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

For single stock trials all five procedures had performed satisfactorily and were therefore suitable for further consideration and possible adoption by the Commission. This included tests of robustness to bias in sightings survey estimates of absolute abundance, mistaken assumptions about the dynamics of whale stocks and the assumed frequency of sightings surveys.

Multi-stock trials have also been conducted to mimic situations of uncertain stock identity in coastal and pelagic whaling operations. Results presented indicated that if assessment and management can only be conducted on a geographical scale similar to the present Commission management areas, conservation of all breeding stocks in the management areas is difficult to achieve. However, all breeding stocks were conserved by all procedures when sightings survey data and catch limits could be set by smaller sub-areas such as a 10° sector in the Antarctic.

The Scientific Committee was encouraged by these results but they do suggest that the Commission should consider the practicality of setting catch limits on a markedly smaller geographical scale than has been its practice in the past.

Comparison of performance of the management procedures led to the Committee agreeing that no procedure performed uniformly best over all trials and all tunings. The five procedures could be divided into three groups according to the way in which they attempted to meet the Commission's objectives.

(i)

The ST procedure places greatest weight on achieving very low variability in catch limits.

(ii)

The dlM procedure places greatest emphasis on ensuring that the risk of reducing stock levels to below a designated protection level does not exceed a specified probability. Measures are included to ensure to a high degree that depleted populations are restored to above the designated protection level as soon as possible.

(iii)

The C, MS and PB procedures attempt to achieve a balance between the conservation, exploitation and catch limit stability objectives of the Commission. The relative emphases given to these can be adjusted.

On the basis of pairwise comparisons of the performances of the different procedures, most members of the sub-committee agreed that the primary candidate for recommendation to the Commission should be the PB and C procedures. Other members dissented from this view. On the expectation that the Commission would wish to place highest emphasis on risk minimisation, the Scientific Committee preferred the C procedure and therefore recommended it as the 'best' single stock procedure.

Further work will be required after the Commission adopts a procedure and decides that it should be applied to a particular stock or region. The trials conducted have made rather general assumptions about data availability and properties. Therefore before a procedure is applied it will be necessary to determine whether these general assumptions are suitable.

The Scientific Committee agreed that the following steps must be undertaken before a Revised Management Procedure adopted by the Commission can be applied: (1) weighting of management objectives; (2) validation and verification of computer programs by the Secretariat; (3) evaluation of data available for a stock/region; (4) evaluation of the implications of uncertain stock identity; (5) other regulations such as size limits, protection of calves, etc.

In attempting to develop procedures that are widely applicable, have minimal data requirements and a satisfactorily robust performance, it was agreed that amendments and improvements could be made from time to time after careful consideration. It was noted that some types of additional biological information could lead to increases in efficiency. However, it was agreed that an appropriate series of robustness trials should be conducted to ensure that any proposed amendments should lead to performance at least as sound as shown by existing procedures.

The time schedule, Secretariat staff and budget implications for implementation of a Revised Management Procedure were considered. For Southern Hemisphere minke whales no further stock identity trials are necessary, but for North Atlantic minke whales such trials should be completed during the intersessional period. Thus, given sufficient resources, the Scientific Committee could be in a position to implement an adopted Revised Management Procedure for both South Hemisphere and North Atlantic minke whales at its 1992 Annual Meeting without the need for a special meeting beforehand.

The workload on the Secretariat computing staff will require at least the vacant post for a sightings survey data analyst to be filled. There is a need for continued work by a Management Procedures Steering Group in the coming year.

Technical Committee discussion
Following this presentation, the Chairman expressed the thanks of the Commission to Dr Kirkwood and all his colleagues for their efforts over the years in this development programme. All the following speakers joined, in the appreciation of the work undertaken so successfully.

Iceland noted that it has contributed to this work and thus recognised the efforts involved, and supported the recommendation to implement the Southern Hemisphere and North Atlantic minke whale regimes.

Australia commented that, despite the lack of clear advice from the Commission, all the developers had contributed substantially even though only one procedure might be selected as the Commission's revised management regime. Australia also noted that there was a minority view which also needed to be considered, and reminded the Committee of the range of other activities associated with the Revised Management Procedure which it had raised last year.

Dr Kirkwood then responded to a series of technical questions from Japan, Iceland, UK and New Zealand concerning the tuning of the procedures through adjustment of the parameters to arrive at various final performance and chosen levels of stocks after 100 years; the internal protection levels in the procedures; the issue of stock identity; and the use of a single stock procedure as the core which needed to be developed to devise a complete revised management procedure which would be applicable to multi-stocks.

Switzerland asked why the author of the C procedure preferred the dlM procedure and if it was not possible to combine desirable elements of these two procedures. Dr Kirkwood explained the difficulties of trying to combine procedures or to transplant one section into another.

The USA noted that there is still extensive work to be done and recommended endorsement of the Scientific Committee's programme. It thought that the risk of depletion should have the highest priority and suggested that the protection level should be no less than that under the existing management procedure. It believed it inappropriate to allow catches of currently protected stocks.

Japan noted that the C procedure had been selected by the majority as best achieving the Commission's objectives and it suggested that an average figure of 66% should be set as the final target level for stocks, as the average of the range given, and that Southern Hemisphere minke followed by North Atlantic minke whales should be the order of priority for further work. Amendment of the Schedule should be considered at the next meeting and Japan suggested that there is a need for specialists on the management procedures plus legal experts to meet. It also noted that until the procedures have been finalised for implementation the Commission should consider interim procedures.

The UK wished for a cautious approach. It considered that working within the terms of the IWC the primary objective must be to maintain abundant populations at or above the target levels and to ensure recovery of depleted stocks. It would prefer a regime giving low risk and high final stocks. It noted the need for cooperation between the Scientific Committee, lawyers and other technical experts and pointed out the need to develop systems to manage catches in small areas and the possible need for other catch regulations.

Plenary comments
Thanks for the work of Dr Kirkwood and his sub-committee were repeated by Iceland, which went on to emphasise the substantial tests which had been carried out on the five proposed procedures since the work was started in 1987. The majority of the Scientific Committee agreed that the C procedure was the best, based on criteria determined to allow utilisation with a minimal risk of depleting any stock. No further tests of a generic nature were required, and therefore the Commission had before it the basis on which to adopt a Revised Management Procedure with full confidence that it had been subjected to the most careful scientific analysis.

Japan pointed out that many people dependent on whaling for their livelihood had hoped and waited for the completion and adoption of the Revised Management Procedure.

Seychelles believed that the time had come to agree in principle to adopt a procedure by way of a Resolution as was done in 1974 in anticipation of a Schedule provision. Only relatively small adjustments were needed to make the procedure no less conservative than the 1974 procedure was intended to be. The USA expressed similar views, while Australia pointed out the need for smaller sub-areas for management.

10.1.2 Priority stocks
10.1.2.1 North Atlantic fin whales
The Scientific Committee held a Special Meeting in Reykjavik from 25 February to 1 March 1991.

STOCK IDENTITY
The Committee reviewed a series of papers concerning the genetic and biochemical analysis of fin whale samples obtained in the North Atlantic. Isozyme and mitochondrial DNA data suggest that animals from Iceland and Spain are from separate stocks. However, it was agreed that considerably more work is required before a definitive description of genetic differences among fin whale stocks in the North Atlantic can be obtained, and the Committee outlined these areas of future work.

The Committee had a review of information provided from Discovery mark returns. There was considerable discussion over the implications of the recovery of a single mark in Iceland from a whale marked nine years earlier off Newfoundland. Eventually it was agreed that little conclusive information on stock identity could be drawn from this mark other than the rate of mixing between East Greenland and Iceland was greater than that between Canada and Iceland. Whether this was a reflection of stock differentiation or distance alone could not be determined. The Committee could not agree on an appropriate method of analysing the Discovery marking data with respect to stock identity.

An analysis of morphometric data showed that the animals found off Spain and Iceland comprise separate stocks. Other evidence, from sightings data, photo-identification data, and apparent recovery rates was considered but was inconclusive.

In summary, the Scientific Committee agreed that the available evidence did not allow it to determine the location of boundaries for stocks of fin whales in the North Atlantic. The major conclusion that could be drawn was that the animals exploited off Iceland and Spain were from different breeding stocks. With respect to assessments, two views emerged. Some members believed that the boundaries defined in the Schedule were suitable, with the possible exception that the two Canadian stocks should be treated as one. Other members believed that precise stock boundaries could not be drawn. For assessment purposes, they believed that a variety of divisions, some small and some broad, should be considered.

ABUNDANCE AND TRENDS
Extensive international surveys were carried out in 1987 and 1989, using ships and aeroplanes. The data were collected and analysed according to a standardised protocol.

The agreed population estimates are given in Table 1 (with the figures rounded to three significant digits of the upper confidence bound).

The Scientific Committee also examined the available catch per unit effort data for the Icelandic fishery, in the light of discussions held at a 1987 Workshop on the use of CPUE data. After considerable discussion the Committee could not agree on whether it was appropriate to use the Icelandic CPUE data.

The 1987 and 1989 surveys did not cover the western North Atlantic and thus no sightings estimate was available for those waters. There was some disagreement about the value of using mark-recapture data to obtain population estimates for these areas and whether it was appropriate to also use mark-recapture estimates for the East Greenland - Iceland area.

BIOLOGICAL PARAMETERS
Discussion centred on an examination of trends in sexual maturity in fin whales off Iceland based on the transition phase in earplugs and on direct observations of maturity in the catch. There was some disagreement as to whether appropriate analyses had been carried out. However, irrespective of this disagreement, the Committee agreed that hypotheses suggested previously, that trends in age at sexual maturity indicated by transition phase data were entirely an age-related effect, could not be valid in this particular case.

ASSESSMENT
There was considerable discussion over whether the HITTER/FITTER programs (a procedure for estimating the effect of a history of catches on a stock given certain input) should be used and, if so, which version. A large number of runs was carried out but not all members believed that all runs would provide useful information on the status of stocks.

The Committee agreed that if the fin whales found off West Norway, North Norway and the Faroe Islands comprise separate stocks, the runs indicate that they have been substantially depleted. A qualitative view of the remaining runs, making no assumptions about stock identity or their 'reasonableness' revealed that for many 'areas' the HITTER runs give levels of depletion that vary widely (e.g. between 30% and 90% of initial size) depending on assumptions about Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) rates and whether upper and lower confidence intervals are used. For some 'areas', most runs indicated that populations are reduced to less than 50% of initial. For other 'areas' many runs indicated populations which were over 50% of initial except for 0% MSY rate and for the lower confidence interval of the population estimate.

MANAGEMENT ADVICE
The Scientific Committee noted that its ability to provide advice on the effects of the zero catch limit for North Atlantic fin whales, which came into effect in the 1986 season, was influenced by: the length of time for which the 1982 decision had been in effect, the population biology of larger whales, the precision and frequency of surveys to estimate abundance and the reliability of the population models used for prediction.

The Committee concluded that it could offer no advice at this time concerning the effect of the 1982 decision on North Atlantic fin whales. There was also no agreement within the Committee over the classification of stocks or on other management advice.

The Committee did agree to a number of recommendations for future research and work concerning stock identity, estimates of abundance and trends, and assessment.

Technical Committee comments
The UK spoke of the problems of uncertainty of stock identity. It noted that the conclusions of the report should be treated with caution, and that there were recommendations for further work which should be supported.

Iceland noted that upon the conclusion of the Comprehensive Assessment there had been major improvements in knowledge of the stocks. There are abundant stocks around Iceland, but there was no management advice from the Scientific Committee through lack of certain information on the MSY level. It noted, however, that the Committee had been able to offer management advice on other stocks in the absence of such information. It proposed that an intersessional meeting should be held to look further into the North Atlantic fin whale trials initially discussed at the Special Meeting, but not addressed by the Scientific Committee at the Annual Meeting because of time constraints.

Plenary comments
In the plenary, Iceland, while pleased to have hosted the Special Meeting on the Comprehensive Assessment of North Atlantic Fin Whales, again expressed its disappointment that the Scientific Committee had been unable to give clear management advice for these stocks. The problem was said to be the lack of genetic evidence for stock distinction and estimates of the MSY level and rate, but in the absence of biological data the Scientific Committee had been able to offer advice on other stocks. Iceland also reiterated its comments on the relationship of the North Atlantic fin whale trials to the revised management procedures, which were deferred through time constraints.

10.1.2.2 North Pacific minke whales
The Scientific Committee noted that matters of stock identification were of great importance in conducting any assessment. It agreed that the data indicated the existence of at least two stocks in the western North Pacific. The combination of genetic, morphological and reproductive data provides strong evidence that seasonal mixing occurs in some parts of the migration and feeding ranges. Individuals from both stocks are present in the southern Okhotsk Sea in April. The Committee agreed that the existing stock definitions and boundaries did not provide an adequate basis for assessments. It was unable to review in detail the stock identification, distribution or migration of the Sea of Japan - Yellow Sea - East China Sea stock due to lack of new information. The Committee first examined the available genetic and biochemical data.

The Committee agreed that the mitochondrial DNA data are consistent with the allozyme data, but the lack of significant differences suggests little, if any, differentiation between samples from the Republic of Korea and from the Pacific coasts of Hokkaido and north Honshu.

The genetic stock distinction between the Korean samples and those from the east coast of northern Japan is over a narrow geographic range. Further, there is some evidence that these stocks mix on feeding grounds in the Okhotsk Sea in unknown proportions. These data reinforce earlier indications from genetic studies that the population genetics of minke whales could be highly structured, and that separate stocks may be mixing on feeding grounds.

The Committee then examined other information on morphological analyses, sightings and catch data and the Committee agreed that seasonal movement patterns for Okhotsk Sea - West Pacific minke whales were complex and not yet well understood.

Although there was inadequate information to define sufficiently the existing stocks and their spatial and temporal distributions, the Committee agreed it was feasible to postulate ranges for at least two stocks. To do so, allowances would have to be made for spatial and temporal mixing, and to provide a range of options to address uncertainty regarding the spatial extent of stock distributions.

CATCH HISTORY
A compilation of available catches from Japan, Republic of Korea, People's Republic of China and the USSR was made for individual whaling grounds. This catch series was the basis for the catch allocations under different stock options.

ESTIMATION OF ABUNDANCE AND TRENDS
Based on vessel line transects conducted during August and September 1989 and 1990 Japanese sighting surveys, abundance in the Okhotsk Sea was estimated at 19,209 animals, (95% confidence interval, 10,069 - 36,645) and in the northwest Pacific at 5,841 whales (95% CI, 2,835 - 12,032). The combined total was 25,049 with a 95% confidence interval of 13,689 - 45,835.

The analysis assumed that all animals on the trackline were seen, i.e. g(0)=1.0 and the Committee agreed that g(0) was probably less than 1.0 so that this would bias the abundance estimates downward by an unknown amount.

The Committee then examined CPUE data. It agreed that with changes in the focus of operations from year to year and variability arising from other weather or oceanographic factors and changes in vessel efficiency for which correction factors were not available, the CPUE series was not an acceptable indicator of trend in stock abundance. It therefore agreed that the series would not be used in assessments.

BIOLOGICAL PARAMETERS
A brief review of past information on the life history of North Pacific minke whales was given. Because of the sparse data for directly estimating biological parameters for North Pacific minke whales, and the observed similarities with North Atlantic minke whales, the Committee agreed to use the biological parameter set that was used for assessing North Atlantic minke whales at the 1990 meeting.

There was also some discussion of ecosystem and habitat considerations.

ASSESSMENT
It was agreed that no assessment of the status of the currently recognised Sea of Japan - Yellow Sea - East China Sea stock was possible, given that there was no direct estimate of abundance for that stock.

The Committee used the HITTER program with the six agreed options.

The HITTER runs for the small area resulted in a range of estimates of depletion of 0.30, to 0.47 and for the large area a range of depletion of 0.61 to 0.88 for runs with identical values of ages at recruitment and using the best estimates for the target population.

The options accounting for some mixing of two stocks throughout the area produced depletion levels differing little from those assuming a single stock throughout the area, indicating little sensitivity to the small amount of mixing specified.

Because the assumption of g(0)=1.0 used to estimate 1991 abundance is likely to have resulted in downward-biased abundance estimates, the estimates of depletion reported here may be biased downward by an unknown amount.

Management advice
CLASSIFICATION OF THE STOCKS
The Committee noted that the Sea of Japan - Yellow Sea - East China Sea stock as presently defined is classified as a Protection Stock, which means that at a previous assessment it had been estimated to be depleted. Unfortunately new information was not available to reassess this stock. In the light of the new information that whales from the Sea of Japan - Yellow Sea - East China Sea stock would have been taken in the Okhotsk Sea - West Pacific area, a revised assessment of the Sea of Japan - Yellow Sea - East China Sea stock is essential and necessary before a Comprehensive Assessment of the minke whales in the North Pacific area can be completed. Such an assessment must take into account the mixing between the two putative stocks in the formulation of management advice on both stocks.

There was no agreement on classification within the Committee with two views expressed.

ESTIMATION OF REPLACEMENT YIELD (RY)
RY estimates were available from the HITTER output. There was no agreement on the interpretation of these results with three views expressed.

Effect of zero catch limits for commercial whaling
The Committee noted that its ability to provide advice on the effects of the zero catch limit for western North Pacific minke whales, which came into effect in the 1987 season, was influenced by: the length of time for which the 1982 decision had been in effect, the population biology of larger whales, the precision and frequency of surveys to estimate abundance and reliability of the population models used for prediction.

The Committee concluded that it could offer no advice at this time concerning the effect of the 1982 decision on Okhotsk Sea - West Pacific minke whales.

Technical Committee comments
The Republic of Korea appreciated the work carried out, but regretted the lack of conclusions due to the lack of information on the Sea of Japan - Yellow Sea - East China Sea stock. Its local fishermen will be disappointed. It will carefully study to undertake the research needed and looked for an early completion of the Comprehensive Assessment of the minke whales off its coasts if the information is collected.

Japan spoke of the long history of the minke whale fishery. The recent average annual catch is 200 whales. It had cooperated with the USSR in sightings surveys and noted that the population estimate of 25,000 is probably an underestimate since this value was calculated using g(0)=1. Some scientists in the Scientific Committee calculated the replacement yield as more than 200 whales, with a classification as a Sustained or Initial Management Stock. It believed a careful choice of time and area for catching would allow safe utilisation of the stock. It supported the sighting survey plans of the Republic of Korea and suggested collaborative surveys with all the countries concerned.

The UK pointed out the problems of stock identity in the area, illustrating further what the Revised Management Procedure would need to deal with.

Plenary comments
Japan repeated the findings of the Scientific Committee for a population estimate around 25,000 minke whales, which could be classified IMS or SMS, with a replacement yield of more than 200 per year. Its request for an emergency quota of 50 was modest by comparison, and it was disappointed and distressed by the Commission's denial of this request. The Commission should take into account the careful examination and results of the Scientific Committee when deciding on the treatment of the people in small coastal villages whose livelihood heavily depends on whaling.

10.1.2.3 Northeastern Atlantic minke whales
Discussion of g(0)
As a result of discussions at last year's Technical Committee Meeting, the following term of reference was added to the work of the ad hoc Working Group on g(0), and given highest priority:

To provide the best scientific advice on an estimate for the g(0) parameter that can be used in conjunction with the Norwegian 1989 sighting survey abundance estimate for the Northeastern stock of North Atlantic minke whales.

The Scientific Committee reviewed the methods and results from two experiments conducted by Norway which were designed to estimate g(0), the probability that a whale on the trackline is sighted, for vessels involved in the NASS-89 sighting surveys for northeast Atlantic minke whales.

Based on its review and discussions of the Norwegian experiments, the Committee agreed that both the general approach and the specific results provide a reasonable and adequate basis for deriving an estimate of g(0) that could be applied to the 1989 Norwegian sighting survey results. The Committee further agreed that the best estimate of g(0) currently available is 0.51.

The Committee noted that improvements to this estimate are likely to occur during next year as new dive sequence data and the results of additional statistical analyses become available.

The Committee identified a large number of factors that might introduce bias into the estimation of the hazard probabilities and/or g(0). Overall, the Committee believed that the combined effect of all sources of bias which it identified was likely to result in a net positive bias in the estimate of 0.51 for g(0).

In the absence of individual estimates of g(0) for each vessel, the Committee agreed that the most reasonable approach for estimating population size for the northeast Atlantic minke whales from the 1989 survey data was to divide the uncorrected abundance estimate by the estimate of g(0) from the experimental data.

The Committee agreed that the best available estimate for northeast Atlantic minke whales on the basis of current information is 68,447. However it noted that it was unable to calculate appropriate confidence intervals for this estimate. It was recognised that additional information and analyses will likely result in an improved estimate of g(0) and hence population size. This analysis should be carried out during the coming year.

In the course of its discussions, the Committee developed a number of recommendations related to additional data and analyses relative to the above g(0) estimate and for the collection of future data for estimating g(0).

North Atlantic minke whales
At last year's meeting, disagreements concerning the most appropriate, if any, catch per unit effort (CPUE) series to use in assessments of the Northeastern stock were unresolved. At this year's meeting, two revised analyses of the Barents Sea CPUE data were presented and an ad hoc working group was established to address the issue. The Committee did not address the general question of the validity or otherwise of using CPUE as an index of abundance for whales.

The Committee welcomed the two thorough sets of analyses and discussed similarities and differences between them. Both had used the same data set which was agreed to be of limited quality.

It was agreed that the discrepancies between the analyses presented at last year's meeting, both in estimated coefficients and in interpretation, had been largely resolved by the two new sets of analyses. There was general agreement over the inadequacy of vessel length and engine power as proxies for catcher efficiency, and over the necessity to include parameters for individual vessel efficiency in any analysis.

The Committee agreed that, despite the limitations of the data and some disagreement over certain details of the analyses, the results show that there has been a statistically significant decline in the Barents Sea minke whale CPUE during the period 1952 - 1983.

Technical Committee comments
The UK spoke of the problem concerning g(0) last year and welcomed the new work by Norway. Iceland and Japan also commended the Scientific Committee and Norway to obtain the stock estimate.

Norway indicated that the results of further new work will be reported next year.

Plenary comments
Norway recalled that it lodged a formal objection to the classification of the Northeastern Atlantic minke whales as a Protection Stock in 1985. This was because at that time there was no scientific evidence available to validate such a classification. Now, six years later, there is solid scientific evidence which shows there is no basis for upholding this classification. The revised estimate of the stock from extensive sightings surveys is 68,447 animals. Reanalysis of CPUE data over the 35 year period from 1951 to 1986 shows only a small decrease in stock size from commercial harvesting. These findings demonstrate that the stock is in excellent shape and has never in modern times been in a condition to warrant such a classification. Norway therefore asked the IWC to de-classify the stock, based on the scientific facts. Iceland stated that it was in full agreement with these points.

The UK, however, could not agree with Norway. The current stock estimate is in fact slightly lower than the mid-point of the range estimated last year of 81,000. There is no lower bound to the estimate and so even if the present management procedure were applied, it could not be done under the normal procedures of the Scientific Committee. Any change in classification would involve using a high population estimate and a high MSY rate.

10.1.3 Other stocks
Southern Hemisphere baleen whales
Last year it had been agreed that revised estimates of the abundance of Southern Hemisphere baleen whales would be considered this year. The Committee was unable to discuss this in the time available and agreed it should be considered at next year's meeting.

Humpback whales taken by St Vincent & The Grenadines
No humpback whales had been taken in 1991. Last year the Committee had recommended that if whales are taken, every attempt should be made to collect as much information as possible from them.

North Pacific Bryde's
New information, in addition to that provided last year, was limited to sightings data by Japan.

North Atlantic sei whales
Some new material supplemented the information provided last year.

10.1.4 Future work plans
The Scientific Committee believed it was important that future work under the Comprehensive Assessment should be in the context of the implementation of a revised management procedure (RMP). Until the Commission adopts a procedure, however, it is difficult to plan this work. The work required should become more clearly defined once an RMP is adopted.

The Committee recognised that even when an RMP is adopted, much work will be required for it to be implemented. If an RMP is to be implemented for several stocks/regions, the work involved could take several years. It was agreed that this work should continue to have high priority.

The Committee agreed that it was important to address the issues concerning the use of assessment models raised during previous Comprehensive Assessment meetings.

The Committee agreed that, in the light of problems with previous Comprehensive Assessment meetings, future Comprehensive Assessments should be considered as a two, or more, stage process. The first stage should be to assess whether the available data were sufficient to attempt a Comprehensive Assessment. If not, data needs should be identified and the situation reassessed when appropriate. Only when the Committee considers that the available data are adequate should a Comprehensive Assessment be attempted for a stock/region.

The Committee recognised that a Comprehensive Assessment of a stock/region could never be considered 'complete' and discussed the priority that should be given to revisiting previous stocks/regions versus those identified as priority stock groups which had not yet been subject to a Comprehensive Assessment. It was agreed that both were important.

It was agreed that a Comprehensive Assessment of Southern Hemisphere baleen whales (including minke but excluding right whales) should be initiated as soon as possible and that a sub-committee should be established for this purpose. The Committee recognised that this Comprehensive Assessment would be a lengthy process because there were large amounts of data which would need to be collated, computerised and analysed.

New relevant information had or would soon become available for North Atlantic minke and fin whales. For example, recent experiments and analyses had resulted in a revised estimate of abundance for northeast Atlantic minke whales and improved analyses were expected next year. In addition, there was a new estimate of abundance for fin whales off Spain. The Committee agreed that a sub-committee on North Atlantic baleen whales should be established to receive new information arising out of previous Comprehensive Assessments of minke and fin whales in this region.

At its 1990 meeting, the Committee had 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. In view of the above discussions, the Committee agreed that although these stock groups should remain as priority stocks, such assessments should be postponed until data availability had been assessed.

The Committee agreed that sub-committees on Southern Hemisphere baleen whales, North Atlantic baleen whales and management procedures should be established at its 1992 meeting and in addition, Working Groups on population assessment models and on North Atlantic minke trials for revised management procedures. These sub-committees and Working Groups would all require to work during the intersessional period.

It was agreed that the Secretary should convey to Committee members the relevant decisions reached by the Commission. The convenors will then develop a plan of work, which may include Working Group meetings, during the intersessional period. It was considered particularly important for a plan of work to be developed for Southern Hemisphere baleen whales as soon as possible because of the amount of work involved and because of the implications for the Secretariat.

Any intersessional work will have financial implications to the IWC. The possibility was noted that an intersessional working group on North Atlantic baleen whales could be held in Iceland.

Validation/verification of the adopted Revised Management Procedure may take up to six months, depending on the procedure. Following this, the workload placed on the Secretariat computing staff by its implementation will consist of conducting trials and organisation of sightings survey data. The Committee agreed that there is a need to strengthen the computing section of the Secretariat. At the very least, it is essential that the currently vacant post for a sightings survey data analyst be filled. In particular, the 1990/91 IWC/IDCR data remain to be analysed. Both this task and a control computer program will need to be set up to implement the North Atlantic minke trials.

Technical Committee comments
Japan endorsed the Scientific Committee recommendation to adopt the C procedure for the Revised Management Procedure. It thought that a small sub-committee of scientists and others should be set up to amend the Schedule to implement the procedure and that the Scientific Committee should continue with the North Atlantic minke whale trials. Concerning Southern Hemisphere baleen whales, it recognised this to be a difficult task with considerable data coding required and feared that it would therefore divert the Secretariat away from other important work. It also made reference to the financial aspects and the manpower requirements. It therefore thought that this should not be a priority topic but would like to see a timetable from the Scientific Committee for its proposed activity. It did recognise the priority of the North Atlantic baleen whale work proposed and continued to identify North Pacific Bryde's whales as a priority stock for which a Progress Report would be submitted next year.

In response to a question from the UK on the extra work and time needed for Southern Hemisphere baleen whales and how this would affect the work on the Revised Management Procedure, the Chairman of the Scientific Committee pointed out that the Commission needs to give advice before the Scientific Committee can make detailed plans. There are a number of species to consider in depth - blue, fin, sei, minke and humpback, which will require several years of work.

Iceland recalled that last year the priority stocks for last year were identified as North Atlantic sei whales and North Pacific Bryde's, but agreed that the North Atlantic Baleen Whale sub-committee should decide when and how to address the North Atlantic sei whale question.

Australia saw the Southern Hemisphere baleen whale work proposed for 1992 as more of an analysis of available information and a planning operation which will lead to the development of a detailed timetable; this was confirmed by the Chairman of the Scientific Committee.

New Zealand recalled that paragraph 10(e) of the Schedule requires the Commission to assess the effect of the moratorium on whale stocks and it was reluctant to see a whittling away of that decision.

The Chairman of the Scientific Committee indicated the plan to set up sub-committees on Southern Hemisphere baleen whales, North Atlantic baleen whales, management procedures and Working Groups on population assessment models and North Atlantic minke trials in the coming year. This all had implications for the workload and staffing levels of the Secretariat.

The UK received an assurance that the validation of a Revised Management Procedure can probably be done before it is tuned for a particular fishery unless the programs are substantially changed.

Norway congratulated the Scientific Committee on achieving a major part of a formidable task. It noted that an overwhelming majority of scientists supported the C procedure for the Revised Management Procedure which it thought should be adopted this year to ensure implementation in 1992 for the two recommended stocks.

10.2 Review of Schedule paragraph 10(e)
In the Technical Committee Japan pointed out that the Scientific Committee last year estimated the Southern Hemisphere minke whale stock at over 760,000 animals and advised that no adverse effects would occur with a take of 4,800. The Commission ruled that there should be no catch until a Revised Management Procedure was established. Japan had waited a year and it seems there is still another year to wait now. It reaffirmed its view that the current management procedure in the Schedule is still applicable.

Iceland referred to its views expressed last year on the legal nature of paragraph 10(e) with respect to an individual stock when the Comprehensive Assessment had been completed on that stock.

Plenary discussion
In the plenary session, the UK stated that the position is a little advanced on last year but not completely. In 1985 it was decided that the Comprehensive Assessment would include both the assessment of stocks and the development of a revised management procedure. There are now several stock assessments and one or two requiring further work. There is a core management procedure on which further development is needed for a final revised procedure. Thus the Commission is still not in a position to modify the zero catch provision.

Australia, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Sweden, Germany and the USA associated themselves with this position.

Iceland maintained its view that, since it is now 1991, for those stocks for which a Comprehensive Assessment has been concluded the Commission is able to establish catch limits. The fact that revised management procedures have not been adopted is another matter.

Japan also recalled that according to Schedule paragraph 10(e) the moratorium on commercial whaling was to be reviewed in 1990. Last year the Scientific Committee agreed that a take of 4,800 minke whales would not give an adverse effect in the Antarctic, but Japan was told it had to wait until completion and adoption of revised management procedures. But still the implementation is put off. It maintained the position that the current management procedure is the one that should be applied for those stocks on which the Comprehensive Assessment has been completed, until the revised procedures are implemented.

10.3 Proposal for catch limits on fin and minke whales off Iceland
The Scientific Committee considered a proposal from the Government of Iceland regarding limited catch quotas from the 1991 season until the RMP has been implemented. A procedure was presented (termed the 'safe management procedure') that, although developed as a full management procedure, was intended as a tentative management scheme for the Icelandic coastal fishery, until a revised management procedure was adopted and implemented by the Commission. The authors noted that the procedure was intended to ensure that the fin whales on the Icelandic grounds would not be depleted from the current state even if pessimistic assumptions regarding stock identity and MSY rate are made. The authors concluded that an annual catch of 92 whales would not, even under the most pessimistic assumptions, deplete fin whales in western Icelandic waters.

There was considerable disagreement in the Committee over whether this scheme should be discussed.

The Scientific Committee also received information on a tentative management procedure for minke whales off Iceland similar to that discussed for fin whales. The authors concluded that even with pessimistic assumptions concerning stock identity and MSY rate an annual catch of 192 whales could be taken that would not lead to the population being depleted below current levels and should allow it to increase. The Committee did not consider this paper in detail.

In the Technical Committee Iceland expressed its disappointment at the way this matter was treated in the Scientific Committee and indicated that it will propose an annual catch of 92 fin whales and 192 minke whales until a Revised Management Procedure is implemented.

Iceland explained in some detail its proposal to the plenary session. Iceland's policy on whaling and the temporary halt of commercial whaling was strongly attached to the condition that the Commission would conduct the Comprehensive Assessment of the whale stocks as the basis for revision of the zero catch limits no later than last year. It saw no guarantee that revised management procedures will be ready for implementation before 1992 or 1993 for North Atlantic minke whales and even much later for fin whales. In light of the completed assessments by the Scientific Committee it would propose catch limits in a conservative management scheme designed by its scientists until the revised procedure is implemented. Details of the scheme were expounded, including the regions and subdivisions, although catches would only be taken in the Icelandic EEZ; the sightings surveys which would be conducted; the low MSY rate of 2% assumed; and the rules governing cessation of or reduction in catching if the abundance drops. Under this procedure the catch limits for fin and minke whales would be 92 and 192 animals respectively, but the minke catch would be limited to the average catch by Icelandic nationals in the Icelandic seas, somewhat less than 158 whales. The procedure had been tested and simulated for the most pessimistic assumptions to demonstrate its conservative approach to management. The Scientific Committee had assessed the abundance of minke whales in Icelandic waters at around 9,600 whales and 22,000 in the total Central North Atlantic stock area. If the proposal was adopted, Iceland would withdraw its objection to the ban on the use of the cold grenade harpoon for minke whales.

Japan commented on the harsh environment in which the people of Iceland live, the place of fisheries in their economy and livelihood and their research efforts. It believed the request was reasonable and therefore supported it, as did Norway, St Vincent & The Grenadines and the USSR.

The USA reaffirmed that it cannot accept the concept of commercial whaling in the absence of an approved management procedure, and therefore opposed the Icelandic proposal. A similar position was taken by Spain, UK, the Netherlands, Germany, Australia, Oman, Brazil, Chile, New Zealand, Switzerland and France.

10.4 Classification of the Northeastern Atlantic minke whale stock
The attention of the Scientific Committee was drawn to the Norwegian proposal that the classification be amended from Protection Stock, but this was not discussed by the Committee. Norway indicated to the Technical Committee that it would give a policy statement in plenary [see Item 10.1.2.3].

10.5 Action arising
Revised Management Procedure
In the plenary session Norway, on behalf of the co-sponsors Iceland and Japan, submitted a Resolution which expressed confidence, trust and gratitude to the Scientific Committee for its work over the past 3 - 4 years, commended Dr Kirkwood for his chairmanship of the sub-committee on management procedures, and asked the Commission to adopt the C procedure with a tuning of 66% of initial as the revised management procedure.

Iceland and Japan spoke in support of the Resolution, noting its simplicity and the fact that the C procedure was the one recommended by the majority of the Scientific Committee. St Vincent & The Grenadines also expressed support.

Australia indicated that it could not accept the Resolution because it had missed some significant points, a position shared by the USA. The UK pointed out that, although there is a core procedure available, more work is still required in validation and preparation for multiple stock situations. The Netherlands and Germany associated themselves with this view.

On being put to the vote, there were 7 votes in favour, 19 against and 3 abstentions, so this Resolution was not adopted.

Denmark explained its vote in favour because it approved the clear recommendation of the Scientific Committee, which with advice from the Commission, could have enabled the revised procedure to be finalised by the 1992 Annual Meeting.

After some discussion as to whether a second Resolution had been distributed the previous night or only just before the start of the plenary session, the Chairman ruled that he would permit the Resolution to be introduced and discussed, with any voting delayed until later.

Australia then explained that the late distribution was the result of very hard work to achieve the maximum level of consensus. It recalled that its amending Resolution at the 1974 meeting to a proposal for a worldwide moratorium on commercial whaling led to the so-called New Management Procedure. Australia has been active in the implementation of the 1982 moratorium and the Comprehensive Assessment of Whale Stocks, including the revision of the management procedure. It reviewed the development of revised procedures which are robust to uncertainties in the basic data, and the simulation trials. While all the five procedures developed performed well in single stock trials, the C procedure was recommended for acceptance. There is some concern that in certain circumstances it might permit catches from stocks which would at present be protected, and further work is needed for specific single stock trials and the development of multiple stock applications which may require an inter-sessional meeting of the Scientific Committee. The Resolution recognised that the core single stock procedure will form the basis of the Revised Management Procedure, and provides a mechanism to lead forward.

In supporting this Resolution, the USA pointed out that it puts a low risk of depletion as the highest priority. If and when commercial whaling resumes, it will only be permitted for populations in areas and seas for which catch limits are in force, calculated by the Scientific Committee and approved by the Commission. All other catch limits will be zero. The high tuning level of 0.72 is proposed, and the protection level below which whaling cannot begin is moved up from 50% to 54%. The Scientific Committee is asked to provide advice on the likelihood and the circumstances when whaling below this level could occur through uncertainty. Advice is also sought on such matters as minimum standards for data, coverage, methodology for sightings surveys, as well as noting the need for multi-stock analysis.

As one of the sponsors, the Netherlands explained its position. It considers the development of a Revised Management Procedure of the utmost importance to achieve the objectives of the Convention. It wished to ensure that whale populations will not be depleted, that relatively abundant populations are allowed to remain at healthy levels, and to allow the recovery of depleted populations to high levels of abundance as soon as possible. The previous management procedure had not been able to prevent further depletion of many stocks, one reason being that we still have little knowledge of the natural processes essential for management. Despite concerns that the revised procedure might allow populations below the 54% level to be exploited, and it looked for a very high probability that this protection level will be realised, it supported the Resolution in the expectation that its concerns will be addressed by the Scientific Committee in the coming year.

Sweden noted that all five procedures are robust enough to work satisfactorily, but co-sponsored the Resolution because amongst other things it addresses its concerns by seeking the advice of the Scientific Committee on the issue of the rehabilitation cases. It understood that this would not make implementation impossible by next year's Annual Meeting, and proposed that the Commission decides on an inter-sessional meeting at a time the Scientific Committee deemed suitable.

The UK co-sponsored the Resolution as a sensible way to proceed by choosing one procedure after the work to develop and test the models. The core procedure can then be validated and built upon to deal with multiple stocks. The Resolution provides guidance on various aspects such as sightings surveys and analytical techniques. Then the wider application into the Schedule can proceed under the clear guidance that the highest priority must be given that stocks should not be depleted below a chosen level. Germany shared this explanation.

Denmark spoke on the late arrival of the proposal due to widespread consultations, but from which it had been excluded. It believed there were strong disagreements over the proposal because some nations cannot accept the fact that the Scientific Committee almost unanimously recommended a new procedure, and try to prolong the process of developing a new management procedure. Denmark had worked hard to reach a consensus, and regretted that some nations did not want this.

Finland recognised the long and difficult work of the Scientific Committee and welcomed the trend to give the benefit of the doubt to the resource rather than the exploiters. It emphasised the basic principles of the 1946 Convention of allowing depleted stocks to recover to optimum levels as quickly as possible and to protect other stocks from depletion, as well as the need to continue the principle of protecting stocks depleted below optimum levels from further commercial whaling. The procedure to be adopted must achieve what the old one was never able to achieve.

In response to a point raised by Spain on the expansion of the work of the Scientific Committee into small cetaceans, the Netherlands clarified that this Resolution is talking about management procedures for baleen whales. Chile had the same understanding.

The People's Republic of China commented that its position on the management of whale resources is always actively to protect and for rational utilisation. It hoped a revised procedure can be in place as soon as possible. However, since it saw differences between governments it would abstain in any vote since it believed adoption should be by consensus.

Japan remarked on the short time available to look at the Resolution, in which it found a number of difficulties in wording for interpretation, and a lack of dates for the implementation or completion of the procedure. These grammatical and legal difficulties did not allow it to say yes or no and it thought further examination was warranted. The USA accepted one correction pointed out by Japan, and noted that the Scientific Committee report includes some of the time schedule.

Brazil spoke of the serious and responsible efforts to guarantee conservation of whale stocks and the cautious utilisation of resources. It supported the Resolution.

Iceland indicated the great number of possibilities to retard the process of implementation, both in the Resolution which it had co-sponsored and in the present one. It hoped that the more legalistically inclined would not delay the work. It had witnessed an effort over the past two or three days to start negotiations for a new type of relationship within the IWC, and applauded the work of the Commissioner for the USA in this regard. The small number of countries who have a firm position against ever opening up whaling seem to be able to prevail upon the majority. It is a fear of reaching this position again next year which made the proposal unacceptable to Iceland.

On being put to the vote, the Resolution shown in Appendix 4 (which applies only to baleen whales) was adopted with 18 votes in favour, 6 against and 5 abstentions.

In explanation of its vote, New Zealand commented that it had abstained because it does not favour the resumption of commercial whaling. It arrived at this position through concerns about the degradation of the environment and its desire to preserve the great natural resources that are an integral part of it. The 1946 Convention was drafted by a group of whaling nations at a time when whaling was acceptable, but the world has changed and there is much concern for the future of the whales. Up to this point the Convention has shown itself sufficiently flexible to meet changing circumstances, even eventually responding positively to the 1972 call for a moratorium on commercial whaling. Management based on the Blue Whale Unit was an unmitigated disaster, the New Management Procedure was fatally flawed, and there is now one last chance. The revised procedure is extremely sophisticated and not easy to comprehend. It will be judged by the whales proposed to be taken. It appears to provide a better measure of protection to depleted stocks and will be tied to smaller geographic areas than in the past, but it applies one uniform approach to all whale stocks regardless of their status. The major stumbling block is that if a population is above a certain target size it has to be depleted, or tuned, over a period of time until it conforms with a standard pattern. For the Southern Hemisphere minke whales the result would be a reduction by well over 100,000 whales out of a stock of 400,000 or so mature animals. This does not look a very safe procedure and is not politically acceptable, so New Zealand must attach a reservation to a system which is so fraught with such grave implications for the last great whale stock.

Norway voted against the Resolution because it does not know the implications of the instructions given to the Scientific Committee. It suspected it would further delay implementation of a revised procedure and will stipulate protection levels that will virtually prevent resumption of commercial whaling in the foreseeable future. This decision has confirmed its fears that the IWC is no longer an international body for the proper management and regulation of whaling but has transformed itself into an International Commission for the Prohibition of Whaling. Norway will have to review and seriously consider its future relations to the IWC.

Denmark abstained because the Resolution adds a number of complicating elements which may prolong the preparation of revised procedures substantially and unnecessarily.

Regret that a group of non-scientists had in a few hours distorted the one procedure recommended by the Scientific Committee was expressed by Japan. It felt there was no future in a world where science is ignored and so had voted against the proposal.

France voted in favour because it opposes the reopening of commercial whaling in the near future and felt more time is needed to evaluate the impact of the moratorium decision. We must not allow ourselves to endanger stocks again as was done in the past, and it wished to encourage effective and satisfactory control and reliable management to be decided next year. It still had some concerns on statistics and the confidence margins. Spain supported this statement.

Catch limit and classification proposals
Iceland put forward a proposal for catch limits on minke whales off Iceland. The Chairman ruled, following the precedent set at last year's meeting, that such a matter could not be dealt with after it had been decided that Schedule paragraph 10(e) is still in force. Iceland appealed against that ruling and was supported by Norway. In a confused debate the UK, supported by Brazil, suggested treating the proposal as an interim quota during the moratorium. The USA saw the proposal as an amendment to the Schedule. After a short adjournment for consultation between Commissioners, the meeting moved to a vote on the appeal by Iceland against the Chairman's ruling. The ruling received 15 votes in favour, with 7 against and 6 abstentions, and so was upheld and no further action was taken on the minke whale proposal. Iceland therefore did not press a comparable proposal for fin whales.

Norway put forward a proposal to declassify the Northeastern Atlantic minke whale stock. Australia pointed out that this had not been discussed by the Scientific Committee and could not really be considered. The USA took a similar view, and the UK recalled that it had earlier made clear that such a declassification was unacceptable. Seychelles agreed with this position.

On being put to the vote, the proposal was defeated, receiving 4 votes in favour, 18 against with 6 abstentions.

Future work
Following exchanges between Commissioners and the Chairman of the Scientific Committee, the Swedish proposal, seconded by Iceland, for an inter-sessional meeting of the Scientific Committee to be held about March 1992 was accepted. Australia suggested that the Commission approve this in principle, the exact details to be finalised by the Chairman of the Scientific Committee in consultation with others as appropriate. The USA and Seychelles supported this approach.

The Secretary indicated that some additional funding would be needed on top of the approved budget to cover the costs of the meeting and the expenses of the key participants not supported by their governments, of the order of 0,000. The UK also suggested that some money could be drawn from the amount agreed to enhance the reserves. Australia formally proposed to increase the budget by 」20,000, and this was seconded by Denmark and agreed by the Commission.

_