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

10.1.1 Management procedures
The Scientific Committee had continued to give high priority to the development of a revised management procedure. An eight day Workshop was held in Oslo, Norway in February. Since that Workshop, further modifications had been made to all but one of the five revised management procedures under development. Three of them now rely either primarily or solely on absolute abundance estimates. The other two rely on both absolute abundance estimates and catch-related relative abundance indices, such as CPUE data.

A considerable number of screening trials have been specified and the Scientific Committee agreed that, for all but the trials involving uncertain stock identity, the five procedures had continued to show encouragingly robust properties.

However, uncertain stock identity remained a major problem. All of the procedures performed poorly on a revised 'coastal whaling' trial. The Scientific Committee agreed that some aspects of the revised specification of this trial remained unrealistic and further revision was necessary. The Scientific Committee had developed a pelagic whaling stock identity trial which took into account hypotheses developed for Southern Hemisphere minke whales. Information which would have enabled the development of a trial for the North Atlantic minke whales was not available in time for trials to be developed at the meeting. The Scientific Committee recommended that this be developed by correspondence and finalised at or before the proposed inter-sessional meeting.

The relative merits of management procedures must be judged primarily on their ability to meet the Commission's three management objectives. The Scientific Committee noted that because no clear advice has been given by the Commission, the five procedures remain tuned to different balances among the three management objectives:

(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 or extinction of the stock is not seriously increased by exploitation;

(iii)

making possible the highest possible continuing yield from the stock.

Also, the concept of protection levels is treated differently in the procedures. It is essential that these differences be accounted for when comparing procedures. The Scientific Committee recommended that additional trials be conducted to assist in this process.

With respect to the relative weightings of the management objectives, the Scientific Committee agreed that for an informed judgement the Commission would require, at least, quantification of the trade-offs between the different objectives. Similar views were expressed by members when considering the question of protection levels. A specified protection level is an integral part of the current management procedure (NMP). However, in at least some of the alternative management procedures being developed, the approaches taken do not require imposition of a formal and relatively high protection level to insure against excessive stock depletion. The Scientific Committee agreed that it would be necessary to present clear evidence of the performance of procedures in this respect, whatever concept of protection level has been employed, before seeking future clarification on protection levels.

The Scientific Committee agreed that it was by no means straightforward to apply a management procedure to a particular stock or region. The first step is to determine the extent of knowledge of stock identity and to check the extent to which the properties of the catch data, absolute abundance estimates and relative abundance indices fall within the bounds examined by the screening trials. Should they not do so, additional trials may be necessary to ensure that the management procedure is still robust and reliable.

These issues were examined briefly for the priority stocks considered at this meeting. A series of questions was posed to the Southern Hemisphere and North Atlantic minke whale sub-committees. The responses with respect to hypotheses on stock identity were taken into account when specifying additional stock identity trials. The Scientific Committee noted the responses to the other questions and recommended that these be borne in mind should an adopted management procedure be considered for use with these stocks. The Scientific Committee agreed that there were other potential uncertainties that must be resolved before a procedure could be applied to an actual stock. In particular, it is important to identify exactly what segments of the population are referred to in the catch data, absolute abundance data and relative abundance data. This should be examined in further trials.

The Scientific Committee reviewed the timetable for development and recommendation of a management procedure it agreed at its last meeting. It confirmed that it was still working towards recommending a 'best' management procedure to the Commission at its 1991 Annual Meeting.

The Scientific Committee agreed that selection of a satisfactory revised management procedure by that time could be accomplished for cases where stock identity is known. However, it noted that it had not yet been demonstrated that the revised procedures can perform satisfactorily in the face of uncertain stock identity. The new stock identity trials were intended to provide a more realistic test of that performance.

The 1989 timetable envisaged that the Secretariat would validate all screening trials on finalised procedures. The Scientific Committee agreed that the need for this extensive validation was largely negated at this stage. It recommended, however, that the Secretariat repeat the base case trials with current versions of each procedure.

The Scientific Committee recommended that all the screening trials and revised summary statistics specified in the Scientific Committee Report be implemented within the common control program by the Secretariat as soon as possible after the meeting and that the revised program be circulated to all developers. Using this program, the developers should carry out all the trials on their procedure.

The Scientific Committee agreed that the 1991 deadline can only be met by holding another inter-sessional workshop. It strongly recommended that an 8-day Workshop be held in early December 1990, and the Government of Japan had kindly offered to host this meeting in Tokyo. Arrangements should be made to ensure the attendance of the Secretariat and up to six invited participants (the Convenor, four procedure developers and an expert in multi-criteria decision making).

The Scientific Committee recommended that the full set of raw output data from the trials should be submitted to the Secretariat two weeks before the date of the Workshop, if possible. It also recommended that computer programs implementing the comparison techniques for procedures be lodged with the Secretariat sufficiently in advance of the Workshop to enable it to prepare for their implementation.

To facilitate communications throughout the year, the Scientific Committee recommended that activities continue to be coordinated by a steering committee convened by Dr Kirkwood. Given the critical need to ensure continuity in developing an appropriate management procedure by 1991, the Scientific Committee strongly urged that Dr Kirkwood should continue to chair future Comprehensive Assessment management meetings and attend the 1991 Annual Meetings.

Technical Committee discussion
In the Technical Committee Japan expressed its appreciation of the efforts being undertaken by the Scientific Committee. It recognised the delays in the development of revised procedures and was reassured that 1991 is the goal for presenting its work. It noted that Japanese scientists had been the first to specify revised procedures and believed that the NMP should remain in place in the interim.

Iceland also welcomed the progress in revising management procedures, noting that solutions to most problems had been found except in the most extreme cases. It supported the plans for an intersessional meeting and attached great importance to the aim of having an agreed new procedure in 1991.

Norway associated itself with the views expressed by Iceland recognising the complexity of this programme and the progress which had been achieved. Norway understood the wide agreement on the robustness of the new procedures but would wish that the work had progressed further. It believed it essential to settle on a specific target date for revised procedures to be developed and in place.

10.1.2 Priority stocks
10.1.2.1 Southern Hemisphere minke whales
The Scientific Committee recognised the existence of two morphological forms of southern minke whales: the larger bonaerensis form, which was the basis of the past commercial catch; and a smaller diminutive form. The Scientific Committee agreed that the two forms should be considered separately for management purposes. Due to the lack of information on the diminutive form, the Scientific Committee's report only concerned the bonaerensis form, except possibly for sightings north of 60°S in summer.

Genetic analyses demonstrated no unambiguous differences between whales in the currently accepted management Areas. The Scientific Committee recommended that further work on the mitochondrial DNA genome of minke whales from stock Areas other than IV and V should be conducted to examine stock identity, if suitable samples are available.

The Scientific Committee discussed other information on stock identity. It recommended that Soviet data on the distribution of ecological markers should be analysed in more detail to provide some measure of the reliability of these conclusions.

An analysis of sightings of minke whales collected by Japanese scouting boats and research vessels operating in the Southern Hemisphere since 1976 revealed areas of higher density, which were believed to be breeding grounds. Hypotheses on stock divisions in the Southern Hemisphere were given to the management sub-committee.

The most detailed information on minke whale abundance south of 60°S comes from the series of sightings surveys conducted since 1978/79 on the IWC/IDCR Southern Hemisphere cruises. Data have been collected in two survey modes: Closing Mode (CM), where the survey vessel closes on a school immediately it is sighted to confirm species identity and estimate school size; and Passing Mode (PM), where the vessel does not deviate from the track line. Until 1983/84 surveys had only been conducted in CM; after this, surveys had been carried out in both modes.

From analyses before it, the Scientific Committee concluded that a comparable series of PM and CM abundance estimates could be produced using a developed correction factor to provide a 'pseudo-passing' mode estimate. Where both CM and PM estimates were available, the PM and 'pseudo passing' mode estimates could be pooled using inverse variance weighting to provide a single value.

The estimated total population sizes in each Area south of 60°S are shown in Table 1. The Scientific Committee identified three sources of downward bias in these estimates: (i) animals north of 60°S; (ii) animals within the pack ice; (iii) problems in the estimation of g(0) (the probability of sighting a whale on the trackline). It also noted that where two abundance estimates are available for particular Areas these values are not strictly comparable because of differences in the northerly extent of the surveys in the two years. The cumulative catch in each Area is also included in this Table.

The Scientific Committee examined the available CPUE series and concluded that they could not be used as an index of abundance for any of the stocks under consideration. Similarly it agreed not to use mark-recapture estimates.

In discussion of biological parameters the Scientific Committee noted that it was now possible to calculate the age at recruitment (t_r) directly for Area IV by comparing the age structure of the catch with that of the Japanese research take. It agreed on values of 7 years for t_r, and 10 years for age at 95% recruitment. There was a considerable discussion on the question of age at maturity, in particular whether it had changed over time in response to changes in carrying capacity following the major depletion in large baleen whale numbers during the first half of the twentieth century. The Scientific Committee could not reach a consensus view on this matter.

The Scientific Committee has recently used a computer program known as HITTER/FITTER to estimate the effect of a history of catches on a stock. If, as is the case for southern minke whales, no series of relative abundance data are available, it is only possible to use the HITTER part of the program which gives a population trajectory that passes through a point estimate of absolute abundance. In these circumstances values of Maximum Sustainable Yield Rate (MSYR) have to be specified. The Scientific Committee could not reach consensus on whether the program should be used. Some members considered that appropriate information for the use of the program was not available and concluded that its use was not worthwhile. Other members believed that use of HITTER with an appropriate range of MSY rate values would provide information which would allow an assessment of the status of the stocks.

The full results of the HITTER runs can be found in the Scientific Committee Report (Annex E, Appendix 6). Those members who thought these runs had been worthwhile agreed that the most useful summary value for assessing the status of the stocks was the ratio of the exploitable female stock in 1990 to that at the start of exploitation, because of the predominance of females in the catch. These values for the 'best' population estimates and their lower 95% confidence limits (CLs) are shown in Table 2. They concluded that, if the carrying capacity (K) had been constant before 1972, for most of the stocks the exploited female component of the stock was at the high end of the range 50 - 100% of K.

Those members who considered that the only useful indication of the status of the stocks came from a comparison of the 'current' stock estimate with the total cumulative catch (Table 1) , concluded that the abundance of minke whales in Areas V and VI had been little changed by those catches and the abundance in Areas I and II will not have been affected to an extent which would raise questions as to whether the historic rates of exploitation had been too high. However they believed that Areas III and IV have experienced catches that raise the question of whether lower rates of exploitation would have been desirable. They added that there had been a tendency for catching to concentrate on the Area III/Area IV boundary. Such catches could have led to greater depletion in the boundary region if it did not in fact divide two stocks which mix fully and rapidly within the greater areas of the putative stock divisions.

Some members of the Scientific Committee concluded that it was not appropriate to classify the stocks of Southern Hemisphere minke whales. Others members concluded that it was possible to classify these stocks using the results of the HITTER runs shown in Table 2. If the carrying capacity was constant at the start of exploitation in 1972, the following classifications were obtained for a Maximum Sustainable Yield Level (MSYL) of 60%, an MSYR of 0% and the 'best estimates': I - IMS, II - IMS, III - SMS, IV - SMS, V - IMS, VI - IMS.

The runs made with the lower 95% confidence limits of the target population estimates indicated that there was only a small probability that any new abundance estimates could lead to the above classifications being changed.

The Scientific Committee noted that its ability to provide advice on the effects of the zero catch limit for Southern Hemisphere minke whales, which came into effect in the 1985/1986 pelagic season, was influenced by: the length of time for which the zero limits had been in effect; the general population biology of large whales; the precision and frequency of abundance surveys; and the reliability of the population models used for prediction.

The Scientific Committee noted that the slow growth rate of whale populations meant that there was no possibility that there had been a substantial change in minke whale numbers since the 1985/1986 whaling season. In addition, attempts to compare the results of IDCR sighting cruises in the same management Area had indicated that only major changes in abundance could be detected because of the size of the coefficient of variation associated with the individual estimates.

The Scientific Committee had noted that, in the absence of an agreed revised management procedure, it would not be out of order to attempt to formulate advice on catch limits in accordance with the NMP. Some members considered that such catch limits could be calculated from the results of the HITTER runs and the classifications described above, if an appropriate value of MSYR could be chosen. Some of these members believed that a value of 2% for MSYR would provide a conservative estimate for interim catch limits. Others considered that there was no objective basis for such a choice but agreed that a value of 2% could be used in such calculations for illustrative purposes. The calculated catch limits based on the 'best estimates' with a 60% MSYL, 2% MSYR and taking 90% of the MSY values from the Scientific Committee Report (Annex E, Appendix 6, Table 1) with no allowance for the sex ratio of the catch, are given in Table 3.

Those members of the Scientific Committee who considered 2% as a conservative interim measure were of the opinion that until such time as the Schedule was revised, management advice should still be based on the NMP. Further, regardless of uncertainties about the dynamics of minke whale 'stocks', a catch limit at an MSYR of 2% would not result in appreciable reduction in stock abundance in the short term (5 years) no matter what assumptions are made, nor would it affect the development of revised management procedures.

Other members of the Scientific Committee stated that it is now generally recognised that the NMP is inadequate and thus that offering advice on catch limits under the NMP was inappropriate. They reiterated their view that application of the HITTER routine to these stocks was inappropriate and pointed out that there is great uncertainty about stock identity and boundaries, most importantly for the more heavily exploited Indian Ocean sector (present Areas III and IV). Thus the problems which made impossible the application of the NMP remain unresolved. They believed that the Scientific Committee had no instructions from the Commission, or any other basis, for providing advice on catch limits. Although they anticipated that the revised management procedures now being developed would be able to avoid the above problems, they noted that the success of these procedures was likely to depend largely on their ability to cope with uncertainty about stock identity.

Technical Committee discussion
In the Technical Committee Japan commented on the Scientific Committee report that the Southern Hemisphere minke whale stocks are in a healthy condition with an agreed stock size of 760,000. It noted some division of views amongst the scientists but welcomed the classification and catch limit data which had been tabled. The suggested catch limit of 4,853 was compared with the last catch limit set in 1984 of 4,244.

Japan noted that at times some scientists had opposed the IDCR sightings cruises in the Antarctic but it was pleased that they continued to provide such useful information. Although the information was not perfect, as is usual in science, it believed that the data show the moratorium oh commercial whaling is no longer necessary. It proposed that the classification of stocks given in the Scientific Committee report should be adopted by the Commission.

Iceland supported this proposal in the belief that it is now appropriate to review the 1982 decision to set zero catch limits. It took the view that the Commission must act now under existing procedures until the new one is adopted. Norway associated itself with the views expressed by Iceland in support of Japan. It believed that until a revised management procedure is adopted the Commission must use the New Management Procedure.

There was then some discussion over when to consider the Action Arising on this stock. The UK, in indicating its view that it is best left to the end of the Agenda Item as classification raised a number of issues spanning several parts of the Agenda Item, commented on the problems associated with the NMP. Australia supported this position because it believed that it is difficult to look at the stocks individually and saw no merit in trying to reclassify stocks using the old management system which has been shown to be inadequate. It also commented on the different views in the Scientific Committee. New Zealand also supported the UK, pointing out that Antarctic Areas III and IV had been significantly depleted and some simulations under the NMP suggest that catches could lead to extinction. The USA spoke in a similar vein, stating its view that the Commission must wait for revised procedures to be put in place of the inadequate NMP and that no catching should be allowed until then. The Netherlands, Federal Republic of Germany and Sweden all wished to consider Action Arising after hearing all the other reports and it was agreed to follow this procedure.

Norway stated that it found it difficult to accept that the deficiencies in the NMP are valid reasons for not making decisions now on stock classifications. It pointed out that the argument that the NMP is useless or had led to over-exploitation lacked basis in fact and experience. It saw this as a fundamental question for the Commission to address.

Iceland commented that there had been no suggestion to amend the NMP in this meeting. It had in effect saved many stocks from extinction which is one purpose of the IWC. It feared that accepting the view that the NMP is useless implied a basic criticism that the IWC is not up to its task.

The USA noted that the NMP failed in a number of tests of robustness and feared that this might lead to mismanagement of whale stocks.

10.1.2.2 North Atlantic minke whales
In its discussions of stock identity, the Scientific Committee examined the results of genetic studies and data from marking experiments conducted on minke whales in the North Atlantic. There was considerable discussion of the various possibilities for stock division related to the needs of the Comprehensive Assessment.

The Scientific Committee agreed that the evidence pointed towards there being more than one breeding population in the North Atlantic but with uncertain boundaries. Many members further believed that the available evidence demonstrated that there were at least three breeding populations.

For assessment purposes, most members of the Scientific Committee believed that it was appropriate to proceed on the basis of three stocks that mix little, if at all, on the feeding grounds. These would be centred on the feeding grounds in the whaling areas of West Greenland, Iceland and north and west Norway but the position of the boundaries was uncertain. Such assessments would not preclude the possibility of fewer or more breeding stocks in the North Atlantic or, in due course, of those areas themselves being subdivided in some way for assessment purposes.

Sightings surveys to estimate abundance of minke whales and other species have been conducted extensively in the North Atlantic in recent years. In particular, major international surveys were undertaken in 1987 (NASS-87, 8 survey vessels and 2 aircraft) and 1989 (NASS-89, 15 survey vessels and 2 aircraft).

The Scientific Committee reviewed the methodology of, and comparability between, the various ship surveys conducted between 1987 and 1989. It agreed that while use of the same analytical methods for all ship surveys was desirable for comparative purposes, it was not essential at this meeting.

The Scientific Committee spent a considerable time discussing a new method of determining g(0), the probability of sighting whales on the trackline. It agreed that the method was a valuable step forward in trying to solve the problems of applying line transect sampling to whale populations. It also agreed that g(0) was substantially less than one. However, differing opinions were expressed as to whether the method could be used to estimate a value of g(0) appropriate for use in calculating an acceptable estimate of abundance. Some members believed that there were unresolved problems with the method and that it could not. Some of these members believed that if an estimate were to be used, it should be corrected by the results reported in the Scientific Committee Report (Annex F, Appendix 7) as should the effective strip width. Other members believed that the crude correction factor developed was inappropriate. They believed that the new method to estimate g(0) should be used.

The Scientific Committee agreed that cue-counting methodology should be used as a basis for estimating abundance in West Greenland and Icelandic coastal waters from aerial survey data. It also spent a considerable time discussing CPUE data for the Northeastern stock of minke whales but came to no agreement about whether these series should be used for assessment purposes.

Given the failure to agree on the use of a method to calculate g(0), the Scientific Committee could not present a single estimate of stock size for the Northeastern stock. It did agree, however, to a combined 95% confidence interval of 43,500 - 114,000. The Scientific Committee accepted an estimate of 28,000 (approximate 95% CI 21,600 - 31,400) as the best estimate of the number of minke whales in the Central stock area. It also accepted an estimate of 3,266 (approximate 95% CI 1,790 - 5,950) for the West Greenland stock area.

In addition the Scientific Committee agreed to present estimates for several areas other than existing stock areas in preparation for alternative assessments to be attempted. These were:

(1)

Central plus West Greenland stock areas - 31,200 (95% CI 24,450 - 37,950);

(2)

Central stock area excluding the area around Jan Mayen - 22,400 (no confidence interval could be calculated);

(3)

Northeastern stock area excluding the southern part - 95% confidence interval of 30,200 - 79,200 (no point estimate was agreed);

(4)

in the absence of an estimate for the Eastern Canadian stock area, an estimate for the entire North Atlantic could not be calculated - the sum of the estimates for the Northeastern, Central and West Greenland stock areas gives a range of 74,700 to 145,200.

The Scientific Committee agreed to the use of the HITTER/FITTER model for assessment, given the requirement to provide information under the NMP, in particular with respect to the possible reclassification of the Northeastern Stock, and a question posed by the Commissioner for Iceland on the effect of certain catches.

The Scientific Committee discussed the results of the runs of the HITTER/FITTER model for the Northeastern stock but no consensus on their interpretation was reached. Some members believed that the best estimate of population size was 81,500 for the entire Northeastern stock which when combined with reasonable MSY rates (more than 2%) indicated that the stock was currently at more than half of its 1937 level. Other members noted that the use of one of the CPUE series was consistent with the lower range of the interval for population abundance (43,500) with MSY rates of up to 2%. These results showed that the stock is currently reduced to about one third of its 1937 level. These and other members noted that if the lower bound of the interval for population abundance was considered, there was strong evidence that the stock was substantially reduced below its pre-exploitation level.

The Scientific Committee considered the results of the runs of the HITTER model for the Central stock area, and for the Central stock area excluding the area around Jan Mayen. The predicted number of exploitable females in 1990 as a proportion of the number in 1940 was little affected by the population estimate used. For an MSY rate of 2% for example, this proportion ranged from 0.79, when the lower 95% confidence limit was used, to 0.86 when the upper limit was used. Exclusion of the area around Jan Mayen made only a slight difference to the results. Some members expressed the view that the results of the HITTER run were of limited value for assessment in the circumstances where there was no reliable time series of relative abundance data.

Some members noted that the results for the HITTER runs on the Central and West Greenland stock areas combined did not result in the anomalies obtained in 1988 when the model was run on the West Greenland stock area alone. They noted that this was consistent with the view that the Scientific Committee had taken at that time that the stock boundary at Kap Farvel was not a true one. Other members drew attention to the results of the genetic analyses this year which they believed precluded the possibility that minke whales off Iceland and West Greenland were from the same stock. These members did not find the results of these HITTER runs useful.

The Scientific Committee noted that the slow growth rate of whale populations meant that there was no possibility that a substantial change in minke whale numbers had occurred since 1986. Furthermore the coefficient of variation associated with individual estimates of abundance implied that only major changes in numbers could possibly be detected. The Committee concluded that it could offer no advice at this time concerning the effect of the 1982 decision on North Atlantic minke whales.

The Scientific Committee was unable to reach consensus on the classification of the Northeastern stock. The range of views can be summarised as follows:

(1)

Some members believed that the most appropriate analyses, both with and without the CPUE series being taken into account, led to a conclusion that the Northeastern Atlantic management stock of minke whales should be classified as a Sustained Management Stock.

(2)

Some members commented that they believed that the results of the HITTER stock simulations indicated a Protection Stock classification on the above basis for the entire range of MSY rates considered.

(3)

Some members believed that if the null hypothesis of the current classification (i.e. that the stock is a Protection Stock) is adopted then there is insufficient evidence to reject this null hypothesis, but that if no prior hypothesis is adopted, there is insufficient evidence to classify the stock.

The Scientific Committee agreed that, if the results of the runs of the HITTER model for the Central stock as at present defined are used as a basis for assessment, the Central stock of minke whales in the North Atlantic should be classified as an Initial Management Stock.

The Scientific Committee discussed how it could best answer the question from the Icelandic Commissioner on the effect of an annual take of 200, 300 or 400 minke whales from the Central North Atlantic stock area in the five year period 1991 - 1995. Some members expressed concern that the Committee had been requested to consider such a question while attempting a comprehensive assessment. No consensus concerning the advice that could be given to the question was reached.

Some members believed that it could be concluded that an annual take of 200 whales over a 5 year period would have a negligible effect on the size of the stock. Even taking an extremely cautious approach, using the lower confidence limit for population abundance and assuming an MSY rate of only 2% , the stock size remained virtually unchanged at 78 - 79% of its initial level.

Other members believed that whether or not an answer could be given to the Icelandic Commissioner's question depended upon whether the whales in the Central stock area comprise the whole of a single population.

Some members commented that a question of this type, outside the context of a management framework, was not a useful way to approach the management of whale stocks.

Technical Committee discussion
In the Technical Committee, Iceland congratulated the Scientific Committee on the completion of a major task. It believed that there is now a much improved basis for management with significant conclusions on the biology, genetic identification and other indicators suggesting that there are three stocks of minke whales in the North Atlantic with little mixing. The North Atlantic sightings surveys have been the backbone of the comprehensive assessment of these stocks and the estimate of the Central stock of 28,000 with an annual harvest of 300 whales taken over two decades indicates its status as an Initial Management Stock.

Norway spoke on the Northeast Atlantic minke whale stock which has been extensively studied by the sightings surveys. The Scientific Committee has accepted a confidence interval somewhat lower than the Norwegian view but there is no point estimate. It was concerned that there might be no further assessment next year. The few remaining questions can be answered quite quickly, and it asked the Scientific Committee to complete the assessment at next year's meeting.

The UK observed that the Scientific Committee has spent much time and effort on this stock but recognised that genetic samples, g(0), distance estimates for sightings surveys and trend in CPUE still required more study.

Japan spoke in favour of reclassifying both the Northeastern and Central stocks in the light of the new information available and believed that the view in the Scientific Committee was close to consensus. Iceland commended Norway's commitment to research on the Northeastern stock and believed that the present classification had no scientific basis since there had been no significant changes in the stock for thirty years since the 1950s.

Norway asked for assurance that a deadline would be met for completion of the assessment of the Northeastern Atlantic stock. It was confident that the scientists can resolve the few remaining questions. At the same time it was a general question what the Commission will do when successive assessments raise ever new questions. It was Norway's understanding that assessments for priority stocks must be completed.

10.1.3 Other stocks
The Scientific Committee examined progress reports on six stock groups: North Atlantic fin whales, North Pacific minke whales; western North Pacific Bryde's whales; bowhead whales; North Atlantic sei whales; and North Atlantic sperm whales. The results of these examinations were taken into account when determining the future work plans.

10.1.4 Future work plans
The Scientific Committee agreed that the priority studies for the period up to and including the 1991 Annual Meeting were: (i) Management; (ii) North Atlantic fin whales; (iii) North Pacific minke whales; (iv) Bowhead whales. It was also agreed that the question of the estimation of g(0) should be addressed.

There was some discussion of priority studies for the post-1991 Annual Meeting period. The Scientific Committee agreed that North Pacific Bryde's whales and North Atlantic sei whales should be the subject of an in-depth assessment before or at the 1992 meeting, following review of progress reports next year.

The Scientific Committee agreed that a special meeting on North Atlantic fin whales should be held in February 1991. Most members agreed that this meeting should be considered a full meeting of the Scientific Committee, as had been the gray whale meeting and that an Item 'management advice' should be included on the Agenda. They noted that this was the most efficient way to ensure progress under the Comprehensive Assessment. If discussion of North Atlantic fin whales also occurred at the Annual Meeting it would reduce the time available to address the priorities agreed for that meeting.

Two other intersessional meetings were identified by the Committee: (i) the Workshop on Alternative Management Procedures and (ii) the Symposium and Workshop entitled 'Mortality of cetaceans in passive fishing nets and traps'.

The Scientific Committee agreed that the following items should be given highest priority at the 1991 Annual Meeting: (i) management procedures; (ii) bowhead whales; (iii) North Pacific minke whales.

In discussing an initial Agenda for the 1991 Annual Meeting, in addition to these priority items the Scientific Committee also agreed that ad-hoc working groups should examine the estimation of g(0) and revised estimates of the abundance of Southern Hemisphere baleen whales.

The Scientific Committee recognised that it may be required to review research results based on existing scientific permits and to review new or revised scientific proposals. As last year it agreed that results from scientific permit catches should only be discussed in so far as they are relevant to the Comprehensive Assessment of the priority stocks identified. Discussion of continuing permits should be confined as far as practicable to major changes in objectives or methodology. New scientific permit proposals would, of course, be subjected to the normal scrutiny required by the Commission.

Technical Committee discussion
In the Technical Committee, Iceland supported completion of the Northeast Atlantic minke whale assessment.

New Zealand expressed concern that Special Meetings of the Scientific Committee with restricted attendance might be designated as full meetings, and was supported by Australia.

10.2 Report of Joint Working Group
Mr D. Piney (France) as Vice Chairman of the Technical Committee took the chair while Mr L.A. Fleischer presented the Report of the Joint Working Group which he had chaired. The Joint Working Group discussed its terms of reference and it was generally accepted that the purpose of the Working Group was to review the work of the Scientific Committee with regard to the Comprehensive Assessment, and to consider future work. There was broad agreement that the Joint Working Group was not to undertake matters which were the responsibility of the Technical Committee, but that it could provide advice to the Technical Committee on items before it.

Intersessional meetings
The Chairman of the Scientific Committee summarised the Report of the Workshop on the Genetic Analysis of Cetacean Populations, held in La Jolla, California. The Workshop concluded that there are a variety of genetic techniques available for cetacean population studies, including studies of stock identity and substocks. The Scientific Committee stressed that biopsy sampling techniques are an important tool in obtaining information valuable to the management and conservation of cetaceans, and agreed that when responsibly carried out biopsy sampling was not likely to have any long-term or even short-term detrimental effects on individuals or populations.

Management procedures
Discussion in the Joint Working Group centred on whether or not the Scientific Committee would be in a position to recommend an alternative management procedure to the Commission, as it planned, particularly in the light of problems concerning stock identity. There was also discussion of what might be done if such a procedure was not available.

The Joint Working Group endorsed the 1990/91 Work Plan including a December meeting to be held in Tokyo, and there was broad agreement that the development of the revised management procedure should be of highest priority.

The Working Group specifically endorsed the strong recommendation that Dr Kirkwood should continue to chair future Comprehensive Assessment management meetings and attend the 1991 Annual Meetings. This was subsequently accepted by the Commission.

Gray whales
The Scientific Committee agreed that the best population estimate is about 21,113. Assuming a constant rate of increase the population has been increasing at a rate of 3.2% from 1967 to 1988, during which there was an average annual catch of 174 animals.

The Scientific Committee had agreed that this stock was not a Protection Stock under the NMP, although it was unable to determine if it was a Sustained Management Stock or an Initial Management Stock.

The Joint Working Group noted the recommendations of the Special Meeting for further research and research priorities regarding this stock, which were later accepted by the Commission.

Southern Hemisphere minke whales and North Atlantic minke whales
Discussion in the Joint Working Group centred on the question of the updating of assessments of stocks which had already been considered under the Comprehensive Assessment.

After some discussion the Joint Working Group endorsed the 1990/91 workplan including the proposed intersessional meetings, which were also agreed by the Commission in plenary session.

10.2.1 Review of Schedule paragraphs 10(e) and 13(a)
The Joint Working Group noted that the Scientific Committee Report contained management advice and information relevant to Schedule paragraphs 10(e) and 13(a) for both the Southern Hemisphere and the North Atlantic minke whales. The Scientific Committee reported that there was no possibility of a substantial increase in populations since the zero catch limits came into effect, and there was no way to determine the precise effect of the zero catch quotas on the stocks. Seychelles drew attention to the fact that there was no division of opinion within the Scientific Committee on the impossibility at this time of determining the effects of zero quotas in the light of the short length of time for which the 1982 decision had been in effect; the population biology of large whales; the precision and frequency of surveys to estimate abundance; and the reliability of the population models used for prediction. Iceland referred in this connection to the inconsistency it saw in certain sections of the report of the Scientific Committee.

Japan stated its belief that the Scientific Committee Comprehensive Assessment shows that Southern Hemisphere minke whales are in a robust condition. It further stated that it believed there was no reason to continue the moratorium on this stock. The UK pointed that there were different views expressed within the Scientific Committee on the classification and management of these stocks.

The Joint Working Group agreed that it had served its function and recommended to the Technical Committee that it be disbanded. This was subsequently endorsed by the Commission.

10.3 Action arising
Technical Committee discussion
Central North Atlantic minke whales
Iceland proposed, on the evidence of the Scientific Committee report, that the Central stock of minke whales in the North Atlantic should be classified IMS. This was seconded by Norway and supported by Japan and St Lucia.

Australia commented that the position of the stock boundaries was uncertain, and thought such changes inappropriate. The UK pointed to problems noted by the Scientific Committee over MSY and MSYL, and the USA also preferred to proceed slowly and cautiously.

Both Japan and Iceland recognised the scientific uncertainties but thought the scientific conclusions were clear. St Lucia also wished to follow the Scientific Committee advice.

The Federal Republic of Germany and Sweden preferred to wait for new management procedures to be developed before taking such action. The Netherlands and Seychelles pointed to limitations of the HITTER method of analysis. The UK believed that part of the Comprehensive Assessment is revision of the management procedures. Denmark stated it is not able to accept changes this year, but hoped to reach a decision next year. It thought the present classification system is unsatisfactory, and suggested that any new procedure might be in the form of guidelines outside the Schedule.

Norway raised the question whether some governments contested the validity of the NMP which is the only basis we have until a revised procedure is adopted. If so, Norway asked whether it was the intention of these delegations to propose a Schedule amendment removing the basis for any ongoing whaling operation.

The UK agreed with Norway that an important aspect of the Comprehensive Assessment is the development of a revised management procedure; the question of amending the Schedule would arise when the Comprehensive Assessment, including the revised management procedure, had been completed.

The Netherlands made a general statement reflecting its view that the NMP is not a satisfactory basis for the management of whales. It believed that the assessments of North Atlantic and Southern Hemisphere minke whales in greater breadth and depth had shown that serious problems remain, particularly over stock identity and as the revised procedures for management were designed to overcome these difficulties, these procedures should be finalised before any management decision on commercial whaling is taken.

Japan commented that the blanket moratorium decision overrode scientific advice, and there is a requirement in the Schedule to review the effect of the decision in 1990. It considered it essential to correct the errors of the past, and specifically called for the Southern Hemisphere minke whales to be reclassified and to have catch limits other than Zero.

The Technical Committee then agreed to defer further consideration of this Agenda Item until later in the meeting. On resumption of the debate, Iceland reconfirmed its proposal to reclassify the stock IMS and was seconded additionally by St Vincent & The Grenadines.

Australia pointed out that many stocks are unclassified and believed that the Commission has no obligation to set classifications due to customary practice and since in its view paragraph 10(e) overrides paragraphs 10(a) to (c). It did see some value in the Protection category since this had been recognised in recent Resolutions on Special Permits. It saw fundamental problems of stock identity in the North Atlantic minke whales and would prefer to discuss paragraph 10(e) in plenary before looking at individual stocks. This position was shared by the USA, the Netherlands, Seychelles, Sweden and New Zealand.

Iceland took the view that it was not for the Technical Committee to determine how the debate occurs in plenary and Norway associated itself with this position.

The UK suggested that the whole discussion should be deferred to the plenary since there were two views on the matter. There were further exchanges on the procedure to be followed and Iceland called for a vote.

Seychelles expressed its view that the Scientific Committee had made a conditional statement on the classification of this stock dependent on the results of the HITTER program and the presently defined stock area. Some scientists did not believe the model appropriate and there was uncertainty over the stock boundaries, and it was not possible to determine the extent of support in the Scientific Committee.

New Zealand believed the Scientific Committee statement contained no clear advice, only a conditional statement. Norway and St Lucia objected to this view, and referred to the text of the Scientific Committee Report which was clear on its part in so much as it stated that the Committee was in agreement.

The vote on the proposal of Iceland to classify the stock IMS received 6 votes in favour, 20 against with 3 abstentions, and so the proposal was defeated.

Iceland then indicated that it would propose a specific catch limit in the plenary.

Northeastern Atlantic minke whales
Norway spoke to its request for reclassification of the Northeastern stock of minke whales, recalling that it had objected to the classification as a Protection Stock. A great deal of research had been carried out and there was now a level of certainty higher than ever before regarding this stock. However, the Scientific Committee had put forward three views on classification. Norway proposed that the stock should be classified SMS. Iceland seconded this proposal, which was also supported by St Vincent & The Grenadines.

The UK explained that even using the NMP it could not agree to such classification which involved the use of high population estimates and MSY rates. The USA also expressed its reservations on the use of the NMP and supported the UK's views, as did the Federal Republic of Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Australia, Sweden, Switzerland and Finland.

Japan restated its view of the validity of the NMP until it is modified in the Schedule. Iceland gave its view that the present PS classification is wrong and should be lifted, and suggested this as an alternative to Norway's proposal.

The Technical Committee agreed to transmit the two views on this matter to the plenary session.

Southern Hemisphere minke whales
Japan expressed its concern that scientists will lose the incentive to work if the Commission disregards their advice. It proposed that consideration of Southern Hemisphere minke whales should be deferred to the plenary session. The Technical Committee agreed to this proposal.

Future work plans
Norway expressed the importance it attached to completion of the Comprehensive Assessment of the Northeastern Atlantic minke whale stock within a certain deadline before the next Annual Meeting. It particularly identified the four outstanding points identified in the Report of the Joint Working Group. It emphasised that in seeking this assurance for completion of the work on this stock, it was completely in line with the Commission's priorities on the Comprehensive Assessment.

The UK suggested the need to find a system to accommodate follow-up work without overloading the Scientific Committee. It suggested that countries should identify what they consider needs to be done so that the Scientific Committee can determine how long the task will take, and then priorities could be decided upon. The USA believed that the work on g(0) could have a special emphasis on the Northeastern Atlantic minke whale stock.

Japan believed it important that new data should be considered for those stocks which have been examined as priority stocks by the Scientific Committee. There was then an exchange of views on the length of time likely to be taken by the Scientific Committee to undertake this work. St Lucia expressed its fear of overloading that Committee. The Chairman of the Scientific Committee sought for specific guidance on the scope of the work under consideration and it was agreed that those nations wishing to have topics addressed in the Scientific Committee should confer with the Chairman of the Scientific Committee so that he can report back to the plenary.

Plenary discussion
Central North Atlantic minke whales
In the plenary session of the Commission, Iceland proposed again that the Central stock of North Atlantic minke whales be classified IMS. This was seconded by Norway, and supported by Japan and St Vincent & The Grenadines.

Australia stated that because it believes paragraph 10(e) of the Schedule overrides paragraphs 10(a) to 10(c), the Commission is no longer obliged to set one of the three classifications, particularly in light of the recent reports of the Scientific Committee that the New Management Procedure is inadequate. It saw no reason or necessity to alter classifications within the exploitable categories, which include unclassified stocks, although it believed that the Protection Stock category still served some purpose because of the special care they warrant. There are still fundamental problems of stock identity with this particular stock, and this is the issue on which revised management procedures will stand or fall. It did not see that replacement of paragraph 10(e) is possible until the Commission has been able to contemplate replacements for paragraphs 10(a) to 10(c), and thus thought it would be impossible to reclassify the stock under consideration.

Switzerland strongly supported this opinion, as did Seychelles, New Zealand, the Federal Republic of Germany and Brazil.

The UK agreed that the stock should be left unclassified at present. It thought it would be wiser to wait for a better management procedure which meets the objectives of stable catches and protecting stocks. Sweden also supported the views of Australia, Switzerland and the UK, pointing out that the Scientific Committee found that the NMP was not robust and in some cases even caused a simulated stock to be extinguished. Classification of stocks or setting of catch limits cannot be undertaken without a revised procedure in place.

Norway argued that the Commission has to act on the basis of the present Schedule until it is amended, and this says all stocks of whales shall be classified in one of three categories according to the advice of the Scientific Committee. It did not believe that the New Management Procedure had led to the over-exploitation of stocks, and held the view that until revised procedures are adopted, the 1974 New Management Procedure is a valid one. It took the strongest reservations to views implying that the Schedule as formulated should be set aside.

Japan looked for an improved and revised management procedure in 1991, but believed that in the interim the New Management Procedure still remains valid.

The USA noted that in the debate on the moratorium proposal in 1980 documentation was presented on the uncertainties in the stock assessments undertaken by the Scientific Committee, and the failure of the New Management Procedure to take account of these in some numerical manner. While great progress had been made in obtaining improved estimates of abundance, the issue of stock identity still causes considerable difficulties. It believed that until such uncertainties as these are resolved and management procedures adopted which are sufficiently robust to handle those that remain, the cessation of commercial whaling should remain in force.

The Netherlands restated its view that the New Management Procedure is not a satisfactory basis for the management of whales, and that pending the development of a revised procedure, the classification of the Central Stock of North Atlantic minke whales should remain unchanged.

Switzerland expressed its concern on the fate of the whales, and was prepared to follow the scientific advice. It noted the uncertainties and disagreements expressed by the scientists, and the fact that a revised management procedure will not be available before next year. It gave the benefit of the doubt to the whales and thought it premature to reclassify whale stocks now. It also took account of the fact that CITES has the minke whale listed on its Appendix I as a species endangered with extinction.

Chile was also against reclassification because the Scientific Committee had not arrived at a clear interpretation of stock identities.

Iceland summarised its views in seven points. There has been no amendment to the existing management procedures and no proposal before this meeting to amend them. The option discussed by Australia to pick and choose from amongst the provisions of the Convention or unilaterally to place some clauses in abeyance was not open to the Commission. Paragraph 10(e) applies until 1990 or until a comprehensive assessment is completed; its proposal referred to a possible classification with application from 1990 and related to a stock whose comprehensive assessment had been completed. Consequently, existing procedures must be used which are also being used with respect to other stocks dealt with by the Commission. The Schedule obligated the Commission to classify stocks. The Scientific Committee's view was that the stock should be classified as an Initial Management Stock. Also, classification is independent of the clauses on catch limits, and even for unclassified stocks there is a management obligation in the Commission. Finally, any action taken by the Commission flying in the face of advice from the Scientific Committee had serious implications on the future of the organisation. It therefore proposed a vote on the proposal.

On taking the vote, there were 6 votes in favour, 19 against with 3 abstentions, so the proposal was defeated.

Iceland then, on the conservative evaluation of the Scientific Committee that an annual catch of 200 whales for five years would leave the stock virtually unchanged at 78 - 79% of its pre-exploitation level, proposed a catch limit for the 1991 season of 200 whales. Norway, Japan and St Vincent & The Grenadines seconded this proposal.

The UK found it difficult to accept arbitrary catch limits without a management framework, and New Zealand questioned the setting of non-zero catch limits. Australia and the USA also believed the zero catch limits stood until Schedule paragraph 10(e) had been reviewed.

Iceland and Norway took the view that since this is 1990 it is possible to consider setting other catch limits. The Chairman ruled that it is possible to vote on other catch limits now, a ruling challenged by the USA. Denmark supported the Chairman, and Japan stated that it abided by the existing Schedule and Convention and would vote on the basis of the Scientific Committee's Report. The UK wished to consider paragraph 10(e) before voting, but the matter was put to the vote straight away.

There were 8 votes in favour, 10 against with 10 abstentions, and so the Chairman's ruling was defeated.

Following the vote Iceland expressed at length its concern that the 1982 decision to set zero catch limits to be reviewed by 1990 was turning into an indefinite moratorium. It believed this was not the original intention, and reidentified the grounds for putting forward its proposal. Norway associated itself fully with this statement and drew attention to alternative fora where these pressing issues can be discussed if the Commission did not live up to the challenges before it. It mentioned specifically a meeting of North Atlantic countries which had signed a Memorandum of Understanding on cooperation in research, conservation and management of marine mammals.

New Zealand outlined the sequence of events it understood was intended in the 1982 drafting - a five-year cessation of whaling, subject to review by 1990 at the latest when the Commission would undertake a comprehensive assessment of the effects of the decision and consider modification of the zero catch limit. After that it could establish other catch limits, but at the moment the Commission had not agreed to modify the zero catch limits and therefore it was not possible to establish other limits. The UK supported this understanding of the order in which the issues should be treated and which had not been followed in the meeting. The USA also supported this view, and for this reason it had therefore felt obligated to call the original point of order. Australia associated itself with these comments. Monaco wished the Scientific Committee to have more time to develop its best advice.

Finally, Japan concurred with the statements given by Iceland and Norway, and expressed its view that the Commission does not keep the promises it had agreed upon, nor acts on the scientific advice it receives.

Northeastern Atlantic minke whales
Norway referred to the discussion in the Technical Committee, and the three views on classification in the Scientific Committee. It proposed that the stock should now be unclassified, as previously suggested by Iceland, and this proposal was seconded by Iceland and supported by St Vincent & The Grenadines. Japan also expressed its support because of the various views in the Scientific Committee.

The UK argued that even if the NMP were used, about which it had well-known reservations, it believed there was still such scientific uncertainty that the present Protection Stock classification should not be changed. The USA, Sweden, Seychelles, the Federal Republic of Germany and Australia agreed with this statement. The Netherlands also opposed a change before the comprehensive assessment was completed, and Switzerland shared both the opinions of the UK and the Netherlands.

On being put to the vote, the proposal was defeated, with 5 votes in favour, 18 against, and 4 abstentions.

Review of Schedule paragraph 10(e)
Australia made a statement, which it also distributed, setting out its position, noting that for some stocks the moratorium had been in place for only two years. Australia was opposed to whaling while recognising the traditional subsistence needs of some communities. It supported the IWC as the most appropriate body for the conservation and management of all cetaceans internationally, and the endeavours of the Scientific Committee. It believed that any suggestion to remove paragraph 10(e) incurred a series of consequent actions, especially implementation of a revised management scheme. An iterative process was implicit in advice to the Scientific Committee on weightings to be applied to the three management objectives, and their incorporation into any revised scheme as Schedule amendments. In its view it was not possible for the Scientific Committee to provide by the 1991 Commission meeting both an agreed scheme and management advice on which Schedule amendments allowing commercial catches in 1991 could be based.

The Commission had not yet been in a position to provide the advice requested by the Scientific Committee, and a series of alternative assessments was likely in 1991 based on different weightings of the Commission's objectives. It was also likely that some governments would be unwilling to adopt binding Schedule amendments until they had been able to review them in their own time.

It identified the sequence of steps necessary before commercial catches of whales could resume, and stated its view that it will be essential that catch limits will not be established outside a new revised management procedure.

France shared the general objectives and description of the situation made by Australia.

Finland recalled that the World Conservation Strategy called for a moratorium on commercial whaling until IWC member nations no longer assisted whaling activities by non-members (this was now met), that permitted levels of exploitation are safe, and the consequences for the ecosystem and the recovery of whale populations can be predicted. Neither of these other two conditions had yet been satisfied, although the development of a revised management procedure will go some way, coupled with a strengthened and comprehensive international system for monitoring any future commercial whaling activity. It also spoke of the strong body of public opinion in its country which is against commercial killing of whales on scientific, ethical and humane grounds.

The USA reviewed the history of scientific concerns over the past two decades to identify and define regional stocks, the failure to maintain stock levels, and the flaws in the New Management Procedure. It strongly believed that until the scientific uncertainties were resolved and adequate assessment of whale stocks possible, with sufficiently robust management procedures to handle remaining uncertainties, paragraph 10(e) should remain in place.

Sweden believed that the need for a sound scientific basis for commercial whaling must be the major goal for the IWC. It agreed with the course of events stated by Australia, and noted that it did not strive for a ban on whaling but for the sound management of whales as a natural resource.

Brazil agreed with the declarations by Australia and the USA, and the Federal Republic of Germany shared the views expressed by Australia.

New Zealand pointed out that any modification of the zero catch limits was to be considered after a live-year period, but whaling under objection had continued until 1988 and there had been significant whaling under research permits. In its view it would be premature to consider modification of the zero catch limit at this meeting.

The Netherlands noted that the Scientific Committee had reported its ability to advise the Commission on reviewing paragraph 10(e) was affected by the length of time the paragraph had been effective, the general population biology of large whales, the precision and frequency of abundance surveys, and the reliability of the models used for the prediction of population status. There were still several technical problems to be solved on these issues, but it had been established that the NMP fails to conserve simulated whale stocks where revised procedures perform satisfactorily. In these circumstances, it believed no management decisions on commercial whaling must be taken until a revised procedure is finalised and adopted by the Commission, together with adequate arrangements for data collection and monitoring of populations.

The UK reviewed the activities of the Scientific Committee and the Commission since 1982, including the development of revised management procedures and the detailed assessments of three stocks this year. There was still much to be done, but the NMP had been shown to have drawbacks, and caution must be the watchword to establish that the stocks are in a healthy condition, and a good management procedure is in place which affords a high level of protection, safety and stability. Therefore paragraph 10(e) still stands and in the view of the UK the moratorium cannot be lifted yet.

Switzerland shared the opinions expressed by Australia, the USA, New Zealand, the Netherlands and the UK. It thought that an end to the moratorium at this moment would be premature, and it should only be lifted when the Comprehensive Assessment is completed and revised management procedures are in place. The task defined by the Commission in 1982 was too great to be completed by this year, and some patience may seem to be necessary.

Mexico recalled that it fully supported the inclusion of paragraph 10(e) in 1982, and as part of that commitment had participated in the Comprehensive Assessment exercise and the Scientific Committee meetings, particularly for gray whales for which it has special concern. It felt that the spirit of paragraph 10(e) was diminished in its effects on conservation and at the scientific level.

Norway spoke of the complex of questions interconnecting the Schedule issue of the moratorium, the Comprehensive Assessment, and management procedures. It saw attempts which seemed to be aimed at dragging out the process until all the elements were in place, and warned against the view that an indefinite moratorium was adopted in 1982, so that a year or two more did not matter. It was saddened by this perspective given to the historic date of 1990 and credibility of a commitment in 1982.

Seychelles commented that it was closely involved in the 1982 decision to set indefinite zero catch limits for commercial whaling and in the drafting of paragraph 10(e). The Scientific Committee has given technical and biological reasons why it was unable at this time to assess the effect of the moratorium. The original period of five years before a review might have been unrealistic, and in fact the decision has been in effect for a shorter time. Last year Seychelles associated itself with six other delegations in saying there should be no ad hoc and partial lifting of the moratorium. It believed the question of catch limits should be reviewed again when a revised management procedure has been agreed to. It suggested all the consequences of the 1982 decision should be reviewed ten years after it came into effect, perhaps in 1995, and that next year the Commission consider arranging for a report on what it has done with respect to conservation of whales and the management of whaling in the period since the 1972 Stockholm Conference to the UN Conference on Environment and Development due to convene in Brazil in 1992.

Denmark thought it premature to adopt catch limits other than zero at this meeting, as its Government would like to analyse and evaluate the Scientific Committee's Report and other information. But it did not want to adopt a decision which might exclude the possibility of reviewing the zero catch limits for commercial whaling at the next Annual Meeting on stocks considered under the Comprehensive Assessment which might have sustainable yields.

Spain noted that it had adopted hard economic and social sacrifices in implementing the moratorium decision, which implied a turning point in a long whaling tradition. However, it agreed to the maintenance of paragraph 10(e) until the implementation of a revised management scheme.

Japan believed the moratorium lacked scientific basis, and the results of the Comprehensive Assessments this year showed some stocks had a very good status. It commented on the Australian Commissioner's statement, and thought that the developers of the five alternative management procedures were able to come to satisfactory results of weighting the Commission's objectives. It believed that the problems of stock identity could be solved by field research, and spoke of the value of the whale marking and sighting programmes for Southern Hemisphere minke whales, which some scientists had opposed.

Chile considered that the moratorium cannot be lifted now, but only when several conditions are fulfilled, as reflected by other delegations.

Iceland classified the statements with which it disagreed as irrelevant, anti-historical, rhetorical and ambiguous. It had no quarrel with the latter two, but concerning the others, recalled earlier comments on the role of scientific advice in the adoption of the 1982 decision and the lack of reference in paragraph 10(e) to revised management procedures. The Icelandic Government had not objected to the 1982 decision on the understanding that it called for a five-year cessation and therefore on stocks which the Comprehensive Assessment had completed the zero quotas would exist only through 1990. It had proposed a quota for 1991 on the Central stock of North Atlantic minke whales but no decision was taken, leaving a vacuum for 1991 and thereafter. It concluded that the so-called review of the 1982 decision comes down to a vote on an appeal to a ruling on a vote to a catch limit, which draws the legal basis and binding nature of the 1982 decision into question. The position of the Icelandic Government would be taken in accordance with the foregoing.

New Zealand agreed that paragraph 10(e) does not include a specific reference to management procedures but it does say that the review should be based on the best scientific advice, which it thought would be difficult unless derived from the best management procedures. Australia agreed that the development of revised management procedures grew inexorably from the Scientific Committee's attempts to undertake the Comprehensive Assessment.

At a subsequent session, the UK presented a Resolution concerning paragraph 10(e) of the Schedule, co-sponsored by Australia, Brazil, Finland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Seychelles, Sweden, Switzerland, the UK and the USA. This referred to paragraph 10(e), the Resolution on the framework of the Comprehensive Assessment, and the work of the Scientific Committee in relation to the Comprehensive Assessment, and asked that the Scientific Committee makes every endeavour to succeed in its target to complete its work on revised management procedures by May 1991. It noted that paragraph 10(e) remains operative until modified and confirmed that it was the Commission's intention to keep this modification under review.

The USA strongly supported the Resolution, as did the Federal Republic of Germany and the Netherlands, the latter pointing out that a target is not a deadline.

Denmark, while agreeing that it was reasonable to prolong the duration of paragraph 10(e) by one year, proposed amended wording so as not to exclude the possibility of modification at the next Annual Meeting.

Norway asked if this Resolution was intended to have the character of a Schedule amendment, and the voting requirements. The UK was clear that it was not proposing an amendment to the Schedule but a position statement while waiting for the revised management procedure.

The Chair ruled against voting on the Resolution, which could be adopted by simple majority, while a Schedule amendment required a three-quarters majority. The Secretary believed there was an earlier precedent for this action, but New Zealand thought questions of interpretation were a matter for the Chairman and Commissioners. After some further exchanges between Commissioners, the session was adjourned for a Commissioners' meeting.

On resumption, the UK reiterated that there was no intention that the Resolution should be an amendment to the Schedule. The Commission had considered the effects of the moratorium and other factors, and it had been decided that now is not the year to lift the provisions of the zero catch limits. It did not wish to go against the Chairman's ruling and it therefore withdrew the Resolution on the understanding that paragraph 10(e) of the Schedule remained operative.

Brazil, the USA, New Zealand, the Netherlands and Seychelles all associated themselves with this statement.

Norway reserved its position on the view that there had been a review of the 1982 moratorium and decisions had been made on the indefinite prolongation of the moratorium. It thought rather that the Commission had not been able to complete the tasks it set itself in 1982 and the situation is not very clear.

Japan re-emphasised the importance of the Scientific Committee's tasks in development of revised management procedures to be completed by 1991. It was prepared to host a Working Group meeting in Tokyo in December. It expected the Scientific Committee to have the best available scheme next year, and for the Comprehensive Assessment to be on a stock by stock basis and applied for catch limits and classification.

In response to a question from Monaco, the Chair gave as its understanding that paragraph 10(e), 'the moratorium', is still in force.

Iceland analysed the situation by identifying that the Comprehensive Assessment had been completed on the Central North Atlantic stock of minke whales around Iceland. There is an agreed management procedure with no proposals to amend it. The Scientific Committee had agreed how to classify the stock, but this was voted down by the Commission. A proposal to set a catch limit of 200, supported by evidence from the Scientific Committee, was prevented by procedural means - although a subsequent Japanese proposal was voted on (Item 12.2). This left the question of establishing catch limits to the operation of the Convention in the absence of an agreed quota after 1 January 1991. It raised two questions - has the Commission lived up to its management responsibilities? Regrettably no. Secondly, has not the Commission called into question the whole legal basis of paragraph 10(e) and through its working methods endangered once again the future of the Commission? Regrettably yes. Norway associated itself with this view.

New Zealand observed a distinction in the two votes between a question of catch limits and an interim relief allocation on different criteria. The UK, Australia and the USA associated themselves with these remarks.

Amendment of the Schedule
The Commission agreed to amend the dates in the Schedule and tables from 1989 and 1989/90 to 1990 and 1990/91 as appropriate.

Southern Hemisphere minke whales
Japan reviewed the nearly consensus Report of the Scientific Committee on the reclassification, population size and catch limit under the NMP. However, it took account of the views expressed that revised management procedures should be adopted before it asked for reclassification and the setting of other catch limits according to Schedule paragraph 10(e). It trusted the Commission to adopt a revised procedure next year and would then ask for a catch limit and the reopening of commercial whaling. Japan is committed to continue support of the IDCR sightings surveys and its own national research programme, and it called for other countries to recognise the importance of scientific research in the Southern Hemisphere. It also reminded the Commission that the 1982 moratorium was a wrong decision so far as the Southern Hemisphere minke whale stocks were concerned and a number of people lost their jobs and are still suffering.

Future work plans
The Chairman of the Scientific Committee reported that, following discussions with delegations, there was agreement on what should be done and most of the problems were resolved at the scientific level. Norway took note of this, and emphasised the importance of completing the assessment of the Northeast Atlantic minke whale stock by the next Annual Meeting.

_