(from "Chair's Report of the 54th Annual Meeting")

Given the difficulties in finalising the implementation for North Pacific common minke whales discussed below, the Committee spent considerable time discussing the general issue of how to develop and establish an efficient process to move from an in-depth assessment through to an final implementation and subsequent implementation reviews. Considerable progress on this was made.

NORTH PACIFIC COMMON MINKE WHALE
IMPLEMENTATION
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 Committee has been working on Implementation Simulation Trials for this area since 1994; a special workshop was held prior to the Shimonoseki meeting. It had been anticipated that the Committee would have been able to provide management advice to the Commission at the present meeting. However, it is proving to be extremely difficult to complete this work for a number of reasons. These include:

(1)

the fact that harvesting is projected to take place during migration as well as on the feeding grounds;

(2)

there is a seasonally-dependent overlap of management stocks;

(3)

there has been continual updating of information on a relatively complex population structure;

(4)

a number of issues related to the plausibility of trials, particularly with respect to population structure;

(5)

the complexity and time required to code and run trials; and

(6)

a lack of agreement on when to stop 'improving'.

An ambitious work plan has been established with the aim of reaching agreement on the appropriate variant of the RMP to apply to common minke whales in the western North Pacific at next year's meeting.

In addition, the Committee received information on plans by Japan and the Republic of Korea for sightings surveys in the western North Pacific directed primarily at common minke whales. The Committee endorsed these plans. With respect to a survey in the Sea of Okhotsk, the Committee recommended that the Commission requests the relevant authorities of the Russian Federation to grant permission in timely fashion for the Japanese vessels to undertake surveys in its EEZ.

WESTERN NORTH PACIFIC BRYDE'S WHALES
IMPLEMENTATION
The Committee is in the process of developing initial Implementation Simulation Trials for western North Pacific Bryde's whales. In particular, it began a review of the reliability of available catch statistics. Intersessional work will continue on this issue so that any uncertainty about such statistics can be incorporated into future trial structure. A full discussion of population structure and abundance-related issues will take place at next year's meeting and the Committee will determine whether the pre-Implementation stage of the process has been completed.

NORTH ATLANTIC COMMON MINKE WHALES -
IMPLEMENTATION REVIEW
The Committee had expected to be in a position to undertake an Implementation Review of common minke whales in the northeastern Atlantic at the 2002 meeting. However, due to logistical problems in making all of the data available suitably in advance of the meeting, it was agreed to postpone the review until next year. The review will primarily consider new information on stock structure and abundance, some of which was briefly discussed at this year's meeting. Intersessional work was identified.

The Committee also noted Norway's plans to continue undertaking surveys in the North Sea, and recommended that the Commission requests the relevant UK Government authorities to grant permission in timely fashion for the Norwegian vessels to undertake surveys in its EEZ.

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 last year. It agreed that priority should be given to those areas where the RMP is likely to be implemented - such as the western North 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 has reviewed general methods for estimating bycatches. These fall under two headings: (1) those based on fisheries data and observer programmes; and (2) 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 has 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. However, it will require further developments in sampling design with input from experts with detailed knowledge of market sampling issues. The possibility of holding a workshop on that subject is being considered.

The Committee looked at the bycatches of large whales reported in National Progress Reports. Common minke whales were the most frequently reported species (>230) with most records for Japan and eastern Korea. Compulsory reporting schemes exist in both these countries (it was voluntary in Japan prior to 1 July 2001). Possible reasons for the clumping of catches in these two areas were discussed but no clear explanation emerged, although lack of reporting by some countries is probably part of the explanation.

Work to further explore improved bycatch estimation methods for the two approaches noted above is continuing.

A further major topic concerned consideration of ways in which bycatches of large whales (and mortality of entangled whales) can be minimised.

9.1.2 Commission discussions and action arising

NORTH PACIFIC COMMON MINKE WHALE
IMPLEMENTATION SIMULATION TRIALS
Japan expressed regret that completion of the Trials had been postponed yet again. It welcomed the clear guidance provided by Committee's recommended schedule for Implementation and Implementation Reviews (and hoped it would be followed) but felt that such guidance would not have been required if the work had proceeded as originally planned. Japan believed that the reason that the North Pacific minke whale Trials had taken so long was not because of the availability of new data, which is normal in an ongoing research programme, but rather because new hypotheses were being suggested each time the Trials were nearing completion. Regarding criticism in some quarters that it had been withholding data and obstructing progress, Japan stressed that in addition to providing all data required by the Schedule, it provides other data it has collected to the Scientific Committee or to any scientist requesting them according to a specified protocol. It was troubled that on the one hand its research is criticised as unimportant for management, while on the other it receives more and more requests for its data in a management context.

In response to Japan's comments on the reasons behind the delay in completing the Implementation, the UK recalled that it was Japanese scientists that had requested that the Trials not be completed last year. It was the UK's understanding that had the Trials been completed, the emerging quota for the coastal stock would be lower than some might like, which probably explained the delay.

The Republic of Korea also noted with regret the delay in the North Pacific minke whale Trials with the consequential delay in the proposed in-depth assessment of all common minke whales in the western North Pacific (including 'J' stock whales found in its waters) which it considered to be a matter of urgency.

NORTH ATLANTIC MINKE WHALES - PLAN FOR
IMPLEMENTATION REVIEW IN 2002
With respect to the issue of access to Norwegian vessels into UK waters, Denmark referred to last year's discussion on the denial by the UK of access by survey vessels (including a Faroese vessel) into its EEZ, and asked whether the UK had reconsidered its decision as it had stated. The UK indicated that its reasons for not granting access were given last year, that it was still reconsidering its position and that Norway's intention to again raise the tuning level used in the RMP would be taken into account when arriving at its decision.

GENERAL
The Commission adopted and endorsed the Scientific Committee report and its recommendations on the items discussed under Item 9.1.1. A number of draft Resolutions had been submitted in relation to this agenda item, but the Commission did not have time to discuss them.

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, Henrik Fischer (Denmark). The meeting took place over the 13 and 15 May 2002 and was attended by delegates from 30 Contracting Governments. The full report is available as Annex E.

The Working Group Chair reported that he had reminded the Group that its overall objectives are to complete the work on the RMS. He had noted that: (1) the work had been ongoing for a number of years; (2) some progress had been made, particularly by the Expert Drafting Group (EDG) - established at the 53rd Annual Meeting - that had met twice (i.e. in October/ November 2001 and in February/March 2002); but that (3) a number of outstanding issues remained. The Chair hoped it would be possible to reach agreement on some of these remaining issues, but recognised that this would probably not be possible for those he regarded as being essentially political in nature (e.g. catch verification, the role of NGOs in a Compliance Review Committee, costs of any supervision and control scheme and how they may be shared among Contracting Governments, and the need to collect animal welfare data).

The Working Group Chair had drawn attention to two further items (i.e. the proposal, originally from Ireland, that catches may only be taken within EEZs or other waters within 200 miles of the coast and the issue of current paragraph 10(e) - the moratorium) noting that they are clearly influential in any discussions of Schedule Chapters V and VI. Regarding limiting catches to coastal areas, the Working Group had agreed with the Chair's proposal to ask the Scientific Committee to comment on the management implications (in terms of yield and risk) of such a step.

Following a presentation by the Secretariat on the outcome of the EDG's work and a general round of impressions and comments, the Working Group had focused its discussions on the following:

Regarding Chapter V (Supervision and Control):

(1)

the inclusion of a 'statement of principle';

(2)

the proposed mechanism for developing the detail necessary for the practical implementation of the scheme (i.e. putting details not in the Schedule, but in a separate document);

(3)

the name and duties of the committee responsible for oversight of infractions;

(4)

cost estimates.

Regarding Chapter VI (Information Required):

(1)

the scientific information required.

The Chair explained his view that that an exercise discussing other areas would not have been worthwhile until progress had been made on the broader, more political issues. How this might be achieved was discussed under the agenda item 'next steps'.

REVISIONS TO CHAPTER V, SUPERVISION AND CONTROL
The Working Group agreed to the EDG proposal to include a short statement of principle in Chapter V even though not all members thought this to be necessary. There had been no agreement on the need to include a sentence to the effect that no provision of Chapter V is intended to restrict any legitimate trade in any whale product.

The Working Group agreed to the mechanism proposed by the EDG for developing the detail necessary for the practical implementation of the scheme, i.e.:

(a)

The Commission keeps all of the practical details in a single document, not the Schedule itself.

(b)

The Schedule paragraph refers to a dated version of this document. If the Commission adopts any modifications then it is only the date in the Schedule that needs to be modified. If the changes are non-controversial then it should take only a few minutes or less to agree to change the date in the Schedule. If the changes are controversial then unless there is a three-quarters majority, the Schedule will still refer to the earlier version. Similarly, if a Contracting Government objects to a change in the date, it will still be bound by the earlier version.

It also agreed some draft text for the Schedule (see Annex E).

Regarding oversight of infractions, the Working Group Chair noted the tentative deletion of square brackets from two sub-paragraphs that: (1) indicated that the Commission shall establish a Compliance Review Committee to review and report on the compliance of all whaling operations with the provisions of the Schedule and penalties for infractions; and (2) listed the duties of the Committee. He reported that Japan is not yet convinced of the need for a Compliance Review Committee since it considers that the existing Infractions Sub-committee can provide adequate oversight, and that Norway is of a similar view but that, contingent on consensus, it could agree to deletion of the square brackets.

The Working Group Chair reported that as requested by the EDG, the Secretariat had prepared cost estimates for operating an International Observer Scheme along the lines developed by the EDG. Several countries had commented that the approach taken was sound and realistic, although the Secretariat confirmed that costs associated with 'up-front' observer selection and training were not included in its estimates.

REVISIONS TO CHAPTER VI, INFORMATION REQUIRED
The Working Group Chair reported that the Working Group had agreed: (1) proposed EDG text concerning the samples and information to be provided; and (2) that the Scientific Committee be requested to re-examine the requirement for collection of earplugs from each whale caught.

NEXT STEPS
The Working Group Chair informed the meeting that he had proposed that the best way to make progress on areas where fundamental differences remain would be to convene a meeting of Commissioners/Alternate Commissioners after IWC/54. He had further proposed that the meeting be:

• a private Commissioners' meeting involving up to two participants per Contracting Government;
• held in September/October 2002 so that, if progress were to be made, there would be sufficient time for further drafting of the RMS prior to the 55th Annual Meeting in Berlin in June 2003;
• of the duration of at least 3 days.

9.2.2 Commission discussions and action arising
A number of countries thanked (1) Henrik Fischer for his work as both Chair of the EDG and Chair of the RMS Working Group and (2) the Secretariat for its extensive work to facilitate discussions.

As there were two Schedule amendments proposed (one by Japan, the other by Sweden and several co-sponsors), the Chair suggested that these be dealt with before discussing next steps.

PROPOSED SCHEDULE AMENDMENTS
Japan introduced its proposed Schedule amendment that involved: (1) the deletion of paragraph 7 relating to sanctuaries and the replacement of paragraph 10(e) with a paragraph regarding the implementation of the RMP; and (2) replacing the current paragraphs in Chapter V and VI with the paragraphs agreed by the RMS Working Group. Japan commented that as it had included only those paragraphs agreed by the RMS Working Group, it believed that its proposal should provide a basis for implementing an urgently needed and reasonable RMS. China, the Republics of Palau and Korea and Antigua & Barbuda spoke in support of Japan's proposal.

In introducing its proposed Schedule amendment, Sweden indicated that like most other countries, it supports the sustainable use of living resources, noting however that for whales, use can take different forms and that both consumptive and non-consumptive use should be considered. Sweden felt that IWC had taken too long in discussing what an RMS should comprise and that it was now time to make a decision on a precautionary management system that would preclude a repetition of past excesses. To reach the common goal of a restored ecosystem, including large whale stocks and the subsequent increased use of whales, Sweden believed that common ground needed to be found as the basis for future work. Together with a number of co-sponsors (Sweden, Finland, Ireland, Netherlands, Oman, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, Portugal, Peru and Chile) it had therefore proposed a Schedule amendment that: (1) incorporates the RMP, a strong inspection and observation scheme and an effective DNA system; and (2) retains the moratorium and sanctuaries. Sweden called for broad support for its proposal, noting that a strict control system supported by a majority of members is the only way forward for sustainable use and preservation of whale stocks. In addition to the co-sponsors, France also spoke in support of this proposal.

As background to its comments on both proposed Schedule amendments, New Zealand indicated that as its policy is to seek the maximum protection of all cetaceans, it is opposed to the resumption of commercial whaling. However, it recognised the possibility that the Commission might at some time lift the commercial whaling moratorium and for that reason it has participated actively in the process to develop an RMS (although it views the future of the moratorium as an issue that must be decided separately from the RMS). During this process, New Zealand remarked that it has consistently argued for an RMS in line with current international best practice that should include:

(1)

international observers on all vessels;

(2)

tracking of whale products throughout the market chain without restricting trade;

(3)

vessel monitoring and real-time reporting of vessel positions; and

(4)

costs to be borne by those who seek to profit from commercial whaling.

In addition, it has supported calls by others for reporting of animal welfare data and for a strong compliance and enforcement structure with appropriate NGO participation. Recalling that the Commission's instruction to the EDG was to develop a consolidated draft text for an RMS with as few square brackets as possible, New Zealand considered that it was incumbent on EDG participants to be willing to offer and make compromises on both the small and the big issues. However, it noted that no real consensus was achieved, that while there were some agreements on small matters, there were few compromises and that when the EDG finished its work, square brackets remained around most of the major issues (e.g. the statement of principle, catch verification, a proposed compliance regime and collection and reporting of animal welfare data). It further noted that although tentative compromises were agreed on:

(1)

the process for appointing observers;

(2)

use of vessel monitoring systems;

(3)

the duties of any compliance body;

(4)

a limited, combined role for International Observers and National Inspectors; and

(5)

modified rules to apply in respect of small vessels engaged only in day trips for coastal whaling; the compromises were all made by the opponents of commercial whaling - there had been no reciprocity by those supporting a resumption of commercial whaling.

With these views in mind, New Zealand welcomed Sweden's proposal and complimented the sponsors on their efforts to make progress and to arrive at a broadly acceptable text. It considered Japan's proposal to be misleading and to have a number of serious and significant omissions, including no provision for:

(1)

a catch documentation scheme;

(2)

the recovery of costs from those who seek to profit from commercial whaling;

(3)

the collection and reporting of animal welfare data; and

(4)

establishing any compliance regime. New Zealand found Japan's proposal to repeal paragraphs 7 and 10(e), thus overturning the Indian and Southern Ocean whale sanctuaries and the moratorium, to be unacceptable.

Noting the failed attempts at agreement, it was now New Zealand's view that for any RMS to be effective it does not just require a three-quarters majority, but at the very least, the broad and general support of all major groupings within the Commission, otherwise it will be complied with only minimally and will be open to formal objection. Finally, New Zealand indicated that until there is a clear willingness of countries supporting a resumption of commercial whaling to negotiate on all the outstanding issues, it could not vote for either of the proposed Schedule amendments. Germany, the UK, Austria, Mexico and India expressed similar sentiments. The USA could not support Japan's proposal believing that it did not provide the fundamental aspects for a supervision and control scheme necessary to deter illegal, unregulated and unreported (IUU) whaling.

With respect to the Schedule amendment proposed by Sweden, although Germany found it to be an improvement on other proposals it considered that a number of important elements common to other fisheries management schemes were missing, including provisions for:

(1)

full information on vessels;

(2)

alternative control mechanisms for when VMS is out of order;

(3)

control measures for non-contracting Parties suspected to be undermining the rules of the Convention; and

(4)

a list of serious infractions that automatically require sanctions.

Germany also found the proposal to allow Contracting Governments to object to any observer unacceptable since it may result in no observer being present. It hoped to receive a more comprehensive document for review at next year's Annual Meeting. Antigua & Barbuda considered that Sweden's proposal undermined the work of the EDG since it includes elements on which the group has not yet completed its discussions and found it unacceptable that whaling be limited to EEZs. Norway and Japan also strongly opposed this proposal that they considered to incorporate matters outside the mandate of IWC.

Australia indicated that much of its own views regarding Japan's proposal had been covered by New Zealand and addressed its comments primarily towards those conservation-minded countries tempted to support the Swedish proposal. Noting that any RMS is inconsistent with its own policy to seek a permanent and global ban of commercial whaling, Australia expressed concern regarding how close some members appeared to be in adopting an RMS text that lacks the unequivocal support of those other members that would need to be bound by it, i.e. those that wish to continue, recommence or commence commercial whaling. It was alarmed that countries likely to engage in whaling are objecting to the inclusion in the RMS of elements now considered as best practice by other international marine resource management regimes (e.g. catch documentation, 100% observer coverage). Australia emphasised the dangers of seeking compromises and stressed that if there is to be stringent international regulation of whaling, any RMS would have to be agreed and adhered to in its totality by all countries that intend to undertake commercial whaling. Without such agreement, the objection procedure could be used to evade specific articles of an RMS. It called on the Commission not to adopt the Swedish proposal.

Denmark considered the tabling of both proposals to be premature and possibly counterproductive. It believed that compromises on both sides were needed if there is to be any hope of future success in agreeing an RMS. Denmark indicated that it would not participate in a vote on either text.

The representative of the IUCN chose to speak on this issue. He noted that IUCN supports scientifically-based solutions to conservation problems and that it has supported the work of IWC's Scientific Committee, including development of the RMP. He recalled that since the 1970s IUCN has advocated and then supported the moratorium pending the adoption of a satisfactory management regime that would prevent a repeat of past mistakes and that would secure the world's whale stocks in coming decades. It was IUCN's review that if the Commission did not adopt an effective RMS then it would in effect be accepting the proliferation of whaling outside international control. It was aware that the supervision and control arrangements in the Swedish proposal were in many ways more stringent and intrusive than is the case in other fisheries management schemes, particularly in relation to full International Observer coverage even in EEZs, but considered that the special status of whales in both legal and biological terms and their status as a flag-species of the conservation movement, made such provisions necessary. In particular, it considered the establishment of a central DNA register to be an essential component. IUCN urged the Commission to adopt an RMS so that it could move on to other important issues in the conservation of cetaceans.

Japan's proposed Schedule amendment was put to a vote first since it was the first to be submitted. It received 16 votes in favour, 25 against and three abstentions and was therefore not adopted. In explaining its vote, Norway who abstained, indicated that although Japan's proposal covered all the necessary fundamental issues and addressed paragraph 10(e) and sanctuaries in a constructive way, there were certain areas where improvements are needed, namely: (1) the better entrenchment of the RMP into the Schedule, including a preferred range of tuning levels; and (2) a more explicit defence of the rights of coastal states under Article 56 of UNCLOS. In addition, Norway added that in view of the serious nature of the RMS, it would need time to scrutinise any proposal thoroughly prior to making a decision, which it was not yet ready to do.

Sweden's proposal also failed when put to a vote, receiving 12 votes in support, 24 against and 7 abstentions. The USA explained why it had abstained. It noted that although the proposal included some elements that would deter IUU whaling, it did not have sufficiently broad support and was therefore premature. However, the USA believed Sweden's proposal to be a step forward and that it should provide the basis for the Commission's future work on the RMS. Monaco, Argentina and Italy gave similar explanations for their votes.

NEXT STEPS - PROPOSAL FOR AN INTERSESSIONAL MEETING
The Chair of the RMS Working Group returned to his proposal for an intersessional meeting of Commissioners/Alternate Commissioners and introduced proposed terms of reference (IWC/54/61) for such a meeting. It was his view that the meeting should address the following broad issues: catch verification (through DNA registers and genetic monitoring, and catch documentation); the role of NGOs in a Compliance Review Committee; costs and how they may be shared among Contracting Governments; the need to collect animal welfare data; and the issue of current paragraph 10(e) - the moratorium. Although it would be discussed in the Scientific Committee next year, the Working Group Chair considered that the intersessional meeting could also consider the proposal, originally from Ireland, that catches may only be taken within EEZs or other waters within 200 miles of the coast. He added that if sufficient progress was made, the intersessional meeting could instruct an EDG (composition to be decided but shall include at least the Chair of the RMS working group and the Secretariat) to try to draft a final text for consideration by the Commission at the next Annual Meeting in Berlin.

There was broad support for a meeting to try to make progress on the RMS, and although there were suggestions that it be held in association with the Annual Meeting in Berlin, the Commission finally agreed that it should be held in either Denmark or the UK during the week of 14 October 2002. It was further agreed that the meeting be held in private, with participation limited to two delegates per country plus an interpreter where necessary.

Regarding terms of reference, some delegations were not happy with all aspects proposed by the RMS Working Group Chair and it was agreed that rather than decide on specific terms of reference, the following documents would be taken forward to the intersessional meeting:

(1)

the terms of reference proposed by the RMS Working Group Chair (IWC/54/61);

(2)

a draft Resolution prepared by New Zealand containing, inter alia, a list of elements that should be included in an RMS (IWC/54/53);

(3)

the Schedule amendments proposed by Japan and Sweden (i.e. IWC/54/34 and 35); and

(4)

IWC/54/RMS 2 'The possible structure and content of a revised Schedule based on discussions to date'.

The Secretariat was requested to organise the intersessional meeting on the basis of the above agreements.

¹⁶For details of the Scientific Committee's deliberation on this Item see J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 5 (Suppl.)

_