(from "Chairman's Report of the Thirty-Fifth Annual Meeting")

(1) Criteria for the stability of stocks
Although a procedure for classifying Sustained Management stocks on the evidence that they had remained at a stable level for a considerable period under a regime of approximately constant catches was agreed to at the last Scientific Committee meeting, it was subsequently found to contain substantial problems and the matter was discussed again this year. The Scientific Committee agreed that its advice on classifying stocks under this definition should make specific statements on the probability that a certain CPUE time series is compatible with a particular level of change in stock abundance. Similar considerations could apply to time series of indices or measures of stock abundance such as from sightings or mark recapture analysis. This procedure was followed in the meeting and the approach was considered useful and easy to implement. However, some problems in the interpretation of the results were apparent due to the lack of any appropriate guidelines for acceptable risk levels. It was agreed that the matter will be addressed early in next year's meeting.

(2) Estimates of natural mortality rate and the CPUE/abundance relationship
Stock assessments carried out by various sub-committees used these relationships although the former may be biased and the latter non-linear. On reviewing all of the sub-committee reports, this resulted in the rejection of a stock assessment that had been previously agreed by a sub-committee. It was a matter of regret that major changes were made during later sessions of the Scientific Committee but it was the only scientifically acceptable course of action to take.

(3) Stocks not assessed
Because only certain priority stocks were assessed at the present meeting, the Scientific Committee drew up a table indicating the information on recent assessments for each of the stocks not assessed and last year's recommendations.

(4) The Commissioner for St Lucia asked the question 'For each stock of whales presently exploited, is there satisfactory scientific evidence to establish that catches of whales are within the productive capacity of the stock and are indefinitely sustainable?'. It was not possible to consider this within the time available and the question will be thoroughly examined during the next meeting.

Seychelles congratulated the Scientific Committee on the improvement in the nature of its report. It believes the Commission is in a better position due to the statements of uncertainties and the exact basis of the recommendations.

St Lucia explained the reason for posing its question, which arose from the fact that it believed the FAO statement last year had been used by three governments to justify lodging objections to the pause in commercial whaling. It found the FAO terminology vague and imprecise and thus sought further evidence from the Scientific Committee.

Japan emphasised that the FAO statement was not the basis of its objection but rather that the pause was not based on scientific evidence.

13.2 Sperm whales
Western North Pacific
The Scientific Committee had not assessed any sperm whale stocks this year but instead attention was focused on planning work for the coming year in order that an assessment of the Western North Pacific stock could be carried out in time for the Commission to be provided with advice on catch limits prior to the start of the 1984 coastal Season.

In reviewing progress towards this end the Scientific Committee made a number of recommendations concerning collection of biological data in the Japanese coastal fishery; computing requirements; an IDCR research cruise; provision of USSR marking data (part of the USSR national programme and therefore not required to be made available).

The Scientific Committee agreed that interim advice on catch limits could be developed at the next Annual Meeting using the two available length-specific estimation procedures.

There was some discussion of the present Schedule provisions for this stock and the statement by Japan that its 1984 season will not start until September. The Commission noted that footnote 1 in Table 3 of the Schedule remains in effect for the 1984 and following season, subject to the objection lodged by the Government of Japan. The financial implications related to carrying out the assessments were also recognised.

Japan requested that the Scientific Committee should consider if the present size of catch has any significant effect on the population, and this was agreed. The Commission also agreed that footnote 2 of Table 3 in the Schedule, setting the catch limits for the 1983 season which will start in September, should be retained.

Other stocks
The Commission agreed, on the recommendation of the Technical Committee, that all other sperm whale stocks should have zero catch limits.

13.3 Minke whales
13.3.1 Southern Hemisphere
The Scientific Committee made no recommendations for changes in the present management Areas. It recommended that a review be undertaken of all data that contribute to the inter-specific regressions for mortality rate values. Trends in age at maturity with time were considered and it was noted that the workshop on this subject had been unable to reach any conclusion because lack of suitable data and models prevented a thorough investigation. Because of uncertainties surrounding the reproductive cycle, Brazil was asked to make every effort to obtain minimum biological collections. Brazil indicated that ovaries have been collected since 1976 but lack of technical capacity prevented other necessary collections.

The Scientific Committee made two recommendations concerning work on data and models which were adopted by the Commission. It has been found that the IDCR sighting surveys do not cover the entire range of the minke whale distribution in the Antarctic and there were three recommendations on sightings data analyses. Mark recapture estimates are also available in some Areas and it was proposed that a review should be undertaken for next year.

By combining available sighting and marking estimates, the Scientific Committee arrived at estimates of the present stocks. The increases in stock estimates this year arose from three factors and the Scientific Committee considered that the latest estimates are an improvement over those of last year. Using suggested corrections to take account of the unbalanced sex ratios in catches, the Scientific Committee recommended that the six stocks remain unclassified and put forward two positions as possible bases for setting catch limits.

In the Technical Committee, Sweden noted that one option was very much bigger than the present catch limits and proposed the lower position put forward by the Scientific Committee; this was seconded by the UK.

Japan spoke of its continuing research surveys of the last five years under the IDCR programme, and noted the improvement in the analyses which had resulted, leading to increased stock estimates. These are still underestimates and even if the stocks are not increasing they must still be close to their initial levels with a large available catch. The species has a large fecundity and therefore Japan questioned the reductions in catches proposed.

New Zealand recognised this as the last major whale resource and said that although these stocks were not facing extinction, caution was necessary because of the uncertainties. Seychelles also supported the proposal and whilst recognising the larger estimates and greater precision believed that the proposal was not unduly conservative since the appropriate catch limits are now smaller.

The USSR called for objective assessments rather than conservative estimates.

Brazil stressed that the Scientific Committee had no reliable basis for recommending catch limits because of uncertainty in all stages of the calculation. The proposed catch limit for Area II is the most reduced compared with last year. It is phasing out its whaling operations and such reduction at this time will bring about financial and economic problems. It therefore proposed an amendment to the catch limit for Area II of 625 which was seconded by Chile.

Japan, Argentina, the Seychelles and St Lucia explained their positions, including their sympathy with the Brazilian situation, before the amended figure of 625 for Area II was put to the vote and defeated.

The original proposal by Sweden for the following catch limits:

Area I	594				Area IV	1,995
Area II	454				Area V	1,245
Area III	1,349				Area VI	741

was then adopted in the Technical Committee by majority vote. It was also agreed that there should be 5% allowances between Areas as in previous years, but that the total catch should not exceed 6,378. The Technical Committee endorsed three research recommendations concerning the next IDCR survey in Area VI and analyses of the IDCR data and that these stocks be priority for assessment next year.

In the Plenary, the Seychelles expressed its concern that the results from the Scientific Committee involve considerable increases in catch limits for those stocks which breed in the Indian Ocean Sanctuary. Whilst not happy about continued minke whaling in tropical breeding areas, it recognised that this will soon stop, although the proposed reduced catch permitted in Area II will have serious consequences for Brazil. There is evidence that some of the whales off Brazil, in fact, come from the western part of Area III, and although a recalculation could not be done at this time it was not unreasonable in these special circumstances to propose a catch limit for Area II somewhat higher than the figure from the Scientific Committee, of 600. This was seconded by Australia, Peru, Oman and St Lucia.

As the result of an arithmetic error discovered in the calculation of the stock size in Area V, the Scientific Committee reconsidered the basis for its estimate and reported to the Plenary that there were two equal views, for catch limits of 1,299 and 1,453. The Commission discussed how best to resolve this problem, and there was considerable support for the idea that a corrected figure should be taken into account. Japan suggested the figure of 1,453, but the UK proposed 1,376, the mean of the two, which was seconded by the Seychelles, St Lucia, Oman and Japan.

The Commission then adopted by consensus the amended figures as follows, including the 5% allowance between Areas:

Area I	624				Area IV	2,095
Area II	630				Area V	1,445
Area III	1,416				Area VI	778
Total catch not to exceed 6,655.

The Seychelles recorded its dissatisfaction with the method used to resolve the problem. Japan commented on the need for the Scientific Committee to check its calculations carefully, and expressed its view that a reduction in the permitted catch is not indicated by the evidence from the IDCR research cruises of the numbers and productivity of the stock.

13.3.2 North Pacific
The Scientific Committee continued with previous stock boundaries on the basis of the separation by electrophoretic techniques between the Sea of Japan - Yellow Sea - East China Sea stock and that in the Okhotsk Sea.

Sea of Japan - Yellow Sea - East China Sea
New Korean data requested had been analysed indicating a decline in stock size of 40-50% or more from the 1970 level. The majority of the Scientific Committee therefore recommended the stock be classified Protection Stock with zero catch limit, though reservations were noted.

In the Technical Committee the Republic of Korea indicated factors which may have affected the analyses performed, which themselves could bear a different interpretation since CPUE do not show a significant trend. It appealed for maintenance of the block quota established in 1979 because of the economic consequences. It should be taken into account that the Republic of Korea had not lodged an objection to the pause in commercial whaling. It therefore proposed to maintain the block quota and indicated that it would set national catch limits of 700 in 1983 and 306 in 1984. Japan seconded this proposal, expressing the view that caution is required for any drastic change.

The People's Republic of China indicated that its attitude to whaling since it stopped catching itself in the 1970s when the local stocks were depleted is that it favoured conservation of all aquatic resources including cetaceans but does not exclude responsible utilisation on stocks able to sustain this. It believes that this stock should have a zero catch limit to allow the most rapid recovery and proposed this amendment which was seconded by St Lucia.

After discussion. the amendment for classification as PS with zero catch limit was adopted by majority vote, but in plenary the Republic of Korea appealed for time to convert its industry to other uses and the USA proposed that there should be a gradual reduction rather than a precipitous end. It proposed an amendment in the form of a footnote to read:

'provided that the remainder from the previous block quota of 3,634 for the five years 1980 to 1984 inclusive may be taken in the years 1984 and 1985.'

Following clarification of the fact that 1,006 whales from the original block quota still remained available at the start of the 1983 season, the Commission discussed and agreed by consensus that the stock should be unclassified with the footnote as proposed.

The Commission also endorsed the Scientific Committee's recommendation through the Technical Committee that catch and effort data should continue to be collected and analysed.

Okhotsk Sea - West Pacific
This stock was not assessed this year and the Technical Committee and the Commission agreed to continue the block quota and classification as SMS.

Remainder
The Commission agreed that this stock should continue as IMS with zero catch limit, pending a satisfactory estimate of the stock size.

13.3.3 North Atlantic
Northeast Atlantic
Since last year there has been a careful in-depth examination of the available catch and effort data and of the theoretical relationship between observed CPUE and effort. As a result, the reliability of the information on changes in stock abundance has been increased. There is some evidence for a decreasing trend in the CPUE series but no estimate of the relative size of present stock is available. The Scientific Committee therefore recommended that the stock be unclassified pending the results of a Norwegian study. Estimates of the replacement yield led to a recommended catch limit of not more than 635. It was noted that the imbalance in the sex ratio had been reduced to some extent by Norwegian measures.

Norway spoke of the constructive cooperation between scientists in a wide ranging review of data and analyses. These led to a lower proposed catch limit which would have serious consequences for the coastal fishermen and local economy. It sought an orderly arrangement for the industry as indicated in the Convention and looked for a transition to the lower level proposed. For that purpose, Norway asked the Technical Committee to seek the advice of the Scientific Committee on the possible effect on the stock of such a transition.

After some discussion, Australia, seconded by St Lucia, proposed that the stock should be unclassified with a catch limit of 635 and the Technical Committee recommended this to Plenary.

In the Plenary, Norway emphasised its commitment to follow the Commission's management decisions, but appealed as an exceptional measure for a delay in adopting the Scientific Committee's recommendation to ease the transition. It therefore proposed. seconded by Iceland and Japan, a catch of 885 in 1984.

India, Oman and the Seychelles sympathised with the Norwegian request but indicated that they could not go beyond the Scientific Committee's recommendation, while the UK, Finland, Sweden, the Federal Republic of Germany, Spain and France expressed support for the Norwegian position, and Egypt voiced some reservations. Finally, on the call for a vote from Antigua and Barbuda, the Norwegian amendment received 15 votes in favour, 7 against, with 13 abstentions, which was not the three-quarters majority necessary to amend the Schedule.

The Technical Committee recommendation of 635 was then approved by consensus. Norway stating that this in no way affected its rights under the Convention.

Central
Revised CPUE data suggest that it is more probable than not that this stock is declining, though the magnitude of the decline is unlikely to be large. The Scientific Committee recommended this stock remain unclassified and catches should not exceed the 1976-82 average of 291.

Iceland stated that the catch by its eight vessels comes from only a small part of the stock area and considered this a sound recommendation which it therefore proposed in Technical Committee; Norway seconded, and it was agreed by the Technical Committee and adopted by the Commission.

Canadian East Coast
This stock was not analysed and it was agreed by the Technical Committee and the Commission that it should remain unclassified with a zero catch limit pending a satisfactory estimate of stock size.

13.4 Fin whales
13.4.1 North Atlantic
East Greenland - Iceland
New information was available to the Scientific Committee from an IDCR cruise and aerial survey, together with new mark-recapture estimates and a calculation of the replacement yield. As a result it recommended that the stocks should remain SMS with a catch limit of 151.

Iceland indicated its concern for proper management to avoid over-catching of the marine resources which are the basis of its society. It noted with concern that some parameters which the sub-committee on other baleen whales had agreed to were changed by the full Scientific Committee. It questioned the basis of the Scientific Committee's conclusion for a catch limit since a number of elements were derived from other species and areas.

Following clarification of the method of circulation, Seychelles, recognising that the present value has a scientific basis compared with the previous more arbitrary figure, proposed that the stock should be classified SMS with a catch limit of 151. This was seconded by St Lucia and adopted by the Technical Committee.

In the Plenary, Iceland spoke again of the scientific assessments and emphasised the conservatism of the recommendation. It proposed an amendment to 167 whales, the same as the present figure, and this was seconded by the Seychelles, the Netherlands, Egypt and the USA and approved by consensus.

Spain - Portugal - British Isles
The sighting and marking cruise in 1982 led to a population estimate of 1,601, considered to be an under-estimate of the total stock. The Scientific Committee recommended that the stock should be unclassified and had insufficient evidence to advise on catch limits but recommended caution because the stock may be at a relatively low level.

The Federal Republic of Germany commented that there was little new information this year on the status of the stock. France also expressed concern over the status of the stock and asked for clarification from Spain of the progressive reduction in catches it offered last year.

Spain was not able to provide firm figures and did not think that the present block quota should be revised. Following a procedural discussion on the question of whether block quotas need to be confirmed annually, it was agreed that, at least in this specific case, when an amendment to an existing block quota is defeated, the block quota provision remains without further decision.

The Federal Republic of Germany, seconded by France, proposed that this stock should be unclassified with a block quota of 150 for 1984 and 1985 and that the 1984 catch should not exceed 90.

Seychelles believed that the stock may be in a serious condition but saw little gain in this proposal while last year's block quota allows some flexibility. Mexico, Argentina and the Philippines expressed similar views in explaining their votes.

The proposal was then put to the vote and defeated in Technical Committee, and the Commission took no further action to change the existing block quota.

North Norway
Newfoundland - Labrador
These stocks were not assessed this year and the Technical Committee agreed and the Commission endorsed that they should remain unclassified with zero catch limits.

13.4.2 Southern Hemisphere and North Pacific
These stocks were not assessed this year and the Technical Committee agreed and the Commission endorsed continuation of classification as PS with zero catch limits.

13.5 Sei whales
The Scientific Committee did not assess any of these stocks this year. The Technical Committee therefore agreed that the Iceland-Denmark Strait stock should continue to be classified as SMS with a block quota of 504 in the six years 1980-85 inclusive with a maximum catch of 100. All other stocks should continue as PS with zero catch limits except the eastern stock of the North Atlantic which is unclassified with a zero catch limit. This was accepted by the Commission.

13.6 Bryde's whales
13.6.1 Peruvian stock
An IWC/IDCR research cruise led to a best estimate of 15,638 whales over 35 ft. There is uncertainty over the existing stock boundaries and new data requested had been analysed leading to two views in the Scientific Committee: that the stock should be classified as IMS with a catch limit of 313; or PS with a zero catch limit.

In the Technical Committee Peru noted that the catch limit set last year was a compromise. The latest cruise results had led to a doubling of previous stock estimates and it emphasised the economic consequences of closing the fishery.

Seychelles stated that it believes the stock is seriously depleted and commented on the latest analyses and the arbitrary stock boundary. Japan questioned the De Lury method of analysis which led to the zero quota recommendation, and there was further discussion on the technical details of the scientific analysis and the divergence of views in the Scientific Committee.

Finally, St Lucia, seconded by the Netherlands, proposed that the stock should be PS with a zero catch limit, and this was agreed by a majority vote.

In the Plenary session, Mexico noted that Peru intends to phase out its whaling industry and therefore proposed that the catch limit for this stock in the 1984 season should be 165 whales, with a footnote stating that the catch limit for the 1986 season will be lower than 165 and thereafter shall be zero until the Commission decides otherwise. This was seconded by Peru, which confirmed that its government is withdrawing its objection to Schedule paragraph 10(e), concerning the pause in commercial whaling.

The Seychelles expressed its appreciation of the consequences of Peru's action, especially in conjunction with the problems caused by the climatic changes it is experiencing. There was discussion and agreement that the 1984 season would start in November 1983, recorded in a footnote, and the Commission adopted by consensus the catch limit of 165 with the two accompanying footnotes.

13.6.2 East China Sea
There has been no catch since the single animal in 1980 and no new information is available. The Scientific Committee agreed that this stock should remain unclassified. Most members considered there was no scientific basis on which to recommend a catch limit, some believing there should be no recommendation and others a zero catch limit.

The Technical Committee agreed that the stock should be unclassified.

After the Republic of Korea, seconded by Japan, proposed a catch limit of 10, the People's Republic of China commented that this is a small stock from which any catch poses a threat in an area where some fish stocks are also seriously depleted. It wished to see it protected and therefore proposed a zero limit. This was seconded by the UK and adopted by a majority vote in Technical Committee.

In the Plenary, the Republic of Korea proposed an amendment for a catch limit of 10, which was seconded by Japan, but defeated with 3 votes in favour, 19 against and 13 abstentions.

The Commission agreed that the stock should be unclassified, and then by consensus that the catch limit should be zero. Japan, the Republic of Korea and the USSR recording their reservations.

13.6.3 All other Bryde's whale stocks
The Technical Committee agreed and the Commission approved that the existing classifications and catch limits should be continued.

The Philippines spoke of its position as a developing nation with strong maritime interests and a growing human population. It has joined the IWC as part of its policy of rational management of marine resources and last year voted for moderate catches and conservation measures based on scientific evidence. It intends to limit its catches to 200 Bryde's whales from the Western Pacific stock under national regulations in conformity with IWC provisions. It requested that the Scientific Committee make new assessments of this stock as soon as possible in accordance with data which the Philippines hope to provide for the upward revision of the catch limit of this stock. The Chairman of the Scientific Committee indicated that this will be a priority stock at the next meeting.

In response to a question from the Seychelles on whether Philippines whaling will stop in 1986, the Philippines stated that it will fully honour its commitments. Japan noted that this stock is already fully utilised but will consult with the Philippines on this subject, and emphasised that processing of this species at sea is prohibited by the IWC.

13.7 Bottlenose whales
The Atlantic bottlenose stock was not assessed this year and the Technical Committee agreed and the Commission accepted that it should continue to be provisionally listed as PS pending the accumulation of sufficient information for classification.

13.8 Protected species
The Technical Committee and the Commission endorsed four recommendations of the Scientific Committee from the Right Whale Workshop concerning their continued protection from killing; requesting information from Brazil; proposing environmental protection; and continuing research.

Argentina stated its reservation on the third recommendation in Technical Committee because of its large scope and with respect to areas of national jurisdiction. Brazil stated in the Plenary session that the catches mentioned were intermittent from 1953 to 1973, and reported to the Commission in 1977. It also recorded its reservation on the third recommendation because it falls within the boundaries of national jurisdiction, and similar reservations were stated by Peru and Costa Rica.

_