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

The main task of the meeting was to assess the Eastern stock of North Pacific gray whales. However information from the western North Pacific was relevant to the question of stock identity. Although the existing data were not conclusive, in view of no new information to the contrary, the Scientific Committee agreed that the eastern and western populations of gray whales probably represent geographically isolated stocks.

The Scientific Committee reviewed the available material on catch history with an emphasis on addressing questions regarding the magnitude of the aboriginal take and any additions to the recorded historical take.

It had before it the results of the contract study that investigated the magnitude of the aboriginal catch. The aboriginal take prior to the start of commercial gray whaling in 1846 was substantial, as was the aboriginal take from 1846 to 1930 which would be additive to the catches of commercial whalers.

The Scientific Committee agreed that the overall data set was the best available. However it noted that the estimated commercial catches may be underestimated to an unknown degree and possibly up to 1.5 times.

Fishery interactions have been documented along the entire west coast of North America. Although unknown biases mean that it is difficult to extrapolate from the available data, deaths due to entanglements in fishing gear may be significant along certain regions of the migration route.

The estimate previously presented and at that time accepted by the Scientific Committee was reviewed in detail at the Seattle meeting. It was based on the Granite Canyon, California, census conducted in 1987/88 and addressed effects of offshore distribution, missed whales and the estimation of the tails of the migration distribution. The Scientific Committee agreed that its best estimate of current (1987/88) population size is 21,113 (SE 688). It noted that the SE does not include any component associated with errors in identification of duplicates during double counting. It also agreed that, assuming a constant rate of increase, the population was increasing at a rate of 3.2% (SE 0.5%) over the period 1967/68 - 1987/88 with an average catch of 174 whales.

The Scientific Committee reviewed data concerning biological parameters derived from the Soviet catch since 1965 and from scientific permit catches off central California, 1959 - 69, as well as information from living whales and dead stranded specimens.

The Scientific Committee agreed that it was not useful to apply directly the values of biological parameters from one species to another. Thus, it concluded that inter-specific comparisons should be treated with caution.

Recent discussion of this stock in the Scientific Committee had focussed on the fact that simulation studies had been unable to reconcile the increasing trend in gray whale abundance revealed by the shore census data and the assumed catch history (post-1846) with standard population models utilising a simple density dependence function.

Given this, the Scientific Committee agreed that it was a worthwhile exercise to investigate whether realistic changes in input could produce trajectories which fitted what was known about the population history, i.e. 'commercial extinction' about 1900, an increasing trend in abundance between 1967/68 and 1987/88 and a 1987/88 population estimate of 21,113.

The Scientific Committee reviewed the set of results for the HITTER/FITTER program. It agreed that the most feasible HITTER runs were those for MSYR values of 3%, 4% and 5%. On the basis of likely catch records the most feasible FITTER run is given in Table 4.

The Scientific Committee recognised the limitations of using a simple population model over such a long time period. It did not believe it was appropriate to compare in detail model-generated parameters with observed values, but rather to qualitatively examine the results. In this regard it agreed that the runs using feasible input values were not incompatible with the scenario of a population reduced to low levels in 1900 and increasing over the period 1967 - 1988. It did not believe the results in isolation could be used to estimate MSY rates.

The Scientific Committee agreed that the dynamic response analysis method did not provide sufficient information to determine if the population was above or below its Maximum Net Productivity Level (MNPL).

From its deliberations at the meeting, the Scientific Committee concluded that this stock is not a Protection Stock. It noted that a lack of information on MSYL meant that it was unable to determine whether the stock was a Sustained Management or an Initial Management Stock. It further noted that the alternative definition of a Sustained Management Stock which does not require information on MSYL requires that the stock be 'stable' under a regime of relatively constant catches. Given that this stock has been increasing under such a catch regime, it does not fall within that definition.

The difficulties it found in classifying this stock reiterated the need for revision of the Commission's current management procedure.

Although the Scientific Committee was unable to determine the minimum level below which catches should not be taken, as required by the aboriginal subsistence management scheme, it agreed that the Eastern stock was well above any such level.

The Scientific Committee noted the calculations of average sustainable yield of 670 whales (CI 490 - 850) and agreed that the current annual catch level of 179 was below the sustainable yield for this stock.

The Scientific Committee considered the assessment it had undertaken in the context of future 'in-depth' assessments it would carry out as part of the comprehensive assessment. It referred to its view expressed that any inter-specific comparisons should be treated with caution. It also referred to its discussions with respect to the HITTER-FITTER program and the interpretation of results from such a simple model.

The Scientific Committee noted that its deliberations had been greatly facilitated by the fact that:

(i)

a steering group had determined work required and assigned tasks to individuals;

(ii)

most of the papers had been circulated in advance of the meeting, allowing detailed consideration of these to begin on the first day.

The Scientific Committee recommended that this procedure should be followed for all future assessments.

The Scientific Committee made the following recommendations.

(A) Census/survey work
The Scientific Committee discussed ways in which the shore-based census might be improved. It recommended that any future census should be preceded by a planning meeting of experts similar to that held for the IWC/IDCR Southern Hemisphere minke whale assessment cruises. Topics which should be examined include observer differences and possible improvements to the Petersen approach to estimating animals missed. It also recommended that the question of the proportion of animals which does not reach the census point station along the central Californian coast be addressed.

Given the possibility that this stock might be approaching carrying capacity and that its rate of increase might be expected to decrease, the Scientific Committee recommended that annual censuses (including aerial surveys to determine offshore whale distribution) be resumed.

The Scientific Committee also recommended that surveys in the breeding or feeding grounds should be carried out in such a manner as to allow abundance estimates to be obtained from the data. Planning meetings such as that described above would be desirable. In particular, it recommended that aerial surveys of the breeding areas in Mexican waters be continued.

In the light of discussions on low calf counts in Mexican waters in 1990, the Scientific Committee recommended that a cow-calf count of animals migrating north past San Simeon be undertaken for 1990. It recognised that this work must begin within the next week. If a northbound cow-calf census is not undertaken in 1990, the Scientific Committee recommended it be undertaken in 1991, if necessary in priority over a southbound census in that year.

(B) Catch records
The Scientific Committee recommended that work to examine missing shore-based commercial catches and values for struck and lost rates be undertaken.

(C) Biological parameters
The Scientific Committee recommended that a reanalysis of available pregnancy rate and mortality rate and other data be undertaken. The Scientific Committee also recommended that photo-identification data be collected to address the question of possible changes in pregnancy rate.

The Committee welcomed the data provided by the Soviet scientists from their aboriginal fishery. It recommended that such studies continue at an increased level.

The Scientific Committee noted that a Soviet cruise to investigate the abundance and distribution of gray whales would be undertaken. It recommended that if possible this cruise covers all known feeding areas in both the waters of the USSR and USA.

(D) Western Pacific gray whales
It is clear that little is known about the status and current distribution of the western stock of gray whales. The stock is clearly severely depleted and suggestions that it may be recovering slowly require confirmation.

In addition to the DNA/carbon isotope work the Scientific Committee recommended that cooperative research involving the USSR, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the People's Democratic Republic of Korea and the People's Republic of China be undertaken to investigate the distribution, abundance and possible increasing trend of this stock.

11.1.2 St Vincent & The Grenadines humpback whales
The last humpback catch in the fishery was a single animal taken in 1987/88. The Scientific Committee noted the mark-recapture estimate obtained for the western North Atlantic of 5,505 ± 2,617 for the years 1979 - 86. The estimated annual rate of increase was 9.4% but with extremely wide confidence intervals.

Although the relationship between animals from the Bequia - St Vincent breeding area and other humpback whales is unknown, the Committee agreed that a catch of up to three animals was unlikely to harm the stock. It recommended that if whales are taken, every attempt should be made to collect as much information as possible from them. In particular, photographs should be taken of the ventral surface of the flukes to allow comparison with the North Atlantic humpback whale catalogue, and samples should be collected for genetic analysis. Collection of photographs, with scale, of ovaries and foetus, if present, or testes would be valuable for documentation of sexual maturity.

11.1.3 Other stocks
The only information on other stocks reviewed by the Scientific Committee was for the West Greenland minke whales (see Item 10.1.2.2).

The Scientific Committee agreed that the best estimate for the current West Greenland stock area was 3,266 (approx. 95% CL 1,790 - 5,950). The only assessment runs made which included the West Greenland area was for the Central and West Greenland stock areas combined. Some members noted that the results for the HITTER runs on the 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 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.

11.2 Report of the Technical Committee Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling Sub-committee
Mr D. Piney (France) presented the Report of the Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling Sub-committee which he had chaired. This was attended by delegates from Australia, Brazil, People's Republic of China, Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, Iceland, Japan, Republic of Korea, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, St Lucia, St Vincent & The Grenadines, Seychelles, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, UK and USA. Observers from Canada and six NGOs also attended. The Sub-committee received the Report of the Scientific Committee as outlined above, and noted its comments on the following item.

11.2.1 Review of Schedule paragraph 13(a)
The Scientific Committee reviewed its advice under the aboriginal subsistence whaling scheme. It is clear that the Scientific Committee has not been able to determine minimum stock levels for each stock and has had great difficulty in establishing rates of increase for all but the gray whale and, in recent years, the bowhead whale. The Scientific Committee noted the similarity of the scheme to the New Management Procedure (NMP); the main difference between them is in the protection level. The difficulties associated with the NMP have led to the extensive effort currently underway to develop alternative management procedures. The Scientific Committee had given priority to this work under its Comprehensive Assessment rather than to the aboriginal whaling scheme. This was based on the assumption that any revised commercial whaling procedure would, as at present, be generally compatible with that for aboriginal subsistence whaling. The Scientific Committee agreed that a full discussion of any new management scheme for aboriginal whaling could only usefully take place after an alternative management procedure for commercial whaling had been established.

The Scientific Committee noted that the difficulties it had found in implementing the procedure specified in paragraph 13(a) precluded it from answering the question concerning the effects of the scheme on stocks. However, it believed that the procedures it had followed, in providing to the Commission where possible its best information on current stock size, levels of depletion, recent trends in population size and yield, or explaining why this could not be done, were satisfactory. It recognised that the Commission itself had set catch limits largely based on aboriginal subsistence need as reflected in discussions of the Technical Committee's Sub-committee on aboriginal subsistence whaling.

The Scientific Committee agreed that further discussion on any new management scheme for aboriginal subsistence whaling would need to examine the question of objectives for such a scheme. Three broad objectives had been accepted by the Commission in 1981. If the Commission confirmed these objectives, they could eventually be used in the development of a new aboriginal subsistence whaling scheme.

The Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling Sub-committee then considered the various aboriginal fisheries.

A. Greenland
At the 1989 Sub-committee meeting, the delegation of Denmark undertook to provide information on two case studies. At this meeting, Denmark presented its two case studies. These extensive documents included descriptions of the socio-economic structure of the communities, the hunting and flensing of the whales and the distribution and consumption of the whale products. The case studies described a settlement community with mainly small boat hunts and cutter hunting in a town in South Greenland.

The Sub-committee noted that Denmark had submitted substantial documentation both last year and this year, and recommended to the Technical Committee that the need of aboriginal populations in West Greenland is for 670 metric tons of whale meat from minke whales and larger whales. The Sub-committee forwarded for consideration by the Technical Committee the question of conversion factors for converting whales into tonnage of whale meat. Denmark reported that they use the following conversion factors: minke whales equalled two tonnes of meat, humpback whales eight tonnes, and fin whales ten tonnes.

B. St Vincent & The Grenadines
The Chairman drew attention to Schedule Paragraph 13(b)(4) which describes the quota for humpback whales for St Vincent & The Grenadines through the 1989/90 season. St Vincent & The Grenadines requested that the quota be reinstated although no whales had been taken for the last two years. The single Bequian whaler is now 69 years old and no young people are interested in continuing the tradition. However, the quota continues to serve a cultural need for the whole community. The people of Bequia value this tradition. Given that the Scientific Committee Report stated that the take of three whales will not affect the stock and that the lone whaler is aware of the regulations concerning the take of female whales and suckling calves, St Vincent & The Grenadines asked for a continuation of the status quo, namely, the quota of three whales each year for three years in order to allow the St Vincent whaling to die out naturally. Any action to alter this status quo would be counter productive and encourage interest in whaling.

Taking into account all these elements, the Sub-committee recognised the need for aboriginal subsistence whaling for humpback whales in St Vincent & The Grenadines. While noting the recognition of that need, Seychelles and the UK said that it appeared to be cultural rather than nutritional in character and would call for a quota greater than zero. Denmark noted that no change with respect to the needs of St Vincent & The Grenadines had been recommended by the Sub-committee. Australia, New Zealand and Seychelles, while also recognising the cultural need for some whaling activity, expressed reservations about whether the need continued at the same level, particularly in light of the information given about the very low level of catches in recent years.

C. Other matters

(1)

The UK raised the issue from last year's report on the CITES reservation held by St Vincent & The Grenadines concerning humpback whales. St Vincent & The Grenadines stated that the reservation was to cover the possibility of the Bequia fishery being defined as commercial whaling in CITES. It did not affect the commitment made to the IWC nor the fishery operation in St Vincent & The Grenadines, and is a matter that can only be resolved in the context of CITES and the discretion of the Government's delegation to CITES. The Sub-committee agreed to ask the Secretary to report to the Technical Committee on his contact with CITES concerning the filing of a reservation by St Vincent & The Grenadines regarding the humpback whale and the exchange of views between the two organisations.

The Technical Committee agreed to recommend that this matter be dealt with in plenary under Item 23.3.3.

(2)

The United States responded to comments concerning (1) the low level of landed bowhead whales in 1989 compared to the IWC quota and (2) the weaponry used by the Alaska Eskimos. The USA noted that the low number of landed whales is a demonstration of an unmet need. The nature of the native hunt, i.e. the use of traditional equipment and weapons, and the vagaries of ice and wind are primarily responsible for the low number of landed whales. Such unmet need is partially addressed by the native hunt of other available animals. Regarding questions specifically directed to the weaponry used by the Alaska Eskimos, the USA responded that a report describing the weaponry improvements had been submitted to the Humane Killing Sub-committee earlier.

In the Technical Committee, Oman referred to newspaper reports that the Bequia whaler had retired, but the Commissioner for St Vincent & The Grenadines referred to the information provided to the Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling Sub-committee. Norway and Japan supported the request by St Vincent & The Grenadines for the catch limit of three humpback whales per year to be continued for three years, recognising that this would cause negligible impact and satisfy the cultural tradition involved.

The UK commented on the Greenland need for 670 tonnes of whale meat and other products. It suggested that the conversion factors involved should be reconsidered. Denmark indicated that these were based on a long series of local records and, after some discussion, it was agreed that the appropriate data from all relevant whale fisheries should be submitted to the Secretariat in advance of next year's meeting. In the plenary session Denmark confirmed that it will provide these data, and the Commission endorsed the need of 670 tonnes of meat.

11.3 Action arising
The Technical Committee took note of the Scientific Committee's report and endorsed its recommendations, which were also approved by the Commission.

St Vincent & The Grenadines Humpback Whales
St Vincent & The Grenadines spoke of the situation with respect to the one whaler in Bequia. It emphasised that no young whalers are coming into the operation but there is wide community interest and excitement when a catch is taken. However, no whales have been caught in the past two years and it believed that any reduction of the present catch limit could be counterproductive. It proposed that the annual catch limit of three whales be continued for a further three years. This was seconded by Iceland, Japan and Norway. Denmark also gave its support, emphasising the need to collect data. Further support was also voiced by the UK, USA, France, Australia and St Lucia. In the event that the situation in St Vincent & The Grenadines were to change, USA expressed its expectation that such change would be reported to the Commission along with additional documentation on need. The Technical Committee therefore agreed to recommend that the Schedule be amended by the substitution of the dates 1990/91 - 1992/93 in paragraph 13(b)(4), and this was adopted by consensus in the Commission.

Review of Schedule paragraph 13(a)
The UK pointed out the conclusion of the Scientific Committee that a full discussion of any new management scheme for aboriginal subsistence whaling could only usefully take place after an alternative management procedure for commercial whaling had been established. It proposed that this recommendation should be accepted by the Technical Committee. Denmark, USA, Australia, New Zealand, Oman, Sweden, the Netherlands and Seychelles all agreed with this proposal. Iceland and Norway pointed out that the existing NMP is the valid procedure at present.

The Technical Committee therefore agreed that it would report that it could reach no agreement in this matter and that it had no proposal to revise the aboriginal whaling scheme.

In the Commission's plenary session the USA drew attention to the Scientific Committee's belief that its present procedures for providing its best information to the Commission were satisfactory.

The UK again proposed that the Commission should follow the Scientific Committee's recommendation that discussion of any new management scheme for aboriginal whaling could only usefully take place after that for commercial whaling had been settled. The USA, Australia, the Netherlands, New Zealand and Sweden associated themselves with this view, which was agreed by consensus.

_