(from "Chair's Report of the Fifty-Third Annual Meeting")

Last year the Scientific Committee identified work necessary to consider the question of the population component to which MSYR, MSYL and density-dependence should apply (this is relevant to both the RMP and the AWMP) but time constraints mean that this must now be completed intersessionally for discussion at next year's meeting.

The Scientific Committee continued to address a number of issues related to abundance estimation. In particular, it recommended that additional variance between Small Areas should also be included when the capping or cascading options in the RMP are used and that every estimate for a Management Area should be assigned a time stamp that is an effort-weighted average. The Committee made a number of recommendations for future work and developed a workplan for this topic.

On the basis of work carried out recently, the Scientific Committee recommended a number of modifications and additions to the explanatory annotations to the RMP²⁸.

²⁸ These can be found in Appendix 4 of Annex D to the Scientific Committee report (see J. Cet. Res. Manage. 4 (Suppl.)).

IMPLEMENTATION SIMULATION TRIALS
Implementation Simulation Trials are trials that are carried out before using the RMP to calculate a catch limit and involve investigating the full range of plausible hypotheses related to a specific species and geographic area.

The process of developing Implementation Simulation Trials is not the same as identifying the 'best' assessment for the species/region, but involves considering a set of alternative models to examine a broad range of uncertainties with a view to excluding variants of the RMP that show performance that is not sufficiently robust across the trials. Account needs to be taken of the plausibility of the various trial scenarios when evaluating RMP variants.

The Scientific Committee discussed the general question of how best to ensure that the process of carrying out Implementations (or Implementation Reviews) is efficient and prompt, whilst taking into account the available information. To achieve this it agreed that they should be conducted at discrete intervals, using the data available at one point in time. The whole process should be completed in two consecutive meetings of the Committee.

NORTH PACIFIC COMMON MINKE WHALES
At the 2001 meeting, the Scientific Committee's work concentrated on Implementation Simulation Trials for North Pacific minke whales. The major factors being considered relate to stock identity and levels of anthropogenic removals other than direct whaling, such as bycatches in fishing gear. The Committee received new information on stock structure and recognised that this and other new information meant that some revision to the trial structure was necessary. The Committee agreed a timetable for its work on this implementation and will aim to recommend to the Commission one variant of the RMP at the 2002 meeting, irrespective of any further data forthcoming in the interim - this will constitute the end of the present Implementation. Any new information will be considered at the next Implementation Review. Finally, the Committee recommended that an in-depth assessment of North Pacific minke whales, particularly to include the 'J' stock, be conducted urgently after the completion of the current Implementation Simulation Trials.

The Committee also discussed appropriate estimates of abundance for use in the RMP. It approved the design of future surveys for the North Pacific and stressed that biopsy sampling on the surveys should be encouraged. The Committee made a number of recommendations about the contents of future research plans submitted for review. The Committee also recommended that the Commission requests the relevant authorities of the Russian Federation to grant permission in a timely fashion for Japanese vessels to undertake surveys in its EEZ.

NORTH PACIFIC BRYDE'S WHALES
The Scientific Committee is in the process of developing initial Implementation Simulation Trials for western North Pacific Bryde's whales. In particular, it agreed that next year it would review the reliability of catch statistics (in the light of information suggesting that some catch data for Japanese land stations might be unreliable, based on a recently published book in Japanese) and the need to incorporate any uncertainty about such statistics in the trial structure. The Committee also approved plans for sightings surveys and recommended that biopsy sampling be undertaken, particularly in lower latitudes.

NORTH ATLANTIC MINKE WHALES - PLAN FOR IMPLEMENTATION REVIEW IN 2002
The Scientific Committee began to plan for an Implementation Review of North Atlantic minke whales, which will take place at the meeting in 2002. Amongst the new information to be considered will be new abundance estimates based on surveys carried out since 1995. The Committee noted that a Norwegian research vessel planning to do a sightings survey (in accordance with Committee guidelines and requirements) in the North Sea was denied access to the UK EEZ. The Committee therefore emphasised its hope that all nations in the region will provide clearance for and/or collaborate in conducting surveys in their waters to enable more complete coverage of this portion of the species' range.

Many members recommended that the Commission request the relevant authorities in the UK to grant permission for Norwegian research vessels to survey in its EEZ waters in the future. They expressed deep concern that not all members of the Committee supported their recommendation. Access to EEZ regions for sightings surveys is essential to the work of this Committee and more generally essential to the conduct of marine research worldwide.

BYCATCH AND OTHER HUMAN-INDUCED MORTALITY
The RMP estimates a limit for the number of non-natural removals, not simply a catch limit for commercial whaling. It is therefore important to estimate the numbers of whales removed from the population by indirect means including bycatches in fishing gear and ship strikes, for example.

The Scientific Committee began to consider this issue in some detail this year. It agreed that priority should be given to those areas where the RMP is likely to be implemented - such as the northwestern Pacific and the northeastern Atlantic. Four steps are required: (1) identification of the relevant fisheries; (2) description and categorisation of those fisheries to allow a sampling scheme to be devised; (3) identification of a suitable sampling strategy or strategies; and (4) design and implementation of the sampling scheme to enable estimation of the total bycatch.

The Committee reviewed general methods for estimating bycatches. These fall under two headings: those based on fisheries data and observer programmes; and those based on genetic data. The former have been used successfully for several small cetacean populations. The Committee agreed that independent observer schemes are generally the most reliable means of estimating bycatch rates in a statistically rigorous manner, but that they may not always be practical and will require careful design.

The latter potentially represents a new way of estimating bycatches. The Committee agreed that although genetic methods based on market samples may not be the primary approach to estimating bycatch, they could provide useful supplementary data that could not be obtained in another way. The use of market samples to provide absolute estimates should not be ruled out but would require further developments in sampling design with input from experts outside the Committee with detailed knowledge of market sampling issues. The Committee will consider these issues further next year.

9.1.2 Commission discussions
GENERAL ISSUES
Japan noted that the bulk of the work on the revision of the CLA (Catch Limit Algorithm) program and tuning was complete and recognised the contribution made by Norway and the Secretariat to this work. Japan regretted that time constraints had prevented calculations specified last year on the population component to which MSYR, MSYL and density dependence should apply from being done since it believes that different management standards have been used in the RMP and AWMP. Japan urged that work be done intersessionally so as to arrive at common criteria next year.

As in other years, the Republic of Korea drew attention to the use of the name 'Sea of Japan' and indicated that it would like simultaneous use of the name 'East Sea'. The Chair noted this comment, but indicated that the Commission was not the appropriate place to discuss this matter.

IMPLEMENTATION SIMULATION TRIALS (NORTH PACIFIC MINKE AND BRYDE'S WHALES)
Japan regretted that more progress had not been made on the Implementation Simulation Trials for North Pacific minke and Bryde's whales. It believed that progress with the North Pacific minke whale trials had been delayed by the introduction of a putative hypothesis for the existence of sub-stocks - a hypothesis that it considered had been disproved by results from the JARPNII programme. Japan noted that it has been carrying out a variety of research activities (including JARPNII, joint Japan/Korea observation survey, DNA analyses) and that its activities will be strengthened with the aim of completing the RMP. Japan requested that progress be made on North Pacific Bryde's whale trials before the next Annual Meeting.

The Republic of Korea was concerned that the Implementation Simulation Trial results did not reflect the correct status of the minke whale stocks along the Korean peninsular which it considers to be abundant - a view supported by recent surveys in the area and an increase in the number of animals becoming entangled in fishing gear. The Republic of Korea noted the limitations of using estimated bycatch figures in the trials and referred to its strict mandatory bycatch and strandings reporting system which is being improved and re-enforced in domestic law. Finally, it reported that it would continue to contribute to the work of the Scientific Committee and welcomed regional co-operation with neighbouring countries.

NORTH ATLANTIC MINKE WHALES - PLAN FOR IMPLEMENTATION REVIEW IN 2002
Discussions within the Commission related to the UK's refusal to allow access of a Norwegian research vessel in its EEZ for the purposes of a sighting survey. Denmark reported its disappointment that the UK had also denied access to one of its research vessels when it had requested access (on behalf of the Faroe Islands) for a similar purpose. While Denmark recognised that the UK has the right under UNCLOS to deny access to its EEZ, it pointed out that this right is normally never used since it is generally recognised that coastal states and international management organisations manage the living marine resources under their jurisdictions on the basis of the best scientific advice. Coastal states therefore have an obligation to co-operate in the management and study of living marine resources, including cetaceans. With respect to the conservation, study and management of cetaceans in particular, Denmark referred to the requirement in Chapters C and D of Agenda 21 that States should co-operate, and it further noted that information derived from sightings surveys are a pre-requisite for the implementation of the RMP. Denmark requested the government of the UK to reconsider its decision.

Norway associated itself with Denmark's remarks. It went on to note: (1) that it had applied for permission to survey in UK waters with the aim of estimating the abundance of Northeastern Atlantic minke whales to ensure proper management of the species; (2) that the survey formed part of the Comprehensive Assessment programme developed by the Scientific Committee and approved by the Commission; (3) that the Scientific Committee plays an integral role in the planning and analysis of the data collected; and (4) that the information from the survey would contribute to a co-operative project between IWC and NAMMCO (North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission). It further noted that the UK denial did not facilitate the key purpose of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, i.e. the proper management and conservation of whale stocks through international co-operation. Referring to the long-standing co-operation between Norway and the UK in scientific research, Norway again requested the UK to reconsider its decision.

Sweden, Japan and Iceland associated themselves with the remarks of Denmark and Norway. Monaco expressed unease that the UK had denied access to its EEZ for the purposes of non-lethal research and hoped that a way could be found to resolve such issues.

In response to the views expressed, the UK indicated that it regretted denying access to the Danish and Norwegian vessels but that this was done after careful consideration. The UK explained that its decision regarding the Norwegian vessel took account of the following: (1) that it considered that the sighting survey was not in the best interest of whale conservation, as its primary objective was to provide an abundance estimate that Norway would use to perpetuate its self-awarded minke whale quotas; (2) that Norway continues to disregard decisions taken by IWC and other fora such as CITES; (3) concern over Norway's decision to change the RMP tuning level from 0.72 to 0.66 to increase its catch quota; and (4) Norway's decision to export whale products to other countries. The UK felt that Norway's actions had disrupted their long-standing scientific co-operation to the extent that it had had to reject its survey application, but it hoped good relations with Norway could be restored. The UK explained that refusal to allow the Danish vessel to survey in its EEZ was a direct consequence of its response to Norway. Finally, the UK noted the requests to reconsider its decision and gave an undertaking to do so.

Norway noted that the UK had chosen to put its own political considerations above the role of the IWC in managing whale stocks.

BYCATCH AND OTHER HUMAN-INDUCED MORTALILTY
There was no discussion of the Scientific Committee report, although a Resolution on the incidental capture of cetaceans was introduced (see Item 9.1.3. Action arising).

9.1.3 Action arising
The Commission noted the report from the Scientific Committee on work related to the RMP and accepted its recommendations and workplan.

RESOLUTION ON THE INCIDENTAL CAPTURE OF CETACEANS
In introducing this Resolution on behalf of the co-sponsors Austria, Germany, Mexico and the UK, New Zealand referred to the accidental bycatch of both large and small cetaceans in fishing gear, particularly gillnets, as a widely acknowledged problem. It noted that the proposed Resolution was based on the simple principle of creating a disincentive to the incidental capture of whales by: (1) creating an obligation to release such animals alive where possible; and (2) where this is not possible, to only permit the commercial exchange of those animals/species subject to a quota. A DNA sample for such animals should be forwarded to the appropriate diagnostic register, and the animals should be counted against the quota. New Zealand stressed this latter point in view of the importance of reliable bycatch estimates when deriving catch limits under the RMP and that without it, there would be no incentive to confront the problem of increasing bycatch.

New Zealand noted and expressed its appreciation for the progress achieved by the Working Group on Estimation of Bycatch and Other Human-Induced Mortalities, and urged all members to participate and co-operate fully. It also noted new regulations announced by Japan allowing fishermen to kill and market bycaught whales if it is not feasible to release them. New Zealand considered that it is necessary to provide fishermen with the necessary technical advice to optimise the chances of releasing trapped whales, and that for this reason, the proposed Resolution requests the Scientific Committee to provide a summary to the Commission's 54^th Annual Meeting of its recent work on methods to mitigate the incidental capture of large cetaceans in fishing gear, and ways to disentangle them with minimal risk to rescuers.

Germany, the UK, the Netherlands and Sweden spoke in support of the Resolution. The UK and the Netherlands stressed the importance to the RMP of estimating incidental catches and the UK expressed concern that commercialisation of animals from stocks for which no quotas are set would encourage capture.

Japan, Antigua and Barbuda, Denmark, the Republic of Korea, St. Vincent and The Grenadines, St. Lucia, Dominica, Grenada and Iceland did not support the proposal. Some of these countries considered that the Resolution addressed issues outside the competence of IWC (e.g. small cetaceans) and was therefore inappropriate. Antigua and Barbuda: (1) drew attention to the potentially high costs involved (a recent rescue attempt of a stranded whale off the US coast was estimated to have cost 1 million US$ after two weeks) which the Resolution did not address; and (2) considered that whales dying inadvertently after a rescue attempt should be used regardless of whether they were subject to a quota. The Republic of Korea and Dominica also considered that bycaught animals should be used for food. Denmark believed that the Resolution would be difficult, if not impossible to implement in Greenland for various reasons including (1) that the low temperature of the water makes rescue attempts risky, (2) that it is not always possible to take DNA samples and (3) that damage to equipment from whales caught in fishing nets can be very costly.

On being put to a vote, the Resolution received 22 votes in favour, 14 against, with one abstention and was therefore adopted by a simple majority (Resolution 2001-4, Annex C).

RESOLUTION ON JAPANESE HISTORICAL WHALING RECORDS
Italy introduced a Resolution on Japanese historical whaling records on behalf of the co-sponsors Austria, Germany, Mexico, the Netherlands and the USA that urged the Government of Japan to review questions raised by the Scientific Committee in 1998, 1999 and 2001 regarding data previously submitted by Japan and addressed by the Scientific Committee, and to report back to the Committee in 2002. Japan objected to the credibility of its whaling statistics being questioned and considered the Resolution to be inappropriate. It reported that as the book questioning the reliability of Japanese land station catch statistics had only just been published, it had not had a chance to review the data properly, or to question the author. However, Japan indicated that it was prepared to investigate and report back next year to either the Infractions Sub-committee or to the Commission.

Noting that the Commission had already endorsed the Scientific Committee's report that identified the further work to be done on this issue, the Chair questioned the need for the Resolution and asked the sponsors whether it could be withdrawn. After consultation and in the spirit of co-operation, the sponsors agreed to the Chair's suggestion.

9.2 Revised Management Scheme (RMS)
9.2.1 Report of the Revised Management Scheme Working Group
The report of the RMS Working Group meeting was summarised by its Chair, Mr Fer von der Assen (the Netherlands). The meeting took place over 18 and 19 July and was attended by delegates from 34 Contracting Governments. The full report is available as Annex 7.

The Working Group Chair recalled that on the basis of Resolution 2000-3, the Group had met from 6-8 February 2001 in Monaco to make further progress on the revision of Chapter V of the Schedule and to develop a text to incorporate the structure and elements of the RMS into the Schedule. He noted that the revised documents resulting from the intersessional meeting, together with written comments submitted subsequently by various Contracting Governments, formed the basis for the Working Group's deliberations in London.

Referring to the outcome of the London meeting, the Chair reported that the Working Group had not been able to resolve all the outstanding issues, but that it did make some progress on both the substance of the issues under consideration and on the question of how to take the work forward.

INCORPORATION OF THE RMS INTO THE SCHEDULE
A Secretariat proposal for revisions to and re-organisation of the Schedule formed the basis for discussions under this item. The Working Group Chair reported that several delegations indicated general support for the revised structure while indicating that some of the provisions contained in the draft could give rise to problems, and added that it was generally recognised that reaching agreement on substantive changes should have priority over editorial changes which could be decided at a later date.

While the Working Group agreed with many of the proposed changes, the Chair reported that major areas of disagreement remained with respect to: (1) Ireland's proposal to limit the catching of whales to EEZs or other waters within 200 miles of the coast; (2) text relating to commercial catch limits for baleen whales (i.e. text particularly relating to paragraph 10(e)); (3) Ireland's proposal that the meat and products of whales are to be used exclusively for local consumption; and (4) the UK's proposal that in addition, meat and whale products derived from scientific permit whaling should not be sold or offered for sale. In the absence of agreement in these areas, the Working Group Chair reported that the equivalent text from an earlier draft Schedule (i.e. IWC/53/RMS 3) had been inserted. An additional aspect not resolved were the regulations on the capture of cows and calves. In this case, text from the existing Schedule was re-inserted.

REVISIONS TO CHAPTER V, SUPERVISION AND CONTROL
Discussions here focused on: (1) a New Zealand proposal to include a 'statement of principle' at the beginning of the Chapter to describe the scope, mandate and purpose of any RMS; (2) the international observer scheme, including coverage by observers, reporting frequency, right to object to the appointment of observers, cost recovery and DNA registers; (3) oversight and review of whaling activities; (4) landing sites and land stations; and (5) a New Zealand proposal on rule-making power.

Regarding the proposed inclusion of a 'statement of principle', the Working Group Chair reported that as there were opposing views on the need for such a statement, it had not been possible to take the issue further. He noted the suggestion that it might be resolved after agreement is reached on the rest of Chapter V.

On the issue of observer coverage, the Chair noted that the main point of contention is whether, if there is only room for one additional person on a boat, this place should be taken by a national inspector or international observer. As differences of opinion remain, the Chair reported that he believed a compromise should be possible and that further thought should be given to having national inspectors on board vessels with international observers on shore, and/or the possibility of either national inspectors or international observers fulfilling both roles.

On the question of frequency of reporting by the international observer on whales hunted, struck and/or killed, the Chair noted that a number of possible compromises were suggested that could form the basis for agreement, i.e. reducing the frequency to 48 or 72 hours, weekly reporting increasing to daily reporting as the quota is being approached; examination of the way it is handled in other Conventions.

The Working Group Chair reported that agreement could also not be reached on whether Contracting Governments should have the right to object to the appointment of an international observer, or on the recovery of costs associated with the inspection and observation scheme despite the introduction of some compromise proposals. Regarding DNA registers, the Chair noted that the primary issue is not whether it is useful to have DNA registers of all whales killed, since all parties agree on this, but whether there is a need for a central register - some countries holding the view that this is not a matter for IWC, with others maintaining that this is an essential part of a transparent inspection and observation scheme.

On the question of oversight and review, the Chair noted that proposals from the UK and New Zealand received support from a limited number of countries, while others believed that the existing mandate of the Infractions Sub-committee would be sufficient to deal with compliance issues.

The Working Group Chair recalled past discussions over the use of the terms 'landing sites' and 'land stations' throughout the text of Chapter V, and reported that there was now agreement to replace both these terms with the phrase 'at point of landing'. He noted that while some countries supported the New Zealand proposal to insert an additional paragraph to provide the basis for further regulations that may be required to implement the inspection and observation scheme, one country considered it too complex to address what it considered to be essentially straightforward technical issues, and that several others required more time to consider the proposal. It was therefore agreed to revisit this issue at a later stage. Finally the Chair reported that there had been insufficient time to discuss the UK's proposal for the collection of data relating to whale killing methods and associated welfare issues.

PROPOSAL FOR FURTHER WORK
The Chair introduced the Working Group's consensus proposal that an Expert Drafting Group (EDG) be constituted and its composition approved by the Commission at the 53^rd Annual Meeting to progress the work intersessionally. The following terms of reference were also proposed:

(1)

The EDG shall prepare a consolidated draft for the replacement of Chapters V and VI of the current Schedule. The consolidated draft shall be based on the current draft for Chapter V in document IWC/53/RMS2 and the draft for Chapter VI (Information Required) in Appendix 4 of the RMS Working Group report, and shall take into consideration further comments and explanations received at the present meeting of the RMS Working Group, including the UK's proposal for the collection of welfare data. Relevant Scientific Committee recommendations from recent years should also be taken into account.

(2)

The consolidated draft shall contain as few square brackets as possible. In the case of disagreements on minor items, the EDG shall develop compromise text. In the case of disagreement as to whether a major item should be included, the EDG should nevertheless prepare detailed text for the item, but include the entire item in square brackets. The reasons for the inability to agree should be clearly explained in annotations to the consolidated draft.

(3)

The EDG has the authority to rearrange, revise and renumber paragraphs in the current draft texts for Chapters V and VI as appropriate, but should not attempt to merge them with other parts of the Schedule.

The Chair reported that the proposed composition of the EDG included: (1) a limited number of experts nominated by Commissioners representing a balance of interests within the Commission and with sufficient status to be authorised to negotiate appropriate compromises; and (2) representatives from the Secretariat. He noted the proposal that the EDG meet at least once, in the intersessional period, probably in Cambridge and that the consolidated draft of Chapters V and VI should be completed and circulated to Commissioners and Contracting Governments not later than 15 March 2002, for consideration at the 54th Annual Meeting.

Lastly, the Working Group Chair reported that one country had reiterated its position on the RMS and explained that because of that position it could not be considered to form part of the consensus proposal. Another country had noted its reservation over the exclusion of observers from the EDG.

9.2.2 Commission discussions and action arising
SCHEDULE AMENDMENTS
Although Japan had hoped to propose a Schedule amendment relating to the RMS, it indicated that it was not in a position to do this since insufficient progress had been made by the RMS Working Group.

A proposed Schedule amendment and a procedure for further progress on the RMS from Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Finland, Ireland, Italy, New Zealand, Oman, South Africa, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland was withdrawn.

RMS WORKING GROUP PROPOSALS
The Commission agreed to establish an Expert Drafting Group with terms of reference as proposed. It also agreed that:

• the group should comprise representatives from Antigua and Barbuda, Denmark, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, the UK, the US and the Secretariat, and be chaired by Henrik Fischer (Denmark);
• each country would appoint one spokesperson who could be accompanied by up to two advisors and an interpreter or personal assistant if necessary;
• the first EDG meeting would take place in Cambridge in October 2001, with costs being met by the Commission's existing budget;
• that the EDG may decide that a second meeting is necessary.

OTHER
Argentina and Oman introduced a Resolution proposing that the following text be inserted into the RMS text: Commercial whaling in accordance with this Schedule in waters subject to national jurisdiction shall be permitted only if domestic legislation allows such whaling'. After some discussion, it was agreed that rather than dealing with this proposal as a Resolution, the proposed text would be forwarded and considered by the RMS Working Group.

RESOLUTION ON COMMERCIAL WHALING
In introducing the proposed Resolution on Commercial Whaling, Germany expressed concern on behalf of its co-sponsors (Austria, Italy, New Zealand, the USA and the UK) regarding the on-going whaling activities taking place in spite of the existing moratorium. With respect to commercial whaling, it noted that Norway has: (1) continued to take whales despite numerous Resolutions and statements urging them to respect the moratorium; (2) decided to take a less conservative approach by using a less protective tuning level; and (3) decided to resume international trade, despite minke whales being listed on Appendix I of CITES and reports of high levels of contaminants in blubber.

In response, Norway objected to the statement that the tuning level of 0.66 it uses to set catch limits is less conservative, noting that it is in the middle of the range of safe values (0.6 to 0.72) shown by the Scientific Committee to be robust against quite extreme violations in assumptions. Furthermore, it found it unacceptable that the Resolution's sponsors were not respecting a country's right under international law to lodge reservations, even where such action is a specified right as it is in CITES and the IWC - particularly when other countries have exercised such rights. Concerning resumption of international trade, Norway noted that since a majority of Parties to CITES consider that the two stocks of minke whales Norway has proposed for downlisting to Appendix II are not threatened with extinction, its government had decided that there was no basis for continuing the ban on issuing export permits. Norway added that this decision is in accordance with international law. Regarding levels of contaminants, Norway questioned to which reports Germany was referring, since a recent Norwegian report of contaminant analyses in blubber from 83 minke whales caught in 1999 and 2000 concluded that PCB levels in fin tail and tongue blubber (the most likely types to be exported), were below the level of 0.5 ppm - the maximum allowed level in food items according to Japanese health regulations, and that the total level of dioxin equivalents was far below the WHO recommended maximum levels. In view of the above, Norway urged that the Resolution be withdrawn. Iceland, Antigua and Barbuda, Grenada, Dominica, the Russian Federation and Japan supported the position of Norway.

The USA, the UK, Italy, Australia, Brazil, the Netherlands and New Zealand indicated their support for the Resolution. The USA recalled that numerous similar Resolutions had been adopted in the past but that Norway had continued commercial whaling and had now indicated that it will re-open trade in whale products - actions contrary to the moratorium and to CITES. The USA noted its continued concern over the tuning level used by Norway, believing that if Norway continued its commercial whaling, the more conservative level adopted in 1991 and reaffirmed by consensus Resolution 1994-5 should be used. The UK, while not seeking to challenge Norway's rights under the Convention, made the following two points: (1) that since the tuning level was agreed in 1991, all further work by the Commission/Scientific Committee has been based on the adopted tuning level of 0.72 and that it was not aware that Norway had done any work on alternative tuning levels; and (2) that the proposal at CITES COP11 to downlist certain whale species was not adopted. The UK clarified that it does not have any reservations on species listed on Appendix I or II of CITES. Australia commented that it is aware of the formal legal position of Norway with respect to the Convention, but expressed the view that merely because a country is acting within international law does not mean that it should not be urged to change. New Zealand felt that Norway had not responded adequately to the issue of using a less conservative tuning level.

Responding to the UK, Norway reported that it had carried out all necessary calculations to show that tuning levels of 0.66 and 0.60 were appropriate and that these had been presented to and discussed by the Scientific Committee in 1994/1995. It also noted that it accepted the value presented by the Scientific Committee but not necessarily the Resolution from 1991.

On being put to a vote, the Resolution was adopted (Resolution 2001-5, Appendix 2), receiving 21 in favour, 15 against and one abstention. Iceland indicated that it did not support the Resolution. Switzerland indicated its strong reservation to the first operative paragraph.

NAMMCO STATEMENT
The NAMMCO representative explained that the organisation, whose members are the Faroe Islands, Greenland, Iceland and Norway, is an international body for co-operation in the conservation, management and studies of marine mammals in the North Atlantic. NAMMCO has followed the development and lack of progress with the RMS. It expressed particular interest in the Commission's discussions on supervision and control and went on to describe its own Joint Control Scheme adopted in 1996 and implemented in 1998. The purpose of the Scheme is to provide a mechanism for NAMMCO to monitor whether the decisions of the Commission are respected. It therefore appoints observers to oversee hunting and inspection activities. The Scheme takes account of the different ways whaling and sealing are carried out in the different member countries. The underlying principle of management and conservation measures in NAMMCO is the sustainable use of marine mammals, with these measures being based on the best available scientific advice, including abundance estimates based on sighting surveys. In this respect NAMMCO expressed its regrets that the UK had denied access to Faroese and Norwegian research vessels conducting cetacean sighting surveys in the North Sea. It noted that this work formed part of the work of its Scientific Committee and considered that denial of access to a portion of the survey area will jeopardise its work. It hoped that this action of the UK would remain an isolated incident.

_