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

Natural mortality rates
The Chairman of the Scientific Committee reported on discussions to determine the inter-specific relationship between the maximum size of whales and their natural mortality rates. There was no consensus on the existence of the practical application of the inter-specific relationship.

The St. Lucia question
St. Lucia, in response to a statement in 1982 by FAO which suggested that present commercial catches were within the productive capacity of exploited stocks, asked '... is there satisfactory scientific evidence to establish that catches of whales are within the productive capacity of the stock and are indefinitely sustainable?'

The Scientific Committee interpreted the word 'indefinite' to mean a long but finite period. There were different interpretations within the Committee as to whether in the question catches are to be kept constant or are assumed to be changed in response to new information.

Following the first interpretation, some members believed that there is little or no satisfactory evidence that most populations could indefinitely sustain levels of catch, as in the recent past, and remain within the productive capacity of the stock. They reached this conclusion because, for most stocks, there is little agreement on initial and current population sizes or estimates of recruitment rates or natural mortality rates. Nor is there unambiguous evidence that populations have varied their recruitment rates in response to exploitation. Accepting the second interpretation of the question, many members believed that catch levels (not necessarily at a constant rate) could be kept within the productive limits of a species, given an understanding of population trends and if proper procedures were in place for changing the catch levels as needed.

The Scientific Committee had general agreement that only for the eastern North Pacific stock of gray whales was there satisfactory scientific evidence that a substantial catch over a relatively long period was within its productive capacity.

After reviewing the comments of the Scientific Committee, St. Lucia concluded in the Technical Committee that there is no satisfactory evidence available, except for the eastern North Pacific stock of gray whales. It also concluded that on the basis of such review the 1982 FAO statement, which had been referred to by three governments in lodging objections to the cessation of commercial whaling, should be considered scientifically groundless. St. Lucia pointed out that the USSR was not one of those objecting governments.

Seychelles supported St. Lucia's conclusions.

Japan states it regards the question as almost meaningless scientifically but referred to the view of many scientists in the report of the Scientific Committee that catch levels (not necessarily at a constant rate) could be kept within the productive limits of species if a proper management strategy was implemented. It noted that this view was not contested in the debate on this question in the Scientific Committee.

In the plenary session St. Lucia expressed its desire to include, for the record, that the 1984 opening statement of the delegation of Japan again referred to the FAO statement as scientifically and unequivocally justified. Furthermore, the Japanese statement deplored that there had been no scientific justification for the moratorium as indicated by the FAO statement mentioned above.

Japan recorded that it is convinced that the FAO statement is scientifically valid, and hence the reason for the Government of Japan lodging an objection is also scientifically just and valid.

Norway observed that the number of governments making any reference to the FAO statement is only two, a position shared by Peru, and the debate was concluded.

Unassessed stocks
The Scientific Committee had not assessed all stocks and it provided a summary of recent advice and assessments (if any) it had made in the past.

The Technical Committee agreed that all these stocks should remain classified and with the catch limits as previously determined, and this was endorsed by the Commission.

12.3 Action arising
12.3.1. Sperm whales - Western North Pacific Stock
The Scientific Committee examined the progress on the work considered essential for providing interim advice on catch limits.

Although data coding had been completed, validation of the two length-specific estimation techniques had not been completed. This was the result of cuts in the computing budget imposed by the Commission last year.

The Scientific Committee expressed its deep disappointment that the budget cuts had prevented its work from being fully implemented. Various attempts were made to overcome the resulting problems, but it was agreed eventually that neither assessment technique could be used at the meeting.

The material and methods available, used in the past, were reviewed and there was considerable discussion concerning estimates of initial and current stock abundance, including recent whale sighting data.

However, it was agreed that these estimates are the subject of substantial uncertainty and consequently it was agreed that there was no information on which to base recommendations on classification or catch limits for this stock.

Responding to the request of the Japanese Commissioner made last year, the Scientific Committee agreed that, if continued for a short period (possibly up to five years), catches in line with the current catch limit of 400 would have only a small effect on the stock in the short term. The Committee was unable to agree on what the long term effect on the stock of such catches might be. There was also no agreement on the effect of current catches continuing for a longer period.

Japan regretted that the Scientific Committee could not carry out proper assessments because validation of two models were not implemented for various reasons. It noted, however, that in response to its query, the Scientific Committee gave the unanimous advice that continuation of the present catch of 400 whales would have only a small effect in the short term and, on the basis of this unanimous advice, it proposed a catch limit for the 1984 and 1985 seasons of 400 whales each year with the usual by-catch provisions.

This was seconded by the USSR, Peru and Chile.

Seychelles commented on the Scientific Committee's discussions and the uncertainty in stock estimates and Antigua and Barbuda commented on the unknown effects of taking a catch of male sperm whales.

Before turning to a vote it was clarified that Japan's proposal was an amendment to footnote 2 of Table 3 in the Schedule.

St. Lucia and the Seychelles explained their votes on the basis that they believed that catches permitted during 1982 and 1983 were part of a phasing out of this fishery.

Japan challenged these statements since it was not understood that this fishery should be phased out from 1981. Following an adjournment, during which the voting position of Peru was established, the vote on this proposal was completed and received 7 in favour, 23 against with 5 abstentions.

The Technical Committee, therefore, made no recommendations but noted the research recommendations of the Scientific Committee, and the Commission took no further action.

12.3.2 Minke whales
1. Southern Hemisphere Stocks
The Chairman of the Scientific Committee reported that a diminutive form of the minke whale was now being recognized, and more data are needed on this animal.

The Scientific Committee discussed trends in age at maturity, but there is no agreement on the interpretation of data. There is uncertainty over the mortality rate and rate of net recruitment. Mark-recapture estimates of stock size were reviewed and following the IDCR survey of Area VI, sighting estimates were obtained for the whole Antarctic using revised parameter values.

CPUE data from the Antarctic gave very variable results, while Brazilian coastal data led to three different interpretations. These data need to be revised further.

It was concluded that sightings estimates provide a basis for advice, although no account has been taken of whales inside the pack ice, or north of the surveyed area, or the avoidance behaviour of minke whales, which would all tend to give higher stock sizes.

Taking into account the unbalanced catches by sex, the Scientific Committee recommended catch limits in two proposals, based on a net recruitment rate of 2% with a 10% safety reduction for Area II, and a net recruitment rate of 3.5%. These proportions gave suggested catch limits of 3,887 and 7,394 respectively. There was insufficient information to recommend classification of stocks.

In the Technical Committee, Japan regretted that the Scientific Committee had failed to produce a unified recommendation for the catch limits. However, it was encouraging to note an element of agreement among the scientists in that even those who proposed the lowest figure recognized as the consequence of their computations that the current stock sizes are very close to the initial population levels. This fact alone was sufficient for it to conclude that there is no real need to reduce the catch limits from their historic levels or from those for the last season. Japan therefore proposed catch limits totalling 7,394 divided between the Areas as indicated in one of the Scientific Committee proposals. This was seconded by USSR, which spoke in support of maintaining catches around current levels.

France, in continuing its concern over the status of these stocks, supported the most cautious advice from the Scientific Committee and proposed catch limits of 3,887 divided by Areas as recommended in the other Scientific Committee proposal.

This was seconded by Australia, Antigua and Barbuda, the Netherlands, New Zealand, St. Lucia, Seychelles and Sweden.

Seychelles emphasized the consensus on the sightings estimates given this year and believed that a similar proportion of the estimated stock size should be used to set the catch limit. It believed that the stocks surveyed in early years have all declined, and Area II may be below the MSY level.

Australia, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Sweden and St. Lucia all expressed similar views, while Norway, in explaining its vote, emphasized its concern to take decisions which will be carried through.

The amendment for a total catch of 3,887 divided into the six Areas was then adopted by a majority vote of the Technical Committee which also noted the research recommendations of the Scientific Committee.

In the plenary, Seychelles proposed an amendment in which the 10% safety factor for Area II was removed (on the basis that it is not reasonable to apply this factor in one Area and not in the others when it considers that all are substantially depleted), and to increase the allowance between Areas from the present value of 5% to 10% (to facilitate operational adjustment). This gave a total catch limit of 3,940 divided between the six Areas with the 10% allowance, and was seconded by St. Lucia.

Japan spoke strongly against the language used by Seychelles in justifying this amendment, which it found totally unacceptable. It also indicated that the allowance benefits the operations of the pelagic fleets, which do not normally visit Area II, and requested a vote on the amendment.

Finland, in explaining its vote, stated that it was instructed to follow the Scientific Committee advice, and in this situation was looking for a compromise between the two proposals. Brazil indicated that the catch available to it under this amendment was not sufficient, the UK was looking for a proposal which might gain wider support, and France saw scientific justification for the amendment. Sweden believed that this stock is severely threatened and wished to keep the catch at the lowest possible level, while the Philippines preferred a higher alternative figure.

The Seychelles amendment totalling 3,940 was then put to the vote and received 20 in favour, 9 against with 7 abstentions. This was not the three-quarters majority necessary to amend the Schedule.

The original recommendation from the Technical Committee totalling 3,887 was then voted on and also failed to achieve a three-quarters majority, receiving 20 votes in favour, with 9 against and 7 abstentions.

The Seychelles then put forward a new proposal, because of the importance of reaching agreement on the matter. This was calculated on the basis of taking 2% of the agreed stock estimates, and gave a total catch limit of 4,224. It would include a 10% allowance for each Area to be added to the following figures:

Area I	512				IV	885
II	342				V	921
III	767				VI	797

Japan sought further consultation before a vote, but the Seychelles called for the vote to proceed and the proposal was adopted as an amendment to the Schedule with 22 in favour, 7 against and 7 abstentions.

The USSR, Japan and Brazil all recorded their reservations to the decision.

2. North Atlantic Stocks
Northeastern Stock
The Scientific Committee corrected an error in calculations made last year, and two series of CPUE data were used to assess Replacement Yields. Mark-recapture data allowing for shedding gave a total stock estimate of 44,000 to 60,000, which probably spans the likely range.

There is insufficient information to recommend classification of the stock, but the catch limit would be the replacement yield in the range 300 - 747.

In the Technical Committee, Norway recognized the improved assessment now available and proposed that the catch limit should be 708, with a 10% safety factor, giving 637. This was seconded by Japan.

Australia commented on the uncertainty in the estimates and wished to take a cautious but reasonable approach by proposing a figure of 300, at the lower end of the range.

New Zealand and Sweden seconded this view, the former speaking in support of the more cautious Scientific Committee recommendation, and the Seychelles indicated that it does not think a safety factor needs to be applied at this lower end of the range.

The amendment of 300 was put to the vote and adopted by a majority as the recommendation to the Commission.

In the plenary, the Federal Republic of Germany proposed an amendment of 525, which was seconded by the USA.

Norway reiterated its view that the calculation with the best scientific basis and data leads to a figure at the higher end of the range. The present proposal was not acceptable, and it emphasised the need to establish realistic and effective quotas which will be implemented.

Sweden stated its belief that this stock is severely threatened, and preferred the lower figure suggested by the Technical Committee.

The amendment for 525 was then put to the vote, and received 11 in favour, 7 against with 17 abstentions, and so failed to receive the three-quarters majority necessary to amend the Schedule.

The Technical Committee recommendation for 300 was then voted on, and also failed to achieve a three-quarters majority, with 15 in favour, 7 against and 14 abstentions.

In the discussion following these votes, Norway suggested that the present catch limit of 635 should be retained because in its view it is not in the Commission's best interest to have no quota set and to rely on national management of the stock. It suggested that the figure currently in the Schedule should remain unchanged as long as there is no proposal to the contrary. This was seconded by the USSR and accepted by consensus, Sweden recording its reservation because it believes the stock cannot take a higher catch than 300.

Central Stock
The Scientific Committee reported that updated CPUE data were available, and the longest time series from East Greenland waters implied that the stock is near the MSY level, with an average annual catch of 344. Similar but not significant trends are shown by other series.

The Scientific Committee was unable to recommend a classification, but recommended, in order to arrest the decline, a catch limit considerably below the ten year average (of 302 whales) of 151, that is one half of the average.

Iceland stated its belief in the Technical Committee, that the stock is relatively little affected by catching from Iceland. Last year the Commission made a cautious reduction and the present reduction is arbitrary and unacceptable. It proposed the ten year average but with a 10% safety factor, that is, 272, with the stock unclassified. This was seconded by Japan.

Antigua and Barbuda wished to support the Scientific Committee's recommendation and proposed an amendment for 151, which was seconded by Oman and St. Lucia.

Norway recalled its support for decisions based on Scientific Committee advice when it was clear and unambiguous, but believed a 50% safety factor was not based on any agreed management guideline.

The amendment of 151 (Unclassified) was then adopted as a recommendation to the Commission by a majority vote.

In the plenary session, Iceland proposed an amendment based on the ten year average catch with a 20% reduction, of 242. This was seconded by Norway, Peru and the Seychelles and adopted by consensus. Sweden stated that it believes this increases the threat to the species and recorded its reservation, together with Switzerland.

3. North Pacific
Okhotsk Sea - West Pacific Stock
Research vessel sightings gave an estimate of 13,520 for the area surveyed. Two CPUE estimates indicate an average downward trend of 3.6% per year, although this is not significant.

Most members of the Scientific Committee believed there was insufficient information to classify the stock, although a minority view was expressed.

The Scientific Committee recommended a catch limit not more than 332, the average catch for 1974 - 1983, although some believed there should be a 10% safety factor, i.e. 299.

In the Technical Committee, Japan proposed that the stock should be provisionally classified SMS, with a catch limit of 332. This was seconded by USSR and Iceland.

Seychelles noted that the catch limit should not be more than 332 and proposed that a normal safety factor should be applied. It proposed an amendment for the stock to be unclassified with a catch limit of 299.

This was seconded by Antigua and Barbuda and adopted as a recommendation by a majority vote.

In the plenary, Japan proposed an amendment, that the stock be unclassified with a catch limit of 320. This was seconded by Iceland, the Seychelles and the USA, and adopted by consensus.

Sea of Japan - Yellow Sea - East China Sea Stock
Last year the majority of the Scientific Committee recommended classification as a Protection Stock with a zero catch limit, but the Commission left the stock unclassified and the remainder of the block quota to be taken in 1984 - 1985.

St. Lucia's proposal in the Technical Committee to follow the Scientific Committee's advice was seconded by Antigua and Barbuda.

The Republic of Korea spoke on last year's decision. It had no objection to the ban on whaling from 1986 and was attempting to redeploy its whale fishermen. It proposed that the present Schedule provisions should be maintained.

Seychelles noted some evidence that the stock was in a worse state than thought last year.

The People's Republic of China emphasized its strong support for conservation measures. It noted that this stock was seriously depleted and that it would seek protection at the earliest date possible. Only 510 whales remain from the block quota, which is less than the average annual catch, so these should be taken in 1984 and a zero catch limit set for 1985.

Norway recalled that it had voted against a two year extension last year but it believes that the management scheme once adopted, even if against scientific advice last year, should be maintained since there is no new information to modify the situation. Japan and Iceland supported this position.

A revised proposal by St. Lucia, seconded by Antigua and Barbuda, that the stock should be PS with a zero catch limit with the deletion of the words 'and 1985' in footnote 2 of Schedule Table 1, was then adopted by a majority vote as the recommendation to the plenary session.

In the Commission, the Netherlands proposed that the present Schedule provision should remain unchanged. This was seconded by St. Lucia, Seychelles, Oman, Antigua and Barbuda, and the USA, and agreed by consensus.

12.3.3 Fin Whales, North Atlantic
Spain - Portugal - British Isles Stock
A sighting cruise had been carried out by Spain in 1983 giving estimates of an exploitable population in the range 1,197 - 1,238 in the area covered. These are considered under-estimates because of whales missed and because only part of the stock area was covered. A short CPUE series revealed no trend. The Scientific Committee had recommended that the stock remain Unclassified and there was insufficient information to provide advice on a specific value for a catch limit. There was uncertainty over the effect of completing the present block quota.

The Technical Committee agreed to make no recommendation, and the Commission took no action.

East Greenland - Iceland Stock
The Scientific Committee reported that mark-recapture studies demonstrate some mixing across the area and electrophoretic studies show significant differences from samples off Spain. These studies should be extended. Mark-recapture estimates range between 3,120 - 3,636 and a refined CPUE series showed a non-significant decline. There was considerable discussion on the extent of the decline since 1962 and the Scientific Committee had no clear evidence to judge whether the stock is SMS or PS. The Scientific Committee recommended that the range of Replacement Yield, 143 - 180, be considered as a basis for setting catch limits and some members thought a 10% safety factor should be applied.

Iceland recalled that this is a restricted fishery from a single land station with stable catches over the past ten years. It believed that the approach of the Scientific Committee was extremely cautious and proposed classification as SMS with a catch limit of 175. This was seconded by Japan.

Monaco noted that there is no clear evidence and proposed an amendment, seconded by France and the UK, that the stock should be Unclassified with a catch limit of 143, and the Seychelles explained its support for this position.

Norway emphasized the difficulties when the Scientific Committee's advice is inconclusive and believes that management aspects should also be considered. It proposed as a further amendment that the present classification as SMS and catch limit of 167 should be retained. This was seconded by the USSR, and Iceland agreed with the Norwegian position.

This second amendment was then put to the vote and received 6 in favour, 17 against with 8 abstentions. The original amendment that the stock be Unclassified with a catch limit of 143 was then adopted as a recommendation to the Commission by a majority vote.

In the plenary, Iceland proposed an amendment that the stock should be classified SMS with a catch limit of 161. This was seconded by Australia and the USA, and adopted by consensus, Sweden recording its reservation.

12.3.4 Sei whales, North Atlantic
In response to a request for information from the Infractions sub-committee last year the Scientific Committee concluded that the sei whale is an irregular straggler in West Greenland waters.

Iceland - Denmark Strait Stock
The Scientific Committee believes that there is little chance of obtaining a reliable estimate of abundance of this stock given the incidental nature of the operation which is near the northern limits of the stock distribution. It agreed that there was no scientific basis to offer advice on classification or a catch limit for this stock.

Seychelles recalled that the present long block quota was not based on scientific evidence and it noted that the Scientific Committee has often found significant declines in these situations after some time. Seychelles believed that a zero catch limit should be established in this case. It therefore proposed, seconded by France, St. Lucia and Australia, that the stock should be Unclassified with a zero catch limit.

Iceland appreciated the concern expressed but would prefer to maintain the block quota for 1985, On being put to the vote the proposal was adopted by a majority as the recommendation to the Commission.

In the plenary, Iceland proposed an amendment that the existing block quota should be maintained, and this was seconded by the USA and Australia.

Seychelles asked if the stock could be classified PS after the expiry of the quota, but Iceland preferred the stock to be unclassified, and the amendment was approved by consensus.

12.3.5 Bryde's whales
North Pacific, Western Stock
The Scientific Committee noted that the catch limit had been exceeded. A research vessel sighting survey in 1983 gave an estimate of exploitable stock of 16,665. Mark-recapture estimates were also available of 39,855 in 1979 and a CPUE analysis gave an estimate of the 1975 stock of 14,631. An agreed projection procedure resulted in the recommendation that this stock should be classified IMS with a catch limit of 357. This was agreed by the Technical Committee and endorsed by the Commission by consensus.

The Philippines explained its policy on whaling, including the potential of the whales as a source of protein for its growing population. Revenue from whaling will be used to fund research and meet the financial obligations to the Commission. The Philippines emphasised the need for sharing arrangements to recognise the principle of equality between nations, and for developed nations to accord special and preferential treatment to developing countries.

South African Inshore Stock
The Technical Committee endorsed and the Commission adopted an amendment to the Schedule on the recommendation of the Scientific Committee that the boundaries of this stock should be changed to:

'South African Coast west of 27°E and out to the 200 metre isobath.'

Peruvian Stock
Peru spoke of its concern for the rational use of natural resources, and its sovereignty and the legal position within its area of jurisdiction. Continuing research on this stock leads it to believe it is in a robust condition and has a capacity to sustain a stringently regulated catch.

It therefore proposed that the stock should be classified IMS, with a catch limit of 280 for 1985, and that footnote 3 in Schedule Table 2 should be deleted.

Further, that footnote 2 should be amended to read '...starting in October or November 1984'. This was seconded by Japan.

There was discussion on the precise implication of footnote 2.

Australia recalled that this stock had been discussed at length last year. There is scientific uncertainty if the stock can sustain a harvest, but there was special consideration last year, as part of a phasing-out process, that instead of being a Protection Stock the existing catch limit should be established, and this was accepted by Peru. It noted that Peru has withdrawn its objections to the pause in commercial whaling starting in 1986.

Australia was now looking for an intermediate catch limit and proposed an amendment that the stock should be unclassified, with a catch limit of 82; and that footnote 3 should be worded '...after 1985 shall be zero'.

This amendment was seconded by the USA and the Technical Committee agreed to discuss the second foot-note later. The amendment was put to the vote and adopted as its recommendation by a majority.

Subsequently, the Technical Committee agreed to recommend footnote 2 as proposed by Peru, which was also approved by the Commission.

In the plenary, Peru indicated that a catch limit of 82 is not sufficient nor in accordance with the scientific findings. It mentioned the critical economic situation in its country, and proposed an amendment for 220 with the deletion of footnote 3. This was seconded by Japan and Brazil.

On being put to the vote, the amendment was defeated, with 4 in favour, 21 against and 10 abstentions.

Before the next vote, St. Lucia reviewed the phasing-out procedure adopted by the Commission for this stock last year, and which it wished to see retained. Sweden stated its position of voting against any increase in catch and for the lowest quotas, and so also wanted to retain the current provisions.

The Technical Committee recommendation was then put to the vote; there were none in favour, 10 against and 24 abstentions. The Commission therefore left the Schedule provision unchanged.

Peru registered its reservation on this result.

12.3.6 Bottlenose whales
Baird's beaked whale
The Technical Committee and the Commission noted that catch and effort data from Japan were recalculated, but the Scientific Committee believes they are too coarse to determine whether or not the series masks a trend. These data should continue to be collected.

Data from sightings cruises in 1983 - 1984 will be analysed next year.

12.3.7 Protected Species
West Norway - Faroe Islands fin whales
The Technical Committee and the Commission noted that information had been received on fin whales taken under special permits issued by the Faroe Islands Government.

Antarctic Blue Whales
An estimate of blue whales in the Antarctic south of 60°S from IDCR minke whale cruises was 1,011. After discussion of the estimate the Scientific Committee recommended that Japan's sightings data should be re-analysed and earlier information examined.

This was noted by the Technical Committee and the Commission.

_