub-committee took much of the Scientific Committee's work into account, although this was not included in its remit, and it would seem necessary to amend the terms of reference, or for the Sub-committee to revert to its original terms.
New Zealand, as Chair of the Sub-committee this year, pointed out that the current practice is to debate major issues twice in the Commission, with the Sub-committee as the first forum in this case. The work would be diminished if it had no input from the Scientific Committee.
It was agreed that the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Commission, and the Chairmen of the Scientific Committee and the Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling Sub-committee should work together to resolve this matter. They reported back with a revision of the terms of reference as follows (new text in italics, deleted text struck out);
The Sub-committee's terms of reference are to consider relevant information and documentation from the Scientific Committee, and to consideronnutritional, subsistence and cultural needs relating to aboriginal subsistence whaling and the use of whales taken for such purposes, and to provide advice on the dependence of aboriginal communities on specific whale stocks to the CommissionTechnical Committeefor its consideration and determination of appropriate management measures.
CONCLUSION
In finalising this Agenda Item, the Chairman asked the Scientific Committee to
accord high priority to all aspects of aboriginal subsistence whaling, and
especially to review those stocks subject to long quotas; and to continue
development of the Aboriginal Whaling Management Scheme.
_