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

At the outset of the Sub-committee meeting, Norway had referred to the terms of reference of the sub-committee and stated its view that the Agenda Items covering stock piles of whale products and trade questions are outside the scope of the Convention. It noted that CITES and WTO are the relevant fora for such discussions. Consequently, it proposed that these Items be deleted. The USA had not agreed to delete these Items. While Japan and Norway have stated and continue to state that issues relating to the international trade and domestic market activities do not fall under the jurisdiction of the IWC, the Sub-committee agreed, as it had in 1996, that an exchange of views was nonetheless useful. Japan, therefore, consented to provide information on a voluntary basis.

9.1.1 Infractions reports from Contracting Governments
The infractions reports received by the Commission in 1996 were reviewed.

The infractions report submitted by the USA stated that 100% of its aboriginal catch was under direct national inspection and Denmark reported that in 1996 the IWC catch limits for minke and fin whales were not violated for Greenland.

The Secretariat provided a brief summary of the checklist which was developed as an administrative aid to the sub-committee in helping it to determine whether obligations under Section VI of the Schedule were being met. The available information supplied in the checklist is summarised below.

DENMARK
Information on date, position, species, length, sex and whether a foetus is present is collected for between 90-100% of the catch, depending on the item. Information on killing methods, struck and lost animals, and whether a female is lactating is also recorded for some animals.

USA
Information on date, species, length, sex, killing method and numbers struck and lost is collected for up to 100% of the catch depending on the item. Other biological information is recorded for some animals.

Although Norway had not submitted a checklist, it had submitted the required information to the Secretariat as noted in the Scientific Committee report.

The Secretariat provided a summary of national legislation supplied to the Commission. The Sub-committee had no corrections to report.

9.1.2 Reports from Contracting Governments on availability, sources and shipments of whale meat and products, and relevant developments

9.1.3 Reports from Contracting Governments on stockpiles and sale of whale meat and products, domestic laws and enforcement actions on illegal possession and sale
Items 9.1.2 and 9.1.3 were considered together. The Republic of Korea introduced its report on the status of bycatch in Korea which gave the total number of minke whales caught as bycatch from coastal and offshore fisheries (128 in 1996), as well as statistics on the size of whales caught, methods of accidental capture and disposal of whale meat from bycatch, by either private or public local sales. The Republic of Korea summarised its guidelines on the catch of large and small cetaceans, which mandate that all whales taken as bycatch must be returned to the sea if alive, or buried or consumed by local people if dead.

Several countries requested clarification of the information provided. The USA asked the reasons for the reported increase in bycatch, to which the Republic of Korea replied that this year's data were more accurate and thorough than data previously reported. Many governments thanked the Republic of Korea for providing the information.

Japan submitted two documents which summarised the results of the molecular genetic analysis of whale products collected from Japanese retail markets in 1995. These documents analysed samples taken by the Japanese government and TRAFFIC Japan respectively. A total of 175 cetacean products was collected by the government from Japanese markets. Species from which products had been derived were identified using mitochondrial DNA. Of these, 112 products were identified as Southern Hemisphere minke whales, 12 as North Pacific minke whales, 1 as a North Pacific Bryde's whale, 15 as fin whales, 14 as Baird's beaked whales, 3 as ziphiid, 2 as physterid and 1 as a delphinid. DNA of 12 samples could not be amplified and, therefore, analysed. The 53 samples collected in the Japanese market by TRAFFIC Japan had been analysed using the same methods. Of these, 33 products were identified as Southern Hemisphere minke whales, 4 as North Pacific minke whales, 2 as North Atlantic fin whales (all but one of these samples were similar to known Icelandic samples), 1 as a North Pacific Bryde's whale and 7 as small cetaceans. The DNA of six samples could not be amplified and therefore could not be analysed. The Sub-committee appreciated Japan's contribution on this issue.

Japan responded to a number of questions about the time and location of sampling and stated that it would like to further compare its results with those obtained by TRAFFIC Japan in the future.

New Zealand congratulated Japan on its adoption of DNA testing as a means of monitoring whale meat markets. It presented a brief summary of the results of molecular genetic analyses of 110 cetacean products purchased in Korean and Japanese markets between 1995 and 1997. In many respects, the results reflected those reported above, but there were some notable differences, including the presence of many more samples of odontocetes, as well as samples of protected baleen whale species, including two humpback and two blue whales. New Zealand urged Japan to expand the range of market monitoring undertaken by molecular genetic analysis. In response, Japan offered to cooperate in a peer review of all samples analysed in the market surveys, including the samples identified as protected species. New Zealand expressed its appreciation of this offer.

The USA asked if Japan or Norway had any additional information about the seizure on 6 April 1996 by Japanese customs of five tonnes of whale meat packed in five tonnes of fish. The shipment had originated in Norway but when seized in Japan the shipment was on a Korean vessel coming from Korea. Specifically, the USA asked if the meat might have come from Korea, given the Republic of Korea's report at this Sub-committee of its large bycatch of minke whales. Japan replied that the case was still under investigation. Furthermore, it reiterated its firm commitment to prevent any potential illegal take of whales and stated that it would continue efforts related to monitoring and enforcement.

In the Commission, the Republic of Korea noted that it had been surprised at the recent increase in its bycatch. It believed that this was due to the effects of the moratorium, public awareness and increased supervision. It will investigate the matter further.

Spain stated that it would be concerned if there was a deliberate bycatch and private sales of the products. The USA was also concerned, as it was with the Japanese bycatch. DNA analyses suggest that meat from species that are now protected are present, such as Bryde's and fin whales, and it urged governments and entities to determine if they have any stockpiles.

Japan associated itself with the research wish of the Republic of Korea, and reiterated its position that any bycatch is outside the scope of infractions if it is unavoidable. It believes that market activities and trade are outside the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW); interpretation of genetic analyses is difficult; and the question of stockpiles is also outside the Convention.

9.1.4 Other matters
No other matters were discussed.

9.2 Action arising
A Resolution on improved monitoring of whale product stockpiles was proposed by Brazil on behalf of the co-sponsors Australia, Chile, New Zealand and the USA. It referred to the use of the DNA database to identify products from illegal sources.

Japan opposed the matter as a legal question which implies management over domestic stockpiles, and believed the matter should be dealt with in a national capacity. Norway concurred, and would oppose the Resolution although it agreed on the substance. It thought a compromise could have been reached.

Denmark stated it would not oppose the Resolution but had concerns over the competence of the IWC relative to the WTO and CITES. It thought the Irish initiative (see Agenda Item 12.2) might be prejudged by this Resolution, and understood the Resolution related to meat from commercial and Special Permit catches, not aboriginal subsistence takes.

Mexico agreed with both these positions and called for further efforts as it could not support the proposal.

St Vincent and The Grenadines regarded this as a sensitive issue and would vote no. The USA noted that a lot of progress had been made in this field and spoke of third party verification, while the Netherlands remarked that it desired to include aboriginal subsistence whaling.

The USA and Brazil called for a vote, whereupon the Resolution given in Appendix 2 was adopted by 15 votes in favour to 8 against, with 9 abstentions.

Switzerland explained that trade is in the competence of CITES, except within a national market. South Africa agreed and regretted that the issue had been put to the vote because a consensus could have been achieved. Spain commented on the degree of detail and the need for more consultation, hence its abstention.

_