(from "Chairman's Report of the Fortieth Annual Meeting")

8.1 Report of the Scientific Committee
The Commission noted that the Scientific Committee had considered a paper suggesting a mechanism to resolve the overlap between the Commission's Resolutions and the Committee's guidelines for reviewing scientific permits. The 18 guidelines were grouped under 5 general headings: the proposal; objectives; methodology; effect of catches; and participation in research by other nations. Although the Committee had believed it inappropriate to alter the wording of the Commission's guidelines at the present meeting, it had noted that separate treatment of each of the 18 guidelines had proved an extremely cumbersome and time-consuming procedure at both the Special and the present meetings. It will attempt to revise the current guidelines at its next meeting in order to simplify its work and more effectively provide advice to the Commission.

A. Existing scientific permits
(i) Japan
The Scientific Committee noted that Japan had taken 273 animals out of a proposed catch of 300 minke whales over a wide latitudinal range from 55°S to the ice edge, including one animal of the diminutive form at 58°S, the most southerly record of this form. The proposed random sampling scheme had proved relatively easy to implement, and several members commented on the useful biological information presented. However, some members pointed out that the preliminary results indicated that one of the primary aims, to test the procedure for collecting a representative sample of the population, had not been entirely successful. The Japanese scientists appreciated these comments, and were taking action to overcome the problems.

Reference was made to difficulties in analysing data with the level of variability revealed, and to the previously discussed underlying methodological problems of determining age-specific natural mortality. It was noted that the results presented were preliminary, and some members thought it premature to draw final conclusions.

In the Commission, Japan emphasised its view that the natural mortality coefficient can be estimated using an appropriate cohort model, and stated that results of further simulations will be presented next year. It defended its feasibility study as a contribution to the Comprehensive Assessment programme, since it provides data on many parameters required by the Scientific Committee. It will continue with the programme and analyses because it considers them indispensable for progress in stock assessment, and regretted the criticisms levelled by certain scientists.

The Netherlands voiced its disappointment that the feasibility study was carried out in spite of concerns expressed in the Special Meeting of the Scientific Committee and a Commission Resolution adopted by postal vote.

The UK reiterated its concerns over the random sampling and methodology of determining age specific mortality, but was pleased to learn that more simulations will be done. Sweden concurred with this statement, while Iceland recognised the preliminary status of the study, and commended the research activity.

Japan pointed out the conflict it sees between the intersessional Resolution adopted and its rights under Article VIII of the Convention to conduct scientific research under special permit, and considered that the Resolution had not taken full account of the scientific examination at the Special Meeting of the Scientific Committee.

Brazil recorded its view that, while recognising Japan's rights under the Convention to carry out scientific programmes, it regretted that this programme was carried out in spite of contrary opinions of the Scientific Committee and even before the Commission had time to have an opinion. Argentina associated itself with this position.

Australia also associated itself with the comments by Brazil, and added that Article VI provides the basis by which 'the Commission may from time to time make recommendations to any or all Contracting Governments on any matters which relate to whales or whaling and to the objectives and purposes of the Convention'.

New Zealand shared the concerns expressed by the Netherlands, and took the view that the procedure by which the postal vote was recorded was valid and legitimate. It considered that the rights under Article VIII are not unfettered and must be exercised in good faith and in light of other provisions of the Schedule. Antigua & Barbuda associated themselves with this view and the statement of Brazil.

The Commission noted these comments and the Scientific Committee's report.

(ii) Iceland
In 1987 Iceland took 80 fin whales and 20 sei whales under its four-year programme. Progress on biochemical and other more general studies was noted by the Scientific Committee, but some members commented on the difficulties of evaluating the results of permit catches because the reports presented combined these with data from previous commercial catches. Icelandic scientists pointed out that the results were for two years of a four-year programme designed to continue to monitor the stocks and should not be seen in isolation. Other members stated their belief that the programme is wide-ranging and that the results were improving knowledge of the stocks.

In the Commission, Iceland pointed out that the objectives of the programme launched in 1986 are to improve the assessment and monitor the status of the whales. This includes studies on age, reproduction, CPUE, and body condition with special reference to environmental conditions, energetic status and reproductive success. Results and the status of over 30 separate research projects had been reported to the Scientific Committee. These and experiments to improve interpretation of sightings surveys will lead to better knowledge of the status of the stocks in question and have general applicability within the scope of the Comprehensive Assessment. Particular stress was placed on monitoring dynamic features of the stocks, such as pregnancy rates and age at sexual maturity, as well as techniques bearing on stock identity.

Japan commented favourably on the Icelandic research, and the Commission took note of the Scientific Committee's report.

B. New and continuing scientific permit proposals
The Scientific Committee was informed that Japan will decide what research programme it will implement once the analysis of data collected in 1988/89 had been completed. The Committee had agreed that it was therefore not possible to discuss the matter further at its meeting. Should a proposal arise during the coming year, the Committee drew the Commission's attention to its view that intersessional reviews of scientific permits can best be achieved by special meetings.

Japan was confident that its research programme made a significant contribution to the advancement of whale science, while India expressed its view that whales should only be killed if it is essential for their long-term survival and management, or for human survival.

(i) Norway
A Norwegian programme to study and monitor Northeast Atlantic minke whales in 1988-1992 called for the capture of 35 whales for four studies on the feasibility of radio tagging, food selection and intake, food digestion and body composition. The Scientific Committee had agreed that the question of whether or not a special permit was required to live capture whales for anaesthetisation and the attachment of radio tags was beyond its competence and referred this to the Commission.

The Scientific Committee reviewed the proposal for the take of whales in terms of the various guidelines and agreed that adequately specified both the general and specific objectives of the research. The main part of the programme involves ecological studies designed to provide information for future multi-species management of the Barents Sea. Some members thought these would address questions of interest to the Commission's Comprehensive Assessment, in the long term, while others thought there was too little information to make an evaluation. Concerning methodology, some members questioned the small sample sizes proposed, which were decided to test both the methodologies proposed and the operational capabilities of two vessels working for three weeks. A number of members foresaw severe methodological problems in the ecological studies, and were concerned that the planning of these was not fully described. Considerable concern was expressed over the plan to anaesthetise and live capture five animals, which it was believed was unlikely to be successful due to the voluntary respiratory system of whales. While some of the projects as specified in the proposal could not be addressed by non-lethal research techniques, some members believed that their value was difficult to assess without further details, and thus whether non-lethal programmes could be designed to achieve the same results. There were comments both commending the ambitious research intentions and the competence of the research workers, and others noting deficiencies of detail in the proposal. It was agreed that the effect of a take of 30-35 animals would be negligible on the stock, as a small take in a single year will always be.

In the Commission, Norway spoke of its programme to repair deficiencies in knowledge of the stock as a basis for management policies. It had taken account of comments from the Scientific Committee in the preparation of the programme, but had some concern whether such a varied group could reach consensus on value judgements. It regarded the ecological studies as being critically important to its own management responsibilities. The question of finding the wintering grounds of the whales was also an important matter, to be addressed by radio tagging. Norway was unsure if this segment which, while not intended to be lethal carried some risk of deaths occurring, required the issue of a special permit. The first year programme will develop the methodology, and any future modifications will take note of comments by the Scientific Committee. Norway pointed out that the only agreed substantive conclusion of the Scientific Committee on this programme is that the effect of the take will be negligible.

Iceland and Japan voiced support for the Norwegian research activity, while the UK emphasised the various concerns expressed by the Scientific Committee. The People's Republic of China accepted that small catches for research which do not endanger the stocks can be taken, but is opposed to commercial whaling. The Netherlands recognised the merits of the Norwegian proposal but believed it did not meet all the criteria established by the Commission.

(ii) Iceland
The Scientific Committee has examined the ongoing Icelandic proposal at three previous meetings. This year it considered it only against the latest set of guidelines established by the Commission last year.

Differing views were expressed by members of the Committee on whether the programme addresses questions related to the Comprehensive Assessment or other critically important research needs, the effect on the stocks, whether existing data or non-lethal techniques could be used instead, and the value of the results obtained.

In the Commission, Iceland emphasised its view that none of the main objectives of the research can be met with non-lethal techniques, especially changes in pregnancy and growth rates and their relation to environmental factors, within a reasonable time-frame and economic framework.

Norway and Japan spoke in appreciation and support of the Icelandic research programme.

8.2 Action arising
(i) Norway
Australia introduced a Resolution jointly sponsored with Finland, the Federal Republic of Germany, India, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Oman, Sweden, Switzerland and the UK. They believed that the scientific justification for and relevance of the results from special permit proposals should be fully presented. While mindful of the wide range of projects in the Norwegian programme which do not involve the killing of whales, but taking account of the comments by the Scientific Committee, they believed there is a need for a revision and re-thinking of the proposal before embarking on a feasibility study which would be the basis for a longer term research programme.

The USA associated itself with these comments, Mexico asked for clarification of the text concerning the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, and Norway indicated that it could not accept either the legality or practicality of the procedure being followed and also disagreed with the judgements contained in the Resolution.

On being put to the vote, the Resolution was adopted, receiving 14 votes in favour, 4 against, with 10 abstentions. The text adopted is shown in Appendix 1.

Brazil explained its vote in favour as support for a serious attempt to reach consensus. Switzerland explained its view that killing animals for scientific research can only be permitted under the strictest conditions. It noted the concerns in the Scientific Committee about some aspects of the research proposed, and saw no legal impediment to the action taken by the Commission.

(ii) Iceland
A Resolution sponsored by Australia, the Federal Republic of Germany, India, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Oman, Seychelles, Sweden, Switzerland and the UK was proposed by the latter. The value of the sightings surveys and other work carried out by the Icelandic scientists was recognised, but the concerns expressed within the Scientific Committee particularly over the objectives of the programme and the difficulty of separating out the results from the research catches led to the view that the programme does not satisfy each of the Commission's criteria for special permit catches.

The USA seconded and spoke in support of the Resolution, as did Finland, while Japan was critical of the Resolution because of the difficulty of obtaining a consensus view on all the criteria applied.

Iceland suggested the addition of a clause inviting it to report in writing for consideration at the next Annual Meeting. This was seconded by Switzerland, and with this amendment the Resolution (shown in Appendix 2) was adopted without vote. Iceland maintained its reservation on the legal question involved.

(iii) Other business
Sweden spoke of its concern over scientific whaling as a potential way to circumvent the moratorium on commercial whaling.

The UK proposed a Resolution on the issuance of special permits for scientific research designed to remove a gap in the existing procedures. This provides for a 60 day period between the circulation of a report from an intersessional meeting of the Scientific Committee and the issue of a permit, and was seconded by Switzerland.

Brazil suggested an amendment to stress the exceptional character of intersessional meetings of the Scientific Committee, and another to reflect the recommendatory powers of the Commission and the sovereign rights of members. These were seconded by Argentina.

Norway and Iceland expressed support for the amended Resolution, but Japan thought it beyond the mandate of the Commission and the USSR was also opposed because of its view of Article VIII of the Convention. After several suggestions for re-wording the second amendment were discussed, Japan indicated it was not ready to go to a vote on the matter, and Mexico suggested the proposal should be considered by the Working Group looking into questions related to the operation of the Convention.

Before the Resolution was put to the vote, Norway explained that in the light of the exchanges on the subject, it must abstain, a position shared by St Lucia, Mexico and St Vincent & the Grenadines. Japan stated that it would abstain because it thought that the proposal was not understandable. Argentina could not accept to vote on the particular matter of Article VIII.

When the Resolution was adopted by 13 votes in favour to 1 against, with 13 abstentions, Japan recorded its reservation. The amended text is given in Appendix 3.

_