Annual Report 2006

VOLUME I

NAMMCO Council Management Committee on Cetaceans Management Committee on Seals and Walruses Committee on Hunting Methods NAMMCO Workshop addressing problems of Struck and Lost in Seal, Walrus and Whale Hunting Sub-Committee on Inspection and Observation

North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission

Layout & editing: NAMMCO Secretariat Printing: BokstavHuset AS, Tromsø, Norway

ISSN 1025-2045 ISBN 978-82-91578-20-0

Please cite this report as: NAMMCO Annual Report 2006 – Volume I North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission, Tromsø, Norway, 277 pp.

© North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission 2007. CONTENTS

VOLUME I

EXPLANATORY NOTE

COMMITTEES & OFFICE BEARERS

SECTION 1 COUNCIL

1.1 Report of the Sixteenth Meeting of the Council ...... 13

Appendix 1 Agenda ...... 28 Appendix 2 List of Documents ...... 29 Appendix 3 Opening Statements ...... 30 Appendix 4 NAMMCO intervention to FAO/COFI 27...... 35 Appendix 5 Audited Accounts for 2006 ...... 36 Appendix 6 Press Release ...... 37

1.2 Report of the Committee on Hunting Methods ...... 41

Appendix 1 List of Laws & Regulations for Marine Mammal Hunting in NAMMCO Member Countries ...... 46 Appendix 2 List of References on Hunting Methods ...... 49 Appendix 3 Overview of recommendations and follow-up...... 55 Appendix 4 Possible Working Group on review of whale killing data..67

1.3 Report of the NAMMCO Workshop addressing problems of Struck and Lost in Seal, Walrus and Whale Hunting ...... 69

1.4 Report of the Sub-Committee on Inspection and Observation ...... 145

SECTION 2 MANAGEMENT COMMITTEES

2.1 Report of the Management Committee on Cetaceans ...... 149

Appendix 1 Agenda ...... 159 Appendix 2 List of Documents ...... 159

2.2 Report of the Management Committee on Seals and Walruses...... 161

Appendix 1 Agenda ...... 171 Appendix 2 List of Documents ...... 171

ANNEX 1 List of Proposals for Conservation and Management ...... 172 ANNEX 2 Summary of requests by NAMMCO Council to the Scientific Committee and Responses by the Scientific Committee ...... 198

ANNEX 3 Report of the Management Committee Working Group on By-Catch...... 249

SECTION 3 ADDRESSES

3.1 Delegates and Observers to the Sixteenth Meeting of the Council ...... 259

3.2 Council and Management Committee Members in 2006 ...... 263

3.3 Management Committee Members in 2006 ...... 265

3.4 Finance and Administration Committee Members 2006 ...... 267

3.5 Delegates to the NAMMCO Workshop addressing problems of Struck and Lost in seal, walrus and whale hunting, November 2006 ...... 269

3.6 Secretariat ...... 277

VOLUME II

EXPLANATORY NOTE

SECTION 4 SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE

4.1 Report of the Fourteenth Meeting of the Scientific Committee ...... 287

Executive Summary ...... 287 Main Report ...... 301 Appendix 1 Agenda ...... 353 Appendix 2 List of Documents ...... 356

ANNEX 1 Report of the NAMMCO Working Group on Harbour Seals ...... 358

ANNEX 2 Report of the Joint Meeting of the NAMMCO Working Group on North Atlantic Fin Whales and the IWC Scientific Committee ...... 409

ANNEX 3 Report of the Ad Hoc Working Group: Are fin whales in the Central North Atlantic appropriately listed in CITES Appendix I? ...... 443

ANNEX 4 Report of the NAMMCO Planning Committee for the Trans North Atlantic Sighting Survey, March 2006 ...... 453

ANNEX 5 Report of the NAMMCO Planning Committee for the Trans North Atlantic Sighting Survey, November 2006 ...... 462

SECTION 5 NATIONAL PROGRESS REPORTS

5.1 Faroe Islands Progress Report on Marine Mammals 2005 ...... 489

5.2 Greenland Progress Report on Marine Mammals 2005 ...... 495

5.3 Iceland Progress Report on Marine Mammals 2005 ...... 499

5.4 Norway Progress Report on Marine Mammals 2005 ...... 519

SECTION 6 ADDRESSES

6.1 Scientific Committee Members 2006 ...... 549

6.2 NAMMCO Scientific Committee Working Group on Harbour Seals ...... 551

6.3 Joint meeting of the NAMMCO Scientific Committee Working Group on North Atlantic Fin Whales and the IWC Scientific Committee ...... 555

6.4 Ad Hoc Working Group: Are fin whales in the Central North Atlantic appropriately listed in CITES Appendix I? ...... 559

6.5 NAMMCO Planning Committee for the Trans North Atlantic Sighting Survey, March and November 2006 ...... 561

6.6 Secretariat ...... 563

EXPLANATORY NOTE

This year’s Annual Report has been divided into two complimentary parts, Volume 1 and Volume II. This is because the content has become too large to continue printing it in the format we use in a single volume. The change in publication format is timely because there have been some major changes in the structure of the Management Committees. Now NAMMCO have two Management Committees (MCs): the recently developed MC for Seals and Walruses, and the former MC now entitled MC for Cetaceans.

The Volume 1 contains the main Council Report from the 16th meeting and reports on hunting committees and workshops as well as meetings on observation and inspection (Section 1). There follow the reports of the two Management Committees and various associated Annexes on topics normally dealt with by the MC (Section 2). The final section 3 in Volume 1 contains addresses for members of all Committees and delegates attending meetings reported on in this volume.

The Volume II focuses on the Scientific Committee report and associated Working Group reports and Committee meetings which form the Annexes (all in Section 4). There follow in section 5, National Progress Reports for 2005. The final section 6 contains addresses for all members of the Committees and Working Groups.

COMMITTEES AND OFFICE BEARERS

Members of the Commission Councillors Faroe Islands (F) Mr Andras Kristiansen/Ms Ulla S. Wang Greenland (G) Ms Amalie Jessen Iceland (I) Ms Ásta Einarsdóttir Norway (N) Mr Halvard P. Johansen

Council Chairs – 1992-1995 Mr Kjartan Høydal (F) 1995-1997 Mr Halvard P. Johansen (N) 1997-1999 Mr Arnór Halldórsson (I) 1999-2004 Ms Amalie Jessen (G) 2004…. Ms Kate Sanderson (F)

Committee on Hunting Methods Chairs – 1994-1998 Ms Amalie Jessen (G) 1998-2005 Mr Jústines Olsen (F) 2005… Dr Egil Ole Øen (N)

Management Committee Chairs – 1993-1994 Mr Kjartan Høydal (F) interim 1994-1998 Mr Einar Lemche (G) 1998-2004 Mr Kaj P. Mortensen (F) 2004… Mr Halvard P. Johansen (N)

Management Committee Sub-Committee on Inspection and Observation Chairs – 1993-1995 Mr Einar Lemche (G) 1995-2005 Dr Egil Ole Øen (N) 2005… Mr Ole Heinrich (G)

Management Committee Working Group on By-Catch Chairs – 1998-1999 Mr Gísli A. Víkingsson (I) 1999-2003 Dr Arne Bjørge (N) 2003-2004 Mr Kim Mathiasen (G) 2004… Ms Droplaug Ólavsdóttir (I)

Scientific Committee Chairs – 1993-1995 Dr Jóhann Sigurjónsson (I) 1995-1997 Prof. Tore Haug (N) 1997-2000 Dr Mads Peter Heide-Jørgensen (G) 2000-2004 Mr Gísli A. Víkingsson (I) 2004-2005 Prof. Lars Walløe (N) 2005… Dr Geneviève Desportes (F)

Scientific Committee Working Group on Abundance Estimates Chair – 1996… Dr Nils Øien (N)

Scientific Committee Working Group on the Economic Aspects of Marine Mammal – Fisheries Interactions Chairs – 1998-1999 Dr Gunnar Stefánsson (I) 1999-2000 Dr Aqqalu Rosing-Asvid (G) 2000 … Prof. Lars Walløe (N)

Scientific Committee Working Group on the Population Status of Narwhal and Beluga Chair – 1999… Prof. Øystein Wiig (N)

Scientific Committee Working Group on the North Atlantic Fin Whales Chair – 1999-2003 Mr Gísli A. Víkingsson (I) 2003…. Prof. Lars Walløe (N)

Scientific Committee Working Group on the Stock Status of Walruses in the North Atlantic and Adjacent Seas Chair – 2005…. Dr Erik Born (G)

Finance and Administration Committee Chairs – 1999-2000 Mr Øyvind Rasmussen (N) 2000-2005 Mr Einar Lemche (G) 2005… Ms Ásta Einarsdóttir (I)

The NAMMCO Fund (Dissolved as of 2005) Chairs – 1998-2000 Ms Ulla S. Wang (F) 2000-2001 Ms Kate Sanderson (F) 2001-2005 Ms Ulla S. Wang (F)

Secretariat General Secretary Dr Christina Lockyer Scientific Secretary Mr Daniel Gordon Pike/Dr Mario Acquarone Administrative Coordinator Ms Charlotte Winsnes NAMMCO Annual Report 2006

SECTION 1 - COUNCIL

1.1 Report of the Sixteenth Meeting of the Council ...... 13

Appendix 1 Agenda ...... 28 Appendix 2 List of Documents ...... 29 Appendix 3 Opening Statements ...... 30 Appendix 4 NAMMCO intervention to FAO/COFI 27 ...... 35 Appendix 5 Audited Accounts for 2006 ...... 36 Appendix 6 Press Release ...... 37

1.2 Report of the Committee on Hunting Methods ...... 41

Appendix 1 List of Laws & Regulations for Marine Mammal Hunting in NAMMCO Member Countries ...... 46 Appendix 2 List of References on Hunting Methods ...... 49 Appendix 3 Overview of recommendations and follow-up...... 55 Appendix 4 Possible Working Group on review of whale killing data..67

1.3 Report of the NAMMCO Workshop addressing problems of Struck and Lost in Seal, Walrus and Whale Hunting ...... 69

1.1 Report of the Sub-Committee on Inspection and Observation ...... 145

NAMMCO Annual Report 2006 1.1 REPORT OF THE SIXTEENTH MEETING OF THE COUNCIL 27 February - 1 March 2007, Tromsø, Norway

1. OPENING PROCEDURES

1.1 Welcome The Chair of Council, Kate Sanderson, opened the meeting and welcomed all delegates and observers.

1.2 Opening statements Opening statements were made by the following countries: Norway, the Faroe Islands, Greenland, Iceland and Japan and are contained in Appendix 3.

1.3 Admission of Observers Observers from Canada and Japan, NEAFC, NAFO, IWC, and several Non- Governmental Organisations were welcomed. Apologies were received from St Lucia, USA and the EU. There were no observers from the Russian Federation.

1.4 Invited Speaker Daniel Pike, Scientific Secretary of NAMMCO gave a presentation entitled “The significance of Struck and Lost in Marine Mammal Hunting”. The presentation is found on page 78.

1.5 Adoption of agenda The agenda was adopted without changes.

1.6 Meeting arrangements The General Secretary explained administrative and social arrangements including a dinner at the Polaria on Tuesday 27 February jointly hosted by Norway and NAMMCO, and an Arctic buffet (Sealers Association) on Wednesday 28 February at the Ago Brasserie.

2. FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION

2.1 Report of the Finance and Administration Committee The FAC Chair (Iceland – Ásta Einarsdottír) presented the report of the FAC (NAMMCO/16/4 and Annex 1). There had been two meetings since NAMMCO 15: a telephone meeting (October 2006) and a face-to-face meeting (January 2007). It was noted that TNASS, the Struck and Lost Workshop, and Working Group meetings were costly. However, a surplus was realised at the close of 2006. The Administrative Coordinator position had evolved considerably over time in responsibility and tasks, and the FAC recommended a change of job description with job title of Deputy Secretary and a salary increment. The Staff Review would continue.

The Council noted the report and approved the salary increase and new job title for the current Administrative Coordinator.

13 Report of the Council

2.2 Adoption of the 2006 accounts The Council adopted the 2006 accounts, as contained in Appendix 5.

2.3 Commission Budget 2007 & Forecast Budget 2008 The Chair of the FAC presented the revised NAMMCO/16/4 Annex 1. for 2007 with special attention to particular amendments, including the increase in the Scientific Committee's budget allocation, to cover costs related to TNASS. Member countries were requested to help in indicating funding sources for TNASS. The overall expenditure was thus increased with a projected deficit in 2007 This would still leave some funds in the General reserve with inclusion of the now redundant Relocation Fund (line 28).

The Council noted that the forecast budget for 2008 is preliminary and is intended as a guide for the Secretariat for operational reasons before Council meets. The Relocation Fund no longer exists, but has been transferred to the General Reserve, which was agreed in 2006. There were concerns that in 2008 there will be no reserve. The Council requested the FAC to address this matter at its next meeting. It was noted that the existing policy is that the General Reserve must be at least 100 000 NOK.

The Council adopted the revised budget for 2007, and the preliminary 2008 budget was adopted.

2.4 Policy on admission of observers The General Secretary introduced the draft Rules of Procedure (RoP) concerning admission of observers to Council meetings (NAMMCO/16/13). NAMMCO favours transparency and welcomes participation of observers, but it is important that participation is consistent with the objectives of the organisation. The Council adopted the new wording (to be incorporated into the Council RoP), noting that admission of observers requires consensus among all member countries.

2.5 Other business The Faroes proposed to task the FAC to prepare salary scales for Secretariat staff in a similar way to other Inter-Governmental Organisations (IGO). They also proposed an investigation of the status of the new Deputy Secretary in relation to the Host Agreement, as currently there appeared to be different categories of employment on a diplomatic level. The Council agreed to these proposals.

3. SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE

3.1 Report of the Scientific Committee Geneviève Desportes, Chair of the Scientific Committee (SC) presented the report of the 14th meeting held in Iceland in November 2006 (NAMMCO/16/5). There had been four Working Group meetings with two TNASS planning meetings, an Ad Hoc Fin Whale CITES listing meeting, a joint IWC/NAMMCO Fin whale meeting and a Harbour Seal meeting. The SC had examined the requests for advice in detail and assessed if they were still valid or had been fully addressed. Seals and whales had been considered separately to facilitate order for the Management Committees. The

14 NAMMCO Annual Report 2006 full report of the Scientific Committee is contained in Section 4, Volume II.

Marine Mammal – Fisheries interactions The Scientific Commitee reported that there had been no significant progress in this area and additional resources would be needed if progress was to be made. Norway emphasised this point, stating that more funding was required than in recent times, not only for work to address NAMMCO requests, but for fisheries generally e.g. multi- species models. Iceland and Norway were perhaps the only countries including marine mammals in models. Some progress had been made in Iceland, and this autumn all sampling will be completed from minke whales and results should be available in 2008; especially on the cod consumed in stomach analysis of minke whales.

Greenland requested the Council to recommend to member countries to increase funding for such work. The SC Chair pointed out that data and samples alone are not enough and models and analyses, although costly and lengthy, must be supported. The Chair drew attention to the NAMMCO Agreement which is committed to the ecosystem approach, but that there is a need to emphasise this and to provide the financial resources. The Faroes noted that capacity to undertake such modelling work was limited, but efforts would be made to monitor the work of Iceland and Norway. Iceland supported the comment from the SC Chair that data and samples alone are not enough and the biggest problem for years had been a lack of minke whale material and information. However, this had now changed and a new position for a modeller had been created.

Norway proposed that since countries had requested the SC to work on this matter, member countries must provide the means to progress forward. The Council agreed to recommend to member countries that all effort be made to support this work.

Species and stocks The Scientific Committee reported in detail to the Council on on-going work and SC conclusions in response to requests for advice forwarded from the Council on a number of marine mammal stocks in the North Atlantic. The details are found in the full report of the SC report, and discussions of SC advice in relation to conservation and management are reflected in the reports of the Management Committee for Cetaceans and the Management Committee for Seals and Walruses.

Review of CITES listing of Central N. Atlantic fin whale stock An Ad Hoc Working Group met in November 2006 to investigate the CITES listing of species and stocks; specifically the Central N.Atlantic stock of fin whales. Biological information was reviewed along with abundance and stock structure. The conclusion was that this Central N.Atlantic stock does not meet any criteria for CITES Appendix List I. Iceland had requested this review through the NAMMCO Council, after volunteering to present information to the CITES Animals Committee at their periodic review, and expressed thanks for the efforts at short notice. Currently there is no scientific support for the present listing of this stock, and Iceland proposed instructing the Secretariat to make this conclusion available and report to CITES for the June 2007 COP meeting.

15 Report of the Council

Scientific Publications There were two publications ongoing: the Grey Seal volume publication is imminent; however, the NASS volume is delayed. Discussion on the possible merits of including TNASS results concluded that this was not a good option because of further additional delays.

There was a proposal for a new special volume on Harbour Seals following the WG meeting this year. Council approved this but deferred the associated budgetary considerations until next year.

Future Working Plans The Council noted the Scientific Committee’s planned schedule of work: The Scientific Committee meeting is scheduled to be held in Greenland in early October 2007, at a place to be decided (see however, item 11.1). The following Working Groups will hold meetings during 2007/8: - TNASS Planning Group, March 2007; - TNASS Planning Group (post survey), October 2007; - Beluga/Narwhal (joint NAMMCO/JCNB Working Group), late 2007 or 2008; - Walrus Working Group, 2008; - Marine Mammal-Fisheries Interactions, possibly 2008 depending on progress; - Dolphins, 2008 depending on progress; - Grey Seals, 2008. Other meetings might be held depending on requests received from the Council.

3.2 TNASS - Trans North Atlantic Sightings Survey 2007 The SC Chair introduced NAMMCO/16/12 with an update of developments since the 2006 SC meeting. In presenting the Council with an update on planning for TNASS, the SC Chair stressed the importance of synoptic simultaneous surveys in the entire N.Atlantic range. The timing will be in July generally, but September in Greenland because of likely foggy weather. This in fact raises potential problems because of double-counting of animals between July off Iceland and September off Greenland. Greenland is now planning surveys both in September and July, funding permitting. A map of the survey area will hopefully be consolidated with the currently blank areas in the eastern region covered by Norway if permission to survey in the Russian Barents Sea is refused. Results will be better overall with a greater area. Norway commented on the survey plans and noted that it was actually unlikely that permission will be obtained for the Barents Sea area because of ongoing and worsening relations politically, so that they may well opt for the TNASS preferred area contiguous to the existing area covered.

Permission had now been received to place observers onboard the ICES redfish survey ships. The USA, Canada, CODA survey and Russia were now onboard as collaborators. TNASS would probably be the biggest and most ambitious survey for a long time to come.

It was noted that 735,000 NOK had been set aside over 2 years for core areas of the project. Funding was important for different parts of TNASS. Sponsors included

16 NAMMCO Annual Report 2006

NAMMCO, the Nordic Council of Ministers, Oil companies (Faroes), National funds, and private funds. The Canadian survey was divided into four areas, and Canada had been unsuccessful with an IPY application, and while funding was secure for Newfoundland, they were still waiting on funding for the Scotia Shelf and Gulf of St Lawrence.

There were many add-on projects to the core project that required funding e.g. website, TNASS extension and TNASS acoustic survey, and acquisition of specialist equipment. Of a total of 800,000 NOK needed for the project, only 650,000 NOK was secure. National commitment was required. There were different phases of TNASS: planning, survey and analyses. Daniel Pike (Scientific Secretary) commented that 500,000 NOK was pledged to the SC in 2007, and some of this money could be used for supporting various TNASS projects. Norway asked if the 370,000 NOK deficit in 2007 could be raised from current applications, but this could not be confirmed.

Greenland reminded the Council that the West Nordic Council had adopted a resolution in support of such research, and that reference should be made to this in funding applications.

In conclusion, the Council commended the effort made in the planning of TNASS and welcomed the broad international participation and coordination, particularly the active participation of Greenland, Canada and Russia, thus allowing for the first time a trans-Atlantic coverage. The coordination with the American SNESSA survey and the European CODA survey were also much appreciated.

4. MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE FOR CETACEANS

4.1 Report of the Management Committee The report was introduced by the Chair of the Committee, Halvard Johansen, Norway.

The Council agreed to the MC recommendation that the following items be transferred to the Council agenda and in the future to avoid duplication of discussions relevant to both Management Committees:

- National Progress Reports, - Inspection and Observation, - Ecosystem-Based Management, - User Knowledge in Management Decision-Making.

However, it was noted that all these items could still be considered with regard to the specific conservation and management focus of the respective Management Committees.

The MC also recommended that By-catch matters be transferred to the Scientific Committee for consideration at their next meeting.

With respect to the newly established Management Committee for Seals and

17 Report of the Council

Walruses, it was recommended that the existing Committee would be renamed the Management Committee for Cetaceans (MCC).

The Council approved transfer of these agenda items. After discussion of the following items, the report was approved (Section 2.1).

Species /stocks The Management Committee Chair reported to the Council on the proposals for conservation and management agreed by the Management Committee with respect to stocks of cetaceans in the North Atlantic. The details are found in the Report of the Management Committee for Cetaceans (Section 2.1).

Requests for advice from the Scientific Committee The Council endorsed the following recommendations for requests for advice from the SC:

Fin whales The Scientific Committee is requested to complete an assessment for the Northeast Atlantic stocks as a next step in the process of assessing fin whale stocks in the areas of interest to NAMMCO countries.

Humpback whales The Scientific Committee is requested to conduct a formal assessment following the completion of the TNASS. In addition, the Scientific Committee is requested to investigate the relationship between the humpback whales summering in West Greenland and other areas and incorporate this knowledge into their estimate of sustainable yields of West Greenland humpback whales.

Pilot whales The Scientific Committee is requested to develop a proposal for the details of a cost- effective scientific monitoring programme for pilot whales in the Faroes. Bearing in mind that TNASS in 2007 was expected to provide a better basis for an updated abundance estimate for pilot whales in the North Atlantic, both the methodology and the coverage of TNASS should take into account the need for reliable estimates for pilot whales. In addition, priority should be given to the analysis of data on pilot whales after the completion of TNASS.

Sei whales The Scientific Committee should investigate the status of sei whales in East and West Greenland waters, and provide estimates of sustainable yield.

Marine Mammal – Fisheries Interactions The Scientific Committee is requested to review the results of the Icelandic programme on the feeding ecology of minke whales and multi-species modelling as soon as these become available.

18 NAMMCO Annual Report 2006

TNASS The TNASS Planning Committee are requested to continue their diligent planning of TNASS, taking care to ensure that the coverage of the survey and the methodology would be adequate for obtaining reliable data for the main target species - fin, minke and pilot whales - while accommodating at the same time the need for estimates for the harbour porpoise, especially in Icelandic waters. Once the survey has been completed, the Scientific Committee are requested to develop estimates of abundance and trends as soon as possible, with the primary target species (fin, minke and pilot whales) as a first priority, and secondary target species as a second priority.

By-Catch Data and Monitoring Following the transfer of the responsibility for by-catch to the Scientific Committee, it is requested that the drafted text (NAMMCO/16/6) provided by the former By-catch WG be taken into consideration in formulating how to handle by-catch issues in the future.

Recommendations to Member Countries The Council noted the following research recommendations from the MCC to member countries:

Harbour porpoises Member countries are encouraged to conduct surveys to produce reliable estimates of abundance for harbour porpoises in their areas. In addition, member countries should provide reliable estimates of total removals, including by-catch, for this species. Once this information is available for any area, the sustainability of removals can be assessed by the Scientific Committee.

International Observation Scheme The Council noted that the Management Committee had agreed that the provisions of the Scheme should be amended to integrate requirements for observer training to ensure observer safety onboard vessels, and to take account of recent technological developments in automated monitoring. In addition the provisions should be modified to support it reporting to the Council rather than the Management Committee.

The Council noted that observation activities focused on whaling in Greenland and that no infringements were reported.

The Council further noted that the Management Committee had approved the scope and range of the Observation Scheme for 2007 to whaling in the Faroes, and had requested the Sub-Committee on Inspection and Observation to provide a report on experience in using automated monitoring of whale hunting in Norway for next year’s meeting.

The Council approved that observation and inspection matters now become Council issues and that the Sub-Committee report directly to Council next year to avoid duplicating discussions in the two MCs.

19 Report of the Council

5. MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE FOR SEALS AND WALRUSES

5.1 Report of the Management Committee for Seals and Walruses The report was introduced by the Chair of the Management Committee on Seals and Walruses, Amalie Jessen (Greenland).

The Chair of the new Management Committee was congratulated on completion of a first successful meeting, and the change of name to the Management Committee for Seals and Walruses (MCSW) was formally adopted. After discussion of the following items, the report was approved (Section 2.2).

Species / stocks The Management Committee Chair reported to the Council on the proposals for conservation and management agreed by the Management Committee with respect to stocks of seals and walruses in the North Atlantic. The details are found in the Report of the Management Committee for Seals and Walruses (Section 2.2).

Requests for advice from the Scientific Committee The Council endorsed the following requests for advice from the Scientific Committee.

Hooded seals Greenland Sea The Scientific Committee is requested to investigate possible reasons for the apparent decline of this stock of hooded seals; and assess the status of the stock on basis of the results from the planned survey in 2007.

Harbour seals The Scientific Committee is requested to conduct a formal assessment of the status of harbour seals around Iceland and Norway as soon as feasible.

Atlantic Walrus The Scientific Committee is requested to provide a formal assessment of the Davis Strait stock as soon as finalization of the catch series is complete and the results from the planned 2007 survey are available. The Scientific Committee is then requested to provide estimates of sustainable yields of the North Water and West Greenland stocks of walrus.

Approval of Rules of Procedure The Council decided to use a common set of Rules of Procedure for both Management Committees with a simple amendment to the title of Rules of Procedure for the NAMMCO Management Committees (NAMMCO/16/11). The Rules of Procedure, thus amended, were adopted.

Nordic Sealing Conference 2007 The Management Committee for Seals and Walrus recommended to the Council that NAMMCO collaborate with Finland on organising this Nordic Council of Ministers

20 NAMMCO Annual Report 2006 conference, scheduled for 16 – 18 October 2007. Norway suggested that NAMMCO should indicate to the Nordic Council of Ministers this interest in collaborating and liaise subsequently through the Secretariat on the Conference Steering Committee. The Council endorsed these recommendations.

EU – developments on sealing The Council expressed serious concerns about ongoing campaigns to ban imports of sealskins and seal products in certain European countries and the intentions of some EU member countries to implement trade restrictions on seal products. The Council noted that such campaigns ignore the wealth of information available through NAMMCO and from sealing nations across the North Atlantic on the abundance of most seal stocks, the responsible management measures in place and the international cooperation between sealers and veterinary experts on hunting methods. Bans on trade in seal products can have serious economic consequences for nations and communities who make their living from utilising these abundant resources in a sustainable manner. Events on this matter would be monitored closely.

6. HUNTING METHODS

6.1 Report of the Committee on Hunting Methods The Deputy Secretary, Charlotte Winsnes presented the report on the activities of the Committee on Hunting Methods since the last Council meeting in March 2006. The report is contained in Section 1.2 of this report. Winsnes drew special attention to the following:

In 2006 Greenland introduced a new Executive Order (EO) on protection and hunting of walrus. The EO is more restrictive than its predecessor and includes direct references to hunting methods i.e. the animal must be harpooned before firing the lethal shot. It was noted that the EO was inspired by the work carried out in the Committee, and that the regulation was in line with recommendations from the last workshop on struck and lost.

Iceland is in the process of modifying the whale grenade to also embrace fin whale hunting. Today Iceland employs the same hunting method as in the Norwegian minke whale hunt but with the adjustment that the fin whale grenade carries more explosives.

A compilation of all workshop recommendations and follow-ups was presented. The overview showed that a majority of the recommendations had been successfully implemented, but that some are so comprehensive that a follow-up would require a major resource input of both money and personnel.

Last year the Council approved the Committee's suggestion to collect all workshop proceedings into one publication. However, in view of the success of the workshops which have become a useful arena for communication between hunters, managers and scientists, the Committee concluded that there was more value in focussing on the continuation of the workshop forum. In addition, reports from all the workshops have already been published so that a publication would need to encompass something new

21 Report of the Council in addition to the workshop proceedings and hence represent quite a lot of input. The Committee therefore suggested convening a new workshop with the working title: "Handling, processing and utilisation of hunted marine mammals" with the terms of reference: - to maximise the quality and quantity of the products obtained from hunting through exchange of information regarding handling, processing and utilisation and to make relevant recommendations. Suggested timing was first half of September 2008.

In response to an informal request from Japan to submit whale killing data to NAMMCO for review, the Committee agreed to undertake such a review given the approval of the Council should Japan forward a request.

Both the chair, Egil Ole Øen (Norway) and vice-chair, Kristjan Loftsson (Iceland) were re-elected for 2007/2008

The Council commended the Committee for its work and approved the suggestion to convene a new workshop as described above. The Council noted the decision not to prepare a publication as planned and recommended that the workshop reports be widely distributed and readily available on the NAMMCO website. The Council furthermore agreed to the suggested procedure should Japan send a formal request to submit whale killing data for review.

6.2 Workshop to address problems of struck and lost in seal, walrus and whale hunting The Deputy Secretary, Charlotte Winsnes presented the report from the Workshop to address problems of struck and lost (S&L) in seal, walrus and whale hunting that was held in Copenhagen 14 – 16 November 2006. The Workshop was chaired by Egil Ole Øen (Norway) and co-chaired by Glenn Williams (Canada). The report is contained in Section 1.3 of this volume.

The Workshop attracted 50 hunters, managers, scientists, NGOs and others from 11 different countries.

The goal of the workshop was to improve catch relative to effort, to reduce animal suffering and improve public image, and to formulate recommendations on methods, techniques and equipment to reduce struck and loss that are applicable at the local level. The Workshop was structured into plenary sessions and four working group sessions on seals, small whales, large whales and walrus. Winsnes drew special attention to the following:

The workshop recognised that a reduction of suffering by the hunted animals, by minimizing killing times, must be balanced by consideration of the safety of the hunter, and the risk of losing the animal.

A total of 22 recommendations were adopted by consensus of both a general and species specific nature. The recommendations may be classified into three main categories:

22 NAMMCO Annual Report 2006

Hunter's training – an issue of great importance that pertains to all hunts. Improved hunters’ training has been a recommendation in all the four NAMMCO workshops.

Techniques and equipment – the Workshop identified a particular need for technological developments and innovations and attention was drawn to recommendations 2.1.2, 2.2.2, 2.3.2 and 2.4.3. In some of today's hunts in the sea technical innovations are needed and wanted so that one may secure the animal by harpooning it before killing it. Both Japan and Norway noted that such equipment – notably air driven - possibly existed but that it had not yet been explored in these particular situations.

Monitoring – the present information on S&L is outdated or inadequate for several species and areas. New monitoring programmes appropriate for local conditions are needed and hunters should be involved in the process of developing such programmes. With respect to monitoring attention was drawn to recommendation 2.4.4 which gives a good example of what is involved.

Comments: Greenland thanked the workshop organisers for a very comprehensive report and recommendations. Greenland asked if was feasible to catch large baleen whales, such as humpback whales using the same penthrite grenade that is nowadays used for fin whales, or if it will be recommended to modify this weapon. Norway stated that the fin whale grenade should be suitable for humpback whales, and explained that there is work in progress towards an improved penthrite grenade to be used for catching fin whales in Iceland. This improved grenade would be suitable for fin whales in Greenland and for other large species such as humpback whales.

The Council commended the Committee on Hunting Methods and the extended planning committee for its successful work and endorsed all workshop recommendations.

7. ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONS

7.1 Human health issues Norway noted that there had been many studies on health considerations in relation to the consumption of marine mammal meat and blubber – both negative (pollution) and benefits (marine fats as opposed to other fats), and that research indicated that the consumption of seal and whale oil can have even more positive health benefits than ordinary fish oil, especially with regard to certain allergies, heart conditions and rheumatic ailments. However, there had been no systematic studies, and it was considered timely to review these aspects in a workshop. Such a workshop should be open to non-member countries and examine the current state of knowledge in the field. The proposal was welcomed, and NAMMCO agreed to arrange a Workshop on the Positive Health Effects of Consuming Marine Mammal Products to review updated information and research findings in this area.

23 Report of the Council

7.2 Climate change Greenland reported that through the Arctic Council (currently chaired by Norway), there was a commitment to engage local Working Groups to investigate the effects of climate change on primary industry in Greenland such as fisheries, hunting and culture. Greenland informed that the foreign ministries of Denmark and Greenland are coordinating the drafting of a document that will evaluate an Arctic Strategy in relation to climate change. The Council thanked Greenland for this information and looked forward to more information as these studies developed. (see 8.2)

7.3 OSPAR The Council heard that OSPAR is consulting with relevant fisheries organisations in connection with the preparation of a Quality Status Report (QSR) for the Northeast Atlantic in 2010. The Chair noted that NAMMCO should try to keep up to date on this process, and provide marine mammal information relevant to the next OSPAR QSR.

8. EXTERNAL RELATIONS

8.1 Cooperation with ICES ICES – Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) – the General Secretary reported on progress and noted that the process has been ongoing for several years now. Last year the Council had adopted a form of words for the MOU which was sent to ICES for consideration and approval as the final text. For internal reasons, at their Council meeting in October 2006, ICES were unable to consider this document as other questions had arisen regarding the status of MOUs between ICES and other IGOs. ICES had therefore decided to defer any decision at this stage and would be undertaking a review of their current MOUs and the criteria used in formulating them and agreeing on them. In the interim, ICES welcomed continued and increased cooperation with NAMMCO at the scientific level, and regretted the delay in the MOU process. The Council concluded that NAMMCO is committed to continue to seek formal relations with ICES as specified in the NAMMCO Agreement (Article 4, 2d ).

8.2 Cooperation with international organisations The Chair introduced NAMMCO/16/9.

ASCOBANS – The General Secretary drew attention to the fact that the ASCOBANS Secretariat was now – at least temporarily - absorbed into the general CMS Secretariat.

IWC - Japan reported on a proposal to be introduced at IWC 59 in Alaska to add one new paragraph to the IWC Provisions item 10 relating to small type coastal minke whaling in the N.Pacific. The proposal would be introduced in the context of Aboriginal Whaling

In relation to this information from Japan, Council delegations expressed support for sustainable utilisation and rational management of all marine mammals, including whales, noting the need for a sound basis in the best available scientific information,

24 NAMMCO Annual Report 2006 regardless of whether the form of utilisation in question is referred to as “aboriginal”, “traditional” or “commercial”.

NAFO – The Chair reported on the ongoing review of the NAFO Convention. At this stage there has been a re-definition of “fisheries resource”: the implication would be that seals would no longer be defined as “fishery resource” in the NAFO context, but nevertheless components in broader references to living marine resources and the marine ecosystem. The decision for NAMMCO to approach NAFO and ICES to become a partner in the joint ICES/NAFO WG on harp and hooded seals had been rejected by the NAFO Scientific Council. In the Fisheries Commission however, it was highlighted that such a decision should be made by the management body rather than the scientific one. In conclusion, the Scientific Council was requested to provide information on marine mammals in relation to the ecosystem taking into account the work of other relevant IGOs (e.g. NAMMCO). The NAFO General Council recognised that there have been formal working relations (observer level) between the two organisations (NAFO and NAMMCO) for many years, including the regular participation of representatives from both organisations at their respective annual meetings and the exchange of information on relevant activities. The NAFO General Council, with reference to Fisheries Commission discussions related to ecosystem considerations “agreed to encourage the Scientific Council to explore formal working relations with the NAMMCO Scientific Committee in addressing requests for advice and information on issues related to the role of marine mammals in the ecosystem” (Report of the NAFO General Council, 18-22 September 2006, Section IV, item 15 b)).

CITES – It was noted that Iceland could most likely represent NAMMCO at the forthcoming CITES COP14 in June this year. Japan reported that all species under the auspices of the IWC are listed under Appendix list I except for W.Greenland minke whales under Appendix list II. All Appendix I listings (adopted in 1979) have not recently been tested against the most recent information on the status of stocks and species and as a result CITES are using old and out-of-date criteria. The Council noted that it was important that any listings of whales as “endangered” should be done in relation to stocks rather than species, with a scientific and objective basis, and such status should be regularly reviewed in relation to the latest scientific assessments.

FAO – COFI - With respect to the planned expert consultation on ecosystems scheduled in Rome in June 2007, the Chair of Council had prepared a statement which was to be presented as a NAMMCO intervention at the COFI meeting in Rome, March 2007. This intervention (which was subsequently accepted by COFI) is included in this Annual Report as Appendix 4.

Arctic Council – The Council recommended that the Secretariat arrange for attendance at 2007 meetings which would be held in Norway, and report back.

IUCN – The Cetacean Specialist Working Group had downlisted minke and humpback whales. Norway reported on the IUCN red-listing of species meeting in La

25 Report of the Council

Jolla, USA, when minke whales were down-listed. However, fin whale status had not changed because decisions of listing were based more on a global scale rather than oceanic basins and locality. Iceland had asked the Secretariat through the SC to provide information to IUCN, and this had already been done. It would be useful to explore avenues of information exchange with this WG, and the General Secretary reported that the Chair of this WG informed that they had used past NAMMCO reports and welcomed a greater exchange of information.

Friends of Seals - Greenland reported on a relatively new interest group – Friends of Seals – now active in the EU. Norway, Greenland, Denmark, Canada and Namibia were members of the group. Despite its name, the group is friendly towards sealing and works to gather and share information on seals and seal hunting. Greenland suggested that this group is added to the list of contacts that are informed about NAMMCO activities.

9. INFORMATION

The General Secretary introduced NAMMCO/16/10.

Canada drew attention to a recently published report on scientific activities on marine mammals in Canada, describing recent research activities and the new Centre of Expertise in Marine Mammalogy. The report was freely available to those wanting a copy.

The General Secretary reported that the new NAMMCO website had been launched in May 2006 as scheduled and appears to be functioning well. Feedback and constructive criticism on ease of navigation, etc. would be welcomed for website improvement.

10. ANY OTHER BUSINESS

10.1 Norwegian seal hunting in Greenland The Greenland Home Rule has received an application from a local company to introduce sealing using a large mother ship that brings skiffs to offshore hunting grounds. As this is a new method of hunting for Greenland - commercial rather than aboriginal/indigenous, there has to be a new consideration of this matter. However, a decision will be made in March this year.

11. CLOSING ARRANGEMENTS

11.1 Next Meeting Greenland invited NAMMCO to Sisimiut or Maniitsoq for its 17th meeting in 2008, and explained that the meeting should be in August/September. The implications of a late Council Meeting should be investigated logistically in relation to the possible delay of the Scientific Committee meeting, already scheduled for the autumn. The Council recommended that the Secretariat and the Chair of the Scientific Committee look into this matter.

26 NAMMCO Annual Report 2006

The Chair expressed thanks to the Secretariat and Management Committees for their hard work. The Chair was thanked for her able chairmanship. All delegations expressed their great appreciation to the out-going Scientific Secretary, Daniel Pike, for his dedicated and professional contribution to NAMMCO over more than 8 years with the Secretariat, and wished him well in his future endeavours.

11.2 Adoption of press release The press release as contained in Appendix 6 was adopted.

27 Report of the Council

Appendix 1 AGENDA 1. Opening Procedures 1.1 Welcome: Kate Sanderson, Chair of NAMMCO 1.2 Opening statements 1.3 Observers 1.4 Invited Speaker: Daniel Pike, NAMMCO Secretariat "The significance of struck and lost in marine mammal hunting". 1.5 Adoption of agenda 1.6 Meeting arrangements 2. Finance and Administration 2.1 Report of the Finance and Administration Committee 2.2 Adoption of the 2006 accounts 2.3 Commission Budget 2007 & Forecast Budget 2008 2.4 Policy on admission of observers 2.5 Other business 3. Scientific Committee 3.1 Report of the Scientific Committee 3.2.TNASS 3.3 Other business 4. Management Committee for Cetaceans 4.1 Report of the Management Committee 4.2 Recommendations for Requests for advice 4.3 International Observation Scheme 4.4 Other business 5. Management Committee for Seals and Walrus 5.1 Report of the Management Committee 5.2 Approval of Rules of Procedure 5.3 Other business 6. Hunting Methods 6.1 Report of the Committee on Hunting Methods 6.2 Report of the Workshop addressing problems of struck and lost in seal, walrus and whale hunting 6.3 Other business 7. Environmental questions 8. External relations 8.1 Cooperation with ICES 8.2 Cooperation with international organisations 8.3 Other business 9. Information 10. Any other business 11. Closing arrangements 11.1 Next meeting 11.2 Adoption of press release

28 NAMMCO Annual Report 2006

Appendix 2 LIST OF DOCUMENTS

NAMMCO/16/1 List of Participants NAMMCO/16/2 Agenda NAMMCO/16/3 List of Documents NAMMCO/16/4 Report of Finance and Administration Committee NAMMCO/16/4 ANNEX 1 Commission budgets – 2007, 2008, final accounts 2006 NAMMCO/16/5 Report of the Scientific Committee NAMMCO/16/6 Report of the Management Committee NAMMCO/16/7 Report of the Management Committee on Seals NAMMCO/16/8 Report of the Committee on Hunting Methods NAMMCO/16/8 ANNEX 1 Report of the Workshop on Struck and Lost NAMMCO/16/9 External Relations NAMMCO/16/10 Information NAMMCO/16/11 Rules of Procedure for the Management Committee on Seals (draft) NAMMCO/16/12 Trans North Atlantic Sighting Survey - TNASS NAMMCO/16/13 Policy on admission of observers

29 Report of the Council

Appendix 3 OPENING STATEMENTS TO THE COUNCIL BY MEMBER DELEGATIONS AND OBSERVER GOVERNMENTS

NORWAY - WELCOME ADDRESS

Madam Chair, Minister, Delegates, Observers and Guests, Dear Friends,

It is a pleasure to see the NAMMCO Council again gathered here in Tromsø, the gateway to the Arctic. I believe also at this meeting we will contribute to the further development of NAMMCO as a useful regional management body for marine mammals.

Firstly, I would like to reiterate that Norway continuously strives to develop a coherent and active management regime for marine mammals based on modern principles for the management of species, habitats and ecosystems. This is in accordance with one of the goals of the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg in 2002, which is to encourage the application by 2010 of the ecosystem approach to fisheries management.

The sealing season will start next month. This year it coincides with an ongoing campaign in many European countries against trade in seal products. This reminds us that it is mandatory that we who live in the Arctic and depend on sustainable use of the marine resources available to us, including the marine mammals, stick together and defend our right to harvest the surplus of nature’s production and make a living of selling the products. I think that the timing of the establishment of a Management Committee for Seals and Walruses is good, and I have great expectations in the work of this committee.

Last year we experienced close cooperation between the Scientific Committee of NAMMCO and the Scientific Committee of the IWC on fin whales in the North Atlantic. The outcome of that cooperation is most useful for the management of this species. Furthermore, the North Atlantic sighting surveys by the NAMMCO members have developed into cooperation with most countries bordering the North Atlantic and will this year cover the waters from the Barents Sea to the Eastern coast of the United States. Thus, our scientists are now cooperating with all the best whaling scientists in the world. The standing of the scientific work of NAMMCO has definitely been enhanced considerably in the latest few years.

I would also like to commend the work of the NAMMCO Committee on Hunting Methods. This committee is now setting the standards for the hunt of marine mammals, and these standards represent best practice. The workshops arranged by this Committee attract participants from many more countries than the members of NAMMCO.

Finally, I would like to mention that the NAMMCO Inspection and Observer Regime still is the only control regime in force that covers marine mammals. We will continue

30 NAMMCO Annual Report 2006 to develop this regime taking into account experience gained and new techniques.

I wish you all a fruitful meeting.

THE FAROE ISLANDS – OPENING STATEMENT

Madam Chair, Minister, Delegates, Observers, Ladies and Gentlemen,

It is a pleasure for the Faroes to be attending the 16th Annual Meeting of NAMMCO here in Tromsø, where the NAMMCO Secretariat has been located since it was established.

This week the new Management Committee for Seals and Walruses will have its first meeting. This Committee is the only international cooperation on the management of seals. The Faroes are looking forward to participating in the work of this Committee even though we are not hunting seals ourselves in the Faroes. Establishing this Management Committee enables NAMMCO to highlight to the international community seal hunting and the importance seal stocks have in the eco-system. This is of major interest to all of us, as fishing nations in the North Atlantic.

The Scientific Committee of NAMMCO is coordinating the major cetacean sightings survey in the North Atlantic – TNASS 2007, which will be conducted this summer. The Faroes are pleased to note that the 2007 survey will be much broader than previous surveys, since it will be coordinated with our North American and Russian neighbours, as well as with surveys planned in EU waters at the same time. TNASS will give us information that will enable us to update stock assessments of whales, including the pilot whale stock in our region.

NAMMCO has a well functioning technical cooperation between hunters and veterinarian scientists concerning the hunting of whales and seals in the Hunting Methods Committee. The report of the workshop on Struck and Lost will be presented to this meeting. This was the 4th workshop arranged by the Hunting Methods Committee, and the Faroes fully support continuing the process of holding technical, focused workshops on specific issues related to the practicalities of hunting.

The Faroese delegation is looking forward to an interesting and productive meeting this week.

GREENLAND – OPENING STATEMENT

Madam Chair, Delegates, Observers, Ladies and Gentlemen,

On behalf of the Greenlandic Delegation, I would like to express our appreciation to be here in Tromsø for the sixteenth meeting of the Council.

NAMMCO has always played an important role providing with management advice to the government of Greenland. In response to your advice, my country has given

31 Report of the Council significant steps towards the sustainable use of marine mammals, while still taking into consideration the need of our hunters. Progress made in 2006 included abundance estimates of large whales, a new aerial survey for several winter species, the reduction of quotas for belugas, a new regulation for the hunt of walrus and quotas accepted for the next 3 years for polar bears and walruses. These quotas will gradually bring the catches down to levels that are widely recognised as sustainable.

I want to mention that Greenland has been very busy lately in the international arena. There has been strong press from the European Union and other anti-whaling forces that would like to see the Danish Kingdom changing its policy in the International Whaling Commission. Together with the Faeroes, Greenland has provided the technical advice and assistance needed for the Kingdom of Denmark to continue supporting the sustainable use of all natural resources, including large whales.

The international forces against seal hunting have also been extremely active, posing a serious risk to our culture and our economy. We have done our best to counteract these efforts by contacting the relevant governments and organisations. I myself have been in Brussels providing EU delegates with factual information about seal and whale hunting in Greenland.

The international campaigns against the hunt of marine mammals are fuelled on misinformation about the sustainability and the humaneness of these hunts. It is my hope that NAMMCO can play a more active role spreading information to the media, governments and general public about the status of our populations of marine mammals, and about the management of the species that we do harvest.

I want to thank NAMMCO for the important work done until now. For instance, the Scientific Committee has endorsed, among other things, population analysis of large whales that are very relevant for my country. I look forward to see the results of the TNASS surveys that will be carried out later this year.

NAMMCO's International Observation Scheme focused last year on Greenland whaling, and I was proud to know that no irregularities were found. The work of the Inspection and Observation committee gives credibility to our hunts, and I hope it will continue.

NAMMCO's Committee of Hunting Methods was also very active last year, as it has been each year since it was founded. As we can see from the report, international Inuit representation was evident during their conference on Struck and Lost. I want to thank this committee for their good work, and wish them the best for their future plans.

Finally, I would like to give my best wishes to the new Management Committee for Seals and Walruses. I am sure it will bring progress on our international cooperation regarding the sound management of seal and walrus populations in the North Atlantic.

Last, but not least, I want to wish good luck to Daniel Pike, who unfortunately is leaving this organisation after eight years of excellent performance as Scientific

32 NAMMCO Annual Report 2006

Secretary. Dan will be hard to replace.

Thank you very much.

ICELAND – OPENING STATEMENT

Madam Chair, Delegates, Observers, Ladies and Gentlemen.

It is with great pleasure that the Icelandic delegation attends the 16th Annual Meeting of NAMMCO here in Tromsö.

As you know, Iceland resumed its commercial whaling last autumn after a 20-year break. All commercial whaling was halted in the year of 1986 following the decision by the International Whaling Commission (IWC) on the so-called moratorium on commercial whaling. The decision to resume sustainable whaling involved takes of 30 minke whales and 9 fin whales. Presently 7 fin whales and one minke whale have been taken. Assessment by the Scientific Committee of NAMMCO on the fin and the minke whale has shown healthy status of these stocks and therefore forms an important scientific basis for Iceland's decision. Iceland's decision to resume commercial whaling is based upon the great importance of sustainable utilisation of all living marine resources in the ocean around Iceland.

Sustainable utilisation of marine mammals is not only important to Iceland but it is crucial for all of the NAMMCO member states. The main basis for our economic welfare is utilising the living resources of the sea. Marine mammals are not only an important part of the marine ecosystem, they are a part that must be utilised in a sustainable way, like other parts of the ecosystem and there is no logical reason for treating marine mammals differently to other living resources of the sea.

For this reason Iceland points out the importance of international cooperation in this field and that we need to work together for the sustainable utilisation, conservation and study of these resources. NAMMCO plays a great importance for Iceland as it has valuable contributions to the conservation and sustainable management of marine mammals, not least through the work of the Scientific Committee. Therefore the objective and science-based approach used in NAMMCO is of utmost importance.

We are confident that, as at past meetings, this meeting will be fruitful and constructive, based on objective, and science-based approaches.

JAPAN – OPENING STATEMENT

The Government of Japan is pleased to be represented at the Sixteenth Meeting of the NAMMCO Council. As we have noted in the past, we believe that NAMMCO’s achievements concerning the science and management of marine mammals serve as a model of intergovernmental resource management based on science and respect for culture. The role for regional management of marine mammals has become increasingly important given the continuing failure of the International Whaling

33 Report of the Council

Commission to carry out its mandate. In this regard, the decision of many anti- whaling countries not to participate in the recent Conference on Normalization of the IWC hosted by the Government of Japan gives us little confidence that the current situation in IWC will improve.

A copy of the Chair’s Summary of the Conference on Normalization of the IWC has been provided to the NAMMCO Secretariat and we are hopeful that the members of NAMMCO welcome Japan’s initiatives on this matter. Japan is also hopeful that we can participate in discussions under the Council’s agenda item 8, External Relations, to seek the support of NAMMCO members for our small-type coastal whaling proposal that will be submitted to the 59th Annual Meeting of the IWC and our proposal for the CITES CoP 14. Copies of these proposals are attached.

As we seek to strengthen our relationship with NAMMCO it may also be important to discuss possible directions for after the 59th Annual Meeting. We believe that our shared understanding that the management of all marine living resources must be based on science, conformity with international law and respect for cultural diversity must continue to be communicated to all members of the IWC. This shared understanding is also of fundamental importance for our participation in other international fora where issues such as marine protected areas, improvement of regional fisheries management organisations and the management of fisheries in waters beyond national jurisdiction are currently being discussed.

As NAMMCO members will be aware, Japan has decided that it will no longer submit data related to whale killing methods to the IWC. We would therefore welcome the opportunity to present this information to your Committee on Hunting Methods.

Finally, we would like to again note that research on interactions between whales and fisheries and ecosystem modelling is a subject of shared interest between Japan and the members of NAMMCO. We reiterate our view that Japan’s whale research programmes and the efforts of NAMMCO members and the NAMMCO Scientific Committee on these issues are complimentary and that collectively they will provide a strengthened scientific basis for improved management of all marine resources.

Thank you.

34 NAMMCO Annual Report 2006

Appendix 4 NAMMCO INTERVENTION TO FAO/COFI 27 5-9 MARCH 2007 Agenda item 10 – Implementing the Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management

Mr Chairman,

Thank you for this opportunity to speak in my capacity as Chairwoman of NAMMCO. I will be quite brief.

The North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission (NAMMCO) was established in 1992 by the agreement on Cooperation in Research, Conservation and Management of Marine Mammals in the North Atlantic, signed by the governments of the Faroe Islands, Greenland, Iceland and Norway. NAMMCO has, since its inception, recognised the need for ecosystem approaches to management. The NAMMCO Agreement underlines the desire of the Parties to enhance cooperation in research on the role of marine mammals in the ecosystem, including multi-species approaches and the effects of marine pollution and other human activities. Further, the NAMMCO Agreement recognises the need to develop management procedures that take into account the relationship between marine mammals and other marine living resources.

Much work has been done through NAMMCO at a scientific level over the past 10 years to address these matters with the aim of providing the best possible basis for management decisions. The main challenge remains, however, the need to increase resources and efforts to allow the further development of multi-species models. In this regard it is greatly appreciated that an expert appointed through NAMMCO will have the opportunity to take part in the planned FAO expert meeting “Modelling Ecosystem Interactions for Informing an Ecosystem Approach for Fisheries" from July 3-6, 2007.

Mr Chairman, the Parties to NAMMCO – the Faroes, Greenland, Iceland and Norway - are all fishing nations where marine mammals have also long been important resources. Whale and seal stocks are important components of marine ecosystems in all oceans and seas around the world, not least in the North Atlantic. It is therefore only natural and responsible that marine mammals, their role in the marine ecosystem and their value as resources for food and other products, are taken fully into account in the implementation of ecosystem-based fisheries management.

35 Report of the Council

Appendix 5 AUDITED ACCOUNTS FOR 2005 and 2006

1. PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT (NOK)

2005 2006 Income Contributions 3,043,744 3,119,399 Interest received (net) 22,491 19,581 1. Book Sale 6,550 5,100 2. Employers Tax 97,141 119,266 3. Employees 387,372 532,289 4. Total Income 3,557,298 3,795,635

Expenditure Secretariat costs 2,941,873 3,176,666 Meetings 121,790 75,771 Scientific Committee 358,104 471,689 Observer Scheme 92,469 90,771 Conference -24,533 97,987 5. Total operating expenses 3,489,703 3,912,884

Operating result 67,595 -117,249

2. BALANCE SHEET 31 DECEMBER 2005 and 2006

Current assets Bank deposits 1,675,460 1,090,817 Outstanding claims 257,658 268,935 6. Total assets 1,933,118 1,369,752

Current liabilities Employers tax 39,607 38,737 Creditors 284,737 14,015 NAMMCO Fund* 133,005 0 Other 618,457 566,937 7. Total current liabilities 1,075,806 619,689

Equity Restricted equity (Relocation 200,000 200,000 fund) Distributable equity (General 657,312 540,063 reserve) Total equity 857,312 789,717

8. Total liabilities and equity 1,933,188 1,359,752 * The NAMMCO Fund account is audited separately.

36 NAMMCO Annual Report 2006

Appendix 6 PRESS RELEASE

Serious concerns expressed about anti-sealing campaigns at NAMMCO meeting At the Annual NAMMCO Meeting in Tromsø, Norway this week, serious concerns were expressed about ongoing campaigns to ban imports of sealskins and seal products in certain European countries.

Delegations to the meeting noted that such campaigns ignore the wealth of information available through NAMMCO and from sealing nations across the North Atlantic on the abundance of most seal stocks, the responsible management measures in place and international cooperation between sealers and veterinary experts on hunting methods. Bans on trade in seal products can have serious economic consequences for nations and communities who make their living from utilising these abundant resources sustainably.

Health benefits of seal and whale oil Research indicates that the consumption of seal and whale oil can have even more positive health benefits than ordinary fish oil, especially with regard to certain allergies, heart conditions and rheumatic ailments. NAMMCO plans to arrange a Workshop on the Positive Health Effects of Consuming Marine Mammal Products to review updated information and research findings in this area.

Listing of Endangered Species At the request of Iceland, the NAMMCO Scientific Committee carried out a review of the appropriateness of the current listing of the Central North Atlantic fin whales in Appendix I (threatened with extinction) of CITES (Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species). The Scientific Committee concluded that this fin whale population does not meet any of the biological criteria for listing under Appendix I of CITES......

These and other issues were discussed at the 16th Annual Meeting of the North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission, which ended today in Tromsø. The four member countries of NAMMCO - the Faroes, Greenland, Iceland and Norway – agreed on a number of specific matters related to the conservation, management and study of seal, walrus and whale stocks in the North Atlantic. The meeting was also attended by observers from the governments of Canada, Japan and Denmark and representatives from a number of inter-governmental and non-governmental organisations. A more detailed overview of the main discussions, conclusions and recommendations from the meeting is attached.

Overview of key conclusions and recommendations from the 16th Annual Meeting of NAMMCO

Trans North Atlantic Sightings Survey (TNASS) – 2007 NAMMCO was pleased to see that plans for this survey, which is being organised by

37 Report of the Council the Scientific Committee and includes participation from all NAMMCO member countries as well as Canada and the Russian Federation, are well underway. The survey will cover the northern North Atlantic from shore to shore in July this year and will be closely coordinated with simultaneous surveys conducted off western Europe and the USA.

Seals, Sealing and Walruses The newly formed Management Committee for Seals and Walruses met for the first time, with the attendance of observers from the Government of Canada. Specific recommendations included:

Hooded seals in the Greenland Sea The stock status and apparent decline of hooded seals in the Greenland Sea should be investigated, and catches of hooded seals in the Greenland Sea should be limited to necessary scientific catches and catches for local consumption.

Harbour seals Assessment of the status of harbour seals around Iceland and Norway should be undertaken as soon as possible and management objectives for harbour seals in Norway, Iceland and Greenland should be defined.

Walrus A formal assessment of the Davis Strait stock of walrus should be undertaken as soon as possible after the 2007 survey.

Grey seals in Norway Management objectives for grey seals in Norway should be defined.

Whales and Whaling The Management Committee on Cetaceans considered the latest scientific advice on whale stocks of interest to NAMMCO member countries and made a number of conclusions and recommendations, including:

Humpback whales off West Greenland NAMMCO accepted the conclusion of the Scientific Committee that a removal of up to 10 animals per year would not harm the stock off West Greenland and proposed that Greenland limit annual removals of humpback whales, including by-caught and struck and lost whales, to 10.

Narwhals and belugas NAMMCO has previously expressed grave concern on the apparent decline of stocks of narwhals and belugas in West Greenland, and while commending Greenland for the recent introduction of quotas, there is still serious concern that present takes of narwhals and belugas in West Greenland, according to the advice of both the NAMMCO Scientific Committee and the Canada/Greenland Joint Commission on Narwhal and Beluga Scientific Working Group are not sustainable and will lead to further depletion of the stocks.

38 NAMMCO Annual Report 2006

Harbour porpoises Reliable estimates of abundance and estimates of directed and by-catch are lacking for this species from most NAMMCO member countries. NAMMCO therefore recommended that member countries conduct appropriate surveys and monitoring programmes to provide this information, so that the conservation status of harbour porpoises can be assessed.

Pilot whales Noting that it had been over 10 years since the Scientific Committee had concluded that the take of pilot whales in the Faroe Islands was sustainable, NAMMCO advised that updated estimates abundance and new information on biological parameters would be required to update the assessment. NAMMCO therefore recommended that this be taken into account in the planning of the TNASS survey, and directed the Scientific Committee to develop a monitoring programme to gather basic biological data from animals taken in the hunt.

Fin whales in the Central North Atlantic In March 2006 the first joint workshop between the NAMMCO and IWC Scientific Committees was held, which dealt with the catch history, stock structure and abundance of North Atlantic fin whales. This Workshop was highly successful and NAMMCO looks forward to further scientific cooperation with the IWC.

At the request of Iceland, the Scientific Committee carried out a review of the appropriateness of the current CITES listing Central North Atlantic fin whales, in Appendix I (threatened with extinction). The Committee concluded that this fin whale population does not meet any of the biological criteria for listing under Appendix I.

Minke whales Noting that the sampling phase of the Icelandic Research Programme, which will provide required data on the feeding ecology of minke whales, will be completed this year, NAMMCO requested the Scientific Committee to review the new information and multi-species modelling as soon as these become available.

Hunting Methods “Struck and Lost” in marine mammal hunting An International Workshop on the issue of “struck and lost” animals in hunting was held during November 2006. The workshop was attended by experts, hunters and managers and several organisations from the NAMMCO countries as well as from Canada, Russia, USA, Japan, Denmark, Finland and Sweden. Many recommendations were adopted by consensus for reducing the incidence of lost animals in hunting, better monitoring and reporting, improving communication between hunters, scientists and managers and improving safety for hunters. There were also specific recommendations related to different kinds of hunting for large whales, small whales, seals and walruses.

New workshop on handling, processing and utilisation of products NAMMCO agreed to organise a new workshop on handling, processing and utilisation

39 Report of the Council of marine mammal products, to be held in 2008. This workshop will be the fifth in a series of workshops/conferences addressing specific hunting-related issues in the past 10 years.

Valuable dialogue on hunting methods NAMMCO recognises the value of workshops where hunters, scientists, technical experts and managers can meet to exchange ideas and viewpoints on hunting matters, and where mutual respect and cooperation can be fostered.

International Observation of Marine Mammals NAMMCO has since 1998 had an International Scheme for the observation of marine mammals, the only such scheme in force, which provides international oversight in the regulation of marine mammal hunting in NAMMCO member countries. The scheme now requires an update to take account of technical developments and safety requirements for observers on board whaling and sealing vessels. In 2007, whaling in the Faroes will be subject to observation through NAMMCO.

40 NAMMCO Annual Report 2006 1.2 REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON HUNTING METHODS

The Committee on Hunting Methods met on 31 January 2007 from 9:00 to 18:00 in the Faroe Islands Representation in Copenhagen. Present were Egil Ole Øen, Chair and Hild Ynnesdal (Norway), Jústines Olsen, (Faroe Islands), Ole Heinrich and Fernando Ugarte (Greenland), Kristjan Loftsson (Iceland), and Christina Lockyer and Charlotte Winsnes from the Secretariat.

1. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS, ADOPTION OF AGENDA AND APPOINTMENT OF RAPPORTEUR

The Chair of the Committee, Egil Ole Øen, welcomed the Committee members to the meeting, especially Hild Ynnesdal who participated for the first time. The draft agenda was adopted and Charlotte Winsnes was appointed as rapporteur.

The Chair, on behalf of the Committee, expressed deep regrets in connection with the recent death of Knud Nielsen. Nielsen was a good colleague and had, under his able chairmanship, contributed to the success of the first two Workshops organised by the Committee in 1999 and 2001.

2. UPDATES ON HUNTING METHODS IN MEMBER COUNTRIES

The lists of references on hunting methods (NAMMCO/HM-January 2007-2), and laws and regulations in member countries (NAMMCO/HM-January 2007-3) were updated (see Appendices 1 and 2 of this report).

Faroe Islands Olsen (Faroe Islands) reported that there had been no changes in the regulations for pilot whale hunting in the Faroe Islands. The new longer knife had been used several times during 2006 with great success. It is now up to the authorities to revise current regulations to also incorporate the knife, if this is desired.

The Committee saw it as beneficial for NAMMCO to receive a report describing and evaluating the method and the knife, and recommended that such work be undertaken by the Faroe Islands.

Greenland Ugarte (Greenland) reported on the new Executive Order No 20 of 27 October 2006 on protection and hunting of walrus, replacing no 7 of 26 February 1998. The new Executive Order is more restrictive and also gives direct references to the hunting method i.e. the animal should be harpooned before firing the final lethal shot. It was noted that the new Executive Order was inspired and influenced by the work carried out by the Committee on Hunting Methods. As such it is very much a result of the Workshop held in 2004, and has also proven to be in line with the recommendations that evolved from the recent November 2006 Workshop.

41 Report of the Committee on Hunting Methods

In December 2006 the quota on Narwhal was raised by 100 animals resulting in a total quota of 385 animals for the 2006/2007 season. The question of the Narwhal quota is a difficult issue in Greenland as the hunters and the scientists hold opposing views on the abundance estimates of the Narwhal stocks hunted by the Greenlanders.

A new Executive Order on seal hunting is underway and will probably be ready in 2007. Heinrich (Greenland) reported that there is an application for consideration at the “Landsstyret” for sealing at the ice-edge in March/April.

Attention was also drawn to the information brochure “Management and utilisation of seals in Greenland” that had been published in November 2006 by the Ministry. This had been produced in conjunction with the work that was done to counteract the suggested import ban on seal products that members of the EU had tried to introduce in 2006.

Iceland Loftsson (Iceland) informed the Committee that 60 minke whales had been taken in 2006 under the scientific whaling programme that had started in 2003. Furthermore in connection with Iceland’s decision to resume commercial whaling 7 fin and one minke whale had been caught.

No new regulations have been issued regarding method and performance. The method used in the minke whale hunt is the same as in Norway. In the fin whale hunt the grenade is the same but with 100 gr explosives as compared to 30 gr when used in the minke whale hunt.

Iceland has taken steps to modify the minke whale grenade to also embrace fin whale hunting. The Committee commended Iceland for undertaking this development work that would be beneficial for all fin whale hunting in the North Atlantic.

Norway Ynnesdal (Norway) noted that in Norway quota regulations on seal and whale hunting are revised every year, and that the regulations for 2007 are still under preparation. No changes of substance are foreseen though for 2007.

The only anticipated new regulation in 2007 is the regulation on the “Blue Box” system - the new electronic monitoring system for electronic surveillance of the Norwegian minke whaling (for description see the 2005 Committee report).

3. UPDATES ON RECOMMENDATIONS FROM PREVIOUS WORKSHOPS (1999, 2001 AND 2004)

In introducing this agenda item the Chair noted the slightly unproductive process of going through the status of the follow-up of recommendations that were not finalised at the previous meeting. Apart from the somewhat tedious work, it totally deludes the fact that the Workshops have produced several recommendations that have been successfully implemented. Moreover some of the recommendations are so

42 NAMMCO Annual Report 2006 comprehensive that a follow-up is not easily achievable.

The Committee tasked the Secretariat to prepare an overview of all recommendations from all workshops also stating follow-ups in member countries (Appendix 3 of this report). In this connection member countries were asked to review the various recommendations to check whether those pertaining to a certain country have actually been implemented in that country’s laws and regulations and supply this information to the Secretariat.

As a final exercise the Committee reviewed the remaining recommendations from the three workshops that were not finalised at the last meeting.

From the 1999 Workshop in Nuuk: Recommendation 3a: “The workshop recommends that Greenland initiates studies in cooperation with the hunters, testing both pointed and blunt bullets on whale carcasses to determine the best ammunition for use in the hunt.” The Committee noted that the guidelines developed by Olsen and Øen in 2006 and presented to the NAMMCO Council at its last meeting may function as a model on how to perform the shooting tests in a standardised way. A prerequisite would be to have enough heads of small cetaceans for the trials.

Finland (through the Kvärken Council) tried to initiate a similar shooting test on seals in September 2006, but had to abort due to lack of sufficient number of sample heads. Nunavut in Canada has also signalled that they are interested in doing tests. In Greenland there are presently no specific plans to carry out such a test, but it might be interesting to do it in cooperation with other regions or countries.

As was clearly stated in the Workshop on Struck and Lost one must bear in mind that the most efficient ammunition will not always be the preferred or best type, depending on the hunting method in use, due to a higher risk of struck and lost.

Recommendation 3b: “The Workshop recommends that Greenland develop objective descriptions of hunting methods, equipment and how efficient these are in small cetacean hunting, considering regional variations.” The Committee’s previous comments may be found in NAMMCO Annual Report 2002, page 64, NAMMCO Annual Report 2004, page 51 and NAMMCO Annual Report 2005, page 53.

The Committee noted that this would encompass an extensive study and therefore might be more suitable as a topic for a Master’s thesis, and encouraged NAMMCO to work towards finding the necessary funding.

From the 2001 Workshop in Sandefjord: Recommendation: 1) To develop guidelines for methods used to undertake more controlled and standardised studies of the effect of different weapons and ammunition on different species.

43 Report of the Committee on Hunting Methods

The paper “ Shooting trials on heads of dead pilot whales – Guidelines to test the efficiency of rifle ammunition used for hunting and euthanasia of small whales” by Olsen and Øen was presented to the NAMMCO Council at its annual meeting in March 2007.

From the 2004 Workshop in Copenhagen: The recommendations from this workshop were very general, and as such not easily convertible into action. One direct result was however, the Workshop on Struck and Lost that was held in Copenhagen in November 2006.

4. WORKSHOP TO ADDRESS THE PROBLEMS OF STRUCK AND LOST, COPENHAGEN 14 – 16 NOVEMBER 2006.

A draft report from the Workshop was presented as document NAMMCO/HM- January 2007-4.

The Committee reviewed the draft report. In addition to some minor changes, the Committee suggested the inclusion of an Executive Summary at the beginning of the report. It was agreed that the final version of the report should be circulated to the members on Monday 12 February with a deadline of 2-3 days for feedback.

The Chair will present the report to the Council at its meeting in Tromsø in 2007.

5. FUTURE

The Committee, with the Council’s endorsement, has previously suggested collecting all Workshop proceedings into one publication. However, after a lengthy discussion the Committee decided to postpone the publication. The Workshop reports are already published and a new publication would have to be something more and different than just a collection of the various reports. Several alternatives were discussed and it was agreed that regardless of alternative it would entail a substantial amount of work for a group of people to undertake such an endeavour. The Committee therefore decided to recommend to the Council that the publication be postponed with the possibility of returning to the issue at some time in the future.

The Committee has mainly organised its work through the convening of Workshops. Judging by participation and feedback, this series of workshops has been highly successful. Over the years an atmosphere of trust and openness has evolved making the workshops a very constructive meeting arena for hunters, scientists, managers and others with an interest in the subject matter. The Committee felt that it would be important to continue this open dialogue and suggested the convening of a new Workshop. Several possible topics were discussed such as equipment, hunters training and safety, utilisation and handling and communication including monitoring and sharing of knowledge.

The Committee agreed that it would be very timely and interesting to organise a Workshop focusing on issues related to the products from the hunt and suggested the

44 NAMMCO Annual Report 2006 working title “Handling, processing and utilisation of hunted marine mammals”.

Furthermore the Committee agreed to the following terms of reference for the Workshop:

• To maximise the quality and quantity of products obtained from hunting through exchange of information regarding handling, processing and utilisation. • To make recommendations that are relevant to the workshop issue.

Suggested time was first half of September 2008 in one of the member countries.

The Committee agreed to recommend convening a new workshop as described above to the Council.

6. ELECTION OF OFFICERS

The Committee re-elected Egil Ole Øen (Norway) as its Chair and Kristjan Loftsson (Iceland) as Vice-Chair, both for the next two years (2007/2008).

7. NEXT MEETING

The next meeting will be held in Copenhagen in January 2008 if not before, pending the decision of the Council regarding the suggested Workshop.

8. ANY OTHER BUSINESS

There was no other business.

9. APPROVAL OF THE REPORT

The report was approved through correspondence on 19 February 2007.

45 Report of the Committee on Hunting Methods

Appendix 1 LIST OF LAWS AND REGULATIONS IN NAMMCO MEMBER COUNTRIES (Updated January 2007)

FAROE ISLANDS

Parliamentary Act No 57 of 5 June 1984 on whale hunting No 54 of 20 May 1996 amending Parliamentary Act on whale hunting No 9 of 14 March 1985 on the protection of animals, as last amended by Parliamentary Act No 60 of 30 May 1990 No 43 of 22 May 1969 on weapons etc. as amended by Parliamentary Act No 54 of 12 May 1980 No 128 of 25 October 1988 on hare hunting

Executive order No 57 of 12 September 1969 on weapons etc. No 19 of 1 March 1996 on exemption from protection of whales No 126 of 23 June 1997 on protection of whales No 46 of 8 April 1998 on pilot whaling No 107 of 21 November 1989 on authorisation of whaling bays, as amended by executive order No 64 of 11 May 1992, executive order No 127 of 27 August 1992, executive order No 141 of 23 June 1993, executive order No 34 of 24 March 1994 and executive order No 94 of 31 May 2001 No 166 of 27 August 1993 on provisional authorisation of whaling bays No 118 of 23 October1996 on provisional authorisation of whaling bays No 72 of 17 May 2000 on provisional authorisation of whaling bays

GREENLAND

Greenland Home Rule Act No 12 of 29 October 1999 on hunting No 11 of 12 November 2001 on revisions to Greenland Home Rule Act No 12 of 29 October 1999 on hunting No 9 of 15 April 2003 on revisions to Greenland Home Rule Act No 12 of 29 October 1999 on hunting No 25 of 18 December 2003 on animal welfare No 29 of 18 December 2003 on nature protection Executive Order No 26 of 24 October 1997 on extraordinary check and approval of harpoon canons No 13 of 3 April 1998 on reporting from hunting and strike of large whales No 22 of 19 August 2002 on trophy-hunting and fishing

46 NAMMCO Annual Report 2006

No 20 of 27 November 2003 on hunting licenses for full time hunters No 21 of 28 November 2003 on hunting licenses for part- time and/or sport hunters No 2 of 12 February 2004 on protection and hunting of beluga and narwhal No 10 of 13 April 2005 on hunting of large whales No 21 of 22 September 2005 on protection and hunt of polar bears No 20 of 27 October 2006 on protection and hunting of walrus

Catch registration form (1993)

Greenland Parliament Regulations of 31 August 1959, ratified on 12 February 1960 on the protection of harbour seals (Phoca vitulina)

ICELAND

Whaling Act no 26,May 3, 1949 Regulation no 163, May 30, 1973 on whaling Regulation no 304, May 9, 1983 on amendments to Regulation No 163 of May 30, 1973 on whaling Regulation no 239, May 10, 1984 on amendments to Regulation No 163 of May 30, 1973 on whaling (cf. Regulation No 304/1983) Agreement no 9 of 26. June 1991 between Iceland and Spain on an international observer scheme for land-based whaling stations in the North Atlantic area.

NORWAY

Act of 20 December 1974 No 73 Concerning the Welfare of Animals Act of 29 May 1981 Relating to Wildlife and Wildlife Habitats (the Wildlife act) Act of 3 June 1983 No 40 Relating to Seawater Fisheries, etc. Act of 27 March 1999 No 15 Relating to the Right to Participate in Fisheries and Hunting (Participants act)

Executive Orders from the Department of Fisheries and Coastal Affairs and the Directorate of Fisheries:

J-34-2003, 11.3.2003 Regulation on the practice of hunting seals in the West and East Ice J-58-2006, 26.2.2006 Regulation on participation and governing the hunt of seals in the West Ice and the East Ice in 2006

Instruction of 9 March 2006 for the inspection of seal hunt in 2006

47 Report of the Committee on Hunting Methods

J-74-2000, 31.3.2000 Regulation of on the practice of hunting minke whales. J-119-2006, 27.3.2006 Regulation on maximum quotas for hunting minke whales in 2006 Regulation on governing the hunt of minke whales in 2006 J-29-2007, 23.1.2007 Regulation on participation in the hunt of minke whales in 2007

Instructions of 5 April 2005 for inspectors during the minke whale hunt in 2005.

48 NAMMCO Annual Report 2006

Appendix 2 LIST OF REFERENCES ON HUNTING METHODS (Updated January 2007)

FAROE ISLANDS

Anonymous 1993. Comments from Denmark on IWC44/HKW/9, "Humane Killing Aspects of the Pilot Whale Hunt in the Faroe Islands". IWC Document IWC/45/HK2. Bloch, D., Desportes, G., Zachariassen, M. and Christiansen, I.: “The Northern Bottlenose Whale in the Faroe Islands, 1584-1993.” J. Zool., Lond.(1996) 239, 123-140 Faroese Home Government 1988. Response from the Danish Government on the Methods used in the Faroese Pilot Whale Hunt, submitted to IWC/40. Hoydal, K. 1986. Recent Changes to Faroese Legislation on Whaling. IWC Document IWC/38/HKW. www.hval.djoralaeknin.com

GREENLAND

Born, E.W. 2005. The Walrus in Greenland. Ilinniusiorfik, ISBN 87-7975-221-7. Pp. 80 (Available in Danish and Greenlandic language versions) Caulfield, R. A. 1991. Qeqartarsuarmi arfanniarneq: Greenland Inuit Whaling in Qeqartarsuaq Kommune, West Greenland. IWC Document TC/43/AS4. Caulfield, R.A. 2002. Whaling and Sustainability in Greenland. IWC Document IWC/54/AS4. Dahl, J. 1989. The Integrative and Cultural Role of Hunting and Subsistence in Greenland, Inuit Studies, 13(1): 23-42. Greenland Home Rule 1987. Hunting Methods including the Cold/Warm Harpoon Question, IWC Document TC/39/AS2. Greenland Home Rule. 1988. Arfanniariaaserput - Our Way of Whaling Greenland Home Rule 1988. Denmark's Answers to the Remaining Questions stated in Document IWC/39/19 "Report of the Humane Killing Working Group", Annex 4. IWC Document TC/40/HK3. Greenland Home Rule 1988. Implementation of the Detonating Grenade Harpoon in Greenland's Whaling on an Experimental Basis. IWC Document TC/40/HK4. Greenland Home Rule 1989. Introduction of the Detonating Grenade Harpoon in Greenland Whaling on an Experimental basis. IWC Document TC/41/HK2. Greenland Home Rule 1990. Greenland Licenses for Hunting Minke Whales with Rifles. IWC Document TC/42/HK2. Greenland Home Rule 1990. Introduction of the Detonating Grenade Harpoon in Greenland on an Experimental Basis. IWC Document TC/42/HK1. Greenland Home Rule 1991. Designation of Types of Rifles in Greenland. IWC Document TC/43/AS1. Greenland Home Rule 1991. Introduction of the Detonating Grenade Harpoon in Greenland, 1991. IWC Document TC/43/HK2. Greenland Home Rule 1992. Introduction of the Detonating Grenade Harpoon in

49 Report of the Committee on Hunting Methods

Greenland, 1992. IWC Document TC/44/HK1. Greenland Home Rule 1993. Greenland Action Plan on Whale Hunting Methods, 1992. IWC Document TC/45/HK3. Greenland Home Rule 1994. Greenland Action Plan on Whale Hunting Methods. IWC Document IWC/46/AS3. Greenland Home Rule 1995. Comments regarding the Terms of Reference to the second Workshop on Whale Killing Methods. - Greenland Action Plan on Whale Hunting Methods. IWC Document IWC/47/WK4 rev. Greenland Home Rule 1997. New Technologies, New Traditions: Recent Developments in Greenlandic Whaling. IWC Document IWC/49/AS3. Greenland Home Rule 1999. Efficiency in the Greenlandic Hunt of Minke and Fin whales, 1990-1998. IWC Document IWC/51/WK8. Greenland Home Rule 1999. Report on improving in ASW in Greenland. IWC Document IWC/51/WK7. Greenland Home Rule 1999. Status for Greenland Action Plan on Whale Killing Methods. 1999. IWC Document IWC/51/WK6. Greenland Home Rule 2000. A note regarding information encouraged in IWC- resolution 51/44. IWC Document IWC/52/WKM & AWI2. Greenland Home Rule 2000. Report on improvings in ASW in Greenland. IWC Document IWC/52/WKM & AWI4. Greenland Home Rule 2000. Status for Greenland Action Plan on Whale Hunting Methods. IWC Document IWC/52/WKM & AWI3. Greenland Home Rule 2001. A note regarding information encouraged in IWC-resolution 51/44I. IWC Document IWC/53/WKM & AWI1. Greenland Home Rule 2001. Report on improvements in ASW in Greenland. IWC Document IWC/53/WKM & AWI3. Greenland Home Rule 2001. Status for Greenland Action Plan on Whale Hunting Methods. IWC Document IWC/53/WKM & AWI2. Greenland Home Rule 2002. A note regarding information encouraged in IWC- resolution 1999. IWC Document IWC/54/WKM & AWI2. Greenland Home Rule 2002. Report on improvements in ASW in Greenland. IWC Document IWC/54/WKM & AWI3. Greenland Home Rule 2002. Status for Greenland Action Plan on Whale Hunting Methods, 2001. IWC Document IWC/54/WKM & AWI5. Greenland Home Rule 2003. A note regarding information encouraged in IWC-resolution 1999. IWC Document IWC/55/WK9. Greenland Home Rule 2003. Report on improvements in ASW in Greenland. IWC Document IWC/55/WK10. Greenland Home Rule 2003. Status for Greenland Action Plan on Whale Hunting Methods, 2002. IWC Document IWC/55/WK11. Greenland Home Rule 2003. Times to death in the Greelandic minke and fin whale hunt in 2002. IWC Document IWC/55/WK12 rev. Greenland Home Rule 2004. A note regarding information encouraged in IWC-resolution 1999. IWC Document IWC/56/7. Greenland Home Rule 2004. Report on improvements in ASW in Greenland. IWC Document IWC/56/6. Greenland Home Rule 2004. Status for Greenland Action Plan on Whale Hunting

50 NAMMCO Annual Report 2006

Methods, 2003. IWC Document IWC/56/8. Greenland Home Rule 2004. Summary of activites related to the Action Plan on Whale Killing Methods. IWC Document IWC/56/5. Greenland Home Rule 2005. A note regarding information encouraged in IWC-resolution 1999. IWC Document IWC/57/WKM & AWI6. Greenland Home Rule 2005. Report on improvements in ASW in Greenland. IWC Document IWC/57/WKM & AW7. Greenland Home Rule 2005. Status for Greenland Action Plan on Whale Hunting Methods, 2004. IWC Document IWC/57/WKM & AW8. Greenland Home Rule 2006. A note regarding information encouraged in IWC-resolution 1999, for the Greenland catch of 2005. IWC Document IWC/58/WKM & AWI3. Greenland Home Rule 2006. Report on improvements in ASW in Greenland. IWC Document IWC/58/WKM & AWI4. Greenland Home Rule 2006. Status for Greenland Action Plan on Whale Hunting Methods. IWC Document IWC/58/ WKM & AWI5.. Greenland Home Rule 2006. Summary of activites related to the Action Plan on Whale Killing Methods. IWC Document IWC/58/WKM & AWI6. Greenland Home Rule Government 2006. Whale killing methods and associated welfare issues in Greenland. IWC Document IWC/58/WKM & AWI7. Happynook, K. 2004. Whaling around the world. World Council of Whalers. ISBN 0- 9733760-0-7 Pp.74 (Greenland in p. 25 – 34) Jessen, A. 1992. Modern Inuit Whaling in Greenland. Josefsen, E, Cutter 1990. Hunting of Minke Whale in Qaqortoq (Greenland): Case Study. IWC Document TC/42/SEST5. Larsen, S. E. and Hansen, K. G. 1990. Inuit and Whales at Sarfaq (Greenland): Case Study. IWC Document TC/42/SEST4. Petersen, R. 1987. Communal Aspects of Preparation for Whaling, of the Hunt Itself and of the Ensuing Products. Rosing, J. 1986. Havets Enhjørning. Højbjerg Wormianon. Silis, I. 1997. Hvalernes Fjord. Atuakkiorfik, ISBN 87 558 1250 3. Pp. 88 Stevenson, M.. G., Madsen A. and Maloney E., editors. 1997. The Anthropology of Community-Based Whaling in Greenland, A Collection of Papers Submitted to the International Whaling Commission. Studies in Whaling No 4, Occasional Publication No 42, Canadian Cicumpolar Institute, University of Alberta, Canada Ting, H. 1990. Encounters with wildlife in Greenland. Atuakkiorfik. ISBN 87 558 0547 7. Pp. 61 Video – 1998. Hvalfangst i Grønland. Video – 1989. Introduktion om hvalgranat i Greenland. (WWC) World Council of Whalers. 1998. Whaling and Whale Use around the World – Greenland. General Assembly Report: p. 21.

ICELAND

Lambertsen, Richard H. and Moore, Michael J. 1983. Behavioral and post mortem observations on fin whales killed with explosive harpoons with preliminary

51 Report of the Committee on Hunting Methods

conclusions concerning killing efficiency: report to the International Whaling Commission from the Icelandic Whales research laboratory. IWC Document TC/36/HK3. Rowsell, Harry C. 1979. Assessment of harpooning as a humane killing method in whales: A report to the International Whaling Commission. Øen, Egil Ole 1987. Progress Report on Penthrite as Detonating Charge for 90 mm Harpoons. IWC Document TC/39/HK4.

NORWAY

Aschfalk A, Folkow L, Rud H. and Denzin N. 2001. Seroprevalence to Salmonella spp. in harp seals in the Greenland Sea, determined by ELISA. 24th Congress of the German Veterinary Society in Bad Nauheim, 4-7 April 2001, pp. 519-523. Aschfalk A, Bacciarini LN 2002. Carcinoid in the lung of a hooded seal (Cystophora cristata). Veterinary Record 151(25): 770-772. Aschfalk A. and Müller W. 2001. Clostridium perfringens toxin types in hooded seals in the Greenland Sea, determined by PCR and ELISA. Journal of Veterinary Medicine B; 48, 765-769.Aschfalk A, Folkow L, Rud H. and Denzin N. 2002. Apparent seroprevalence to Salmonella spp. in harp seals in the Greenland Sea determined by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Veterinary Research Communications. Veterinary Research Communication 26 (7): 523-530. Knudsen S. K. 2003. Criteria of death in whales. A comparative review. IWC Document IWC/55/WK. Knudsen S. K. 2004. Assessment of insensibility and death in hunted whales. A study of trauma and its consequences caused by the currently used weapon and ammunition in the Norwegian hunt for minke whales, with special emphasis on the central nervous system. Thesis for the degree of Doctor Medicinae Veterinariae. The Norwegian School of Veterinary Science, Tromsø. ISBN 82-7725-096-7. Knudsen S. K. 2005. A review of the criteria of insensibility and death in hunted whales compared to other species. The Veterinary Journal. In press. Knudsen S. K., Mørk S. and Øen E. O. 1999. A study on methods to assess time to unconsciousness or death in minke whale after penthrite grenade detonation. IWC Document IWC/51/WK12. Knudsen S. K., Mørk S. and Øen E. O. 2002. A novel method for in situ fixation of whale brains. Journal of Neuroscience Methods 120: 35-44 Knudsen S. K., Rud H. J. and Øen E.O. 1999. The position of the brain in the minke whale in relation to external features. IWC Document IWC/51/WK13. Knudsen S. K. and Øen EO. 2003. Blast-induced neurotrauma in whales. Neuroscience Research 46(3):265-386. O’Hara T.M., Albert T.F., Øen E.O., Philo L.M., George J.C. and Ingling A.L. 1999. The role of Eskimo hunters, veterinarians, and other biologists in improving the humane aspects of the subsistence harvest of bowhead whales. JAVMA, 214, 1193-1198. Skoglund, K. 1997. Documentary film on Norwegian sealing. Polarfangst. Tryland M. and Brun E. 2001. Serum chemistry of the minke whale from the northeastern Atlantic. Journal of Wildlife Diseases; 37(2): 332-341.

52 NAMMCO Annual Report 2006

Tryland M., and Godfroid J. 2001. Sjøpattedyr er eksponert for bakterier tilhørende genus Brucella. Norsk Veterinærtidsskrift; 113 (3): 145-149. Tryland M., Sørensen K. K. and Godfroid J. 2003. High prevalence of Brucella pinnipediae in tissues from apparently healthy Greenland Sea hooded seals (Cystophora cristata). [abstract/poster]. Brucellosis 2003 International Research Conference (56th Brucellosis Research Conference), 15-17 September, 2003; Pamplona, Spain. P61, pp. 123-124. Tryland M., Thoresen S. I., Lydersen C. and Kovacs K. 2003. Serum chemistry profiles from free-ranging and apparently healthy Atlantic walrus (Odobenus rosmarus rosmarus) from Svalbard. [abstract/poster]. 15th Biennal Conference on the biology of marine mammals, 14 – 19 December 2003; Greensboro, North Carolina, USA. p. 166. Øen E. O. 1982. Progress Report on Studies to increase the Efficiency of Killing Methods in Norwegian Small-Type Whaling. IWC Document SC/34/010. Øen E. O. 1983. Electrical Whaling - A Review. Nord. Vet.-Med. 35: 319-323. Øen E. O. 1983. Progress report on research to develop more humane killing methods in Norwegian whaling. IWC Document TC/35/HK1. Øen E. O. 1983. Killing Times of Minke Whales in the Norwegian Coastal Whaling in the 1981 and 1982 Seasons. Nord. Vet.-Med. 35, 314-318. Øen E. O. 1984. Progress report on research in 1983-84 to develop more humane killing methods in Norwegian whaling. IWC Document TC/36/HK1. Øen E. O. 1984. The Use of Drugs in Whaling. IWC Document TC/36/HK2. Øen E. O. 1985. Progress report on research in 1984-85 to develop more humane killing methods in Norwegian whaling. IWC Document IWC/37/19. Øen E. O. 1989. Chemical Immobilization and Marking of Minke Whales. A Report of Field Trials in 1988. IWC Document SC/41/NHMi10. Øen E.O. 1990. A new VHF-Transmitter for Minke Whales. IWC Document SC/42/NHMi17. Øen E. O. 1990. A Review of Attachment Techniques for Radio Transmitters to Whales. In: Vestergaard, E. (ed.); North Atlantic Studies - Whaling Communitie, Vol. 2, Nos 1 & 2, Aarhus Universitet, 82-84. Øen E. O. 1990. Trials of Chemical Immobilization of Minke Whales with Etorphine Hydrochloride in 1989. IWC Document SC/42/NHMi16. Øen E. O. 1992. A new Penthrite Grenade for the Subsistence Hunt of Bowhead Whales by Alaskan Eskimoes. Developmental Work and Field Trials in 1988. IWC Document IWC/44/HKW6. Øen E. O. 1992. The Norwegian Hunt of Minke Whales: A Norwegian Penthrite Grenade for Minke Whaling. Description of the Model and Developmental Work. IWC Document IWC/44/HKW4. Øen E. O. 1992. The Norwegian Hunt of Minke Whales: Description and Analysis of the Minke Whale Hunt with Cold Harpoons in the 1981, 1982 and 1983 Seasons. IWC Document IWC/44/HKW2. Øen E. O. 1992. The Norwegian Hunt of Minke Whales: Hunting of Minke Whales with Modified Cold Harpoons in 1983. IWC Document IWC/44/HKW1. Øen E. O. 1992. The Norwegian Hunt of Minke Whales: Hunting Trials using 20mm High-Velocity Projectiles in 1982. IWC Document IWC/44/HKW3. Øen E. O. 1992. Norwegian Penthrite Grenade for Minke Whales: Hunting Trials with

53 Report of the Committee on Hunting Methods

Prototypes of Penthrite Grenades in 1984 and Results from the 1985 and 1986 Seasons. IWC Document IWC/44/HKW5. Øen E. O. 1993. Avliving av strandet Hval. Nor. Vet. Tidsskr. 105, p. 748-749. Øen E. O. 1993. Avliving av standet Hval. Nor. Vet. Tidsskr. 105, p. 845-846. Øen E. O. 1993. Hunting Methods for Minke Whales in Norway. Report from the 1992 Scientific Catch. IWC Document IWC/45/HK 1. Øen E. O. 1993. Norwegian Penthrite Grenade for Minke Whales: Results from the 1992 Season. Øen E. O. 1995. A New Penthrite Grenade Compared to the Traditional Black Powder Grenade: Effectiveness in the Alaskan Eskimo’s Hunt for Bowhead Whales. Arctic. 48, No 2:177-185. Øen E. O. 1995. A Norwegian Penthrite Grenade for Minke Whales: Hunting Trials with Prototypes and Results from the Hunt in 1984, 1985 and 1986. Acta vet. scan. 36: 111-121. Øen E. O. 1995. Description and Analysis of the use of Cold Harpoons in the Norwegian Minke Whale Hunt in the 1981, 1982 and 1983 Hunting Seasons. Acta vet. scan. 36: 103-110. 1995. Øen E. O. 1995. High Velocity Projectiles for Killing Whales. Hunting Trials using 20 mm High Velocity Projectiles for Minke Whales in 1982. Acta vet. scan. 36: 153-156. Øen E. O. 1995. Killing Methods for Minke and Bowhead Whales, Dissertation presented for the degree of Doctor Medicinae Veterinariae. Øen E. O. 1996. Avlivingsmetoder for store pattedyr. En dyrevernmessig vurdering av de vanligste former for avliving ved eutanasi, slakting, jakt og fangst i Europa. Nor. Vet. Tidsskr. 108, p. 313-321. Øen E. O. 1997. Norwegian minke whaling 1996. Rep. IWC Document. Øen E. O. 1998. Norwegian minke whaling 1997. IWC Document. Øen E.O. 1999. Improvements in hunting and killing methods for minke whales in Norway. IWC Document IWC/51/WK11. Øen E.O. 2000. Norwegian minke whaling 1999. IWC Document IWC/WKM & AWI1. Øen E. O. 2001. Hunting of whales in Norway in historical perspective. Proceedings of the 32nd International Congress on the History of Veterinary Medicine, 15-18 August, Oslo. Øen, E. O. 2001. Norwegian minke whaling in 2000. IWC Document IWC/53/WK. Øen, E. O. 2002. Norwegian minke whaling in 2001. IWC Document IWC/54/WKM & AWI6. Øen E. O. 2003. Improvements in hunting and killling methods for minke whales in Norway 1981-2003. IWC Document IWC/55/WK17. Øen E. O. and Knudsen S. K. 2003. Euthanasia of whales: Wounding effect of rifle calibre .375 and .458 round nosed full metal jacketed bullets on minke whale central nervous system. IWC Document IWC/55/WK. Øen E.O. and Mørk S. 1999. Observations of agonal movements, injuries and pathological changes in minke whales after intra-body detonation of penthrite. IWC Document IWC/51/WK10. Øen E.O. and Walløe L. 1999. Norwegian minke whaling 1996, 1997 and 1998. Whaling activities, inspection routines, new developments and research 1996-99. IWC Document IWC/51/WK9.

54 NAMMCO Annual Report 2006

Appendix 3 OVERVIEW OF RECCOMMENDATIONS AND FOLLOW-UPS FROM THE NAMMCO WORKSHOPS ON HUNTING ISSUES

NAMMCO WORKSHOP ON HUNTING METHODS: 9 – 11 FEBRUARY 1999, NUUK, GREENLAND

Recommendation: Follow-up in member counties: 1. Faroe Islands: hunting of long-finned pilot whale (Globicephala melas) The Workshop noted with satisfaction that Faroe Islands has The Ministry of Fisheries has produced and distributed accomplished a number of improvements in the pilot whale hunt. 620 blunt hooks to the different whaling bays. In addition These include a gentler driving of the whales, prohibition against the whalers can buy it various places. See NAMMCO Annual use of the spear, and the use of a new blunt hook for securing the Report 2001, p. 62. animals. In addition, other efforts such as educational programmes in the schools on how to hunt whales are under way. The Workshop notes, however, that the pointed hook is still in use and recommends that further effort be made to replace this with the new blunt hook for securing the animals.

2. Faroe Islands: killing of stranded northern bottlenose whale (Hyperoodon ampullatus) Stranded bottlenose whales are killed in the same way as pilot The rifle, calibre .458 with corresponding round nose full metal whales. Questions were raised over whether this is an adequate jacket ammunition is placed at the sheriff's office in Suðuroy, method of killing such a large animal, and it was recommended that where stranding of bottlenose whale happens most rifles with adequate ammunition be used for killing stranded whales frequently. See NAMMCO Annual report 2001, p. 62

55 Report of the Committee on Hunting Methods of this species.

3. Greenland: hunting of small cetaceans

3a. In Greenland, hunters use full metal jacket, pointed bullets to kill No systematic study has been carried out to date in Greenland. harpooned small whales (beluga, Delphinapterus leucas and narwhal, However, a number of Canadian blunt-nosed bullets were Monodon monoceros). Investigations have shown that when a pointed distributed among hunters. At least one hunter tested the bullets bullet meets bone (such as cranium), it tends to tip or ricochet, while and reported that they were too effective, causing animals to sink a full metal jacket, blunt-nosed bullet penetrates bone better. The after the first shot, increasing the risk of struck and lost. Workshop therefore, recommends that Greenland initiates studies in See also rec. 3 from workshop on marine mammals, weapons and cooperation with the hunters, testing both pointed and blunt bullets on ballistics. whale carcasses to determine the best ammunition for use in the hunt.

3b. It was further recommended that Greenland develop objective At its meeting on January 31, 2007 the Committee on Hunting descriptions of hunting methods, equipment and how efficient these methods noted that this would encompass an extensive study and are in small cetacean hunting, considering regional variations. therefore might be more suitable as a topic for a Master’s thesis, and encouraged NAMMCO to work towards finding the necessary funding.

3c. Greenlandic hunters informed the Workshop that work had been In 2003 the new handheld harpoon (the steel lance) had been started on the development of a new handheld harpoon that can developed and could be ordered for production at the shipyards in improve the efficiency of beluga, narwhal, walrus (Odobenus Greenland. rosmarus) and seal hunting. The Workshop views this as a positive initiative and recommends that Greenland continue to support this project. 56 NAMMCO Annual Report 2006

4. Baleen whale hunting

4a. A Norwegian hunter has taken the initiative to develop a new The harpoon was qualified through shooting trials set up by whale harpoon that can be adjusted for each individual harpoon ballistic experts and approved for hunting in 1999. canon. This is a notable initiative that can contribute to better marksmanship and thereby to more efficient killing. The Workshop recommends that Norway continues to support this project.

4b. During the Workshop there were several expressions of concern Analysis of the times to death and rates of struck and lost for the that Greenland hunts minke whales using rifles and handheld different hunting methods have been presented to the IWC. harpoons as the only weapons. An in-depth discussion revealed that Detailed analyses of struck and lost rates have been presented to there is significant disagreement in this area, and it was agreed to the 2006 NAMMCO workshop on struck and lost. note the discord. The Greenland Home Rule Executive order No 10 of 13 April Some delegates felt that animals should always be killed as quickly 2005 on Hunting of Large Whales limits the collective hunt of and painlessly as possible, and doubted if this was achievable using minke whale only to the areas where boats with harpoon canon only rifles and handheld harpoons. It was also asserted that this can not cover the local need of whale meat. hunting method is relatively new (introduced in the 1950s), and if it was to continue, there was a need for adjustments and improvements Quotas for collective hunt have been gradually reduced. based on accumulated experience. Also the Greenlandic Home Rule Government wishes to limit the rifle hunt as much as possible.

The Greenlandic rifle hunt of minke whales has several times received significant criticism. The Workshop finds that this type of hunting can negatively influence the attitudes towards all Greenlandic 57 Report of the Committee on Hunting Methods hunting. The Workshop recommends that this hunting method be subject to a critical analysis and an objective description of methods and equipment, with the goal of determining necessary adjustments.

4c. The Workshop recommends that Greenland continue to work From 2005 the price to the distributors in Greenland and Norway towards the goal of using the harpoon grenade in all hunts for baleen is the same in both countries. whales. It is, however, a source of concern that the penthrite harpoon grenade is so costly in Greenland that many hunters cannot afford to The Greenland Home Rule supports hunters with a 50% subsidy use it. The Workshop recommends that Greenland initiate an enquiry in the purchase of harpoon grenades. into the reasons for the price policies and work towards a price change.

4d. Greenland has carried out a number of improvements on weapons Work ongoing. and equipment used in whale hunting with the harpoon canon. In addition, the hunting regulations for large whales have been The last Executive Order that was approved was No 10 of 13 developed and improved. The Workshop notes with approval that April 2005 on hunting of large whales. Greenland has made these improvements and recommends that the work will continue in the future. Courses on the handling and use of harpoon grenades are given regularly.

A new course on the mounting and maintenance of harpoon cannons was held in Nuuk in November 2006.

4e. It was emphasised that the hunters were not able to buy the It is difficult to know which market considerations need to be 58 NAMMCO Annual Report 2006 ammunition determined by experts to be the most efficient for killing investigated because it has not been established which whales, because it was not available in Greenland. The Workshop ammunition is ideal in terms of efficiency; cost and associated finds it questionable that market considerations have higher priority rates of struck and lost (see recommendation 3a above). than professional judgement and justification, and recommends that Greenland investigate the situation.

5. The Workshop notes with approval that the Greenlandic Parliament Both the Home Rule Act No 25 of 18 December 2003 on has decided to formulate an animal protection law, and in this manner Animal Welfare, and the Home Rule Act No 29 of 18 December create an authoritative body that can introduce the element of animal 2003 on Nature Protection have been approved. protection in hunting regulations.

6. In conclusion the Workshop agreed that the meeting had been The NAMMCO Council endorsed the recommendation and as of valuable, in professional terms, and that it was desirable to plan a 2007 three related Workshops have been organised by the similar meeting in the future, but with a focus on particular hunting Committee on Hunting Methods. methods.

NAMMCO WORKSHOP ON "MARINE MAMMALS: WEAPONS, AMMUNITIONS AND BALLISTICS": 13 – 15 NOVEMBER 2001, SANDEFJORD, NORWAY

Recommendations: Follow-up by member countries

1. The target groups for the Workshop were hunters, administrators and This recommendation has been followed-up in all scientists. The Workshop strongly emphasised the usefulness of the Workshop organised under the Committee on Hunting hunters’ knowledge and experience for the conclusions drawn at the Methods. 59 Report of the Committee on Hunting Methods

meeting. The Workshop recommends that the hunters’ knowledge and experience are utilised in future workshops.

2. The Workshop acknowledged the work on upgrading, maintenance and A new course on the mounting and maintenance of standardisation of the harpoon canons and other whale hunting equipment harpoon cannons was held in Nuuk in November 2006. in Greenland in the past years, and of the continued follow-up efforts, Personnel from the main boat yards of West Greenland including the establishment of a permanent control system. This work has were trained. resulted in considerable improvements in personnel safety and has also increased the efficiency in the killing of fin- and minke whales. The Workshop acknowledged the major economic costs that are associated with this work.

3. The Workshop referred to the follow-up work of the Faroe Islands with Implemented. respect to shooting tests of different weapons and ammunition types on dead pilot whales. This information was very useful and can be utilised in “ Shooting trials on heads of dead pilot whales – standardising methods for similar studies on other species. The Workshop Guidelines to test the efficiency of rifle ammunition recommended that NAMMCO encourage the member countries to used for hunting and euthanasia of small whales” by undertake more controlled and standardised studies on other species, and Olsen and Øen was presented to the NAMMCO if necessary during ordinary hunting activities. The Workshop advised the Council at its annual meeting in March 2007. NAMMCO Committee on Hunting Methods to develop guidelines for such studies and to make recommendations for target species.

4. The presentations and discussions under the Weapons and ammunitions The Workshop on Hunting Methods for Seals and theme indicated a great variation, between the member countries, with Walrus in Copenhagen 2004 was organised as a follow- 60 NAMMCO Annual Report 2006

respect to the requirements for weapons and ammunitions used in hunting up of this recommendation. adult seals. The Workshop regarded it as beneficial to investigate the possibilities for harmonising the weapons and ammunition types for each species, with due considerations to the variations in hunting conditions in the NAMMCO member countries. In this regard it would be important to utilise the experience held by the hunters, and the Workshop urged that necessary studies be undertaken in order to support the harmonisation scientifically.

5. At the previous workshop on hunting methods in Nuuk in 1999, it was See comment in the section related to the Workshop on noted that the ammunition determined by experts to be the most efficient, Hunting Methods in Nuuk in 1999 above. was not always available in the stores. This remains a problem in several of the NAMMCO member countries. The Workshop repeated that it is questionable that market considerations still have higher priority than scientific and professional judgement and considerations.

6. Results from Norwegian studies on rifles used as secondary weapons in In Norway calibre 9.3 mm has been set as the minimum the minke whale hunt were presented at the Workshop. These results calibre in the minke whale hunt from 1993 showed that full metal jacket, round nosed ammunition from calibre 9.3 mm and larger, was very efficient for killing minke whales with a shot to the brain. The Workshop recommended that when weapons are replaced this is taken into consideration.

7. The Workshop referred to the "Report of the NAMMCO Workshop on 61 Report of the Committee on Hunting Methods

Hunting Methods, February 1999" and recommended that the recommendations from that Workshop not yet considered must be followed-up.

8. The Workshop acknowledged that the introduction of the new whale These aspects have been incorporated in the Greenland grenade has resulted in greater security for the hunters and has also Home Rule Executive order No 10 of 13 April 2005 on increased the whale killing efficiency. The Workshop further emphasised Hunting of Large Whales. the importance of including both the hunters’ safety and the animal In Norway it is incorporated in the mandatory seminars welfare aspects in official hunting regulations, including those pertaining given to hunters. to hunting methods.

NAMMCO Workshop on methods for Seals and Walrus Hunting, 7 – 9 September 2004, Copenhagen, Denmark

Recommendations Follow-up by member countries

Hunter training Norway: The Workshop recognised the continuing importance of hunter training for Sealers must participate in a biannual mandatory course the improvement of hunter safety, reducing unnecessary suffering to animals, which includes written tests. Captain and inspectors minimising struck and lost animals, maximising utilisation of the harvest, and have an obligation to participate annually in these equipment selection, manufacture and maintenance. Hunter training should courses. be a priority for all hunts. • The Workshop recommended training for inexperienced hunters in The shooters must take a shooting test. particular and that such training should be a continuous process for all

62 NAMMCO Annual Report 2006

hunters in general. • The Workshop recommended that information is provided to hunters on new and improved equipment that is presently available.

Struck and Lost Estimates Greenland: Workshop presentations and discussions demonstrated a lack of accurate and An estimate of S&L on harp seals, based on reliable estimates of “struck and lost” (S&L) for seal and walrus hunts. The questionnaire surveys was made for the 2006 workshop. Workshop recognised that reliable estimates of S&L are urgently required to In order to reduce S&L, The Executive Order No20 of allow better conservation and management and enable us to target hunts 27 October 2006 on the Protection and Hunting of where S&L can be reduced. It was also recognised that reducing S&L Walrus requires that the animals should be harpooned benefits hunters because of potential higher catches, less unnecessary before firing the final lethal shot. suffering to animals and a better public image. Struck and loss estimates are a priority for open water seal and walrus hunts. Norway: • The Workshop recommended that studies of S&L should be done in Monitoring of causes for S&L was taking place as long cooperation between researchers and hunters. as research data was collected. • The Workshop recommended the methods, techniques and equipment to reduce S&L should be developed and applied at the local level to ensure that these are appropriate to local conditions.

Minimise Animal Suffering Norway: • The Workshop recommended that the hunters should make every effort All regulations pertaining to sealing and whaling have to reduce unnecessary suffering by hunted animals, by minimising killing incorporated the principles of human killing from the times and avoiding letting injured animals escape. Such efforts should Act of 20 December 1974 on animal welfare. have priority for all hunts. In addition there exist regulations on technical 63 Report of the Committee on Hunting Methods

requirements (winch, harpoon, use of back-up rifle etc.)

Technical Innovation Norway: The Workshop noted a lack of technical innovation in developing new The new whale grenade in combination with better equipment and hunting techniques to improve hunting efficiency and reduce hunting rutines has reduced both time to death and loss “struck and lost”. of animal. The Workshop recommended that development and research be undertaken in this area. Open water hunting for large seals and walrus was identified as a priority area.

Calibre and Bullets Norway: Minimum requirement for ammunition when The Workshop recognised that there is a need to establish minimum going sealing is regulated by law. requirements for firearms and ammunition for seal and walrus hunts. It was further recognised that specific recommendations on selection of calibre and bullet types for different species and hunts are difficult to make because little information is available. These observations and recommendations apply to all hunts. • The Workshop therefore recommended that objective studies on terminal ballistics of various calibre and bullet types in seal and walrus hunting are carried out. • It was recommended that these studies be done in cooperation with the hunters. There is a need to consider what types of firearms and ammunition are presently available in remote communities and the Workshop urged the stores to make available the ammunition determined to be appropriate for the various hunts. 64 NAMMCO Annual Report 2006

Full Utilisation Greenland: The Workshop agreed that the fullest possible utilisation benefits hunters The Executive Order No 20 of 27 October 2006 on the because of more returns from the harvest, preservation of traditional skills Protection and Hunting of Walrus limits the hunt to and a better public image. This applies to all hunts. The Workshop adult males, and establishes quotas, hunting areas and recommended the following: hunting seasons. A management plan based on the • That all hunting should occur within safe conservation limits. gradual reduction of quotas for the period 2007 – 2010 • That all hunts should work towards the fullest possible utilisation of has been approved. Theses are steps necessary to harvested animals. achieve a hunt within safe conservation limits. • That new uses and markets for seal and walrus products should be The Executive order requires that all meat, skin, blubber pursued. and other usable parts are brought from the hunting place or destroyed.

Norway: • The quotas are set within safe conservation limits. • It is not an optimal utilisation of harvested animals in Norway. • With respect to the sealing industry attempts are made to develop the market possibilities.

Hunter Safety Norway: The Workshop recognised that the safety of the hunters should be a priority • The incorporation of hunters safety is mandatory in all hunts. when considering new regulations and in the • The Workshop recommended that the safety of the hunters must be implementation of regulations regarding equipment considered in any regulatory measures or technical innovations to and techniques. equipment and techniques. 65 Report of the Committee on Hunting Methods

• In particular the Workshop recommended special attention to: hearing • This is not regulated legally but optional for the loss due to noise and the need for ear protection, bullet ricochet hunters. However the use of this kind of protection endangering people and property and protective gear for extreme cold gear is increased among the hunters. and harsh conditions.

66 NAMMCO Annual Report 2006

Appendix 4 POSSIBLE WORKING GROUP PERTAINING TO REVIEW OF WHALE KILLING DATA

The Chair of the Committee on Hunting Methods, Egil Øen, was informally approached by Hajime Ishikawa from the ICR in Japan enquiring about the possibilities for Japan to submit data such as Time to Death (TTD) and Instantaneous Death Rate (IDR) on whale killing methods for the review of the Committee on Hunting Methods.

According to paragraph 1.3 in the Rules of Procedure for the Committee on Hunting Methods (“Non-member governments with observer status in NAMMCO may request advice from the Committee through the Council)”, such a request from Japan would be within the mandate of the Committee given the approval of the NAMMCO Council.

The Committee has, by email correspondence, agreed to undertake such a review if Japan forwards a request and the NAMMCO Council puts this forward as a request to the Committee.

In order to secure credibility and that the review is conducted in a professional and scientifically sound manner, the Committee suggests organising a working group. The working group would consist of the members of the Committee extended with expert participation from hunters and scientists such as veterinarians, physiologists and biologists with an expertise and experience in whaling, killing methods and animal welfare issues.

The convening of such a working group would have budgetary implications as it will entail covering travel and accommodation for some experts.

67

NAMMCO Annual Report 2006 1.3 REPORT OF THE NAMMCO WORKSHOP TO ADDRESS PROBLEMS OF STRUCK AND LOST IN SEAL, WALRUS AND WHALE HUNTING

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Workshop event: This document represents the report from the NAMMCO Workshop to address problems of “struck and lost” in seal, walrus and whale hunting that was held in Copenhagen, Denmark 14 – 16 November 2006. The Workshop attracted 50 hunters, managers, scientists and interested participants from 10 countries.

Terms of Reference: The Workshop was organised by the NAMMCO Committee on Hunting Methods and had the following terms of reference:

• To review hunting methods for seal, walrus and whale with respect to the problem of “struck and lost” (S&L) • To identify possible studies of S&L to be undertaken in cooperation between researchers and hunters, in order to achieve accurate and reliable estimates of S&L • To identify the reasons why some hunts have a high or low S&L rate • To make recommendations on how to reduce S&L, in consideration of hunting techniques, equipment modifications, season, locality and reduction of animal suffering.

Goals of the Workshop: The overall goal of the Workshop was to improve catch relative to effort, to reduce animal suffering and improve public image, and to formulate recommendations on methods, techniques and equipment to reduce struck and loss that are applicable at the local level.

The Workshop is the fourth in a series (1999, 2001, 2004 and 2006) that the Committee on Hunting Methods has organised to deliberate and review various issues related to the hunting of marine mammals. All workshops have resulted in recommendations. Reports from all workshops may be downloaded at www.nammco.no or may be obtained by contacting the NAMMCO Secretariat.

Structure of the Workshop: The Workshop on Struck and Lost was structured into plenary, and working group sessions that were specific for Seals; Large Whales; Small Whales; Walrus.

All working groups addressed the same agenda and began with an invited presentation from an experienced hunter. All working groups formulated specific recommendations that are presented as part of the report from the working groups.

69 NAMMCO Workshop on Struck and Lost in Seal, Walrus and Whale Hunting

In addition, a set of general recommendations was formulated by the Drafting Committee based on the presentations and discussions of the plenary and working group sessions. These recommendations were presented in plenary and adopted by consensus for implementation by management authorities, hunters and researchers.

1. GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS

1.1 Minimize animal suffering The Workshop recommended that the hunters should make every effort to reduce unnecessary suffering by hunted animals, by minimizing killing times to the extent that is feasible. However this must be balanced by consideration of the safety of the hunter, and the risk of losing the animal.

1.2 Monitoring The Workshop noted that the present information on struck and lost is outdated or inadequate for several species and areas, and that accurate estimation of struck and lost is important for effective management and essential to improve hunting practices.

The Workshop recommended that new monitoring programmes that are appropriate for local conditions should be developed that could produce accurate information that will be accepted by hunters and managers. Such monitoring programmes should be developed in full cooperation among hunters, managers and researchers.

1.3 Proper training of hunters The Workshop recommended that hunters should be trained in both the theoretical and practical aspects of hunting, and that training materials and programmes should be appropriate to local conditions.

1.4 Hunting equipment The Workshop recommended that hunters should always carry weapons and equipment appropriate to the target species and local hunting conditions, and that the equipment should be properly maintained and renewed when necessary.

1.5 Cooperative management The Workshop recommended that the hunters should be involved in the marine mammal management process, including the development of regulations pertaining to hunting.

The Workshop furthermore recommended that the design, development and testing of new weapons and hunting equipment should be done in cooperation with hunters.

1.6 Sharing of technology and knowledge The Workshop recommended that there should be open exchange and sharing of information about new weapons, equipment and hunting techniques, and that this should be done on both the national and international levels.

2. SPECIES-SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS

70 NAMMCO Annual Report 2006

2.1 SEALS 2.1.1 Hunter training • Develop suitable training materials for each area and hunt. These could use various media, e.g. audiovisual presentations on DVD or broadcast locally; written materials, and internet sites. • In areas where hunting is practiced, courses in hunting should be available in the school curriculum. This is already the practice in some areas, e.g. Finland. A comprehensive and advanced hunting education programme is under development in Greenland. In Norway it is mandatory to undertake a training course set up by the authorities before going hunting.

2.1.2 Techniques and equipment • The type of equipment that is suitable depends on the area, species, season and local environment. Descriptions of suitable equipment for each situation should be developed by local authorities, and made available to hunters and educational institutions. • Hunters should always have suitable equipment, in good working order, readily available when hunting. • In situations when seals usually sink after death, it may be advisable to use small- calibre weapons and shoot to injure, not to kill. The injured seal can then be secured using a hook or harpoon, and then killed. This technique is effective in reducing struck and lost, but does likely result in greater animal suffering.

2.1.3 Regulatory measures • In some areas it may be advisable to stipulate the minimum equipment that must be at hand when hunting. This is already done in most areas. • In some areas, seasonal closures could be used to forbid hunting in seasons when seals usually sink after death. Such closures are used in Norway and Finland, but may not be suitable in areas where hunters must take seals year-round.

2.1.4 Monitoring Independent observers and governmental inspectors have been effective in monitoring hunts for harp and hooded seals in Canada and Norway. However, it is not possible to use independent observers to monitor all seal hunts. The following alternatives were recommended: • Self-reporting systems such as Pinniarneq in Greenland could possibly be modified to provide information on struck and lost; • In other areas, community-based monitoring using post-hunt interviews, as used in Chukotka, may be effective; • A programme using “index” hunters, trained and contracted to provide information on their hunting activities, which is later extrapolated to the entire hunt, may be effective in some situations.

2.2 LARGE WHALES 2.2.1 Hunters training

71 NAMMCO Workshop on Struck and Lost in Seal, Walrus and Whale Hunting

• To encourage training, in practice and in theory with: experienced hunters, experts on weapons and experts on anatomy; • To produce educational material, including anatomical charts designed for whaling; • In order to learn and improve, feedback to whalers should be improved, including feedback on: successful kills, problematic kills, cases of struck and lost and their causes.

2.2.2 Techniques and equipment • To ensure that adequate equipment for securing and killing is well maintained, functioning and at hand; • Time to death should be as short as possible, once the whale has been effectively secured; • In order to prevent whales sinking when using harpoon cannon, it is recommended to: 1) Cause instantaneous death 2) Keep the back-up rifle at hand 3) Keep harpoon and attachment points well maintained 4) Use forerunners of adequate strength 5) Replace forerunners at regular intervals 6) Keep a back-up forerunner ready 7) Use the air pump to inflate the whale where legally feasible 8) Use grappling irons to secure the carcase. • To improve the Norwegian penthrite grenade used for hunting fin whales in Iceland and in Greenland, in order to increase the rates of instantaneous death or unconsciousness.1 • To facilitate access to good weather forecasting for whalers working from small boats; • To avoid killing the whale before it has been secured sufficiently. This is especially true when using small boats to hunt whales that may sink. • To develop a gun to deploy harpoons attached to floats. This would shorten the time needed to secure whales that may sink when hunting from boats without a harpoon cannon.

2.2.3 Regulatory measures • To strengthen international cooperation in order to facilitate: a) access to information and technology and b) purchase and transport of equipment, including weapons and explosives; • Development and implementation of ways to reduce struck and lost should be done in close collaboration with the whalers.

2.2.4 Monitoring • Reporting of the causes of struck and lost is needed to provide feedback to whalers.

1 The workshop did not discuss the Japanese Fin whale hunt 72 NAMMCO Annual Report 2006

2.3 SMALL WHALES 2.3.1 Hunter training • Training is paramount – it should be community based and species specific. Local experienced hunters who are familiar with local environment should be employed to train. • Traditional knowledge should be taught in high schools. • Ways have to be found to counteract the negative effects of diminishing quotas and hunting restrictions on the acquisition of hunter skills in future generations.

2.3.2 Techniques and equipment • Using more efficient equipment still does not necessarily diminish struck and lost. Thus a combination of suitable equipment and training is needed in the use of rifles and appropriate ammunition. • Methods of improving access to long-range forecasting of weather conditions need to be found as weather is a very important factor in affecting struck and lost. • Develop a weapon that could improve the range of strike, e.g. an air gun that could be modified to incorporate firing of a harpoon head. This could improve the firing / strike range and the securing of the whale. • In hunting communities, suitable ammunition designed for marine mammals should be made more readily available. • Use of high velocity rifles can result in hearing loss and steps should be taken to minimise this problem and disseminate technical information for user safety.

2.3.3 Regulatory measures • The users (hunters) should be involved in decision-making processes concerning the hunt such as the planning of hunting quotas and in the areas of operation. User knowledge should be used in management in conjunction with science. • Establishing formal meetings with local government officials on all aspects of hunting - equipment, safety, training, etc. where reduction of struck and lost can also be discussed. These meetings could establish local hunting rules and regulations, the required equipment, etc. that would help to mitigate struck and lost.

2.3.4 Monitoring • All parties (hunters, administrators, managers, biologists) have to get together to find a way forward on the matter of recording and reporting stuck and lost. One route could be to establish local sub-committees to work out an acceptable and appropriate monitoring system in hunting areas.

2.4 WALRUS 2.4.1 Hunter training • Walrus hunters should be properly trained and their training should be appropriate for the local environment. Such training can occur through traditional methods, formal schooling and other media such as video and the internet. It was specifically emphasized that inexperienced hunters should accompany experienced hunters on hunts.

73 NAMMCO Workshop on Struck and Lost in Seal, Walrus and Whale Hunting

2.4.2 Hunting techniques • When hunting walrus on ice floes, the hunter should approach as closely as possible before shooting. The hunter should shoot animals in the centre of the group first so that killed animals won’t be pushed into the water by the others. • In open water hunts, it is best to harpoon before shooting, but this is not always feasible. It may be necessary to shoot the walrus in the body and lungs to disable it so that it can be harpooned, and then shoot it lethally. This will reduce the incidence of struck and lost and the chance of the walrus attacking the hunter. • Hunters should obtain the best available forecasts before setting out, only initiate hunting if the weather conditions are right, and abandon hunting if the weather deteriorates.

2.4.3 Hunting equipment • Hunting equipment is often specific to particular regions and seasons, and is adapted to local conditions. Local authorities should compile descriptions of equipment suitable for each area and make these available to hunters and teachers. • Hunters should ensure that proper equipment is available and well maintained. • Technological innovation could reduce the incidence of struck and lost in some hunts. A harpoon gun that would be effective at a range of 10-15 m would be particularly effective in walrus hunting.

2.4.4 Monitoring • The importance of monitoring must be explained to hunters so that they can “buy in” to a monitoring programme. • A monitoring system should provide feedback to hunters so that they can improve their hunting techniques. • Community-based monitoring, based on a combination of hunt observation and post-hunt interviews, has been effective in Chukotka and could be adapted to other areas. • A system based on “index hunters” may be effective in some areas.

------

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS

Dr Christina Lockyer, General Secretary to NAMMCO, welcomed the participants (see Section 3.4) and expressed gratitude for the financial support to the Workshop from the Nordic Council of Ministers, the North Atlantic Cooperation (NORA) and Indigenous Survival International Greenland. Finally she thanked the Representation Offices of Greenland and the Faeroes for hosting a reception on 14 November for the workshop participants.

Workshop structure and Drafting Committee Dr Egil Ole Øen from the Norwegian School of Veterinary Science, Section of Arctic Veterinary Medicine, Norway, chaired the Workshop. Dr Øen was also the present chair of the NAMMCO Committee on Hunting Methods which has initiated and

74 NAMMCO Annual Report 2006 organised the Workshop. Mr Glenn Williams, Wildlife Advisor to the Wildlife Department of the Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated (NTI), Canada served as co-chair and chair of the Drafting Committee. The Drafting Committee was established to facilitate the work with formulating recommendations from the Workshop. Christina Lockyer, Daniel Pike and Charlotte Winsnes from the NAMMCO Secretariat acted as rapporteurs.

The Workshop was divided between plenary sessions and four working group sessions of which two ran in parallel.

INTRODUCTION By Egil Ole Øen, Norwegian School of Veterinary Science, Section of Arctic Veterinary Medicine

“It is my pleasure as Chair of the Workshop to welcome you all and to say a few words as an introduction to the next three days here in Copenhagen.

At its 14th Annual Meeting in March 2005 the NAMMCO Council agreed to the recommendation from the Committee on Hunting Methods to hold a Workshop addressing the problems of struck and lost in seal, walrus and whale hunting. The Workshop was given the following terms of reference:

• To review hunting methods for seal, walrus and whale with respect to the problem of “struck and lost” (S&L) • To identify possible studies of S&L to be undertaken in cooperation between researchers and hunters, in order to achieve accurate and reliable estimates of S&L • To identify the reasons why some hunts have a high or low S&L rate • To make recommendations on how to reduce S&L, in consideration of hunting techniques, equipment modifications, season, locality and reduction of animal suffering.

The overall goal of the Workshop was stated as: To improve catch relative to effort, to reduce animal suffering and improve public image, and the Workshop objective: To formulate recommendations on methods, techniques and equipment to reduce S&L that are applicable at the local level.

Coastal people's right to hunt and utilise marine mammals has always been a firmly established principle in NAMMCO. Embedded in this right is also an obligation to conduct the hunt in a sustainable way and also in such a way that it minimizes animal suffering.

The Committee on Hunting Methods was established in 1994 to facilitate NAMMCO's work in this field and to give advice on hunting methods to the Council and the member countries.

A prerequisite has always been that the advice given must be based on the best

75 NAMMCO Workshop on Struck and Lost in Seal, Walrus and Whale Hunting available scientific findings, technological developments and user knowledge with due consideration to safety requirements / hunters' safety and the efficiency of the utilisation.

The Committee on Hunting Methods has chosen to organise most of its work through the convening of international workshops. Over time the workshop series has in my mind quite successfully developed into an arena where hunters, managers and scientists sit together and openly discuss issues of common interest. To ensure the "usability" of the workshops in the real world, an important aspect has always been that a given workshop should result in recommendations on both a general and more specific level.

The first Workshop was held in Nuuk, Greenland in 1999 and addressed different hunting methods for different species of whales and seals under various conditions. The second was held in Sandefjord, Norway in 2001 addressing ballistics, ammunition and weaponry and the third was held in Copenhagen in 2004 where we discussed hunting methods for seals and walrus under different seasons and conditions.

This present Workshop on struck and lost is therefore the fourth in the series, and as such is very much an extension of the previous three. At the last Workshop in 2004 it was clearly recognised that we know too little about struck and lost estimates, more so in some hunts than others, and that we need to develop methods, techniques and equipment to reduce struck and lost that are applicable at the local level in order to ensure that these are functional in a given locality.

In the coming days we will review various hunting methods from the perspective of struck and lost (S&L). How successful the workshop will be is entirely up to us all. As participants you are asked to share your knowledge to provide a basis for exchange of information and for an evaluation of the different hunting methods in relation to the S&L rates. Our overall aim for the workshop is to create a dialogue and openness around an important and sensitive issue in order to improve catch relative to effort, reduce animal suffering and improve the public image of hunting, and we want to end up with some recommendations on methods, techniques and equipment to reduce S&L that are applicable at the local level.

I think we can agree that S&L is perceived as a problem for the hunters, the managers and the concerned public. To lose an animal is clearly not optimal for the hunter. In order to make sustainable estimates when setting quotas the managers need reliable information on S&L, and we live in a world where it is widely held that reducing animal suffering is both important and ethical correct. In fact this represents the very rare situation where all of us have everything to win and nothing to lose by taking part in the debate and discussions with an open mind and an eye for being constructive. To achieve our goals we need to give credit where credit is due and be respectful of the multitude of living conditions that we, as a group, represent.

In my view this workshop represents so much expertise on the various aspects of hunting that I am quite optimistic that we as a minimum will be able to bring with us

76 NAMMCO Annual Report 2006 some new thinking and possible solutions on how to reduce struck and lost when we return home. We will not, during these three days, be able to solve the issue of S&L for all hunts but we will as a minimum know a lot more that we hopefully can use in our effort to reduce the problem in our daily lives.

We must bear in mind that this arena and this Workshop will only be as constructive and successful as we make it. Let me therefore end this introduction with a word of caution.

In order to make good recommendations we need to keep the discussion on a general level, and work towards identifying the strong and weak points connected to a certain hunting activity. By this I mean that one-time incidents seldom contribute constructively; on the contrary, they often misinform and delude more than they clarify.

I also want to stress and underline that the question we discuss at this Workshop is NOT whether hunting should be conducted or not, but rather how in respect to factors like hunters economy and safety, full utilisation and suffering of animals, the hunt can best be conducted.

Furthermore, let us keep in mind that NAMMCO is a totally different organisation with a very different attitude and debate than what we have experienced in the International Whaling Commission (IWC). The tendency in IWC has been that the hunter in some quarters is looked upon as the "enemy", whereas in NAMMCO the hunter has always been an important co-player.”

77 NAMMCO Workshop on Struck and Lost in Seal, Walrus and Whale Hunting

KEYNOTE ADDRESSES

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF STRUCK AND LOST IN MARINE MAMMAL HUNTING AND MANAGEMENT By Daniel Pike, NAMMCO Secretariat

Introduction The loss of animals that have been struck by a weapon or projectile (struck and lost- S&L) is a problem that occurs in all types of hunting, but one that is particularly prevalent in hunts for marine mammals. Unlike land animals, marine mammals can sink after death and become irretrievable for the hunter. Consequently loss rates tend to be higher for sea hunts than for land hunts. S&L has consequences both for the hunter, and for the management of hunting in general. For the hunter S&L represents a loss of income and is problematic in terms of ethics and public image. Particularly, unreported S&L can lead to the mismanagement of hunting and possibly to rates of removal that are unsustainable by the population.

What is it? To understand the phenomenon of struck and lost, we must first look at the words themselves. An animal is said to be “struck” when it is hit by a weapon, such as a harpoon, or by a projectile, such as a bullet or grenade. This can have several outcomes, not mutually exclusive: 1. Animal is injured, and continues to be pursued by the hunter: 2. Animal is injured and escapes the hunter; 3. Animal is killed but not landed, or lost during the landing process; 4. Animal is killed and landed by the hunter. Cases 2 and 3, where the animal is “lost” to the hunter, are cases of S&L.

The fate of animals that are injured but escape the hunter (case 2 above) is usually uncertain. If the injury is slight it may be of little consequence for the animal. At the other extreme the animal may die shortly after it escapes the hunter. In other cases the animal may be seriously injured but survive, and the injury could have long-term consequences for the health of the animal and its reproductive success. Thus even injuries that are not fatal to the animal can have population-level effects, in terms of reproductive losses.

For the hunter, the immediate consequences of an S&L event are more straightforward. The hunter may spend a substantial amount of time and effort in searching for the animal, but eventually must give up the search and either continue hunting or stop for the day. In either case S&L represents an immediate loss to the hunter.

Consequences of struck and lost Struck and lost has consequences over and above the injury or death of an animal and the immediate loss to a hunter. S&L must be considered in any programme of wildlife management to ensure sustainability of harvests. While most would consider hunting an activity with ethical justification, it becomes less defensible if the quarry is lost.

78 NAMMCO Annual Report 2006

This can have consequences to the public image of hunters in society as a whole.

Wildlife management The concept of managing the hunting of animals to ensure long-term sustainability is simple in theory. The number of animals in a particular population at any point in time depends on three things (Fig. 1): 1. The rate of natural death, through predation, disease, old age, etc.; 2. The rate of reproduction; 3. The rate of death by hunting activities, including animals that are killed but lost. Usually, at any one time, a wildlife manager will have direct information on the number of animals in the population (abundance) at one or more times in the recent past, and the number of animals that have been landed by hunters in recent years. Rates of natural death and reproduction are usually taken from other studies and assumed to apply to the population in question. Estimates of abundance are generally derived from surveys carried out at intervals of one or several years. Estimates of landed catch come from harvest monitoring programmes. In almost all cases, monitoring programmes provide estimates of landed catch, not including animals that are struck and lost. This is important because some proportion of the animals that are struck and lost die, and are lost to the population in the same way that landed animals are.

“Sustainable catch” can be defined as the number of animals that can be removed from the population over time without reducing the population below a pre-defined target level. It depends on the productivity of the population, which is itself a result of the interplay between the rates of natural reproduction and natural death. These are themselves affected by the current abundance of the population relative to the number the environment can support (carrying capacity), in that a population at carrying capacity has no net productivity over time. This occurs because the increasing scarcity of resources, such as food, as the population approaches carrying capacity can decrease the rate of reproduction and increase the rate of natural death. All these factors must be included in a mathematical model of the population that can predict the future abundance of the population, depending on the observed abundance in the recent past, and recent harvests (Fig. 2). Such a model can also predict a level of harvest that will result in a stable abundance over time - a sustainable catch level.

Problems arise when the reported catch that is used in modelling does not include animals that are struck and lost, but die and are lost to the population. In terms of modelling these are the same as landed catch in that they are lost to the population and cannot contribute to future reproduction. Therefore, if the reported catch that is entered into the model is in a sense erroneous in that it does not include all animals removed from the population. We can consider the effects of this by looking at two cases.

Case 1 In this case, the sustainable catch is estimated using recent abundance estimates and assumptions about the productivity of the population in a population model. Hunters

79 NAMMCO Workshop on Struck and Lost in Seal, Walrus and Whale Hunting are then allowed to take animals up to the sustainable catch level. However, the hunters also lose animals, and some of these die. These are not reported. As a result, the actual removal of animals from the population is higher than the sustainable catch level, causing the population to decrease over time.

Case 2 In this more complex case, the sustainable catch is estimated using a series of population estimates, and a history of the landed catch for as far back in time as is available. The productivity of the population is estimated by the apparent effect of these catches on the abundance of the population over time. For example, if the population has decreased over time, we would conclude that the catch has exceeded the productivity of the population, and set levels of sustainable catch that are lower than recent catch levels in order to stop the population decline. However, past catches have included an unknown and unreported level of struck and lost animals which die and are also lost to the population. Therefore the actual removals from the population have been higher than reported, which means that erroneous data have been used in the population model. As a result, the productivity of the population is underestimated, and the sustainable catch level is also set too low. In this case, catch levels for hunters would be set at a level lower than they could have been if the actual levels of removal (including S&L) had been known.

In summary, unreported S&L can result in a population being over-harvested and consequently lead to depletion over time. Perhaps counter intuitively, it can also lead to sustainable catch being underestimated and consequently lost harvesting opportunities for hunters.

Ethics Ethics can be defined as the moral values and rules which govern our conduct. Simply put, our ethics tell us what is right and what is wrong. Of course this can vary between cultures, religions and even individuals. However, most of us can agree on two central points that go right to the heart of hunting and wildlife management: 1. The sustainable use of marine mammals is ethically defensible; 2. Causing unnecessary suffering to animals is ethically wrong.

Acceptance of the first point is a prerequisite for all hunters, and the second derives from our respect and concern for our fellow creatures. Indeed in 2004, a NAMMCO Workshop on seal hunting methods recommended that “…hunters should make every effort to reduce unnecessary suffering by hunted animals, by minimizing killing times and avoiding letting injured animals escape. Such efforts should have priority for all hunts.” Therefore it seems logical and ethically correct to suggest that hunters should strive for an instantaneous or quick kill under every circumstance.

Unfortunately a discussion of ethics is rarely so simple. In many cases, the goal of minimizing S&L conflicts directly with the goal of minimizing animal suffering by killing the animal quickly. All seal and whale hunters know that one of the best ways of preventing struck and lost is to “secure” the animal, usually using a harpoon, before it is killed. This makes it possible to retrieve the animal should it sink in deep water.

80 NAMMCO Annual Report 2006

However it is obvious that this prolongs the period between when the animal is first injured by the harpoon and when it is killed, and thus the suffering of the animal.

An illustrative example of this is the rifle hunt for minke whales (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) carried out in West Greenland and documented by Larsen and Hansen (1997). Typically a whale is sighted and pursued by several small boats. Shots may be fired at the whale to tire it by preventing it from breathing at the surface and sometimes to injure it to slow it down. Hand harpoons, with floats attached, are thrown at the whale until it is judged that the flotation is sufficient to prevent the whale from sinking. Only at this point do the hunters attempt to make killing shots on the whale. The entire process can last a considerable period of time, during much of which the whale is presumably suffering intensely from its injuries.

This basic method of hunting, by securing the animal with one or more harpoons before killing it, is widely practiced and applied to seals, walrus and small whales such as narwhal and beluga. Also the practice of shooting an animal with the intent to injure it to slow it down, is common. Such techniques obviously reduce the risk of struck and lost and increase the chance that the animal will be landed. But they do conflict with the objective of killing animals quickly to minimize their suffering.

Indeed killing an animal quickly can be directly detrimental to the objective of reducing struck and lost. A quote from Fay et al. (1994) regarding walrus (Odobenus rosmarus rosmarus) hunting is illustrative of this: “During our 21-year period of observation, we also saw the firepower of the hunters improve markedly, with old weapons … gradually replaced by newer, higher-powered rifles…. Our data indicate, however, that while the hunters’ ability to kill walruses increased steadily during that period, this only increased the proportion of outright kills among the struck and-lost animals; it did not increase the proportion retrieved of the animals that were shot”. Similarly it is well known among hunters that shooting a seal lethally in open water during seasons in which they sink (spring and early summer) increases the chance of losing the seal. For this reason many seal hunters prefer smaller calibre weapons that do not kill the animal outright, allowing the hunter to secure the seal with a harpoon or hook before it sinks.

Ideally then, the hunter would achieve the two objectives of minimizing struck and lost and minimizing animal suffering by securing and killing the animal simultaneously or nearly so. This has been largely achieved in vessel hunts for minke and larger whales, where the whale is secured by the harpoon cannon and the grenade is fired into the whale at the same time, usually resulting in instantaneous or rapid death (Knudsen 2004). While similar technical innovation may be possible for small whale, walrus and seal hunts, there is little evidence that it is occurring. For the time being, hunters will have to balance these two objectives. It is likely that the appropriate balance will depend to some extent on the conservation status of the stock in question. For example, in cases where harvesting opportunities are limited by quotas, minimizing struck and lost is a paramount objective, and every effort should be made to secure the animal to prevent loss, even if this results in a less rapid kill. For other stocks where conservation is less of a concern, for example Northwest Atlantic

81 NAMMCO Workshop on Struck and Lost in Seal, Walrus and Whale Hunting harp seals, a higher loss rate may be an acceptable price to pay for causing less suffering to the animals.

Waste It is obvious that an animal that is struck and not landed by the hunter results in a loss of meat, skins and other valuable products that the hunter would have had if the animal had been landed. If the animal subsequently dies, it can be said to have been killed needlessly, in that the hunter derives no benefit from its death. While this might be thought of in terms of ethics, it is also a question of economics. The hunter has likely used up a considerable amount of time, as well as fuel, bullets, food, and wear on equipment. These resources have therefore been “wasted” in that their expenditure has produced no benefit to the hunter. In addition the hunter must now continue hunting, and will perhaps take an animal in addition to the one that has been lost.

It cannot, however, be said that an animal that is shot and sinks before it is retrieved is “wasted” in an ecological sense. Death is the fate of all animals, and death at sea is the norm for marine mammals. Therefore the cycling of animal carcasses is a natural part of all ecosystems. In contrast an animal that is landed and its remains disposed of on land may constitute more of a loss to the marine ecosystem

Public relations The general public in most countries is uninformed about the hunting of marine mammals. What they hear is often the rhetoric of anti-hunting groups campaigning to end all hunts of marine mammals. The fact that some animals are shot but escape, only to die long, painful deaths, provides potent ammunition to these groups. Animal suffering has been an important component of campaigns to stop commercial whaling and sealing. While most people are willing to accept the sustainable use of natural resources, they expect it to be done in a responsible manner, both in terms of conservation and the minimization of animal suffering. Put simply, struck and lost gives hunters a bad name. By minimizing it, and being seen to be making real efforts to do so, hunters can demonstrate that they are responsible and make progress in the field of public opinion.

What can be done? Strategies to address the problem of struck and lost can be divided into two categories: those that deal with the consequences of struck and lost to wildlife management, and those that attempt to reduce or eliminate struck and lost. Given that the problem will likely never be entirely eliminated, effort is needed in both areas.

Reporting and monitoring As discussed above the estimation of sustainable catch becomes unreliable if the levels of removals, including struck and lost animals, are not known. Monitoring of struck and lost, including an estimation of the numbers of animals that are likely to die from their injuries, is therefore crucial to successful wildlife management. Monitoring is also necessary to ensure that sustainable removal levels that have been set are not exceeded.

82 NAMMCO Annual Report 2006

Monitoring systems are part of a separate presentation (see presentation by Romberg) and will not be covered in detail here. It is generally the case that harvest monitoring programmes for small whales, seals and walrus do not include estimates of struck and lost. It is in fact very difficult to monitor struck and lost effectively. Those few studies that have been done, cover only a small area or a short period of time, and often do not cover all types of hunts. Despite these limitations, wildlife managers often have no alternative but to use the information that is available, and therefore make use of the studies that have been done. This often leads to criticism from hunters that the data used are outdated and erroneous. An effective monitoring programme requires cooperation and trust between hunters, researchers and wildlife managers; something that is all too often in short supply.

Most monitoring programmes, other than those for large whale hunts and large-scale commercial hunts, rely on some type of self-reporting by hunters, either through hunters keeping records in a standardized format or through post-hunt interviews. In both cases it is assumed that the hunter will report the information honestly and accurately. But hunters may not feel it is in their best interests to report accurately or to report at all. Hunters are aware that, if the existence of a significant level of struck and lost becomes known to wildlife managers, it may lead to lower levels of allowable catch in the future. If it becomes known to the public, it will give ammunition to the anti-hunting lobby. Also, hunters often find struck and lost to be an embarrassment because it reflects badly on their skill as hunters. Therefore they may be reluctant to report struck and lost, or may report falsely if they perceive it is in their best interest to do so. As a result, estimates of struck and lost from such programmes tend to be negatively biased.

Another problem common to all monitoring programmes is that a degree of judgment is required to predict whether or not an animal that has been struck has been seriously injured and is likely to die. While in some cases this will be obvious, in many it is not, and it is indisputable that some animals do survive being wounded by hunters. Objective criteria must be established and applied to standardize this assessment to the extent possible.

Robust management system It is feasible to design a management programme that will provide estimates of sustainable catch under conditions when estimates of struck and lost are not available or are not reliable. In fact, to the extent that struck and lost is considered at all, most marine mammal management is presently done using such a procedure.

Under such a system, it is recognized that the reported catch does not include all removals and is therefore negatively biased. Modelling is then carried out under several reasonable assumptions about the levels of struck and lost, to determine how sensitive the estimation of sustainable catch is to this factor. If the estimation is sensitive to struck and lost, estimates of sustainable catch under all plausible levels are provided, and the most appropriate one is chosen depending on the conservation status of the stock in question. For example, if a stock is already known to be depleted, high levels of struck and lost may be assumed so that the risk of further depleting the stock

83 NAMMCO Workshop on Struck and Lost in Seal, Walrus and Whale Hunting is minimized. Procedures akin to this have been used by the NAMMCO Scientific Committee in their assessments of West Greenland beluga and narwhal (NAMMCO 2001, 2004, 2006).

Because struck and lost is not actually monitored, the actual removals from the population are not well known (greater uncertainty), so the estimation of sustainable catch will also be less certain. Under such conditions there will be a tendency to err on the side of caution and choose a lower level of sustainable catch than might be advisable if the prediction of sustainable catch was more precise. Therefore it is likely that less catch will be available to hunters under such a management system. It will also be necessary to monitor the population more frequently, by conducting surveys at more frequent intervals. Despite the problems inherent in monitoring struck and lost, it is generally less expensive to do so than to mount a large scale population survey. Therefore monitoring of struck and lost can be cost effective when the entire management system is taken into consideration, and result in generally higher levels of catch available to hunters.

Reduce or eliminate struck and lost Clearly the best way to deal with any problem is to reduce or eliminate it. Given the expertise available at this conference I will not attempt to specify in detail ways to reduce or eliminate struck and lost, but merely point out some general avenues that could be pursued to do so.

Hunter training It is clear that some hunters are more skilled than others. It is also very likely (although this has not been studied) that skilled, experienced hunters strike and lose fewer animals than those who are less so. This is at least partly a matter of judgment: knowing when to take the shot, and knowing when not to. Most hunters learn by accompanying more experienced hunters on hunts. However, in some areas, with the breakdown of traditional societies, the opportunities for doing so may have become fewer. It may be necessary to at least partially institutionalize some aspects of hunter training, by teaching hunting skills in the schools or as separate programmes. It may also be possible to use other media, such as television and the internet, to teach some hunting skills. There is no substitute for experience however, so skilled hunters should be encouraged to allow less experienced hunters to accompany them on hunts.

Proper equipment The equipment used by hunters must be suited to local conditions and maintained in good condition. Hunters should not hunt if they do not have proper, functional equipment on hand. Equipment to secure the animal before or after it is killed, such as a harpoon, line and float or a grappling hook, is especially important to prevent struck and lost.

Technological innovation Marine mammal hunters are not numerous, and therefore not a large potential market for manufacturers and developers of weapons and equipment. Consequently most hunters use basic equipment that would be recognizable to a hunter a hundred years

84 NAMMCO Annual Report 2006 ago. There have been some exceptions to this. The development of reliable harpoon gun technology by Sven Føyn in the 1860’s made hunting for the fast rorquals, such as blue (Balaenoptera musculus) and fin whales (Balaenoptera physalus), possible (Tønnessen and Johnsen 1982). More recently there have been developments in the type of grenade used in minke (Norway and Greenland) and bowhead (Alaska and Canada) whale hunts that have shortened time to death and reduced the incidence of struck and lost (Øen 1995). Unfortunately there has been no recent development in techniques and equipment for securing and killing small whales, seals and walruses. The development of equipment that can simultaneously secure and kill the animal is an obvious goal for technological innovation. Such development requires funding, however, and there is little likelihood that it will occur without external support.

Regulation Hunting regulations can proscribe the equipment and techniques that must be used in hunting and therefore can have a direct effect on the incidence of struck and lost. A recent example of this are the new regulations for hunting walrus in Greenland, which require the hunter to harpoon the walrus before the killing shot is made (Grønlands Hjemmestyre 2006).

Conclusion Hunters are in general proud of their way of life and their skills, knowledge and experience. No hunter wants to lose an animal that he or she has injured, and most consider it a matter of honour and conscience to retrieve every animal they kill. Struck and lost means more than an immediate loss of income for the hunter. It has implications for wildlife management that can lead to unsustainable harvesting and a long-term reduction in catch for hunters. The ethical issue of animal suffering also has ramifications for the prevention of struck and lost. While the escape of an injured animal can lead to suffering and a slow painful death, it is also the case that the securing of an animal before it is killed slows down the process of killing and therefore increases suffering. Hunters, managers and researchers should use every means available to reduce struck and lost, preferably without unduly increasing killing times. However it is probably inevitable that some marine mammals will be struck and lost in all hunts. It is therefore crucial that hunters and managers should cooperate to ensure that accurate and complete data on struck and lost are gathered and used in wildlife management. Only in this way can we ensure the long term sustainability of animal populations, and thus of hunting itself.

85 NAMMCO Workshop on Struck and Lost in Seal, Walrus and Whale Hunting

Fig. 1. The abundance of a population is dependent on reproduction, natural death and death from hunting.

Fig. 2. The estimation of sustainable catch is usually done using a population model with the input of information on past abundance and catch.

86 NAMMCO Annual Report 2006

REFERENCES

Fay, F.H., Burns, J.J. Stoker, S.W. and Grundy, J.S. 1994. The struck-and-lost factor in Alaskan walrus harvests. Arctic 47:368-373. Grønlands Hjemmestyre. 2006. Hjemmestyrets bekendtgørelse nr. 20 af 27 Oktober 2006 om beskyttelse og fangst af hvalros. Available at http://dk.nanoq.gl/Groenlands_Landsstyre/Direktoratet_for_Fiskeri_og_Fangs t/Fangst_og_Jagt/Love_og_bekendtgoerelser/Fiskeri_og_fangst_g%C3%A6ld ende_bekendtgoerelser.aspx Knudsen, S.K. 2004. Assessment of insensibility and death in hunted whales. Dissertation Presented for the Degree of Doctor Medicinae Veterinariae, The Norwegian School of Veterinary Science, Tromsø, Norway. Larsen, S.E. and Hansen, K.G. 1997. Inuit and whales at Sarfaq (Greenland). In: Stevenson, M.G., Madsen, A. and Maloney, E. (eds), The Anthropology of Community-Based Whaling in Greenland. Canadian Circumpolar Institute, University of Alberta, Canada. Pp. 191-222. [NAMMCO] North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission. 2001. Report of the eighth meeting of the Scientific Committee. In: NAMMCO, Annual Report 2000. NAMMCO, Tromsø, 123-294. [NAMMCO] North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission. 2004. Report of the eleventh meeting of the Scientific Committee. In: NAMMCO, Annual Report 2003. NAMMCO, Tromsø, 135-310 [NAMMCO] North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission. 2006 Report of the thirteenth meeting of the Scientific Committee. In: NAMMCO, Annual Report 2005. NAMMCO, Tromsø, 161-308. Øen, E.O., 1995. Killing Methods for Minke and Bowhead Whales. Dissertation Presented for the Degree of Doctor Medicinae Veterinariae. The Norwegian School of Veterinary Science, NO-0033 OS&Lo, Norway. Tønnessen, J.N. and Johnsen, A.O. 1982. The History of Modern Whaling. C. Hurst and Co., London, 798 pp.

87 NAMMCO Workshop on Struck and Lost in Seal, Walrus and Whale Hunting

STRUCK AND LOST FROM A HUNTER'S PERSPECTIVE By Kale Mølgaard, The Organisation of Fishermen and Hunters in Greenland - KNAPK

In terms of struck and loss of marine mammals, I believe that I have to explain both the different causes as well as the vital importance of hunting for the Greenlandic people - and their problems in pursuing this profession in today's world.

Ever since our country was first populated, our sole source of survival came from marine mammals. This is still the case in certain areas where marine mammals are the primary source of income. Living off animals in the Arctic is crucial because farming is not an option. Especially in the northern regions it is very cold and the land is covered with a thick layer of snow for most of the year. If we are to sustain ourselves physically we have to use meat and blubber from seals, whales and other animals with red meat. Outsiders who have come to appreciate the terms of living in our region can very well understand what we are talking about.

In the past, children were brought up to become hunters from an early age as hunters were the pillars of our society. In recent years, however, only a limited number of school children also participate in hunting activities, and it is these children who choose to become hunters. Because of the increasing amount of rules and regulations, only a small number of children and youth who are interested in becoming hunters actually choose this profession in the end.

Animals migrate through our land at different times of the year. During the winter narwhal (Monodo monoceros), beluga (Delphinapterus leucas), walrus (Odobenus rosmarus) and ringed seals (Phoca hispida) frequent our regions. During the summer and the fall harp seals (Phoca groenlandica), young harp seals and others are hunted. The beluga arrive in the Disko Bay region in the month of November, where they are hunted if weather permits. Half a month later, the narwhal arrive south of the Disko Island. These too are hunted, if weather permits. Often they are not hunted at all throughout the fall because the weather is unstable during this period. Thus nature and weather are key factors in our lives as hunters. During the fall other animals, especially larger whales, migrate to the south and will not be back until next spring.

It has been a growing trend in the last years to make scientific abundance estimations and counts. Often it seems like a mere fad, where everyone wants to ‘pitch in’ because it is ‘fashion’. Narwhal and beluga have been counted for two consecutive years, and it has been declared that they are in danger of extinction and dubious results have been presented to the hunters. The fact is that there is a growing number of lean whales because they simply have become too numerous. This is also the case with seals. The number of beluga and narwhal being caught has declined due to regulation. In previous years, several thousands have been caught with no impact on their numbers in general, and now that we catch less than 500, it is being declared that their numbers are decreasing!

Let me take the minke whale count a few years ago as an example. It was reported that

88 NAMMCO Annual Report 2006 only two had been sighted. If this case was to be taken seriously the future would indeed be very grave. It was quickly deduced that minke whales were in danger of extinction. But we hunters deduce otherwise by watching them – even though we do not count them – their numbers are indeed increasing.

When counts and surveys are being conducted, the Greenlandic hunters are not consulted about where and when it would be best to conduct such surveys. It is therefore understandable that hunters and others who are knowledgeable about the animals and their migration patterns are not satisfied with these activities. Things have to change.

I have to say that if the number of regulations increase this will be very hard for coming generations. Since scientifically questionable regulations are being sanctioned and biologists produce questionable results and advice to the Government that are not in “harmony with reality”, we feel that the hunting profession is in danger of extinction. This is because an excessive love for animals prevails over our very lives as hunters.

If one is to adhere to the belief that hunters conduct their profession in an unsustainable manner, I would dare to say that such an observation is false. A hunter, in my opinion, respects his profession and is a strong proponent for sustainable harvest of the animals. A hunter does not kill for the sake of killing. A hunter does not take more than he needs and is mindful of the needs of the generations to come. But ever since regulations took effect over the last few years, we have had no choice but to take all the animals that we have been allowed to catch.

With regard to struck and lost, I cannot fully support the estimates that the public administration and biologists have calculated over the recent years. If one looks back 50 years, it is not possible to compare those data with the data today, bearing in mind how technologically advanced we have become in this day and age. The estimates given then and the estimates given today seem to contradict one another. Today we are able to travel with speeds up to 30-40 knots in fast dinghies, thus we are able to reach a lean animal that would otherwise have sunk in previous years - we are able to reach it very fast, and if it is a seal, we are able to hook it before it sinks. Many people now use lances with iron harpoon heads and we are able to harpoon the animal before it sinks too deep. According to my estimations struck and lost rates do not exceed 5 %.

In terms of struck and lost, we have become so technologically advanced that the number of animals struck and lost are fewer as compared to previous years. Animals struck and lost are of course in noone’s interest, especially during the spring seal migrations. This spring migration lasts a short period, and from experience I believe the number to be less than 5 %.

89 NAMMCO Workshop on Struck and Lost in Seal, Walrus and Whale Hunting

FACTORS THAT MAY INFLUENCE STRUCK AND LOST

SOME FACTORS THAT MAY INFLUENCE THE STRUCK AND LOST RATE IN MARINE MAMMAL HUNTING By Egil Ole Øen, Norwegian School of Veterinary Science, Section of Arctic Veterinary Medicine

Summary prepared by the Secretariat.

Hunting methods and hunting gears are at some level adaptations to biology and logistics.

Marine mammals are characterised by the fact that they spend their whole lives in the water or close to the water edge and as a result may be difficult to approach by humans. They are able to make themselves inaccessible for long periods of time by diving. Furthermore most marine mammal species are in a negative state of buoyancy in water, and with a few exceptions they therefore sink after being rendered unconscious or dead.

Many species are impossible or dangerous to approach closely before they are immobilised or rendered unconscious or dead. Hence the stunning and killing device must in general be applied at some distance from the animal.

Some hunting gears are designed to stun, kill, secure and retrieve the animal in more or less one and the same operation. In order to achieve this effect the stunning and killing device must be able to inflict so much damage to vital organs that, as a result, the animal dies fast. Some types of hunts make it necessary to combine different gears and methods to obtain these results.

There is a variety of weapons and gears used to kill and retrieve the animals: Harpoons, explosive grenades, firearms, lances, knives, hakapik, clubs, and nets. For some types of weapons the design might vary somewhat depending on which species they are used for, traditions and locality. For some weapons the principal design might sometimes be very old. There are also different types are harpoons. They can be delivered either by harpoon guns or thrown by hands.

Likewise there are numerous factors that will influence the hunter's choice of weapons such as: species, traditions, environmental conditions, availability of weapons, economy etc.

The presenter then gave a brief overview of the various hunting characteristics of the different species large whales, small toothed whales, seals and walrus.

WHALES

Larger whales are commonly hunted from boats. The boats may very in size and/or type depending on the species and/or environmental conditions. Some species are also

90 NAMMCO Annual Report 2006 hunted from the ice edge. With a few exceptions large whales are today traditionally harpooned simultaneously with the delivery of a detonating device (exploding grenade).

Fin (Balaenoptera physalus) and Minke (Balaenoptera acutiristrata) whales The fin whale sinks upon death, and is hunted from larger whaling boats (Iceland) or smaller fishing boats (Greenland). Minke whales also sink upon death and are traditionally hunted from small fishing boats rigged for whaling in the season (Greenland, Iceland and Norway), but also from larger boats (Japan).

Fin and minke whales hunted from larger boats and fishing boats are killed using harpoon guns with harpoons carrying detonating grenades, and with rifles used as back-up weapons.

Collective hunt (rifle hunt) of minke whales in Greenland The exception is the collective hunt of minke whales in Greenland, which is carried out using (dinghies) speedboats with outboards motors. The whale is wounded by rifle shots directed to the abdomen, lungs and spinal cord when surfacing in order to avoid t the animal from sinking before the whale is harpooned with a hand held harpoon and killed using rifle or lances.

Bowhead whale (Balaena mysticetus) The bowhead whale floats upon death (right whale) and is hunted in Alaska (USA), Chukotka (Russia) and Nunavut (Canada). Traditionally it is hunted from skin boats using sail or outboards, at the ice edge (Alaska) or from speedboats using outboard motors (Alaska, Chukotka and Nunavut). The whales are secured and killed using the traditional darting gun, which delivers a harpoon connected to a float simultaneously with the delivery of an exploding grenade. Both darting guns and shoulder guns delivering exploding grenades might be used as back-up weapons.

Grey Whale (Eschrichtius robustus) The grey whale sinks upon death, and is mainly hunted in Chukotka. Speedboats with outboards motors are used for the hunt, and the whale is harpooned with several hand held harpoons connected to floats to prevent it from sinking. After harpooning the whale is killed using firearms, often in combination with darting guns or lances. Great care must be taken when approaching a wounded grey whale as it is likely to attack and damage the boats.

Humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) The humpback whale floats upon death and is hunted in St.Vincent and the Grenadines. Boats with outboards motors and/or sails are used for the hunt. The whale is first harpooned with hand held harpoons connected to floats, and then killed using lances.

Small toothed whales The hunting methods and gears vary considerably. In the traditional Arctic hunt the whales are harpooned with hand held harpoons from the ice edge, from small boats or

91 NAMMCO Workshop on Struck and Lost in Seal, Walrus and Whale Hunting kayaks. The whales are killed using lances or firearms. In some hunts the animals are shot with firearms first and harpooned afterwards. If the animal is not dead from the rifle shot it is killed using lances.

Pilot whale (Globicephala melas) hunt in the Faroe Islands The whales are herded ashore using different types of small fishing or speed boats. When the school of whales is sufficiently close to the beach the hunters enter the water. The whales are rendered unconscious and dead on the beach using a knife to cut and severe the spinal cord and the vertebral arteries that support brain with oxygenated blood.

SEALS

The hunting methods vary considerably throughout the world, but in general, seals are hunted both on ice, on dry land (islets, beach etc.) and in the water. The method used depends on i.e. species, hunting traditions, time of year and environmental conditions.

Seals hunted on the ice are usually shot using firearms and/or clubbed with hakapik or other types of clubs. Further information and details were left to the working group.

WALRUS

The walrus generally sinks upon death. In traditional hunting practices walruses are hunted cooperatively by several hunters using harpoons and lances. The walrus is stalked at land haulouts or along the flow edge, or by approaching them in kayaks while they are hauled out onto ice pans.

When hunting walrus in the water, it will usually first be wounded by shots to the lungs and/or spinal cord when it surfaces for air. The injured animal is then harpooned before a killing shot is made. Modern hunters usually prefer to target walruses hauled out onto large flat ice pans. The animals are usually killed using high powered rifles. Some hunters prefer full metal jacketed bullets for maximum penetration of dense bones.

Care must be taken approaching a wounded walrus in the water; because they can be dangerous and have been known to attack and damage boats.

92 NAMMCO Annual Report 2006

ANATOMY AND PHYSIOLOGY OF MARINE MAMMALS IMPORTANT FOR STRUCK AND LOST By Siri K. Knudsen, Norwegian School of Veterinary Science, Section of Arctic Veterinary Medicine

This lecture focuses on some anatomical and physiological features that may influence struck and lost in marine mammal hunting. This includes some general aspects common for all marine mammals and all hunts as well as some more specific features of different marine mammal species and different hunts.

In principle, two major categories of struck and lost in marine mammal hunting exist: either an animal can be struck, injured and lost; or it can be struck, dead and lost. Physiological and anatomical features may affect both categories. From an animal welfare point of view, the first category is the most significant. Causing instantaneous or very rapid death of the animal will during most circumstances reduce the chances of struck and lost in this category.

In order to cause instantaneous or very rapid death of the animal it is important for the hunter to know the internal placement (the anatomy) of the vital organs like the brain, heart, major vessels and lungs. There is a lack of literature on anatomy of internal organs in marine mammals and few anatomical charts of different species are available, but some schematic illustrations are available and some were presented for whales and pinnipeds demonstrating the placement of the vital organs.

In general, the anatomy of the central nervous system (the brain and spinal cord), the circulatory system (heart and blood vessels) as well as other internal organs have many similarities with what can be found in other mammals. A general rule complies with marine mammals as in other mammals: the brain is always situated behind the eyes. In the thorax the heart can be found, as in other mammals, in the lower foremost part of thoracic cavity, while the lungs occupy the rest of the space of this cavity.

In marine mammals, the nervous system is built and functions in the same manner as in other mammals and it consists of a central part, which is the brain and spinal cord, and a peripheral part which is the nerves and nerve cells in the rest of the body, i.e. the nervous system is in principle built like a telecommunication network: the brain is the centre; the spinal cord is the main cable; the nerves out to the body acts like the distributing cables, and the peripheral nerve cells acts like the telephone with incoming and outgoing information. The spinal cord is enclosed by the spinal vertebrae and the brain is enclosed and protected by the heavy bones of the cranium. The brain can be regarded as the true centre of the body responsible for survival, consciousness and the maintenance of physiological conditions. In generally it can be said that during marine mammal hunting the same applies as for other mammals: in order to render the animal instantaneously unconscious some specific brain areas have to be put out of function, which includes the cerebral cortex, deep central parts of the cerebrum and/or the brain stem, which contain the centres for consciousness and control units for respiration and heart activity.

93 NAMMCO Workshop on Struck and Lost in Seal, Walrus and Whale Hunting

Marine mammals have, however, some specific physiological characteristics that may affect struck and lost. Being diving mammals, they have increased storage capacity of oxygen in their musculature, which leads to possible muscular movement persisting long after the animal is dead. This may be observed as general muscular tremors in the flesh during skinning and slaughter, or the movements can also be very violent and give the impression that the animal is still alive. These movements, called agonal reflex movements, may also contribute to struck and lost as they can be very violent in nature. It is the brain and spinal cord that are responsible for the agonal reflexes and involuntary reactions in dead animals. A reflex can be defined as a stereotyped response mediated by the nervous system. Most of such reflexes do not require cerebral coordination and thus it can be elicited in the insensible animal. The basis for this process is very complex and it would take too long to go into detail. Roughly it can be said that reflex activity in an unconscious animal is a result of the spinal cord losing its chief commander, namely the brain. When the higher control centre has been put out of function, the spinal cord starts to “work on its one” resulting in uncontrolled movements of for instance the torso and limbs.

Another anatomical factor that may influence struck and lost is the animal’s locomotory ability. For instance in seals, the anatomical modifications of the limbs for aquatic motion have lead to them having limited mobility on land. However, during some circumstances they may also be quite agile ashore. Otariids are the most agile on land of the pinnipeds as they can walk by moving their fore flippers alternately. The phocids though, crawl on their bellies when they are on land, heaving themselves forward with a “humping action”, but they can travel much more economically on ice. This is important to take into consideration when seals that are lying near the ice edge are shot: if the animal is wounded, and not dead, it can move quite quickly into the sea.

A biological factor that may also influence struck and lost is the animal’s behaviour. Species like walrus, grey whales and hooded seals (Cystophora cristata) may be aggressive and very dangerous to approach before they are rendered unconscious or dead.

One of the most important biological factors that contribute to struck and lost of dead animals is the negative buoyancy of the carcasses of many species. In seals, the nutritional status is decisive, i.e. fat animals float, while thin ones sink. Except for smaller toothed whales, the nutritional status does not seem to affect the buoyancy of cetaceans. A table was presented on buoyancy in whales showing that bowhead whales, fin whale species and grey whales usually sink after death, while humpback whales and toothed whales usually float.

In conclusion, several biological and anatomical factors may affect struck and lost in marine mammal hunting. Some factors are due to circumstances beyond our control (the animal’s nutritional status, buoyancy, behaviour, reflex movements etc). One decisive biological factor that can be influenced to reduce the risk of losses is to secure a rapid kill of the animal

94 NAMMCO Annual Report 2006

MONITORING OF STRUCK AND LOST MARINE MAMMALS By Stefan Romberg, Fisheries and Oceans Canada

Monitoring of struck and lost marine mammals is an important component in helping to manage marine mammal populations.

There are three methods that are commonly used to monitor struck and lost marine mammals: 1) self reporting; 2) interviews; and 3) independent monitors.

With self reporting, it is up to the hunter to report struck and lost marine mammals. In some cases reporting is mandatory (e.g. Greenland) while in other cases it is voluntary (e.g. Canada).

Interviews consist of individuals interviewing hunters either out at the hunting location or upon the hunters return to the community.

Independent monitors are hired to follow hunters as the hunt takes place and record their observations. These monitors can also supplement the information by conducting interviews of the hunters. Therefore, there is a forth method that combines the independent monitor with interviews.

Each of these methods has its own biases in the data collected. For example, with self reporting and interviews, under/over, double reporting is a concern. With the presence of independent monitors, there is a concern of hunter behaviour being altered and biased interpretation by the independent monitor. For instance, how is a whale that is wounded by one hunter but harvested later by another hunter recorded? These are just some of the issues that confront managers in collecting accurate data on struck and lost marine mammals.

The following are just a few examples of struck and lost rates for various marine mammals with a focus on Canadian examples.

Harp seals (Phoca groenlandica) (Canada) Struck and lost rates were estimated during commercial hunts off the east coast of Canada in 1998-99. Independent monitors collected data by accompanying the hunters and by conducting interviews. Depending upon the hunt and the age of the seal, the struck and lost rate varied. Struck and lost rates for adult seals varied between 0- 21.6% on ice and 5.0-50.0% when taken in water. For seals aged one month, the struck and lost rate varied between 0-2.0% on ice and 0-10.0% in water (Sjare and Stenson 2002).

Walrus (U.S.A. and Canada) The spring walrus hunts were monitored from 1952-72 in select western Alaska villages. Hunters were accompanied by independent monitors and activities were

95 NAMMCO Workshop on Struck and Lost in Seal, Walrus and Whale Hunting recorded. An average of 42% struck walruses were lost during the study period (Fay et al. 1994).

Summer walrus hunts from 1982-84 were observed by independent monitors in a Baffin Region community in the eastern Canadian arctic. An estimated 32% of walruses struck were lost (Orr et al. 1986).

Beluga (Canada) In the western Canadian arctic, beluga hunters themselves are hired to act as monitors of the hunt. These monitors interview the captain of each hunt following the completion of hunting activities. Struck and lost rates ranged from 5.4 to 25% between 1977-99 (Harwood et al. 2002). This monitoring still continues.

Struck and lost information is provided on a self reporting basis in both the eastern Canadian arctic and northern Quebec. One of the primary differences between the two areas is that in northern Quebec, struck and lost whales are counted against the quota while this is not the case in the eastern Canadian arctic. However this does not seem to have an impact on the reporting between the two areas since both areas have limited levels of information provided.

Narwhal (Canada) Narwhal hunts were observed by independent monitors in 1983 and 1986-89 in a Baffin Region community in the eastern Canadian arctic. Struck and lost rates varied over the years and depended upon the type of hunt. For the floe edge hunt, the struck and lost rate averaged 31.7%, ice crack hunt averaged 23.8% and the open water hunt averaged 7.4% (Roberge and Dunn 1990).

Struck and lost information for narwhal continues to be self reported by hunters on a voluntary basis in the eastern Canadian arctic. Any struck and lost whales reported do not count against the community quota.

Community Based Management In an attempt to give communities more control of narwhal management (and beluga in some cases), community based management was initiated as a pilot project in 1999 in selected communities in the eastern Canadian arctic. To participate in the programme communities had to develop hunting rules that their hunters would abide by (e.g. minimum caliber of rifle, safety gear in boat, whether whales had to be harpooned first etc.). As part of the programme, struck and lost information was to be collected by the local Hunters and Trappers Organisation. There has been annual variability in the consistency and quality of the struck and lost information collected has since the programme was introduced. This pilot is to be re-evaluated in 2007.

Bowhead (Canada) Hunts have been successfully conducted in both the western and eastern Canadian arctic. In the eastern Canadian arctic, a hunt plan is developed by the host community and it is approved prior to the hunt taking place. There have been five bowhead hunts which have taken place in the eastern Canadian arctic since 1996 during the open

96 NAMMCO Annual Report 2006 water period of August. All hunts have been observed by independent monitors and there have been no struck and lost whales.

Minke whale (Norway and Greenland) Average struck and lost rate for the Norwegian minke whale harpoon hunt has been 1% over the past 12 years. These hunts are observed by independent monitors. Lost whales in this hunt are most commonly caused either by the harpoon pulling free or the harpoon line breaking (Øen personal communication 2006).

There are two types of hunts in Greenland: 1) harpoon hunt; and 2) collective hunt

These hunts have mandatory self reporting and any struck and lost whales are counted against the quota.

The harpoon hunt has a struck and lost rate that averaged 1% from 2001-06. This hunt utilizes a penthrite grenade.

The collective hunt utilizes both rifles (minimum caliber of 7.62 mm) and harpoons. From 2001-06, this hunt had a struck and lost rate of 6.1% (Ugarte personal communication 2006).

Fin whale (Greenland) Once again this hunt has mandatory self reporting and any struck and lost whales are counted against the quota. The number of grenades used by each boat can be checked. Each grenade has a serial number and the government has the list of the serial numbers of grenades sold to each boat. The catch as well as struck and lost reports from the boats have to include the serial number of the grenades used. An average struck and lost rate of 10.7% was observed over the period of 2002-06 (Ugarte personal communication 2006).

The following are some examples of factors which were identified as influencing struck and lost rates:

1) Type of hunt - on ice vs. open water deep water vs. shallow water floe edge vs. ice crack vs. open water harpoon vs. rifle 2) Hunters - judgment, experience 3) Equipment - having the appropriate gear for the hunt 4) Weather conditions - presence of waves preventing clear shot lack of visibility swaying/surging of boat 5) Time of year - body condition of animal, weight 6) Reporting inconsistencies

97 NAMMCO Workshop on Struck and Lost in Seal, Walrus and Whale Hunting

Studies are required to get more recent and reliable information on struck and lost rates for some populations of marine mammals that are of concern (e.g. heavily hunted). Some of the data presented is over twenty years old and the values may no longer be accurate. This information will help to make better management decisions.

REFERENCES

Fay, F.H., Burns, J.J., Stoker, S.W. and Grundy, J.S. 1994. The Struck-and-Lost Factor in Alaskan Walrus Harvests, 1952-1972. Arctic 47: 368-373. Harwood, L.A., Norton, P., Day, B. and Hall, P.A. 2002. The harvest of beluga whales in Canada’s western Arctic: Hunter-based monitoring of the size and composition of the catch. Arctic 55:10-20. Orr, J.R., Renooy, B. and Dahle, L. 1986. Information from hunts and surveys of walrus (Odobenus rosmarus) in northern Foxe Basin, Northwest Territories, 1982-1984. Can. Manuscr. Rep. Fish. Aqaut. Sci. 1899: vi +24 p. Roberge, M.M. and Dunn, J.B. 1990. Assessment of the subsistence harvest and biology of narwhal (Monodon monoceros L.) from Admiralty Inlet, Baffin Island, N.W.T., 1983 and 1986-89. Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aqaut. Sci. 1747: vi +32 p. Sjare, B. and Stenson, G.B. 2002. Estimating struck and lost rates for harp seals (Pagophilus groenlandicus) in the northwest Atlantic. Marine Mammal Science 18: 710-720.

Personal Communication Dr. Egil Øen, Norwegian School of Veterinary Science Fernando Ugarte, Greenland Ministry of Fisheries, Hunting & Agriculture

98 NAMMCO Annual Report 2006

STRUCK AND LOST IN THE HARP SEAL HUNT IN GREENLAND: A QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY By Fernando Ugarte and Jens Jakobsen. Hunting Division, Greenland Ministry of Fisheries, Hunting and Agriculture

Hunting in Greenland Nowadays, Inuit people live in Chukotka, Alaska, Arctic Canada and Greenland. About half of the approximately 90,000 people that speak one of the Inuit languages today are from Greenland. Greenlanders emigrated from Arctic Canada over 1,000 years ago. Inuit people could spread and thrive over the Arctic because they were a hunting culture. Hunting is still very important in Greenland, as we can see from the demographic data published by Greenland Statistic and from the number of hunting licences issued by our Ministry in 2005. Out of 35,673 residents over 16 years old, approximately 24% had a hunting license (Fig. 1, left). Of those with a hunting license, approximately 21% were women, 14% were men under 30 years and 64% were men 30-70 years old. If we look only at the male population aged 30-70, we found that about 44% have a hunting licence (Fig. 1, right). This means that almost every other adult-male in Greenland goes hunting. We could safely say that there are more hunters per capita in Greenland than in most parts of the world.

100 24 Figure 1. Percentage of residents in Greenland with a 75 44 hunting license in 2005. Left column: out of 35,673 residents over 16 years old, approximately 24% had a Hunters hunting license. Right column: from the male population 50 Not hunters aged 30-70 (N= 12,484), an estimated 44% have a 76 hunting licence. Sources: Greenland Statistic % of residents 25 56 ( http://www.statgreen.gl/) and Hunting Division.

0 Harp Seals Over 16 Men 30-70 Much of the hunt in Greenland is directed to seals which are valued for mainly for their meat and skin. Over 150,000 seals are taken every year, with most of them being ringed seals and harp seals (Fig. 2); about 70,000 harp seals and a similar number of ringed seals are taken every year.

Harp seals are spread over the northern part of the Atlantic during summer and winter and gather in 4 main breeding grounds during spring. The breeding grounds are:

1) The White Sea (west of Russia). Outside the breeding season, these seals use the Barents Sea and adjacent waters and are not hunted by Greenlanders. 2) The West Ice (east of Greenland). When not breeding, these seals are taken by Inuit hunters in open water in east Greenland. They are also subject to a Norwegian catch during the breeding season. 3) The Gulf and 4) The Front (both east of Canada). Seals from West Greenland, Nunavut and east Canada breed in Newfoundland, where commercial hunters

99 NAMMCO Workshop on Struck and Lost in Seal, Walrus and Whale Hunting

from Canada take them. When not breeding, these seals are taken in open waters by Inuit hunters. 4) hunters.

200000

150000 Harbour seal Bearded seal 100000 Hooded seal Ringed seal Harp seal 50000

0

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Figure 2. The yearly catch of seals in Greenland, 1994 – 2004. Source: Hunting Division

The Struck & Lost (S&L) rates for the Inuit open water hunt of harp seals are not known. However, based in very rough estimates, the Canadian National Marine Mammal Review Committee endorsed the use in population modelling of a loss rate of 50% during their 1999 Harp Seal Review meeting (DFO 2000). The ICES/NAFO Working Group on Harp and Hooded Seals also uses the loss rate of 59 % when assessing the population of harp seals (ICES 2006). This means that the biological advice is based on the assumption that one seal is S&L for every seal caught by local hunters in Greenland and Arctic Canada.

The aim of this study was to compare this number with the experience of the Greenlandic hunters.

Methods In order to renew the hunting licence, every hunter has to report his or her catch once a year to the hunting division. From our database, we could see that the majority of harp seals are caught between June and December (Fig. 3). We sent questionnaires to hunters at the end of September and beginning of October (2006), when the harp seal hunt is at its highest level. We chose about 1,000 hunters that had reported harp seals in 2004. We sent questionnaires together with pre-paid envelopes and asked to return them by mid-October. As an incentive, a hand-held GPS was drawn among those who answered. The project was announced with a press release, which was picked up by the national radio.

100 NAMMCO Annual Report 2006

A total of 976 questionnaires were sent, of which 313 questionnaires (31%) with meaningful answers were returned to us. Three quarters of those who answered were full-time hunters, while the remaining were leisure hunters. The questionnaires included 10 main questions, and several hunters did not answer all 10 questions. In this presentation we will discuss the answers to the questions that have been analysed so far.

15000

12500

10000

7500

5000

2500

0 t r r n n ov Jul Ja Ju

Oc Feb Sep Ap Dec Ma N Aug May Figure 3. The monthly catch of harp seals in Greenland, 2004. Source: Hunting Division

Question: Do you report S & L as part of your catch? As mentioned above, every hunter needs to send a catch report to our office in order to renew his or her license. Hunters were asked if they include harp seals that were S&L as part of this report. We received 285 answers. A surprisingly high number (34%) do report S&L animals as part of their catch (Fig. 4). This means that part of the S&L is already incorporated into the catch statistics from Greenland. This is important because it was previously assumed that the catch data presented by Greenland did not include S&L animals at all.

Figure 4. Answers to the question: “Do Yes - 97 you report S & L as part of your catch?” No - 187 N = 285 answers Don't know - 1

34%

66%

101 NAMMCO Workshop on Struck and Lost in Seal, Walrus and Whale Hunting

Question: Do you remember the outcome of your last 10 hits? Hunters were asked to remember their last ten seal strikes and fill a table. For each strike they were asked to report the month and tick whether the seal was caught or S&L. Some hunters accounted for only one or two seals shot, while others presented data from their logbooks containing information from several hunts (up to 114 seals in one case!). Selecting only data from hunters who reported outcomes of three or more strikes, we ended with a sample size of 131 answers, accounting for 1,354 strikes. Leisure hunters had a mean S&L rate of 0.26 (N = 37 hunters, SE = 0.04), while full- time hunters had a mean S&L rate of 0.21 (N = 94 hunters, SE = 0.02) (Fig. 5). This means that leisure hunters recalled missing about 1 out of 4 seals, while full-time hunters recalled missing about 1 out of 5. Combined, full-time and leisure hunters had a mean S&L rate of 0.22 (N = 131, SE = 0.02) (Fig. 5). We can assume that the S&L rate of the harp seal hunt in Greenland lies within the values given above. A more accurate estimate should take into consideration the fact that the majority of the hunters in Greenland are spare-time hunters, but the majority of the harp seal catch is taken by full-time hunters.

0.30

0.20

0.26 0.22 0.21 0.10

S&L mean rate

0.00 Leisure - 37 Full - 94 All - 131

Hunting license

Figure 5. Mean S&L rates and standard errors for leisure hunters (left), full-time hunters (middle) and leisure hunters and full-time hunters combined (right). Numbers in the X-axis indicate sample size. N = 131 hunters (1,354 strikes)

The data included information about the month when the animals were shot, allowing us to estimate the monthly S&L rate from May to October (Fig. 6). S&L rates were higher from May to July and lower from August to October.

102 NAMMCO Annual Report 2006

0.45

0.30

S&L mean rate 0.15

0.30 0.35 0.29 0.20 0.17 0.13 0.00 May - June - July - Aug. - Sept. - Oct. - 18 41 59 70 89 20

Figure 6. Mean S&L rates and standard errors for every month between May and October, 2006. Numbers in the X-axis indicate sample size (i.e. number of hunters that provided data for the month in question). N = 131 hunters (1,354 strikes)

Question: Does seal buoyancy change according to the time of the year? We chose 3 time periods that correspond to changes in the physical condition of the seals described by Rosing-Asvid (unpublished data):

1) May- June: During this period the harp seals have arrived to Greenland after breeding, and are extremely thin. Adults gain up to 20 kilos of weight during June.

2) July – September: During the start of this period the growth stops for a couple of months, while the seals’ favoured prey, the capelin, is in poor condition after the spawning. The biomass of the prey is also likely to be smaller as a high fraction of the adult fish die during the spawning period (early May-late June).

3) October – March: During this period the capelin has a high caloric value and the growth of juvenile capelin has increased the fish biomass. As a consequence, the seals gain weight once more.

For each period, hunters were asked whether the majority of dead seals would float or sink, or whether some would float and some would sink. A fourth option was to admit not knowing the answer, but hunters preferred not to answer, rather than ticking the “I

103 NAMMCO Workshop on Struck and Lost in Seal, Walrus and Whale Hunting don’t know” box. Therefore, although 290 hunters answered this question, not all answered for all the three periods.

The results of this question are shown in Fig. 7. Hunters were of the opinion that seals would either sink (39% of the answers) or some would float and some sink (47 %) during May – June. Only 3% thought that seals would float at this time of the year.

For July – September, most hunters (74 %) wrote that some seals would float and some would sink, while 23% thought that seals would float. Only 3% were of the opinion that seals would sink at this time of the year.

Most hunters (83 %) agreed that harp seals tend to float from October to March, while 17 % thought that some seals would float and some would sink. Nobody answered that seals tend to sink at this time of the year.

100 Float 75 Both 50 Sink

Percent (%) 25 0 May - June July - Sept. Oct. - March (270) (283) (278)

Figure 7. Seasonal variation in seal buoyancy. Hunters were asked whether the majority of seals would float or sink, or whether some would float and some would sink for each of 3 time periods. Numbers in the X-axis are numbers of hunters answering for the corresponding period. N = 290 hunters (not all hunters answered for all 3 periods)

Question: Are 50 % of the seals struck in Greenland lost? Hunters were asked whether they thought that a 0.5 S&L rate was appropriate for the Greenland harp seal hunt. For this, we asked the hunters to choose the sentence that they agreed with:

1) The number of harp seals S&L equals the number of harp seals caught 2) The number of harp seals S&L is larger than the number of harp seals caught 3) The number of harp seals caught is larger than the number of harp seals S&L

104 NAMMCO Annual Report 2006

A total of 256 hunters answered this question. Most of them (77%) were of the opinion that the number of seals caught in Greenland is larger than the number of seals S&L (Fig. 8)

Equal numbers Majority caught 7% Majority S&L Figure 8. Answers to the question about 16% the proportion of harp seals caught and proportion of harp seals S&L in Greenland. N = 256 answers 77%

Summary and concluding remarks The main findings of this study are:

• About 34% of the hunters do report S&L as part of their catch

• The S&L rate from the period between May and October lies between 0.21 (full time hunters) and 0.26 (leisure hunters)

• The S&L rate is higher in May - July than in August – October

• Seals seem to sink more during May - June and float more from October to March

• Most hunters believe that there are more seals caught than S&L in Greenland

Our study suggests that the S&L rate of 0.5 used by the bodies providing international management advice may be an overestimation.

A more accurate estimate of the rate of S&L in the harp seal hunt in Greenland than the ones presented here would require an analysis that takes into consideration the proportion of the catch taken by full-time hunters and leisure hunters. The seasonal variation should also be taken into consideration.

It should be mentioned that the S&L rate does not greatly affect the outcome of the models used for management advice. Those models are based on seal counts made at regular intervals, and factors such as the natural mortality and the mortality due to hunting in open waters have a minor effect on the outcome of the model.

Finally, we would like to stress that harp seals are currently abundant and S&L is not a problem for conservation. It is more an issue of hunting ethics and animal welfare.

105 NAMMCO Workshop on Struck and Lost in Seal, Walrus and Whale Hunting

Acknowledgments We would like to thank the hunters who answered the questionnaires. The staff from the Hunting Division helped throughout the work. Special thanks to Jeanette Pettersen and Karl Kristiansen for inputting all the data. Aqqalu Rosing-Asvid, from the Greenland Institute of Natural Resources shared information and made valuable comments throughout the study. The NAMMCO Committee of Hunting Methods inspired and facilitated this study.

REFERENCES

DFO. 2000. Proceedings of the national Marine Mammal review Committee harp seal review meeting. Can. Stock. Assess. Sec. Proc. Ser. 2000/05.

ICES. 2006: Report of the ICES/NAFO Working Group on Harp and Hooded Seals, 12-16 June 2006, Copenhagen, Denmark. The ICES/NAFO Working Group on Harp and Hooded Seals

106 NAMMCO Annual Report 2006

A STUDY ON STRUCK AND LOST IN THE WHALE DRIVE HUNT IN THE FAROE ISLANDS JUNE 2005 – SEPTEMBER 2006 By Jústines Olsen, Veterinary Service, Faroe Islands

Introduction Small whales have been driven into bays and killed for food in the Faroes since the islands were first settled twelve hundred years ago. Today the drive hunt involves pilot whales, Globicephala melas, but also bottlenose dolphins, Tursiops truncatus, which are at times mixed with schools of pilot whales, as well as white-sided dolphins, Lagenorhyncus acutus. As in every type of hunt, struck and lost has also been a factor in this type of whaling. The organisation of the whale drive has been such that this could not be avoided. In the early days, bays used for whale drives were not all suited to the purpose. In some bays it was not possible to beach the whales properly. Instead, many of the whales were killed with spears, after which they sank, and were then fished up from the sea bed when the hunt was over. In such circumstances many whales were not retrieved in time to be butchered, but were found later when they floated up in a spoiled condition.

Another reason for struck and lost was when whales which were speared during the hunt escaped into open water with wounds and apparently died shortly after.

Other elements of the hunting structure could also affect the struck-and-lost figures. If a pod of whales could not be driven and beached properly at a whaling bay, the executive order on the drive hunt stipulated that the authorities could allow the hunters to harpoon whales in open water with hand-held harpoons. In this type of hunt many whales were struck and lost. The main reason for this was broken lines.

Steps have been taken to improve the organisation of the hunt to avoid struck and lost for the above mentioned reasons and others as well. Today only authorised whaling bays can be used which fulfil the requirement that whales can be properly beached. The spear and the harpoon are now strictly forbidden in the hunt. During the last twenty years several amendments have been made to the whaling regulations. Despite this, there can still be problems with struck and lost in the Faroese whale drive hunt. This study evaluates the struck and lost problem based on investigations from eight different hunts in the period from June 2005 to September 2006. It has not been possible to collect information from all drive hunts in this period.

Elements of the hunt affecting struck and lost figures In open water the drive hunt is organised in such a way that the boats form a semi- circle between 50 and 100 metres behind the whales. Under these circumstances no whales will be physically damaged or wounded, Fig. 1.

It is only during the beaching that the whales can be wounded apart from the killing as such. They may hit the bottom and get skin scratches or wounds. If the whales are not

107 NAMMCO Workshop on Struck and Lost in Seal, Walrus and Whale Hunting

Fig. 1 Whale drive in open water Photo: J.K. Vang

Fig. 2: Whales swimming between boats during beaching Photo: J. K. Vang all properly beached in the first attempt, some of the whales may swim in between the boats and can be hit by keels and propellers, Fig 2. If these whales are killed, there will not be any loss for that reason. If not, they might escape wounded into open water. Some times it can be impossible to beach a school or part of a school and some

108 NAMMCO Annual Report 2006 of the whales or all have to be driven out again into open water. In such circumstances, some whales which are let out into the open water might be wounded. There is no information about how often this happens. The study below tries to highlight this problem.

Whales can also be lost after the killing is completed. Dead whales might slide from the beach out into deeper water in the whaling bay, and be swept out by tides. When the killing is over, the visibility in the bay is bad due to the blood in the seawater. It can take hours to wash out again. Because of this it can be very difficult to retrieve whales that have sunk.

After the killing, all the whales are hauled off the beach, attached to participating boats and towed to the nearest suitable harbour to be butchered on the quay, Fig. 3. The distance from the whaling bay to the quayside may vary from a few hundred metres up to ten kilometres. During this towing, lines can break and whales can be lost. The same can happen when the whales are hoisted by crane on to the quayside, Fig. 4.

Fig. 3: Boat towing dead whale from Fig. 4: Dead whales hoisted on to the the beach Photo: J. K. Vang quayside Photo: J. Olsen

109 NAMMCO Workshop on Struck and Lost in Seal, Walrus and Whale Hunting

Dead whales that have sunk and are not retrieved immediately will float to the surface at a later stage and will be spoiled and for that reason are lost.

With respect to struck and lost elements a whale drive hunt can be presented as in the chart below:

“Struck and Lost” - Elements

Beaching

Killed Escaped

Registered Lost Intact Wounded

Intact Wounded Survives Dies

Chart 1: Schematic description of struck and lost elements in the drive hunt

Elements for investigations in the struck and lost study During the period from June 2005 to September 2006 different elements with respect to the occurrence of struck and lost in the Faroese whale drive hunt were analysed. In this period it was possible to collect data from eight hunts with a total number of 762 whales killed and registered. In this period there were 24 drive hunts with a total number of 1800 whales, both pilot whales (902), as well as bottlenose dolphins, Tursiops truncatus, and white-sided dolphins, Lagenorhynchus acutus (898).

Total number of whales registered in each single hunt In connection with each hunt the number of whales was registered. This is a mandatory procedure for the division of shares from the hunt between the participants and the people in the respective district. These figures are listed in Table 1.

Number of whales reported escaped in connection with the beaching Before the investigations in this study started, the sheriffs, who are the officials in charge of the whale drive hunt, were informed about the project and were asked to report if any whale escaped in connection with the beaching. No whales were reported to have escaped in these eight hunts. See Table 1.

Number of whales reported found after the butchering was completed The sheriffs were also asked to report if any dead whale was found after the butchering was completed. As mentioned before, dead whales can be lost during

110 NAMMCO Annual Report 2006 beaching, towing and hoisting on to the quayside. If such whales are not found immediately after the killing they will very likely be seen some days later, when they float to the surface. There was no report of any such whale in any of the actual drives.

Number of butchered whales with wounds inflicted during beaching In the executive order for the Faroese whale drive hunt it is stipulated that if it is impossible to beach all the whales, the remaining whales must be driven out into open water again. This can occur if there are more whales than can be beached, or if the whales are impossible to beach properly. In such circumstances it can happen that whales are wounded when they return to open water.

Fig 5: Dead whale with characteristic superficial incisions in the skin from a boat's propeller, Photo. J.Olsen

Fig 6: Dead whale with deeper incisions in the blubber tissue Photo: J. Olsen

To estimate the level of occurrence, a comparison can be made by inspecting all the whales that are brought to the dockside to be butchered and count those wounded in connection with the beaching. The same proportion of wounds can then be assumed

111 NAMMCO Workshop on Struck and Lost in Seal, Walrus and Whale Hunting for the whales that might have escaped during the beaching. This was done by inspecting every single whale that was brought to the dock side in the actual eight whale drive hunts. The total number of whales registered was 762, see Table 1. The inspection was performed in connection with the hoisting of the whales to the quayside where it was easy to inspect each separate whale in detail, Fig. 4. The only wounds that could be identified were on whales hit by the boat propellers. These wounds were easy to identify because of the characteristic pattern with several repeated incisions in the skin. In total such wounds were found in 29 whales. In 16 of these, the incisions were only in the skin or penetrated a few millimetres beneath the skin, Fig. 5, while in the remaining 13 whales the incisions penetrated deeper into the blubber tissue, Fig 6. One of these 13 whales was wounded in the left mandible, which was broken when it was hit by a propeller. If this whale had escaped when injured, it would have died of starvation because food intake would not have been possible.

Whaling Date Whale Escaped dur- Lost atter Wounded Killed with epi- Killed with bay registered ing beaching killing total dermal wounds deeper wounds Sandur 16.06.05 54 0 0 2 1 1 Húsavík 12.07.05 56 0 0 0 0 0 Gøtu 20.02.06 37 0 0 1 0 1 Gøtu 04.04.06 138 0 0 11 7 4 Gøtu 07.08.06 131 0 0 0 0 0 Leynar 06.09.06 141 0 0 6 3 3 Sandág. 19.09.06 176 0 0 9 5 4 Fuglafj.* 29.09.06 29 0 0 0 0 0

All bays 762 0 0 29 16 13

Table 1: Results of investigation of struck and lost elements in the Faroese whale drive hunt. * White-sided dolphins, L. acutus, only.

Discussion The whales registered are presented in the diagram of struck and lost elements, Chart 1. In this diagram it is not possible to determine precisely how many dead whales are lost and they cannot therefore be registered. If dead whales are found while the division of the catch is still under way, these will be registered, but if whales are found two hours after the division of the catch is completed, they will not be registered and, depending on the time span after the killing, they will become spoiled and must be considered as lost. As mentioned above, dead whales can be lost at different stages after the killing, but it is not possible to have a clear indication of the extent of such loss until whales have floated to the surface in spoiled condition. During the 15-month observation period (May 2005 – September 2006) there was no report of floating dead whales, so it is very unlikely that any dead whale was lost in any drive hunt in this study. With reference to Chart 1 it is also likely that the figures for killed and registered whales are the same.

With reference to Table 1, no whale escaped in any of the drive hunts in the

112 NAMMCO Annual Report 2006 observation period. Since all the whaling bays were authorised some twenty years ago with the requirement to have a gently sloping seabed from deeper water to the shore, it is very rare that any whales escape or are driven back out to open water again. If this should happen it might be possible to ascertain how likely it is that any escaped whale is wounded by using the data in Table 1 and assuming the same proportion for escaped whales. This would give a total number of wounded whales of 29/762 or 3.8 %. For whales with deeper wounds in the blubber tissue this would be 13/762 or 1.7 %.

In this study the number of wounded whales is perhaps too high, because some of the whales registered as wounded might have been damaged after the killing, during the hauling and towing. It is very difficult by inspection alone to determine whether these wounds in the skin and blubber are inflicted pre- or post mortem. The reason for this is that any bleeding from the wounds in the blubber tissue is washed away by sea water during hauling and towing. It actually occurred in one drive hunt that the hunters became aware of this problem because the propeller of their boat was broken while towing two dead whales to the dock side. These two whales were eliminated from the data of wounded whales in this study.

There is some variation in the number of wounded dead whales between the different hunts, from none to eleven, Table 1. This variation is mainly due to the different size of the pods, but other factors such as the number of participating boats, tides and weather conditions may contribute as well to this variation. There may also be variation in the behaviour of the whales in general. One reason for this could be various driving distances from the place where the whales were spotted to the bay where they were beached.

Conclusion The analysis of eight whale drives in the Faroe Islands shows clearly that struck and lost is not a problem in this hunt. In total 762 whales were registered, no dead whale was reported as lost and no whale escaped during the beaching. After a whale drive, divers often search the bottom of the whaling bay and along the dock wall where the whales are hoisted. If this procedure is made mandatory after each single hunt, any loss of dead whales, although at present not a problem, may be reduced further.

113 NAMMCO Workshop on Struck and Lost in Seal, Walrus and Whale Hunting

STATUS OF STRUCK AND LOST IN JAPANESE RESEARCH WHALING Dr Hajime Ishikawa, Institute of Cetacean Research, Japan

Summary prepared by the Secretariat

The Japanese Whale Research Programmes in the Antarctic (JARPA) and the Western Northern Pacific (JARPN) have been carried out since the 1987/88 season and the 1994 season respectively. In compliance with Article VIII of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, JARPA and JARPN are conducted under special permit. They are authorized by the Government of Japan and planned and implemented by the Institute of Cetacean Research (ICR). JARPA and JARPN were subsequently followed by the second phase programmes, JARPAII from 2005 and JARPNII from 2000, respectively.

Target species with catch figures from the 2005/2006 JARPAII were 853 Antarctic minke whales (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) and 10 fin whales, and from the 2005 JARPNII 220 common minke whales, 100 sei whales (Balaenoptera borealis), 50 Bryde's whales (Balaenoptera edeni) and 5 sperm whales (Physeter macrocephalus).

In JARPA and the pelagic operation of JARPN, three catcher boats are used as sighting and sampling vessels and one mother ship as a research base ship. In the coastal operation of JARPNII, four additional small catcher boats are also used. There are no freezers or refrigerating facilities on board the catcher boats as the whale carcasses are transported as soon as possible to the mother ship or land bases.

The vessels used for the pelagic operation are equipped with one grenade harpoon cannon, two whaling winches and a whaling sonar system. If the first harpoon makes an inadequate shot, a backup harpoon attached to the second winch can be fired quickly. The cannon size was changed in the early 1970's from 90mm to 75mm. The explosive grenade was developed for minke whale hunting in the 1980's and has been constantly improved. Today it consists of 30 grams of penthrite cartridge, fuse and steel top case. For larger whales (sei and fin) the penthrite charge is 60 grams. The Japanese grenade is simple and inexpensive but cannot be reused after a miss-shot. Large calibre rifles are used as secondary killing weapons. For minke whales .375 round nose solid bullet is effective, for sei and Bryde's whales .458 round nose solid bullet is effective to penetrate the skull. It seems the large calibre rifle is ineffective for fin and sperm whales as the secondary killing weapons.

Animals that are stuck and lost (S&L) in the Japanese hunt are either a result of the harpoon dislodgement (pulling out) or that the harpoon line is broken. The dislodgement of the harpoon makes for a higher percentage of the struck and lost rate than a broken line. Every effort is made to recover an animal that has been struck and where the harpoon has dislodged or the line is broken. In the 2005/2006 Antarctic season 26 animals of 29 cases of harpoon dislodgement or broken line were recovered. The three non-recovered animals died instantaneously and sank quickly. The very rare occurrence of struck and lost animals that are still alive occurs when the whales escape into pack ice or rapidly changing weather conditions make visual contact with the

114 NAMMCO Annual Report 2006 animal impossible.

During the seasons 1993/94, 1994/95 and 2001/02 the S&L rates were high and efforts have been made to reduce the problem.

The following practical measures have been identified as reducing the problem:

To avoid the harpoon dislodgement from the animal: • Aim to shoot at the optimal position on the whale. Through an information feedback system the gunners’ shooting skills have improved. Soon after the killing, a researcher or veterinarian performed a necropsy on all whales and reported this to the gunner. With the shoot still fresh in the memory, the gunner learned the details of the shot. • Do not winch the whale hurriedly after having shot the animal. • If the targeted position on the whale is not optimal, shoot the second harpoon immediately, or if the gunner has any doubts that the harpoon will stay in the animal fire the second harpoon immediately.

To avoid the harpoon line breaking: • Navigate the vessel carefully to avoid contact between the line and an iceberg or rudder. • Do not winch the animal hurriedly after having shot the animal. • Improve the design of the harpoon head to prevent the line being cut by large shrapnel from the grenade inside the body of the whale.

However, the most effective method to reduce struck and lost has been repeated meetings with the ship crew. Such meetings create both an awareness of the problems and a motivation for the crew to do their utmost at all levels of the hunting activity (shooting, heaving and retrieving the whale) to avoid losing an animal.

There is no official penalty for striking and losing a whale in Japan, and it can be said that the ultimate motivation for the crew and their supervisors not to lose an animal is deeply embedded in the Japanese culture in the concept of honour.

115 NAMMCO Workshop on Struck and Lost in Seal, Walrus and Whale Hunting

WORKING GROUP REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Following the plenary session, workshop participants joined two of the following four species specific working groups: • the Working Group on Seals, • the Working Group on Large Whales, • the Working Group on Small Whales and • the Working Group on Walrus.

Section 3.4 gives the list of participants for the four working groups.

All working groups had the following common agenda:

• Description of various hunting techniques • Factors contributing to struck and lost • Ways to reduce struck and lost • How to monitor struck and lost

The rational for splitting into working groups was to facilitate a more thorough discussion and active participation within the smaller group.

Each working group started with an invited presentation from an experienced hunter to initiate the discussions in the group. The presenters had been asked to describe one particular hunting activity taking note of the common agenda for all working groups. After the presentation, working group participants were asked to describe how in their experience hunting methods and techniques differed or were similar to the one presented, and give their views on aspects of importance to the issue of struck and lost.

All working groups formulated species specific recommendations on various aspects on how to reduce struck and lost. These recommendations were presented as part of the report from the working groups. After the working group sessions the Workshop participants met in plenary to hear and discuss the presented working group reports.

In addition a set of general recommendations were formulated by the Drafting Committee based on the presentations and discussions of the plenary and working group sessions. These recommendations were presented and discussed one by one in plenary and finally the presented general recommendations were adopted by consensus.

116 NAMMCO Annual Report 2006

WORKING GROUP ON SEALS

The Working Group was chaired by Simeonie Keenainak from Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. (NTI) and the rapporteur was Daniel Pike (NAMMCO Secretariat). The Working Group began with a presentation by Ole Petersen (KNAPK) on seal hunting in Greenland.

SEAL HUNTING IN GREENLAND

Seals are the most important animal to Greenlandic hunters. Seal hunting occurs year round, and seal meat is an important source of food for both people and sled dogs. Seal skins are used to make clothing and other crafts, and the sale of seal skins is an important source of income in some areas.

The methods used by seal hunters vary by both season and location. In the winter (January to March), hunters use nets set under the ice to catch seals. They are also taken at breathing holes in new ice. In areas with open water, they are hunted from small boats using rifles. This type of open water hunting occurs in all seasons where open water is found.

During the early spring (March to June), seals come up onto the ice to bask and moult, and they are shot by hunters on the ice. Seals are also hunted in open water, but they tend to sink during this season, so special care must be taken to avoid struck and lost situations.

During the summer (July to September), open water hunting from small boats is the most common method used. Seals are fatter at this time of year and tend to float in the later part of this period, making retrieval more reliable. Later in the season (October to December), seals are again taken using nets set under the ice, and in open water.

Rifles used in seal hunts include .222 and .223 calibre. Hunters must use the ammunition that is available in their community, but generally prefer full metal jacket or soft point bullets. Hunters also carry equipment to retrieve shot seals. Depending on the conditions, both a grapnel hook and rope, a gaff hook on a pole, or a harpoon and line are used.

WORKING GROUP DELIBERATIONS FOLLOWING THE PRESENTATION

Descriptions of hunting methods Seals are hunted in many ways, depending on the species, season, local environment and available equipment. Seal hunting methods were described in detail in the Report of the Workshop on Hunting Methods for Seals and Walruses (NAMMCO 2005) and will be only briefly categorized here.

Open water hunts All species of seals are hunted in open water in all seasons when it is present, usually using small boats, rifles and retrieval equipment.

117 NAMMCO Workshop on Struck and Lost in Seal, Walrus and Whale Hunting

Ice hunts (harp and hooded seals) Larger vessels are used to take pups and adult harp (Phoca groenlandica) and hooded (Cystophora cristata) seals where they breed on the ice in March and April. The Canadian hunt is conducted at the Front and the Gulf using vessels of 65 feet (19.9 metres) or less, while the Norwegian hunt is conducted in the Greenland Sea or eastern Barents Sea, usually using larger vessels. Seals are generally shot from the vessels, and then clubbed with the hakapik if necessary before being skinned. In some cases the hakapik is used as the primary killing method. The vast majority of seals taken are newly moulted seal pups.

Ice hunts (other) Ringed (Phoca hispida), bearded (Erignathus barbartus) and grey seals (Halichoerus grypus) are also hunted in the ice. During the spring, ringed seals haul out onto the ice to bask and moult, and are stalked by hunters using rifles. The seal must be killed instantly or it will slip down the hole and be lost. Seals are also hunted at their breathing holes, by shooting them when they come up to breath. In addition, ringed seals are taken during the winter dark season using large mesh nets set under the ice. Seals blunder into the nets, become entangled and drown. In the Baltic Sea, grey seals are shot on the ice floes from small boats or adjacent ice floes.

Struck and lost rates The only estimates of struck and lost rates available to the Working Group were those from the recent questionnaire survey covering the Greenlandic open water hunt (see page 24), estimates from the vessel hunts for harp seals at the Gulf and Front (Sjare and Stenson 2002), and the presented estimates on the grey seal hunt in Finland (less than 8% in winter and approx. 20% in summer). The Greenlandic hunters in the Working Group considered that the rates estimated from the questionnaire study of 25% to 50% were too high and contrary to their own experience. (The estimate of 50% was due to failure in methodology; hence the estimate is not included in the report from the questionnaire).

Based on their own experience and observations, the Working Group agreed that struck and lost was likely very low in vessel-based hunts for harp and hooded seals (also confirmed by Sjare and Stenson 2002), low in other ice hunts, and highest in open water hunts. Struck and lost is essentially non-existent in cases where seals are taken using nets set under the ice, although it is possible that some seals may fall out of the net before it is retrieved.

Factors contributing to struck and lost The Working Group emphasized that hunters want to minimize struck and lost and consider it to be in their own best interests to do so. However it was recognized that some struck and lost was likely inevitable, given the conditions of hunting. The Working Group identified several factors that can contribute to the incidence of struck and lost in seal hunts.

Seals sink (sometimes) Seals shot in open water sometimes sink, making retrieval difficult or impossible. This

118 NAMMCO Annual Report 2006 depends primarily on the condition of the seal, i.e. the relative proportion of body fat. Fat seals float while thin ones sink. Seals tend to be in poor condition in the spring, especially during the pupping, mating and moulting periods when feeding opportunities may be limited. Consequently seals shot in the spring and early summer often sink and can be easily lost. The salinity of the water also plays a role in the buoyancy of the seal. The surface layers tend to be fresher in the spring, making the seal less buoyant. It was also noted that grey seals shot in the Baltic almost invariably sink, presumably because the water has a relatively low salinity. Shooting a seal lethally can also lead to it sinking, as the animal will sometimes float if it is able to take a breath before it dies.

Rifle/Ammunition As mentioned above, killing a seal instantaneously can lead to the animal sinking before it can be secured. Some hunters use small calibre weapons to deliberately wound seals when hunting in open water. This allows the hunter to approach the seal and secure it with a hook or harpoon before it is killed.

Equipment Hunters must have the right equipment to retrieve shot seals, and it must be in good working order. Lack of proper equipment or equipment failure was considered to be a common cause of struck and lost. Equipment varies between areas, but can include a harpoon and line, grapnel hook and line, and/or gaff hook.

Hunter experience Inexperienced or poorly trained hunters lose animals more frequently than experienced ones. A hunter must have the judgment to know when to take the shot, and when not to. There are also some special techniques that can be used to reduce struck and lost that are practiced by knowledgeable hunters.

Monitoring struck and lost At present old and possibly unreliable estimates are being used in management, and the Working Group agreed that up to date and more reliable information is needed. There continues to be a barrier of mistrust among hunters, scientists and managers in some areas, and this is problematic for gathering information on struck and lost. Many hunters have the perception that information on struck and lost will be used against them, for example by imposing restrictive quotas or other hunting regulations. Most hunters do not understand the need for this information, and in some cases this has not been explained properly to them by management authorities. In some cases hunters consider it embarrassing to report struck and lost. There is also a need to create incentives for hunters to provide information on struck and lost.

Three methods of monitoring struck and lost were known to the Working Group: self- reporting, either mandatory or voluntary; post-hunt interviews or questionnaires; and independent observation of all or a portion of the hunts. Observer programmes have been used mainly on the larger scale hunts for harp and hooded seals, and are probably not suitable for the small scale, scattered hunts prevalent in other areas. Therefore self- reporting or post-hunt interviews were considered to be most suitable for this type of

119 NAMMCO Workshop on Struck and Lost in Seal, Walrus and Whale Hunting hunt.

An alternative proposal was to use a small number of “index” hunters, who are specially trained to record details of their hunting activities, including struck and lost. The estimates from the index hunters would then be expanded to cover the entire hunt. Such an approach has been used successfully to monitor fishery by-catch in some areas.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The Working Group identified several measures that could be taken to reduce struck and lost in seal hunts.

Hunter training • Develop suitable training materials for each area and hunt. These could use various media, e.g. audiovisual presentations on DVD or broadcast locally; written materials, and internet sites. • In areas where hunting is practiced, courses in hunting should be available in the school curriculum. This is already the practice in some areas, e.g. Finland. A comprehensive and advanced hunting education programme is under development in Greenland. In Norway it is mandatory to undertake a training course set up by the authorities before going hunting.

Techniques and equipment • The type of equipment that is suitable depends on the area, species, season and local environment. Descriptions of suitable equipment for each situation should be developed by local authorities, and made available to hunters and educational institutions. • Hunters should always have suitable equipment, in good working order, readily available when hunting. • In situations when seals usually sink after death, it may be advisable to use small- calibre weapons and shoot to injure, not to kill. The injured seal can then be secured using a hook or harpoon, and then killed. This technique is effective in reducing struck and lost, but does likely result in greater animal suffering.

Regulatory measures • In some areas it may be advisable to stipulate the minimum equipment that must be at hand when hunting. This is already done in most areas. • In some areas, seasonal closures could be used to forbid hunting in seasons when seals usually sink after death. Such closures are used in Norway and Finland, but may not be suitable in areas where hunters must take seals year-round.

Monitoring Independent observers have been effective in monitoring hunts for harp and hooded seals in Canada and Norway. However, it is not possible to use independent observers to monitor all seal hunts. The following alternatives were recommended: • Self-reporting systems such as Pinniarneq in Greenland could possibly be

120 NAMMCO Annual Report 2006

modified to provide information on struck and lost; • In other areas, community-based monitoring using post-hunt interviews, as used in Chukotka, may be effective; • A programme using “index” hunters, trained and contracted to provide information on their hunting activities, which is later extrapolated to the entire hunt, may be effective in some situations.

REFERENCES

[NAMMCO] North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission. 2005. Report on the NAMMCO Workshop on Hunting Methods for Seals and Walruses. In: NAMMCO Annual Report 2004, NAMMCO, Tromsø, pp. 63-126 Sjare, B. and Stenson, G.B. 2002. Estimating struck and loss rates for harp seals (Pagophilus groenlandicus) in the Northwest Atlantic. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 18:710-720.

121 NAMMCO Workshop on Struck and Lost in Seal, Walrus and Whale Hunting

WORKING GROUP ON LARGE WHALES

The Working Group was chaired by Fernando Ugarte (Greenland) who also acted as rapporteur together with Christina Lockyer (NAMMCO Secretariat). The Working Group began with a presentation by Eugene Brower from Barrow Whaling Captains Association on bowhead whaling in Alaska.

BOWHEAD WHALING

In northern Alaska, 8 – 10 villages hunt bowhead whales during the spring migration. Villagers often have to travel several miles over the frozen sea, crossing pressure ridges, in order to find open water suitable for bowhead hunting. They drag light boats made with the skin of bearded seals, called umiaqs. An 8 m long umiaq can be used to take whales up to 15 m long and 50 tons in weight. The people establish whaling camps near leads in the ice edge. This kind of whaling is dangerous because the ice is constantly shifting with the wind. Fatal accidents are not uncommon, and safety is an important priority for the whalers.

The primary weapon is a wooden shaft with a darting gun assembly attached to one end. The assembly consists of a detachable harpoon and a darting gun barrel. The detachable harpoon is attached to a line and a float. The darting gun barrel contains an explosive projectile and a triggering mechanism. Whalers thrust the wooden shaft into the whale, so that the harpoon pierces the whale’s body and the projectile is shot into the whale. The function of the harpoon, line and buoy is to mark the whale, as a help in keeping track of the animal. The projectile explodes inside the body of the whale, about 3.5 seconds after being fired. If the whale does not die shortly after the explosion, a shoulder gun is used to fire a second explosive projectile into the whale’s body. Once killed, the whale is dragged to the whaling camp, and hauled by hand with ropes into the ice, where it is butchered. Several hands are needed in order to haul a large whale, so it is easy to see that the event is important at the community level. Besides its cultural importance, whaling provides vital nutrients to the people.

WORKING GROUP DELIBERATIONS FOLLOWING THE PRESENTATION

Description of various hunting techniques Darting gun / shoulder gun This was the method described above, as used in Alaska to hunt bowhead whales. Similar methods are used for hunting bowhead whales in Chukotka and in Arctic Canada.

Gennadi Inankeuyas and Eduard Zdor (Russian Federation) explained, with the help of a Powerpoint presentation, the way grey whales are hunted in Chukotka. There are about 25 villages in Chukotka, all of which harvest whales. About 75% of the grey whales are killed using a darting gun similar to the one used for bowhead whaling in Alaska. The darting gun has been adapted for use with grey whales. As in Alaska, the explosive charge is usually black powder, but the projectiles are sometimes used without black powder. One or two projectiles are usually enough to kill a grey whale.

122 NAMMCO Annual Report 2006

Approximately 60% of the grey whales sink when dead, so it is important to secure the animals with several hand harpoons attached to floats before killing it. About 12 floats are required for large whales and 7-8 for small ones. Because grey whales can be very aggressive, rifle shots are used to debilitate the animals before approaching close enough to use the hand harpoons and the darting gun.

Harpoon cannon Dr. Egil Øen (Norway) and Dr Hajime Ishikawa (Japan) described this method in some detail during their presentations in plenary. A harpoon cannon rigged into the deck of a boat is used to fire a harpoon with an explosive grenade into the body of the whale. The harpoon is attached to a forerunner, which is in turn attached to a winch in the boat. This kind of whaling requires a boat large enough to carry a harpoon cannon. In Greenland, the minimum boat length required to install a harpoon cannon is 10 m. At the other end of the spectrum, ocean-going vessels 100 m long are used by Japan for whaling offshore and in the Antarctic. Whaling with a harpoon cannon is carried out legally by Greenland, Iceland, Norway and Japan. Several species of large whales are targeted, including fin, minke, Antarctic minke, humpback and sperm whales, however the targeted species may vary from county to country. In most cases, whaling with a harpoon cannon has relatively low S&L rates.

Back-up weapons for minke whales are usually either a high-powered rifle or a second harpoon grenade. For larger whales, such as fin whales, the backup weapon is usually a second harpoon grenade. Leif Fontaine (KNAPK) explained that in Greenland it is required that all boats smaller than 12 m should work as a team with other boats in order to capture fin whales. If the whale does not die instantaneously, the second boat fires a second harpoon grenade. This is because a wounded fin whale is too large and dangerous for a single small boat. In Greenland, the numbers of whales S&L were reduced considerably after the introduction of the Norwegian penthrite grenade.

Rifle / hand harpoon This is a relatively inexpensive method used to catch whales from fast, small boats. It is used for minke whales in Greenland and for grey whales in Chukotka. The method used in Chukotka is similar to the one described above under the darting gun section, with the difference that the killing shots are not delivered with a darting gun, but with rifles.

Kalle Mølgård (KNAPK) explained that, in Greenland, communal hunts are strictly regulated and are carried out by a minimum of 5 skiffs working together. Hunters use rifle calibre 7.62mm (30.06) or larger, with full mantled bullets. They shoot first into the water in order to steer the whale towards the coast and into fjords. At the first opportunity, hand harpoons with floats are attached into the whale. In order to attach the floats, the whale is often forced to slow down by wounding it. Floats are necessary because the majority of minke whale carcases sink. Once the whale has been secured with a sufficient number of floats, it is killed with shots aimed at the head. Killing shots are often delivered using rifles of higher calibre, such as .375 and round-nosed bullets. The chase and kill usually take 5 minutes or more.

123 NAMMCO Workshop on Struck and Lost in Seal, Walrus and Whale Hunting

Factors contributing to struck and lost Most of the participants were very active during the discussion. For the sake of simplicity we will now present a summary of the discussion, without mentioning the names of the persons providing the information.

Darting gun / shoulder gun Common causes of S&L include: • Whale diving under pack ice • Weather turning bad • Whale sinking (in Alaska, this happened to one out of 20 in 2006) • Malfunction of explosive.

Contributing factors include: body site of strike, depth of penetration, size of whale, etc.

In Chukotka, access to penthrite projectiles and black powder projectiles can be difficult. Hunters may be forced to use rifles, instead of darting guns and shoulder guns.

Harpoon cannon By far the most common cause of S&L for large whales hunted with the harpoon cannon is when a whale already dead breaks from its attachment and sinks. This is especially common in bad weather, when the swell causes the forerunner to slack and tense repeatedly. There are several “links” in the chain connecting the harpoon to the boat: the arms of the harpoon, the connection of the harpoon to the forerunner, the forerunner itself and the connection of the forerunner to a winch in the boat. These “links” may be subject to tonnes of pressure, and if any of them breaks suddenly, the whale may sink into deep water and be lost.

Another cause of S&L is when wounded whales break loose. This is more common among the larger and stronger whales, such as fin whales. There is an increased risk of the whale breaking loose and escaping when the explosive malfunctions.

Rifle / hand harpoon The main causes identified for S&L in this type of hunt were: • Weather changing and forcing whalers to abandon the chase • Whale sinking when killed before being secured with sufficient floats • Wounded whale escaping

Ways to reduce struck and lost – specific for types of whaling Darting gun / shoulder gun In the 1970’s, more than 50% of the struck whales were lost. There have been serious efforts to reduce the losses, and the numbers have gradually improved. The mean loss rate for 1995- 2004 was 21%. The improvement is due to a number of factors, which include a coordinated community effort, better training for whalers, improvement of equipment and limits to the number of whales that can be struck in one given day. The reduction of the S&L rate is an ongoing process.

124 NAMMCO Annual Report 2006

In recent years, there have been quite successful experiments using the more powerful penthrite, instead of black powder as the explosive in the projectiles. Penthrite projectiles are of Norwegian design, but have been further developed locally in Alaska. There is still room for improvement in weaponry design, and the whalers are looking forward to “off the shelf” penthrite projectiles.

Harpoon cannon Whales sinking In order to avoid the loss of dead whales, it is very important to give proper maintenance to the harpoon and attachment points. It is also important to check that all the components are mounted properly before firing the harpoon. Forerunners should have an adequate strength to support the weight of the animal being hauled. Likewise, forerunners should be replaced at regular intervals. A smoother outline in the harpoon can help to reduce risk of wearing the forerunner.

In Iceland and in Japan, air pumps are used to inflate baleen whales and increase their buoyancy. In addition, grappling irons can be used to secure the whale carcases.

Wounded whales breaking loose In order to reduce the number of wounded whales that escape it is important to minimise the time to death as much as possible. The best way to do this is to cause instantaneous death by ensuring well-placed harpoon shots at relatively close range.

Bringing the whale rapidly close to the boat may facilitate using the back-up weapon before the animal fully regains consciousness. This requires strong forerunners and fast winches. Keeping the back up rifle prepared and at hand may help to reduce the time to death. If the back-up weapon is a second harpoon fired from the same cannon, keeping a second forerunner winched and ready to use can reduce the time to death. Of course, this is only possible on boats with two winches.

A modified harpoon grenade for fin whales, able to deliver a larger charge deeper into the whale’s body could help to increase the instantaneous death rate and reduce the time to death.

Rifle / hand harpoon When hunting from small boats, it is important to consult reliable weather forecasts in order to avoid having to abandon a chase if the weather turns bad. However, in some areas such as Chukotka this is easier said than done, since access to reliable weather forecasts is difficult.

In order to avoid losing whales because of sinking, it is important to avoid killing the whale before it has been secured with sufficient floats.

A factor that limits the efficiency of rifle hunts is that boats have to be very close to the whales in order to attach hand-held harpoons. A way to overcome this problem could be to develop a weapon able to deploy harpoons attached to floats to distances larger than a couple of metres. There were a number of suggestions about ways to

125 NAMMCO Workshop on Struck and Lost in Seal, Walrus and Whale Hunting modify already existing technologies. Prototypes that could be modified included crossbows, biopsy guns, guns used to deploy satellite senders, firemen guns and shark guns.

Ways to reduce struck and lost – general for all types of whaling Training Training is essential for improving the hunt and reducing S&L. Ideally, young whalers should learn from several teachers, including more experienced whalers, experts on weapons and people with knowledge of anatomy and physiology.

Training should be carried out in several places: empirically, on the whaling grounds; theoretically, through seminars and lectures and practically, through hands-on workshops and in-situ necropsies.

Whalers should learn how to use and maintain the equipment, how to strike the whales and how to handle the animals that have been struck. There is a need for educational material, such as anatomical charts designed for whaling.

Equipment S&L can be kept to a minimum by using adequate equipment for securing and killing the animals. The equipment has to be well maintained and functioning. It is also important to have the equipment at hand and ready to use. This includes items such as back-up weapon, extra harpoons, extra floats, etc.

Time to death and handling of killed animals Once the animal has been effectively secured, time to death should be reduced as much as possible. This is important not only to minimise animal suffering, but also to reduce the risk of losing the animal.

In order to reduce the risk of losing a dead animal, it is important to minimise the time needed to bring the animal to where the flensing will take place. For this, it is important to handle the killed whales effectively and quickly.

Feedback In order to learn and improve, it is important to know what went well and what went wrong. It is important to know the reason why some hunts go well, and why some hunts end in cases of S&L. It is possible to learn from one’s own experience and from the experience of others. Therefore, feedback communication is important at all levels: within a whaling crew or team, within a whaling fleet, and internationally, through exchange of information with colleagues.

International cooperation The international exchange of information, technology and experience can greatly improve whaling techniques and help to reduce S&L.

There are logistical issues concerning transport of equipment, including weapons and explosives across international borders that can only be overcome with international

126 NAMMCO Annual Report 2006 goodwill and cooperation.

Whaler’s participation Development and implementation of ways to reduce S&L should be done in close collaboration with the whalers.

How to monitor struck and lost In Alaska, monitoring is done in close cooperation between community and authorities. Since much of the community is involved, it would be almost impossible to fabricate a story. Each captain reports directly to the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission. Reports of S&L include, among other things, the reason why the animal was lost.

Chukotka and Greenland rely on self-reporting systems. Here, the motivation to report is important. The fact that S&L animals are taken from the quotas does not help in this respect. In both areas, there are only a few inspectors monitoring the catch over a very large area.

In Greenland, because there are several boats participating in each collective hunt, and the communities are small, it is unlikely that a case of S&L would go unnoticed by the authorities. For the harpoon cannon hunt, each penthrite grenade has a serial number, and whalers have to account for the grenades bought and used on every kill. It is therefore possible to check the fate of the grenades and track potential unreported strikes. Reports include causes of S&L. There is a higher rate of S&L for fin whales than for minke whales.

In Norway, there used to be observers monitoring whaling on all boats, but now observers have been replaced by the “Blue Box”. Nowadays, records of S&L depend on self-reporting, but there are ways to check if the reports are reliable.

Accurate descriptions of S&L cases are needed in order to provide feedback and to improve hunting methods. Accurate numbers of removals are useful to determine catch limits. However, when the catch is well within sustainable levels, and the S&L rates are very low, it may not be necessary to report every single case of S&L.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Hunters training • To encourage training, in practice and in theory with: experienced hunters, experts on weapons and experts on anatomy. • To produce educational material, including anatomical charts designed for whaling. • In order to learn and improve, feedback to whalers should be improved, including feedback on: successful kills, problematic kills, cases of struck and lost and their causes.

Techniques and equipment

127 NAMMCO Workshop on Struck and Lost in Seal, Walrus and Whale Hunting

• To ensure that adequate equipment for securing and killing is well maintained, functioning and at hand. • Time to death should be as short as possible, once the whale has been effectively secured. • In order to prevent whales sinking when using the harpoon cannon, it is recommended to: • Cause instantaneous death • Keep the back-up rifle at hand • Keep harpoon and attachment points well maintained • Use forerunners of adequate strength • Replace forerunners at regular intervals • Keep a back-up forerunner ready • Use the air pump to inflate the whale where legally feasible • Use grappling irons to secure the carcase. • To improve the Norwegian penthrite grenade used for hunting fin whales in Iceland and Norway, in order to increase the rates of instantaneous death or unconsciousness2. • To facilitate access to good weather forecasting for whalers working from small boats. • To avoid killing the whale before it has been secured sufficiently. This is especially true when using small boats to hunt whales that may sink. • To develop a gun to deploy harpoons attached to floats. This would shorten the time needed to secure whales that may sink when hunting from boats without a harpoon cannon.

Regulatory measures • To strengthen international cooperation in order to facilitate: a) access to information and technology, and b) purchase and transport of equipment, including weapons and explosives. • Development and implementation of ways to reduce struck and lost should be done in close collaboration with the whalers.

Monitoring • Reporting of the causes of struck and lost is needed to provide feedback to whalers.

2 The workshop did not discuss the Japanese Fin whale hunt.

128 NAMMCO Annual Report 2006

REPORT OF THE WORKING GROUP ON SMALL WHALES

This Working Group was chaired by Justines Olsen (Faroe Islands) and the rapporteur was Christina Lockyer (NAMMCO Secretariat). The Working Group began with a presentation by Simeonie Keenianak from Nunavut Tunngavik Inc.

PRESENTATION ON NUNAVUT HUNTING CULTURE

A pictorial history was presented illustrating a variety of hunting targets from seals, walrus, and polar bear to beluga. The purpose was to demonstrate the hunting community life style in the region. The presentation then continued with the beluga hunting.

Beluga hunting There is a long history of whaling in the Cumberland Sound area of Nunavut involving the Inuit. Different stocks of beluga whales can be distinguished by their head shape and other characteristics. The beluga whales spend the summer time in Clearwater Fjord to breed, but hunting is not carried out until the whales leave the fjord, to avoid hunting females and young. In fact the hunters believe that calving is annual in the beluga. There is an annual quota of 40 belugas in Cumberland Sound – this quota is usually taken in just one (or two) day(s). The hunters do not compete with each other as the whales are shared communally. Narwhal hunts were conducted in April and fall times. The whales were hunted primarily for mattak. The areas of hunting were also influenced by the floatability of the dead whales. In Cumberland Sound for example, the whales float better than in Clearwater Fiord were there is more freshwater in the ocean. Whales tend to be leaner in the fall.

Hunting gear used – a harpoon with line, float and hooks and also rifle. The harpoon head attaches onto an iron shaft, and has a line with large float attached. The harpoon head attaches to the whale by detaching from the iron shaft and the harpoon head toggles under the skin to hold fast to the whale. For shooting, .303 rifles with full metal jacket bullets and 30.30 with full metal jacket bullets were used in the past, but nowadays .375, 338 and 6.5 x 55 are used. The bullet shape was round in the past; but in the 1960s and 1970s this was changed to a sharp pointed bullet. The .375 uses a rounded bullet.

Share-out of meat – there is sharing of the whales caught so that each person gets at least part of a whale. The whale skin was used for making whips and also the harpoon line in the past, but not so much now.

Site of shooting and harpooning - when a whale is shot, the aim is for the head or backbone (head end) or lungs. In shallow water the harpoon and line are used first, as soon as one gets close to the whale. In deep water, the whale is often wounded first with a sub-lethal shot before harpooning. The harpoon is then used to prevent sinking. Floats on the harpoon line also prevent sinking. Nowadays large commercially available orange plastic floats are used. The whale is ultimately killed with a rifle shot.

129 NAMMCO Workshop on Struck and Lost in Seal, Walrus and Whale Hunting

Discussion on the presentation Could sinking contribute to struck and lost? In the spring after feeding – May-June – the dead whale does not sink at all except maybe the young males. In September all whales are leaner.

WORKING GROUP DELIBERATIONS FOLLOWING THE PRESENTATION

Description of various hunting techniques Open water hunt with rifle • Narwhal Arctic Canada – in summer the whales are generally seen in hundreds in the fjords in Nunavut. In other years there are none at all. In some years, the quota is exceeded because so many whales occur in the area, and there is frantic activity during one to two days. Narwhals usually go to shore when chased with motor boats; the harpoon and high power rifles are used to secure and kill. During the rest of the year the animals are not hunted. They are not hunted in Cumberland Sound like beluga, as the timing is different. Smaller rifles are used to scare the whales and keep them underwater and to minimise air intake. The same ammunition is used for narwhals as beluga, and the same method is used for killing as in beluga. Again the harpoon is used first in shallow water or whenever possible to secure the whale before being killed.

• Beluga Arctic Canada - see notes earlier under the presentation by Simeonie Keenianak for Nunavut. In Nunavik, Inuit traditionally used kayak and harpoon to hunt all marine mammals in the past. Today the harpoon is used before shooting to avoid carcase loss through sinking. Outboard motors are used on freighter canoes for the hunt; the harpoon is used first. In deep water, if one shoots first and then the animal dives, it can be lost. Thus the harpoon is again used first. The rifle and ammunition is similar to Greenland, and the calibre is high power – .303 and the bullet shape is pointed full metal jacket. Greenland – usually the harpoon is used first to secure the whale in open water before shooting and killing. The whales used to be driven into shallow water but now boats are used in open water. There was some discussion as to whether the whales should first be recommended to be secured by harpoon and line before shooting in open water. Since 1998, new stocks of larger size whales with slower movement and longer diving capacity – different habits – more like narwhals in size, have been around. For shooting, the Greenlandic bullet is by new laws, from a rifle of 30.06 minimum calibre with pointed full metal jacket bullets.

• Harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) Greenland – no information was available on struck and lost, but ca 2,000 porpoises are taken every year (NAMMCO, 2005). No hunters were available at the workshop to report on this matter. Those present came from areas too far north where porpoises do not occur. The hunting technique in mid-West

130 NAMMCO Annual Report 2006

Greenland is to use boats and rifle. The carcases are rather fat and tend not to sink (Lockyer et al, 2003). Carcases observed in the market in Nuuk have bullet holes and testify to shooting as the killing method.

Drive hunt • Pilot whale Justines Olsen provided details of the “grindedrap” in the Faroe Islands in his presentation on day 1 of the Workshop. A ball-pointed hook is inserted into the blowhole to haul the animal in to shore after driving, and then a knife is used to kill. The traditional knife took 30 sec. to kill the whale. Recent experiments with a new design of knife that kills more quickly – more like a spear on a rod: 12 – 15 mm thick and 35 cm long with two handles positioned at 90o (like a shovel) so one can use both hands in the application, have been successful. This new knife is being introduced gradually. The relationship between hunters and administrators is currently good with collaboration, training, education and gear development.

Harpoon hunting from Kayak • Narwhal and beluga See information about the historic and current use of kayaks and harpoons under the section on Open water hunt with rifle.

Land / Ice edge rifle hunting • Narwhal In North Baffin, whales are hunted in cracks and leads in the ice and from the ice edge. Whales are very wary and listen and cannot be easily approached, so hunters will wait for days on the ice near leads and the ice edge. Narwhals dive deep and before a deep dive there is a series of shallow dives as the whale swims towards the ice edge, the last breath is a long deep breath where the head and neck area of the animal rise above the waterline exposing this vital area to the hunter. At this moment, the animal is shot in the head/neck, which immobilizes the whale with the lungs full of air to ensure that it will float. The shooting takes place within a 10 m range, and is very effective with low loss rates. As the whales are killed at close range it is easily retrieved with a harpoon or a throwing line and hook.

Factors contributing to struck and lost Greenland A kind of hunting “university” exists with learning taking place from other older hunters by example. With growing quota restrictions and less hunting, there are fewer opportunities for the youth to learn hunting techniques. Hunting in Greenland often starts at an age as early as 12 yr. The present generation cannot or do not teach their sons as formerly in Greenland. This is a disadvantage as in order to learn how to avoid problems of struck and lost, one must be out there on the hunt learning. In the Faroes, learning about the “grindedrap” is also by example. However, the practice is changing and schools now tend not to allow children to leave for the beach if a “grindedrap” occurs. These restrictions will increasingly have an adverse effect on the acquisition of

131 NAMMCO Workshop on Struck and Lost in Seal, Walrus and Whale Hunting hunter skills in future generations.

Canada - Nunavut Weather conditions are a very important factor in affecting struck and lost. One can now easily get weather forecast by radio, etc. Wind is no good for hunting, and calm water is best. The turbidity of water also affects the ability to track and recover a sinking whale.

Ways to reduce struck and lost User knowledge, scientific and management collaboration Greenland - quotas now mean that the catch is very small in comparison to earlier times. Therefore hunters must be careful not lose animals. In practice therefore, struck and lost is not really a problem. There should be involvement of hunters with the planning of hunting quotas and in the areas of operation. User knowledge should be used in management in conjunction with science. The Hunters Association (KNAPK) together with the Greenland Institute of Natural Resources (GINR) are formalising cooperation and how they can work together. Managers sit in between scientists and hunters, nearly always resulting in a compromise on quotas. The question is exactly how to improve cooperation.

In Greenland there is monitoring information from biologists and aerial surveys to count animals. The problem is how to get complementary information from users in a systematic quantifiable way. It was recommended to develop ways to get systematic information from hunters. With large whales there is a system in place but less so for small whales. The users (hunters) should be involved in decision-making processes concerning the hunt.

Canada - in Nunavut, hunters have formal meetings with local government officials where they talk about all aspects of hunting - equipment, safety, training, etc. and also how to reduce struck and lost. These meetings establish local hunting rules and regulations, the required equipment, etc. Such types of meetings could be a role model for other countries and regions.

User knowledge should be taught everywhere not just isolated to Greenland, and other indigenous communities. There was discussion on recommending teaching traditional knowledge in high schools. It is important in such communities to disseminate knowledge and respect for hunting and the hunted animal.

Technical recommendations – regardless of the equipment used one must know how to shoot and handle this equipment expertly.

Nunavut - 1) The need for training has been identified as a priority by Inuit – it is recommended that training be community-based and species specific; currently the only training is firearms safety which is generic all over Canada and must meet certain standards. Local experienced hunters who are familiar with local environment should be employed to train hunting methods and ethics. 2) Equipment – In harvesting walrus and small cetaceans, the bullet penetration required to reach vital organs and cause

132 NAMMCO Annual Report 2006 nervous disruption demands special ammunition. Ammunition designed to create cavity wounds is used for the harvesting of terrestrial animals but is not as effective for larger marine mammals as ammunition that is designed to create channel wounds. Suitable ammunition for the harvesting of marine mammals is not readily available from local merchants. As ammunition is classified as dangerous goods it cannot be transported by air or mail; this means that hunters cannot readily obtain suitable ammunition for harvesting walrus and small cetaceans. In hunting communities, suitable ammunition designed for marine mammals should be made more readily available.

General discussion - However, even using more efficient equipment still does not necessarily diminish struck and lost. It may just lead to sinking and loss. A combination of suitable equipment and training is needed in the use of rifles and appropriate ammunition. A recent NAMMCO project in terminal ballistics testing was done in the Faroe Islands on pilot whale heads, that has been very valuable in determining the effectiveness of different bullet types and sizes for the killing of small cetaceans. Also valuable is user knowledge on ammunition performance.

Another aspect of ammunition use is the potential loss of hearing in both gunner and crew with the use of high velocity rifles. The question is how to minimise this problem and disseminate technical information for user safety.

Military surplus ammunition – full metal jacket spear headed bullets - tends to cause an increase in superficial wounding in marine mammals when not penetrating the required target, through ricochet. The challenge is for observers to assess whether such a wounded animal lost will survive or die.

With steady quota reduction, hunters in Greenland are trying to adapt and reduce struck and lost by modification of hunting gear. One example is in Nunavut where one can use new thinner strong synthetic line on the harpoon rather than traditional skin rope. It is important to develop new technology for reducing struck and lost. One possibility is to develop something that could improve the range of strike.

Japan – two types of hunt exist for small whales – 1) the drive fishery similar to the Faroes and 2) the hand harpoon. At one time the rifle was used and then the harpoon. However, gun regulations and restrictions resulted in the eventual relinquishment of the rifle use. Now, only the hand harpoon with line and buoy are employed. This has actually reduced struck and lost, because of the short line that secured the whale.

In Japan, there is an air gun that could be adapted for the deploying of a harpoon in the hunt, based on the biopsy gun design. For example, fire rescue teams use a system to fire projectiles to break windows in fires. However, this is not yet generally available.

Norway - An air-driven gun made of corrosion free materials has been developed by Øen (Norway) to deploy radio and satellite transmitters on whales from helicopter. In shooting trials with the gun the projectiles weighing 350g hit accurately and inside the target (a circle of 10 cm in diameter) at 15 m shooting range. This gun might probably

133 NAMMCO Workshop on Struck and Lost in Seal, Walrus and Whale Hunting easily be modified to deploy a small sized harpoon with a line attached.

How to monitor struck and lost Greenland Hunting inspectors and a self-reporting system exist for large whales, and could possibly work for small whales. The Greenlandic reporting about struck and lost is rather limited and species-dependent according to whether or not the species is quota- restricted. A form of one page, requesting date, place, time, struck and lost, catch, etc. could work. Presently, forms are returned to the municipal authority. What is currently lacking is a good way to get feedback from the hunters.

Canada In Nunavut, every hunting season a request is sent out to each community for information on hunting losses and takes. In Canada generally, reporting is not mandatory on struck and lost. In Quebec/Nunavik there is no obligation to report struck and lost. If struck and lost is reported, then this is deducted from the quota, which is no incentive for reporting. In Nunavut, however, reported struck and lost are NOT deducted from the quota.

It was suggested that the problem of struck and lost is really only critical where a population is harvested close to unsustainable levels. Thus there are different situations where and when it is important to monitor struck and lost.

Generally, it was regarded as an urgent matter as to how to get feedback from hunters on struck and lost. Currently there is inadequate information and all parties (hunters, administrators, managers, biologists) have to get together to find a way forward on this matter of recording and reporting stuck and lost. One route could be to establish local sub-committees to work out an acceptable and appropriate monitoring system in hunting areas.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Hunter training: • Training is paramount – it should be community based and species specific. Local experienced hunters who are familiar with local environment should be employed to train. • Traditional knowledge should be taught in high schools. • Ways have to be found to counteract the negative effects of diminishing quotas and hunting restrictions on the acquisition of hunter skills in future generations.

Techniques and equipment • Using more efficient equipment still does not necessarily diminish struck and lost. Thus a combination of suitable equipment and training is needed in the use of rifles and appropriate ammunition. • Methods of improving access to long-range forecasting of weather conditions need to be found as weather is a very important factor in affecting struck and lost. • Develop a weapon that could improve the range of strike, e.g. an air gun that

134 NAMMCO Annual Report 2006

could be modified to incorporate firing of a harpoon head. This could improve the firing / strike range and the securing of the whale. • In hunting communities, suitable ammunition designed for marine mammals should be made more readily available. • Use of high velocity rifles can result in hearing loss and steps should be taken to minimise this problem and disseminate technical information for user safety.

Regulatory measures • The users (hunters) should be involved in decision-making processes concerning the hunt such as the planning of hunting quotas and in the areas of operation. User knowledge should be used in management in conjunction with science. • Establishing formal meetings with local government officials on all aspects of hunting - equipment, safety, training, etc. where reduction of struck and lost can also be discussed. These meetings could establish local hunting rules and regulations, the required equipment, etc. that would help to mitigate struck and lost.

Monitoring • All parties (hunters, administrators, managers, biologists) have to get together to find a way forward on the matter of recording and reporting stuck and lost. One route could be to establish local sub-committees to work out an acceptable and appropriate monitoring system in hunting areas.

REFERENCES

[NAMMCO] North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission. 2005. Report of the Fifteenth Meeting opf the Council. In: NAMMCO Annual Report 2004, NAMMCO, Tromsø, pp. 11-64, item 3.1.2. Lockyer, C., Heide-Jørgensen, M.P., Jensen, J. and Walton, M.J. 2003. Life history and ecology of harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena, L.) from West Greenland. NAMMCO Scientific Publications volume 5:177-194.

135 NAMMCO Workshop on Struck and Lost in Seal, Walrus and Whale Hunting

WORKING GROUP ON WALRUS

The Working Group was chaired by Harry Brower (Alaska) and Daniel Pike (NAMMCO Secretariat) acted as rapporteur. The Working Group began with a presentation by Gennady Inankeuyas from Association of Traditional Marine Mammal Hunters of Chukotka on Walrus Hunting in Chukotka.

WALRUS HUNTING IN CHUKOTKA

All coastal villages in Chukotka hunt walrus, and walrus hunting is carried out during all seasons of the year. In recent years there has been a catch of between 1,000 and 1,500 annually.

Types of hunting Three basic types of walrus hunting are carried out in Chukotka.

Ice Haulout Walrus are hunted when they haul out on the ice during the spring and early summer. They are shot either from a boat or from a neighbouring ice floe.

Open Water The open water hunt is conducted in the summer and early fall. Walrus are hunted from small boats. They are harpooned before shooting if possible, but it is often necessary to injure the walrus first with a non-lethal body shot, so that it can be approached close enough to harpoon. Once the animal is secured with a harpoon and float, it is shot lethally.

Land Haulout Walrus utilize land haulouts once the drift ice departs in the late summer and fall. When hunting walrus on land haulouts great care is taken not to disturb the animals unduly, as this could cause the animals to stampede and abandon the haulout. Therefore the walrus are usually killed by a hunter on foot using a hand lance. If the haulout is accessible from the water, the walrus may be approached quietly with the engines off, then harpooned and killed with a lance.

Struck and Lost Community based monitoring of walrus hunts suggests that loss rates range between 4 and 20%. Losses are generally very low in land and ice haulout hunts, and somewhat higher in open water hunts. Struck and lost occurs for many reason including poor quality or poorly maintained equipment, poor weather conditions and hunter error. The experience, skill and judgment of the hunter are the most important factors determining the incidence of struck and lost.

Reducing Struck and Lost Proper training of hunters is most important in reducing struck and lost. It is also important that hunters receive feedback from the hunt monitoring programme so that they know how much struck and lost is occurring. Hunters should be well prepared

136 NAMMCO Annual Report 2006 and have well made and well maintained equipment, as equipment breakage often leads to lost animals. Finally, it is very important that hunters keep careful track of the weather and be prepared to abandon hunting if the weather deteriorates.

Monitoring In Chukotka monitoring is done at the local level. A person in each village is designated to keep track of the number of walrus landed and to obtain information on struck and lost. They do this by observing some hunts and by interviewing hunters when they return to the village. In addition they record the age (cubs, 1-year old, young, adult, not-identified) and sex of walrus that are taken, and take samples including teeth for ageing and tissue samples for genetic analyses.

WORKING GROUP DELIBERATIONS FOLLOWING THE PRESENTATION

Descriptions of hunting methods Generally, four types of walrus hunting are carried out, and these are similar in all areas. The type of hunting depends mainly on the habitat and season of the hunt. 1. Pack ice, from a boat or another ice floe; 2. Open water; 3. Breathing hole; 4. Land haulout (Chukotka only). All these methods are described in detail in the Report of the Workshop on Hunting Methods for Seals and Walruses (NAMMCO 2005) and will not be covered here.

Regional descriptions Alaska Most walrus hunting in Alaska is done in the pack ice, by single small boats or small groups of boats. Walrus are usually shot first on the ice, then harpooned if necessary. The most common rifles in use are the .270, 7 mm, 30.06 and 375 magnum. It is most important to immobilize the animal with the first shot so that it cannot enter the water. Generally the base of the neck has been found to be the most effective target area for doing this.

Canada (Nunavut and Nunavik) In Nunavut and Nunavik, only a few communities have easy access to walrus. Hunters from some communities must travel long distances to access areas with walrus, and consequently may mount only one or two walrus hunting expeditions per year, during which they may take several animals. In the main walrus hunting communities of Igloolik and Hall Beach, most hunting is done in the pack ice during the spring and early summer. Walrus are generally shot on the ice then harpooned if necessary. In other areas walrus may be hunted in open water during the summer, in which case every effort is made to secure the walrus before it is killed. Smaller numbers of animals are taken at the floe edge and at breathing holes during the winter. In Nunavut there is also a highly regulated, non-native sport hunt for walrus. To date there has been no struck and lost in this hunt, in which approximately 100 animals have been taken over 10 years.

137 NAMMCO Workshop on Struck and Lost in Seal, Walrus and Whale Hunting

West Greenland In West Greenland walrus are generally found in the pack ice many miles offshore. Walrus hunting is limited by law to vessels under 20 tonnes displacement. Walrus are generally shot on the ice, and then harpooned if necessary. However new legislation requires that walrus be harpooned before the killing shot is made. Hunters who spoke in the Working Group were opposed to this because they felt it was not feasible to approach walrus close enough to harpoon them in most cases. Also, in cases where the walrus could be harpooned, it was thought likely that the harpoon line would be broken in the ice.

Northwest Greenland In this area, walrus are often hunted at their breathing holes in new ice during the fall and winter. The walrus is harpooned when it comes up the hole to breathe. The walrus then dives, but is restrained with the harpoon line. When the walrus surfaces again, it is shot in the head at close range. Struck and lost was reported to be rare for this type of hunting.

Factors contributing to struck and lost Few actual estimates of struck and lost in walrus hunting were available to the Working Group. However, based on experience, it was generally agreed that struck and lost was very low for breathing hole and land haulout hunts, medium for ice floe hunts, and highest for open water hunts.

Lack of experience or knowledge of proper techniques Hunting is an activity for which a variety of skills are required, and there are some techniques that relate specifically to reducing the incidence of struck and lost. For example, in ice floe hunts, animals in the centre of the group should be targeted first, so that they are not pushed into the water by others. Also, in open water hunts, it is sometimes advisable to shoot the animal non-lethally so that it can be secured before killing (see Recommendations). There are many such techniques that are often specific for a particular area or set of conditions. It was considered therefore that hunter training and experience was the most important factor in determining the incidence of struck and lost.

Lack of proper equipment It is obvious that a lack of proper equipment, suitably adapted to local conditions, can contribute to struck and lost. Equipment presently in use for walrus hunting by region was described in the Report of the Workshop on Hunting Methods for Seals and Walruses (NAMMCO 2005) and will not be covered here. It was also suggested that new equipment could be developed or adapted that would be effective in reducing struck and lost in walrus hunting. An example would be a small harpoon gun or harpoon cannon.

Poor maintenance of equipment Equipment failure, including breakage of harpoons and lines, jamming of rifles and engine failure, was noted as a common cause of struck and lost. Hunting equipment should therefore be well maintained and carefully inspected before every use. This is

138 NAMMCO Annual Report 2006 also a factor that can affect the safety of hunters.

Weather/Environmental conditions Delegates noted that weather conditions can affect the success of the hunt in several ways. Poor weather can lead to less accurate shooting and therefore to heightened struck and lost. In addition, changing weather conditions can sometimes necessitate the abandonment of a hunt before the animal is properly secured, and can even force hunters to abandon animals that have been landed. Hunters should therefore have access to and use the best available weather forecasts, and should not initiate hunting if the weather conditions are not favourable. Again this issue also affects hunter safety.

Monitoring The Workshop noted the general lack of recent and detailed data on rates of struck and lost in most areas. At present the only area with an operational monitoring programme that includes estimation of struck and lost is the Chukotka region. In addition the limited sports hunt in Canada is closely monitored. Recently the reporting of struck and lost has become mandatory in Greenland, but no data are yet available. This means that at present, old and perhaps unreliable data are being used in management in most areas. This can have a direct effect on hunters, particularly in areas where walrus hunts are controlled through quotas.

It was noted that hunt monitoring at the level of detail that will enable estimation of struck and lost requires careful planning and design, and is best achieved through the active cooperation of hunters, researchers and managers. This requires that hunters “buy in” to the programme by participating honestly and consistently. Therefore the need for estimates of struck and lost must be explained properly to hunters, something that has not been done in the past.

Monitoring can be particularly difficult and expensive in areas where hunts are conducted over an extended period of time by individuals or small groups, and over a large area. Under these conditions it is not feasible to observe a many hunts, and self- reporting systems are difficult to maintain. One idea brought forward was to recruit an appropriate number of “index” hunters, who would be trained to report their hunting activities in sufficient detail to estimate struck and lost. The estimates from the index hunters would then be expanded to cover the entire hunt. A similar process is used to monitor by-catch in many areas.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Hunter training • Walrus hunters should be properly trained and their training should be appropriate for the local environment. Such training can occur through traditional methods, formal schooling and other media such as video and the internet. It was specifically emphasized that inexperienced hunters should accompany experienced hunters on hunts.

139 NAMMCO Workshop on Struck and Lost in Seal, Walrus and Whale Hunting

Hunting techniques • When hunting walrus on ice floes, the hunter should approach as closely as possible before shooting. The hunter should shoot animals in the centre of the group first so that killed animals won’t be pushed into the water by the others. • In open water hunts, it is best to harpoon before shooting, but this is not always feasible. It may be necessary to shoot the walrus in the body and lungs to disable it so that it can be harpooned, and then shoot it lethally. This will reduce the incidence of struck and lost and the chance of the walrus attacking the hunter. • Hunters should obtain the best available forecasts before setting out, only initiate hunting if the weather conditions are right, and abandon hunting if the weather deteriorates.

Hunting equipment • Hunting equipment is often specific to particular regions and seasons, and is adapted to local conditions. Local authorities should compile descriptions of equipment suitable for each area and make these available to hunters and teachers. • Hunters should ensure that proper equipment is available and well maintained. • Technological innovation could reduce the incidence of struck and lost in some hunts. A harpoon gun that would be effective at a range of 10-15 m would be particularly effective in walrus hunting.

Monitoring • The importance of monitoring must be explained to hunters so that they can “buy in” to a monitoring programme. • A monitoring system should provide feedback to hunters so that they can improve their hunting techniques. • Community-based monitoring, based on a combination of hunt observation and post-hunt interviews, has been effective in Chukotka and could be adapted to other areas. • A system based on “index hunters” may be effective in some areas.

REFERENCE

[NAMMCO] North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission. 2005. Report on the NAMMCO Workshop on Hunting Methods for Seals and Walruses. In: NAMMCO Annual Report 2004, NAMMCO, Tromsø, pp. 63-126

140 NAMMCO Annual Report 2006

GENERAL OVERALL RECOMMENDATIONS

A Drafting Group composed of Glenn Williams, Simieone Keenianak, Fernando Ugarte, Harry Brower, Justines Olsen, Egil Øen and the NAMMCO Secretariat developed a set of draft recommendations based on the presentations and the discussions at the Workshop. These draft recommendations were then presented to the workshop participants and discussed one by one, revised if necessary, and adopted by consensus.

The final set of recommendations is:

Minimize animal suffering The Workshop recommended that the hunters should make every effort to reduce unnecessary suffering by hunted animals, by minimizing killing times to the extent that is feasible. However this must be balanced by consideration of the safety of the hunter, and the risk of losing the animal.

Monitoring The Workshop noted that the present information on struck and lost is outdated or inadequate for several species and areas, and that accurate estimation of struck and lost is important for effective management and essential to improve hunting practices.

The Workshop recommended that new monitoring programmes that are appropriate for local conditions should be developed that could produce accurate information that will be accepted by hunters and managers. Such monitoring programmes should be developed in full cooperation among hunters, managers and researchers.

Proper training of hunters The Workshop recommended that hunters should be trained in both the theoretical and practical aspects of hunting, and that training materials and programmes should be appropriate to local conditions.

Hunting equipment The Workshop recommended that hunters should always carry weapons and equipment appropriate to the target species and local hunting conditions, and that the equipment should be properly maintained and renewed when necessary.

Cooperative management The Workshop recommended that the hunters should be involved in the marine mammal management process, including the development of regulations pertaining to hunting.

The Workshop furthermore recommended that the design, development and testing of new weapons and hunting equipment should be done in cooperation with hunters.

Sharing of technology and knowledge The Workshop recommended that there should be open exchange and sharing of

141 NAMMCO Workshop on Struck and Lost in Seal, Walrus and Whale Hunting information about new weapons, equipment and hunting techniques, and that this should be done on both the national and international levels.

These recommendations are for implementation by management authorities, hunters and researchers.

WORKSHOP CLOSURE

The Chairman thanked the technical staff and all participants for making the meeting a success. The Report from the workshop will be sent out to all attendants and presented to the Council of NAMMCO at their next meeting in March 2007 The Report will also be published in the NAMMCO Annual Report for 2006.

142 NAMMCO Annual Report 2006

Appendix 1 PROGRAMME

Chair: Egil Ole Øen, Norwegian School of Veterinary Science Co-chair: Glenn Williams, Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. (NTI) Rapporteur: NAMMCO Secretariat

TUESDAY 14 NOVEMBER 0830: Registration 0900-0905 Welcome: Christina Lockyer, NAMMCO Secretariat 0905-0920 Introductory remarks: Egil O. Øen, Chair of the Workshop 0920-1010 Keynote addresses: The significance of struck ans lost in marine mammal hunting and management Daniel Pike, NAMMCO Secretariat Struck and lost from a hunter's perspective: Kale Mølgaard, The Association of Hunters and Fishermen in Greenland (KNAPK) 1010-1050 Factors that may influence struck and lost: Some factors that may influence the struck and lost rate in marine mammal hunting Egil Ole Øen Anatomy and physiology of marine mammals important for struck and lost Siri K. Knudsen, Norwegian School of Veterinary Science 1050-1110 Coffee break 1110-1140 Monitoring of struck and lost marine mammals Stefan Romberg, DFO, Canada 1140-1200 Struck and lost in the Harp seal hunt in Greenland: a questionnaire survey Fernando Ugarte, Ministry of Fisheries, Hunting and Agriculture, Greenland Home Rule 1200-1220 A study on struck and lost in the whale drive hunt Faroese Islands June 2005 – Septemner 2006 Justines Olsen, Veterinary Service, Faroes Islands 1220-1240 Status of struck and lost in Japanese Research Whaling Hajime Ishikawa, Institute of Cetacean Research 1240-1300 Introduction to Working Group Session 1300-1400 Lunch 1400-1800 Working Groups, two running in parallel 1530-1600 Coffee break WG 1) Seals: Chair: Simeonie Keenainak, NTI Rapporteur: Daniel Pike Presentation: Ole Petersen , KNAPK WG 2) Large whales: Chair: Fernando Ugarte Rapporteur: Christina Lockyer / Fernando Ugarte

143 NAMMCO Workshop on Struck and Lost in Seal, Walrus and Whale Hunting

Presentation: Eugene Brower, Alaska

Common Agenda for all Working Groups: • Description of various hunting techniques • Factors contributing to S&L • Ways to reduce struck and lost • How to monitor struck and lost

1800 Reception hosted by the Faroes and the Greenland Representations on 4th floor.

WEDNESDAY 15 NOVEMBER 0900-1300 Working Groups, remaining two running in parallel

WG 3) Small whales: Chair: Justines Olsen Raporteur: Chrisitna Lockyer Presentation: Simeonie Keenainak

WG 4) Walrus: Chair: Harry Brower, Alaska Rapporteur: Daniel Pike Presentation: Gennady Inankeuyas, The Association of Traditional Marine Mammal Hunters of Chukotka (ATMMHC)

1030-1100 Coffee break 1300-1430 Lunch

1430-1630 Working Groups continue if necessary. Preparation of Working Group reports.

The Drafting Committee will work in the afternoon to prepare recommendations. We anticipate two types of recommendations: 1) General recommendations for all hunting types discussed 2) Specific recommendations for the various types of hunt

THURSDAY 16 NOVEMBER 0900-1100 Working Group presentations and discussion 1100-1145 Coffee and drafting group meeting 1145-1245 Drafting Committee presents suggestions for recommendations 1300-1345 Lunch Drafting Committee revises recommendations according to the discussion in the plenary 1345-1445.1 Discussion, final recommendations and conclusions 1445-1500 Closing by Egil O. Øen, Chair of Workshop

144 NAMMCO Annual Report 2006

1.4 REPORT OF THE MEETING OF THE SUB-COMMITTEE ON INSPECTION AND OBSERVATION

The Sub-Committee on Inspection and Observation met in the Office of the Faroe Islands representation in Copenhagen, 1 February 2007 from 09:00 – 13:00. Present were Ole Heinrich, chair, and Fernando Ugarte (Greenland), Egil Ole Øen and Hild Ynnesdal (Norway), Jústines Olsen (Faroe Islands), Kristjan Loftsson (Iceland), Christina Lockyer and Charlotte Winsnes from the Secretariat.

1&2. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA AND APPOINTMENT OF RAPPORTEUR

The Chair of the Committee, Ole Heinrich, welcomed the Committee members to the meeting. The draft agenda was adopted and Charlotte Winsnes was appointed as rapporteur.

3. THE 2006 SEASON

Winsnes reported from the 2007 observation season, drawing special attention to the following:

- No observation activities took place in Norway. The contracted observer was unable to carry out the assignment due to unforeseen circumstances. The Secretariat decided after consultations with other possible observer candidates and consideration of the whaling scene at the time to not have observation in Norway this season. - One observer was placed in Nuuk and Sisimiut in Greenland and he did both on land and out at sea observations. - No violations of the laws or regulations were observed

The Sub-Committee took note of the report from the Secretariat.

4. REVISION OF THE TEXT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE INSPECTION AND OBSERVATION SCHEME

The Observation Scheme has been operative since 1998. Until 2002 only land based observations were carried out, in the last seasons however, the tendency has been to have observers out at sea. This change, from mostly land based to on board observations, has to a great extent developed in conjunction with the introduction of the trip recorder system (“Blue-box”) in Norway. The introduction of this system has made the national inspector superfluous and literally made room for the observer on board the vessel.

Observations out at sea require other kinds of safety measures than when operating on shore. The Provisions do not take sufficient account of this new situation. For instance in paragraph B. 4. 3 the only mention of safety requirements while at sea is the

145 Report of the Sub-Committee on Inspection and Observation language competency. There is no mention of survival requirements, etc.

The Committee clearly saw the need for fully incorporating into the text of the Provisions the situation with observers being out on vessels. The Secretariat was asked to compile an overview of what kind of safety requirements the various member countries have in connection with operations at sea. The Committee also noted the importance of differentiating between requirements for courses in survival and security/safety.

The Committee agreed to recommend to the Management Committee that the Provisions of the Joint NAMMCO Control Scheme for the Hunting of Marine Mammals be revised to also take account of the safety situation in connection with observation activities out at sea.

4. ELECTION OF OFFICERS

Ole Heinrich was re-elected as chair and Jústines Olsen (the Faroe Islands) was re- elected as Vice-Chair, both positions for the next two years (2007/2008).

5. ADOPTION OF THE REPORT

The final report of the meeting was approved by correspondence on 21 February 2007.

146 NAMMCO Annual Report 2006

SECTION 2 – MANAGEMENT COMMITTEES

2.1 Report of the Management Committee on Cetaceans ...... 149

Appendix 1 Agenda ...... 159 Appendix 2 List of Documents ...... 159

2.2 Report of the Management Committee on Seals and Walruses...... 161

Appendix 1 Agenda ...... 171 Appendix 2 List of Documents ...... 171

ANNEX 1 List of Proposals for Conservation and Management ...... 172

ANNEX 2 Summary of requests by NAMMCO Council to the Scientific Committee and Responses by the Scientific Committee ...... 198

ANNEX 3 Report of the Management Committee Working Group on By-Catch...... 249

NAMMCO Annual Report 2006 2.1 MEETING OF THE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE FOR CETACEANS 28 February 2007, Tromsø, Norway

1.-3. CHAIRMAN'S OPENING REMARKS

The Chair of the Management Committee, Halvard P. Johansen, welcomed delegations and observers to the meeting. Participants to the meeting are listed in Section 3.1 of this volume. The agenda, as contained in Appendix 1, was adopted. Documents available to the meeting are listed in Appendix 2. The Secretariat was appointed as rapporteur for the meeting.

4. NATIONAL PROGRESS REPORTS

National Progress Reports for the year 2005 (Section 5, Volume II) were available from the Faroe Islands, Greenland, Iceland and Norway. Progress Reports were provided by Canada and the Russian Federation and brought to the Management Committee as information items. The Management Committee expressed its appreciation to Canada and the Russian Federation for providing reports.

Due to the fact that there are now 2 management committees in the NAMMCO system, it was recommended that in the future the National Progress Reports should be submitted to the Council.

5. RULES OF PROCEDURE

Now that two management committees exist it was considered necessary to change the name of the present Management Committee to the “Management Committee for Cetaceans”. This may require some minor changes to the Rules of Procedure, but it was agreed that one set of Rules could apply to both management committees.

6.-8. STATUS OF PAST REQUESTS TO THE SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE, PROPOSALS FOR CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT, AND NEW PROPOSALS FOR CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT, REQUESTS FOR ADVICE FROM THE SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH

Marine mammal – fisheries interactions The Management Committee noted the long-standing requests to the Scientific Committee in this area, and the conclusion of the Scientific Committee that no further progress was likely unless more resources were dedicated to modelling efforts already begun in Iceland and Norway, and to gathering the data necessary as model input previously identified by the Scientific Committee. In this respect it was noted that the Icelandic Research Programme, which will provide required data on the feeding ecology of minke whales, will be completed this year. The Management Committee

149 Report of the Management Committee for Cetaceans therefore agreed to recommend that the Scientific Committee review the results of the Icelandic programme on the feeding ecology of minke whales and multispecies modelling as soon as these become available.

Fin whales The Management Committee noted the conclusion of the Scientific Committee that there was no reason to change their previous conclusion that a catch of 150 whales from the West Iceland sub-stock would be sustainable, and considered that this should conclude the SC’s work on the EGI stock until new information becomes available. The recommendations for research made by the Scientific Committee (see Section 4, volume II) were also accepted. It was noted that the IWC Scientific Committee will be continuing with its “pre-implementation assessment” of EGI fin whales, and that the two Scientific Committees had agreed to exchange information on this matter. It was anticipated that the pre-implementation assessment would be completed within 2 years, at which time the NAMMCO Scientific Committee will revise its assessment in light of the new information.

The Management Committee noted that it had previously asked that the Scientific Committee continue with its assessments of fin whale stocks in the areas of interest to NAMMCO countries with existing and new information on abundance and stock delineation as it becomes available, and endorsed the plan of the Scientific Committee to complete an assessment for the Northeast Atlantic stocks as a next step in this process.

Humpback whales In 2004 the Scientific Committee was requested to continue its assessment of humpback whale stocks in the North Atlantic, assessing the long-term effects of annual removals of 0, 2, 5, 10 and 20 whales for West Greenland, and providing estimates of sustainable yield for other stocks. In all cases the management objective would be to maintain the stocks at a stable level. Last year the Committee decided to postpone the provision of advice for West Greenland until a new abundance estimate was available, and to delay the assessment in other areas until after the completion of the NASS-2007 survey.

This year new abundance estimates for West Greenland were available from surveys conducted in 2005. The Management Committee accepted the conclusion of the Scientific Committee that a removal (including by-catch) of up to 10 animals per year in West Greenland would not harm the stock in the short or medium term. The Management Committee therefore proposed that Greenland limit annual removals of humpback whales, including by-chaught and struck and lost whales, to 10 off West Greenland. Noting that further information on abundance should be available after the completion of the TNASS, the Management Committee recommended that the Scientific Committee conduct a formal assessment at that time. In addition the Management Committee recommended that the Scientific Committee investigate the relationship between the humpback whales summering in West Greenland and other areas and incorporate this knowledge into their estimate of sustainable yields of West Greenland humpback whales.

150 NAMMCO Annual Report 2006

Narwhals Norway, Iceland and the Faroes shared the concern expressed by the Scientific Committee, that the narwhal quota for West Greenland remained well above the recommended level of 135 and that the quota had increased since it was introduced in 2004. It was also noted in this respect that the JCNB in 2006 had expressed grave concern at the status of this stock, and recommended the development of a workplan with a time frame for the reduction in total removals of narwhal to the recommended level.

The Minister of Fisheries for Greenland responded that decisions regarding catch limitations are taken with consideration of the views of scientists and hunters, and that in this case the two groups have a very different perception of the status of the stock. Narwhal are seasonally abundant in some areas and it has proven difficult up to now to reach a consensus between scientists and hunters on stock status. Hunting is very important to the culture and economy of Greenland. The minister also stated that belugas and narwhals consume Greenland halibut and disturb the fisheries.

Jessen added that, in order to avoid inflicting undue hardship on hunting families, Greenland has opted for a gradual reduction of quotas, with the aim of reaching recommended sustainable levels. Greenland has also developed a monitoring and survey plan to obtain better information on the status of beluga, narwhal and walrus, for which funding is being sought. In addition Greenland is developing a multi-year management plan for narwhal.

The Management Committee welcomed the development of a monitoring plan by Greenland and encouraged its implementation. It was noted in this respect that narwhal surveys are planned for Melville Bay and Inglefield Bredning in summer 2007, and the Management Committee supported the recommendation of the Scientific Committee that plans for these surveys should be reviewed by the TNASS Planning Committee at their next meeting. The Management Committee also reiterated its recommendation from last year that surveys should be planned with the input and involvement of hunters.

In conclusion the Management Committee reiterated the serious concern expressed in previous years, that present takes of narwhal in West Greenland, according to the advice of both the NAMMCO Scientific Committee and the JCNB Scientific Working Group, are not sustainable and will lead to further depletion of the stock. While accepting that there remains considerable disagreement between scientists and hunters with regard to the status of the stocks, it was nevertheless considered advisable to manage in a precautionary manner in the face of such uncertainty. The Management Committee therefore once again strongly urged the JCNB and the Government of Greenland to take action to bring the removals of narwhals in West Greenland to sustainable levels as quickly as possible.

Belugas The Management Committee noted the concern of the Scientific Committee that the quota for West Greenland beluga remained above the recommended level of 100, at

151 Report of the Management Committee for Cetaceans

140 annually. In this respect the conclusion of the JCNB from their meeting in 2006, that the population is depleted and that further action is required to halt the decline, was also noted. However it was also noted that the quota has been reduced since its introduction in 2004. The Management Committee therefore commended Greenland for their management efforts to improve the conservation status of beluga in this area, and strongly urged Greenland to continue their efforts to bring the catch to sustainable levels. The Management Committee also welcomed the development of the monitoring plan mentioned above for narwhal which also applies to beluga.

Northern bottlenose whales The Scientific Committee last completed an assessment of northern bottlenose whales in 1995. Abundance surveys have been carried out since that time, however these do not provide a reliable basis for the estimation of total abundance as visual survey methods are not effective for this deep diving species. In this respect it was noted that the incorporation of an acoustic component to the TNASS could potentially provide information to improve estimates of abundance for this and other deep diving species over a very broad area. This sub-project would involve the purchase of equipment as well as funding for analyses, which can be costly. However this component of the TNASS remains unfunded at this time. The Management Committee, noting the potential value of acoustic data for the estimation of abundance of this and other species, recommended that further efforts be made to fund this component of the TNASS.

Killer whales In 2004 the Management Committee requested the Scientific Committee to review the knowledge on the abundance, stock structure, migration and feeding ecology of killer whales in the North Atlantic. The Management Committee noted the conclusion of the Scientific Committee that, while considerable progress will likely be made in the next few years the information was still not sufficient to conduct the requested assessment.

Pilot whales The Management Committee noted that it has been over 10 years since the Scientific Committee concluded its assessment of pilot whales. It was recommended at that time that a monitoring programme for pilot whales caught in the Faroes drive hunt be implemented. The Management Committee noted that such a monitoring programme had not yet been implemented, but that ad hoc sampling has been undertaken. Satellite tracking of pilot whales has also been carried out in the Faroes in recent years and there are plans for further tagging in the near future.

In addition the Management Committee noted that the last two sightings surveys (NASS 1995 and NASS 2001) had not had coverage that was sufficient to provide an updated abundance estimate for pilot whales in the North Atlantic, and the best available estimate remained the estimate based on the 1987 and 1989 surveys

Noting the comprehensive international scientific research sampling of all pilot whales caught in the Faroes from 1986 to 1988, the Management Committee underlined the value of building on and updating this valuable information by ensuring on-going

152 NAMMCO Annual Report 2006 sampling of pilot whales in the Faroes. The Management Committee agreed to recommend that the Scientific Committee be requested to develop a proposal for the details of a cost-effective scientific monitoring progamme for pilot whales in the Faroes.

The Management Committee further noted that TNASS in 2007 was expected to provide a better basis for an updated abundance estimate for pilot whales in the North Atlantic and agreed to recommend that both the methodology and the coverage of TNASS take into account the need for reliable estimates for pilot whales. In addition priority should be given to the analysis of data on pilot whales after the completion of TNASS.

Dolphins (white-sided, white-beaked and bottlenose) The Scientific Committee has been working under a long-standing request, dating from 1998, to provide an assessment for white-sided, white-beaked and bottlenose dolphins in the North Atlantic, including direct and indirect interactions with fisheries. The Management Committee noted the conclusion of the Scientific Committee that there was still insufficient information to initiate the assessment at this time, but that this may become feasible as soon as 2008.

Harbour porpoises In 1999 the Scientific Committee provided a general North Atlantic-wide assessment for this species through the device of an international conference, which later led to the publication of a volume of NAMMCO Scientific Publications on harbour porpoises. However this assessment was very general in nature and did not provide specific advice on sustainable harvest levels for most areas. This year the Scientific Committee noted the urgent need for estimates of abundance from all areas other than that covered by SCANS-II. The TNASS survey may provide an estimate for the area around Iceland but will not do so for other areas, as specialized methodology and coverage of fiord areas are required for this species. While records of recent directed catch are available from Greenland, there is no reliable estimate of by-catch from Iceland or Norway, although it may be considerable in these areas. Thus there is not a sufficient information base to provide advice on sustainable removals for this species for any of the NAMMCO member countries.

Noting this, the Management Committee recommended that member countries conduct surveys to produce reliable estimates of abundance for harbour porpoises in their areas. In addition the Management Committee recommended that member countries provide reliable estimates of total removals, including by-catch, for this species. Once this information is available for any area, the sustainability of removals can be assessed by the Scientific Committee. This was considered particularly urgent for Greenland, where directed catches are in the low thousands annually.

Sei whales Sei whales have not been harvested in any area of the North Atlantic since the 1980’s. Although some estimates of abundance are available from the NASS, with the exception of the 1989 survey, they did not have an appropriate seasonal/spatial

153 Report of the Management Committee for Cetaceans coverage for this species. The Management Committee agreed to recommend that the Scientific Committee investigate the status of sei whales in East and West Greenland waters, and provide estimates of sustainable yield.

TNASS The Management Committee commended the effort made by the Committee in the planning of TNASS and was very pleased to see that such a broad international participation and coordination had been sought and achieved. It was particularly pleased to note the active participation of Greenland, Canada and Russia, thus allowing for the first time a trans-Atlantic coverage. The coordination with the American SNESSA survey and the European CODA survey were also much appreciated and represented a welcome step forward in terms of whale conservation.

The Management Committee requested the Committee to continue their diligent planning of TNASS, taking care to ensure that the coverage of the survey and the methodology would be adequate for obtaining reliable data for the main target species - fin, minke and pilot whales - while accommodating at the same time the need for estimates for the harbour porpoise, especially in Icelandic waters.

While recognizing national priorities, the Management Committee recommended that NAMMCO countries make every effort possible to ensure the coordination of the survey in terms of timing and coverage (spatial contiguity). The Management Committee also recommended that member countries assist the Committee in obtaining additional funding to support the TNASS Extension and Acoustic subprojects.

Once the survey has been completed, the Management Committee agreed to recommend that the Scientific Committee develop estimates of abundance and trends as soon as possible, with the primary target species (fin, minke and pilot whales) as a first priority, and secondary target species as a 2nd priority.

9. REPORT OF THE WORKING GROUP ON BY-CATCH

The Working Group held a teleconference on 13 February 2007, and the Report from the meeting is included in Section 2, Annex 3.

Norway reported on progress in monitoring by-catch in selected Norwegian fisheries. Pilot studies initiated 2004 revealed the possibility of high by-catches of marine mammals (in particular grey and harbour seals and harbour porpoises) in three coastal gillnet fisheries. Based on this pilot study, a programme to monitor by-catches of marine mammals was developed for fisheries for cod and anglerfish starting in October 2005. A workshop is scheduled for March 2007 to evaluate results of the first 12 months of by-catch monitoring. The aim is to establish methods for extrapolating from observed by-catches to estimates of total by-catches in entire fisheries. The Working Group recommended that Norway provide the report of the March evaluation meeting to the NAMMCO Scientific Committee at their next meeting, and provide estimates of by-catch from these fisheries to NAMMCO as soon as they

154 NAMMCO Annual Report 2006 become available.

There has been no further progress in developing programmes to monitor by-catch in other NAMMCO member countries. The Faroes plans to conduct a questionnaire survey of fishermen to gather basic information about the magnitude of marine mammal by-catch in various fisheries later this year, and this plan was supported by the Working Group as a useful first step. The Working Group noted that recommendations for improving the Icelandic monitoring programme were accepted by Iceland (NAMMCO 2005c, p. 25), but there has been no progress in implementing them. The Working Group reiterated its previous recommendations and encouraged Iceland to implement these recommendations in a timely fashion.

In 2004 the Management Committee recommended that member countries should prepare working documents outlining the existing knowledge about marine mammal by-catch in their jurisdiction, for the consideration of the Working Group on By-catch. These documents would be evaluated by the Working Group and used to develop recommendations and priorities for by-catch monitoring in member countries. To date documents from Iceland, the Faroes and Norway have been evaluated, but full documentation has not yet been received from Greenland. Unfortunately this material had not yet been prepared because of competing priorities. The Working Group recommended the completion of this documentation for the next meeting.

Last year the Council then suggested that it might be more appropriate if advice on by- catch monitoring systems was provided by the Scientific Committee, and agreed that the Management Committee would consider this in 2007. The Working Group agreed to assist with this process by specifying what scientific advice was required in this area, in the form of a request for advice that could be conveyed to the Scientific Committee (see Annex 3).

The Management Committee commended the Working Group for their valuable and efficient work, and supported the recommendations put forward in their report (Annex 3).

Last year the Council suggested that it might be more appropriate if advice on by- catch was provided by the Scientific Committee, and agreed that the Management Committee would consider this in 2007. The Management Committee agreed that the design of monitoring programmes that will provide accurate and precise estimates of by-catch is in the main a scientific issue, and that such advice could therefore be provided by the Scientific Committee. It was also considered that the Scientific Committee would have better access to the expertise necessary to provide such advice. The Management Committee therefore agreed to recommend that the following request be given to the Scientific Committee, as recommended by the Working Group:

By-catch of marine mammals occurs to an unknown extent in fisheries in NAMMCO member countries and may constitute a large proportion of human removals for some species in some areas. At present no NAMMCO member country has a by-catch monitoring programme that can deliver quantitative

155 Report of the Management Committee for Cetaceans

estimates of by-catch, with associated uncertainty. Work is under way in Norway and Iceland to develop monitoring systems for some fisheries. Therefore there is potentially much to gain from learning from the experiences of other jurisdictions where monitoring programmes are more developed and obtaining scientific advice on the design of a monitoring programme that will satisfy the needs of management. It is recognized that monitoring systems must be tailored to the specific fisheries and the conditions prevalent in different jurisdictions.

The Scientific Committee is therefore requested to: 1. Review by-catch monitoring systems used in other jurisdictions and various types of fisheries, and provide advice on the most effective systems in terms of delivering accurate and precise estimates of by-catch at reasonable cost; 2. Review information on fisheries and by-catch in NAMMCO member countries to determine which fisheries are likely to catch the greatest number of marine mammals and/or negatively affect the conservation status of marine mammal stocks; 3. Provide recommendations specific to country and fishery for monitoring by-catch in NAMMCO member countries; 4. On an ongoing basis, review the by-catch monitoring programmes in place in member countries and provide advice on how they can be improved.

The Management Committee also agreed to disband the standing Working Group on By-catch, as its role would now be fulfilled by the Scientific Committee. The Management Committee thanked the members of the Working Group for their valuable contributions.

10. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE JOINT NAMMCO CONTROL SCHEME

Ole Heinrich chair of the Management Sub-Committee on Inspection and Observation presented the report NAMMCO/16/MC/6.

The Committee had held one meeting in February 2007 discussing a possible revision of the text of the provisions. The situation with observers going out at sea is not sufficiently covered in the present provisions with regards to safety issues, and the Committee recommended a revision of the text of the provisions to take into account this aspect. The Committee saw a clear need to differentiate between requirements for training in survival and safety/security.

The Management Committee agreed that the provisions of the Scheme should be amended to integrate requirements for observer training to ensure observer safety onboard vessels, and to take account of recent technological developments in automated monitoring. In addition the provisions should be modified to support it reporting to the Council rather than the Management Committee.

156 NAMMCO Annual Report 2006

10.1 NAMMCO International Observation Scheme 2006 Charlotte Winsnes presented the report of the NAMMCO International Observation Scheme for the hunting of marine mammals for the 2006 season (NAMMCO/16/MC/7) prepared by the Secretariat.

The implementation of the observation scheme went according to the provisions and the approved scope and range of the observation activities for 2006 were whaling in Greenland and Norway. However due to unforeseen events observation took place only in Greenland.

Observations were carried out from 15 July to 11 August in Nuuk and in Sisimiut. Both land based and out at sea observations took place, among them one successful minke whale hunt and several unsuccessful minke whale and fin whale hunts. The observer found that he could carry out his observations in accordance with the provisions of the Scheme and no infringements were observed.

10.2 NAMMCO International Observation Scheme 2007 The Secretariat had initially proposed whaling in Iceland as the scope for the Observation Scheme in 2007. However, in light of the decision under item 10. above the Management Committee was asked to agree to change the scope to whaling in the Faroes.

The Management Committee approved that the scope and range of the Observation Scheme for 2007 would be whaling in the Faroes.

10.3 Other matters Greenland requested that the Sub-Committee provide a report on experience in using automated monitoring of whale hunting in Norway for next year’s meeting.

11. USER KNOWLEDGE IN MANAGEMENT DECISION-MAKING

Last year the Management Committee re-established the Working Group on User Knowledge in Management and provided new Terms of Reference for the Group. However the Committee had not met and no progress has been made. The Management Committee reaffirmed the importance of this issue, and considered that the process might be facilitated by focussing on a few key species at first. The Management Committee therefore recommended that the Working Group focus narwhal and beluga in the near term. It was also noted that this Working Group will report to the Council henceforth.

12. REPORT OF THE AD HOC WORKING GROUP ON ENHANCING ECOSYSTEM-BASED MANAGEMENT

Last year the Management Committee recommended that the Ad hoc Working Group should continue and meet inter-sessionally, and contact other bodies dealing with marine resource and fisheries management in order to consider EBM approaches in marine mammal management and develop a checklist as recommended. The

157 Report of the Management Committee for Cetaceans

Management Committee noted that the Working Group had not met and no progress had been made in its assigned tasks. The Management Committee therefore recommended that the Working Group meet this year, and noted that it will be reporting to the Council henceforth. Nevertheless this item, which is of course of interest in a management context, will remain on the agenda of the Management Committees.

This year, the FAO will be holding a scientific workshop on ecosystem modelling. NAMMCO has agreed to fund the participation of an observer in this workshop.

Noting the conclusion of the Scientific Committee that no further progress was likely in this area unless more resources were dedicated to modelling efforts already begun in Iceland and Norway, and to gathering the data necessary as model input, the Management Committee recommended that these activities be a priority for member countries.

13. ANY OTHER BUSINESS

There was no other business.

14. ACCEPTANCE OF REPORT

A draft report containing all important items of discussion was presented to the Council on 1 March 2007. The final version was accepted by correspondence.

158 NAMMCO Annual Report 2006

Appendices 1 & 2 Appendix 1 -AGENDA

1. Chairman's opening remarks 2. Adoption of agenda 3. Appointment of rapporteur 4. National Progress Report 5. Rules of Procedure 6. Status of past proposals for conservation and management 7. Status of past requests to the Scientific Committee 8. New proposals for conservation and management, requests for advice from the Scientific Committee and recommendations for scientific research. 9. Report of the Working Group on By-catch 10. Implementation of the Joint NAMMCO Control Scheme 10.1 NAMMCO International Observation Scheme 2006 10.2 NAMMCO International Observation Scheme 2007 10.3 Other matters 11. User Knowledge in Management Decision-Making 12. Report of the ad hoc Working Group on Enhancing Ecosystem-Based Management 13. Any other business 14. Adoption of report

Appendix 2 - LIST OF DOCUMENTS

NAMMCO/16/MC/1 List of Documents NAMMCO/16/MC/2 Agenda 2 NAMMCO/16/MC/3 Status of past proposals for conservation and management - cetaceans NAMMCO/16/MC/4 Summary of active requests by NAMMCO Council to the Scientific Committee, and responses by the Scientific Committee - cetaceans NAMMCO/16/MC/5 Report of the Working Group on By-catch NAMMCO/16/MC/6 Report of the Sub-Committee on Inspection and Observation NAMMCO/16/MC/7 Implementation of the Joint NAMMCO Control Scheme NAMMCO/16/MC/8 Rules of Procedure

National Progress Reports: NAMMCO/16/MC/NPR-F Faroe Islands 2005 NAMMCO/16/MC/NPR-G Greenland 2005 NAMMCO/16/MC/NPR-I Iceland 2005 NAMMCO/16/MC/NPR-N Norway 2005 NAMMCO/16/MC/NPR-C Canada 2005 NAMMCO/16/MC/NPR-R Russian Federation 2005

NAMMCO/16/5 Report of the Scientific Committee

159

NAMMCO Annual Report 2006

2.2 REPORT OF THE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE FOR SEALS AND WALRUSES Tromsø, Norway, 28 February 2007

Amalie Jessen (Greenland) welcomed delegates to the new Management Committee on Seals and Walruses. There were a number of opening matters.

1. ELECTION OF CHAIR 2. At NAMMCO 15 in 2006, it was agreed that Greenland should be offered the chairmanship of this newly formed Management Committee, and Amalie Jessen was appointed as Chair.

2. ELECTION OF VICE-CHAIR

Árni Snæbjörnsson, Iceland was elected as Vice-Chair.

3.– 4. ADOPTION OF AGENDA AND APPOINTMENT OF RAPPORTEUR

The agenda was adopted (Appendix 1), and the Secretariat appointed as rapporteur.

5. REVIEW OF DOCUMENTS

Documents to the meeting were compiled in Appendix 2.

The Secretariat was charged with compiling a future list of documents for this Management Committee that would include relevant information on seal / walrus management and conservation, and sealing / walrus hunting, and form a library of literature available to NAMMCO members.

6. RULES OF PROCEDURE

This matter was discussed in the earlier re-titled Management Committee for Cetaceans, where it was agreed that for the moment, a simplified Rules of Procedure based on the existing one for the Management Committee would be adopted. The only change would be inclusion of plural Management Committees in the title.

The Committee agreed to revise their title to Management Committee for Seals and Walruses.

7. REVIEW OF PAST AND PRESENT RECOMMENDATIONS ON SEAL STOCKS, PROPOSALS FOR CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT, AND REQUESTS FOR ADVICE FROM THE SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE AND RESPONSE AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH

161 Report of the Management Committee for Seals and Walruses

The Committee had available three documents: NAMMCO/16/MC3, NAMMCO/16/MC4 and NAMMCO/16/5 (ANNEX 1, ANNEX 2 this section and Section 4 in Volume II).

7.1 Harp seals It was noted that most requests were completed with some ongoing. There was a regular update through the joint ICES/NAFO WG following the Management Committee’s request that the Scientific Committee annually discuss the scientific information available on harp and hooded seals and advice on catch quotas for these species given by the ICES/NAFO Working Group on Harp and Hooded Seals. The advice by the Scientific Committee on catch quotas should not only be given as advice on replacement yields, but also levels of harvest that would be helpful in light of ecosystem management requirements.

North Atlantic – Barents / White and Greenland seas

Request for advice At NAMMCO 14, the SC was requested to provide harvest levels be specified for the Barents/White Sea and Greenland Sea harp seal stocks that would result in a population reduction of 20% over a period of 20 years.

Response New modelling results available for both stocks indicated that for the Greenland Sea stock, the requested stock size would be reached in 20 years with a total quota of either 35,482 1+ animals or 70,964 pups per year (if one 1+ animal is balanced by 2 pups, as in the current management regime); for the Barents/White Sea stock, the requested stock size would be reached in 20 years with a total quotas of either 98,490 1+ animals or 246,225 pups per year (one 1+balanced by 2.5 pups, as in the current regime).

SC recommendation Such a harvest programme should not be considered without a careful monitoring programme, involving surveys at intervals of 5 years or less, because the uncertainty of the predicted population size at the end of the period is very large in both cases.

General Comment Norway noted that there was now different advice from the NAMMCO SC than the ICES/NAFO WG. Although the advice from the Scientific Committee was appreciated, Norway will not increase the harp seal quota this year as the lower quota as recommended by the ICES/NAFO is already set, and most likely will not be taken. The Management Committee noted the advice from the SC but did not make any recommendation. This topic would be discussed in depth in 2008.

Northwest Atlantic

Request for advice from 2005 Evaluate how a projected decrease in the total population of Northwest Atlantic harp

162 NAMMCO Annual Report 2006 seals might affect the proportion of animals summering in Greenland.

Response • The abundance of Northwest Atlantic harp seals may be stabilizing after a period of rapid increase (2004 survey). • The numbers summering off West Greenland would be expected to also stabilize. • However, the proportion of animals migrating to Greenland may not be constant and may change in response to environmental conditions. • The age structure of the population will change as it stabilizes, and this may also affect the numbers summering in Greenland. • Detailed information on harp seal migratory patterns are required to assess this.

SC recommendations • ICES-NAFO Working Group be asked to address this request and recommended that Greenland forward this request to ICES. • If that is not possible, organisation of a special working group, with active participation by Canada, to address the issue.

General Comment It was noted that this question was still open and that it may be necessary to establish a WG including Canada to resolve this matter. The request to ICES/NAFO had not yet been made, but the Management Committee recommended that Greenland take the initiative.

7.2 Hooded Seals Request for advice Past requests include an update on the status of hooded seals with advice from the ICES/NAFO Working Group on Harp and Hooded Seals. The following information has been provided.

Response Greenland Sea Stock status of this stock was determined as follows: • Pup survey in 2005: current pup production was about 38% lower than in 1997. • In the last two decades, the stock has stabilized at a low level, at only 10-15% of the level observed 60 years ago. • Abundance for Greenland Sea hooded seals: 71,400 (95% C.I. 38,400-104,400) 1+ animals and pup production of 16,900 (95% C.I. 10,200-23,600).

The ICES/NAFO WG concluded that harvesting should not be permitted, mainly because of the observed decline in the stock, with the exception of catches for scientific purposes from 2007 on. During the past 25 years, the annual catch < 5000 (pups), has been much lower than the Total Allowable Catches given, and the Greenlandic catch from the Greenland Sea stock has been 3 - 67 annually. The sealers are concerned because they are not allowed to catch hooded seals this year. They insist that the stock is more numerous than the scientists have observed.

163 Report of the Management Committee for Seals and Walruses

The NAMMCO SC supports the conclusion of the ICES/NAFO WG, with nuances • the low levels of recent harvests cannot have been the sole reason for the apparent decline in the stock; and • recent harvests in East Greenland (Scoresbysund) are very low, and continuation of harvests at these levels will not appreciably affect the status of the stock.

SC recommendations • Harvest should be restricted to necessary scientific catches and to satisfy local needs at roughly current levels. • Careful monitoring programme should be established as recommended by the ICES/NAFO WG. • Biological samples for determination of vital parameters be collected from the Greenlandic hunt in Ittoqqortoormiit. • Recommendation should be revisited after results from the new abundance survey planned in 2007

General Comment Greenland informed that Norway have asked permission to go into the Greenland area to harvest seals in the Greenland Sea. The decision concerning hooded seals will be made in the near future.

The Management Committee noted the recommendations from the SC.

7.3 Ringed Seals There were no outstanding requests and no new information to report for this species.

7.4 Grey Seals There were no outstanding requests and no new information to report for this species.

However, the Committee noted that the SC drew attention to the fact that the last assessment advice was in 2003, and that sufficient new information was now available in Iceland and Norway to make a new assessment.

The Faroes reported that there would be a satellite tracking programme for grey seals starting in the spring of 2007 with a view to further studies on feeding ecology and abundance. This information was welcomed by the Committee.

7. 5 Harbour seals New request for advice Review and assess the status of harbour seals throughout the North Atlantic, including survey methods, stock delineation, ecology and fisheries interactions.

Response A WG with emphasis on expertise on the North Atlantic and adjoining seas, notably the North Sea and Baltic, was convened in Copenhagen, 3-6 October 2006.

SC recommendations

164 NAMMCO Annual Report 2006

The SC supported the conclusions of the WG and the recommendations for research and monitoring. There were concerns about this species in many areas, and the following recommendations were brought forward:

Iceland The population has decreased substantially over the past 26 years, and the SC strongly recommends • better by-catch recording; • continued monitoring of the stock, with surveys at 2-3 year intervals; • a formal assessment to be conducted as soon as is feasible.

Greenland Harbour seals have disappeared over much of their former range in West Greenland, with only a remnant population in the extreme south which may be small. The SC therefore strongly recommends • that there is a consideration of a total cessation of harbour seal hunting in all of W. Greenland; • the size of the remaining southern population should be estimated.

Norway The current harvest, when combined with likely levels of by-catch and possible unreported levels of struck and lost, is probably not sustainable, and the allocated quotas are not sustainable. The SC strongly recommends • better monitoring of by-catch in all fisheries; • continued and frequent abundance surveys.

Faroe Islands The harbour seal has not been breeding in the Faroes for more than a century.

All regions There is a need for the establishment of clear management objectives for this species in all NAMMCO member countries where the species is extant. The SC recommended a requirement for • Clear management objectives in Iceland Greenland and Norway; • A plan for the Faroe Islands in case there was recolonization.

General Comment Norway is currently working on a management plan for harbour seals.

The Faroe Islands took note of the SC report and recommendations but have no priority for a specific management plan at this time because the species no longer occurs in the Faroes.

Greenland is working on management plans for a number of species, including harbour seal. Until now work has focused on polar bears, walrus, narwhal and beluga. However, the next priority will be given to harbour seals.

165 Report of the Management Committee for Seals and Walruses

Reported catches have been very high, probably due to misreporting. Greenland has moved harbour seal to a different place on the list used to report catches, and only a catch of 24 was reported for 2006.

The Management Committee noted the responses of member countries to the recommendations from the Scientific Committee.

7.6 Atlantic Walrus Request for advice There was an ongoing request for advice for an assessment of this stock. Present removals were likely not sustainable for the North Water and West Greenland stocks, and it was recommended that new assessments for these stocks be completed as soon as identified research recommendations were fulfilled (survey reanalysis, new surveys, stock structure, and complete corrected catch series).

Response Greenland had made considerable progress in this area of assessment through implementation of hunting regulations and the Greenland Institute for Natural Resources (GINR) developing a Research Plan for 2007-10.

SC recommendations The SC supported the Greenlandic Research Plan, and encouraged Canada to support Greenland in their effort, since it has now been confirmed that the “West Greenland” walruses are in fact shared between eastern Baffin Island and West Greenland.

General Comment Greenland informed that quotas and other regulations had been introduced under a new Executive Order, finalised in 2006. Thereafter, the government introduced 3-year quotas for the period 2007 – 2009. The approved 3-year quotas are designed to allow for a gradual reduction of catches that by 2009 will result in removals that will be within the sustainable levels recommended by the Greenland Institute of Natural Resources.

Greenland explained that the JCNB dealt originally with narwhal and beluga, and deals now also with walrus. NAMMCO has agreed that JCNB gives management advice for stocks of narwhal and beluga in West Greenland. A similar agreement could be reached about walrus. However, the interaction between JCNB and NAMMCO regarding management advice for walrus should be addressed.

The Management Committee welcomed this information, and supported the recommendations from the SC above. The relationship between JCNB and NAMMCO regarding walrus would be revisited next year.

New request for advice Effects of human disturbance (incl. fishing and shipping activities) on distribution, behaviour and conservation status of walrus in West Greenland. This was considered as

166 NAMMCO Annual Report 2006

Direct effects: Fishing activities causing habitat degradation (damaging of sea floor and depletion of prey resources), and

Indirect effects: Masking of underwater communication during breeding season by noise from fishing activities.

For evaluation, there should be spatial and temporal information on distribution of walrus, fishing operations, including characteristics of noise produced, walrus feeding ecology, habitat quality and the effect of trawling, and walrus vocalizations.

Response Because of present lack of information, the SC was unable to respond to the request, and it is unlikely to be able to do so in the near term.

General Comment The Committee took note of this information.

7.7 Marine Mammal – Fish Interactions The Committee noted that this topic had already been considered under the Management Committee (for Cetaceans). However, it was also noted that there were a number of items directly related to harp and hooded seals that were ongoing in an ecosystem and modelling context. It had already been noted elsewhere (MCC, Section 2.1, Items 6.- 8.) that progress on these items was unlikely until extra funding was available, and results would not be realised for some time.

8. PRIORITIES FOR FUTURE WORK

Norway reported that a new survey for hooded seals would be starting in March 2007, and that they would wait until results were available before more was done on assessments.

Canada provided information about its work plan for the next few years. There would be harp seal surveys every 5 years (next either in 2008 or 2009) in the Northwest Atlantic. There was a grey seal survey being undertaken now (February 2007). Canada was also planning a workshop on the impact of seals on groundfish, including predation, parasites in cod, etc., and seal disturbance on cod aggregation.

Iceland informed that there were only two seal species in Iceland – grey and harbour seal, and that measurement of stock size had been ongoing for the last 20 years. Last year (2006) the harbour seal had been surveyed, and this year there would likely be a survey for grey seals.

Specific Recommendations for future work Requests for Advice for the SC

167 Report of the Management Committee for Seals and Walruses

Hooded Seal Greenland Sea • The Scientific Committee is requested to investigate possible reasons for the apparent decline of this stock of hooded seals; and • Assess the status of the stock on basis of the results from the planned survey in 2007.

Harbour Seal The Scientific Committee is requested to conduct a formal assessment of the status of harbour seals around Iceland and Norway as soon as feasible.

Walrus The Scientific Committee is requested to provide a formal assessment of the Davis Strait stock as soon as finalization of the catch series is complete and the results from the planned 2007 survey are available.

The Scientific Committee is then requested to provide estimates of sustainable yields of the North Water and West Greenland stocks of walrus.

Proposals for Conservation and Management Hooded Seals Greenland Sea Catches in the Greenland Sea should be restricted to necessary scientific catches and to satisfy local needs at roughly current levels.

Harbour Seal Define management objectives for harbour seals in Norway, Iceland and Greenland.

Grey Seals Define management objectives in Norway.

9. RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE WORKSHOP ON STRUCK AND LOST

The Committee requested that the relevant recommendations made should be followed up.

Greenland explained that the loss rate used by the seal forum in 2005 in their assessment of harp seals was 50% for the open water hunt. A new study presented at the Struck and Lost (S&L) workshop estimated loss rates between 20-25%. This study also showed that approximately 30% of the hunters report struck and lost animals as part of their catch.

Canada currently uses a 50% S&L rate in open water Canadian Arctic and Greenland. The S&L rate for the Canadian commercial seal hunt is between 0 and 5%. The 50% S&L level used for the open water hunt has an impact on the Canadian total allowable harvest as it is applied to the Greenland harvest of around 70,000 seals. There is a

168 NAMMCO Annual Report 2006 need to coordinate the work on S&L with the Committee on Hunting Methods. The MC for Seals and Walruses will follow up on all recommendations related to S&L rates. There will be a report on any developments to the next annual meeting.

The Committee recommended that all recommendations from the S&L workshop should be noted, and be followed up on problems associated with open sea/water hunt.

10. CONSERVATION & MANAGEMENT MEASURES

Greenland introduced a new document on Management and Utilisation of Seals in Greenland (NAMMCO/16/INFO3).

The Committee expressed its appreciation for the general information provided by Greenland and noted the importance of ensuring that up-dated factual information about sealing is readily available for the general public.

11. ANY OTHER BUSINESS

Sealing and the EU Norway reported on a meeting with the Belgian Government, and also the Dutch and European Commission about sealskin imports. Norway plans to be more active in the EU arena and supply information about sealing activities, especially welfare issues. Norway appreciated the cooperation with Canada in providing information on sealing activities, because of the threatened banning of seal products. Greenland noted that, as future work the European Commission has decided to focus on the human killing aspect of sealing and advised that sealing countries should prepare information concerning killing methods.

Canada responded that they have been providing factual information to individual European countries, and that they intend to continue cooperation with Norway and Greenland on this matter. It was requested that the NAMMCO Secretariat should be more active in providing scientific information on sealing.

Proposed Sealing Conference Norway reported that Finland has the chair of the Nordic Council of Ministers this year and will be focusing on seals and sealing in the Baltic. At a Nordic fisheries meeting in Norway in November 2006 to discuss the future of seals in the Baltic and resource utilization from Baltic areas, a resolution was adopted for grey seals in which a decision by six EU countries and also Nordic countries was made to promote a study on how the Baltic seal populations should be managed in view of present and foreseeable legislation and taken into account regional differences and needs; and in addition to initiate the study on the possible future market for Baltic seal products including the need for vitalizing historical knowledge, education and training (Nordic- Baltic Ministerial Declaration on the grey seals in the Baltic Sea, ref. NORDEN 60001.15.002/06, adopted 7 November 2006). A conference is planned for October 2007 in Finland on sealing in the Baltic and elsewhere.

169 Report of the Management Committee for Seals and Walruses

It was considered useful for NAMMCO to collaborate in this conference, as challenges relating to seal management are similar in all places. The Chair of the Council had already discussed possible collaboration between NAMMCO and the Nordic Council of Ministers and recommended that this be pursued. It was noted that it would also be important for Canada and the Russian Federation to be involved.

The Committee agreed that NAMMCO should have an active role in this conference, and recommended that the Council take steps to ensure the appropriate involvement.

12. CLOSURE OF THE MEETING

There were no other matters for consideration, and the Chair thanked all participants to the meeting and declared the meeting closed.

The draft report was approved, and the final version agreed by correspondence.

170 NAMMCO Annual Report 2006

Appendices 1 & 2 Appendix 1 - AGENDA

1. Election of Chairman 2. Election of Vice Chairman 3. Adoption of agenda 4. Appointment of rapporteur 5. Review of documents 6. Rules of Procedure 7. Review of past and present recommendations on seal stocks 8. Priorities for future work 9. Recommendations from Workshop on Struck and Lost 10. Conservation & management measures 11. Recommendations for scientific research 12. Any other business

Appendix 2 – LIST OF DOCUMENTS

NAMMCO/16/SMC/1 List of Documents NAMMCO/16/SMC/2 Agenda NAMMCO/16/SMC/3 Rules of Procedure - draft NAMMCO/16/SMC/4 Status of past proposals for conservation and management - seals NAMMCO/16/SMC/5 Summary of active requests by NAMMCO Council to the Scientific Committee and responses by the Scientific Committee - seals NAMMCO/16/5 Report of the Scientific Committee NAMMCO/16/8 – Annex 1 Report of the NAMMCO Workshop on Struck and Lost

171 Report of the Management Committees

ANNEX 1: STATUS OF PAST PROPOSALS FOR CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT

This table provides a summary of all proposals for conservation and management made by the Management Committee, and the responses of member countries to these proposals as stated at later meetings. This document will be continually updated to serve as a resource for both the Council and the Management Committees. See List of References for sources of meeting documents. Codes beginning with: 1 – relevant to all Management Committees; 2 – relevant to seals; 3 – relevant to whales.

CODE PROPOSAL FOR CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT MANAGEMENT MEASURES/RESPONSE BY MEMBER COUNTRIES 1.1.0 Incorporation of the users’ knowledge in the deliberations of the Scientific Committee

1.1.1 The Management Committee endorsed the proposals and viewpoints Status Reports under development. contained in section 6 in the Scientific Committee report, and suggested that the “Draft Minke Whale Stock Status Report” (NAMMCO/9/7) could usefully serve as a pilot project for cooperation with the hunters. (NAMMCO/9) 1.1.2 The Management Committee had previously asked the Secretariat to Greenland informed the Committee that a proceed with a proposal by the Scientific Committee to use stock person had been hired at the Greenland Institute status reports as a starting point for discussions with resource users to of Natural Resources to deal with these issues, incorporate their knowledge in advice to Council, and to use the stock and that this employee is also on the Advisory status report on minke whales as a pilot project. However, in 2000 the Board of the Conference. (NAMMCO/11). Management Committee recommended that a proposal for a conference on incorporating user knowledge and scientific knowledge into management advice should proceed, and asked the Conference Advisory Group to plan this conference to evaluate whether and how the previous proposal for incorporating user knowledge into the Scientific Committee’s deliberations could be incorporated into the 172 NAMMCO Annual Report 2006

CODE PROPOSAL FOR CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT MANAGEMENT MEASURES/RESPONSE BY MEMBER COUNTRIES Conference (NAMMCO/11). 2.1.0 Harp seals

2.1.1 The Management Committee requests that the Scientific Committee annually discusses the scientific information available on harp and hooded seals and advice on catch quotas for these species given by the ICES/NAFO Working Group on Harp and Hooded Seals. The advice by the Scientific Committee on catch quotas should not only be given as advice on replacement yields, but also levels of harvest that would be helpful in light of ecosystem management requirements

For the Barents/White Sea and Greenland Sea stocks, in addition to the advice on replacement yields, advice should be provided on the levels of harvest that would result in varying degrees of stock reduction over a 10 year period (NAMMCO/13). 2.1.2 Northwest Atlantic The Management Committee noted that a new abundance estimate for Northwest Atlantic harps seals of 4.8 million was available, based on a pup production estimate for 1994 of 702,900. The Management Committee also noted the conclusion that the Northwest Atlantic population of harp seals has been growing at a rate of 5% per year since 1990, and that the 1996 population was estimated to be 5.1 million, with a calculated replacement yield of 287,000. The Management Committee concluded that catch levels of harp seals

173 Report of the Management Committees

CODE PROPOSAL FOR CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT MANAGEMENT MEASURES/RESPONSE BY MEMBER COUNTRIES in Greenland and Canada from 1990 to 1995 were well below the calculated replacement yields in this period (NAMMCO/6).

Noting that Canada has instituted a multi-year management plan with a 3- year allowable catch of harp seals totalling 975,000 (not including the catch by Greenland), the Management Committee requested the Scientific Committee to provide advice on the likely impact on stock size, age composition, and catches in West Greenland and Canada under the conditions of this plan (NAMMCO/13). 2.1.3 Northwest Atlantic The Management Committee noted that combined estimated catches Canada brought to the attention of the of harp seals in Canada and Greenland are in the order of 300,000 and Committee the recently completed Report of the that these catches are near, or at, the established replacement yields Eminent Panel on Seal Management, which (NAMMCO/8). contains a full review of research and management of seals in Canada, with a primary focus on Northwest Atlantic harp and hooded seals. The Report is available at the following web site: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/seal- phoque/reports/index.htm. Canada also noted that an abundance survey of the Northwest Atlantic harp seals had been completed in 1999, and that published results were now available (NAMMCO/11).

174 NAMMCO Annual Report 2006

CODE PROPOSAL FOR CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT MANAGEMENT MEASURES/RESPONSE BY MEMBER COUNTRIES

Greenland commented that sustainable catches may be obtained at other catch levels than those that provide replacement yields (NAMMCO/11).

The Observer for Canada presented information on a multi-year management plan for the Atlantic seal hunt, which was announced in February 2003. For harp seals total allowable catch is set at 975,000 over a 3-year period. If the full quota were taken and Greenlandic harvests were as forecast, the total take should result in a slight population reduction over the period, while still maintaining the population well above the conservation reference points adopted (NAMMCO/12).

Greenland informed the Management Committee that bilateral discussions with Canada on the Canadian Management Plan had taken place over the past year (NAMMCO/13).

Greenland noted that there had still been no bilateral consultations with Canada on 175 Report of the Management Committees

CODE PROPOSAL FOR CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT MANAGEMENT MEASURES/RESPONSE BY MEMBER COUNTRIES management of this stock, which is shared between the two countries. The Observer for Canada informed the Committee that a new multi-year management plan is in preparation, and that consultations with Greenland would be arranged in the near future (NAMMCO/15).

2.1.4 White/Barents Sea Norway informed the Committee that measures The Management Committee noted the stock status and catch options were being considered to improve the efficiency presented by the Scientific Committee, and concluded that the catch of the seal harvest in this area. The possibility of level in 1998 was well below the calculated replacement yield. Catches introducing smaller vessels into the seal hunt is at the same level in the future may result in population increase. From a being pursued. The long-term goal will be to resource management point of view, future quota levels approaching the reduce the need for subsidising the hunt and replacement yield are advised. (NAMMCO/9) increase the take of seals from this stock (NAMMCO/13, NAMMCO/14, NAMMCO/15). 2.1.5 Greenland Sea Norway informed the Committee that, similar to The Management Committee noted the stock status and catch options the situation for the White/Barents Sea stock, presented by the Scientific Committee, and concluded that the catch efforts are being made to improve the efficiency level in 1998 was well below the calculated replacement yield. of harvesting. Recent harvests have been a small Catches at the same level in the future may result in population fraction of available quotas. Again the long-term increase. From a resource management point of view, future quota goal will be to reduce the need for subsidising the levels approaching the replacement yield are advised. (NAMMCO/6) hunt and increase the take of seals from this stock (NAMMCO/13).

Norway reported that quotas for this stock have 176 NAMMCO Annual Report 2006

CODE PROPOSAL FOR CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT MANAGEMENT MEASURES/RESPONSE BY MEMBER COUNTRIES been roughly doubled since 2005, based on advice from NAMMCO and ICES. However at present there is insufficient capacity to take higher quotas, so catches are expected to be much lower than the quotas (NAMMCO/15). 2.1.6 The Management Committee noted the conclusion of the Scientific Committee that the framework for the management of these species proposed by the ICES/NAFO Working Group would not be useful for NAMMCO for technical reasons and because the management objectives inherent in the framework were inflexible. In the case of harp and hooded seals, where management goals may in the future be defined in relation to ecosystem based objectives, more flexibility will be required than is allowed in this framework (NAMMCO/15)

As suggested by the Scientific Committee in 2004, the Management Committee recommended that NAMMCO explore the possibility with ICES and NAFO of assuming a formal joint role in the Working Group on Harp and Hooded Seals. The Secretariat should contact ICES and NAFO in this regard. As a starting point, the Working Group, jointly with the NAMMCO Scientific Committee, should be asked to provide advice on outstanding requests (see NAMMCO Annual Report 2004, p. 27) (NAMMCO/15).

2.2.0 Hooded seals

177 Report of the Management Committees

CODE PROPOSAL FOR CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT MANAGEMENT MEASURES/RESPONSE BY MEMBER COUNTRIES 2.2.1 Northwest Atlantic Noting the Scientific Committee’s review of available analyses of hooded seal pup production, which recognised that calculations are dependent on the particular rate of pup mortality used, as well as the harvest regimes, the Management Committee concluded that present catches of hooded seals in the Northwest Atlantic (1990-1995) were below the estimated replacement yields of 22,900 calculated for a harvest of pups only, and 11,800 calculated for a harvest of 1-year and older animals only (NAMMCO/6). 2.2.2 Northwest Atlantic The Management Committee noted that the total catch of hooded seals Greenland noted that this stock was shared with in the Northwest Atlantic in 1996 slightly exceeded the replacement Canada and that the two countries hold regular yield while in 1997 the total number of seals taken was much lower bilateral discussions on management of this (NAMMCO/8). stock, including an exchange of information on harvest statistics, utilisation and stock assessment (NAMMCO/11). 2.2.3 Greenland Sea The Management Committee noted the stock status and catch options While supporting the past conclusion of the presented by the Scientific Committee, and concluded that the catch Management Committee that catch levels for level in 1998 was well below the calculated replacement yield. Catches this stock are below replacement yield, Norway at the same level in the future may result in population increase. From a noted that the abundance estimate for this stock resource management point of view, future quota levels approaching the is dated and that it hoped that new information replacement yield are advised (NAMMCO/9). should soon be available from surveys planned for 2002 (NAMMCO/11).

178 NAMMCO Annual Report 2006

CODE PROPOSAL FOR CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT MANAGEMENT MEASURES/RESPONSE BY MEMBER COUNTRIES Norway informed the Committee that quotas in this area have been reduced on the advice of the ICES/NAFO Working Group on Harp and Hooded Seals, mainly because there is no recent abundance estimate for the stock. Consequently it is expected that the quota may be fully utilised this year (NAMMCO/13).

Norway informed the Committee that a hooded seal survey covering all stocks will be carried out jointly with Canada and Greenland in 2005 (NAMMCO/14).

A survey covering all stocks was carried out in 2005. Norway reported that, based on preliminary results from these surveys, quotas have been reduced for the Greenland Sea stock. A new survey will be carried out in the near future. Greenland noted that it had given Norway permission to take seals within the Greenland EEZ in 2006 (NAMMCO/15).

2.3.0 Ringed seals

2.3.1 The Management Committee noted the conclusions of the Scientific 179 Report of the Management Committees

CODE PROPOSAL FOR CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT MANAGEMENT MEASURES/RESPONSE BY MEMBER COUNTRIES Committee on the assessment of ringed seals in the North Atlantic, which had been carried out through the Scientific Committee Working Group on Ringed Seals. In particular, the Management Committee noted that three geographical areas had been identified for assessing the status of ringed seals, and that abundance estimates were only available for Area 1 (defined by Baffin Bay, Davis Strait, eastern Hudson Strait, Labrador Sea, Lancaster, Jones and Smith sounds (NAMMCO/6). 2.3.2 While recognising the necessity for further monitoring of ringed seal removals in Area 1, the Management Committee endorsed the The Greenland government is presently Scientific Committee’s conclusions that present removals of ringed undertaking a regulatory initiative which will seals in Area 1 can be considered sustainable (NAMMCO/6). deal with hunting of all seals in Greenland, rather than just harbour seals as at present (NAMMCO/11). 2.4.0 Grey seal

2.4.1 The Management Committee noted the concern expressed by the Iceland reported that the management objective Scientific Committee with regard to the observed decline in the for grey seals would be to maintain the stock grey seal stock around Iceland, where harvesting has been above size close to the current level, and that sustainable levels for more than 10 years, with the apparent protective measures would be taken should objective of reducing the size of the stock. The Management further declines continue. A precondition to this Committee agreed to recommend that Iceland should define clear objective will be careful monitoring of the stock management objectives for this stock. size.

180 NAMMCO Annual Report 2006

CODE PROPOSAL FOR CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT MANAGEMENT MEASURES/RESPONSE BY MEMBER COUNTRIES The Management Committee noted the conclusion of the Scientific Norway reported that a management plan for Committee that the new quota levels implemented for Norwegian grey seals is presently under development. grey seals would, if filled, almost certainly lead to a rapid reduction Recent catches have been lower than the quota in population in the area. The Management Committee agreed to levels in most areas (NAMMCO/14). recommend that Norway should define clear management objectives for this stock. Norway reported that a management plan for grey seals is still under development. Recent For the Faroe Islands, the Management Committee supported the catches have been lower than the quota levels in recommendation of the Scientific Committee to obtain better most areas. In response to a query from information on the level of catch (NAMMCO/13). Greenland, Norway informed the Committee that grey seals are not managed in cooperation with other jurisdictions as there is believed to be little exchange among stocks (NAMMCO/15).

The Faroe Islands noted that a drastic decline in salmon aquaculture had likely led to a decline in killing of grey seals that were a nuisance to the industry (NAMMCO/15).

2.6.0 Atlantic walruses

2.6.1 The Management Committee examined the advice of the Scientific Greenland provided the Management Committee Committee on Atlantic Walrus and noted the apparent decline which with information on further measures recently the Scientific Committee identified in respect to "functional" stocks of implemented through legislation by the walrus of Central West Greenland and Baffin Bay. Greenland authorities for the conservation of the 181 Report of the Management Committees

CODE PROPOSAL FOR CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT MANAGEMENT MEASURES/RESPONSE BY MEMBER COUNTRIES West Greenland stock. These regulations include: While recognising the over all priority of further work to clarify and the restriction of walrus hunting to people with confirm the delineation and abundance of walrus stocks in the North valid professional hunting licences only; a year- Atlantic area, the Management Committee recommends that round ban on walrus hunting south of 66° N; Greenland take appropriate steps to arrest the decline of walrus along limitations on the means of transport used in its west coast. connection with walrus hunting to dog sleds and vessels of 19.99 GRT/31.99 GT or less; and the Taking into account the views of the Scientific Committee that the sale of walrus products limited to direct sales at Baffin Bay walrus stock is jointly shared with Canada and that the open markets or for personal use only. Municipal West Greenland stock might be shared, the Management Committee authorities now also have the possibility of encourages Canada to consider working co-operatively with implementing further restrictions if circumstances Greenland to assist in the achievement of these objectives (NAMMCO require (NAMMCO/8). Annual Report 1995: 49). Greenland noted that in addition to the regulatory measures that were taken in 1999, it had been decided to introduce quotas on walrus. A new regulatory proposal has been drafted and public hearings will be held in the near future. The final regulatory proposal will take these hearings into account (NAMMCO/11).

Greenland informed the Committee that the regulatory initiative to introduce quotas and other hunting regulations for this species had been delayed, and comprehensive public 182 NAMMCO Annual Report 2006

CODE PROPOSAL FOR CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT MANAGEMENT MEASURES/RESPONSE BY MEMBER COUNTRIES hearings have been conducted. The draft regulations have now been submitted to the Council of Hunters. It is expected that a final decision on the initiative will be taken later in 2003 (NAMMCO/12).

Greenland informed the Committee that a regulatory initiative that will restrict walrus hunting to those holding valid hunting licences, and allow the introduction quotas and other hunting regulations for this species was now in progress, and that public hearings were being conducted. The regulation will go to the Greenlandic government for approval this year (NAMMCO/13).

Greenland announced that they plan introducing quotas for walrus, possibly in 2005. Greenland is awaiting the findings of the Scientific Committee in their assessment of walrus (NAMMCO/14).

Greenland noted that the planned regulatory initiative had been delayed but was expected to be introduced in 2006 (NAMMCO/15). 183 Report of the Management Committees

CODE PROPOSAL FOR CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT MANAGEMENT MEASURES/RESPONSE BY MEMBER COUNTRIES

3.1.0 North Atlantic fin whales

3.1.1 East Greenland-Iceland Stock The Management Committee accepted that for fin whales in the East Greenland – Iceland (EGI) stock area, removals of 200 animals per year would be unlikely to bring the population down below 70% of its pre-exploitation level in the next 10 years, even under the least optimistic scenarios. However, catches at this level should be spread throughout the EGI stock area, roughly in proportion to the abundance of fin whales observed in the NASS surveys. Furthermore, the Management Committee stressed that the utilization of this stock should be followed by regular monitoring of the trend in the stock size.

The Management Committee also noted the conservative nature of the advice from the Scientific Committee on which the conclusion of the Management Committee was based (NAMMCO/9).

3.1.2 East Greenland-Iceland Stock The Management Committee noted the conclusion of the Scientific Committee that projections under constant catch levels suggest that the inshore substock will maintain its present abundance (which is above MSY level) under an annual catch of about 150 whales. It is

184 NAMMCO Annual Report 2006

CODE PROPOSAL FOR CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT MANAGEMENT MEASURES/RESPONSE BY MEMBER COUNTRIES important to note that this result is based upon the assumption that catches are confined to the “inshore” substock, i.e. to the grounds from which fin whales have been taken traditionally. If catches were spread more widely, so that the “offshore” substock was also harvested, the level of overall sustainable annual catch possible would be higher than 150 whales.

Faroe Islands The Management Committee noted that the conclusion of the Scientific Committee had not changed from the previous assessment, that the uncertainties about stock identity are so great as to preclude carrying out a reliable assessment of the status of fin whales in Faroese waters, and thus the Scientific Committee was not in a position to provide advice on the effects of various catches. It may also be necessary to obtain clearer guidance on the management objectives for harvesting from what is likely to be a recovering stock before specific advice can be given (NAMMCO/13). 3.3.0 Minke Whales – Central North Atlantic

3.3.1 The Management Committee accepted that for the Central Stock Area the minke whales are close to their carrying capacity and that removals and catches of 292 animals per year (corresponding to a mean of the catches between 1980-1984) are sustainable. The Management 185 Report of the Management Committees

CODE PROPOSAL FOR CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT MANAGEMENT MEASURES/RESPONSE BY MEMBER COUNTRIES Committee noted the conservative nature of the advice from the Scientific Committee (NAMMCO/8) 3.3.2 The Management Committee took note of the conclusions of the Scientific Committee with regard to the Central Atlantic Stock, that, under all scenarios considered, a catch of 200 minke whales per year would maintain the mature component of the population above 80% of its pre-exploitation level over that period. Similarly, a catch of 400 per year would maintain the population above 70% of this level. This constitutes precautionary advice, as these results hold even for the most pessimistic combination of the lowest MSYR and current abundance, and the highest extent of past catches considered plausible. The advice applies to either the CIC Small Area (coastal Iceland), or to the Central Stock as a whole (NAMMCO/13). 3.4.0 Narwhal - West Greenland

3.4.1 Avanersuaq The Management Committee noted that the present exploitation level As for beluga, harvest quotas will be introduced in Avanersuaq of 150/yr seems to be sustainable, assuming that the for West Greenland narwhal in the near future same whales are not harvested in other areas. (NAMMCO/11).

Melville Bay – Upernavik Greenland informed the Committee that the The Management Committee noted that the Scientific Committee regulatory initiative to introduce quotas and could give no status for the Melville Bay – Upernavik summering other hunting regulations for this species had 186 NAMMCO Annual Report 2006

CODE PROPOSAL FOR CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT MANAGEMENT MEASURES/RESPONSE BY MEMBER COUNTRIES stock. been delayed, and comprehensive public hearings have been conducted. The draft Uummannaq regulations have now been submitted to the The Management Committee noted that the substantial catches (several Council of Hunters. It is expected that a final hundreds) in some years do cause concern for the status of this decision on the initiative will be taken later in aggregation. The Management Committee further noted that the 2003 (NAMMCO/12). abundance of narwhal in this area should be estimated.

Disko Bay The Management Committee noted that present catches in this area are probably sustainable.

Catch Statistics The Management Committee noted that for both narwhal and beluga it is mandatory for future management that more reliable catch statistics (including loss rates) are collected from Canada and Greenland (NAMMCO/9).

3.4.2 The Management Committee accepted that the JCNB would provide Greenland informed the Committee that the management advice for this stock, which is shared by Canada and new regulations mentioned under 5.8 for Greenland. The Management Committee therefore recommended that beluga will also apply to narwhal, and that closer links be developed with the JCNB on this and other issues of quotas will be introduced in July 2004 mutual concern. (NAMMCO/10) (NAMMCO/13).

187 Report of the Management Committees

CODE PROPOSAL FOR CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT MANAGEMENT MEASURES/RESPONSE BY MEMBER COUNTRIES 3.4.3 The Management Committee noted the conclusions of the Greenland informed the Committee that quotas Scientific Committee, that the West Greenland narwhal have been of 200 in West Greenland and 100 in Qaanaaq depleted, and that a substantial reduction in harvest levels will be had been introduced in 2004. After required to reverse the declining trend. These are preliminary implementation the catch was lower than the conclusions, and more research and assessment work will be quota level (NAMMCO/14). required. Nevertheless the Management Committee expressed its grave concern over the status of the West Greenland narwhal, and Greenland noted that a quota system for narwhal noted that the JCNB, which provides management advice for this had been introduced in 2004, and the quota for 1 stock, would be considering this information in the near future. The July 2004 to 30 June 2005 of 300 had been Management Committee also noted that it will be important for nearly fully taken. The quota for 2005/2006 of 260 had been raised to 310 during the hunting NAMMCO to monitor the situation closely and update the season, mainly because hunter observations assessment as soon as more information is available suggested that narwhal numbers were larger (NAMMCO/13). than expected and because the original quota levels were exceeded (NAMMCO/15). 3.4.4 This year the Scientific Committee provided similar advice to that given in 2004, that the total removal of narwhals in West Greenland should be reduced to no more than 135 individuals. This advice was provided with even greater emphasis due to the fact that all models reviewed suggested total annual removals even lower than this. This conclusion was reached in a joint meeting with the JCNB Scientific Working Group, using the best scientific advice available.

It is apparent that there continues to be considerable disagreement between scientists and hunters on narwhal stock structure, life history, 188 NAMMCO Annual Report 2006

CODE PROPOSAL FOR CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT MANAGEMENT MEASURES/RESPONSE BY MEMBER COUNTRIES and especially abundance and trends. While recognising the existence of this disagreement, the Management Committee concluded that it is nevertheless necessary to manage narwhals in a precautionary manner in the face of uncertainty and apparently contradictory evidence. In this regard it was noted that the 2004/2005 quota was 300 and that the quota for 2005/2006 of 260 was raised to 310. These quotas are more than two times the level recommended by the Scientific Committee.

While commending Greenland for the recent introduction of quotas and reduction in the harvest, the Management Committee expressed serious concern that present takes of narwhal in West Greenland, according to the advice of both the NAMMCO Scientific Committee and the JCNB Scientific Working Group, are not sustainable and will lead to further depletion of the stock.

In 2000 NAMMCO accepted that the Canada/Greenland Joint Commission on Conservation and Management of Narwhal and Beluga (JCNB) would provide management advice for this stock. The Management Committee therefore strongly urged the JCNB and the Government of Greenland to take action to bring the removals of narwhals in West Greenland to sustainable levels (NAMMCO/15). 3.5.0 Beluga - West Greenland

3.5.1 Maniitsoq – Disko The Management Committee noted that a series of surveys conducted Greenland stated that this issue again will be 189 Report of the Management Committees

CODE PROPOSAL FOR CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT MANAGEMENT MEASURES/RESPONSE BY MEMBER COUNTRIES since 1981 indicate a decline of more than 60% in abundance in the thoroughly discussed with the hunters, and that area Maniitsoq to Disko. It further noted that with the present harvest the Greenland Government does share the levels (estimated at 400/yr) the aggregation of belugas in this area is concerns expressed. (NAMMCO/10) likely declining due to overexploitation. Greenland informed the Committee that in Avanersuaq – Upernavik November 2000 the government made a The present harvest in the area Avanersuaq - Upernavik is estimated to decision to introduce harvest quotas for beluga be more than 100/yr. The Management Committee noted that since and narwhal. Public hearings on a draft this beluga occurrence must be considered part of those wintering in regulatory proposal were held in spring 2001. the area from Maniitsoq to Disko, it is considered to be declining due The results of these hearings are being taken to overexploitation. into account in the drafting of a revised regulatory proposal, and a final set of Finally the Management Committee noted the conclusion by the regulations is expected to be introduced Scientific Committee that with the observed decline a reduction in sometime in 2002 (NAMMCO/11). harvesting in both areas seems necessary to halt or reverse the trend (NAMMCO/9) Greenland informed the Committee that the regulatory initiative to introduce quotas and other hunting regulations for this species had been delayed, and comprehensive public hearings have been conducted. The draft regulations have now been submitted to the Council of Hunters. It is expected that a final decision on the initiative will be taken later in 2003 (NAMMCO/12). 3.5.2 It was accepted that the Canada/Greenland Joint Commission on 190 NAMMCO Annual Report 2006

CODE PROPOSAL FOR CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT MANAGEMENT MEASURES/RESPONSE BY MEMBER COUNTRIES Conservation and Management of Narwhal and Beluga (JCNB) would provide management advice for this stock, which is shared by Canada and Greenland. The Management Committee therefore recommended that closer links be developed between NAMMCO and the JCNB on this and other issues of mutual concern (NAMMCO/10). 3.5.3 In 2000 the Management Committee accepted that the JCNB would Greenland informed the Committee that a provide management advice for this stock, which is shared by Canada regulatory framework allowing the and Greenland. The Management Committee noted with pleasure that government to set quotas and other limitations a joint meeting of the NAMMCO Scientific Working Group on the on hunting has now been passed. The new Population Status of North Atlantic Narwhal and Beluga and the regulations provide protection for calves and JCNB Scientific Working Group had been held in May 2001, and females with calves and limit the size of recommended that this cooperation at the scientific level should vessels that are involved in beluga and continue. The Management Committee also reiterated its narwhal hunting as well as hunting methods. recommendation that closer links be developed between NAMMCO The Municipalities will have the power to and the JCNB on this and other issues of mutual concern. limit or prohibit the use of nets for (NAMMCO/11). narwhal/beluga harvesting. It is expected that

quotas will be introduced for beluga and narwhal by July 2004. The municipalities will be involved in the allocation of the quotas (NAMMCO/13).

Greenland informed the Committee that a quota of 320 had been introduced in West Greenland and Qaanaaq year-round from 1st 191 Report of the Management Committees

CODE PROPOSAL FOR CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT MANAGEMENT MEASURES/RESPONSE BY MEMBER COUNTRIES July 2004. After implementation the catch was lower than the quota level, mainly due to poor weather conditions (NAMMCO/14).

Greenland noted that a quota system for beluga had been introduced in 2004, and the quota for 1 July 2004 to 30 June 2005 of 320 had not been fully harvested due mainly to poor weather conditions. The quota for 2005/2006 is 220 (NAMMCO/15). 3.5.4 This year the Scientific Committee provided similar advice to that given previously, that reducing catches to 100 per year will have an 80% chance of halting the decline in beluga numbers by 2010. Maintaining higher catches reduces the probability of halting the decline. This conclusion was reached in a joint meeting with the Canada/Greenland Joint Commission on Conservation and Management of Narwhal and Beluga (JCNB) Scientific Working Group, using the best scientific advice available. Similar advice was first provided in 2000 and has been confirmed and reiterated in meetings held in 2003 and 2004.

It is apparent that there continues to be considerable disagreement between scientists and hunters on beluga stock structure, life history, and especially abundance and trends. While recognising the existence of this disagreement, the Management Committee concluded that it is 192 NAMMCO Annual Report 2006

CODE PROPOSAL FOR CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT MANAGEMENT MEASURES/RESPONSE BY MEMBER COUNTRIES nevertheless necessary to manage beluga in a precautionary manner in the face of uncertainty and apparently contradictory evidence. In this regard it was noted that the present quota of 200 was twice that recommended by the Scientific Committee.

While commending Greenland for the recent introduction of quotas and reduction in the harvest, and recognising that the actual catch in 2004/2005 was within the level recommended, the Management Committee expressed serious concern that present quotas for beluga in West Greenland, according to the advice of both the NAMMCO Scientific Committee and the JCNB Scientific Working Group, are not sustainable and will lead to further reduction of the stock.

In 2000 NAMMCO accepted that the JCNB would provide management advice for this stock. The Management Committee therefore strongly urged the JCNB and the Government of Greenland to take action to bring the removal of belugas in West Greenland to sustainable levels (NAMMCO/15). 3.6.0 Northern bottlenose whales

3.6.1 The Management Committee discussed the advice of the Scientific Committee on the status of the northern bottlenose whale and noted that this was the first conclusive analysis on which management of the northern bottlenose whale could be based.

193 Report of the Management Committees

CODE PROPOSAL FOR CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT MANAGEMENT MEASURES/RESPONSE BY MEMBER COUNTRIES The Management Committee accepted that the population trajectories indicated that the traditional coastal drive hunt in the Faroe Islands did not have any noticeable effect on the stock and that removals of fewer than 300 whales a year were not likely to lead to a decline in the stock (NAMMCO/5, page 22). 3.8.0 Long-finned pilot whales

3.8.1 The Management Committee noted the findings and conclusions of the In 1997 the Management Committee concluded Scientific Committee, through its review of the ICES Study Group that the Faroese drive hunt of pilot whales is Report and the analysis of data from NASS-95 with respect to the sustainable. There have been no changes in status of long-finned pilot whales in the North Atlantic (Section 3.1, annual take, new abundance estimates or other item 3.1), which also confirmed that the best available abundance information that warrant any change in this estimate of pilot whales in the Central and Northeast Atlantic is conclusion (NAMMCO/11). 778,000. With respect to stock identity it was noted that there is more than one stock throughout the entire North Atlantic, while the two extreme hypotheses of i) a single stock across the entire North Atlantic stock, and ii) a discrete, localised stock restricted to Faroese waters, had been ruled out.

The Management Committee further noted the conclusions of the Scientific Committee that the effects of the drive hunt of pilot whales in the Faroe Islands have had a negligible effect on the population, and that an annual catch of 2,000 individuals in the eastern Atlantic corresponds to an exploitation rate of 0.26%.

194 NAMMCO Annual Report 2006

CODE PROPOSAL FOR CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT MANAGEMENT MEASURES/RESPONSE BY MEMBER COUNTRIES Based on the comprehensive advice which had now been provided by the Scientific Committee to requests forwarded from the Council, the Management Committee concluded that the drive hunt of pilot whales in the Faroe Islands is sustainable (NAMMCO/7).

195 Report of the Management Committees

LIST OF REFERENCES

NAMMCO/1 NAMMCO 1992. (MS) Report of the inaugural meeting of the Council of the North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission. NAMMCO, University of Tromsø, Tromsø, 35 pp.

NAMMCO/2 NAMMCO. 1993. (MS) Report of the second meeting of the Council. NAMMCO, University of Tromsø, Tromsø, 65 pp.

NAMMCO/3 NAMMCO. 1993. (MS) Report of the third meeting of the Council. NAMMCO, University of Tromsø, Tromsø, 51 pp.

NAMMCO/4 NAMMCO. 1994. (MS) Fourth meeting of the Council. NAMMCO, University of Tromsø, Tromsø, 142 pp.

NAMMCO/5 NAMMCO. 1995. Fifth meeting of the Council. In: NAMMCO, Annual Report 1995. NAMMCO, Tromsø, 11-44.

NAMMCO/6 NAMMCO. 1997. Report of the sixth meeting of the Council. In: NAMMCO, Annual Report 1996. NAMMCO, Tromsø, 11-58.

NAMMCO/7 NAMMCO. 1998. Report of the seventh meeting of the Council. In: NAMMCO, Annual Report 1997. NAMMCO, Tromsø, 9-60.

NAMMCO/8 NAMMCO. 1999. Report of the eighth meeting of the Council. In: NAMMCO, Annual Report 1998. NAMMCO, Tromsø, 9-55.

NAMMCO/9 NAMMCO. 2000. Report of the ninth meeting of the Council. In: NAMMCO, Annual Report 1999. NAMMCO, Tromsø, 11-49.

NAMMCO/10 NAMMCO. 2001. Report of the tenth meeting of the Council. In: NAMMCO, Annual Report 2000. NAMMCO, Tromsø, , 11-69.

NAMMCO/11 NAMMCO. 2002. Report of the eleventh meeting of the Council. In: NAMMCO, Annual Report 2001. NAMMCO, Tromsø, 11-93.

196 NAMMCO Annual Report 2006

NAMMCO/12 NAMMCO. 2003. Report of the twelfth meeting of the Council. In: NAMMCO, Annual Report 2002. NAMMCO, Tromsø, pp. 11-112.

NAMMCO/13 NAMMCO. 2004. Report of the thirteenth meeting of the Council. In: NAMMCO, Annual Report 2003. NAMMCO, Tromsø, pp. 11-71.

NAMMCO/14 NAMMCO. 2005. Report of the fourteenth meeting of the Council. In: NAMMCO, Annual Report 2004. NAMMCO, Tromsø, pp. 9-126.

NAMMCO/15 NAMMCO. 2006. Report of the fifteenth meeting of the Council. In: NAMMCO, Annual Report 2005. NAMMCO, Tromsø, pp. 11-64.

197 Report of the Management Committees

ANNEX 2: SUMMARY OF REQUESTS BY NAMMCO COUNCIL TO THE SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE, AND RESPONSES BY THE SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE

This table provides a summary of all requests by the NAMMCO Council to the Scientific Committee, and notes the response of the Scientific Committee to these requests. Requests forwarded from NAC (North Atlantic Committee for Cooperation on Research on Marine Mammals) to ICES (International Council for the Exploration of the Sea) prior to NAMMCO’s establishment, and which were carried over to NAMMCO in 1992, are included. This document will be continually updated to serve as a resource for both the Council and the Scientific Committee. See List of References for sources of meeting documents. Codes beginning with: 1 – relevant to all Management Committees; 2 – relevant to seals; 3 – relevant to whales.

Code Meeting Request Response of the Scientific Committee Status (SC)

1.1.0 MARINE MAMMAL – FISH INTERACTIONS:

1.1.1 NAMMCO To provide an overview of the current state of See 1.2, 1.4, 1.7, 1.9, 1.10. Ongoing /1 knowledge of the dependence of marine mammals on the fish and shrimp stocks and the interrelations between these compartments. 1.1.2 NAMMCO In the multispecies context ... to address specific Questions related to harp and hooded Ongoing /1 questions related to the Davis Strait ecosystem seals were forwarded to the such as: ICES/NAFO Joint Working Group on - the apparent increase in harp seal stocks; Harp and Hooded Seals (SC/2) Specific - its influence on the economically important questions related to the Davis Strait shrimp and cod stocks; ecosystem were not addressed. - the impact of the fisheries on marine mammals, 198 NAMMCO Annual Report 2006

Code Meeting Request Response of the Scientific Committee Status (SC) particularly harp seals; See also 1.4, 1.7, 1.9, 1.10. - the southward shift of minke whale distribution in recent years, and - observed changes in oceanographical conditions after the 1970s; - and to the East Greenland-Iceland-Jan Mayen area interactions between capelin stocks, fishery and marine mammals. 1.1.3 NAMMCO To assess the impact of marine mammals on the See 1.2, 1.4, 1.7, 1.9, 1.10. Ongoing /2 marine ecosystem, with special emphasis on the availability of economically important fish species. 1.1.4 NAMMCO The Scientific Committee was requested to focus The Scientific Committee established a Ongoing /6 its attention on the food consumption of three Working Group on the Role of Minke predators in the North Atlantic: the minke whale, Whales, Harp Seals and Hooded Seals the harp seal and the hooded seal, with a particular in the North Atlantic. The Scientific emphasis on the study of the potential implications Committee used the report of this for commercially important fish stocks. Working Group to provide advice to Council, and to recommend further research. (SC/5) Many of the papers presented will be published in Volume 2 of NAMMCO Scientific Publications (SC/7). 1.1.5 NAMMCO The Council encourages scientific work that leads See 1.9, 1.10. Ongoing /7 to a better understanding of interactions between marine mammals and commercially exploited 199 Report of the Management Committees

Code Meeting Request Response of the Scientific Committee Status (SC) marine resources, and requested the Scientific Committee to periodically review and update available knowledge in this field. 1.2.0 MULTISPECIES APPROACHES TO MANAGEMENT:

1.2.1 NAMMCO To consider whether multispecies models for See 1.4, 1.7, 1.9, 1.10. Ongoing /1 management purposes can be established for the North Atlantic ecosystems and whether such models could include the marine mammals compartment. If such models and the required data are not available then identify the knowledge lacking for such an enterprise to be beneficial to proper scientific management and suggest scientific projects which would be required for obtaining this knowledge. 1.2.2 NAMMCO In relation to the importance of the further It was clarified that the purpose of this Ongoing /5 development of multispecies approaches to the request was to ensure that data on management of marine resources, the Scientific marine mammals was available for Committee was requested to monitor stock levels input into multi-species models for and trends in stocks of all marine mammals in the management. The Committee agreed North Atlantic. that updated information on abundance and indications of trends in abundance of stocks of marine mammals in the North Atlantic should be clearly described in a new document for the 200 NAMMCO Annual Report 2006

Code Meeting Request Response of the Scientific Committee Status (SC) internal reference of the Council, to replace the List of Priority Species. This document would be entitled Status of Marine Mammals in the North Atlantic and should include those cetacean and pinniped species already contained in the List of Priority Species, as well as other common cetacean species in the NAMMCO area for which distribution and abundance data is also available (fin, sei, humpback, blue, and sperm whales). (SC/5) 1.3.0 SEALWORM INFESTATION:

1.3.1 NAMMCO Aware that the population dynamics of the The Scientific Committee established a Completed /6 sealworm (Pseudoterranova decipiens) may be Working Group on Sealworm Infection influenced by sea temperature, bathymetry, to address this question. The Scientific invertebrate and fish fauna, the Scientific Committee used their report as the basis Committee was requested to review the current for providing advice to Council, and state of knowledge with respect to sealworm developing recommendations for infestation and to consider the need for further research. (SC/5) Many of the comparative studies in the western, central and papers considered by the Working eastern North Atlantic coastal areas, taking into Group are published in NAMMCO account the priority topics recommended by the Scientific Publications Vol. 3, 201 Report of the Management Committees

Code Meeting Request Response of the Scientific Committee Status (SC) Scientific Committee and its ad hoc Working Sealworms in the North Atlantic: Group on grey seals. Ecology and population dynamics (SC/7). 1.4.0 ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF MARINE MAMMAL-FISHERIES INTERACTIONS:

1.4.1 NAMMCO The Council requested that special attention be The Scientific Committee established a Ongoing /7 paid to studies related to competition and the Working Group on Economic Aspects economic aspects of marine mammal-fisheries of Marine Mammal-Fisheries interactions Interactions. The Scientific Committee concluded that inclusion of economic considerations is a valuable addition to multispecies models of interactions between marine mammals and fisheries. The work presented at the Working Group was considered the first step towards more complete analyses of these interactions and it was recommended, in light of the economic impacts, that more complete models should be developed and presented. The Scientific Committee showed a continued interest in the development of the models and it was decided to maintain the Working Group and seek further guidance from the Council on 202 NAMMCO Annual Report 2006

Code Meeting Request Response of the Scientific Committee Status (SC) matters of particular interest (SC/6). 1.4.2 NAMMCO The Scientific Committee is requested to The Working Group On The Economic Ongoing /8 investigate the following economic aspects of Aspects Of Marine Mammal - Fisheries marine mammal – fisheries interactions: Interactions was reactivated to meet this − to identify the most important sources of request. It was agreed to separate the uncertainty and gaps in knowledge with respect request into two sections. At the first to the economic evaluation of harvesting marine Working Group meeting the first two mammals in the different areas; items in the request were addressed. − to advise on research required to fill such gaps The Working Group used available both in terms of refinement of ecological and information to derive estimates of economical models and collection of basic consumption of cod, herring, capelin biological and economical data required as input and shrimp by harp seals, minke whales parameters for the models; and Lagenorhynchus spp. and − to discuss specific cases where the state of bottlenose dolphins in some areas. knowledge may allow quantification of the Multispecies models presently in use or economic aspects of marine mammal – fisheries under development in Norway and interactions: Iceland offer a means of assessing the a) what could be the economic consequences of impact of marine mammal predation on a total stop in harp seal exploitation versus fish stocks The Scientific Committee different levels of continued sustainable therefore recommended that the next harvest? logical step in addressing the request b) what could be the economic consequences of should be for NAMMCO to lead or different levels of sustainable harvest vs. no assist in the development of a exploitation of minke whales? multispecies-economic model for a candidate area. However, the Scientific 203 Report of the Management Committees

Code Meeting Request Response of the Scientific Committee Status (SC) Committee reiterated that the estimation and model uncertainties are such that definitive quantification of the economic aspects of marine mammal- fisheries interactions in candidate areas cannot be expected in the near term (SC/8). 1.4.3 NAMMCO Noting the requests for advice from the Council The Scientific Committee convened a Ongoing /10 at its Eighth meeting in Oslo 1998 (see Annual workshop, under the theme "Marine Report 1998 page 23), the Management mammals: From feeding behaviour or Committee recommended that the Scientific stomach contents to annual Committee continue the assessment of the consumption – what are the main economic aspects of fishery - marine mammal uncertainties?", to further investigate interactions in the two areas (Barents Sea and the methodological and analytical Iceland) and with the two species (minke whales problems in estimating consumption by and harp seals) that have been identified as marine mammals (SC/9). feasible for this assessment. 1.4.5 NAMMCO The Management Committee noted the The Scientific Committee convened a Ongoing /11 conclusion of the Scientific Committee that the workshop, under the theme "Modelling estimation and model uncertainties are such that Marine Mammal – Fisheries the economic aspects of marine mammal-fishery Interactions in the North Atlantic", to interactions in candidate areas cannot be investigate how presently available quantified without further work. The ecosystem models can be adapted for Management Committee therefore quantifying marine mammal - fishery recommended that the Scientific Committee interactions (SC/10). 204 NAMMCO Annual Report 2006

Code Meeting Request Response of the Scientific Committee Status (SC) should hold a workshop on ecosystem models aiming for a better understanding of the ecological role of minke whales and harp and hooded seals in the North Atlantic, as proposed in the Scientific Committee report. 1.4.6 NAMMCO The Management Committee agreed that the The Scientific Committee convened a Ongoing /12 Scientific Committee should monitor progress workshop, under the theme “Marine made in multispecies modelling and in the Mammals and Fisheries in the North collection of input data and decide when enough Atlantic: Estimating Consumption and progress has been made to warrant further efforts Modelling Interactions” to update in this area. Future meetings should focus on progress in these areas (SC/12). assessing modelling results from the Scenario Barents Sea model and possibly the GADGET- based template models for other areas, if they are developed. The Scientific Committee should also consider the feasibility of connecting the multi- species models with simple economic models at that time. 1.5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

1.5.1 NAMMCO To describe the possible pathways of radioactive Forwarded to ICES. /1 material from blowouts and leakage in existing nuclear power plants, leakage from dumped material and possible accidents in planned recycling plants in the northern part of Scotland 205 Report of the Management Committees

Code Meeting Request Response of the Scientific Committee Status (SC) into the food web of the North Atlantic and hence into the top predators like marine mammals. 1.5.2 NAMMCO To review the contaminant burden (especially No response from the Scientific /1 organochlorines) in marine mammals in the North Committee. In 1995, NAMMCO Atlantic and evaluate the possible sources of these hosted the International Conference on contaminants. Marine Mammals and the Marine Environment. The Conference covered the following themes: Marine mammals and the marine environment- impacts and management approaches; Contaminants in marine mammals – sources, levels and effects; Coastal communities and marine pollution – social, economic and health considerations; Addressing the questions – problems and future needs. The proceedings were published as a special issue of The Science of the Total Environment (186, 1,2). 1.6.0 MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES

1.6.1 NAMMCO To review the basis for, and develop assessments A Working Group on Management Completed /2 necessary to provide the scientific foundation for Procedures was established to consider conservation and management of the stocks this matter. The Scientific Committee relevant for management under NAMMCO. noted that there were many different 206 NAMMCO Annual Report 2006

Code Meeting Request Response of the Scientific Committee Status (SC) management needs requiring different management procedures. It was agreed that there was need for more guidance on management objectives before any concrete work can be started on developing appropriate management procedures, and in turn this was likely to be case- (species and/or area) specific. Related to this it was also noted that NAMMCO may prefer to assume an advisory and evaluative role in developing its management (SC/2). 1.6.2 NAMMCO Further development of RMP-like procedures. The Scientific Committee decided to Completed /4 develop management procedures on a case-by-case basis: “a more pragmatic approach on an area and species/case- specific basis would be desirable for the development of specific management procedures. It was therefore decided to suggest that requests for advice from the Council be accompanied by specific objectives defined for the case in question” (SC/3). 1.7.0 MONITORING MARINE MAMMAL STOCK LEVELS AND TRENDS IN STOCKS /NORTH ATLANTIC SIGHTINGS SURVEYS (NASS): 207 Report of the Management Committees

Code Meeting Request Response of the Scientific Committee Status (SC) 1.7.1 NAMMCO To plan joint cetacean sighting surveys in the The Scientific Committee agreed to Completed /3 North Atlantic by co-ordinating national research establish a Working Group to plan the programmes. sighting survey for the summer of 1995 (SC/2).

The Scientific Committee was pleased to note the good progress that had been made in planning this important joint research, in which the Faroes (1 vessel), Iceland (3 vessels and 1 aircraft) and Norway (11 vessels) had decided to participate. It was noted that Greenland had decided not to conduct surveys as part of these joint efforts (SC/3).

The Scientific Committee agreed to recommend that a special fund of NOK 800,000 be established from the NAMMCO budget for use in financing various aspects of NASS-95, where required (SC/3). 1.7.2 NAMMCO The 1995 North Atlantic Sightings Survey (NASS- The Scientific Committee agreed to Completed /5 95) would provide updated abundance estimates establish a Working Group on for a number of whale species in the North Abundance Estimates. The task of the Atlantic, and the Scientific Committee was Working Group would be to review 208 NAMMCO Annual Report 2006

Code Meeting Request Response of the Scientific Committee Status (SC) requested to review results in the light of recent analyses and where relevant also assessments of North Atlantic whale stocks. analyse data from NASS-95 to ensure its compatibility, both between NASS-95 survey areas, as well as with data from other sightings surveys, in order to provide a basis for calculating abundance estimates for the relevant cetacean stocks in the North Atlantic. (SC/4). 1.7.3 NAMMCO The Management Committee noted the successful To address this request, a Working Completed /6 completion of the North Atlantic Sightings Survey Group on Abundance Estimates had in 1995, and commended the process initiated by been established with the task of the Scientific Committee to conclude the analysis reviewing the analyses, and where of NASS-95 data. It was expected that the results relevant, also to analyse data from on abundance will be dealt with by the newly NASS-95 to provide a basis for established Scientific Committee Working Group calculating abundance estimates for the on Abundance Estimates and will be presented at relevant cetacean stocks in the North the next annual meeting. It was noted that the Atlantic. The Working Group had Working Group would at least to some extent focused on describing synoptic address last year’s request from the Council distributions of the cetacean species regarding monitoring of stock levels and trends in encountered during NASS-95, and stocks. However, it was also noted that one abundance estimates for minke, fin, sei outstanding matter from last year is the request to and pilot whales, which were the target the Scientific Committee to review results of species of the survey. The Scientific NASS-95 in the light of recent assessments of Committee concluded that the updated 209 Report of the Management Committees

Code Meeting Request Response of the Scientific Committee Status (SC) North Atlantic whale stocks. abundance estimates for the target species as reviewed by the Working The Council agreed to the suggestion from the Group on Abundance Estimates Management Committee that this be drawn to the represented the best available estimates attention of the Scientific Committee to secure a for the stocks concerned, and used them follow-up to last year’s request. as a basis to provide advice to Council. The Scientific Committee also recommended that the results of NASS- 95 be compiled to a future volume of NAMMCO Scientific Publications (SC/5). 1.7.4 NAMMCO The Scientific Committee was requested to See 4.3. Completed /7 continue its work to monitor stock levels and trends in all stocks of marine mammals in the North Atlantic in accordance with previous recommendations (see NAMMCO Annual Report 1996:131-132). In this context the Scientific Committee was encouraged to prioritise calculation of the abundance of species covered by NASS-95, in particular those species presently harvested and species considered to be important with respect to interactions with fisheries. 1.7.5 NAMMCO The Management Committee noted particularly The Scientific Committee noted that Completed /9 that abundance estimates from NASS-95 have not abundance estimates for the main target been completed for some species. The species of NASS-95 (minke whale, fin 210 NAMMCO Annual Report 2006

Code Meeting Request Response of the Scientific Committee Status (SC) Management Committee therefore recommended whale, sei whale, pilot whale) had been that the Scientific Committee complete abundance completed and accepted by them, estimates for all species, as part of its efforts to however most had not yet been monitor the abundance of all species in the North published in the primary scientific Atlantic. literature. The Scientific Committee agreed that further analyses of the abundance of non-target species from the NASS-95 survey should be conducted if they are warranted. However, as the survey was not optimised for these species, it was recognised that the design and conduct of the survey would make this possible to a varying degree, depending on both the species and area in question. In some cases, a general description of the spatial distribution of sightings may be the only analysis warranted. The Scientific Committee agreed to pursue these analyses in the coming year (SC/8).

The Scientific Committee considered new information on the NASS-95 Icelandic aerial and shipboard surveys 211 Report of the Management Committees

Code Meeting Request Response of the Scientific Committee Status (SC) for minke whales, and a new abundance estimate for humpback whales from the NASS-95 Icelandic shipboard survey (SC/9). 1.7.6 NAMMCO The Management Committee recommended that The Working Group on Abundance Completed /9 the Scientific Committee continue its efforts to Estimates met in November 2000 to coordinate future sightings surveys and analyses of plan for NASS-2001. The survey was the results from such surveys in the North Atlantic. conducted in June/July 2001 (SC/9). Priority species should be minke whales and fin whales, and the Management Committee recommended that that the survey design be optimized for these species. The survey should also be optimized to cover those areas where abundance estimates are most urgently required.

1.7.7 NAMMCO The Management Committee recommended that The Working Group on Abundance Completed /11 remaining abundance estimates from the NASS-95 Estimates met in March 2002 and and new estimates from the NASS-2001 surveys developed preliminary abundance should be developed as soon as feasible, with the estimates for fin whales, minke whales, target species of the surveys being of highest humpback whales, sperm whales and priority. The Management Committee emphasised dolphins. In addition a full evaluation that this work should be published in a timely of the 2001 survey was conducted, and manner. recommendations for future surveys were made (SC/10).

212 NAMMCO Annual Report 2006

Code Meeting Request Response of the Scientific Committee Status (SC) The Scientific Committee has now completed estimates for most species for which estimates are feasible. A new volume of NAMMCO Scientific Publications is presently in progress which will integrate results from all NASS (SC/11). 1.7.8 NAMMCO The Management Committee therefore requested After consultations with various other Ongoing /13 that the Scientific Committee coordinate the efforts jurisdictions, the SC recommended that of member countries in planning and conducting a 2007 would be the optimal year to carry large-scale sightings survey in 2006. In order to out the next NASS (SC/12). ensure as broad a coverage as possible, this should include co-ordination with planned surveys by non- member countries, and inviting other jurisdictions, particularly in the Western Atlantic, to participate in the surveys.

1.7.9 NAMMCO For various reasons, 2007 will be the optimal year The SC concluded that there is a Ongoing /14 to carry out the next NASS, rather than 2006 as perhaps unique opportunity to conduct originally planned. Efforts of the Scientific a very wide ranging synoptic cetacean Committee to expand the NASS to include survey, covering areas of the eastern involvement from countries in the Western and and western Atlantic that have never Eastern Atlantic should be continued. been covered simultaneously in previous surveys. The Committee strongly recommended that the Council 213 Report of the Management Committees

Code Meeting Request Response of the Scientific Committee Status (SC) and individual member countries encourage other jurisdictions to become involved in the NASS project for 2007.

To take advantage of this opportunity, it was decided to establish a steering group to begin planning NASS and its coordination with other surveys. It is anticipated that a planning meeting, involving participation from all relevant jurisdictions, should be held sometime in 2006 (SC/13).

Two meetings were held in 2006 to plan the Trans NASS (TNASS), including its coordination with US and European surveys and the use of platforms of opportunity in adjacent areas (SC/14). 1.8.0 OTHER

1.8.1 NAMMCO Greenland noted the need for greater input from The Scientific Committee agreed to a Ongoing /8 hunters and users in the work of the Scientific proposal put forward by the Secretariat, Committee. While noting the need for scientists to to use the “Status of Marine Mammals be able to conduct their work on their own scientific in the North Atlantic” stock status 214 NAMMCO Annual Report 2006

Code Meeting Request Response of the Scientific Committee Status (SC) terms in the context of their Committee meetings, it reports as a means of incorporating the was suggested that scientists and users of marine knowledge of marine mammal users. mammal resources which are the subject of This proposal was presented to examination by the Scientific Committee could, for NAMMCO Council for approval example, meet prior to meetings of the Scientific (SC/7). Committee in order to exchange information relevant to the work planned by the Scientific The Scientific Committee Working Committee. With these ideas in mind, Greenland Group on the Population Status of recommended that concrete steps should be taken to Narwhal and Beluga in the North provide for a more active dialogue between Atlantic met jointly with the Scientific scientists and resource users. This recommendation Working Group of the Joint was endorsed by Council. Commission on the Conservation and Management of Narwhal and Beluga (JCNB) in May 2001. Prior to the main meeting, the Joint Working Group met with hunters from Greenland and Canada, and Canadian hunters participated throughout the meeting (SC/9). 1.8.2 NAMMCO With respect to the language used in the Report of No response. Ongoing /9 the Scientific Committee, Greenland suggested that it must be kept precise and simple. The Management Committee agreed to convey this as a suggestion to the Scientific Committee. 2.1.0 HARP AND HOODED SEALS 215 Report of the Management Committees

Code Meeting Request Response of the Scientific Committee Status (SC) 2.1.1 NAMMCO - to assess the stock size, distribution and pup These requests forwarded to Joint Completed /2 production of harp seals in the Barents Sea and ICES/NAFO Working Group on Harp White Sea, and of harp and hooded seals in the and Hooded Seals. A partial Greenland Sea and the Northwest Atlantic; assessment was completed, but more - to assess sustainable yields at present stock sizes work was required (SC/2). and in the long term under varying options of age composition in the catch; The Scientific Committee considered - to provide advice on catch options in the White the report of the Joint ICES/NAFO Sea/Barents Sea/Greenland Sea and NAFO areas; Working Group on Harp and Hooded - to assess effects of recent environmental changes Seals which had met in Dartmouth, or changes in the food supply and possible Canada, 5-9 June 1995. The Scientific interaction with other living marine resources in Committee endorsed the the areas. recommendations in the report and identified further research needs. However the required assessments had not yet been completed (SC/4).

The Scientific Committee considered the report of the Joint ICES/NAFO Working Group on Harp and Hooded Seals which had met in Copenhagen in 1997. The Scientific Committee used this report as the basis for its advice to Council, while noting that catch options had not been completed for Greenland 216 NAMMCO Annual Report 2006

Code Meeting Request Response of the Scientific Committee Status (SC) Sea harp and hooded seals, and White Sea and Barents Sea harp seals (SC/6).

The Joint ICES/NAFO Working Group on Harp and Hooded Seals met in 1998 to complete the assessments for Greenland Sea harp and hooded seals, and White Sea and Barents Sea harp seals. The Scientific Committee used their report as the basis of its advice to Council, and noted that the required assessments had now been completed. Assessment of the effects of recent environmental changes or changes in the food supply and possible interaction with other living marine resources in the areas is ongoing (SC/7). 2.1.2 NAMMCO The Scientific Committee is requested to The Scientific Committee noted that Completed /8 coordinate joint feeding studies of harp and hooded preparations to coordinate such studies seals in the Nordic Seas (Iceland, Greenland and between member countries were Norwegian Seas) and off West Greenland. already under way, outside of the NAMMCO Scientific Committee. The Scientific Committee therefore emphasized its support for such joint studies and urged member countries to 217 Report of the Management Committees

Code Meeting Request Response of the Scientific Committee Status (SC) participate (SC/7). 2.1.3 NAMMCO The Management Committee recommended that Ongoing as new information becomes Ongoing /11 the Scientific Committee regularly update the stock available. status of North Atlantic harp and hooded seal stocks as new information becomes available.

2.1.4 NAMMCO The Management Committee noted that new Ongoing as new information becomes Ongoing /12 information recently had become available on the available. abundance of harp seals in the Greenland Sea and the Northwest Atlantic. In addition new information is available on movements and stock delineation of harp seals in the Greenland, Barents and White seas. The Management Committee therefore reiterated its previous request to the Scientific Committee to regularly update the stock status of North Atlantic harp and hooded seals as new information becomes available. The Management Committee noted the likely impact of increasing abundance of these species on fish stocks. For harp seals in the Northwest Atlantic, the immediate management objective is to maintain the stocks at their present levels of abundance.

2.1.5 NAMMCO The Management Committee requests that the With regard to the Canadian Ongoing. /13 Scientific Committee annually discusses the Management Plan, the Scientific 218 NAMMCO Annual Report 2006

Code Meeting Request Response of the Scientific Committee Status (SC) scientific information available on harp and hooded Committee concluded that the likely seals and advice on catch quotas for these species effect of the harvest levels outlined in given by the ICES/NAFO Working Group on Harp Plan was a slight drop in total and Hooded Seals. The advice by the Scientific abundance in the short term (3-5 years), Committee on catch quotas should not only be and an accelerating decline if these given as advice on replacement yields, but also harvest levels are maintained over a levels of harvest that would be helpful in light of longer period (ca. 10 years), and that ecosystem management requirements. the availability of seals to Greenlandic hunters would likely decrease as the For the Barents/White Sea and Greenland Sea total population decreased (SC/12). stocks, in addition to the advice on replacement yields, advice should be provided on the levels of The SC recommended that catches of harvest that would result in varying degrees of hooded seals in the Greenland Sea be stock reduction over a 10 year period. restricted to necessary scientific catches and to satisfy local needs at roughly Noting that Canada has instituted a multi-year current levels. This should be management plan with a 3- year allowable catch of accompanied by a careful monitoring harp seals totalling 975,000 (not including the (SC/14). catch by Greenland), the Management Committee requested the Scientific Committee to provide advice on the likely impact on stock size, age composition, and catches in West Greenland and Canada under the conditions of this plan. 2.1.6 NAMMCO The Management Committee recommended that The Committee regretted that these Pending /14 the Scientific Committee evaluate how a projected requests had apparently not been 219 Report of the Management Committees

Code Meeting Request Response of the Scientific Committee Status (SC) decrease in the total population of Northwest conveyed to the ICES/NAFO Working Atlantic harp seals might affect the proportion of Group, as had been recommended last animals summering in Greenland. year. The Committee noted that the Working Group would be meeting in 2006, and recommended that these questions be considered at that time (SC/13). 2.1.7 NAMMCO The Management Committee requested the New modelling results were considered Completed /14 Scientific Committee to specify harvest levels for which provided target catch levels for these 2 stocks that would result in a population both the Barents/White Sea and reduction of 20% over a period of 20 years. Greenland Sea stocks (SC/14). 2.1.8 NAMMCO As suggested by the Scientific Committee in 2004, Not successful in assuming joint role in Pending /15 the Management Committee recommended that the Working Group. NAMMCO explore the possibility with ICES and NAFO of assuming a formal joint role in the Working Group on Harp and Hooded Seals. The Secretariat should contact ICES and NAFO in this regard. As a starting point, the Working Group, jointly with the NAMMCO Scientific Committee, should be asked to provide advice on outstanding requests (MC/4, 4.9.6 and 4.9.7, also NAMMCO 2005 p. 70).

Greenland specifically stressed the importance of these outstanding requests, and indicated that they 220 NAMMCO Annual Report 2006

Code Meeting Request Response of the Scientific Committee Status (SC) would expect a more complete discussion next year. 2.3.0 RINGED SEALS:

2.3.1 NAMMCO To advise on stock identity of ringed seals (Phoca The Scientific Committee established a Completed /5 hispida) for management purposes and to assess Working Group on Ringed Seals. The abundance in each stock area, long-term effects on Scientific Committee considered the stocks by present removals in each stock area, report of the Working Group and effects of recent environmental changes (i.e. provided advice to Council. They also disturbance, pollution) and changes in the food provided recommendations for future supply, and interactions with other marine living research (SC/5). resources. Papers considered by the Working Group as well as other papers were published in the first volume of NAMMCO Scientific Publications, Ringed Seals in the North Atlantic. 2.3.2 NAMMCO The Scientific Committee was requested to advise It was noted that the exploitation level Completed /7 on what scientific studies need to be completed to of ringed seals in Greenland has shown evaluate the effects of changed levels of removals considerable variability over decades in of ringed seals in West and East Greenland. this century. The Scientific Committee chose to focus on scenarios where exploitation is raised by more than twice the level reported in recent years. The Scientific Committee then 221 Report of the Management Committees

Code Meeting Request Response of the Scientific Committee Status (SC) identified the main gaps in knowledge, and recommended research required to address them (SC/6). 2.4.0 GREY SEALS:

2.4.1 NAMMCO To review and assess abundance and stock levels The Scientific Committee established a Completed /5 of grey seals (Halichoerus grypus) in the North Working Group on Grey Seals. The Atlantic, with an emphasis on their role in the Scientific Committee considered the marine ecosystem in general, and their significance report of the Working Group and as a source of nematodal infestations in fish in provided advice to Council, including particular. recommendations for further research (SC/4). 2.4.2 NAMMCO The Management Committee noted that there has The Working Group on Grey Seals met Completed /11 been a decline in the numbers of grey seals around in April 2003 and completed an initial Iceland, possibly due to harvesting at rates that are assessment of stocks around Norway, not sustainable. The Scientific Committee had Iceland, Great Britain and the Baltic previously provided advice in response to a request (SC/11). to review and assess abundance and stock levels of grey seals in the North Atlantic, with an emphasis on their role in the marine ecosystem in general, and their significance as a source of nematodal infestations in fish in particular (NAMMCO 1995). Given the apparent stock decline in Iceland, an apparent increase in Southwest Norway and in the United Kingdom, and the fact that this species 222 NAMMCO Annual Report 2006

Code Meeting Request Response of the Scientific Committee Status (SC) interact with fisheries in three NAMMCO member countries, the Management Committee recommended that the Scientific Committee provide a new assessment of grey seal stocks throughout the North Atlantic. 2.5.0 HARBOUR SEAL

2.5.1 NAMMCO Harbour seal abundance has fluctuated in the A Working Group on Harbour Seals Completed. /14 Northeast Atlantic in recent years due to local was convened in October 2006 to deal outbreaks of viral distemper. Usually these with this request. The WG completed outbreaks have been followed by rapid recoveries, assessments of harbour seals in all areas and harbour seal abundance may have increased in of the North Atlantic and the Baltic. many areas. In some areas, harbour seals are harvested and/or taken incidentally by fisheries and aquaculture operations (e.g. Greenland, Norway and Iceland). They also have significant direct and indirect interactions with fisheries in many areas. For these reasons, the Scientific Committee is requested to: - Review and assess the status of harbour seals throughout the North Atlantic; - Review and evaluate the applied survey methods; - Assess stock delineation using available data on genetics, spatial and temporal 223 Report of the Management Committees

Code Meeting Request Response of the Scientific Committee Status (SC) distribution and other sources; - review available information about harbour seal ecology; - Identify interactions with fisheries and aquaculture. 2.6.0 ATLANTIC WALRUS:

2.6.1 NAMMCO To advise on stock identity for management The assessment was postponed pending Completed /2 purposes; to assess abundance in each stock area; report of Walrus International to assess long-term effects on stocks by present Technical and Scientific Committee removals in each stock area; to assess effects of (WITS) (SC/2). recent environmental changes (i.e. disturbance, pollution) and changes in the food supply. It was decided in late 1994 to request Erik Born of the Greenland Fisheries Research Institute in Copenhagen to coordinate the compilation of a status report on the Atlantic walrus in time for the Scientific Committee meeting. The result of this collaboration was the report, E.W. Born, I. Gjertz and R.R. Reeves, "Population assessment of Atlantic walrus (Odobenus rosmarus rosmarus)" This report was used by the Scientific Committee as the basis of its management and research 224 NAMMCO Annual Report 2006

Code Meeting Request Response of the Scientific Committee Status (SC) recommendations to Council (SC/3). 2.6.2 NAMMCO The Management Committee noted that the The SC provided assessment advice for Ongoing /13 Scientific Committee had last provided an East Greenland, West Greenland and assessment of walrus in 1994. Noting that North Water stocks of walrus, but noted considerable new information has become that the assessments were incomplete available since then, the Management committee due to insufficient information on stock therefore requested the Scientific Committee to delineation and abundance. It was provide an updated assessment of walrus, to anticipated that the assessment for West include stock delineation, abundance, harvest, Greenland could be completed within stock status and priorities for research. the next 2 years (SC/13).

The SC considered that sufficient new information would be available to provide new assessments for the West Greenland and North Water stocks in 2008 (SC/14). 2.6.3 NAMMCO The Scientific Committee should provide advice on Due to the present lack of information Pending /15 the effects of human disturbance, including fishing the SC found itself in a position where and shipping activities, in particular scallop it could not respond to the request of fishing, on the distribution, behaviour and the Council, and it is unlikely to be able conservation status of walrus in West Greenland. to do so in the near term. The Committee will monitor progress in this area annually (SC/14). 3.1.0 FIN WHALE 3.1.1 NAMMCO The Scientific Committee is requested to undertake The Scientific Committee established a Completed 225 Report of the Management Committees

Code Meeting Request Response of the Scientific Committee Status (SC) /8 an assessment of the status of fin whales in the Working Group on Fin Whales to deal North Atlantic based on all available data. (This with this request. The Working Group request was later elaborated as follows: met in April 1999. Their report dealt “Acknowledging the large amount of work with the stock structure of fin whales involved in such a comprehensive assessment of all throughout the North Atlantic, and with possible fin whale stocks in the North Atlantic, the assessment of the EGI stock. The Council requests the Scientific Committee, when Scientific Committee used the report of conducting such comprehensive assessment, the Working Group to formulate advice particularly to and research recommendations to i. assess the stock structure of fin whales in the NAMMCO Council. Detailed whole North Atlantic, assessment of other fin whale stocks ii. assess the long-term effects of annual removal was not carried out, but will be if of 50, 100 and 200 fin whales in the stock area further requests from Council are traditionally assumed to have a main forthcoming. concentration off East Greenland and Iceland (EGI stock area), identify MSY exploitation levels for that stock area.”). 3.1.2 NAMMCO The Management Committee noted that the The Scientific Committee reactivated Ongoing /9 Scientific Committee has completed its assessment the Working Group on North Atlantic of the stock structure of fin whales in North Fin Whales and used their report as the Atlantic, and that more research on stock structure basis for their advice to the Council. is required before firm conclusions can be drawn. The results of the assessments indicated The Management Committee therefore that fin whales in the area have likely recommended that member countries initiate the been substantially depleted by past 226 NAMMCO Annual Report 2006

Code Meeting Request Response of the Scientific Committee Status (SC) research required to elucidate the stock structure of harvests, but there was great uncertainty fin whales. in the results. The Scientific Committee noted that in attempting to respond to The Management Committee recommended that the Council’s request for advice on the the Scientific Committee continue its assessment of long-term effect of various catch levels fin whale stocks in the North Atlantic, focussing in in the Faroese area, it had immediately the near term on the status of fin whales in Faroese become apparent that there is territorial waters. The Scientific Committee should insufficient information on stock focus particularly on the following issues: identity to carry out a reliable i. Assess the long-term effects of annual assessment of the status of fin whales in removals of 5, 10 and 20 fin whales in Faroese waters, and thus provide Faroese waters; reliable advice on the effects of various ii. Information gaps that may need to be catches. The Scientific Committee filled in order to complete a full therefore recommended a research assessment in this area. programme primarily geared to understanding the stock relationships of fin whales around the Faroes. 3.1.3 NAMMCO The Management Committee noted that the To be addressed as new information Ongoing /10 requested assessment (4.31) had not been fully becomes available. completed and awaited in particular the provision of more information on stock delineation. The Management Committee therefore recommended that the Scientific Committee continue its assessment, as new data become available. 3.1.4 NAMMCO The Management Committee clarified its previous The Scientific Committee completed Ongoing 227 Report of the Management Committees

Code Meeting Request Response of the Scientific Committee Status (SC) /11 request for advice on fin whales, asking that the assessments on EGI and Faroese fin Scientific Committee continue with its assessments whales based on new abundance data. of fin whale stocks in the areas of interest to Future effort will be concentrated on NAMMCO countries with existing and new Northeast Atlantic fin whales (SC/11). information on abundance and stock delineation as it becomes available. The SC convened a Working Group on Fin Whales in October 2005 to update information relating to stock delineation, abundance and catch in all areas of the North Atlantic (SC/13).

The Scientific Committees of the IWC and NAMMCO convened a Joint Working Group on the Catch History, Stock Structure and Abundance of North Atlantic Fin Whales in March 2006 (SC/14). 3.1.5 NAMMCO The Management Committee noted that it had Pending. Ongoing. /13 previously asked that the Scientific Committee continue with its assessments of fin whale stocks in the areas of interest to NAMMCO countries with existing and new information on abundance and stock delineation as it becomes available, and endorsed the plan of the Scientific Committee to complete an assessment for the Northeast Atlantic 228 NAMMCO Annual Report 2006

Code Meeting Request Response of the Scientific Committee Status (SC) stocks and update assessments for other areas, probably in 2005. 3.2.0 HUMPBACK WHALE:

3.2.1 NAMMCO The Management Committee noted the conclusions The Scientific Committee has noted Completed /11 of the Scientific Committee that there was previously (SC/9) that abundance evidence of a rapidly increasing abundance of estimates from the NASS-95 survey humpback whales around Iceland, and appear to conflict with the results of the recommended that the Scientific Committee YoNAH project, and comparison with complete abundance estimates for this species as a the estimates from NASS-2001 should high priority. The Scientific Committee should also be of great interest (SC/10). consider the results of the "Years of the North Atlantic Humpback" (YoNAH) project as it The Scientific Committee concluded pertains to member countries in providing advice that the discrepancy between the NASS for this species. and YoNAH estimates suggests that the North Atlantic population of humpback whales is likely considerably larger than estimated in the YoNAH study. Further studies are needed to resolve these differences more fully (SC/11). 3.2.2 NAMMCO The Management Committee noted the conclusion Mainly because of a lack of current Ongoing /13 of the Scientific Committee that there is evidence information on abundance, the from the NASS of a rapidly increasing abundance Scientific Committee was unable to of humpback whales in the Central North Atlantic. complete the Assessment for West The Scientific Committee was requested to assess Greenland. The Scientific Committee 229 Report of the Management Committees

Code Meeting Request Response of the Scientific Committee Status (SC) the sustainable yield levels for humpback whales, noted that they would be able to particularly those feeding in West Greenlandic estimate sustainable yield levels for waters. The management objective in this case humpback whales in the Northeast would be to maintain the stock at a stable level. Atlantic (SC/12). 3.2.3 NAMMCO The Scientific Committee is requested to continue The Committee decided to postpone the Ongoing. /14 its assessment of humpback whale stocks in the provision of advice for West Greenland North Atlantic. For West Greenland, the Scientific until a new abundance estimate is Committee should assess the long-term effects of available, probably in 2006. Sufficient annual removals of 0, 2, 5, 10 and 20 whales. For information on historical catch, the Northeast Atlantic the Scientific Committee abundance and stock structure is should provide estimates of sustainable yield for available at present to conduct the stocks. In all cases the management objective assessments for the Icelandic and would be to maintain the stocks at a stable level. Norwegian stocks. However, given The Scientific Committee should identify other priorities, the Committee information gaps that must be filled in order to considered it advisable to delay this complete the assessments. assessment until after the completion of the NASS-2007 survey, when an additional estimate of abundance should become available (SC/13).

The SC reviewed new information on the abundance of fin whales off West Greenland from surveys conducted in 2005, and provided interim advice on safe removal levels for the area. Further 230 NAMMCO Annual Report 2006

Code Meeting Request Response of the Scientific Committee Status (SC) information will be available after the TNASS in 2007 to complete assessments in all areas (SC/14). 3.3.0 CENTRAL NORTH ATLANTIC MINKE WHALES:

3.3.1 NAMMCO In the light of the new survey abundance results the The Scientific Committee agreed to Completed /7 Scientific Committee is requested to undertake an assign the task of assessing the status of assessment of the status of the Central North the stock to the Working Group on Atlantic minke whale stock, including to evaluate Management Procedures. The Council the long term effects of past and present removal had requested the Scientific Committee levels on the stock. to provide its advice on this matter prior to the next meeting of the Council, however it was the general view of the Committee that it was unlikely that this work could be completed within this time frame (SC/5).

The Scientific Committee used the report of the Working Group on Management Procedures as the basis for providing advice and research recommendations to Council. The Committee agreed that catches of 292 per year (the mean of the catch between 1980-84) are sustainable for the 231 Report of the Management Committees

Code Meeting Request Response of the Scientific Committee Status (SC) Central stock, and that catches of 185 whales per year are sustainable for the Coastal Icelandic Area (SC/6). 3.3.2 NAMMCO In order to ascertain the stock structure of minke It was noted that such exchanges of Completed /8 whales in the North Atlantic, the Scientific samples are ongoing between Norway Committee is requested to investigate the and Greenland. Samples collected in possibility of supplementing present sampling with the past from Iceland and Norway have existing older material from NAMMCO countries already been analyzed concurrently, and other countries in joint genetic analyses. If and there are no recent samples from possible, such analyses should be undertaken. Iceland. The Scientific Committee concluded that available samples are being utilized effectively (SC/7). 3.3.2 NAMMCO The Management Committee recommended that The Scientific Committee completed Completed /11 the Scientific Committee should complete an the assessment and provided advice on assessment of Central Atlantic minke whales once sustainable catches to the Council new abundance estimates from NASS-2001 (SC/11). become available. 3.4.0 NARWHAL AND BELUGA:

3.4.1 NAMMCO The Scientific Committee was requested to The Scientific Committee established a Ongoing /7 examine the population status of narwhal and Working Group on the Population beluga (white whales) throughout the North Status of Narwhal and Beluga in the Atlantic. North Atlantic, which met in March 1999. The Scientific Committee used the report of the Working Group to 232 NAMMCO Annual Report 2006

Code Meeting Request Response of the Scientific Committee Status (SC) evaluate the stock status of the various narwhal and beluga aggregations, and provided recommendations to Council (SC/7). 3.4.2 NAMMCO The Management Committee requested advice The Scientific Committee reactivated Ongoing /8 from the Scientific Committee on the level of the Working Group on the Population sustainable utilization of West Greenland beluga in Status of Narwhal and Beluga and used different areas and under different management its report as the basis of its objectives. recommendations to the Council. The Scientific Committee concluded that the For narwhal, the Management Committee stock is substantially depleted and that requested that the Scientific Committee identify the present harvests are several times the information which is lacking in order to answer the sustainable yield, and, if continued, will same question proposed in respect to beluga. likely lead to stock extinction within 20 years. The Committee assessed a range of harvest options with the overall objective of arresting the decline of West Greenland Beluga, and provided priorized research recommendations (SC/8).

The Scientific Committee noted that developing recommendations on the sustainable harvest of narwhal in Greenland will require significant 233 Report of the Management Committees

Code Meeting Request Response of the Scientific Committee Status (SC) additional research and cannot be done at present. To this end, the Scientific Committee provided research recommendations to answer questions about catch statistics, stock identity and abundance (SC/8). 3.4.3 NAMMCO The Management Committee recommended that the The Scientific Committee Working Ongoing /10 Scientific Committee continue its assessment of Group on the Population Status of West Greenland beluga with reference to the short- Narwhal and Beluga in the North term research goals identified. It is anticipated that a Atlantic met jointly with the Scientific joint meeting of the Scientific Working Group of the Working Group of the Joint JCNB and the NAMMCO Scientific Working Commission on the Conservation and Group on the Population Status of Narwhal and Management of Narwhal and Beluga Beluga in the North Atlantic can be held in spring (JCNB) to deal with these requests. The 2001. Scientific Committee used their report to provide catch options for West Greenland Beluga and research recommendations for West Greenland beluga and narwhal (SC/9). 3.4.4 NAMMCO The Management Committee recommended that the See 4.16. The Scientific Committee Ongoing /10 Scientific Committee complete an assessment of used evidence from genetic and narwhal in West Greenland when the necessary data contaminant analysis, satellite tagging are available. Specifically, the Scientific Committee and hunter knowledge to evaluate the is requested to evaluate the extent of movements of extent of movement between Greenland narwhal between Canada and Greenland. and Canada (SC/9). 234 NAMMCO Annual Report 2006

Code Meeting Request Response of the Scientific Committee Status (SC) 3.4.5 NAMMCO The Management Committee recommended that the For the Inglefield Bredning, Ongoing /11 Scientific Committee should concentrate its Uummannaq, and Disko Bay areas most assessment efforts on the West Greenland narwhal stock scenarios examined indicate that in the near term. an annual removal of 135 narwhals for the entire area should result in a probability of 0.7 for some increase within ten years. The SC also recommended a cessation of narwhal hunting in the Melville Bay area (SC/12). 3.4.6 NAMMCO The Management Committee noted that a new See 4.6.5 Ongoing /12 survey of West Greenland beluga will be conducted in 2004. The Scientific Committee was therefore requested to update the assessment of West Greenland Beluga in light of the new survey results and any other new information. The main management objective is to halt the decline of this stock. 3.4.7 NAMMCO The Committee noted that a new survey will be The survey was not successful in 2004, Ongoing /13 carried out in the over-wintering area of the West and may be attempted again in 2005. Greenland beluga in March 2004. If the survey is successful, it will provide an abundance estimate The SC agreed that the with which to update the assessment of this stock. recommendation provided in 2004, that The Management Committee therefore endorsed the total removal in West Greenland the plan of the Scientific Committee to update this should be reduced to no more than 135 235 Report of the Management Committees

Code Meeting Request Response of the Scientific Committee Status (SC) assessment in 2005, jointly with the Scientific individuals, should be provided again Working Group of the JCNB. and with greater emphasis (SC/13). 3.4.8 NAMMCO The Management Committee requested that the Given that almost nothing is known Ongoing. /14 Scientific Committee carry out an assessment of about the stock structure and seasonal East Greenland narwhal, and provide an estimate migrations of East Greenland narwhal, of sustainable yield for the stock. The management and that the abundance estimate for objective in this case is to maintain the stock at a Scoresbysund is more than 20 years stable level. If the assessment cannot be completed old, a reliable assessment is not with available information, the Scientific possible without new information. Committee should provide a list of research that Research recommendations are would be required to complete the assessment. provided (SC/13). 3.4.9 NAMMCO The Scientific Committee should provide advice on The SC conveyed this request to the Pending. /15 the effects of human disturbance, including noise JCNB/NAMMCO Joint Working and shipping activities, on the distribution, Group to consider at their next meeting, behaviour and conservation status of belugas, probably in late 2007 or 2008 (SC/14). particularly in West Greenland. 3.4.9. NAMMCO Surveys for estimating abundance and trends are an The SC noted that that the survey Ongoing. 1 /15 essential component of the assessment of the carried out in 2006 had been planned conservation status of all marine mammals. The with consideration of the Management Committee recognizes that the recommendations of the Committee and planning, conduct and interpretation of surveys is a with extensive consultations with local very contentious issue between hunters, managers hunters. The SC recommended that the and scientists in Greenland. Such surveys must be plans for the survey of Inglefield planned using the best available expertise, Bredning/Melville Bay scheduled for including input from hunters, so that all will have August 2007 be reviewed by the 236 NAMMCO Annual Report 2006

Code Meeting Request Response of the Scientific Committee Status (SC) confidence in their results. The Committee TNASS Planning Committee at their therefore recommends that future surveys for next meeting (SC/14). beluga and narwhal should be planned using the international expertise available through the Scientific Committee of NAMMCO, and with input from hunters at the planning stage. In addition, if and when new survey methods are applied, they should be calibrated against previously used methods so that the validity of the survey series for determining trends in abundance is ensured. 3.6.0 NORTHERN BOTTLENOSE WHALES:

3.6.1 NAMMCO To undertake an assessment of the status of the A Working Group on Northern Completed /2 northern bottlenose whale (Hyperoodon Bottlenose and Killer Whales ampullatus) stock in the North Atlantic. established, and provided a preliminary assessment which was used as the basis of advice and recommendations for further research given by the Scientific Committee (SC/2). 3.6.2 NAMMCO To undertake the necessary modelling of the A joint session was held of the Working Completed /4 species as suggested under ... items 9.2. and 10.2.2 Group on Northern Bottlenose Whales of ...[the Report of the Third Meeting of the and the Working Group on Scientific Committee, 1993]. Management Procedures in order to consider the request from the Council to 237 Report of the Management Committees

Code Meeting Request Response of the Scientific Committee Status (SC) undertake the necessary modelling of the population using catch series and abundance estimates. Their report was used as the basis for advice and research recommendations conveyed by the Scientific Committee (SC/3). 3.7.0 KILLER WHALES:

3.7.1 NAMMCO To advise on stock identity for management A Working Group on Northern Completed /2 purposes; to assess abundance in each stock area; Bottlenose and Killer Whales to assess effects of recent environmental changes, established by the Scientific changes in the food supply and interactions with Committee, and provided a preliminary other marine living resources in each stock area. assessment This provided the basis for advice and research recommendations given by the Scientific Committee (SC/2).

The Chairman noted that it had not yet been possible to complete a full assessment of the killer whale as requested by the Council. Few new data were available, other than recent sightings data from NASS-95 which had not been analysed (SC/5). 3.7.2 NAMMCO The Management Committee requested the The Scientific Committee concluded Ongoing. 238 NAMMCO Annual Report 2006

Code Meeting Request Response of the Scientific Committee Status (SC) /13 Scientific Committee to review the knowledge on that there was not enough information the abundance, stock structure, migration and to carry out the assessment at this time, feeding ecology of killer whales in the North particularly for the West Greenland Atlantic, and to provide advice on research needs area. The Scientific Committee will to improve this knowledge. Priority should be review new information on killer given to killer whales in the West Greenland – whales annually with the aim of Eastern Canada area. completing the assessment once sufficient information becomes available for a particular area. 3.8.0 LONG-FINNED PILOT WHALES:

3.8.1 NAMMCO To provide an assessment of the state of the pilot The Scientific Committee decided to Completed /1 whale stock in the north eastern Atlantic, based on base its advice on the report of the the information sampled from the Faroese drive ICES Study Group on Long-Finned fishery and the NASS sighting surveys. Pilot whales. They concluded that an evaluation of status could not be provided without further work (SC/2). 3.8.2 NAMMCO To analyse the effects of the pilot whale drive hunt This matter was addressed by the Completed /2 in the Faroe Islands on North Atlantic pilot whales Scientific Committee, based on the (Globicephala melas), especially whether the findings of the ICES Study Group and numbers taken are consistent with sustainable the review of the results of NASS-95. utilisation. The Scientific Committee agreed to endorse the list of future research requirements listed by the ICES Study Group in its report, and provided advice 239 Report of the Management Committees

Code Meeting Request Response of the Scientific Committee Status (SC) on the sustainability of the Faroese catch (SC/5). 3.9.0 DOLPHIN SPECIES (Tursiops and Lagenoryhncus spp.):

3.9.1 NAMMCO The Council recommended that NAMMCO Not addressed due to insufficient Ongoing /7 member countries study the ecological interaction information. between dolphin species (e.g., Lagenorhynchus spp.) and fisheries, with the view to future assessments of such interactions. 3.9.2 NAMMCO Noting that ecological interactions between The Scientific Committee noted that the Ongoing /8 dolphin species of the Lagenorhynchus genus and IWC Scientific Committee had dealt fisheries have caused concern in NAMMCO with these species in 1996. Generally, countries, the Scientific Committee is requested to it was considered that there is perform an assessment of distribution, stock insufficient information on stock identity, abundance and ecological interactions of structure, abundance and feeding white-beaked and white-sided dolphins in the ecology to carry out a meaningful North Atlantic area. assessment of these species at this time. Some new information on abundance may become available from the NASS- 95 survey, but these data have not yet been analyzed. The Scientific Committee agreed to begin compiling available information on these species in member countries, with the objective of identifying knowledge gaps and 240 NAMMCO Annual Report 2006

Code Meeting Request Response of the Scientific Committee Status (SC) creating a basis for assessment in the longer term (SC/7). 3.9.3 NAMMCO At its Eighth Meeting in 1998, the Council agreed to The Scientific Committee noted that the Ongoing /9 the recommendation of the Management Committee NASS surveys were optimised for to request the Scientific Committee to perform an species other than dolphins, and that in assessment of distribution, stock identity, abundance some cases, it was not possible to and ecological interactions of white-beaked and identify dolphins to species. In these white-sided dolphins in the North Atlantic area. cases, mapping of sightings may be the only analysis warranted. Further The Management Committee noted the conclusion analyses may be feasible from the of the Scientific Committee that there is insufficient Faroese and Icelandic survey areas, and information on stock structure, abundance and the Scientific Committee made feeding ecology to carry out a meaningful preparations to begin these analyses assessment of these species at this time. (SC/8).

The Management Committee further noted that, in These species are harvested addition to the focus of the Management sporadically in drive hunts in the Faroe Committee’s former request for advice on these Islands, and there is some by-catch in species in relation to their ecological interactions Iceland. They are rarely taken in with fisheries, these dolphin species are harvested in Norway or Greenland. Scientific papers significant numbers in the Faroe Islands. on feeding ecology and life history in Icelandic waters are expected to be The Management Committee therefore agreed to published soon. The Scientific recommend that the Scientific Committee be Committee recommended that a requested to facilitate the requested assessment of sampling programme be initiated in the 241 Report of the Management Committees

Code Meeting Request Response of the Scientific Committee Status (SC) these species, with an emphasis on the following: Faroe Islands for white-sided, white- beaked and bottlenose dolphins, - to analyse results from NASS 95 and other primarily to collect information on sightings surveys as a basis for establishing feeding ecology, life history and stock abundance estimates for the stocks; delineation. They also recommended that sampling should continue in to coordinate the efforts of member countries to Iceland and Norway on an opportunistic conduct research to fill the noted information gaps, basis (SC/8). taking advantage in particular of the sampling opportunities provided by the Faroese catch, as well as dedicated samples in other areas. 3.9.4 NAMMCO The Management Committee noted that bottlenosed See 4.25. Ongoing /9 dolphins, like white-sided and white-beaked dolphns, are also harvested in the coastal drive fishery in the Faroe Islands.

The Management Committee agreed to recommend that, in connection with the updated request for advice from the Scientific Committee on white- sided and white-beaked dolphins, that bottlenosed dolphins also be included in this assessment. 3.9.5 NAMMCO The Management Committee noted that the The Committee noted that considerable Ongoing /10 requested assessments for these species could not progress has been made in the Faroes in at present be completed because of a lack of describing the ecology and life history information on stock identity, distribution, of white sided dolphins, but that some 242 NAMMCO Annual Report 2006

Code Meeting Request Response of the Scientific Committee Status (SC) abundance and biology. The Management analytical work remains to be Committee therefore recommended that the completed and sampling will continue. Scientific Committee monitors developments in At this point the Scientific Committee this area and continues its assessments, as new data considered that there was still become available. insufficient information on abundance, stock relationships, life history and feeding ecology to go forward with the requested assessments for these species. This may become feasible by 2007 (SC/11). 3.9.6 NAMMCO The Management Committee has asked the Pending Ongoing. /13 Scientific Committee to carry out assessments of these species, but to date insufficient information has been available on stock delineation, distribution, abundance and biological parameters to initiate the work. The Committee was pleased to note that considerable progress has been made in the Faroes in describing the ecology and life history of white sided dolphins and that information on white beaked dolphins should be available from Iceland and Norway in about 2 years time. Abundance estimates are lacking in all areas except Icelandic coastal waters, and no information on stock delineation or pod structure is yet available. The SCANS survey planned for 243 Report of the Management Committees

Code Meeting Request Response of the Scientific Committee Status (SC) 2005/6 and coastal surveys planned for Norway (see 9.3) should provide information on distribution and abundance in some areas. The Committee endorsed the plan of the Scientific Committee to proceed with the assessments once the above-mentioned studies have been completed, probably by 2007. 3.10. HARBOUR PORPOISES: 0 3.10. NAMMCO The Council noted that the harbour porpoise is The Scientific Committee decided that Ongoing 1 /7 common to all NAMMCO member countries, and the matter could best be dealt with by that the extent of current research activities and convening an international expertise in member countries and elsewhere workshop/symposium on harbour across the North Atlantic would provide an porpoises, which would involve experts excellent basis for undertaking a comprehensive working on this species throughout its assessment of the species throughout its range. The North Atlantic range. The agenda would Council therefore requested the Scientific include the following themes: Committee to perform such an assessment, which distribution, abundance and stock might include distribution and abundance, stock identity; biological parameters; identity, biological parameters, ecological ecological interactions; pollutants; interaction, pollutants, removals and sustainability removals and sustainability of removals of removals. (SC/6).

The Scientific Committee utilised the report of the Symposium to develop its 244 NAMMCO Annual Report 2006

Code Meeting Request Response of the Scientific Committee Status (SC) own assessment advice to the Council. Recent abundance estimates are available for only a few places in the North Atlantic. Directed harvesting occurs in some areas, but most removals are through by-catch. In some areas, present removals are not sustainable. The Scientific Committee developed research recommendations to address some of the information needs for management of this species (SC/8).

245 Report of the Management Committees

LIST OF REFERENCES

NAMMCO/1 NAMMCO 1992. (MS) Report of the inaugural meeting of the Council of the North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission. NAMMCO, University of Tromsø, Tromsø, 35 pp.

NAMMCO/2 NAMMCO. 1993. (MS) Report of the second meeting of the Council. NAMMCO, University of Tromsø, Tromsø, 65 pp.

NAMMCO/3 NAMMCO. 1993. (MS) Report of the third meeting of the Council. NAMMCO, University of Tromsø, Tromsø, 51 pp.

NAMMCO/4 NAMMCO. 1994. (MS) Fourth meeting of the Council. NAMMCO, University of Tromsø, Tromsø, 142 pp.

NAMMCO/5 NAMMCO. 1995. Fifth meeting of the Council. In: NAMMCO, Annual Report 1995. NAMMCO, Tromsø, 11-44.

NAMMCO/6 NAMMCO. 1997. Report of the sixth meeting of the Council. In: NAMMCO, Annual Report 1996. NAMMCO, Tromsø, 11-58.

NAMMCO/7 NAMMCO. 1998. Report of the seventh meeting of the Council. In: NAMMCO, Annual Report 1997. NAMMCO, Tromsø, 9-60.

NAMMCO/8 NAMMCO. 1999. Report of the eighth meeting of the Council. In: NAMMCO, Annual Report 1998. NAMMCO, Tromsø, 9-55.

NAMMCO/9 NAMMCO. 2000. Report of the ninth meeting of the Council. In: NAMMCO, Annual Report 1999. NAMMCO, Tromsø, 11-49.

NAMMCO/10 NAMMCO. 2001. Report of the tenth meeting of the Council. In: NAMMCO, Annual Report 2000. NAMMCO, Tromsø, , 11-69.

NAMMCO/11 NAMMCO. 2002. Report of the eleventh meeting of the Council. In: NAMMCO, Annual Report 2001. NAMMCO, Tromsø, 11-93.

246 NAMMCO Annual Report 2006

NAMMCO/12 NAMMCO. 2003. Report of the twelfth meeting of the Council. In: NAMMCO, Annual Report 2002. NAMMCO, Tromsø, 11-114.

NAMMCO/13 NAMMCO. 2004. Report of the thirteenth meeting of the Council. In: NAMMCO, Annual Report 2003. NAMMCO, Tromsø, 11-71.

NAMMCO/14 NAMMCO. 2005. Report of the fourteenth meeting of the Council. In: NAMMCO, Annual Report 2004. NAMMCO, Tromsø, 9-126.

NAMMCO/15 NAMMCO. 2006. Report of the fifteenth meeting of the Council. In: NAMMCO, Annual Report 2005. NAMMCO, Tromsø, 11-64.

SC/2 NAMMCO. 1993. (MS) Report of the second meeting of the Scientific Committee. NAMMCO, University of Tromsø, Tromsø, 57 pp.

SC/3 NAMMCO. 1995. Report of the third meeting of the Scientific Committee. In: NAMMCO, Annual Report 1995. NAMMCO, Tromsø, 71-126.

SC/4 NAMMCO. 1997. Report of the Scientific Committee. In: NAMMCO, Annual Report 1996. NAMMCO, Tromsø, 97-178.

SC/5 NAMMCO. 1998. Report of the Scientific Committee. In: NAMMCO, Annual Report 1997. NAMMCO, Tromsø, 85-202.

SC/6 NAMMCO. 1999. Report of the sixth meeting of the Scientific Committee. In: NAMMCO, Annual Report 1998. NAMMCO, Tromsø, 89-131.

SC/7 NAMMCO. 2000. Report of the seventh meeting of the Scientific Committee. In: NAMMCO, Annual Report 1999. NAMMCO, Tromsø, 125-211.

SC/8 NAMMCO. 2001. Report of the eighth meeting of the Scientific Committee. In: NAMMCO, Annual Report 2000. NAMMCO, Tromsø, 123-294.

SC/9 NAMMCO. 2002. Report of the ninth meeting of the Scientific Committee. In:

247 Report of the Management Committees

NAMMCO, Annual Report 2001. NAMMCO, Tromsø, 147-270.

SC/10 NAMMCO. 2003. Report of the tenth meeting of the Scientific Committee. In: NAMMCO, Annual Report 2002. NAMMCO, Tromsø, 173-281.

SC/11 NAMMCO. 2004. Report of the eleventh meeting of the Scientific Committee. In: NAMMCO, Annual Report 2003. NAMMCO, Tromsø, 135-310

SC/12 NAMMCO. 2005 Report of the twelfth meeting of the Scientific Committee. In: NAMMCO, Annual Report 2004. NAMMCO, Tromsø, pp. 207-278.

SC/13 NAMMCO. 2006 Report of the thirteenth meeting of the Scientific Committee. In: NAMMCO, Annual Report 2005. NAMMCO, Tromsø, pp. 161-308.

SC/14 NAMMCO. 2007. Report of the fourteenth meeting of the Scientific Committee. In: NAMMCO, Annual Report 2006. NAMMCO, Tromsø, Section 4. Volume II.

248 NAMMCO Annual Report 2006 ANNEX 3 MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE WORKING GROUP ON BY-CATCH Telephonemeeting 13 February 2007

Present at the meeting were: Droplaug Ólafsdóttir (Chair, Iceland), Arne Bjørge (Norway), Synnøve Liabø (Norway), Bjarni Mikkelsen (Faroe Islands), Genevieve Desportes (Faroe Islands), Fernando Ugarte (Greenland), Leif Arne Nygård (Greenland) and Daniel Pike and Christina Lockyer from the NAMMCO Secretariat.

1. ADOPTION OF AGENDA

The draft agenda (Appendix 1) was adopted. The List of Documents is provided in Appendix 2.

2. APPOINTMENT OF RAPPORTEUR

Daniel Pike, Scientific Secretary of NAMMCO, was appointed as Rapporteur.

3. INFORMATION REGARDING ONGOING MONITORING AND MANAGEMENT OF MARINE MAMMAL BY-CATCHES OUTSIDE THE NAMMCO AREA

3.1 European Union Bjørge reported on progress in implementing Council Regulation 812/2004 pertaining to the incidental catch of cetaceans in fisheries in European Union waters, which entered into force in July 2004. The regulation includes measures restricting Baltic Sea drift net fisheries, providing for mandatory use of acoustic deterrent devices (pingers) in some fisheries, and the use of onboard observers on vessels of over 15 m in length. Further details were provided in the 2005 report of this Working Group (NAMMCO 2006). An evaluation workshop is scheduled for 2007 but no documentation is available at this time. The implementation and impact of the regulation will also be evaluated by the IWC Scientific Committee at their 2007 meeting. Bjørge agreed to continue to monitor progress in this area.

4. REVIEW PROGRESS IN MONITORING AND MANAGEMENT OF MARINE MAMMAL BY-CATCHES WITHIN THE NAMMCO AREA

4.1 Progress in monitoring marine mammal by-catches by NAMMCO Member Countries Norway Bjørge presented BC/6 which reported on progress in monitoring by-catch in selected Norwegian fisheries. Last year Norway reported on a pilot study conducted in 2004 and 2005 which revealed the possibility of high by-catches of marine mammals (in particular grey and harbour seals and harbour porpoises) in three coastal gillnet fisheries. These fisheries targeted cod Gadus morhua, anglerfish Lophius piscatorius and lumpsucker Cyclopterus lumpus. Based on this pilot study, a programme to

249 Report of the Management Committee Working Group on By-Catch monitor by-catches of marine mammals was developed for fisheries for cod and anglerfish (which had the highest fishing effort of the three) starting in October 2005. Two commercial fishing vessels (less than 15m total length) in each of nine coastal fishery statistics areas were selected and contracted to observe and report detailed statistic on effort, catch and by-catches.

In cod fisheries (fisheries targeting cod using bottom-set gillnets of 80-120mm half mesh) about 920 thousand kg of cod were landed from the observed operations from October 2005 to September 2006. In the fisheries targeting anglerfish with large meshed gillnets (180mm half mesh) about 120 thousand kg anglerfish were landed from the observed trips from October 2005 to September 2006. In these fisheries totals of 20 harbour seals (including 3 taken in traps by the same vessels), 9 grey seals, 8 harp seals and 101 harbour porpoises were observed by-caught.

A workshop is scheduled for March 2007 to evaluate results of the first 12 months of by-catch monitoring. The aim is to establish methods for extrapolating from observed by-catches to estimates of total by-catches in entire fisheries.

In addition to the two observed fisheries and the lumpsucker fishery, a number of marine mammals are assumed to be taken in recreational gillnet fisheries. The by- catch rates and the efforts of the recreational gillnet fisheries are presently unknown.

Most of the Norwegian commercial fish catches are landed by vessels larger than15m total length operating demersal trawl and purse seine in offshore areas in the Barents, North and Norwegian seas. Monitoring programmes for these fisheries were presented to the Working Group last year, and these programmes substantiated the assumption that these fisheries have relatively low levels of marine mammal by-catches.

The Working Group thanked Bjørge for this information and commended Norway for making progress in monitoring marine mammal by-catch. The Working Group recommended that Norway provide the report of the March evaluation meeting to the NAMMCO Scientific Committee at their next meeting, and provide estimates of by- catch from these fisheries to NAMMCO as soon as they become available.

Faroes Mikkelsen noted that there had been no changes in the by-catch reporting system in the Faroe Islands since last year. Fishery logbooks are mandatory for all vessels larger than 110 BRT, however the reporting of by-catch in these logbooks is encouraged but not required. The logbooks are not formatted for recording by-catch, and such records must be entered as supplementary comments. There is no logbook system is in place for smaller boats. It is tentatively planned to conduct a questionnaire survey of fishermen to gather basic information about the magnitude of marine mammal by- catch in various fisheries later this year.

In discussion the Working Group noted that the logbook and associated questionnaire survey used in Iceland had been extensively reviewed by the Scientific Committee in 2004 and that this should be considered in planning the Faroese study. The Working

250 NAMMCO Annual Report 2006

Group considered the conduct of such a study to be a useful first step in monitoring by-catch in the Faroes and recommended that it be conducted and reported to the Working Group at their next meeting.

Greenland Ugarte reported that it is now mandatory for small fishing vessels to keep a logbook which includes a section for reporting by-catch of marine mammals (logbooks were previously required only on large vessels). In most cases by-catch of small whales and seals in coastal fisheries is thought to be included in the catch statistics but there is no way to separate out by-catch from directed catch. By-catch of large whales is probably always reported because the fisherman must seek permission from the Department of Hunting before the whale can be killed and utilized, and the fisherman can receive compensation for damaged gear.

Iceland Ólafsdóttir reported that the by-catch monitoring programme in Iceland is unchanged from last year. The reporting of marine mammal by-catch in fishery logbooks is mandatory on all vessels. However reporting in most fisheries is very poor. An effort to introduce a procedure for reporting marine mammal by-catch through the log book system was initiated for the gillnet fishing fleet in 2002, and the results from this programme were evaluated by the Scientific Committee and this Working Group in 2004 (NAMMCO 2005a, b). The recommendations for improvement of the reporting system made then were accepted by Iceland (NAMMCO 2005c, p. 25), but there has been no progress in implementing them. Ólafsdóttir also noted that the methodology used in the Icelandic coastal aerial survey portion of the TNASS would be modified to obtain better estimates of harbour porpoises.

The Working Group reiterated its recommendations for improving the by-catch monitoring programme in Iceland (NAMMCO 2005a, p. 190) and encouraged Iceland to implement these recommendations in a timely fashion.

4.2 Evaluation of procedures developed and implemented by NAMMCO Member Countries The Working Group noted that the Norwegian by-catch monitoring system was not yet sufficiently developed to warrant a formal evaluation by the Scientific Committee. The Working Group looked forward to receiving initial estimates of by-catch from the programme next year. The Icelandic system was reviewed in 2004 and has not been improved since (see 4.1). Neither Greenland nor the Faroes have functional by-catch monitoring systems.

5. EVALUATION OF THE POTENTIAL RISK OF MARINE MAMMAL BY-CATCH IN THE FISHERY WITHIN THE NAMMCO AREA

5.1 Spatial and temporal overlap in the fishing activity and distribution of marine mammals within the NAMMCO area In 2004 the Management Committee recommended that member countries should prepare working documents outlining the existing knowledge about marine mammal

251 Report of the Management Committee Working Group on By-Catch by-catch in their jurisdiction, for the consideration of the Working Group on By-catch. These documents would be evaluated by the Working Group and used to develop recommendations and priorities for by-catch monitoring in member countries. To date documents from Iceland, the Faroes and Norway have been evaluated, but full documentation has not yet been received from Greenland, and last year the Working Group recommended that Greenland provide a working document at the next meeting.

Ugarte explained that the material had not yet been prepared because of competing priorities, but that they would be dedicating some time to this task in the near future. Once again the Working Group recommended the completion of this documentation for the next meeting.

Bjørge reported that Norway would attempt to use spatial modelling to improve estimates of by-catch for grey and harbour seals. The models would incorporate spatial data on fishing effort, known distribution of seals and possibly other variables. The Working Group recommended that this work be reported to NAMMCO when it is completed.

5.2 Other indirect or direct evidence of marine mammal by-catch within the NAMMCO area It appears that there are no functioning stranding networks in NAMMCO member countries, thus there is no systematic reporting of stranded animals that may show evidence of having been entangled in fishing gear.

6. REPORTING OF BY-CATCH TO NAMMCO

6.1 Reporting in 2005. Pike reviewed the by-catch information in the National Progress Reports applicable for 2005. All countries included the required section on by-catch in their progress reports, however the format was not followed in all cases. The Faroe Islands provided information on their collection programme and reported by-catch of one harbour porpoise. Greenland reported a by-catch of 5 humpback whales but no details as to the methodology of by-catch data collection, coverage, or monitoring effort are given. Norway provided information on the development of their monitoring programme that is summarized under item 4.1. Iceland provided detailed reporting of recorded by- catch, totalling 275 marine mammals. However total by-catch cannot be estimated from these data as reported.

7. OTHER ITEMS

7.1 Proposal for a Scientific Committee evaluation of by-catch monitoring programmes Last year the Working Group proposed to hold a workshop with the theme “Monitoring Marine Mammal By-catch”, with the general objective of providing advice on the establishment of effective by-catch monitoring programmes in NAMMCO member countries (NAMMCO 2006). This proposal was rejected by the Management Committee. The Council then suggested that it might be more

252 NAMMCO Annual Report 2006 appropriate if such advice were provided by the Scientific Committee, and agreed that the Management Committee would consider this in 2007.

If the Management Committee decides that it does require scientific advice in this area over and above that which can be provided by this Working Group, it will have to formulate a request for advice to the Scientific Committee. It will then be up to the Scientific Committee to respond to this request, probably (but not certainly) through the formation of a Working Group which would include external expertise. Pike proposed that the Working Group on By-catch could contribute to this process by specifying what scientific advice is required to make progress in this area.

The Working Group agreed with this proposal and recommended that the following request for advice should be made to the Scientific Committee:

By-catch of marine mammals occurs to an unknown extent in fisheries in NAMMCO member countries and may constitute a large proportion of human removals for some species in some areas. At present no NAMMCO member country has a by-catch monitoring programme that can deliver quantitative estimates of by-catch, with associated uncertainty. Work is under way in Norway and Iceland to develop monitoring systems for some fisheries. Therefore there is potentially much to gain from learning from the experiences of other jurisdictions where monitoring programmes are more developed and obtaining scientific advice on the design of a monitoring programme that will satisfy the needs of management. It is recognized that monitoring systems must be tailored to the specific fisheries and the conditions prevalent in different jurisdictions.

The Scientific Committee is therefore requested to: 1. Review by-catch monitoring systems used in other jurisdictions and various types of fisheries, and provide advice on the most effective systems in terms of delivering accurate and precise estimates of by-catch at reasonable cost; 2. Review information on fisheries and by-catch in NAMMCO member countries to determine which fisheries are likely to catch the greatest number of marine mammals and/or negatively affect the conservation status of marine mammal stocks; 3. Provide recommendations specific to country and fishery for monitoring by-catch in NAMMCO member countries; 4. On an ongoing basis, review the by-catch monitoring programmes in place in member countries and provide advice on how they can be improved.

8. RECOMMENDATIONS i. Norway should provide the report of the by-catch estimation methodology meeting to be held in March 2007 to the NAMMCO Scientific Committee at their next meeting, and provide estimates of by-catch from these fisheries to NAMMCO as soon as they become available (see 4.1). ii. The Faroes should conduct a pilot questionnaire study as a first step in monitoring

253 Report of the Management Committee Working Group on By-Catch

by-catch in the area, and provide a report on this to the Working Group at their next meeting (see 4.1). iii. The Working Group reiterated its recommendations for improving the by-catch monitoring programme in Iceland (NAMMCO 2005a, p. 190) and encouraged Iceland to implement these recommendations in a timely fashion (see 4.1). iv. The Working Group reiterated its recommendation of last year that Greenland should complete a working document outlining the existing knowledge about marine mammal by-catch in their jurisdiction. These documents were first requested in 2004 (see 5.1). v. Norway should report on its efforts to use spatial modelling to improve estimates of by-catch for grey and harbour seals, as soon as the work is completed (see 5.1). vi. The Working Group recommended that the request for advice detailed under 7.1 should be made to the Scientific Committee.

9. FURTHER MEETINGS?

Given that there was some uncertainty as to the future status of the Working Group, it was agreed to consider this after the Council meeting. In general it was agreed that face-to-face meetings were more effective and preferable to telephone meetings.

10. ADOPTION OF REPORT.

The Report was adopted by correspondence on 20 February 2007. The Chair thanked all members for their contributions to the meeting, noting particularly that this is the last By-catch Working Group meeting for Daniel Pike as he is leaving NAMMCO. Pike has served as rapporteur for the WG for 8 years and been a key person in organizing and arranging practical matters as well as actively influencing the discussion and development of the Working Group. The Chair thanked him for his contribution to the Working Group and stated that his influence will certainly be missed in the future work relating to by-catch by NAMMCO.

REFERENCES

[NAMMCO] North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission. 2005a. Report of the Management Committee Working Group On By-catch. In: NAMMCO Annual Report 2004, NAMMCO, Tromsø, pp. 187-197. [NAMMCO] North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission. 2005b. Report of the Scientific Committee. In: NAMMCO Annual Report 2004, NAMMCO, Tromsø, pp. 207-278. [NAMMCO] North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission. 2005c. Report of the Council. In: NAMMCO Annual Report 2004, NAMMCO, Tromsø, pp. 13-126. [NAMMCO] North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission. 2006. Report of the Management Committee Working Group On By-catch. In: NAMMCO Annual Report 2005, NAMMCO, Tromsø, pp. 125-134.

254 NAMMCO Annual Report 2006

Appendices 1 & 2 APPENDIX 1 – AGENDA

1. Adoption of agenda 2. Appointment of rapporteur 3. Information regarding ongoing monitoring and management of marine mammal by-catches outside the NAMMCO area 3.1 European Union 4. Review progress in monitoring and management of marine mammal by- catches within the NAMMCO area 4.1 Progress in monitoring marine mammal by-catches by NAMMCO member countries evaluation of procedures developed and implemented by NAMMCO member countries 5. Evaluation of the potential risk of marine mammal by-catch in the fishery within the NAMMCO area 5.1 Spatial and temporal overlap in the fishing activity and distribution of marine mammals within the NAMMCO area 5.2 Other indirect or direct evidence of marine mammal by-catch within the NAMMCO area 6. Reporting of by-catch to NAMMCO 6.1 Reporting in 2005. 7. Other items 7.1 Proposal for a scientific committee evaluation of by-catch monitoring programmes 8. Recommendations 9. Further meetings? 10. Adoption of report.

APPENDIX 3 - LIST OF DOCUMENTS

NAMMCO/16/MC/BC/1 List of participants NAMMCO/16/MC/BC/2 Draft agenda. NAMMCO/16/MC/BC/3 List of documents NAMMCO/16/MC/BC/4 National Progress Reports: By-catch reporting for 2004. NAMMCO/16/MC/BC/6 Bjørge, A.. Information on observed by-catches of marine mammals in some selected Norwegian fisheries in 2006. NAMMCO/16/MC/BC/7 Pike, D.G. Proposal for a Scientific Committee evaluation of by-catch monitoring programmes.

Other document

DFO. 2006. Science and Implementation Considerations of Mitigation Techniques to Reduce Small Cetacean By-catch in Fisheries. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Proceed. Ser. 2006/020.

255

NAMMCO Annual Report 2006

SECTION 3 – ADDRESSES

SECTION 3 ADDRESSES

3.1 Delegates and Observers to the Sixteenth Meeting of the Council ...... 259

3.2 Council and Management Committee Members in 2006 ...... 263

3.3 Management Committee Members in 2006 ...... 265

3.4 Finance and Administration Committee Members 2006 ...... 267

3.5 Delegates to the NAMMCO Workshop addressing problems of Struck and Lost in seal, walrus and whale hunting, November 2006 ...... 269

3.6 Secretariat ...... 277

NAMMCO Annual Report 2006 3.1 DELEGATES AND OBSERVERS TO THE SIXTEENTH MEETING OF THE COUNCIL

MEMBER COUNTRIES P.O.Box 347 FO-110 Tórshavn Faroe Islands Faroe Islands Tel.: + 298353030 Mr Bjarni Mikkelsen Fax: +298353035 Museum of Natural History E-mail: [email protected] Fútalág 40 FO-100 Tórshavn Greenland Faroe Islands Tel.: + 298352323 Mr Aksel Blytmann Fax: +298352321 KNAPK E-mail: [email protected] P.O.Box 386 DK-3900 Nuuk Mr Jústines Olsen Greenland Veterinary Service Tel.: + 299322422 Varðagøta 85 Fax: +299325715 FO-100 Tórshavn E-mail: [email protected] Faroe Islands Tel.: + 298315273/mobil+298 210633 Mr Lars Geråe Fax: +298317819 Ministry of Fisheries, Hunting and E-mail: [email protected] Agriculture P.O.Box 269 Ms Kate Sanderson (Chair) DK-3900 Nuuk Ministry of Fisheries & Maritime Greenland Affairs Tel.: + 299345000 P.O. Box 347 Fax: + 299324704 FO-110 Tórshavn E-mail: [email protected] Tel. +298 35 30 30 Tel direct: +298 35 32 47 Mr Ole Heinrich (C) Fax: +298353035 Ministry of Fisheries, Hunting and E-mail: [email protected] Agriculture P.O.Box 269 Mr Ólavur Sjúrðarberg DK-3900 Nuuk Grindamannafelagið Greenland Fútalág 40, FO-100 Tórshavn Tel.: + 299345342 Faroe Islands Fax: + 299324704 Tel.: mobil: +298213625 E-mail: [email protected] Fax: +298443374 E-mail: [email protected] Ms Amalie Jessen (C) Ministry of Fisheries, Hunting and Ms Ulla S. Wang (C) Agriculture Ministry of Fisheries and Maritime P.O.Box 269 Affairs DK-3900 Nuuk

259 Addresses

Greenland IS-150 Reykjavik Tel.: + 299345304 Iceland Fax: +299324704 Tel.: + 3545458370 E-mail: [email protected] Fax: +3545621853 E-mail: [email protected] Minister Finn Karlsen Ministry of Fisheries, Hunting and Mr Gunnar Bergmann Jónsson Agriculture Association of the Minke Whalers P.O.Box 269 Iceland DK-3900 Nuuk Holtagerdi 72 Greenland IS-200 Kópavogur Tel.: + 299345000 Iceland Fax: + 299324704 Tel.: + 3546903408 E-mail: [email protected] Mr Hans Møller Ministry of Fisheries, Hunting and Mr Kristján Loftsson Agriculture Hvalur H.F. P.O.Box 269 P.O.Box 233 DK-3900 Nuuk IS-222 Hafnafjordur Greenland Iceland Tel.: +299345000 Tel.: + 3545550565 Fax: +299323040 Fax: +3545551741 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected]

Mr Peter Olsen Mr Bjarni Sigtryggsson KNAPK Ministry for Foreign Affairs P.O.Box 386 Dept. of Natural Resouces and DK-3900 Nuuk Environmental Affairs. Greenland Raudararstig 25 Tel.: + 299322422 150 Reykjavik Fax: +299325715 Iceland E-mail: [email protected] Tel: +354-545-9903 Fax:: +354-562-2373 Dr Fernando Ugarte E-mail: [email protected] Ministry of Fisheries and Hunting P.O.Box 269 Mr Árni Snæbjörnsson DK-3900 Nuuk Ministry of Agriculture Greenland Sölvhólsgötu 7 Tel.: + 299345343 IS-150 Reykjavik Fax: + 299324704 Tel.: +3545459750 E-mail: [email protected] Fax: +3545521160 E-mail: [email protected] Iceland Mr Gísli A. Víkingsson Ms Ásta Einarsdóttir (C) Marine Research Institute Ministry of Fisheries P.O.Box 1390 Skúlagata 4 IS-121 Reykjavik

260 NAMMCO Annual Report 2006

Iceland Tel.: +4776055150 Tel.: + 3545520240 E-mail: [email protected] Fax: +3545623790 E-mail: [email protected] Ms Lisbeth Plassa Directorate of Fisheries Norway P.O.Box 185 Sentrum N-5804 Bergen Ms Turid B. Rodrigues Eusébio Norway Ministry of Forreign Affairs Tel.: + 4755238000 P.O.Box 8114 Dep Fax: +4755238090 N-0032 Oslo,Norway E-mail: [email protected] Tel.: + 4722243612 Fax: + 4722242784 Prof Lars Walløe (Chairman) E-mail: [email protected] The faculty of Medicine University of Oslo Mr Halvard P. Johansen (C ) P.O. Box 1103, Blindern Ministry of Fisheries and Coastal N-0317 Oslo Affairs Norway P.O.Box 8118 Dep Tel: +4722851218 N-0032 Oslo FAX: +4722851249 Norway E-mail: [email protected] Tel.: + 4722242668 Fax: +4722242667 SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE E-mail: [email protected] Dr Geneviève Desportes Mr Bjørne Kvernmo Faroese Museum of Natural History Fiskebåtrederenes forbund C/O GDNatur C/O Myrullveien 31 Stejlestræde 9 N-9516 Alta Bregnør Tel.: +4797096499 DK-5300 Kerteminde E-mail: [email protected] Denmark Tel.: +4566321767 Mr Elling Lorentsen Fax: +4565321776 Norwegian Fishermens Association E-mail: [email protected] Pirsenteret N-7462 Trondheim OBSERVER GOVERNMENTS Norway Tel.: + 4773545850 Canada Fax: +4773545890 E-mail: Mr Patrice Simon [email protected] Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada Mr Jan Odin Olavsen 200 Kent Street, 125035 Norwegian Whalers Union Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0E6, Canada Olavsen AS Tel.: + 16139900289 Steine Fax: +16139540807 N-8340 Stamsund E-mail: [email protected]

261 Addresses

Mr Brianna Rossi Tel.: +19024685590 Department of Fisheries and Oceans Fax: +19024685538 Canada E-mail: [email protected] 200 Kent Street Observer: Ms Lisbeth Plassa Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0E6, Canada Tel.: + 16139910218 North East Atlantic Fisheries Fax: +16139907051 Commission (NEAFC) E-mail: [email protected] 22 Berners Street London W1T 3DY Denmark tel: + 44 (0) 20 7631 0016 fax: + 44 (0) 20 7636 9225 Mr Mads T. Lunde E-mail: [email protected] Ministry of Foreign Affairs Observer: Ms Lisbeth Plassa Asiatisk Plads 2 DK-1448 Copenhagen K NON-GOVERNMENTAL Tel.: +4533920469 ORGANISATIONS Fax: +4533920170 E-mail: [email protected] High North Alliance N-8390 Reine, Norway Japan Tel.: +4776092414 Fax: +4776092450 Mr Dan Goodman E-mail: [email protected] The Institute of Cetacean Research Observers: Mr Rune Frøvik 4-5 Toyomi-cho, Chuo-ku Mr Harald Hansen Tokyo 104-0055, Japan Tel.: + 81335366521 Inuit Circumpolar Conference (ICC) Fax: +81335366522 Greenland E-mail: [email protected] P.O. BOX 204, 3900 Nuuk Tel: +299 32 36 32 INTERGOVERNMENTAL Fax: +299 32 30 01 ORGANISATIONS E-mail: [email protected] Observer: Ms Lene K. Holm International Whaling Commission (IWC) Inuvialuit Game Council/Joint Secretariat The Red House POB 2120 135 Station Road, Histon Inuvik, NT X0E 0T0 Cambridge CB4 4NP, UK Tel.: +18677772828 Tel.: +44 1223 233971 /fax: +18677772610 Fax: +44 1223232876 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] Observer: Mr Norm Snow Observer: Mr Mads T. Lunde Mr Frank Pokiak

Northwest Atlantic Fisheries SECRETARIAT Organisation (NAFO) Address see page 277 P.O.Box 638 Dr Christina Lockyer Dartmouth, Nova Scotia Mr Daniel Pike Canada B2Y 3Y9 Ms Charlotte Winsnes

262 NAMMCO Annual Report 2006 3.2 COUNCIL MEMBERS 2006

Ms Ásta Einarsdóttir Fax: +4722242667 Ministry of Fisheries E-mail: Skúlagata 4 [email protected] IS-150 Reykjavik Iceland Until September 2006 Tel.: + 3545458370 Mr Andras Kristiansen Fax: +3545621853 Ministry of Fisheries and Maritime E-mail: [email protected] Affairs P.O.Box 347 Mr Ole Heinrich FO-110 Tórshavn Ministry of Fisheries, Hunting and Faroe Islands Agriculture Tel.: + 298353030 P.O.Box 269 Fax: +298353035 DK-3900 Nuuk E-mail: [email protected] Greenland Tel.: + 299345342 From September 2006 Fax: + 299324704 Ms Ulla S Wang E-mail: [email protected] Ministry of Fisheries and Maritime Affairs Ms Amalie Jessen P.O.Box 347 Ministry of Fisheries, Hunting and FO-110 Tórshavn Agriculture Faroe Islands P.O.Box 269 Tel.: + 298353030 DK-3900 Nuuk Fax: +298353035 Greenland E-mail: [email protected] Tel.: + 299345304 Fax: +299323040 Ms Kate Sanderson (Chair) E-mail: [email protected] Ministry of Fisheries & Maritime Affairs Mr Halvard P. Johansen Heykavegur 6 (Management Committee Chair) P.O. Box 347 Ministry of Fisheries FO-110 Tórshavn P.O.Box 8118 Dep Tel. +298 35 30 30 N-0032 Oslo Tel direct: +298 35 32 47 Norway E-mail: [email protected] Tel.: + 4722242668

263

NAMMCO Annual Report 2006 3.3 MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE MEMBERS 2006/2007

Ms Ásta Einarsdóttir Mr Halvard P. Johansen (Chair MC Ministry of Fisheries Cetaceans) Skúlagata 4 Ministry of Fisheries IS-150 Reykjavik P.O.Box 8118 Dep Iceland N-0032 Oslo Tel.: + 3545458370 Norway Fax: +3545621853 Tel.: + 4722242668 E-mail: [email protected] Fax: +4722242667 E-mail: Mr Árni Snæbjörnsson (only MC [email protected] Seals and Walruses) Ministry of Agriculture Until September 2006 Sölvhólsgötu 7 Mr Andras Kristiansen IS-150 Reykjavik Ministry of Fisheries and Maritime Tel.: +3545459750 Affairs Fax: +3545521160 P.O.Box 347 E-mail: [email protected] FO-110 Tórshavn Faroe Islands Mr Ole Heinrich Tel.: + 298353030 Ministry of Fisheries, Hunting and Fax: +298353035 Agriculture E-mail: [email protected] P.O.Box 269 DK-3900 Nuuk From September 2006 Greenland Ms Ulla S Wang Tel.: + 299345342 Ministry of Fisheries and Maritime Fax: + 299324704 Affairs E-mail: [email protected] P.O.Box 347 FO-110 Tórshavn Ms Amalie Jessen (Chair MC Seals Faroe Islands and Walruses) Tel.: + 298353030 Ministry of Fisheries, Hunting and Fax: +298353035 Agriculture E-mail: [email protected] P.O.Box 269 DK-3900 Nuuk Ms Kate Sanderson Greenland Ministry of Fisheries & Maritime Tel.: + 299345304 Affairs Fax: +299323040 Heykavegur 6 E-mail: [email protected] P.O. Box 347 FO-110 Tórshavn Tel. +298 35 30 30 Tel direct: +298 35 32 47 E-mail: [email protected]

265

NAMMCO Annual Report 2006 3.4 FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE MEMBERS IN 2006

Ms Ásta Einarsdóttir (Chair) From September 2006 Ministry of Fisheries Ms Ulla S Wang Skúlagata 4 Ministry of Fisheries and Maritime IS-150 Reykjavik Affairs Iceland P.O.Box 347 Tel.: + 3545458370 FO-110 Tórshavn Fax: +3545621853 Faroe Islands E-mail: [email protected] Tel.: + 298353030 Fax: +298353035 Mr Ole Heinrich E-mail: [email protected] Ministry of Fisheries, Hunting and Agriculture P.O. Box 269 DK-3900 Nuuk Greenland Tel.: +299 34 53 42 Fax: +299 32 47 04 E-mail: [email protected]

Mr Halvard P. Johansen Ministry of Fisheries P.O.Box 8118 Dep N-0032 Oslo Norway Tel.: + 4722242668 Fax: +4722242667 E-mail: [email protected]

Until September 2006 Mr Andras Kristiansen Ministry of Fisheries and Maritime Affairs P.O.Box 347 FO-110 Tórshavn Faroe Islands Tel.: + 298353030 Fax: +298353035 E-mail: [email protected]

267

NAMMCO Annual Report 2006

3.5 NAMMCO WORKSHOP ADDRESSING THE PROBLEMS OF STRUCK AND LOST IN SEAL, WALRUS AND WHALE HUNTING

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

CANADA Fax: +18676453411 [email protected] Ms Rebecca Aldworth Human Society International Mr Stas Olpinski 372 St. Catherine St. West. Suite 308 Makivik Corporation Montreal H3B 1A2, Canada 1111 Dr. Frederik-Philips Blvd., Tel.: +15145756797 3rd Floor Fax: +15143958021 H4M 2X6 Montreal, Canada [email protected] Tel.: +15147458880 Fax: +15147453700 Ms Danielle Baillargeon [email protected] DFO/Aboriginal Fisheries 104 Dalhousie Street Mr Keith W. Pelley G1K 7Y7 Quebec, Canada Fisheries and Oceans Canada Tel.: 14186484258 PO Box 358, Iqaluit Fax: 14186487981 Nunavut, X0A 0H0, Canada [email protected] Tel.: +18679798024 Fax: +18679798039 Mr Mike Calcutt [email protected] DFO - Resource Management Directorate Mr Jonny Peters 200 Kent St., 5to 13026 Makivik Corporation K1A 0E6 Ottawa, Canada PO Box 179 Tel.: +16139900096 J0M 1C0 Kuujjuaq, Canada Fax: +16139907051 Tel.: +18199642925 [email protected] Fax: +18199640371 [email protected] Mr Harry Flaherty Nunavut Wildlife Management Board Mr Brian Roberts PO Box 1379, Iqaluit Dept. of Indian and Northern Affairs Nunavut X0A 0H0, Canada 10 Wellington St. Tel.: +18679757300 K1A 0H4 Gatineau, Canada Fax: +18679757320 Tel.: +18199979208 [email protected] Fax: +18199793554 [email protected] Mr Simeonie Keenianak Nunavut Tunngavik Inc Mr Stefan Romberg PO Box 280 Fisheries and Oceans Canada X0C 0G0 Rankin Inlet, Canada PO Box 358, Iqaluit Tel.: +18676455421 Nunavut, X0A 0H0, Canada

269 Addresses

Tel.: +18679798002 Mr Regin Jespersen Fax: +18679798039 Grindamannafelagid [email protected] Fútalág 40 FO-100 Tórshavn Mr Glenn Williams Faroe Islands Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. Tel.: +298333414 P.O.Box 638, Iqaluit [email protected] Nunavut X0A 0H0, Canada Tel.: +18679794924 Mr Jústines Olsen Fax: +18679794949 Veterinary Service [email protected] Vardagøta 85 FO-100 Tórshavn DENMARK Faroe Islands Tel.: +298317857 Mr Michael Carlsen Fax: +298317857 Danish Animal Welfare Society [email protected] Alhambravej 15 DK-1826 Fredriksberg C FINLAND Denmark Tel.: +4533287000 Mr Stefan Pellas Fax: +4533251460 Kvarken Council/Svenska [email protected] Österbottens jaktvårdsdistrikt Kunsgårdsvägen 58 G Mr Thor Hjarsen 65380 Vasa EcoAdvise & Communication Finland Esthersvej 20a Tel.: +35863560352 DK-2900 Hellerup Fax: +35863560360 Denmark [email protected] Tel.: +4540904666 [email protected] Ms Anita Storm Kvarken Council Mr Mads Brinck Lillelund Sandögatan 6 DK-4295 Stenlille 65100 Vasa Denmark Finland Tel.: +4522790883 Tel.: +358106171826 [email protected] Fax: +358106171899 [email protected] Ms Birgith Sloth Society for the conservation of GREENLAND marine mammals Teglgaardsvej 601, 3TV Mr Niels Lange Andersen DK-3050 Humlebaek KNAPK Denmark The Organisation of Fishermen and Tel.: +4549191626 Hunters in Greenland [email protected] PO Box 386 DK-3900 Nuuk FAROE ISLANDS Greenland

270 NAMMCO Annual Report 2006

Tel.: +1299322422 Qeqertarsuaq Fax: +1299325715 Greenland

Mr Kelly Berthelsen Mr Peter Olsen Greenland Home Rule KNAPK [email protected] The Organisation of Fishermen and Hunters in Greenland Mr Jens Danielsen PO Box 386 KNAPK,P.O.Box 35 DK-3900 Nuuk DK-3971 Qaanaaq Greenland Greenland Tel.: +1299322422 Tel.: +299971310 Fax: +1299325715 Fax: +299971049 [email protected] [email protected] Mr Ole Petersen Mr Leif Fontaine KNAPK KNAPK Upernavik P.O.Box 386 Greenland DK-3900 Nuuk Greenland Mr Fernando Ugarte Tel.: +299322422 Ministry of Fisheries, Hunting and Fax: +299325715 Agriculture [email protected] Greenland Home Rule P.O.Box 269 Mr Ole Heinrich DK-3900 Nuuk Ministry of Fisheries, Hunting and Greenland Agriculture Tel.: +299345343 Greenland Home Rule Fax: +299324704 P.O.Box 269 [email protected] DK-3900 Nuuk Greenland ICELAND Tel.: +299345342 Fax: +299324704 Mr Gunnar Jóhannsson [email protected] Association of the Minke Whalers Sigurbjörg Jónsdottir ehf Mr Aqqaluk Lynge IS-108 Reykjavik Inuit Circumpolar Council Iceland POBox 204 Tel.: +3548928187 Dr. Ingridsvej 1 [email protected] DK-3900 Nuuk Greenland Mr Kristján Loftsson Tel.: +299323632 Hvalur H.F Fax: +299323001 P.O.Box 233 [email protected] IS-222 Hafnafjordur, Iceland Tel.: +3545550565 Mr Kale Mølgaard Fax: +3545551741 KNAPK [email protected]

271 Addresses

JAPAN Norway Tel.: +4777665422 Mr Hajime Ishikawa Fax: +4777694911 Institute of Cetacean Research [email protected] 4-5, Toyomi-cho, chuo-ku 104-0055 Tokyo Mr Bjørne Kvernmo Japan Myrullveien 31 Tel.: +81335366521 N-9516 Alta Fax: +81335366522 Norway [email protected] [email protected]

NORWAY Ms Linda Rognli Dyrebeskyttelsen i Norge Mr Karl Angelsen Karl Johans gt. 6 Høgskolen i Bodø, Avd. for fiskeri og N-0154 Oslo naturfag Norway Morkvedtråkket Tel.: +4723139256 N-8049 Bodø Fax: +4723139251 Norway [email protected] Tel.: +4775517393 Fax: +4775517349 Mr Espen Søreng [email protected] Høgskolen i Bodø Rønvikgate 5 Mr Atle Dale N-8006 Bodø Norwegian Whalers Union Tel.: +4791518759 Blomvåg [email protected] N-5348 Rong Norway Ms Hild Ynnesdal Tel.: +4756387197 Directorate of Fisheries [email protected] P.O.Box 2009 Nordnes N-5817 Bergen Mr Halvard P. Johansen Norway Ministry of Fisheries and Coastal Tel.: +4755238365 Affairs Fax: +4755238090 PO Box 8118 Dep [email protected] N-0032 Oslo Norway Dr Egil Ole Øen Tel.: +4722242668 Norwegian School of Veterinary Fax: +4722242667 Science [email protected] Section of Arctic Veterinary Medicine Dr Siri K. Knudsen N-9292 Tromsø Norwegian School of Veterinary Tel.: +4777665421 Science, Fax: +4777694911 Section of Arctic Veterinary [email protected] Medicine N-9292 Tromsø

272 NAMMCO Annual Report 2006

RUSSIAN FEDERATION USA

Mr Gennadiy Inankeuyas Mr Eugene Brower ATMMHC Barrow Whaling Captains Polamaya 20-14 Association Anadyr, Chukotka A.O. 689000 POBox 570 Russian Federation 99723 Barrow, Alaska [email protected] USA Tel.: +19078522392 Ms Aleksandra Kapitonova Fax: +19078522303 ATMMHC [email protected] Polamaya 20-14 Anadyr, Chukotka A.O. 689000 Mr Harry Brower Jr. Russian Federation Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission POBox 570 Mr Edward Zdor 99723 Barrow, Alaska ATMMHC USA Polamaya 20-14 Tel.: +19078522392 Anadyr, Chukotka A.O. 689000 Fax: +19078522303 Russian Federation [email protected] Tel.: +74272222531 [email protected] NAMMCO Secretariat Polar Environmental Centre SWEDEN N-9296 Tromsø, Norway Dr Arne Fjälling Tel.: +4777750180, Swedish Board of Fisheries, Inst. of Fax: + 4777750181 Coastal Research [email protected] Stångholmsvägen 2 17893 Drottningholm Dr Christina Lockyer Sweden Mr Daniel Pike Tel.: +4686990622 Ms CharlotteWinsnes Fax: +4686990650 [email protected]

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS IN THE WORKING GROUPS

Working Group on Seals Chair: Simeonie Keenianak, Canada

Canada Mike Calcutt, Harry Flaherty, Stefan Pellas, Keith Pelley, Jonny Peters, Brian Roberts and Glenn Williams

Denmark Thor Hjarsen

273 Addresses

Greenland Niels Lange Andersen, Jens Danielsen, Aqqaluk Lynge, Peter Olsen, Ole Petersen

Faroe Islands Justines Olsen

Norway Karl Kr. Angelsen, Halvard P. Johansen, Bjørne Kvernmo, Knut A. Nygaard, Linda Rognli, Espen Søreng

Sweden Arne Fjälling

NAMMCO Daniel Pike

Working Group on Large Whales Chair: Fernando Ugarte, Greenland

Canada Danielle Baillargeon, Stas Olpinski, Stefan Romberg

Denmark Mads Brinck Lillelund, Birgith Sloth

Greenland Leif Fontaine, Kale Mølgaard,

Faroe Islands Regin Jespersen

Iceland Gunnar Johansson

Japan Hajime Ishikawa

Norway Atle Dale, Siri K. Knudsen, Hild Ynnesdal, Egil Ole Øen

Russian Federation Inankeuyas Gennadi, Eduard Zdor

USA Harry Brower Jr, Eugene Brower

274 NAMMCO Annual Report 2006

NAMMCO Christina Lockyer

Working Group on Small Whales Chair: Justines Olsen, Faroe Islands

Canada Rebecca Aldworth, Danielle Baillardgeon, Simeonie Keenianak, Stas Olpinski, Jonny Peters, Keith Pelly, Brian Roberts, Stefan Romberg, Glenn Williams

Denmak Mads Brinch Lillelund, Birgith Sloth

Faroe Islands Regin Jespersen

Greenland Peter Olsen, Ole Petersen, Fernando Ugarte

Japan Hajime Ishikawa

Norway Atle Dale, Bjørne Kvernmo, Linda Rognli, Espen Søreng, Egil Ole Øen

Sweden Arne Fjälling,

NAMMCO Christina Lockyer

Working Group on Walrus Chair: Harry Brower Jr , USA

Canada Mike Calcutt, Harry Flaherty

Denmark Thor Hjarsen

Finland Stefan Pellas, Anita Storm

Greenland Leif Fontaine, Ole Heinrich, Jens Danielsen, Aqqaluk Lynge

275 Addresses

Norway Karl Kr. Angelsen, Halvard P. Johansen, Siri K. Knudsen, Hild Ynnesdal

Russian Federation Inankeuyas Gennadi, Eduard Zdor

USA Eugene Brower

NAMMCO Daniel Pike Charlotte Winsnes

276 NAMMCO Annual Report 2006 3.6 SECRETARIAT

North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission Polar Environmental Centre N-9296 Tromsø, Norway Tel.: +47 77 75 01 80 Fax: + 47 77 75 01 81 E-mail: [email protected] http://www.nammco.no

Dr Christina Lockyer General Secretary E-mail: [email protected]

Ms Charlotte Winsnes Deputy Secretary E-mail: [email protected]

Until May 2007 Mr Daniel Pike Scientific Secretary E-mail: [email protected]

From May 2007 Dr Mario Aquarone Scientific Secretary E-mail: [email protected]

277