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

The Chairman of the Scientific Committee (Dr R.L. Brownell, Jr) noted that the most important items in the Scientific Committee report related to this item were Management Procedures, Future Work for the Comprehensive Assessment and the Comprehensive Assessment Funding Requirements for 1989/90.

9.1/2.1 Management procedures
At last year's meeting it was agreed that a presentation on the development of revised management procedures would help broaden understanding of the work in progress. Mr J. Horwood, in the absence of the Convenor of the Sub-committee on Management Procedures (Dr G.P. Kirkwood), had been asked by the Scientific Committee to explain to the Joint Working Group the characteristics of the procedures being explored and present an overview of the progress being made on their development. He noted that the Committee expected to be able to present a recommended management procedure to the Commission at the 1991 meeting.

The Working Group welcomed the presentation and noted the outstanding progress made by the Scientific Committee towards the development of a revised management procedure for whale stocks.

Although most delegations present at the Working Group supported the work plan and timetable recommended by the Scientific Committee for accomplishing this aspect of the Comprehensive Assessment, some others indicated that they felt that there is a need for the development of an interim management plan, and that the Scientific Committee should also calculate catch limits based on the appropriate interim management procedure at the next Annual Meeting.

The following recommendations made by the Scientific Committee were endorsed by the Working Group:

(1)

that the first phase of second stage trials be carried out before February 1990 by the developers of the alternative procedures, and by the Secretariat in the case of the NMP (New Management Procedure) based procedure;

(2)

that a Workshop be held over an 8-day period in early February 1990, with arrangements being made to ensure the attendance of Allison and five invited participants (the convenor and developers of the procedures);

(3)

that the work to be carried out during the coming year be coordinated through a Steering Committee convened by Kirkwood and that if at all possible, Kirkwood should continue to chair future management meetings and attend the 1990 Annual Meetings.

In 1987, three management objectives were proposed by the Scientific Committee and accepted as appropriate by the Commission (Rep. int. Whal. Commn 38:36):

(i)

stability of catch limits, which would be desirable for the orderly development of the whaling industry;

(ii)

acceptable risk that a stock not be depleted (at a certain level of probability) below some chosen level (e.g. a fraction of its carrying capacity), so that the risk of extinction of the stock is not seriously increased by exploitation;

(iii)

making possible the highest possible continuing yield from the stock.

This year the Scientific Committee stressed the urgent need of advice from the Commission on operative definitions of its management objectives and the weightings, preferably quantitative, that it assigns to them. This was noted by the Working Group.

There was considerable discussion in the Working Group concerning the potential weightings that might be given to these objectives, and three papers were presented dealing with the subject.

One drew attention to the necessity of trade-offs between the three objectives which cannot be fully met simultaneously. The authors suggested that as a first step in the Commission providing advice it might address two questions, one relating to the extent to which catches can vary from year to year, the other concerning trade-offs between risk and yield.

A Japanese paper presented a series of 15 questions relevant to the trade-off question and another gave tentative answers by the Japanese delegation to these questions. They noted that the second objective is a prerequisite for any potential procedure and that, given this, they believed a higher weighting should be given to objective (i) over (iii).

The third paper presented the views of Seychelles. It believes that any new procedure should be no less conservative than the New Management Procedure and that objective (i) was the least important. It noted that objective (ii) should have highest priority and that this would eventually lead to fulfillment of objective (iii).

Similar views were expressed by Australia and the Netherlands. Australia also noted that simultaneous estimation of objectives (i) and (iii) required stocks to be kept at high levels while Netherlands stated that where there were conflicting views, whales should receive the benefit of the doubt. Japan reiterated that all the potential management procedures were designed to prevent extinction and given that, it believes objectives (i) and (iii) are most important.

There was some discussion about the concept of protection levels. While most delegations agreed that such a level was necessary there were differing views as to what that level should be.

In conclusion, most delegations stated that objective (ii) warranted highest priority and the Working Group endorsed the Scientific Committee's recommendation that the advice required from the Commission regarding objectives and their weightings be provided at the earliest opportunity.

In the Commission a number of delegations made statements which were subsequently made available in writing as meeting documents.

Norway put the highest priority on objective (ii), with (iii) following. It looked forward to development of all the procedures under consideration, but hoped that a procedure may be available to deal with such stocks as the Commission may consider for commercial whaling in 1990. Iceland associated itself with these remarks, emphasising the importance of the task.

Japan noted that none of the five procedures under development would deplete the population, and therefore took the view that objective (i), stable catch limits, was most important. If all three objectives are satisfied, it thought a protection level was not necessary, or need not be as high as before. Since the Comprehensive Assessment is due to be undertaken by 1990, it believed one procedure should be applied in that year for stocks reopened to commercial whaling, or the Secretariat should calculate the catch limit using all five procedures.

The UK spoke in support of a high protection level, with stable catch limits coming after that has been established. It also counselled caution in not trying to foreshorten the development process.

Australia amplified this approach. It attached great important to the Comprehensive Assessment as the basis for the continued conservation of whale stocks through wise management of whales and the seas in which they live. It noted the interest previously expressed in an ecological multispecies approach, and the magnitude of the work expected of the Scientific Committee. It therefore took the view that the Commission should not act prematurely before sound and generally accepted management procedures are in place.

The USA supported the comments of the UK and Australia.

The Netherlands pointed out the earlier depletion of whale stocks and its belief that until a management procedure which is safe from the point of view of the conservation of whale stocks has been accepted, the present zero catch limit should be retained. It regards objective (ii) as the most important, and in addition to avoiding risks of depletion, looked for a revised management procedure aiming at the recovery of all whale stocks towards high levels of abundance through a high level of protection, the recognition of the possible negative effects of deteriorating environmental conditions, and the maintenance of at least the present abundance of the whale stocks which are still relatively numerous.

Seychelles considered that the Commission should not be in too great a hurry to reverse the wise decision of 1982, which has actually only been in effect for two years. When commercial whaling is resumed it should be under procedures which all agree are safe and which will allow the resource to recover and be maintained at high levels of productivity.

The Federal Republic of Germany supported the statements of the UK, Australia and the Netherlands, wanting to be on the safe side concerning the whale stocks. India agreed and raised the question of what is a safe level.

9.1/2.2 Stock identity
The Scientific Committee had noted that for the 1990 Comprehensive Assessment, given the likely level of knowledge, it seemed appropriate to retain most current stock boundaries, although redefinition of those in the North Atlantic is required as soon as possible. The Working Group agreed by consensus to endorse the following recommendations of the Scientific Committee (none of which had financial implications for the Commission):

(1)

that samples (for both DNA and protein analysis) should be obtained from baleen whales in their breeding areas (for example from minke whales in the Southern Hemisphere and North Atlantic) and from fin whales in the North Atlantic, particularly in Canadian waters;

(2)

that existing samples from minke whales from the North Atlantic (Canada, Denmark, Iceland and the USA) and fin whales from the North Atlantic (Canada, Iceland and the USA) as well as new samples from all areas of the North Atlantic should be made available to relevant research groups;

(3)

that the Commission should request CITES authorities, particularly in Denmark and Japan, to facilitate international exchange of samples;

(4)

that the question of the effect of biopsy sampling on individual animals be placed on the Agenda for the 1990 meeting and that national groups be asked to obtain and analyse relevant data for discussion at that time;

(5)

that photographic catalogues should continue to be compiled for comparison within oceanic areas and that, in addition, computer-based methods should be developed for speeding up the matching process without loss of accuracy and for archiving and accessing photographs.

9.1/2.3 Biological parameters
The Chairman of the Scientific Committee summarised the relevant section of the Scientific Committee report. The Working Group noted that the Scientific Committee had made no specific recommendations on this topic.

9.1/2.4 MSY rates
The Scientific Committee had agreed that, given its inconclusive discussions on these questions over recent years, it was particularly important that management procedures should be robust to a range of MSY levels and MSY rates. The Working Group agreed to support the views expressed in the Scientific Committee report on this subject. The Working Group also endorsed the following recommendations made by the Scientific Committee:

(1)

that current monitoring of depleted stocks of right and humpback whales should continue; and

(2)

that currently unmonitored stocks of these species, as well as stocks of blue, fin and sei whales that are at relatively low levels and for which there are few current data, also be monitored where this is practical.

9.1/2.5 Stock estimates
Seychelles noted that, despite the random error involved, sighting surveys appeared to be the best way of estimating baleen whale stock sizes. It drew attention to the estimates of blue, fin, sperm, humpback and sei whales from IDCR cruises, which showed that they were more depleted than previously believed, highlighting the earlier over-optimistic CPUE estimates. It noted the uncertainty over the proportions of the populations of these species north of the survey area, suggesting that Japan might make available its scouting boat data to help clarify this. It also drew attention to the 1988 recommendations of the Scientific Committee regarding minke and Bryde's whales in the North Pacific.

Japan noted that its data indicated a large proportion of fin and sei whales were found north of the IDCR survey area. It would try to make the data available for the Comprehensive Assessment and noted that two scientists had agreed to examine the usefulness of these data. With respect to assessing Bryde's and minke whales in the North Pacific, Japan requested the cooperation of the USA and USSR in allowing Japanese survey vessels in their 200 mile EEZs. Japan also drew attention to its contribution to sightings methodology.

There was also some discussion of the multinational 1989 North Atlantic Sightings Survey which will involve 15 vessels and 2 aircraft.

The Working Group endorsed the list of priority topics which the Scientific Committee had recommended be addressed for the 1990 Comprehensive Assessment. These are listed below:

(1)

theoretical considerations of how to compare the results of surveys which differ in their area coverage, and in the environmental conditions experienced during the surveys;

(2)

development of a general computer program for the implementation of the variable coverage probability analysis (Rep. int. Whal. Commn 37: 273-6) by the Secretariat computing staff with advice from Cooke;

(3)

a study of the effects of heterogeneity in whale distribution and whale marking on estimates of abundance and survival from mark-recapture analysis;

(4)

development of improved experiments for the estimation of g(0) and whale reaction to survey platforms, and implementation of these experiments to obtain reliable results;

(5)

a study of the effect of possible differences in the way schools are identified in Passing and Closing Mode;

(6)

an investigation of the possible basis for the observed difference between density estimates from Closing and Passing Mode surveys on the Southern Hemisphere IWC/IDCR cruises;

(7)

the preparation of a paper on equipment developed for the accurate determination of the position of dolphin schools observed during surveys in the Eastern Tropical Pacific;

(8)

a study of the potential usefulness of data collected by Japanese scouting boats in the lower latitudes of the Southern Ocean for providing some indication of whale density in the area north of 60°S.

The Scientific Committee also recommended that four recommendations it had made in 1988 are carried out and this was also endorsed by the Working Group. These are given below.

(1)

A reanalysis of all sightings data for the Western North Pacific Stock of Bryde's whales by 5° square, Rep. int. Whal. Commn 39:47 (Japanese scientists agreed to carry out this work).

(2)

A re-examination of the mark-recapture data for the above stock with the view of obtaining an alternative estimate of abundance (Rep. int. Whal. Commn 39: 47). Japanese scientists indicated that they would do this analysis if a solution could be found to the problem caused by the large annual variations in the number of marks recovered.

(3)

Analysis of sightings data for the Okhotsk Sea - West Pacific Stock of minke whales from cruises between 1976 and 1986 to include analysis by 5° square, investigation of the results of seasonal trends in distribution, and examination of stratification boundaries. Japanese scientists agreed to carry out this analysis.

(4)

An extension of surveys in the North Atlantic to cover as much as possible of the summer distribution of the Iceland-Denmark Strait Stock of sei whales. The committee noted with pleasure that NASS-89 will cover this stock area at least as far south as 52°N.

The Working Group also endorsed the Scientific Committee's longer term recommendation for a coordinated and collaborative international effort to develop acoustic survey techniques (e.g. for sperm whales) and the extension to other large whale species of the computer-assisted matching techniques now being developed under an IWC contract for the photo-identification of right and blue whales.

9.1/2.6 Future work for the Comprehensive Assessment
Eastern North Pacific gray whales
The Working Group endorsed in principle the following recommendations of the Scientific Committee on this subject (the financial implications were referred to the Finance and Administration Committee):

(1)

that a Special Meeting of the Scientific Committee on the Comprehensive Assessment of Gray Whales should be undertaken prior to the next Annual Meeting;

(2)

that the governments of Canada, Mexico and the USA be requested to collect and provide past and current information on gray whale entanglements in fishing gear in time for the Special Meeting;

(3)

that a contract study to examine aboriginal catch levels prior to commercial exploitation be undertaken prior to the Special Meeting;

(4)

that the Secretary write to the appropriate authorities of the Republic of Korea, the People's Republic of China and the USSR seeking historical and current sightings data on the western Pacific stock for use at the Special Meeting;

(5)

that the Secretariat correspond with appropriate Soviet authorities to resolve the difficulty with the discrepancies in the Soviet Progress Report regarding the reporting of the sexes of gray whales taken in 1988; and

(6)

that information on earplugs and reproductive materials from the Soviet gray whale catch be made available to the Special Meeting.

In the Commission, Mexico welcomed the recommendation to hold a Special Meeting on the Comprehensive Assessment of Gray Whales because it has worked for more than ten years on the matter. It noted that it has already supplied the information requested in the form of Progress Reports and other documents to the Scientific Committee.

Priority stocks
The Scientific Committee had agreed that it would be impractical to assess more than two stock groups at the 1990 Annual Meeting and that these should be the minke whale stock groups of the North Atlantic and Southern Hemisphere.

There was considerable discussion of this within the Working Group. Japan and Iceland explained in some detail why they believed that the Okhotsk Sea - West Pacific Stock of minke whales and the North Atlantic fin whales, respectively, should be considered as priority stocks for 1990. Iceland suggested that fin whales could be included if the Annual Scientific Committee meeting was extended or if a special intersessional meeting was held.

Other countries indicated their support for the views of the Scientific Committee for logistical, personnel and other reasons. The Chairman of the Scientific Committee reiterated that the Committee could not consider more than the three stock groups (including gray whales) it had agreed over the next 12 months. Any addition to the three intersessional meetings already scheduled would, he believed, place an intolerable burden on the Committee.

Japan, noting the relationship between the adoption of the moratorium and the completion of the Comprehensive Assessment by 1990, stated that the Comprehensive Assessment should be carried out using all the data available by 1990 in order to complete it on schedule.

There was also some discussion between Norway, Iceland and the USA about the lack of coverage of minke whales in the western North Atlantic in the 1989 North Atlantic Sightings Survey. In the Commission, the USA pointed out that the western North Atlantic minke whales occur in Canadian waters during the survey period and they are not its responsibility nor a priority concern to the USA. It is contributing to gray whale and bowhead research to provide information to the Commission.

In conclusion, most members of the Working Group endorsed the priority stock groups identified by the Scientific Committee for the coming year. Japan and Iceland drew attention to their proposals to include the Okhotsk Sea - West Pacific stock of minke whales and the North Atlantic fin whales, and Iceland offered to host a special meeting on North Atlantic fin whales.

Taking into account the above proviso with respect to which stocks should be considered priority stocks, the Working Group endorsed the Scientific Committee recommendation that, for those stocks and stock groups not considered a priority for the 1990 meeting, but generally noted as priority stocks, reports on progress towards a Comprehensive Assessment should be available at next year's meeting, with a view to their assessment in 1991.

In the Commission, Iceland repeated its view that the stocks of fin whales in the North Atlantic were appropriate candidates for priority status in 1990. However, it recognised the time constraints on the Scientific Committee and offered to host a Special Meeting in October/November 1990 on these stocks. Norway supported this proposal.

Japan appealed for consideration of the North Pacific minke whales because of the harmful impact of the moratorium on its coastal communities.

Intersessional meetings
The Working Group endorsed in principle the proposed meetings listed below and referred the financial implications to the Finance and Administration Committee:

(i)

the Workshop on the Genetic Analysis of Cetacean Populations;

(ii)

the Workshop on Alternative Management Procedures; and

(iii)

the Special Meeting of the Scientific Committee on the Comprehensive Assessment of Eastern North Pacific Gray Whales.

Work plan for 1989/90
The work plan presented by the Scientific Committee and the associated recommendations were endorsed in principle by the Working Group; financial considerations were referred to the Finance and Administration Committee. However, Japan noted that in doing this it wanted the stocks to be evaluated to be decided by the Commission. The recommendations were:

(1)

that every attempt should be made to accommodate a working group on alternative management procedures to meet for three days before the start of the 1990 Scientific Committee Annual Meeting; and

(2)

that relevant data (in a standard format) for the assessment of Southern Hemisphere and North Atlantic minke whales be lodged with the Secretariat in sufficient time for them to be used at the 1990 meeting.

9.1/2.7 Comprehensive Assessment funding requirements for 1989/90
It was agreed to forward the proposed budget to the Finance and Administration Committee.

9.3 Action arising
The Commission adopted all the recommendations noted above from the Scientific Committee as endorsed by the Joint Working Group.

Concerning the weighting of the three management objectives, on the proposal of the UK, supported by Iceland and Norway, it was agreed that the developers of the various management schemes should bear in mind the view of the majority of Commissioners that objective (ii) on depletion of stocks is the priority, and there needs to be a balance and intermix of the other two objectives. Japan recorded its variant view in this regard.

In adopting as the priority stocks for Comprehensive Assessment in 1990 gray whales and North Atlantic and Southern Hemisphere minke whales, the Commission noted the view of Japan to include the Okhotsk Sea and North Pacific minke whales. It also agreed to a Special Meeting on North Atlantic Fin Whales in October/November 1990.

The Commission also requested the Scientific Committee to provide a simple and perhaps pictorial presentation of the Comprehensive Assessment, management objectives and management procedures.

_