(from "Chair's Report of the 55th Annual Meeting")
Two issue directly related to the Revised Management Scheme were also addressed. The first concerned the implications of restricting whaling to within 200 miles of a whaling nations coast (or the EEZ). In conclusion, the Committee drew attention to the risk-averse nature of the RMP in distributing catches among Small Areas. It noted that any variant of the RMP recommended by the Committee for any species has been judged as displaying satisfactory performance with respect first to risk and then to yield. The Committee was aware of the vulnerability of species to whaling close to the coast and takes this into account in the process of conducting Implementation Simulation Trials before the recommendation of an RMP variant to the Commission.
The Committee therefore advised that under the RMP, the restriction of whaling to waters within 200 miles of the coast will have no effect on catches permitted in Small Areas that fall entirely or partly within 200 miles of the coast. However, because no catches would be taken in Small Areas entirely outside 200 miles of the coast, this additional management measure would reduce risk (to beyond that incorporated in the RMP) but also reduce yield.
The second issue concerned the value or otherwise of collecting tympanic bullae for age determination of minke whales as part of the RMS. The Committee agreed that reliable age determination beyond the first few years was not possible using tympanic bullae and recommended that a requirement to collect bullae should not be included in the Schedule.
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 Berlin meeting. The process has proven to be difficult for a number of reasons, including:
The Committee considered four stock scenarios for the western North Pacific (ranging from 2-4 stocks with various boundaries and levels of mixing) and six management variants (allowing catches in different Small Areas and combinations of Small Areas and times of year). It also carried out trials with 1% and 4% MSYR and a variety of sensitivity investigations of a number of assumptions including numbers of bycaught animals, level of depletion of the non-target 'J-stock' etc.
There was disagreement within the Committee with respect to the plausibility of the various stock scenarios and this led to lack of consensus over the most appropriate management variant to recommend. Most members supported the management variant (variant 5) that performed best under all stock scenarios, whereas some supported the variant that performed best for the stock scenario that they believed was most plausible (variant 6). Details can be found in Item 6.1 of the Scientific Committee's report.
The Committee agreed that stock structure was the key source of uncertainty for this Implementation. It noted that the range and relative plausibility of stock structure hypotheses might change given additional research and new data.
It suggested that, in the light of the concerns about catch performance in coastal Small Areas, it would be useful to examine the effect of additional abundance information, definition of alternate sets of Small Areas, specification of alternate RMP variants for cascading, and alternate seasonal-area restrictions. Such information could be used to improve the implementation's catch performance in coastal areas, and could be considered in an Implementation Review.
A full review of how best to implement the RMP in cases of uncertain stock structure will take place at next year's meeting.
In the light of the implications of the simulations for 'J' stock animals, the Committee strongly endorsed conducting an in-depth assessment of North Pacific minke whales next year to improve understanding and reduce uncertainty.
WESTERN NORTH PACIFIC BRYDE'S WHALES
IMPLEMENTATION
The Committee has made relatively slow progress on completing the
implementation for western North Pacific Bryde's whales inter alia due
to its heavy workload.
While noting that it was in the pre-implementation assessment stage,
the Committee noted the considerable work already undertaken and agreed that
it should be possible to move faster towards implementation than would be the
case for new situations.
It will be an important topic at next year's meeting.
NORTH ATLANTIC COMMON MINKE WHALES -
IMPLEMENTATION REVIEW
The Committee completed an Implementation Review of North Atlantic
minke whales this year, taking into account new information on stock structure
and abundance.
The Committee recommended some changes to the Small Area boundaries for the
eastern Medium Area and agreed that the Catch-cascading option
at the Medium Area level remained the preferred management option.
Details can be found in Item 6.2 of the Scientific Committee's report.
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 two years ago. 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:
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.
Genetic approaches potentially represent 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. A proposal for a workshop on that subject is being developed for consideration in 2004.
Work to further explore improved bycatch estimation methods for the two approaches noted above is continuing. Improved data reporting for large whale bycatches was also recommended.
The Committee received a very preliminary rough estimate of the total number of bycaught cetaceans in the world. Different assumptions and methods led to estimates ranging from 60,000 to 300,000. Recognising the limitations of the approach, the authors concluded that the estimates provided at least an initial idea of the likely scale of cetacean bycatch globally and the potential problems this may cause populations. The Committee had recommended a number of improvements to the analyses.
9.1.2 Commission discussions
GENERAL ISSUES
With respect to the Scientific Committee's report concerning the implications
of restricting whaling to within 200 miles of a whaling nation's coast (EEZ),
interventions were made by Japan and Ireland.
Japan believed that from the biological point of view, such restrictions would increase risk as it would concentrate catches on part of a stock. Additional restrictions on quotas to account for increased risk would decrease yields unnecessarily and be contrary to the principle of optimum use. Japan also believed that monitoring and inspection would be less effective and more costly since more smaller boats that may not be able to carry inspectors or observers would be used and because the number of land stations required would increase thereby requiring more inspectors and observers. It also considered that if whaling were to be restricted to EEZs, whaling would be local and could be managed on a regional or national basis. In these circumstances, Japan believed that a global management body like IWC would be unnecessary.
Ireland recalled that as part of the so-called 'Irish Proposal' it had proposed to restrict whaling to EEZs and stressed that it had never claimed its proposal to be based on science. Rather it had been proposed as a practical means of moving forward as a world community to address both the conservation and management aspects of the Convention. It was pleased to note that the Scientific Committee's report confirmed what Ireland thought might be the outcome of its proposal, i.e. a reduction in both risk and yield. It understood that a decrease in yield would cause problems for some countries, but noted that the proposal had been made as a compromise and as a way to introduce to the public to the idea that under certain circumstances and subject to scientifically-based quotas, a situation could be foreseen where whaling countries could legitimately utilise their whale resources.
NORTH PACIFIC COMMON MINKE WHALE
IMPLEMENTATION SIMULATION TRIALS
A number of countries complimented the Scientific Committee on completing the
Trials and for producing a clear report of what is a complex issue.
Australia stressed the importance of this work in relation to the standing of the RMP. Recalling that the generic CLA at the heart of the RMP is designed to address a single stock scenario, Australia noted that consideration of spatial distribution and mixing of stocks or sub-stocks involving one or more depleted stocks was being tackled by the Scientific Committee for the first time in the context of the North Pacific minke whale Implementation Simulation Trials. It believed that the main message from the outcome of the simulations is that spatial considerations are very important and need to be considered whenever stocks overlap. It noted from the Committee's report that catch scenarios allowing coastal whaling in the Sea of Japan resulted in an unacceptable increase in risk of depletion or extinction of the already depleted 'J' stock, and that even in the two more conservative catch scenarios recommended by most of the Scientific Committee, there could be an unacceptable increased risk to this stock under certain conditions. Australia therefore had significant concerns about the results of the Scientific Committee's results as presented.
The USA associated itself with Australia's comments. It noted the unanimous agreement within the Scientific Committee that stock structure is the key source of uncertainty in this implementation and that accordingly most Committee members recommended variant 5 as the preferred management option if the RMP was to be implemented for this population as it is the most robust approach for dealing with uncertainty in stock structure. Consequently, if implementation of the RMP were to proceed, the USA urged adoption of variant 5 or other conservative approaches if the uncertainty over stock structure remained next year. Sweden and the UK made similar remarks.
Monaco was encouraged by the progress made. It noted that while variant 5 seemed to be preferred as it was most robust, variant 6 was not entirely rejected. However, Monaco believed that given the uncertainty that existed, it was clear that if variant 6 was adopted, then the Small Areas should be delineated as proposed by the Scientific Committee. Mexico supported the Scientific Committee's recommendation for an in-depth assessment. It believed that given the levels of uncertainty, a precautionary approach should be taken and that therefore variant 5 should be applied. New Zealand associated itself with earlier remarks and believed that the majority of the Scientific Committee favoured taking a precautionary approach to possible future exploitation. It considered that there was only one course of action given the uncertainties, i.e. to start the process over again. It therefore strongly supported the recommendation for an in-depth assessment. In the meantime, New Zealand suggested that Japan should halt the take of 'J' stock animals, release alive minke whales caught in nets, and work to reduce incidental take. Germany and Spain also stressed the importance of reducing bycatch, with Germany taking the view that bycaught animals should not be commercialised thereby reducing incentives for incidental catches.
In view of the uncertainty surrounding stock structure, like others, the Republic of Korea supported the Committee's recommendation for an in-depth assessment and indicated it would contribute to this work with respect to stocks off the Korean peninsular.
Japan and Norway expressed a preference for variant 6 and disagreed with the remarks of Australia and others. Japan believed that the 4-stock scenario (Baseline C) proposed by the USA was implausible and should be withdrawn. It believed that the 'J' stock in the Sea of Japan had recovered (from 6,000 to 10,000 animals) and noted the increased number of animals bycaught in fixed stationary nets as evidence of this recovery. Japan considered it too early to start an in-depth assessment since it believed insufficient sighting data are available. Norway noted that these Trials had been a difficult issue for the Scientific Committee and that in its view, the reasons for these difficulties were political as well as scientific. It felt that the evidence for a 'W' stock is rather weak and considered variant 5, which would not allow coastal whaling, to be rather implausible. It noted that even if variant 6 were to be chosen for the implementation, an implementation review would be required in 6 years, at which point the implementation could be revised if evidence against this scenario became available. Iceland and Grenada associated themselves with Norway. Grenada expressed concern that work on the RMP and RMS was open-ended and suggested that a deadline be set for completion.
At the request of the UK, the Scientific Committee Chair commented on the approach taken by the Committee and on the status of the 'J' stock. He explained that the Scientific Committee tries to take account of uncertainty through the testing of a number of plausible scenarios and reported that within the Committee there was genuine scientific disagreement over the plausibility of the various stock structure hypotheses. He noted however, that in the end, most scientists agreed that none of the four stock structure hypotheses could be regarded as implausible, although this is not to say that they are all given the same level of plausibility by all scientists. Regarding the 'J' stock, he reported that there is considerable scientific uncertainty regarding its status as reflected in the Committee's report and in the range of depletion estimates (i.e. from 15-70%) used in the Trials. The Chair explained that the in-depth assessment had been recommended for this reason.
NORTH ATLANTIC MINKE WHALES
IMPLEMENTATION REVIEW
Norway asked the UK whether it had reconsidered its earlier decision not to
allow access by Danish and Norwegian survey vessels into its EEZ14.
In response, the UK reported that new requests would be reconsidered but it
noted that none had been received.
It had not reconsidered earlier requests in the absence of new ones.
WESTERN NORTH PACIFIC BRYDE'S WHALES
Japan noted with regret that this work had been delayed yet again and
appealed for work to now proceed more quickly.
The UK suggested that the lack of progress was because Japan is not
forthcoming in providing data on stock structure and abundance.
Japan considered this comment incorrect.
ESTIMATION OF BYCATCH
In response to a request from Denmark for clarification regarding the range
of estimated bycatch of 60,000 to 300,000, the Scientific Committee Chair
explained that these are estimates including both large and small cetaceans.
9.1.3 Action arising
SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE REPORT
The Commission noted the report and endorsed its recommendations.
PROPOSED SCHEDULE AMENDMENT
Japan introduced its proposed Schedule amendment to add the following
sub-paragraph (g) under paragraph 10:
'(g) Notwithstanding the other provisions of this paragraph, the taking of 150
Bryde's whales from the Western Stock of the North Pacific shall be permitted
for each of the 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008 seasons.'
Japan explained the rationale behind its proposal. It noted that the western North Pacific stock of Bryde's whale was classified as an initial management stock (IMS) or a sustained management stock (SMS) when the moratorium was placed on commercial whaling and that present abundance is estimated at 23,751, according to the Scientific Committee's Comprehensive Assessment completed in 1996. It considered the stock to be very robust. It also noted that the RMP, designed to calculate an excessively conservative catch quota that will ensure that there are no adverse effects on the stock, was completed in 1992 and accepted by the Commission in 1994. Japan therefore considered that, together with monitoring and control, the necessary management measures required for sustainable whaling without negatively impacting the stock are available.
On the other hand, however, it noted that work on the development of Implementation Simulation Trials has made little progress and that work to develop the Revised Management Scheme (RMS) has continued for more than ten years. It considered that effective monitoring and control measures have been discussed exhaustively and that these discussions have turned into unrealistic demands designed to delay completion of the RMS and implementation of the RMP. At the same time, Japan noted that its former whaling communities have not yet recovered economically after the imposition of the commercial whaling moratorium and that fishery resources are declining due to over-predation by whales and reductions in fishery operations.
In view of the above, Japan indicated that it wished to resume coastal whaling for the sustainable use of robust whale stocks, the management of fishery resources, and the revitalisation of the impoverished coastal fishing and/or whaling communities. It believed that the resumption of coastal whaling would promote the local processing industries, and stimulate distribution of whale products and tourism, leading to more employment opportunities, which will help vitalize the local economy. In addition, the resumption of coastal whaling would also reinstate traditional practices associated with sales of whale meat, and revitalize traditional festivals and rituals of the regions.
Japan went on to describe the specifics of the whaling operations proposed, including provisions for monitoring and control, and the scientific basis for coastal whaling. It hoped that the proposed Schedule amendment could be adopted by consensus.
Mexico, the USA, the Netherlands, Germany, Sweden, Switzerland and New Zealand spoke against the proposed Schedule amendment. The USA noted that it was a completely new proposal to re-start large-scale commercial whaling from land bases. It considered there to be a number of scientific issues that should be taken into account, including: (1) that the Scientific Committee's work on Implementation Simulation Trials is not yet complete; (2) that the Committee does not have accurate past catch history data that are important for the RMP; and (3) that catch limits must be calculated by the Scientific Committee, not a Contracting Government. In addition, the USA noted that the provisions for inspection and observation would operate as prior to the moratorium. It found this to be unacceptable. The Netherlands noted that in calculating catch limits, Japan had used a modified version of the RMP rather than that recommended by the Scientific Committee. Noting that the abundance data used was from the period 1988 - 1994, it considered that Japan had ignored the provision within the RMP that provides for the step-wise phase out of catches when the input survey data are over 8 years old. Together with a number of other countries, the Netherlands urged Japan to submit abundance data for this stock to the Scientific Committee.
Norway, Iceland and Dominica spoke in support of Japan's proposal. Norway noted that the stock could be managed under the New Management Procedure that remains valid, adding that the moratorium should have expired by 1990. It considered Japan's proposal as a way to get out of the current impasse. Dominica believed the proposal to be in keeping with the RMP and considered that it should be looked at as an opportunity to provide a way forward towards providing information to complete the RMS.
As there was clearly no consensus on its proposal, Japan requested that it be put to a vote. There were 17 votes in support, 26 against and 2 abstentions. The Schedule amendment was therefore not adopted.
RESOLUTION ON BYCATCH
Italy introduced a draft Resolution on bycatch on behalf of the other
co-sponsors (Argentina, Australia, Austria, Brazil, France, Germany, Italy,
Mexico, Monaco, Portugal, the Netherlands, New Zealand, San Marino, South
Africa, Switzerland, Sweden, the UK and the USA).
Recalling inter alia: (a) previous Commission Resolutions
(1998-215 and 2001-1316) concerning the need to take
all human-induced mortalities into account and to reduce bycatch of cetaceans
in fisheries; (b) estimated levels of bycatch as referred to in the
Scientific Committee report; and (c) recommendations from a January 2002
International Workshop on Reducing Cetacean Bycatch and from the 6th and 7th
Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS) the
draft Resolution recommended that the Commission:
Like Denmark, Norway was perturbed that only the highest bycatch estimate had been used in the draft Resolution. It questioned whether the second operative paragraph was necessary and if so whether such a request to the Scientific Committee has to be done in this way. It considered the third paragraph to be very ambitious and quite costly. It associated itself with Denmark regarding deletion of the last two paragraphs.
The USA and Germany spoke in support of the draft Resolution believing the reduction of bycatch to be a very important issue.
Recalling that at the beginning of the meeting he had requested wide consultation during the preparation of draft Resolutions, the Chair adjourned discussion on this issue and strongly urged the co-sponsors to undertake such consultations. On returning to the matter, Italy reported that it had consulted with all co-sponsors and several other Contracting Governments. It noted the widespread recognition of the need for action to mitigate cetacean bycatch, but that more time is needed to achieve consensus on the Resolution. It was therefore withdrawing the Resolution with the intention to return next year after consultation with a broader and fully representative range of co-sponsors. Italy also noted that a recent scientific workshop on this issue had called for co-operative effort involving relevant intergovernmental and governmental agencies, industry groups, environmental organisations and scientific research organisations to move forward with urgency to address cetacean bycatch, and in particular the need to assist developing country fishermen, both logistically and financially. In this regard, Italy referred to the US$75,000 donation to the Commission by WWF for research projects to assist efforts to mitigate bycatch in developing countries. It therefore considered it useful if the Commission could agree to recommend that appropriate IWC committees develop a proposal for consideration next year regarding the most effective ways to build scientific and technical capacity to evaluate and mitigate bycatch, to consider, inter alia, the feasibility of holding various types of workshop (international, national) and to co-operate to the extent possible with relevant international bodies such as FAO and CMS.
9.2 Revised Management Scheme (RMS)
9.2.1 Report from the Private Commissioners' meeting on the RMS
The Commissioners met in private on 12 and 13 June 2003 to review
intersessional work on the RMS and to discuss future steps. Henrik Fischer
(Denmark) Commission Vice-Chair chaired the private meeting and reported
back to the Commission in plenary.
INTERSESSIONAL WORK
In his report, Henrik Fischer recalled that at IWC/54 last year, the
Commission agreed to hold a special intersessional meeting of Commissioners,
chaired by him, to: (1) examine the outstanding issues (which included items
of both a technical and a political nature) required to finalise the RMS for
commercial whaling; and (2) specify the future work needed to expedite its
completion.
This meeting was held in Cambridge UK from 15-17 October 2002.
At that meeting, there had been a valuable exchange of views and ideas on a number of difficult issues surrounding the completion of an RMS, including catch verification schemes, compliance reviews, costs, area restrictions, animal welfare data and other related issues. Progress was made in several areas where fundamental differences had been expressed in the past. A mechanism to build on this progress was established, including the establishment of three special working groups (on costs, catch verification and compliance). It was also agreed that a second special Commissioners' meeting should take place in association with IWC/55 in Berlin.
Henrik Fischer reported that the working groups on catch verification and costs met in Antigua from 28-30 April and 1-3 May 2003 respectively.
The working group on catch verification followed the approach used in the past by the RMS Expert Drafting Group in identifying what needed to be verified, why, and how this could best be achieved (e.g. DNA registers/market sampling, Catch Document Schemes, or both?) in light of the objectives of the RMS and its guiding principles. Although no final consensus recommendation was reached, considerable progress was made in a number of areas and three catch verification options were put forward for consideration by the Commissioners' meeting.
The working group on costs was charged with: (1) identifying and estimating costs of possible components of an RMS; (2) considering how costs might be apportioned among Contracting Governments; and (3) presenting to the Commission one or more option on how RMS costs could be factored into the financial contributions scheme currently under review, while recognising that there is no agreement on whether these elements should or should not be included in the final RMS package. The group agreed that there were four main elements to the costs of an RMS: (1) national inspectors; (2) international observers; (3) vessel monitoring systems; and (4) catch verification. Cost estimates were developed for each element, although in relation to catch verification, estimates could only be developed for DNA registers/market sampling since no definite proposal for a Catch Document Scheme had been developed. The group believed it had achieved as much as it could given the uncertainties involved.
The working group on compliance worked initially via email correspondence but did meet briefly in Berlin. It made progress in resolving areas on which there had previously been no agreement and was able to put forward recommendations to the private Commissioners' meeting.
PRIVATE COMMISSIONERS' MEETING, BERLIN
Henrik Fischer noted that the meeting received the reports from the three
working groups as well as (1) information from the Workshop on Whaling
Killing Methods and Associated Issues regarding the usefulness of data
proposed by the UK in assessing whale killing methods and (2) a report from
the Scientific Committee particularly in relation to the management
implications in terms of risk and yield of restricting whaling to within EEZs
or 200 miles of the coast - a question posed by the Commission at IWC/54.
It also gave some consideration to what a final RMS 'package' might
constitute.
Henrik Fischer reported that although some progress had been made intersessionally, there was no consensus among Commissioners on whether progress to date had been sufficient. He noted that the meeting had been unable to make any recommendations regarding possible components of an RMS or how best it would take this issue further.
9.2.2 Commission discussions and action arising
There were no comments on the report from the private Commissioners' meeting.
Henrik Fischer, in his capacity as Commission Vice-Chair, considered it regrettable if no discussions would be held on the RMS prior to the next Annual Meeting. He therefore asked whether the Commission would allow him to convene a small group to explore ways and possibilities to take the RMS process forward. He suggested that such a group could work initially via e-mail, but that a meeting might be needed prior to IWC/56 either intersessionally and/or in Sorrento prior to the plenary. Regarding any intersessional meeting, he suggested this could be held at the Secretariat to minimise costs.
Norway, the USA, Iceland, Germany, Mexico, the UK, the Netherlands, Dominica, Sweden, the Republic of Korea, Australia, St. Lucia and Ireland all spoke in support of the Vice-Chair's proposal, although a number of them also expressed disappointment that more progress on the RMS had not been made. Norway believed the approach should be kept under review in view of cost implications. The USA considered that for reasons of transparency the group should not discuss specific text. Mexico, supported by the UK and Australia, believed the group should be limited to discussions on process rather than negotiating on matters of substance. Australia took the view that little progress had been made in previous discussions on matters of substance (e.g. in the Expert Drafting Group, costs and compliance groups, private Commissioners' meetings) and that a repeat of this would not be constructive. Ireland, on the other hand believed that the group might well be able to explore matters of substance (e.g. by giving further consideration to the Secretariat's presentation on RMS packages) and suggested that the Vice-Chair be allowed to see how far he could go in making progress. Iceland took a similar view. It also suggested that Henrik Fischer be allowed to constitute the group rather than being directed by the Commission. This was supported by Germany and others. Assuming that the small group would need to report back to the Commission as a whole prior to the plenary, the UK considered that this should be done in an open session. It did not believe the process of meeting behind closed doors to necessarily be constructive. Unlike some, the Netherlands believed that progress on the RMS had been made, particularly over the last year. It suggested that the group proposed by the Vice-Chair think not in terms of minimum and maximum packages but in terms of scenarios that would include consideration of time as one of the parameters. Dominica, supported by St. Lucia, believed that the group should reflect on the reasons for establishing an RMS. It hoped that the group would report back to the Commission with a series of sound recommendations for taking the process further. Sweden considered completion of the RMS to be important and acknowledged that a better process to work towards this is needed. While Australia re-iterated its well-known position on the RMS (i.e. any RMS is inconsistent with its policy to seek a permanent and global ban of commercial whaling), it indicated that it would continue to offer constructive comments. Norway, Iceland, Sweden, the Republic of Korea and Australia indicated that they would be willing to take part in the proposed group.
Japan recalled that discussions on the RMS have been ongoing for many years and noted the 1990 deadline in paragraph 10(e) for completion of the comprehensive assessment of whale stocks and consideration of catch limits other than zero. It considered that with an increasing number of elements being added to the RMS discussions, together with the establishment of the Conservation Committee, it was likely that the RMS would never be completed. It felt that it had made substantial compromises but that the discussions were not being conducted in good faith by others. It was of the opinion that unless there is a clear understanding that 10(e) would be lifted immediately an RMS is agreed, then pursuing the Vice-Chair's proposal may not be worthwhile. These views were shared by a number of other countries. Australia believed that discussions on the RMS and on paragraph 10(e) should be kept separate.
Based on the many positive comments, the Chair invited the Vice-Chair to proceed according to his proposal.
12 For details of the Scientific Committee's deliberation on this
Item see J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 6 (suppl.)
13 MSYR = Maximum Sustainable Yield Rate; MSYL = Maximum
Sustainable Yield Level
14 Ann. Rep. Int. Whaling. Comm. 2001: 27
15 Ann. Rep. Int. Whaling. Comm. 1998:42
16 Ann. Rep. Int. Whaling. Comm. 2001: 60
_