(from "Chairman's Report of the Fiftieth Annual Meeting")
10.2 Aboriginal subsistence whaling scheme
10.2.1 Report of the Scientific Committee
As last year, the Scientific Committee had agreed that it was appropriate for
the Chairman of its Standing Working Group (SWG) on the Development of an
Aboriginal Whaling Management Procedure (AWMP), Mr G.P. Donovan (Secretariat)
to present its work to the Commission.
In his presentation, Donovan recalled that the Scientific Committee's work on
the AWMP was driven by the (summarised) objectives given by the Commission
to:
In particular, highest priority shall be accorded to the objective of ensuring that the risks of extinction to individual stocks are not seriously increased by subsistence whaling.
The Chairman of the SWG noted that the Scientific Committee appreciated the Commission's answers to its questions last year and that these were taken into account in its discussions this year. He briefly summarised the more scientific aspects of the AWMP development process, highlighting those matters most relevant to the Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling Sub-committee. He noted that the Scientific Committee is assessing the value of the performance statistics it uses on a regular basis and will take into account advice from the Commission when updating these, for example, with respect to variation in strike limits.
The development process is similar to that of the RMP in that the use of simulation trials to examine the performance of candidate Strike Limit Algorithms (SLAs) is fundamental to the approach. A number of aspects in the simulation framework are more relevant to the Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling Sub-committee, including the questions of block quotas and carryover (this will be incorporated into the final procedure), multi-species issues (which are discussed below), and survey frequency.
The issue of comparison of the AWMP with the RMP had been raised by some members of the Commission in discussions last year. The Scientific Committee had this year reiterated that its primary purpose was to develop an AWMP that fulfils the Commission's objectives. However, it recognised the interest in being able to compare any eventual SLA with the CLA (Catch Limit Algorithms) of the RMP and noted that trials could be developed in the future for purely comparative purposes, although these may not reflect real situations for which the SLA is to be used.
Some members of the Commission also noted that comparison of any proposed SLAs with the current Schedule paragraph 13(a) approach would be useful. Some work has already been carried out on this and this will continue.
As indicated last year, the Scientific Committee began to consider a new fishery type, type 3, which referred to small populations (~ 300 animals). This work is still at the exploratory stage.
The intersessional period this year had been very short, so the Scientific Committee had relatively few simulation results to review. On the basis of the results available to it, it reviewed, and where necessary revised, the trial structure for fishery type 1 (cases where there is relatively little available information and where there are stock identity problems) and 2 (cases where there is a relatively large amount of information and Schedule paragraph 13(a) has largely been met).
The Chairman of the SWG then turned to issues of direct relevance to the Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling Sub-committee and included under the Committee's Agenda Item 'Dialogue with Commission and hunters'. He noted that the Scientific Committee had paid particular attention this year to addressing how it could ensure that as rapid progress as possible could be made towards providing the Commission with advice on an AWMP and to provide the Commission with its view of what form an AWMP might take.
The Scientific Committee had agreed in 1996 that Initial Exploration Trials should be case-specific rather than generic because there are a limited number of cases for which aboriginal subsistence harvesting is likely. However, at that time, consensus was not reached on whether the AWMP should include a generic SLA or case-specific SLA.
At this meeting, the Scientific Committee agreed that there were three options:
The Scientific Committee agreed that in principle it would be preferable to have a single generic SLA. However, given the results so far and the well-documented differences between the fisheries in terms of data availability, stock identity complexity and the nature of the fisheries themselves, the Scientific Committee stated that it was extremely unlikely that a single suitable generic SLA could be developed. It is therefore clear that either alternatives (2) or (3) are most likely to enable it to satisfy the Commission's objectives; it agreed that to the extent possible it would be preferable to follow option (2).
The Scientific Committee suggested that a likely potential scenario is that the Commission might establish an Aboriginal Whaling Scheme that comprises the scientific and logistical (e.g. inspection/observation) aspects of the management of all aboriginal fisheries. Within this, the scientific component might comprise some general aspects common to all fisheries (e.g. guidelines and requirements for surveys and for data c.f. the RMP) and an overall AWMP (within which there will be common components and case-specific components).
The Chairman of the SWG stressed the importance of this scenario for the future work of both the Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling Sub-committee and the Commission. One important implication is that it will be possible to develop SLAs for some stocks before others. The Scientific Committee agreed that it could best fulfil its role of providing the Commission with advice if it presented available components of the AWMP as and when they were ready. The SWG had not been in a position to develop a precise timetable for its work at this meeting but believed it would be in a stronger position to do so next year.
Given this scenario, the Chairman of the SWG then reported on the Scientific Committee's view on likely progress for each stock currently subject to aboriginal whaling in turn.
GREENLANDIC STOCKS
The Scientific Committee had agreed that while providing advice on the
Greenlandic fisheries was a matter of the highest priority, it had never been
able to provide satisfactory advice on those stocks due to the lack of the
requisite data, particularly on stock identity and abundance.
This was not intended as a criticism of Greenlandic scientists, but as a
positive contribution to future work, recognising the enormous practical and
logistical difficulties faced by them.
The Chairman of the SWG referred to the rationale and need for intensive
research on Greenlandic stocks.
The Scientific Committee had strongly recommended the proposal to establish a
Working Group to develop a costed research programme for Greenlandic stocks
in cooperation with Greenlandic scientists.
He noted that the Committee should be in a stronger position to develop a
timetable for providing a recommended SLA for this multi-species
fishery when the results of the research programme begin to become available.
BERING-CHUKCHI-BEAUFORT SEAS STOCK OF BOWHEAD WHALES
The Scientific Committee noted that the Commission had established catch
limits for this stock until the year 2002.
It therefore agreed that its goal would be to recommend an SLA for
this fishery to the Commission by that year.
It hoped to be able to give the Commission more advice on whether this
was achievable after its next meeting.
EASTERN STOCK OF GRAY WHALES
The Scientific Committee noted that the eastern stock of gray whales is
essentially a fishery type 2 stock; a single SLA (or minor variants)
should be applicable to both gray and bowhead stocks.
The Commission had also set catch limits until the year 2002 and again the
Scientific Committee agreed that its goal should be to try recommend an
SLA by that date.
ST VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES HUMPBACK WHALES
The SWG has not yet considered this fishery in any detail.
The Scientific Committee is intending a major review of North Atlantic
humpback whales at the 2000 meeting that will be relevant to the development
of an SLA for this stock.
10.2.2 Discussion
Regarding the development of the AWMP, the Netherlands indicated the
importance of comparing it to the RMP to determine if there is uniformity in
the different procedures.
The SWG Chairman responded that the Scientific Committee recognised the value that some delegations placed on being able to compare the AWMP with the RMP. As was agreed last year, the Scientific Committee placed the highest priority on developing SLAs that met the objectives set by the Commission for the fisheries of concern. Once that had been achieved it would be in a position to develop trials to enable a comparison with the RMP to be made. In addition, the Scientific Committee agreed in principle that it would be preferable to have a generic SLA. However, it believed that this was extremely unlikely to be the case if the Scientific Committee was to satisfy the Commission's objectives to the greatest extent possible for the fisheries of concern.
Denmark sympathised with the SWG's view. The Netherlands noted that one of the forms of tuning in the AWMP called depletion tuning is an approach very similar to the RMP development.
The SWG Chairman commented that the Scientific Committee had agreed to present the results of both depletion tuning (which had been used in the RMP development process) and H-tuning (a new approach that the Scientific Committee agreed was promising and which can enable a combination of all the Commission's objectives to be incorporated into the tuning process). He reiterated that the Scientific Committee recognised that the highest priority had been assigned to the risk objective by the Commission. The Scientific Committee places great emphasis on consultation with the Commission throughout the development process and it recognised that it was the Commission that should ultimately decide on the level of trade-offs among the three objectives; as in the RMP development process it would provide the Commission with a range of options to aid it in making its choice.
The UK commented that this is a very difficult area on which to provide guidance, as it appears there is likely to be an inherent trade-off between uniformity and attaining performance using H-tuning. It commented that the goal is to attain the greatest uniformity with the highest level of performance. In recognition of this goal, the Chairman of the Sub-committee suggested that the SWG should provide the Sub-committee with a range of options that identify the options for this trade-off. This would enable the Sub-committee to provide clear guidance to the Scientific Committee and ensure that the Sub-committee plays an active role in making the policy decision on the acceptable level of trade-offs.
The UK agreed with the SWG approach on SLAs and noted that for type 1 stocks for which there is very little data, the ICRW Schedule may need to be amended. It indicated, however, that it was premature to consider such matters and it made more sense for this group to focus efforts on non-scientific aspects of such a whaling scheme, such as on the definition of aboriginal whaling.
In the Commission, the UK clarified this statement, that it believes that when it comes to adoption of the AWMP there will need to be substantial changes to the Schedule. That will be an opportune time to look at a number of other issues such as the definition of aboriginal whaling, which is not defined in the Schedule, and perhaps other aspects of management which are not strictly speaking scientific but which should be incorporated into the Schedule.
The Sub-committee confirmed that the process outlined by the SWG was appropriate and should continue.
Regarding the Research Programme on Greenlandic stocks, Denmark noted that it strongly supports the agreement to establish a Working Group that will enable the Scientific Committee to provide satisfactory advice to the Commission. For many years, Greenland has conducted research on large whales in order to be able to evaluate the impacts of its subsistence catches. Hence Greenland recognises the need for scientific information to ensure that its subsistence catches are sustainable. However, it must be kept in mind that not only are survey conditions in Greenland extremely difficult due to the harsh climate, but there are also constraints to the amount of resources Greenland can put into whale research which by nature is logistically, and therefore economically demanding. The type of proposal it expects the Working Group will recommend will be very costly, on the order of -2 million, which compared with the population of 55,000 people in Greenland, is a large amount of money. It indicated that the IWC generally approved and recognises the importance of aboriginal subsistence whaling. It looked forward therefore to the IWC finding a solution to the data problem at the lowest possible cost. In addition, members of the IWC may be willing to cooperate in providing funds to make such research possible.
A representative of the Greenland Home Rule Government supported the Danish intervention and confirmed its support of the research, but also noted the geographical and financial hurdles to conducting research in the region.
The Netherlands pointed out that the RMP requires as input data only catch history and absolute abundance data. For stock identity, a range of plausible hypotheses is assumed. It queried whether the research should be more directed at estimating abundance estimates.
The SWG Chairman responded that, as for the RMP, the Scientific Committee would only design SLAs that used data it believed were obtainable. This includes abundance data and this will be one focus of the research programme. In the context of the RMP, stock identity data are important in the context of developing plausible hypotheses for the Implementation Simulation Trials. This is also true for any case-specific trials for AWMP development. Good information on stock identity will clearly improve the Committee's ability to work towards fulfilling the Commission's three objectives. This is particularly important for the Greenland multi-species fishery where at present information on stock identity is poor.
Norway pointed out that it will be necessary to consult and cooperate with Canada and Iceland, non-IWC members, in order to be able to obtain sufficient data regarding stock structures and stock abundances of fin whales and minke whales in this region.
The Chairman noted that the Sub-committee welcomed the creation of a Working Group of the Scientific Committee to address the critical research needs for the Greenland stocks as outlined in the Scientific Committee report, and looked forward to its report next year.
At this point, the Chairman of the SWG introduced a paper which outlined subject areas upon which the Scientific Committee required direct input from the Commission and, more particularly, hunters. The paper presented three hypothetical scenarios that illustrated possible features (considerable catch variation; considerable catch variation but in a consistent direction; and low catch variation) of SLA design that could be incorporated for cases where the stock level, at least initially, was too low to allow total need satisfaction and still fulfil the Commission's risk objective. These scenarios concerned choices related to the question of catch variability and to the weight given to satisfaction of current need versus projected future need. In particular, the Scientific Committee was interested to hear hunters' preferences under such circumstances.
After some discussion in the Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling Sub-committee, it was agreed that these questions involved choices that should be made directly by those engaged in the fisheries, rather than the Sub-committee as a whole, since the scenarios were constructed under the proviso that in no case would the Commission's highest priority objective (related to risk of extinction) be compromised. A group of interested delegations (Denmark, Norway, Russian Federation and USA) was established, to be convened by the Chairman of the SWG. It was agreed that the findings of this group would be incorporated into the draft report of the Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling Sub-committee, to give other delegations the chance to comment should they so wish.
The Chairman of the SWG clarified that it was his belief that the discussion within the Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling Sub-committee had endorsed the approach that had been outlined by the Scientific Committee for continued development of the AWMP.
The second issue concerned the question of multi-species fisheries. The Chairman of the SWG stated that it was at an early stage in its consideration of this issue. He described one potential approach that involved a two-stage process:
The Scientific Committee has not yet examined this approach using simulation trials or determined principles for weighting allocations by species within the multi-species SLA. A number of suggestions have been made for this (these are not necessarily mutually exclusive and combinations can be chosen). The Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling Sub-committee agreed that this matter should also be referred to the group.
In the group, six points were noted.
10.2.3 Action arising
No specific action was proposed.
10.3 Review of aboriginal subsistence whaling catch limits
10.3.1 Report of the Scientific Committee
10.3.1.1 BERING-CHUKCHI-BEAUFORT SEAS STOCK OF BOWHEAD WHALES
As promised last year, the Scientific Committee had conducted a major
assessment of this stock using four methods.
The results were similar in three out of the four.
They demonstrated that the population appears to be near the Maximum
Sustainable Yield (MSY) level, and would probably increase under catches of up
to 108 animals.
In terms of Schedule paragraph 13(a), appropriate catch levels in these
circumstances should not exceed 90% of MSY.
The calculations reported therefore indicate that it is very likely that a
catch limit of 102 whales or less would be consistent with the requirements of
the Schedule.
There was no discussion in the Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling Sub-committee under this Item, but in the Commission Japan outlined the background to the establishment of the new category of aboriginal subsistence whaling in 1978. It related this to reflect on peoples who had been conquered, and believed whaling is needed socially and culturally under certain management systems. It thought aboriginal whaling should conform to the RMP, especially for gray whales where the stock is above the MSY level, and believed it to be wrong to admit only this category.
France responded that regardless of the appellation, the concept of aboriginal subsistence should be kept.
10.3.1.2 NORTH PACIFIC EASTERN STOCK OF GRAY WHALES
The Scientific Committee had no changes to the recommendations made at last
year's meeting, when a detailed assessment was undertaken. Last year, the
Committee advised that a catch of up to 482 whales is sustainable and likely
to stabilise above MSY Level.
New Zealand commented that the Makah tribe have not yet drawn on the quota and asked if the domestic legal challenge to the Makah quota is likely to prevent them from whaling. The USA responded that, while there is a legal challenge on procedural grounds, the ruling is expected as soon as August 1998. The USA is confident the court will uphold the US Government position and that the hunt will commence as planned in Autumn 1998.
10.3.1.3 NORTH ATLANTIC WEST GREENLAND STOCK OF MINKE WHALES
No assessment had been undertaken this year by the Scientific Committee.
Advice regarding this stock is addressed under Agenda Item 10.2.1, as is the
Danish intervention concerning the Scientific Committee advice.
10.3.1.4 NORTH ATLANTIC HUMPBACK WHALES
The Scientific Committee Chairman reported that no assessment of this stock
was undertaken and therefore there was no change to the Scientific Committee's
advice regarding this stock.
He drew the Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling Sub-committee's attention to the
fact that the Scientific Committee will undertake a Comprehensive Assessment
of North Atlantic humpback whales at its meeting in 2000.
St Vincent and The Grenadines said it had taken two humpback whales this season, but as the season was not yet over, the takes would not be officially reported to the Commission until next year. While it was open to a general discussion, it noted that a discussion regarding the status of the stock would be more fruitful next year after the Scientific Committee will have benefitted from reviewing the research on the stock and the report of the Government's Fisheries Ministry regarding the taking of the whales.
New Zealand stated that the Scientific Committee this year had received information suggesting that the density of humpback whales in the Windward Islands might be low.
Following up on concerns raised in the previous year, Australia indicated it had concerns beyond the scientific aspects of the hunt. It noted the historical change in the aboriginal whaling operations. In 1989, the Commissioner for St Vincent and The Grenadines stated his country did not want to continue whaling in the future. In 1990, the Commissioner stated that St Vincent and The Grenadines would stop whaling when the single 69-year old harpooner passed away. The report by St Vincent and The Grenadines this year indicates that there is no longer a single harpooner. There is now a new harpooner with a new boat. Australia argued that this changed the nature of the hunt. It also raised concerns over the method used to hunt the animals since it understood that St Vincent and The Grenadines hunts calfed pairs of whales. Unlike other aboriginal subsistence whaling operations, it noted that this is a method of catch which has not been examined for its humaneness. As a result of the aforementioned changes in the nature of the hunt, Australia will expect a much more detailed justification of the hunt next year.
The Netherlands indicated its support of Australia's intervention.
St Vincent and The Grenadines insisted once again on its rights to harvest its quota. It recognised, however, that despite this, the Scientific Committee would be asked to look at the relationship between the cow and calf because these terms are not clearly defined in the Schedule.
The UK supported Australia's comments. It noted that that when the quota was agreed to in Aberdeen in 1996, there was no needs statement. It was approved nonetheless, due to the lack of success in the hunt. The UK noted that the next time St Vincent and The Grenadines requests a quota, it would have to produce a needs statement and would have to address the humane aspects of the hunt in the Humane Killing Working Group, particularly concerning the cow/calf techniques used in the hunt.
Japan noted that the whale taken was a large female whale, which was not lactating. It also stated its belief that the topic of humane killing was outside the competence of the IWC and that local cultural traditions should be respected.
Australia responded that it believed that the IWC did have competence to discuss whale killing methods. It referred to the references to that effect in the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling and the Schedule and the fact that there was ample precedent for this.
Japan clarified that the issue of humaneness was outside the competence of this Sub-committee.
St Vincent and The Grenadines noted the concerns and indicated it would consider them when preparing its report next year.
The Secretary of the Commission took the opportunity to present a letter from the elderly harpooner in St Vincent and The Grenadines to the Commission written recently indicating his wish to take three whales instead of two in the next season. The Chairman noted the informal nature of the request and advised that, until such a request was put forth by a Government, the letter should only be tabled.
10.3.2 Action arising
The Commission noted that for its long term priorities the Scientific
Committee recommended that, while keeping all relevant stocks under annual
review, primary attention should be given to intensive assessments of the
following stocks at future meetings as follows:
1999 Greenlandic research programme and stocks of bowhead whales other than the Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort stock;
2000 North Atlantic humpback whales;
2001 Fin whales off Greenland;
2002 Minke whales off Greenland;
2003 Eastern and western Pacific gray whales;
2004 Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort bowheads.
It was noted that if this recommendation were followed, the Commission would consider the next catch limits for the Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort stock two years before the next intensive assessment. There is a precedent for this. The current bowhead quota was approved last year when the most recent intensive assessment was undertaken this year. The Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling Sub-committee endorsed the Scientific Committee's time line, recognising that if new information comes to light that would provide cause to change the schedule, it could be revised as appropriate.
The Commission endorsed this approach, and noted the comments and concerns of the Scientific Committee on the apparent low abundance of other stocks of bowhead whales, particularly the Baffin Bay/Davis Strait and Hudson Bay, Okhotsk Sea, and Spitzbergen stocks; the Western North Pacific stock of gray whales; and the West Greenland fin whale stock.
_