(from "Chairman's Report of the Fiftieth Annual Meeting")

12.1.1 Inspection and observation schemes
The Chairman of the Working Group explained that at last year's meeting it was agreed that he would collect comments and amendments on the draft text of the observation and inspection scheme provided by Japan, and that this should be discussed at the 1998 Annual Meeting in Oman. Comments had been received from Argentina, Austria, New Zealand, Norway, UK and the USA. Rather than simply circulating these to Commissioners the Chairman thought it would be more useful to incorporate them in a revised draft, either in the form of specific text proposals or as comments at the appropriate point in the text.

Norway made two general comments. Firstly, in earlier discussions of the RMS some countries had indicated that they would not under any circumstances support the adoption of the RMS into the Schedule. Norway took it for granted that those countries now participating in the debate also had the intention to contribute to the adoption of the RMS so that there was a common aim to what the Working Group was doing. Secondly, in this work there had been experience of what in other international fora was called 'creeping jurisdiction'. That is, Article I of the Convention stated clearly that the Schedule was an integral part of the Convention, meaning that the content of the Schedule must be of direct relevance to the area of competence of the Convention - i.e. to establish a system of international regulation for whale fisheries. Yet at recent meetings of the Group new items as to the content of the inspection and observation scheme have been introduced. The demand for a DNA register was first voiced in 1996. In 1997, concrete proposals pertaining to trade were put forward such as a system for tracking whale products on domestic markets. Norway did not know the motives for continuously expanding the agenda for the RMS but stated that trade measures in the Schedule were not compatible with the Convention.

Norway considered that the proposal on inspection and control prepared by Japan was a good one. Norway had suggested some adjustments in order to cater for the special characteristics of the Norwegian traditional coastal whaling taking place within the zones under national jurisdiction. It was imperative that these schemes be tailored to the actual whaling operations taking place.

The Chairman of the Working Group noted Norway's comments but added that concerns about trade had been raised in several previous IWC meetings but only recently had these been discussed in detail. Japan stated that it appreciated the Chairman's work in revising the text, but pointed out that this was the first opportunity to consider the changes in any detail. It should, however, record its fundamental position i.e. that, in order to maintain the legal integrity of the ICRW and to protect national sovereign rights, Japan could not accept issues that were clearly, in its view, outside the scope of the Convention.

The meeting then moved on to consider the detailed text of the draft revision of Chapter V of the Schedule 'Supervision and Control', made up of three Sections. The following comments identify the major issues discussed.

A. COMMON ELEMENTS FOR NATIONAL INSPECTION SCHEMES
A.1 INTRODUCTION
A.2 DEPLOYMENT
In response to questions from a number of delegations, the Chairman asked Norway to explain the background to its suggestion that the deployment of national inspection schemes should differentiate between pelagic and coastal whaling. Norway explained that earlier meetings, such as the one in Reine in Lofoten, had established that there were large differences in the various whaling operations. Pelagic whaling was conducted with large factory ships supported by catcher vessels and they were away for several months. Norwegian coastal whaling took place with small vessels of 15-20m fishing just off the coast and inside the zones under national jurisdiction.

Brazil suggested that common rules should apply to all types of whaling as it was not entirely clear that the IWC made such a distinction between pelagic and coastal whaling operations. The Netherlands noted that the Schedule differentiated between factory ships and land stations rather than pelagic and other operations. There was some support for a suggestion made by the Netherlands that, in view of the forthcoming discussions on the Irish proposal and in order to progress the work of the RMS Working Group, it might be helpful to concentrate on the common elements needed for national inspection schemes covering coastal whaling and consider pelagic whaling at a later date as necessary. Japan opposed this discussion and stated that the inspection and observation scheme should cover both coastal and pelagic whaling.

A.3 DUTIES AND COMPETENCE
There was extensive discussion of the USA's suggestions that inspectors should record time to death for each whale taken. New Zealand had made a similar proposal to provide for DNA testing to track whale products from capture through all stages of the marketing and distribution chain.

With regard to DNA testing, both Norway and Japan stated that they could not accept the proposed amendments put forward by the USA and New Zealand as part of the RMS and adopted into the Schedule. Norway was, however, prepared to deal with these questions in another manner and was presently developing and implementing national DNA schemes.

The Chairman of the Working Group concluded that the meeting had reached an impasse as far as trade was concerned; some countries were of the view that DNA testing and recording of landings and trans-shipments for example, formed an integral part of control measures under the Inspection and Observation Scheme, whereas others considered that such issues should not be included in the Schedule. He noted, however, that these countries were prepared to make national arrangements and that there seemed to be general agreement that such measures should be discussed but not necessarily within the framework of the Inspection and Observation Scheme. The Chairman of the Working Group proposed to leave the issue of trade for the present time and look for possibilities to take this forward in some other forum.

In the Commission, New Zealand commented on the progress made, which was a credit to the Chairman. It pointed out that there are similar inspection schemes in other fisheries, with the exception of tracking products. It was important to show that products come from an approved quota, and New Zealand cited the report of the Scientific Committee where there is reference to falsification of catch data in the former USSR and Japanese sperm whale records. Inspection and observation is necessary to prevent the manipulations of the past.

Japan responded that the allegations against Japan had not been verified by the competent authorities, nor have the primary data have not been supplied. It would like to obtain the original data in order to have an open discussion on this matter.

Dominica questioned where trade should be discussed, to which the Chairman of the Working Group answered that he believed it should be another forum within the IWC.

A.4 SATELLITE MONITORING
The Working Group considered the issue of satellite or electronic monitoring and differing views were expressed on the need for satellite systems both in relation to security of vessels, confidentiality of data, the costs of such systems and the actual need of real time reporting under the RMP, based on the texts suggested by the UK and New Zealand and the alternative text on electronic monitoring from Norway. The Group noted Japan's concerns about the risks to the security of its whaling operations which could stem from automatic reporting to the IWC.

A.5 REGISTRATION
The Group agreed the general principle of landing whales and whale products at registered land stations. Because of concerns about confidentiality, both Japan and Norway reserved their positions with regard to forwarding data to the IWC Secretariat.

B. INTERNATIONAL OBSERVATION SCHEME
B.1 INTRODUCTION
B.2 DEPLOYMENT
Some countries believed it was imperative that international observers must be present on all vessels engaged in whaling operations and, that when priority has to be established, they would take precedence over national inspectors. Some other countries were, however, firmly of the view that national inspectors were sufficient for enforcement purposes and that in the event of there being insufficient room for both then priority must be given to national inspectors.

B.3 QUALIFICATIONS
The Chairman of the Working Group drew attention to the alternative UK proposal which was intended to add flexibility to the original Japanese text which would help to address earlier concerns about the numbers and availability of international observers. Norway underlined that there were serious safety concerns involved, and that it was imperative that the observer understood the language spoken by the captain and crew. The UK accepted this point about marine safety but noted that this would apply equally to situations where an interpreter was used on board a vessel. In the Commission, Norway again raised the question of language for safety reasons, and believed that the observer must speak the crew's language.

B.4 REGISTRATION
In the absence of comments the Japanese text on the registration for the observer and inspection scheme was agreed.

B.5 SCOPE OF OBSERVATION AND APPOINTMENT
New Zealand asked for clarification on the use of the word 'consensus' in the opening line and wondered whether this was necessary as most IWC decisions were reached by consensus or formal vote. Japan explained that this had been inserted so the views of countries receiving observers could be taken into account. It was agreed that Japan and New Zealand should discuss this bilaterally to produce a mutually acceptable form of words to cover this point. The Chairman concluded that the Working Group accepted the proposal, subject to the further deliberation as noted above. It was subsequently reported that agreement had not been reached on the issue of the words 'by consensus'.

B.6 STANDING OF IWC OBSERVERS
Japan continued to have problems with the possibility of international observers becoming involved in the implementation of national rules and the Chairman of the Working Group asked the UK and Japan to pursue this bilaterally.

There was some discussion about possible conflict between whaling operations and the observer's actions and the resulting implications for safety of all on board the vessel. Japan agreed to consider the UK comment further.

New Zealand and the UK expressed serious reservations about the terms of the waiver which appeared to waive observers' basic rights as ordinary employees. The Chairman of the Working Group asked these two countries and Japan to consider this further to produce wording acceptable to all. It was subsequently reported that no agreement had been reached on this issue.

In the Commission, New Zealand raised the possibility that observers would sign away their rights for any third party liabilities resulting in accidents and injury, and made reference to the International Labour Organisation and worker's compensation. The Secretary was instructed to gather information from other observer regimes.

Norway also pointed out that it was not possible under its national legislation for observers to take on the functions of inspectors.

B.7 RIGHT AND FUNCTION
After rearrangement of the text, the remaining material effectively covered trade issues.

B.8 REPORT
New Zealand pointed out that this was the corollary of the argument put forward under discussion of A.4 (satellite monitoring). In the same way as there was a need for positional reporting, so it was necessary for real time reporting by the observers themselves. Norway maintained that the proposal for real time reporting must be seen in connection with the discussion on A.4 on inspectors. What were the tasks the Secretariat should perform which necessitated real time reporting? A small sub-group concluded that it was necessary to await the outcome of discussions in the Commission on the wider issues associated with quota management and supervision and control in order to advance the work on the issue of observers' reports.

The UK pointed out that acceptance of further elements would be dependent upon agreement above.

The Chairman of the Working Group recorded that there was some substantive opposition to the setting up of a review panel for reports, especially in view of the existence of the Infractions Committee. He noted that it was not possible to reach agreement on this issue at this stage.

B.9 INTERPRETER
Some minor editorial changes to the text were accepted.

B.10 COSTS
The Chairman of the Working Group noted the proposals from New Zealand, UK and USA that all costs related to supervision and control should be borne by the whaling industry and/or the countries concerned. New Zealand stated that as commercial whaling is a business, those engaged in it should bear the regulatory cost. Denmark stated that, in its opinion, as with the procedures in the EU fisheries sector, national inspectors should be paid by the national government observers whereas international observers should be paid by the IWC. The Chairman of the Working Group noted that in the absence of agreement this issue should be referred to the Commission.

C. MEASURES TO ENSURE CATCH LIMITS ARE NOT EXCEEDED
The Chairman of the Working Group noted that the Working Group had already agreed that this should be considered elsewhere.

12.1.2 Total catches over time, including monitoring and reporting of bycatches and other outstanding issues in relation to the RMS
The Working Group agreed to the Chairman's suggestion to take these Items together. The Chairman then asked the Chairman of the Scientific Committee to present his Committee's report on the various outstanding scientific issues in relation to the RMS.

OVERSIGHT OF SURVEYS AND DATA ANALYSIS
Last year, the Scientific Committee modified its Guidelines and Requirements for Surveys to take into account the question of Committee oversight. It noted that the level of oversight necessary was dependent upon a number of factors, e.g. whether the survey techniques were novel and whether the survey was long-established. It agreed that the Scientific Committee would agree on which scientists could suitably act on its behalf on a survey-to-survey basis.

The Working Group and the Commission endorsed the Scientific Committee's conclusions.

DATA AVAILABILITY
The Scientific Committee particularly stressed the need for data to be available on a continuing basis and it made the following recommendations:

(1)

that, as a minimum requirement, data from abundance surveys be available on a continuing basis if an abundance estimate from such surveys is to be used in an implementation of the RMP;

(2)

that it should not review such estimates under the terms of the RMP unless there are assurances of such access.

The Scientific Committee considered the question of data from non-member nations and noted its importance for certain implementations. It made two recommendations, recognising that there may be a need to allow slightly more flexibility with respect to such data, for example safeguarding the rights of the collectors to first use of the data. It recommended:

(1)

that the Commission request non-member states to co-operate in the work of the Committee by providing information on abundance surveys that they conduct on stocks of interest to the Commission and to make the data from such surveys available;

(2)

that a set of guidelines be developed for the types of availability restrictions that it would consider acceptable if a non-member country, individual scientists, or international organisation were to provide data for use in the RMP - in developing such guidelines, consideration should be given both to the needs for ensuring continuing adequate implementation of the RMP and the limitations on data uses that would facilitate and encourage the provision of such data.

The Scientific Committee would try to develop such guidelines at its next meeting.

The Scientific Committee also considered the question of the availability of data from countries who leave the Commission, stressing the importance of ensuring continuing access to data. It recommended that the Commission develop appropriate provisions that ensure that any data supplied by a member country for use under the RMP remains available to the Scientific Committee in the event that a member country withdraws from the Commission.

Finally, the Scientific Committee considered the question of Committee policy on reviewing published estimates if the raw data are not available. It recommended that it should not review estimates for use in an application of the RMP based on data that it judges do not adequately meet its requirements and guidelines.

However, it also recommended that:

(1)

it should consider the specifics of any dataset in its requirements and guidelines; and

(2)

it should evaluate the degree to which the data are adequate for use in the RMP and should judge the relative importance in terms of the behaviour of the RMP in those areas where the requirements were not met and guidelines were not followed. In particular, some aspects of the guidelines dealing with prior notification and timing of data provision, etc may be inappropriate or irrelevant depending upon the situation under which the survey was conducted by a non-member country.

The Working Group endorsed all of the Scientific Committee's recommendations except for the first and the last. Both were noted only at this stage. The Commission subsequently endorsed all the recommendations, on the proposal of Norway, seconded by the UK.

GENETIC DATABASE
The Chairman of the Scientific Committee drew attention to the Chairman's report of the 1997 meeting which noted that the Scientific Committee had recognised that certain management or regulatory aspects of a proposed genetic database for Northeastern Atlantic minke whales were outside its specific remit but there were two issues on which it felt it could provide advice. These were the type of genetic information most appropriate to record in such a register and the value of such data for research. The Scientific Committee had agreed that the proposed methods and types of genetic information were sound and that the data could also be very useful for scientific research. This item was not considered further by the Scientific Committee this year.

TOTAL CATCHES OVER TIME
This year the Scientific Committee clarified the RMP text related to 'indirect' catches. The revised wording is as follows:

(16) The population model used in the Catch Limit Algorithm (see Section 4) effectively assumes that all whales that die from causes other than those resulting from natural mortality are included in the catch history. Thus, known [or estimated] 'indirect' catches, e.g. whales killed through entanglement in fishing gear [(including those that subsequently strand)], should also be included in the catch history, in addition to whales caught or struck and lost in direct whaling operations. On the other hand, stranding is assumed to be part of the process of natural mortality, and numbers of whales stranded [due to natural causes] should not be included in the catch history.

The Netherlands commented that the Commission still needed to decide how all known human-induced mortalities should be considered in estimating future RMP catch limits. The Chairman of the Scientific Committee noted that this had been considered in one specific, rather than a generic, case, that of Implementation Simulation Trials for North Pacific minke whales. This was a case where the Committee believed that there may well be continuing non-natural and non-directed mortality (i.e. incidental catches). The Scientific Committee had therefore agreed to carry out trials to examine two scenarios.

(1)

The catch limit is set at the RMP value and the incidental catches are taken in addition to this. In this instance, therefore, it is assumed that the incidental catches are taken into account in the catch history only.

(2)

The catch limit is set at the RMP level minus the maximum estimated incidental catches i.e. the incidental catches are taken into account when setting the limits themselves.

The results of these trials would be used to provide advice to the Commission on the consequences of choosing one or other option for this specific case. The final decision would, of course, be made by the Commission. The Working Group Chairman noted the point made by the Netherlands and the work done by the Scientific Committee in relation to this specific case. It was possible that there may be a need for further work but this would be discussed in Plenary.

In the Commission, Japan stated it would re-affirm endorsement of the proposals by the Scientific Committee, which were therefore noted until being considered under Action Arising.

CARRY-OVER
The Chairman of the Scientific Committee referred to decisions taken last year when the Committee had considered the question of carry-over and recommended wording to go in the RMP specification, and this was endorsed by the Commission.

ISSUES ARISING OUT OF THE CLA PROGRAM
TUNING
The Scientific Committee had asked the Secretariat to convert the computer program that calculates catch limits for the RMP, to use double precision arithmetic and to use this modified program to determine a revised value for the tuning parameter that ensures that the median final depletion for the D1 trial is 0.72K (accurate to 0.000001K), the tuning level that had been originally chosen by the Commission. For reasons related to the nature of the computer program, and the purpose for which it had been originally designed, this had not been as straightforward a task as had been thought and further work was needed. The Scientific Committee this year determined a mechanism whereby this work can be accomplished.

Also at last year's meeting, the Scientific Committee had recommended that the Secretariat investigate methods to calculate catch limits under the CLA more efficiently. It noted that it would be desirable if the same computer program could be used for calculating catch limits as for simulation studies. It had not been possible to complete the work itself in the intersessional period. The Scientific Committee had identified a mechanism by which this should be accomplished in the coming year.

The Scientific Committee's recommendations were endorsed by the Working Group and the Commission.

RMP SPECIFICATION
The Chairman of the Scientific Committee stated that the Committee had reviewed the text of the RMP, ensuring that its previous amendments had been incorporated and ensuring editorial consistency. During the review, the Scientific Committee had identified a more substantial amendment to ensure that the specifications were consistent with recent developments in the Committee. It concerned an addition to the definition of a Year, to allow for catches to be set for certain periods of a year. The Working Group endorsed this amendment.

The final full specification for the RMP is given as Annex N of the Scientific Committee report (J. Cetacean Res. Manage. (Suppl.) 1:251-57).

The Chairman of the Scientific Committee drew attention to the fact that the Committee had also noted two subjects that do not require immediate attention but may require further discussion at some time in the future should circumstances dictate. These were related to:

(1)

use of relative abundance indices; and

(2)

relative timing of surveys and implementation reviews.

The Chain-nan of the Working Group thanked the Chairman of the Scientific Committee for his report and noted that this provisionally completed issues relevant to that Committee. He further noted that the Working Group could not carry forward the incorporation of the RMP and other elements of the RMS into the Schedule at this stage.

In the Commission, Japan commented that it thought the tuning level of 72% was unnecessarily high; it is normally 60%, and at first it was even 54%.

12.1.3 Schedule amendments
No Schedule amendments were proposed.

12.2 Other matters
There was no other business.

12.3 Action arising
In order to continue progress, Japan offered to revise the Inspection and Observation Scheme text during the intersessional period. This was accepted by the Commission.

Austria, Brazil, Germany, Mexico, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Spain, UK and the USA proposed a Resolution on total catches over time that would establish that catch limits for commercial purposes for any species of whale in any region shall be calculated by deducting all human-induced mortalities that are known or can be reasonably estimated, other than commercial catches, from the total allowable removal.

Japan pointed out that the RMS Working Group had heard from the Scientific Committee that it had agreed to carry out trials to examine two scenarios and that the results of these would be used to provide advice to the Commission. This Resolution would pre-judge this work. Norway spoke in a similar vein and suggested deleting this operative paragraph.

The USA argued that as one of the remaining elements of the RMS, all human-induced removals should be taken into account and the Commission should give direction to the Scientific Committee on the procedure to be followed as a policy directive to save unnecessary work. The UK agreed with this policy as the Scientific Committee had suggested the trials because the Commission had not decided. It thought this proposal for including all predictable removals in determining the catch limit was the safest option.

Norway then proposed that the second operative paragraph should be deleted, and references to the RMS should be changed to RMP. Japan seconded and on a point of order said that since the RMP will be incorporated into the Schedule, the Resolution would lead to a future amendment of the Schedule. The Russian Federation thought that the RMP should be applied to aboriginal subsistence whaling.

The Chairman ruled that this Resolution was in order. The amendment was defeated by 9 votes in favour to 21 against, with 4 abstentions; and the Resolution shown in Appendix 3 was then adopted by 21 votes in favour to 10 against, with 3 abstentions.

Norway commented that this told the Scientific Committee to stop exploring the alternatives, which it thought unacceptable.

_