(from "Chairman's Report of the Forty-First Annual Meeting")

Additional papers reported on the upward trend in age at sexual maturity in fin whales in the last 20 years, the reverse trend to what had been observed in preceding decades; annual variations in fecundity; body condition of fin and sei whales; the reliability of age readings; increasing trends in abundance of blue and humpback whales; mark recoveries, including the first found in Iceland from a fin whale marked off Newfoundland in 1979; the ecological role of whales in Icelandic waters; and biochemical studies, including studies of genetic variation at 40 enzyme loci which show high heterozygosity in fin whales but little annual variation in sei whales, and DNA fingerprinting techniques.

Much of the discussion in the Scientific Committee concerned differing views on the value of biological information in relation to management and the Comprehensive Assessment. The need for tissue samples obtained by lethal as opposed to non-lethal means was also considered.

With respect to the continuing permit, the Scientific Committee noted that it had discussed the essentially unchanged programme over the last four years. Although the fin whale proposal had not changed, the new agreed stock estimate had increased to 11,563 (CV 0.261).

The original programme for the take of 40 sei whales had envisaged pooling data across years to obtain estimates of biological parameters. The Icelandic Government had taken the decision to reduce the catch to 20 and then 10 whales, which will influence the originally expected results but was still sufficient for the genetic and energetic studies.

Norway
A catch of 29 minke whales was made off the coast of northern Norway in August 1988 as a pilot study aimed at addressing methodological questions. Considerable effort was put into developing new methods of age determination and studies related to energetics to provide information for inclusion into a multi-species model, and biochemical studies were continued. Detailed questions and comments were discussed in the Scientific Committee, where eleven members stated as last year that there was insufficient information presented to determine whether the data to be obtained would be critical to the proposed multi-species model or whether the model itself represented a critical research need, and therefore that the programme as presented was unlikely to facilitate the Comprehensive Assessment and did not address research needs identified by the Scientific Committee.

The proposed catch of 20 minke whales in 1989 is an extension of the pilot study as part of a broader programme which has been integrated into a comprehensive marine mammal programme. It was discussed by the Scientific Committee under five main headings encompassing the Commission's criteria and guidelines.

Last year the Scientific Committee noted that the proposal did adequately specify the objectives of the research. It noted that two aspects had changed this year. The number, size, sex and stock of animals to be taken were adequately specified in so far as this was possible, as were the opportunities for participation by scientists of other nations. The proposal also addressed the question of the possible effect on the stock.

In addition to the general objectives given last year, the 1989 proposal arrived at improving methodological problems based on three central questions - the number, age and sex distribution of the population; what the whales eat; and their energy requirements. Some members noted that these objectives were not of significance to the Comprehensive Assessment nor did they represent a critical research need in the context of multi-species management.

Discussion on methodology focussed on sample sizes; whether the proposed methodology will answer the questions being asked; whether the questions could be answered by analysis of existing data or non-lethal research; and whether non-explosive harpoons were being used. Fresh samples are needed to finalise work on ageing methodology, to continue the feeding studies, confirm the energetic findings and obtain information on food preferences. Little or no existing material was relevant to these studies, and all the whales taken would be killed using the new penthrite grenade.

In considering the effect of catches on the stock, the Scientific Committee recognised that it does not have an agreed assessment for this stock, which has been classified as a Protection Stock. Larger catches, perhaps of the order of 300 whales, are being considered, but the Scientific Committee was unable to consider the effects of any such takes associated with the full programme. The Committee agreed that the effect of the 1989 take only would be negligible.

The Scientific Committee noted that the proposal did incorporate allowance for participation by scientists from other nations. Some members believed it equally important that others be involved in the analysis phase as well as the field work.

In the Commission, Norway explained that it is undertaking a major research programme on marine mammals in the five years 1989-93, the largest effort it has ever put into research on marine living resources. A large number of Norwegian and foreign research institutes are involved, to provide the scientific basis for proper management of marine mammal populations, taking into account their relationships with other marine species. The largest effort is allocated to sightings surveys, and the results will be the most important basis for the assessment of North Atlantic minke whales in 1990, of direct relevance to the Comprehensive Assessment. The special permit catch in 1989 will be used to develop a multi-species basis for rational management, and will be the last for completion of the pilot study. Any further take for scientific purposes will be planned on a proper sampling design and statistical analysis of the number needed to meet the objectives of the research in order to keep the catch to the lowest possible level. Any future submission to the Scientific Committee on scientific takes will conform to the criteria required, and noting the general positive reception of the programme, Norway welcomed and will take due note of all constructive suggestions.

Iceland expressed its appreciation of the greatly intensified scheme of whale research by Norway which it recognised as addressing questions of the utmost relevance for future management of the northeastern Atlantic minke whale stock. Japan also spoke highly of the ecosystem approach being adopted.

Japan
Papers resulting from the 1987/88 feasibility study were considered first by the Scientific Committee.

Concerning methodological aspects of estimating biological parameters from field survey data, the Japanese minke whale programmes in the Antarctic covered a wider latitudinal area than commercial catching and a line transect sampling procedure was adopted with the aim of covering the total research area uniformly.

Age composition and segregation data revealed that sexually mature males tended to be in larger schools and immature females tended to be found offshore as single animals, with sexually mature females nearer the ice edge in larger schools.

Numbers of minke whale schools and individuals were estimated, and their distribution in the research area in relation to water temperature examined. Genetic variability and differentiation in mtDNA in minke whales from the Sea of Japan, the western North Pacific and the Antarctic were discussed.

In the 1988/89 study a total searching distance of 9,600 nautical miles was covered during which 630 minke whale schools were seen and 241 sampled, including 5 of the diminutive form. Preliminary analysis of the data indicated that the animals sampled were smaller than those taken by commercial whaling; mature males and immature animals dominated in the northern area, while pregnant females predominated in areas of high concentration in the south; mature males and immature animals tended to be solitary while mature females were in larger schools.

Before discussing the 1989/90 Japanese research proposal, the Scientific Committee discussed a series of papers that addressed the general question of information obtainable from catch-at-age data.

For the purposes of the review, the proposed catch in 1989/90 in Area IV was considered to be 400 minke whales. The objectives were spread over several documents and there were differing views on whether or not they were adequately specified. Some members noted that the programme implied that the estimates of biological parameters could be used to estimate parameters of direct management interest, but the proposal did not show that the whole programme of estimating the relevant management parameters constituted a feasible objective.

The Scientific Committee agreed that the proposal specified the number, sex, size and stock of animals to be taken insofar as was possible given the random sampling strategy specified. It also agreed that the opportunities for participation by scientists of other nations had been adequately specified, and that the possible effect on the conservation of the stock had been addressed.

Attention was drawn to the two general objectives of the original proposal - the estimation of biological parameters required for management and the elucidation of the role of whales in the Antarctic ecosystem. Detailed objectives were given in other documents. A number of members of the Scientific Committee, noting the development of new management procedures which do not require a prior estimate of net recruitment, natural mortality rate, MSY or MSY level, concluded that the proposed research catches will neither contribute information which is essential for the future rational management of these stocks nor contribute to progress on the Comprehensive Assessment. Other views identified useful contributions depending on a potentially successful methodology and information which would considerably improve the performance of some of the new management procedures being developed. There were differing views on the relationship of the Japanese research catch to the development of new management procedures.

It was noted that improvements have been made to the sampling methodology, substantially reducing many of the earlier major concerns. Last year it was recognised that trends in age-specific rates could be estimated with adequate sample size, and this is confirmed by current studies even though a functional form has to be fitted instead of rates calculated for each age. A number of other problems were identified and it was clear from the discussion that there is no consensus within the Scientific Committee on the question of methodology.

The best estimates of the population size for the Area IV population agreed by the Scientific Committee are 72,357 for the total population and 47,611 for the exploitable population. It had not been able to carry out any analysis of the effects of the take of 400 whales on the stock at this meeting, and it was therefore unable to provide advice on the effect of the proposed catch on the stock.

Finally, the Scientific Committee agreed that the provisions made for scientists of other nations were adequate.

In the Commission, Japan asked the Chairman of the Scientific Committee for a judgement on the results achieved by the feasibility studies. The reply was that the Scientific Committee found some of the results interesting but from a scientific standpoint there was disagreement on how to put the information to use. Japan commented on the increased estimates of the Antarctic minke whale stocks resulting from the series of sightings cruises using Japanese vessels and personnel since 1976. It was using the moratorium to collect scientific samples free from the selectivities inherent in the commercial catches. Adequate biological parameters are needed to operate the present management procedure, which it thought should remain in use until an alternative which satisfies all the criteria is developed, a process initiated by Japanese scientists. Japan noted that ten of the Scientific Committee's 92 members constantly criticise not only the Japanese scientific research but also any scientific research that involves catches, without contributing constructive modifications of the research programmes. This leads to the situation where a Resolution is drawn up before the Scientific Committee's discussion is introduced to the Commission. Japan believes that the Scientific Committee is a responsible and credible body, and it regretted that no foreign scientists had applied to participate in its research programme. This contrasted with the social scientists who had prepared the report on Japanese small-type coastal whaling.

Iceland expressed its appreciation of the important research efforts launched by Japan in the Southern Ocean. It identified a number of key elements of general applicability and believed that more successful management measures will be obtained in the future by incorporating as detailed information on the dynamics of the stocks as possible. These research activities should be continued as they constitute critical research needs of the Commission and a major contribution to the Comprehensive Assessment.

Norway associated itself with the view expressed by Iceland on the high value of the Japanese research on whales, and hoped that it will continue with its programmes and its openness to foreign researchers. It has brought much information and data into the Commission over many years and the contribution in carrying out the sightings surveys should have special recognition.

8.2 Action arising
Iceland
The Icelandic Minister of Fisheries, Mr H. Asgrimsson, made a statement at an early session reviewing the intentions of the research programme and its progress. The aim is to improve the assessment and monitor the status of the whale stocks around Iceland, and to study the role of whales in the marine ecosystem around the coast. The programme had been modified in light of discussions in the Scientific Committee and the results presented to that Committee at its last two meetings. Iceland noted an increasing appreciation of the projects conducted, and the substantial resources allocated to the North Atlantic Sightings Surveys, and looked forward to continuing cooperation and understanding between the member states.

Later in the meeting, Iceland stated that no scientific permits would be issued for sei whales in 1989, and reaffirmed that as it reaches the end of its four-year programme, it will not carry out research whaling in 1990 nor has it plans to conduct such activities in future years.

New Zealand then introduced a draft Resolution proposed by Australia, Denmark, Federal Republic of Germany, Netherlands, New Zealand, Seychelles, South Africa, Sweden, Switzerland, UK and USA. This recalled earlier concerns on the value of the research, noted the important role of sightings surveys being undertaken and the current plans for ending the research programme, and invited Iceland to reconsider the proposed take of fin whales in 1989.

As co-sponsors, the UK welcomed the announcement not to take 10 sei whales, while the USA was encouraged by the improvements in the research programme and noted particularly the sightings, genetic and inter-specific interaction aspects.

Iceland (who had been consulted in the elaboration of the proposal), Japan and Norway maintained their previous doubts on the legality of such resolutions, but in the prevailing spirit of cooperation, did not wish to put the matter to a vote. The Resolution, which appears in Appendix 1, was then adopted by consensus.

Subsequently, Iceland announced that, after reconsideration, it had decided to issue a special permit for the take of no more than 68 fin whales.

Norway
The UK introduced a Resolution co-sponsored by Australia, Federal Republic of Germany, Netherlands, New Zealand, Oman, Seychelles, South Africa, Sweden, Switzerland, UK and USA. This recognised the important work, particularly sightings surveys, carried out by Norway. However, because essential parts of the parent programme, such as whale energetics and the Barents Sea multi-species model, are not yet complete, it is difficult to assess the value of the pilot programme. The overall objectives are very general and difficult to evaluate, and the methodological framework for multi-species management should be explored before collecting data which involves the killing of whales.

Australia seconded the proposal because, in spite of Norway's pioneering initiative, some eleven members of the Scientific Committee with wide experience of research pointed out that the programme is unlikely to facilitate the Comprehensive Assessment and does not address research needs identified by the Scientific Committee.

Norway appreciated the efforts to find language which would accommodate its concerns in the Resolution. It has initiated a major programme in sea mammal research, with a small but important part involving the take of minke whales, and has taken account of discussions in the Scientific Committee. It has reservations on the legality of such Resolutions, in terms of Article VIII of the Convention, and it does not see the Resolution as guided and motivated by respect for, and an objective evaluation of, its programme. This is a sound scientific endeavour designed to remedy serious deficiencies in knowledge of living resources which it is Norwegian policy to utilise rationally on the basis of ecological and biological criteria.

Iceland and Japan also stated that they were unable to support the Resolution, which on being put to the vote was adopted by 15 votes in favour, with 6 against and 6 abstentions. The text appears as Appendix 2.

Japan
Switzerland, on behalf of the other sponsors, Australia, Federal Republic of Germany, Netherlands, New Zealand, Sweden, UK and USA, introduced a Resolution on the proposed take by Japan. In seconding this, the Netherlands recalled that during the last decade Japan has contributed greatly through non-lethal methods to the present knowledge of whale populations in the Southern Hemisphere, notably through sightings methodology under the IWC/IDCR cruises. However, several aspects of the special permit catches raise serious concerns in relation to the criteria and guidelines adopted by the Commission in recent years.

Sweden noted the unresolved problems regarding the methodology and overall objectives in the Japanese programme. Even if random samples can be obtained, age specific natural mortality and net recruitment are not likely to be estimated with any precision. In addition, the new management procedures being developed do not depend on such biological parameters.

Japan recalled that its first two feasibility studies had resolved the problems of collecting representative samples, and the methodology of estimating natural mortality was showing a promising resolution. The data collected so far had given important information on age specific natural mortality and minke whale distributions which are relevant to the present management scheme. It will now move on to its main programme, modified in the light of improvements and comments which it might receive from the Scientific Committee. This is a serious scientific undertaking, not commercial whaling in disguise. It is taking responsibility to monitor the whale stocks after they were depleted, including by a number of the sponsors of the Resolution, and it viewed the preparation of the Resolution before the presentation of the Scientific Committee's report as abnormal and, if continued, likely to lead to the collapse of the Commission.

New Zealand commented on the genuine attempt to find a text acceptable to all. If the programme fully satisfies the specified criteria there is no need for a Resolution, but this is not the case. The UK made clear that the criticism is not of the whole programme but that part involving the take of whales. While the various objectives have been described, the methodology attached remains unclear. The programme therefore appears too ambitious and sampling appears to be running ahead of methodology. It supported the New Zealand comments and considered that the criteria are not fully fulfilled. The USA was concerned about the effects of lethal takes of whales, which should be dealt with with great caution, and believed Japan should not proceed with this aspect until there is consensus in the Scientific Committee on the contribution of this type of research. It did applaud the non-lethal aspects. Iceland and Norway opposed the Resolution, the latter commending the important research being done by Japan, including projects involving the take of whales for scientific purposes, to contribute information critically necessary to fill gaps in knowledge.

Argentina commented that the effort and improvements in research by Japan deserve respect, and only certain aspects did not meet the criteria, which would guide its vote.

On being put to the vote, the Resolution shown in Appendix 3 was adopted by 13 votes in favour to 6 against, with 8 abstentions.

General
Switzerland explained its position and interest in the issue of special permit catches, based on the present strict Swiss domestic legislation and a pending vote on the banning of the use of animals in research.

Iceland also made a general statement following the two votes. It regretted the confrontational mood which had characterised the Commission's work in recent years and welcomed the cooperative atmosphere at this meeting, whilst saddened by the failure to reach consensus, it recognised the accommodations which had led to the present texts which did not call for the cessation but invited the respective governments to reconsider their programmes. This was in accord with its view of Convention Article VIII, and it noted that only 13 and 15 votes of the 37 member governments participating had been in favour. It welcomed the change of attitudes within the Commission and looked forward to a redoubling of efforts at future meetings.

Switzerland disagreed with Iceland on the legal interpretation of Articles VII and VIII, which it believes are not mutually exclusive, but expressed its appreciation of the statement by Iceland.

Brazil explained its votes in favour of the two Resolutions because it deemed the Commission's criteria had not been fully met in the programmes concerned, it was not satisfied with the lethal content of the programmes, and the language formulated was compatible with and in no way affects the sovereign rights of countries under Article VIII of the Convention. It too, like Iceland, congratulated the Commission on the huge leap forward in nonconfrontational techniques of negotiation.

Japan expressed its regret at the denigration of the integrity of its scientific research. It did see some change in the numbers of votes cast since the postal vote earlier in the year. Japan will take full consideration of constructive comments to improve its programme, but reserved its position under Article VIII of the Convention.

St Vincent & The Grenadines applauded the efforts to achieve consensus. There was near agreement in the Scientific Committee on whether the Japanese programme meets all the guidelines, and it looked for further cooperation within the Commission. St Lucia was not surprised that 92 scientists from 16 countries had not reached a unanimous opinion. It thought there was something fundamentally wrong in the structure of the Scientific Committee that the Commission has to make decisions based on what very few of the scientists expressed, and that non-scientists for the most part had to vote on scientific issues.

France had thought consensus might have been possible because it was very close, but it understood the political dimension involved and associated itself with the comments of Brazil and Iceland on the cooperative spirit.

Finally, in the light of the comments by St Lucia and France on whaling and decisions taken by non-scientists, India wondered that as war is said to be too serious a matter to be left to the generals, if something similar can be said about whaling and scientists?

_