(from "Chairman's Report of the Fifty-First Annual Meeting")

Japan objected to the admission of observers from the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society (WDCS) and Greenpeace International (GPI). It noted that WDCS had leaked the contents of discussion of the Workshop on Whale Killing Methods whilst the workshop was still in session and made it available on its web site. The Chairman of the Workshop had excluded WDCS with immediate effect and Japan requested that WDCS not be admitted as an observer to this meeting. With respect to Greenpeace International, Japan noted that when the Japanese research mother-ship had made an emergency call at Noumea, Greenpeace had delayed the ship by force and it requested that they not be allowed to observe this Sub-committee. Observers from inter-governmental organisations and NGOs except for WDCS and GPI were admitted.

Norway, supported by Japan, referred to the terms of reference of the Sub-Committee and stated its belief that the item concerning stockpiles of whale products and trade questions is not within the scope of the Convention. Consequently, it proposed that this item be deleted. The USA and New Zealand did not concur with this view. It was agreed, as in previous years, that an exchange of views was nonetheless useful.

10.1.1 Infractions reports from Contracting Governments
The Infractions Reports from Denmark, St Vincent and The Grenadines, the USA and the Russian Federation received by the Commission in 1998 were summarised.

The USA expressed its concern about the report by St Vincent and The Grenadines. It noted the agreement of the Scientific Committee that there is a high probability that any humpback whale less than 8m in length in the breeding area during the winter season is a calf. It therefore was probable that the smaller animals caught in 1998 and 1999 were calves, and if so, those taken were in violation of paragraph 14 of the Schedule. By extension, it believed that the larger females taken were accompanying the probable calves, given the hunting methods used for that fishery, and thus would also have been taken in violation of paragraph 14 of the Schedule.

Given the terms of reference of this Sub-Committee and its past practice, the Chairman asked the floor to limit discussions only to the take in 1998, noting that discussion of infractions for the 1999 season will take place next year.

St Vincent and The Grenadines emphasised that it did not believe that the takes constituted an infraction and had not reported them as such. Such takes had not been considered as infractions in the past and it believed that the precedent had been set.

New Zealand, Netherlands and the UK noted that paragraph 14 of the Schedule prohibits the taking of a suckling calf and the taking of a female whale accompanied by a calf. Takes of either clearly constitute an infraction. The UK further quoted from a previous Chairman's report that in 1993 St Vincent and The Grenadines had accepted that the hunting of a calf and a female accompanied by the calf was a possible infraction. St Vincent and The Grenadines argued that it had not accepted that it had committed such an infraction but that it had accepted that the case of taking a suckling animal would comprise an infraction.

Norway argued that paragraph 14 is part of the provisions established for commercial baleen whale catches and does not apply to the aboriginal subsistence whaling by St Vincent and The Grenadines. Aboriginal subsistence whaling is regulated in a special paragraph, paragraph 13. The provisions of this paragraph expressly prohibit the take of a calf or female accompanied by a calf for bowhead whales and gray whales but there is no such provision in the section on the take of humpback whales by St Vincent and The Grenadines.

New Zealand and the Netherlands disagreed with the interpretation of Norway, believing that paragraph 14 applied to all whaling operations for baleen whales, including aboriginal subsistence whaling operations. Australia further noted that paragraph 17 contained an identical provision to paragraph 14, and this time referred to paragraph 16 related to sperm whales. The USA concurred, stating that the specific provision under paragraph 13(b)(1)(ii) had been introduced for emphasis when there was great concern over the status of the stock. It believed that there were now enough data to judge the take by St Vincent and The Grenadines as an infraction, citing the agreement by the Scientific Committee. It therefore urged St Vincent and The Grenadines to end its present hunting practice. It noted that this was a long-standing issue and that as long ago as 1987, St Vincent and The Grenadines had indicated that in future it would make every effort to comply with paragraph 14.

Denmark questioned if such provision had existed before the introduction of the aboriginal subsistence whaling. The Secretariat replied that it had been included in the first Schedule, and had in fact been included as part of the London Agreement in 1938, well before the establishment of the IWC.

Sweden pointed out the need to take further advice from the Scientific Committee on the rationale for the prohibition on the taking of calves, believing that it may have been based on outdated management theory. In addition, it believed that it might be easier, and hence quicker and more humane, to kill a small animal.

St Vincent and The Grenadines responded to the Netherlands, New Zealand and the USA that since it had been reported that the smaller animal had no milk in its stomach it was not suckling. Under such circumstances it believed that the Sub-Committee should follow precedent if a difference in opinion over interpretation exists.

Japan, recognising the existence of the two different views, agreed with Norway and believed that this clearly meant that no infraction had occurred. It further noted that the prohibition on the taking of calves had its origin in the period of major commercial whaling and considerations of economic efficiency. It believed that such a prohibition was inappropriate in this aboriginal subsistence whaling case, noting that the proposed catch of two was from a population now estimated at more than 10,000 animals.

Antigua and Barbuda supported the interpretation by Norway as well as the idea of Sweden and suggested that the discussion should conclude with a request that St Vincent and The Grenadines submit more detailed reports in the future.

The Chairman concluded that there was clearly no unanimous view in the Sub-Committee. In such circumstances it was appropriate to forward the different views to the Commission. He summarised these as follows:

(1)

Some delegations believe that paragraph 14 of the Schedule only applies to commercial whaling of baleen whales, noting the specific reference to calves in paragraphs 13(b)(1)(ii) and 13(b)(2)(ii) and its absence in paragraphs 13(b)(3) and 13(b)(4). Those delegations therefore believed that no infractions could have occurred.

(2)

Other delegations believed that paragraph 14 applied to all baleen whale operations.

(3)

Some delegations believed that as the small animal had no milk in its stomach it was not a suckling calf and thus not an infraction. They also referred to the precedent previously set by the Sub-Committee.

(4)

Other delegations believed that the length information was sufficient to identify the animal taken in 1998 as a calf and hence that this constituted an infraction. By implication, the female taken was accompanying a calf and also therefore comprised an infraction. With respect to precedents, they believed that more data were now available than in previous years and that this was sufficient reason for the Sub-Committee to assert that infractions had occurred.

(5)

Some delegations believed that the Scientific Committee should re-examine the need for a provision to prohibit calves, from a management and conservation perspective.

The Netherlands noted that in a paper presented by the Russian Federation to the Scientific Committee, the takes by the Chukotka peoples included many animals under one year old and that in the 1996 catch 75% of mature females had been lactating females. The Netherlands requested further explanation by the Russian Federation. In response to a question, the Secretariat explained that the summary in the Scientific Committee's report did not include information on either the age distribution or the reproductive status of the catch. The Chairman suggested that the Russian Federation could discuss this matter bilaterally with the Netherlands outside the meeting (and the Russian Federation subsequently provided further information to the Netherlands).

10.1.2 Reports from Contracting Governments on availability, sources and trade in whale products
A number of resolutions on this matter have been passed by the Commission (IWC Resolution 1994-7, Resolution 1995-6, Resolution 1996-3, Resolution 1997-2, Resolution 1998-8). Responses this year had been received only from Australia and the UK, neither of which have any stockpiles.

10.1.3 Other matters
10.1.3.1 SURVEILLANCE OF WHALING OPERATIONS
The Infractions Reports submitted by the USA and the Russian Federation stated that 100% of their aboriginal catches were under direct national inspection. Denmark reported that the IWC catch limits for minke and fin whales were not violated for Greenland.

10.1.3.2 CHECKLISTS OF INFORMATION REQUIRED OR REQUESTED UNDER SECTION VI OF THE SCHEDULE
The available information supplied in the Checklists is summarised below:

(1)

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.

(2)

USA: Information on date, species, position, length, sex, killing method and numbers struck and lost is collected for 80-100% of the catch depending on the item. Other biological information is recorded for about 60% of animals.

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

10.1.3.3 SUBMISSION OF NATIONAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS
A summary of national legislation supplied to the Commission was prepared by the Secretariat.

10.1.3.4 OTHER
The UK reminded Japan that last year Japan had been requested to provide further information on the gray whale whose upper body had been found with several harpoon heads in Hokkaido, Japan in 1996. Japan explained that it is the standing policy of the Government of Japan to take strict measures against illegal activities and it was willing to receive any constructive suggestions from the Contracting Governments. However, it believed that the reports of this issue at the 49^th Annual Meeting had been sufficient for the discussion to have been concluded.

Australia asked whether the take of a Bryde's whale during the JARPN research survey in 1998 should be considered in the Sub-Committee on Infractions. Japan noted that the issue was inappropriate to be discussed in this Sub-Committee since the right to conduct scientific research is granted as a sovereign right of the Contracting Government in Article VIII of the Convention.

10.2 Action arising
The Commission took note of the matters contained in the report of the Infractions Sub-Committee.

_