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

NORWAY
Five minke whales were taken in 1990, 4 males and 1 female. This completed the first stage of the Norwegian programme which had been a pilot study into methodology. A major methodological finding from last season's catches had been that feeding and energetic studies could be equally well carried out on frozen as fresh samples and future work would use frozen samples. There were no plans to take whales this year. Any future programme would of course be submitted to the Committee in good time for review.

Some general comments were made but there was little detailed discussion in the Scientific Committee.

Plenary discussion
Japan spoke of the rampant whaling activities by many countries in the past which had depleted the abundant Antarctic whale stocks. However, little research had been done to accurately assess their depletion or recovery. In particular, estimates in 1976 of the minke whale varied from a few tens of thousands to 400,000. The IWC/IDCR sightings surveys with major logistic support from Japan every year since 1978 now gave an agreed estimate of 760,000. Information on the population trend, as well as the natural mortality coefficient, recruitment rate and other biological parameters, is still needed. Japan regarded the period of the moratorium as a rare opportunity to collect unbiased data by random sampling not influenced by commercial operations. It therefore had carried out feasibility studies for two years before starting its main research in the 1989/90 season. This national research has clarified knowledge on the segregation by age and sex, and other information for proper management, and Japan would welcome the participation of foreign scientists in its research programme.

Iceland noted that the Japanese research activities are the only significant contribution to knowledge of these stocks, and believed that they are important for the continuing flow of information.

Appreciation of the non-lethal aspects of the programme was also expressed by the Netherlands, who asked if the resumption of commercial whaling at some time under a revised management procedure would lead to any significant changes in the Japanese programme. Japan responded that its research is a long-range plan to obtain the precise mortality rate by random sampling, as well as other biological parameters, which can be usefully incorporated into the management procedure.

The UK, while appreciating the contribution of the non-lethal part of the research, remarked as noted in previous years that the other research is not essential for the management schemes, old or new.

Review of new or revised Scientific Permit proposals
JAPAN
The Scientific Committee noted that the proposal was a continuation of the programme it had discussed extensively before and drew the Commission's attention to those discussions. It further noted that the population estimate for Area IV, where the research is to be carried out, is 74,692 (CV 0.257). Various members of the Scientific Committee commented on the proposal.

USSR
The Scientific Committee reviewed the proposal only with respect to the proposed lethal taking of minke whales from the waters of the Okhotsk Sea. Last year, the Committee noted that its 1985 meeting had agreed that documents on any 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. The proposal was received by the Secretariat and forwarded to the Committee on 20 April 1991.

The main objective of the research is to obtain material that will provide morphological and physiological characteristics of the populations. In addition, biological samples will be collected for determining age, sexual and physical maturity, and reproductive condition. Stomach contents will also be examined to investigate the role of minke whales in the food web. The proposal envisages a catch of 90 minke whales during June and July of 1991. No selection for size or sex will be made of the minke whales taken. No information was available on future catches after 1991. All catches will be from the Okhotsk Sea. Based on discussion of North Pacific minke whales at this year's meeting, whales killed in the Okhotsk Sea will be from two previously accepted management stocks, the Okhotsk Sea - West Pacific and Sea of Japan - Yellow Sea - East China Sea stocks. The Committee noted that the proposal had not adequately specified the objectives of the research although some clarification had been provided by the scientists present.

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 sample sizes other than that the proponents believe that such catches will not deplete the stock. There was no statement of the method of killing to be used. The proposal noted that the catcher Zvezdny will be used, the same vessel which is used in the aboriginal subsistence gray whale fishery off Chukotka.

Several observations were made on the methodology proposed and the Committee noted that the level of information given in the proposal made it difficult to comment in detail.

The Committee noted the new abundance estimate of whales in the Okhotsk Sea of 19,209 (95% CI 10,069 - 36,645). It also noted that some degree of mixing from animals from two 'stocks' occurred in the Okhotsk Sea north of Japan, at least in April. Minke whales from the Sea of Japan - Yellow Sea - East China Sea stock area were not able to be assessed at this year's meeting. They are currently classified as a Protection Stock by the Commission. It is not possible to say what proportion of the proposed catch might be from the two mixing 'stocks' nor what the levels of mixing might be in June/July.

The proposal stated that participation of foreign specialists is welcomed, to help in the execution of the Programme.

Plenary discussion
The UK commented that the proposal is not ready yet. It therefore hoped that the USSR would withdraw the programme and allow it to be developed. This view was shared by the USA, Australia, Switzerland, Spain, Germany, France, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Ireland and Chile.

Japan welcomed research to obtain scientific information for the management of whale stocks, and thought that the USSR would be able to amend and enhance its programme. Iceland also noted references in the Scientific Committee report welcoming plans for increased research in areas for which there is a need and expected that the presentational difficulties could be remedied. It repeated its well-known views about the right of governments to carry out research by issuing scientific permits.

The USSR stated that the comments brought forward would be taken into account, but believed the research activities which include the taking of a certain number of whales are necessary.

The People's Republic of China hoped that the advice from the Scientific Committee would be considered. Brazil did not favour lethal research initiatives, and appreciated that the USSR authorities will be made aware of the opinion of the Commission. India clarified that it is not against scientific research, but it is against lethal research.

7.2 Action arising
Japan
Australia introduced a Resolution proposed by itself, Brazil, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Sweden, Switzerland, UK and USA. It noted improvements in non-lethal techniques used by Japan but was still concerned at the level of lethal techniques used for some aspects of the research. The Resolution therefore invited the Government of Japan to reconsider the proposed research under special permit in 1991/92 in the light of these concerns.

As one of the several co-sponsors, the UK repeated its appreciation of the great contribution of the non-lethal research by Japan, but thought that the research programme involving the take of whales still does not meet the criteria essential for either the new management procedure or a future one.

Japan recalled that in response to the Resolution at last year's meeting, it undertook a thorough reconsideration of its programme and concluded that by taking a sample of 300 minke whales it is possible to achieve the level of precision in the course of its long-range programme. No governments commented on the revised programme, which had been reviewed by the Scientific Committee, and it believed all the problems had been resolved. Only two governments commented in this meeting on the programme and it felt resentment and regret that so many countries now joined the bandwagon on this Resolution. It firmly believed that the combination of non-lethal research as represented in the IDCR surveys and its own national programme with the take of whales can accurately give the information needed.

New Zealand responded that the programme remained fundamentally the same and does not really contribute to the setting of catch limits under the revised management procedure. Brazil and France both felt uncomfortable with the lethal part of the research, and the USA also found that these takes do not seem to serve the purposes determined by the Scientific Committee. Switzerland shared the concerns expressed and wished to see the non-lethal research intensified by such methods as biopsy sampling, radio tracking and direct ethological observation.

Following further exchanges on details of the research, Iceland stated that it believed such Resolutions to be ultra vires to the organisation, taking into account the provisions of Article VIII of the Convention. It also identified structural and grammatical problems with the Resolution. Norway associated itself with these views on the illegality of the Resolution.

References to paragraph 30 of the Schedule and guidelines in the form of Rules of Procedure and Resolutions back to 1986 were cited by New Zealand as other commitments on contracting states, while the USA drew attention to Convention Article VI, before the Resolution shown in Appendix 2 was adopted without vote.

USSR
The USA recalled that it welcomed the action of the USSR when it withdrew its proposal for a special permit catch of minke whales in the North Pacific last year. It was therefore disappointed that the USSR had decided not to take the advice of the Scientific Committee and several delegations this year to withdraw its proposal for 1991. Therefore on behalf of itself and Australia, Brazil, France, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Sweden, Switzerland and the UK it submitted a Resolution requesting the USSR to refrain from proceeding with its proposal since it is not in accordance with the criteria specified in the 1986 and 1987 Resolutions on research whaling.

The UK supported the Resolution as a co-sponsor and referred to its earlier misgivings about this programme, since it does not address any established research needs. Seychelles and Finland also wanted to co-sponsor the Resolution.

The USSR was not able to accept the Resolution and called for a vote, while Iceland reiterated, as in the previous case, its views on the legality, inconsistency and grammar involved.

The Resolution shown in Appendix 3 was then adopted by 20 votes in favour, with 4 against and 5 abstentions.

Japan reserved its position with respect to the sovereign rights for the issue of scientific permits.

_