7. COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT OF WHALE STOCKS

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


The Chairman of the Scientific Committee introduced the Report of his Committee which noted that it was not in a position to define the term 'comprehensive assessment'. There has not been any progress in clarifying within the Commission what is meant by comprehensive assessment, nor has specific advice been provided to allow the Scientific Committee to structure consideration of this issue. The Scientific Committee recommended that it hold a special meeting to identify specific tasks, assign priorities and establish a timetable for undertaking a comprehensive assessment of whale stocks. More specific objectives will need to be developed, but would include:
-
establishment of priorities for providing advice to the Commission;
-
identification of specific reviews and other studies of existing information or assessment techniques required;
-
establishment of requirements for new information for assessment, and identification of surveys or other work to be undertaken to provide that information;
-
establishment of a timetable that will allow timely advice to the Commission;
-
examination of the likely costs of the proposed programme;
-
exploration of new management regimes (as suggested under Item 8).
The Scientific Committee had received a number of papers containing new information and analyses of the current management procedure, and believed that this represented a valuable approach. It recommended that a workshop be held, including invited experts, to explore these matters further within the context of the comprehensive assessment. This might lead to a new approach to management strategy.

Japan introduced a working paper to the Technical Committee designed to promote further discussion before the next Annual Meeting. It included consideration of a conceptual approach based on the levels of present stocks and minimum levels, the uncertainties involved in such analyses, and outlined a series of priority items to be considered before 1990. It reminded the Committee that it had lodged an objection to Schedule paragraph 10(e) as it believed that the decision should be based on scientific findings and take into consideration the interest of consumers of whale products and the whaling industry (Convention Article V).

Iceland stated that one of the basic reasons why it had not lodged an objection was because of the clause in Schedule paragraph 10(e) referring to the comprehensive assessment. It appreciated the Japanese initiative and had itself developed a four-year programme of research as part of its contribution to comprehensive assessment.

The Technical Committee recognised the financial implications of the timing of any meetings, but agreed in principle to recommend that there should be a scientific meeting held about March 1986 followed by a Joint Working Group of the Scientific and Technical Committees immediately before the 38th Annual Meeting. The Finance and Administration Committee recommended an allocation of ,000 for the Scientific Meeting, which would cost less if held in Cambridge. The cost of the joint Working Group would be subsumed in those of the 38th Annual Meeting. The Commission then adopted the recommendations for these meetings.

St Lucia emphasised its understanding that the comprehensive assessment is of the effects on the whale stocks of the pause of commercial whaling and thought that there would not be sufficient time before 1990 if whaling continues until 1988, as suggested by Japan. It raised the question of data availability, to which Japan responded that IDCR sightings data are open to all members but its national policy gave first use of nationally collected data to its own scientists before they become generally available. Because of the differing nature of the samples and data, it is not possible to give a definite single time for wider availability.

_