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

The proposed 1990 catch of five animals was planned mainly to complete studies on digestion and studies on the energy expenditure of free-swimming whales. The proposal should be viewed in conjunction with the broader programme described two years ago.

The Scientific Committee noted that the 1990 proposal was an extension of the programme it had discussed in detail last year. It referred the Commission to that discussion and agreed this year to confine its discussion to new points; much of the discussion centred on the value of multi-species models to management, and various views were expressed.

Japan
The Scientific Committee reviewed the reports of information obtained from catches taken under Special Permits issued by the Government of Japan since 1987. A preliminary report on the cruise undertaken in Area IV between longitudes 70°E and 130°E and south of 55°S during 1989/90 as part of this research programme was presented. A total of 767 primary sightings of minke whale schools and 478 secondary sightings had been made during a total searching of 17,094 n. miles. A total of 300 individuals (184 males and 142 females) had been taken, including three diminutive form whales. The length composition of the whales taken was different from that of the commercial catch, with a higher proportion of small animals. Mature males dominated the catch throughout the research area. Pregnant females were concentrated along the ice edge and in Prydz Bay. Immature animals tended to be solitary and distributed in offshore areas.

In 1990/91 it was intended to take 300 whales ± 10% in Area V. The expedition would consist of one factory ship (acting as a research base), three sighting and sampling vessels, and two additional sightings vessels. The sampling scheme would be similar to that used in 1989/90. An appendix to the proposal described the account which had been taken of comments made by the Scientific Committee in 1989. Foreign scientists were welcome to participate in the cruise.

The Committee agreed to discuss two general papers related to the proposal. One was a theoretical study on the value of catch-at-age data combined with absolute abundance data for estimating historic recruitment rates and mean net recruitment rates. The other used a demographic model approach to examine likely sample sizes necessary to estimate population growth rates. The Committee could reach no consensus on the conclusions to be drawn from these studies.

The Scientific Committee then addressed the proposal directly. It noted that it had commented extensively on previous proposals relating to this programme and drew the Commission's attention to those comments. It further noted that the population estimate for Area V, where the research was to be carried out, was 294,610 (CV 0.138).

Iceland
The results of the 1989 permit catch of 68 fin whales, the final year of the four-year programme and the progress to date on the analyses of the 1986-89 data, were reported. The Scientific Committee noted that final analyses were not yet complete and agreed that review of the results could be better achieved when in-depth assessments of the two species involved, fin and sei whales, are carried out.

USSR
The Scientific Committee reviewed the proposal only with respect to the proposed lethal taking of fin and minke whales from the Okhotsk Sea. The Committee noted that the proposal reported that catching was due to take place from June to August in 1990 and 1991. It expressed serious concern that catching may already have started before the proposal was received by the Scientific Committee and thus before the Committee's comments could be transmitted to the Commission. It was pointed out that the Committee suggested at the 1985 meeting that information on proposed scientific permits should be provided to the Secretary at least 60 days in advance of an Annual Meeting of the Scientific Committee so that the proposal and supporting documentation may be sent out at the same time as the provisional agenda. In the absence of any Soviet scientists at the meeting, and because of the rather brief and inadequate description included in the document of the work and methods proposed, it was possible to make only the following comments.

The objectives of the catch were stated to be to obtain stomach contents to examine the role of whales in the food web, to obtain biological samples for determining age, sexual and physical maturity and reproductive condition; tissue and organ samples for electrophoretic studies; internal and external parasites; and contamination by pollutants.

The proposal envisaged a catch of 60-70 minke whales and 25-30 fin whales in each of the years 1990 and 1991 from the Okhotsk Sea, and, under certain conditions, probably in 1992. No information on the size or sex of animals to be taken was presented. According to the boundaries given in the Schedule, the minke whales in this area are from the Okhotsk Sea - West Pacific stock while the fin whales are part of the North Pacific stock.

North Pacific fin whales were last assessed in 1976. They were classified as a Protection Stock and no particular research needs were then identified. Since they do not meet the criteria for priority stocks established by the Scientific Committee, they have not yet been considered in the programme of the Comprehensive Assessment of whale stocks. Okhotsk Sea - West Pacific minke whales were last assessed in 1987. At that meeting the Committee identified difficulties in interpreting CPUE series, a general problem of stock identity in the North Pacific, and recommended appropriate analyses of sightings data. North Pacific minke whales have been identified as a priority stock for the Comprehensive Assessment in 1991.

The proposed investigations on the whales to be caught did not appear to be structured either to provide information essential for rational management of these stocks, or to contribute to the Comprehensive Assessment or other critically important research needs. There was insufficient information given regarding aims and methodology to be able to comment on sample size. No reasons were given in the proposal justifying chosen sizes. There was no statement of the method of killing to be employed. However the proposal noted that the catcher Zvezdny will be used. This is the same vessel as used in the aboriginal subsistence gray whale fishery off Chukotka.

It was not stated to what extent catches made during the commercial whaling operations on these species stocks were sampled. Some pollution studies and genetic analyses could be carried out by non-lethal biopsy sampling. In general, both the objectives and the methodology were inadequately described to allow an evaluation of the likelihood of success of the proposed research. The results from the internal sampling could not be achieved by non-lethal techniques. However, it was unclear from the research proposal what proportion of the whales taken will be sampled for stomach contents and whether fishery resource surveys will be undertaken simultaneously with the proposed research catches.

The Soviet research proposal did not provide an adequate review of information on the status of these stocks. If it did the following facts should have been noted. The last catches of fin whales permitted to be taken in the North Pacific were made in 1975, and the fin whales for the total North Pacific have been classified as a Protection Stock since 1976. In 1975 the USSR took only 33 of the 166 fin whales allocated to them. During the final ten years of exploitation the USSR took 4,666 fin whales in the North Pacific. It is not known how many were taken in the Okhotsk Sea. The Scientific Committee has not reviewed their status since that time. The assessment at that time was based on an updating of estimates obtained from CPUE analyses carried out in 1974. It is therefore not possible to evaluate the effect of the proposed catches on the stock.

Minke whales in the Okhotsk Sea - West Pacific stock have been reviewed in some detail in recent years. Because of uncertainties, particularly with CPUE analyses, the stock is at present unclassified and has been identified as a priority stock in the programme of Comprehensive Assessment at next year's Annual Meeting. The effect of the proposed catches can be determined only after the in-depth assessment for North Pacific minke whales has been completed.

The proposal stated that participation of foreign specialists was welcomed, subject to availability of accommodation on board.

7.2 Action arising
Norway
In the Commission the UK noted that Norway had put a great deal of work in a large number of areas in whale research, and that multi-species modelling is a mammoth task, clearly breaking new ground. It was concerned that starting practical work such as taking whales is possibly slightly premature.

Norway explained that its Scientific Permits were part of a very broad long-term research effort integrated in a comprehensive sea mammals research programme for the period 1988-93. It is an ambitious undertaking in terms of resources, the quality of science and the aims. The interactions between minke whales, seals and other living marine resources is a question of vital importance to Norway where the dependence on the total ecological balance in the seas off Norway is essential in the long term. Its research included moves towards multi-species management and the scientific take is a very modest part in terms of quantity, but essential to the overall programme. The programme and results had been presented to the Scientific Committee, where there had been constructive criticism, and a few sceptical comments. It supported a restrictive and cautious approach in evaluating the need for scientific permit take of whales. It was concerned that the aims and contents of its whale research should be understood. For Norway the multi-species approach is a critical research need, recognised and supported in other international organisations such as ICES, and it might be time for the IWC also to broaden its horizon in this respect.

Japan understood that Norway was embarking upon the multi-species approach in relation to the utilisation of marine resources in general. It spoke of this as a very impressive approach, and looked forward to seeing successful results. Iceland commended the extensive and useful Norwegian research efforts, particularly noting that specific questions addressed by the scientific take are of value for improving understanding of the physiology of whales and their role in the ecosystem. St Vincent & The Grenadines also supported the Norwegian scientific programme.

New Zealand then introduced a Resolution on the subject of the Norwegian proposal for special permits, sponsored by Australia, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Seychelles, South Africa, Switzerland and the UK. It remarked that the primary purpose of the proposed research involving the taking of whales is multi-species modelling which appears to be primarily designed for the management of fisheries resources in Norwegian waters. It drew attention to comments by a lengthy list of scientists from many countries who questioned whether further work on digestibility problems, for example, was necessary. While noting with appreciation the effort by Norway on research on whales, particularly the sightings surveys in 1989, the Resolution pointed out that the proposed research is not adequately structured so as to contribute to or materially facilitate the completion of the Comprehensive Assessment, nor had it been established that it addressed critically important research needs. Norway was invited to reconsider the proposed take of minke whales in 1990.

Australia welcomed that component of the research effort by Norway which did not involve the take of whales. It drew attention to the conclusions of a number of members of the Scientific Committee last year that there was insufficient information presented to determine whether the data to be obtained would be critical to the proposed multi-species model or whether the model itself represented a critical research need. The Commission adopted a similar Resolution last year, and to be consistent it commended the present Resolution.

Sweden appreciated the extensive sightings surveys conducted by Norway in the Northeast Atlantic. It noted the proposed take was limited to five minke whales, but previous criticism in the Scientific Committee had not been fully taken into account in this year's proposal, and it would like also to sponsor the Resolution. Finland associated itself with these arguments and also wished to be a co-sponsor.

Norway felt that it had taken into account the comments and views expressed on a valid scientific basis. This was a fruitful process contributing to an immensely complicated area of research, trying to break new ground in developing models relevant to handling the challenges in managing important living resources. As a small coastal nation it had a responsibility to the present and future generations in managing and conserving marine life. It would like to have seen respect for the quality of its research and the Commission encouraging real science. Norway based itself on the validity of Article VIII of the Convention and saw no alternative to asking for a vote on the Resolution.

Iceland opposed the Resolution for the reason that it found in it a demonstration of disrespect for the type of efforts carried out by Norway. It also had legal problems which had consistently stated since 1987, as well as grammatical problems with the text.

The UK emphasised that it is fully appreciated that Norway had embarked on a highly ambitious programme. It made the point that when embarking on wholly new areas of work, a lot of testing of models is needed before actually taking whales to feed data into the models.

The Resolution (Appendix 1) was then put to the vote and adopted with 16 votes in favour, 5 against with 8 abstentions.

Japan
Japan spoke of the value of its national research programme in the Antarctic on minke whales, the most important component of the marine ecosystem there. Data obtained from commercial whaling had been criticised by some members of the Scientific Committee for its bias. Random sampling during the moratorium was therefore very appropriate. The feasibility studies in 1987/88 and 1988/89 and the main programme implemented in 1989/90 had provided data from a lot of young animals, and it had been found that the animals are segregated by sex and by age. Mortality by age is now analysed, and investigations on energy flow in the Antarctic ecosystem will contribute to the scientific management of the marine system. There was no assurance that non-lethal research would bring forth any useful result as regards minke whales, although the sightings surveys have proven useful and Japan was proud to have sponsored in many ways the IDCR surveys with IWC international scientists.

The UK recognised that the Japanese contribution to the understanding of the Antarctic area was considerable. It commented that a primary objective of the permit proposal is to estimate the age-specific natural mortality rate. This is technically difficult and development work on the models is progressing fairly slowly. This confirmed concerns it expressed last year that sampling may be moving a little ahead of methodological technique.

St Lucia noted that the Scientific Committee made use of the Japanese research in the Comprehensive Assessment of the Southern Hemisphere minke whale. It spoke of the need to give time for such a long-term programme to develop. The history of science had many examples of people being taken to task, for it only to be found later that the information was vital. Based on the high quality and quantity of research presented by Japan, including the whole question of rational management of stocks, it had no hesitation in encouraging Japan to continue.

Norway supported the encouragement expressed by St Lucia, and called for appreciation of the extensive research carried out by Japan, and recognition that it has so fully shared its research plans, its procedures and results. The study of whales might be more useful if it had a basis other than literature from which to know whales. Those states without the resources or motivation for doing research themselves should consider if acting as auditors was a sufficient approach to obtaining new information and meeting the challenges now faced. St Vincent & The Grenadines also supported what had been said by St Lucia, pointing out that virtually all the information for the Comprehensive Assessment had come through the support and efforts of Japan and her scientists.

Switzerland, while recognising the great efforts and results presented by Japan, hesitated because the death of the animals must be accomplished before the research can be done. There is very strict Swiss legislation on this subject; research must be shown to serve precise scientific purposes, the use of a given animal is the only means to accomplish the experimental aim, and no other procedures can be applied instead. The use of the animals must be methodologically sound; lower species cannot be used; the proposed number is indispensable; pain, suffering and injury must be avoided as much as possible; the research must be carried out by qualified specialists, and records must be kept and accessible.

Iceland believed that the Japanese programme had already given such essential information on the biology of minke whales. In its view it also complied with the nine criteria mentioned by Switzerland. The Japanese programme is of great value to the Commission and its objectives of rational utilisation, conservation and management of the world's whale stocks.

Japan thanked the governments who had shown understanding of its research programme and evaluated the results. It looked forward to more constructive criticism from other scientists. The killing technology employed was authorised and recognised by the IWC, and it did not think application of Swiss domestic criteria was appropriate.

The People's Republic of China commented that it has laws protecting wild animals, and it supports scientific research so long as the purpose is in line with the regulations set out by the IWC on use of living animals to serve this purpose.

The UK then put forward a Resolution (Appendix 2) on special permit catches by Japan on behalf of the co-sponsors Australia, the Federal Republic of Germany, Finland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Sweden, Switzerland, the USA, and the UK. This recognised the important contribution that Japan had made to the knowledge of whales, but as the proposed research is not structured so as to contribute information essential to rational management, invited Japan to reconsider the proposal.

Japan explained why it would enter into a consensus. It wished to continue its national research involving the take of whales and the IWC/IDCR sightings surveys to benefit the whole world. The objectives of the Convention should be strictly pursued as a duty by member nations and Article VIII gives a sovereign right to nations to issue special permits. Since the implementation of the moratorium it had spent a great deal of effort and finance to monitor the dynamics of the minke whales in relation to the entire ecosystem of the Southern Hemisphere. All the results were available, and it also offered research on krill through CCAMLR. It expected to achieve a deeper understanding by member countries and to receive constructive views to enhance its programmes, as well as the participation of foreign scientists in the research.

Iceland, while not objecting to the adoption of the Resolution by consensus, maintained the same reservations as for the one on the Norwegian programme, that is on the questions of disrespect, law and perhaps grammar also.

Norway respected Japan's position. If there had been a vote it would have voted no, but it accepted the consensus. It associated itself with the reservations expressed by Iceland, and commended the open door policy in research and the open hand invitation to participate by Japan.

The USA also commended Japan for its willingness to enter into discussions on concerns and differences. Its openness and contributions in the non-lethal area of research had been meaningful.

USSR
The USSR spoke of the necessity of conducting ecosystem research in the Okhotsk Sea, for which Soviet scientists had developed the programme presented to the Scientific Committee. For a number of reasons the programme could not be considered fully, but it was interested to receive the views of scientists from other countries. It will submit additional documents or a revised programme next year. In response to a question from the USA, it stated that research activities relating to the take of whales will not be conducted this year.

Non-lethal research
France introduced a Resolution on redirecting research towards non-lethal methods, sponsored by Brazil, Finland, France, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Seychelles, South Africa, Sweden, Switzerland, the UK and the USA. Updating and developing knowledge on cetaceans is essential to guide the Commission in taking decisions on whaling matters. Although Article VIII enables governments to grant special permits, non-lethal methods have developed and proven successful in recent years. This Resolution is intended to give strong support and encouragement to these methods to gradually replace to the extent possible the lethal ones.

The USA had hosted many of the Scientific Committee's meetings and workshops looking at such possibilities, and it strongly supported the Resolution. Seychelles was pleased to be a co-sponsor because of its numerous interventions in the Commission in support of benign research methods. It has become possible to initiate techniques of getting information in a non-lethal fashion which could probably only be obtained by lethal means. It thought this Resolution will be a move in the right direction. Australia associated itself with these comments. New Zealand supported the proposal because it expressed the sense of the Commission which had before only been done in a piecemeal way.

The Federal Republic of Germany, Spain, Ireland, the Netherlands, Oman, Chile, St Lucia and the UK all expressed support, the latter recognising the advances made in benign research although in certain cases it may just be necessary to use lethal research methods.

Japan did not support the needless slaughter of animals, but certain human activities and certain kinds of research can only be conducted by lethal methods. It could not support the Resolution. Iceland also had problems on its basic legal position, but it in no way was against the principles found in the Resolution.

Following informal discussions, during which Spain was added to the list of co-sponsors, a revised Resolution was presented. Further amendment of wording was discussed by Japan, the USA, France, Oman, Iceland and France, during which emphasis was placed on the purpose as an encouragement to direct research to non-lethal methods without denying the merits of other techniques at the present time.

In the absence of agreement, the Resolution (Appendix 5) was put to the vote and adopted with 23 votes in favour, none against and 6 abstentions. Iceland expressed regret that a consensus could not be reached.

_