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

Norway, supported by Japan, referred to the terms of reference and stated its belief that the Agenda Items covering stockpiles of whale products and trade questions are not within the scope of the Convention. Consequently, it proposed that these items be deleted. Japan noted the adoption of a decision on trade in whale meat adopted at the 10^th Conference of the Parties to CITES, and both it and Norway stated that they were willing to discuss such matters in what they considered to be the appropriate fora (WTO and CITES). Japan further stated that any relevant information on international trade and market activities would be made available to the public including NGOs and the Press, upon enquiry. The USA and New Zealand did not agree to delete these Items. After some discussion, it was agreed, as it was in 1997, that an exchange of views was nonetheless useful.

9.1.1 Infractions reports from Contracting Governments
The Infractions Reports received by the Commission in 1997 were summarised. Denmark noted that although the information in the document was correct, it wished to clarify that the number of strikes (14) for East Greenland minke whales was not relevant. The point is the 11 landed minke whales, as the Schedule allows 12 landed minke whales in East Greenland each year.

9.1.2 Reports from Contracting Governments on availability, sources and shipments of whale meat and products, and relevant developments; and on stockpiles and sale of whale meat and products, domestic laws and enforcement actions on illegal possession and sale
The Chairman noted that for the last four years Resolutions on this issue had been adopted by the Commission, and that no document was submitted on this issue from the member governments this year.

The USA asked if Japan or Norway had any additional information about the seizure on 6 April 1996 by Japanese customs of five tons of whale meat packed in five tons of fish. The shipment had originated in Norway but when seized in Japan, the shipment was on a Korean vessel coming from Korea. The USA considered that this was an unusual case and the Sub-committee had yet to receive any new information on the investigation of the matter from Japan. Japan and Norway did not comment on this issue, but Japan noted that last year it had supplied information on a voluntary basis on these issues.

New Zealand sought information on progress with the peer review of genetic analyses of market samples of whalemeat that Japan had undertaken to conduct at last year's meeting. New Zealand expressed its thanks to Japan for its willingness to conduct the review and hoped that a report would be submitted at next year's meeting. Japan stated that it could not begin the review as the original samples used by the New Zealand researchers had not been made available, despite the request made by Japan to the researchers. New Zealand noted that it had not received such a request and the samples remained in Japan as required under international legislation. New Zealand offered to facilitate access to the samples where possible. Japan stated its view that this was a domestic issue and that it had no intention of formally providing the results to the Commission, reminding the meeting of its earlier statement regarding the competency of the IWC on these issues, but noting its willingness to make the results available at the request of individuals, to publish them, and to make them available publicly including to NGOs and the Press.

On the issue of market testing of whale products for genetic analysis, the Republic of Korea requested that anyone who wished to conduct such work should cooperate with fisheries authorities in that country, so that the findings would not be different from each other, study by study. The Republic of Korea cited the reporting last year of the results of genetic analysis on Korean market samples by TRAFFIC East Asia as a good example of close cooperation. This study had indicated that all whale meats had originated from bycatch in Korean waters.

9.1.3 Other matters
SURVEILLANCE OF WHALING OPERATIONS
The infractions report submitted by the USA stated that 100% of its aboriginal catch was under direct national inspection and Denmark reported that, in 1997, the IWC catch limits for minke and fin whales were not violated for Greenland. The Russian Federation informed the Sub-committee that all of its aboriginal catch was conducted under inspection by national inspectors.

CHECKLIST OF INFORMATION REQUIRED OR REQUESTED UNDER SECTION VI OF THE SCHEDULE
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. It is not compulsory for member Governments to fill in the Checklist although, of course, they do have to fulfil their obligations under this Section of the Schedule.

The available information supplied in the Checklists 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 100% of the catch depending on the item. Other biological information is recorded for some animals.

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

SUBMISSION OF NATIONAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS
The Secretariat provided a summary of national legislation supplied to the Commission. The Netherlands and New Zealand noted that their relevant legislation had been recently changed since provision of the information in the summary. Notification of the new legislation and changes to the existing legislation would be sent to the Secretariat prior to the next meeting. The Russian Federation also stated that its new law had been given to the IWC Secretariat.

New Zealand suggested changes to the tabled information that would clarify whether member countries had regulations but had not supplied information, or did not have any regulations. The Secretariat appreciated the suggestion, noting that at present 'none' merely meant that no legislation had been received. They would attempt to obtain the requisite information from member governments during the year so that a revised table can be supplied next year.

ANY OTHER BUSINESS
The UK asked if Japan could report further on the investigation of the anterior half of a gray whale that washed up on the Hokkaido coast on 16 May 1996. Japan had given a preliminary report at last year's meeting. That report noted that: three officials were sent to dig up the carcass and collect tissues for DNA; they had found 11 hand harpoons in the dead whale; none of the hand harpoons were similar to the ones known to be used currently by Japanese coastal harpoon fishermen; no conclusion had been reached as to whether or not this case constitutes an infraction to the Convention and the investigation was ongoing.

The UK noted that as Japan had reported last year that it was still unclear as to whether the death of this gray whale had been an infraction, the matter was clearly within the competence of the IWC, but should perhaps be raised under a different Agenda Item. Japan stated that it had made the utmost effort to obtain information on the gray whale issue, and it was currently finalising the information it had to date.

Japan summed up the information gathered so far and stated that biological samples from the whale were stored at the Cetacean Research Institute in Japan. Genetic analysis from the whale had been conducted and this would ensure that if meat from this animal were to be discovered in the Japanese market, it could be readily identified. A thorough investigation by the Fisheries Agency had found that at this point no identical harpoon heads to those found in the gray whale were in use in Japan. On this basis, it noted that photographs of the types of harpoon heads used by the Alaskan and Russian hunters were needed to undertake a further investigation. Japan requested that it be supplied with these photographs in order to facilitate the investigation. Japan also stated that further efforts would be pursued to investigate domestically for a possible conclusion to this issue.

The USA stated that the usual practice of solving such an issue was for the information to be circulated to the wider community. It would provide photographs of the harpoon heads used in Alaska on receipt of photographs of those found in the gray whale. Japan noted that this was a useful suggestion. The USA reminded the Sub-committee of the interest in this issue, given that this gray whale is likely to be from the Western North Pacific stock. This stock is believed to comprise only a few hundred animals, unlike the Eastern North Pacific stock, which is much larger (approximately 25,000 animals).

Japan stated that it was unable to offer any information on stocks at this meeting due to a lack of advisers familiar with genetic analysis for stock structure regarding these particular stocks. Japan therefore could not discuss this issue at this time but undertook to prepare information on the stock question at an appropriate time in the future.

9.2 Action arising
In the Commission, the Netherlands voiced its concern over illegal trade and urged thorough investigation and action; this was supported by the UK. Japan reiterated its view that matters of trade and its domestic market fall outside the IWC and are under its own sovereignty, although it cooperates with CITES in international, and TRAFFIC Japan on domestic, issues. It questioned the grounds and sources of information for the allegations made.

_