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

At the Special Meeting of the Scientific Committee held in Copenhagen in March 1992 the Committee agreed to examine two statistics for single stocks using the standard simulation trials: the 'Realised Protection Level' (RPL) and the 'Relative Recovery'. The probability of whaling being inadvertently allowed when the actual population is at some level below 54% is markedly dependent on the value of the MSY rate (MSYR). In the rehabilitation case where the initial population is 30% of the unexploited level, when MSYR is low (1%), the probability is high; as MSYR increases, the probability decreases. However, the catches allowed will be so small as to affect only marginally the recovery rate of the population.

The trade-offs in performance measures that would be involved if the amount of catch taken below 54% is to be reduced, was investigated by examining variants of the core single stock procedure. The results of these investigations show that while substantial improvements in RPL can be achieved, this leads to only a slight improvement in recovery rates of stocks at low population levels and that this is at the expense of substantially poorer performance of catch related statistics.

Draft specification for the Revised Management Procedure
In discussing the scope of the draft specification, the Scientific Committee agreed that it was designed solely for application to baleen whales for the calculation of catch limits. It was difficult to be fully prescriptive in definitions that are to apply to all baleen whales and the text was therefore annotated at those places where the need for interpretations or illustrations were necessary. The Committee recommended that particular care should be taken to provide full documentation of all implementations of the RMP to a species and region. In particular, criteria used or developed for changing the precise form of implementation should be recorded, normally in the appropriate annotations to the specification.

Possible need for additional simulation trials
The Scientific Committee discussed the potential need for further single or multi-stock simulation trials. It agreed further single stock trials for examining the effects of different inter-survey intervals and the robustness of the procedure to potential degradation of the environment in the future.

The RMP demonstrates robust performance in the circumstances modelled and no more trials were needed for the Scientific Committee to complete its developmen of the draft specification. However, the Scientific Committee recommended that suitable case specific simulation trials should be carried out prior to the initial implementation for particular species and region.

Specification of rules for setting catch limits
Trials confirmed that the primary effect on single stock trials of an inter-survey interval of 10 years instead of 5 was a reduction in catch rather than an increase in risk. Because of concerns expressed by some members, the selection of an appropriate period to elapse before phaseouts were invoked was referred to the Commission for advice.

Future changes to the Revised Management Procedure
The Scientific Committee agreed that any revised management procedure recommended by the Committee and adopted by the Commission should be able to be amended and improved in the future in the light of advances in knowledge and methodology. However, an amendment of the procedure is not something that should be undertaken without careful consideration. Some suggestions were made although there had been insufficient time available for thorough deliberation and the Scientific Committee recommended that this issue be considered further.

Documentation and availability of computer programs
Calculation of catch limits according to the draft specification is accomplished using a computer program held and verified by the Secretariat. In addition the large set of simulation trials used by the Scientific Committee in developing the RMP was carried out using a computer program developed by the Secretariat. It was agreed that full documentation of the program implementing the calculation of catch limits was essential.

The Scientific Committee agreed that the programs and associated documentation must be available to accredited scientists and should, as a matter of principle, be accorded as wide an availability as possible. However, several issues relating to ownership of the programs and copyright remain unresolved and until these are resolved the Scientific Committee recommended that access to these programs be restricted to accredited scientists.

In Technical Committee, the USA stated its view that these programs should be available to anyone interested and not limited only to accredited scientists.

Draft specification and annotations
The Scientific Committee recommended that the Commission adopt the draft specification for the calculation of catch limits in an RMP for baleen whales contained in Annex H of its Report (IWC/44/4) and that the Commission endorses the annotations attached to that Annex.

Norway stated its view that the draft specification in principle is satisfactory, but that the Scientific Committee should be instructed to investigate the effects on the performance of the RMP of tuning levels other than 0.72.

Phaseout rule
The Scientific Committee had been unable to determine a suitable period that should elapse before phaseout of catches should occur on the basis of simulation trials alone. Other issues involved include the continuity and maintenance of skills by those conducting surveys, the likelihood that unexpected events may be detected, the wide variety of possible types of survey (e.g. the time needed to survey entire areas, such as Southern Hemisphere minke whales), the inability to complete surveys due to unexpected events such as bad weather or breakdowns. The Scientific Committee was therefore unable to reach a conclusion on what would be an appropriate period between 5 and 10 years to allow before invoking a phaseout of catches.

Discussion in the Technical Committee showed that some delegations favoured the shorter period of five years while others noted that 10 years was safe. It was noted that the IDCR Antarctic cruises follow a six year cycle and some delegations proposed that 6 years was appropriate.

Other matters related to the draft specification
The Scientific Committee pointed out that all known removals from each area should be included in the historical catch data used in an assessment, but that some problems remained in terms of 'estimated' removals. Attention was drawn to the robustness demonstrated in single stock trials in which the historical catch record was underestimated by up to 50%.

The catch limits proposed in Annex H remain in force for a period of five years and do not allow any carryover of catches between seasons. The Scientific Committee recommended that the attention of the Commission be drawn to the possibility of the incorporation of a block quota in the RMP and it further recommended that, subject to the Commission's approval and specification of the form of the proposed block quota, it should consider this possibility further. The Scientific Committee also noted the need to address the question of catches taken in excess of catch limits and adjustments for unbalanced sex ratios.

Advice on incorporation of the RMP into the Schedule
The Scientific Committee had recommended that the draft specification for calculation of catch limits be formally adopted by the Commission and that the annotations be endorsed by the Commission. It was unable to advise further on how the draft specification should be handled in terms of a Schedule amendment. It noted that the development of Annex H had been a long and difficult task and recommended that the Commission exercise great caution before considering any changes when developing possible Schedule amendments.

Minimum standards for data
The Committee recommended that Paragraph 24 of the Schedule should require the position of whale catches to the nearest degree and minute of latitude and longitude along with the other information detailed.

The Scientific Committee recommended that a set of guidelines for conducting surveys and analysing the results should be developed. Ideally, this should include standardised methods of survey design, field procedures and data collection. Similarly, a set of approved methods of analysis should be developed for use by the Committee. Programs for conducting such analyses should be validated by and held at the Secretariat and should be available to accredited scientists. As new methodologies are developed, tested and approved, these would then be added to the set of available options.

The questions of data availability and validation were considered. The Committee recommended that data for any sightings survey to be used to calculate abundance estimates for the purposes of applying the RMP should be documented and provided to the Secretariat in computer readable data files before a specified time in advance of the Committee meeting in which the data are to be used. All such data should be archived by the Secretariat in an appropriate database such that abundance estimates can be calculated for any specified Small Areas. Data should be in a fully disaggregated form so that estimates can be recalculated correctly if the boundaries of Management Areas are altered. Once lodged with the Secretariat, these data should be available to accredited scientists as defined in the Committee's Rules of Procedure.

The Scientific Committee agreed that minimum standards for survey design, data and estimates should be considered further.

Data not directly required for implementation of the RMP includes various requirements for biological samples already specified in Paragraph 29 of the Schedule. The Scientific Committee considered that it would be most helpful to replace Paragraph 29 with an 'enabling clause' which stated that in response to advice or requests from the Committee the Commission could require samples/data to be collected from whaling operations.

Section VI of the Schedule deals with 'Information required' and the Scientific Committee agreed that it is highly desirable that effort data continue to be collected on a routine basis and that the provision for collection of product data should be retained. Due to lack of time it had been unable to complete a full review of Section VI.

Discussion in the Technical Committee on the draft specification for the RMP spanned a range of views. Some delegations believed it was time to adopt Annex H and endorse the annotations. How this was to be incorporated into the Schedule presented problems, and a Working Group to consider this was suggested. Some delegations distinguished between the Catch Limit Algorithm (CLA) and other elements of a total package of a revised procedure which would include provision of data, verification, inspection and observer schemes. Thus there was an underlying broad acceptance of the RMP but a wide divergence of views on the next steps.

Implementation and initial catch limits
The Scientific Committee thought it would not be appropriate to include in its Report catch limits that would apply in the first year following implementation. It agreed that, should the Commission wish to set catch limits according to the RMP during its forthcoming meeting, these should be calculated by the Secretariat, checked by the Chairman of the Scientific Committee and then transmitted by him to the Commission.

11.1.2 Southern Hemisphere baleen whales
Minke whales
Stock identification
The Scientific Committee agreed that 10° sectors longitude represented the best option for Small Areas, and that 60°S was generally a satisfactory northern boundary.

Three options for Medium Areas (containing known or suspected stocks) were considered. The preferred option was for six areas each spanning 90° with 30° overlap. Arising out of this discussion the Scientific Committee recommended that biopsy sampling be carried out on breeding areas, to allow further investigation of the discreteness of Southern Hemisphere minke whale stocks. Isozyme analyses were suggested in addition to DNA analyses.

Estimates of abundance
The Scientific Committee made three recommendations on coding sightings data, the development of a database of such data (including the appointment of a database manager) and development of a general linear model framework to permit evaluation of alternative models of spatial and temporal distribution. Estimates of abundance obtained during the meeting were adopted.

Implications of implementation of the RMP
The Scientific Committee agreed that detailed case specific implementation simulation trials should be carried out to determine the extent to which catch-cascading and/or catch-capping would be appropriate when implementing the RMP for Southern Hemisphere minke whales.

In the Technical Committee, Japan commented that it believed 30° was better than 10° as the sector width for Small Areas and commented that information on Southern Hemisphere minke whales is the best available for any stocks. It further commented that at least combination of Small Areas by cascading should be implemented.

Other baleen whales
The Scientific Committee received updated analyses for blue, fin, sei and humpback whales from sightings surveys. The sample sizes were very small and only meaningful for the circumpolar Areas as a whole. There was greater confidence in the results for humpback whales than for other species and the Scientific Committee recommended that studies to provide estimates of population size and, where practicable, rates of increase and linkage between Areas for humpback whales should be encouraged. It also recommended that humpback whale assessments be given priority at the next meeting.

In the Technical Committee, Japan commented that too many blue whales had been taken by many nations in the past. The IDCR cruises and Japanese data had been provided to give the present estimates and it requested other nations to assist in research and analysis.

The Scientific Committee recommended that studies of current population size and increase rates for right whales, important in indicating their recovery, should continue.

Future work
Assessments may require a relatively long timeframe, possibly three or more years. The Scientific Committee adopted a list of priority items for data coding. Concerning photo-identification data, it recommended that the Secretary be asked to seek from national groups and individual researchers, listings of the nature and extent of data currently held, by location of sampling for all species where available but for humpback whales in particular.

In the Technical Committee, Japan requested that the Scientific Committee should complete all its business on the assessments within the period indicated

It also recommended that information on incidental sightings should be included in national Progress Reports.

11.1.3 North Atlantic baleen whales
Minke whales
New results together with earlier data indicate that whales from West Greenland and Iceland are genetically distinct from each other, strengthening the existing hypothesis of three breeding stocks. It was agreed to continue using the Small Areas as defined for previous simulation trials and that performance of the RMP would not be sensitive to minor boundary changes.

Estimates of abundance
A new estimate of g(0), the probability of sighting a whale on the cruise track, led to a revised abundance estimate for the northeast North Atlantic of 86,000 (95% CI 61,000 - 117,000) minke whales. After extensive discussion of the results and implications in the Scientific Committee, it was agreed that these were the best currently available for the 1988 and 1989 shipboard surveys, which led to revised estimates for Small Areas to be used for implementation of the RMP.

Implications and implementation of the RMP
The Scientific Committee agreed that additional implementation simulation trials should be conducted using a revised mixing matrix, the actual estimates of absolute abundance and associated variance statistics, and improved methods of modelling CVs of future surveys.

Results from implementation simulation trials
The Scientific Committee received the extensive results on these trials in the final hours of its meeting and it was not possible to review them in any detail It agreed that the only conclusion that could be reached in the time available was that implementation of the RMP was possible on a Small Area basis for both North Atlantic and Southern Hemisphere minke whales. Further consideration of the trial results, in addition to the results of two trials originally specified but not completed was necessary. After this the Scientific Committee agreed that it would be in a position to develop recommendations to the Commission on the most appropriate options to use when implementing the RMP for North Atlantic or Southern Hemisphere minke whales.

Australia posed a technical question to the Chairman of the Scientific Committee concerning one of the Small Area trials. A written reply was appended to the Report of the Technical Committee.

Recommendations for future implementation for other species or regions
In the light of its recent experience with respect to implementation, the Scientific Committee discussed a number of ways in which its procedures could be improved. In particular it noted that, should further implementation be attempted, more time must be allotted to this work which may require work to be carried out over two meetings. The Scientific Committee also agreed that it should only undertake an implementation of the RMP to a species and region on instruction from the Commission and that adequate notice and specific details should be given.

In the Technical Committee, Japan received confirmation from the Chairman of the Scientific Committee that the North Atlantic and Southern Hemisphere minke whale trials can now be implemented on a Small Area basis and requested that the catch limits be calculated. Discussion brought out the views that calculating catch limits is different from setting them, and that the Commission must formally adopt the Catch Limit Algorithm (CLA) before it could be used in determining catch levels. Only when Annex H is published in the Schedule does it become the official Commission procedure. These differing views led to the Chairman indicating that the whole matter should be referred to the Commission.

In plenary, Japan repeated its request for the calculation of the initial five year catch limit, including catch-cascading, to be done in a specified time prior to the next Annual Meeting.

North Atlantic fin whales
The Scientific Committee considered some preliminary results of genetic studies on North Atlantic fin whales. It recommended that isozyme analyses be continued and expanded to include larger sample sizes from more areas and that the alternative explanations for heterogeneity which had been suggested be investigated.

A new fin whale abundance estimate for the survey blocks covered by the Spanish vessel in NASS-89 of 17,300 (95% CI 10,400 - 28,900) was accepted. The Scientific Committee recommended continuation of studies on fin whale blow rates off West Greenland carried out in response to its recommendation in 1991.

Future implementation of the RMP
The Scientific Committee had been working on the assumption that implementation for North Atlantic fin whales would follow the Comprehensive Assessment. However, it now referred to its view that work toward implementation should only be initiated on instruction from the Commission.

North Atlantic sei whales
Abundance of sei whales in Iceland and adjacent waters from the NASS-89 survey gave an estimate of 10,300 (95% CI 6,100 - 17,700) which was accepted as the best estimate for the Area surveyed. The Scientific Committee recommended that biopsy sampling be undertaken in Canadian and US waters because lack of samples for genetic studies in areas other than Icelandic waters precluded studies of stock separation in the North Atlantic.

11.1.3.1 Catch limits for North Atlantic minke whales
Iceland had expected that the Commission would set catch limits for minke whales in the North Atlantic on the advice of the Scientific Committee in accordance with the RMP and the Comprehensive Assessment of these stocks. In the absence of formal agreement and acceptance of the CLA, the Technical Committee was not able to take further action.

11.1.3.2 Amendment of the classification of the Northeast Atlantic minke whale stock
Norway had proposed that the classification of this stock should be amended but the Scientific Committee had been told that the question could be considered to be withdrawn. The Norwegian Commissioner confirmed that this question would not be raised again by Norway during this meeting.

11.1.4 Other stocks
North Pacific minke whales
Japan stated that it believed the West Pacific - Sea of Okhotsk minke whale stock had been sufficiently analysed for implementation of the RMP. It requested an intersessional meeting of the Scientific Committee for this purpose and that such implementation should be completed in two sessions of the Commission. This was supported by Norway.

This request was repeated by Japan in the plenary. Australia, supported by Sweden, asked to know the cost implications.

North Pacific Bryde's whales
The Scientific Committee noted that Japan will provide an updated status report on the available data for North Pacific Bryde's whales at next year's meeting with respect to a future in-depth assessment by the Committee. It noted that relevant data should also be available in Russia and the USA. It recommended that information on data available in these countries should be provided to next year's meeting.

11.1.5 Future work plans
The Scientific Committee identified the work it needed to do during the coming year. It noted that, as discussed in the Report of the Finance and Administration Committee, if the Commission wished more subjects to be discussed, further time would need to be added to this meeting.

In the Technical Committee Norway pointed to the North Atlantic fin whale as the next case for implementation of the RMP and the CLA on the grounds that the order of the Comprehensive Assessment gives the order for the RMP implementation. Japan supported this view and also spoke in favour of completion of the Comprehensive Assessment and implementation of the RMP for North Pacific minke whales and the Comprehensive Assessment of North Pacific Bryde's whales, confirming that it will provide all necessary data for completion of the work in 1994.

Japan asked the Commission in the plenary session to adopt this priority of work for the Scientific Committee. There was some discussion of what was involved in terms of meetings.

11.2 Review of Schedule paragraph 10(e) and other relevant paragraphs
This work was referred directly to the plenary.

11.3 Action arising
The Technical Committee agreed to endorse all the recommendations from the Scientific Committee, other than those where discussion had indicated a lack of consensus which were therefore passed to the plenary for further consideration.

Australia introduced a Resolution on the Revised Management Scheme (RMS)*, co-sponsored by Finland, Germany, Switzerland and the USA. The Australian view is that there should be no more commercial whaling, but it understood that the work of the IWC must go on while it tried to persuade others to its view. Accordingly it recognised the great efforts made by the Scientific Committee and sought to advance the work of that Committee and the Commission in developing the RMS, so that if all else fails and whaling does resume, a high level of security is afforded to exploited cetacean populations. The Resolution took into account the work of the Scientific Committee but also emphasised that there are a number of other additional items besides the CLA which the sponsors believe are essential to be completed before any RMS could be agreed.

Sweden also wished to co-sponsor the Resolution.

Switzerland, in associating itself with the statement of Australia, recalled that last year the Commission adopted a Resolution accepting the C procedure as the core for the development of the CLA. The Resolution had requested further elements to make it even safer, which have been accomplished by the Scientific Committee. The Committee now recommended that the draft specification for the calculation of catch limits in the RMP for baleen whales be adopted, and the attached annotations endorsed. Switzerland is instructed to base its decisions on the findings and recommendations of the Scientific Committee. It therefore thought that the CLA should be accepted as a central clement of the management scheme to avoid any intention of further modification, and the other elements mentioned in the Resolution developed and completed.

The Netherlands took the view that an important part of the work of the Commission had now been completed. It was satisfied that the CLA contains sufficient safeguards to ensure the long-term survival of whale stocks. It believes that commercial whaling can only be considered when other conditions have been fulfilled, namely that the Comprehensive Assessment of whale stocks has produced sufficient data on stock identity, size and reproduction, and that effective rules had been adopted concerning the provision of data, stock monitoring and inspection. The Resolution also made clear that, pending the adoption of the RMS, there should be no commercial whaling nor implementation of the CLA. On this basis it gave its support.

The USA associated itself with the comments made by Australia and the Netherlands, emphasising that it does not favour the resumption of commercial whaling nor condone a resumption not authorised by the IWC under the conservative guidelines contained in the Resolution.

*[Editor's note]:
In the original Resolution presented to the Commission, a typographical error resulted in the heading referring to the 'Revised Management System' [my italics] not 'Scheme', although 'Scheme' was used throughout the text. Pending final clarification and definition of terms at next year's meeting. I have used the following definitions for the purposes of this Report. (1) Catch Limit Algorithm (CLA) - this refers to the method of calculating catch limits for baleen whales as described in Annex H of the Scientific Committee's Report. (2) Revised Management Procedure (RMP) - this includes the CLA and incorporates further scientific aspects including data standards and survey guidelines. (3) Revised Management Scheme (RMS) - this includes the RMP (and thus the CLA) but also incorporates non-scientific aspects including inspection, the establishment of an observer scheme and incorporation of all scientific and non-scientific aspects into the Schedule, as detailed in the Resolution.

New Zealand stated its position in the context of wrestling with 1992 problems in a 1946 Convention time warp, and not having complied with the requirement in Schedule paragraph 10(e) to complete a comprehensive assessment of the effects of the moratorium decision on whale stocks. In its view the RMP has not been tested on realistic data and does not take adequate account of multi-species concerns of changes in the environment. The uncertainties in virtually every area are enormous. Two aspects of particular concern are the protection level of 54% of the unexploited level and the target level of 72%. The former is 10% lower than the level set in the NMP which was completely inadequate. The deliberate depletion of the Southern Hemisphere minke whales to the target level is totally unacceptable to New Zealand, and was the reason it abstained on last year's Resolution on the RMP. It would have been prudent if the Commission had applied the precautionary principle more fully by setting higher target and protection levels for an initial period of say 10 - 15 years and thus give the opportunity to assess further the effects of the procedure on the stocks in the real world as distinct from the computer world. Until its concerns are taken care of, New Zealand had no choice but to continue to abstain on this item.

The UK pointed out that in its view the Resolution sets out some but not all the elements which should be in place before Schedule paragraph 10 can be altered and the moratorium on commercial whaling lifted. An essential area for the UK is the question of progress on humane killing. Norway's decision to resume commercial whaling next year has been a blow, there is concern about NAMMCO (North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission) as a potential rival organisation, and suggestions for further tuning of the CLA perhaps leading to larger catches. New ideas such as the circumpolar whale sanctuary and environmental threat assessment are on the table, and the UK believed it would be right to pause and think at this important juncture. It would therefore abstain if the proposal were pressed to a vote.

Norway and Japan proposed five amendments to the Resolution which had the effect of requesting the Scientific Committee to provide full documentation of the CLA and control program by the 45th Annual Meeting; to test lower tuning levels of 0.66 and 0.60; and committing the Commission to implementing associated regulations by the end of the 45th Annual Meeting. Norway commented that it had expected at the start of the week to be talking about implementation of the RMP, but it was now faced with a new concept of the RMS. Japan indicated that these amendments had the effect of putting completion dates on the proposal and reduced the options involved.

Seychelles could not support the Resolution because in its view the proposed rules for calculating catch limits do not conform to the Resolution adopted last year that catch limits shall only be greater than zero where the stock is determined to be above 54% of its unexploited level. The Scientific Committee has said that catches from depleted stocks would usually be small and would not slow recovery very much, but there have been no multistock trials and there are some rather disturbing indications that all is not yet well. It would therefore abstain on any vote and hope that correct application of any rules can be more precisely specified next year, and at the same time give serious consideration to any proposals for additional sanctuaries.

The USA suggested that the amendments proposed by Norway and Japan, which it found unacceptable, be voted on as a block. Norway supported this suggestion. St Vincent and The Grenadines supported the amendments because of the time limit they placed on the implementation of the RMP. St Lucia also supported the setting of a timeframe, but Monaco questioned whether the timeframe was too short.

On being put to the vote, the amendment was defeated with 5 votes in favour, 16 against and 7 abstentions.

Mexico explained its abstention because of the co-sponsors' stated aim of a final end to whaling but yet recognising some sort of whaling. It wondered if there was a need to revise the whole legal frame of the Convention.

Denmark also abstained because while it had sympathy with the intentions of some of the amendments, it was concerned about the request to investigate other tuning levels since it accepts the level of 0.72.

Ireland expressed some reservations on the original Resolution, because of the possibility of whaling occurring on stocks below the protection level of 54%. It was also opposed to catch-cascading since this would almost always increase catch limits and it wished to adopt the most conservative position. Finally, it was concerned that acceptance of the CLA might encourage any member to take action before the complete RMS is approved. It therefore would abstain.

Germany was prepared to follow the Scientific Committee advice on the CLA, but made it clear that a lot of other conditions formulated in the Resolution have to be fulfilled before the RMP can be accepted and implemented. Spain gave its support, following the arguments expressed especially by Australia, the Netherlands and Germany.

France would abstain, because despite the technical sophistication of the RMP it looked, as did Seychelles, for a diversity of management measures and a more global approach.

On being put to the vote, the Resolution (shown in Appendix 3) was adopted with 16 votes in favour and 1 against, with 11 abstentions.

Japan explained its abstention as recognition of the hard work by serious thinkers amongst the like-minded anti-whaling opinions. Brazil also valued the work of the Scientific Committee and the thinkers referred to by Japan, but abstained because of doubts about where it stood in the pressure of this week's events.

Denmark voted in favour of the Resolution as a step towards the end of years of discussion concerning revised management procedures, but it thought the questions of control and inspection should not cause any unnecessary delay in the further implementation of the RMP. St Vincent and The Grenadines, while still not satisfied with the timeframe, also supported the Resolution as a step forward. Chile's affirmative vote was for a step in a long process to be continued on a scientific basis as before.

Sweden saw the adoption of the Resolution as following the recommendations of the Scientific Committee this year. Other important issues still need to be resolved concerning safe whaling before the moratorium is lifted. It therefore proposed that the necessary work on observation and inspection be dealt with by an intersessional meeting before the next Annual Meeting.

Discussion of the various intersessional meetings being considered and the priorities of the work of the Scientific Committee with input from Japan, New Zealand, Australia, the Chairman of the Scientific Committee, Norway, USA, the Netherlands and the Republic of Korea led to the decision that North Pacific minke whales should be the next priority subject for implementation trials, to be carried out by adding three days to the start of the next annual meeting of the Scientific Committee.

General reluctance was expressed for an intersessional meeting on observation and inspection, because of time and cost constraints. Sweden proposed an alternative solution of the Secretary seeking information from other international organisations to be transmitted to Commissioners before next year's meeting for comments as a basis for discussion. Japan and Norway preferred an intersessional meeting, but Australia reiterated its view that this was not practical in the foreshortened year.

There was discussion of the financial implications, including opposition by Mexico and St Vincent and The Grenadines to any additions to the Commission's budget, and clarification of and comments on the additional costs for the various meetings by Germany, the USA and Japan. This led Australia to propose parallel meetings of working groups and the addition of 7,000 to the basic budget. This was the sum estimated by the Secretary to cover the additional days needed by the Scientific Committee, Working Groups and the Commission. The increase in the budget would still be less than the 5% ceiling the Finance and Administration Committee had set. Mexico suggested reducing all working group meetings to half a day, which Oman supported. Brazil was opposed to parallel meetings but supported the Australian financial proposal, a position shared by Sweden and Spain, and finally approved by the meeting.

_