(from "Chairman's Report of the Forty-Ninth Annual Meeting")
12.1.1 Inspection and observation schemes
Japan summarised a paper it had prepared which not only took account of
previous IWC discussions but also had been drafted in consultation with other
whaling nations and with regard to other national inspection schemes and
international observer schemes.
The Working Group recorded its appreciation and thanked Japan for this work which was a significant step forward. Several delegations suggested, however, that the Inspection and Observation Scheme needed to include a number of additional items including: provisions to track whale meat and whale products (such as DNA analysis); a review mechanism to ensure transparency; provisions for the placement of impartial, international observers on all vessels and real-time reporting; and that the Commission consider the use of a vessel monitoring scheme, such as those currently used or being considered by other organisations such as the EU and CCAMLR. One delegation referred to its earlier comments about late introduction of new elements into the RMS and also stressed the need to ensure the confidentiality of such a monitoring scheme in order to protect fishing vessels.
There was strong support from some delegations to a proposal that since commercial whaling was a profit-making operation like any other commercial business, the cost of regulation and inspection should be borne by the business conducting the whaling activity and not the IWC or the host country.
One delegation noted that the proposals would have to be adapted to reflect the specificities of various commercial operations.
It was agreed that further work should be undertaken on the basis of the Japanese proposal and comments provided by other parties at or after this meeting in order to produce a revised text as soon as possible. One delegation stressed the importance of setting a deadline, such as the next Annual Meeting in Oman, to complete the Inspection and Observation Scheme.
12.1.2 Total catches over time
The Working Group agreed to re-title this Item as 'Issues arising from the
Scientific Committee report including total catches over time'.
Some delegations questioned whether it was appropriate for the Working Group to consider items related to the question of trade issues and, in particular, the genetic sampling of whale products since, in their view, this was for purposes outside the remit of both the RMS Working Group and the IWC. Several delegations argued that in order to be effective, any observation and inspection scheme must be able to track whale meat and whale products at all stages, and it was essential therefore to consider the use of DNA sampling. Other aspects of a genetic database of relevance to the management of whale stocks were highlighted, such as increased knowledge of stock structures.
The Chairman noted the various concerns but considered that the scientific aspects of this issue were relevant and that a DNA profile register was germane to discussions of the RMS Working Group. Norway pointed out that the work on its DNA register was purely part of a domestic national plan and underlined that trade issues were outside the competence of the IWC. CITES was the appropriate forum for decisions on trade in whale meat and whale products. Norway also found it unacceptable that new elements were introduced into the RMS at this stage. Japan shared this view. Some delegations were of the view that trade issues can be discussed and were relevant to the development of the RMS and that molecular genetic testing of whale products would be an important element of monitoring catches outside IWC control.
The Chairman of the Scientific Committee provided an overview of this year's discussions in the Scientific Committee on issues related to the questions of:
(a) OVERSIGHT OF SURVEYS AND DATA ANALYSIS
The Scientific Committee's conclusions were essentially an elaboration of last
year's discussions but some new issues were addressed.
Oversight should be seen as a process, with greater or more intensive
oversight needed at the beginning of survey programmes, when conduct or
analysis methods were novel or when changes were anticipated.
Less oversight would be needed when the methods were well-developed and tested.
While the Commission had approved the Scientific Committee's Guidelines, it had also identified the need for scientists to observe sighting surveys conducted under the RMP. The Scientific Committee agreed that such participation might not always be necessary, especially in long-established surveys, but that such participation was valuable in general.
The Scientific Committee had also agreed that oversight might be valuable in the case of surveys carried out for management of aboriginal subsistence whaling, and had referred the matter to its AWMP Standing Working Group.
The Scientific Committee had reviewed proposed surveys by Norway and Japan for use in the RMP. Arising out of those considerations, it had developed a general mechanism for Committee members' participation in surveys designed to obtain estimates for use in the RMP. It recommended that this process be incorporated into its Guidelines for Surveys. It noted that there would be financial implications to this, as it was recommending that the Commission fund the relevant scientists to ensure their independence. The Working Group endorsed the approach in principle. However, some delegations did not endorse the Scientific Committee's recommendations so far as the financial implications were concerned. The Scientific Committee drew the Commission's attention to the fact that the resources are for oversight of surveys and abundance estimation and not for research. Some delegations expressed concern that the principle of the RMP/RMS had been accepted by the IWC and that it was important to make progress on this. In response, one delegation pointed out that Resolution 1995-4 made it clear that the RMP would not be implemented until all elements of the RMS had been adopted.
The Scientific Committee had discussed the question of access to data, particularly those collected by nations that have either left the Commission or had never been members. This was an important issue in the context of the RMP and associated guidelines and the Scientific Committee sought comments from the Commission to take into account during its discussions at next year's meeting. Its concerns are listed below.
One delegation stated that unless sighting survey data were made available to the Scientific Committee and to the IWC for archiving, they should not be used in estimating abundance of whale stocks. There was some debate on whether separate survey data would be needed for commercial and aboriginal subsistence whaling where these were carried out on the same stocks in the same areas.
It was agreed that delegates should consider the issues raised and discuss them with their own scientific advisers in preparation for next year's Scientific Committee meeting.
(b) GENETIC DATABASE
The Scientific Committee had recognised that certain management or regulatory
aspects of this issue were outside its specific remit but there were two
scientific issues on which it felt it could provide advice i.e. the type of
genetic information most appropriate to include in a genetic register; and the
value of data for research activities.
The Scientific Committee had agreed that data held in such registers would be very valuable for future scientific research and supported the proposal that they would be available for this purpose.
In response, Norway stated that it would not make its database generally available but was willing to verify whether DNA sequences from samples originate from whales legally caught by Norway.
It was agreed that the Working Group would note the conclusions of the Scientific Committee on this Item.
(c) 'TOTAL CATCHES OVER TIME'
The Scientific Committee had addressed this issue in response to a
recommendation from the Commission last year.
In particular, it noted that this was primarily an issue of enforcement and
thus outside its remit.
It noted that the RMP includes all non-natural mortalities in its catch
histories when assessing a stock and has recommended that all member nations
include such information in their Progress Reports.
It was clarified that the Catch Limit Algorithm (CLA) produces a
number for safe 'non-natural mortalities' and the Scientific Committee will
provide this to the Commission.
It is the Commission's responsibility to use this to set a catch limit and in
doing so the Commission may wish to take into account any other known or
expected sources of non-natural mortality in addition to whaling operations.
In addition, the CLA will retrospectively take into account past
mortalities each time it re-evaluates the catch limits.
The RMP has been shown to be robust to 'catastrophes' - large scale unexpected
mortalities such as die-offs.
The Chairman confirmed that in the event of such a 'catastrophe' the Commission could take action even if within the five year period. One delegation pointed out that, in addressing total catches over time, a distinction can be made between past and future catches. Future foreseeable catches include commercial catches, aboriginal subsistence catches and catches under Special Permits.
The Secretary informed the meeting that the IWC had joined The Co-ordinating Working Party on Fishery Statistics which was the relevant body on bycatches and would in future have access to data collected by this body.
Japan wished to record its view that those human induced mortalities are already incorporated in the RMP as part of the catch history and further removal from the catch limits would lead to double counting.
The Chairman's summary was generally agreed i.e. that the Working Group had concluded in principle that in setting catch limits the Commission should, as far as possible, use the CLA to determine the allowable removal and then take account of all known human-induced mortalities including aboriginal subsistence whaling, scientific whaling, whaling outside the IWC, bycatches, ship strikes and other non-natural removals.
(d) CARRY-OVER
Norway had proposed that the Scientific Committee provide advice on scientific
aspects of a proposal that
'any unused portions of the catch quota for any Small Area shall be carried forward from that year and added to the catch quota for the same Small Area of any subsequent years within the same block period.'
The Scientific Committee had agreed that a single rule based on the Norwegian proposal was preferable to a set of rules attempting to cover all situations. Its proposed addition and annotation are given in Annex D, Appendix 4 of its Report.
The Chairman noted that the Working Group endorsed the Scientific Committee's recommendations.
(e) OTHER ITEMS RELATED TO FINALISING THE RMP AND ASSOCIATED
GUIDELINES
The Scientific Committee had recognised the need for some additional
programming and tuning to ensure that the CLA accurately calculates the
catch limit to the nearest whale and that the tuning of the CLA is
exactly the value agreed by the Commission (i.e 0.72K).
The Working Group endorsed the Scientific Committee's recommendations that:
In the Commission, the Netherlands, supported by New Zealand, expressed its pleasure that the Scientific Committee is refining the RMP but suggested that any modifications should only be done after consultation with the Commission and when it was made aware of the consequences. The Chairman of the Scientific Committee pointed out that the retuning work carried out was in response to the Commission's decision in 1991. Norway agreed that this was a general tidying up of the procedure.
12.1.3 Schedule amendments
No Schedule amendments were proposed.
12.2 Other matters
Ireland spoke of its conservation objectives for whales.
It had declared Irish waters as a sanctuary for whales and believed that there
should not be any take which would endanger whales.
However, it saw a risk of the break-up of the IWC with whaling taking place
outside its control except for aboriginal subsistence whaling.
It recognised that the RMP had been completed and adopted, and work was
proceeding on the inspection and control schemes.
It suggested that quotas should be restricted to existing coastal whaling and
all other waters should be declared a global sanctuary.
Products would be for local consumption only, with no international trade.
Lethal scientific permit whaling would be phased out, and the impacts of
whalewatching regulated.
Ireland was prepared to develop a draft text along these lines for the meeting
in Oman.
Many delegations expressed their appreciation for this initiative by Ireland. Denmark, Mexico, Sweden, South Africa, Netherlands, Switzerland, Oman, Germany, Norway, St Lucia and Japan all gave support to the proposal to varying degrees and were prepared to consider the ideas in more detail. Brazil, Spain, Chile, Argentina, USA, UK, France and Monaco expressed reservations chiefly over the question of allowing commercial whaling, to which some governments are opposed; and issues arising from the Law of the Sea and coastal states' rights and responsibilities.
The Chairman concluded that there was a general wish to continue the dialogue. Some delegations wanted this to be done with high transparency, while a suggestion for intersessional activity might disadvantage developing countries. He proposed that Ireland should continue its informal discussions in the remaining days of the meeting and report back; a suggestion Ireland was pleased to follow.
At the end of the meeting, the Commissioner for Ireland indicated that there was great willingness amongst Commissioners to seek consensus, and although it would be difficult to get agreement, it was possible. The mood was hopeful for the 50th Meeting and Mr Canny proposed to continue bilateral contacts, possibly with an intersessional meeting and to prepare a discussion paper.
The USA doubted the element of consensus and was concerned over the re-institution of commercial whaling. It saw a danger of moving too fast. Chile concurred, as did Australia which looked for a permanent ban on commercial whaling. The UK recalled that its position is on record, but would like to see progress, and, like the USA, was against an additional meeting.
Spain had some reservations of substance but thought delay was not good. Denmark also spoke in support, recognising that the solution to many problems depended on completion of the RMS. The Republic of Korea thought this a fruitful idea, but thought care over the speed and method was necessary to achieve equality and justice. Finland indicated that it was not seeking a total ban but regulation, and Monaco saw this as the first attempt to start a dialogue which should be encouraged.
St Lucia went along with the proposals, and Antigua and Barbuda offered to host a meeting. Japan, South Africa, Grenada, Germany, Norway, Dominica, Denmark and Sweden all supported the proposal and the momentum it represented.
Argentina had reservations over a meeting because of the budget but welcomed a paper before Oman. France and Oman also saw financial and time difficulties in arranging an intersessional meeting, which Brazil and Argentina later expressly opposed.
The Chairman looked for a flexible approach to balance all the points of view, and encouraged bi- and trilateral discussions, and continuation of the initiative.
Ireland acknowledged the risks its proposal ran but it believed that circulation of documents alone will not lead to progress; Commissioners must sit down and talk.
12.3 Action arising
The Netherlands suggested that, to overcome the difficulty of advancing the
work on an Inspection and Observation Scheme during the intersessional period,
it would welcome comments on the Japanese proposal before 1 December 1997.
These would then be circulated to all Commissioners by the Secretary.
The USA, Norway and Oman welcomed this as a constructive proposal, and Japan
offered to keep in close contact with the Netherlands.
Australia emphasised that, despite some press comments to the contrary, its position is one of seeking an end to whaling, and it will not support the RMS or engage in the debate.
The USA introduced a Resolution co-sponsored by Austria, Australia, Netherlands and the UK on cetacean bycatch reporting and bycatch reduction. It believed that Progress Reports should include bycatch data since they contribute to total catches over time, and should be submitted to the 50th meeting and in the future.
Mexico shared the idea behind the Resolution but could not support it because of the reference to 'all cetaceans', 'all fishing operations' and 'all future meetings', although it was willing to submit what was within its knowledge. Spain, Norway and Japan sympathised with this position, and commented on the confusion if all cetaceans are included in the RMS. The USA suggested taking out 'all' to overcome the jurisdictional question since the RMS refers to large whales. New Zealand added itself as a co-sponsor and suggested a change in the format of the Progress Reports. The Resolution as shown in Appendix 4 was subsequently adopted by consensus.
_