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

NORWAY
A total of 51 minke whales was taken between 1988 and 1990 under a pilot study on methodological aspects of feeding physiology. New information presented included a preliminary estimate of the food composition, digestibility, metabolic rates and insulation.

Review of new or revised Scientific Permit proposals
JAPAN
The Scientific Committee noted that the proposal was a continuation of the Antarctic minke whale and marine ecosystem programme it had discussed extensively before, and drew the Commission's attention to those discussions. The population estimate for Area V, where the research is to be carried out, is 294,000 minke whales (95% CI 225,000 - 386,000). The planned sample size is 300 ± 10% and the programme had been revised slightly to take into account some of the comments made by the Committee in 1991, particularly to change the immediate focus from age-specific to average natural mortality rate, and to increased sighting effort.

In the plenary, Japan expressed pleasure at the appreciation of its programme by the Scientific Committee after the improvements made to the original programme. Because of the biases in the data collected from commercial whaling, Japan had taken the opportunity of the moratorium to conduct unbiased random sampling to accumulate the data necessary for the estimation of natural mortality and other biological parameters important for management. It hoped that the Commission would not repeat the Resolution asking for a reconsideration of the scientific programme.

NORWAY
Before discussing the proposal on minke whales in the northeast Atlantic, the Scientific Committee considered the multi-species model MULTSPEC used for the management of capelin, which includes minke whales in its structure, and which has also been submitted to ICES for review. The main objective of the minke whale research is to provide information on feeding ecology for incorporation in this model for future multi-species management of the northeastern Atlantic area. The proposal is to catch 110 minke whales in 1992 and 136 in each of the two following years. The Scientific Committee noted that the research is not intended to address management questions or contribute towards the Comprehensive Assessment, but the proposers believed it did address critically important research needs. A wide variety of views were expressed about the lethal and non-lethal components of the programme, the latter to be used increasingly after baseline data had been obtained from the three-year sampling programme. No permit catches beyond 1994 were envisaged. The take of 382 whales over three years would have little effect on the stock, now estimated as 87,000 minke whales (95% CI 61,000 - 117,000), as the effect of a small take for a short period would always be negligible.

RUSSIAN FEDERATION
The Scientific Committee reviewed a proposal received for research on whales in the Sea of Okhotsk on the assumption that it was an official submission from the Russian Federation. However, in the Commission that Government stated that it was not an official proposal and therefore should not be discussed. It drew attention to the fact that it had responded to the scientific criticism of the programme submitted last year by not issuing a permit.

13.2 Action arising
Japanese research proposal
The USA introduced a Resolution on special permit catches by Japan in the Southern Hemisphere, co-sponsored by Australia, Germany and Switzerland. It added wording to invite Japan to 'reconsider' the proposed research, seconded by Australia.

Switzerland wished to make special reference to the preambulary section referring to the Resolution accepted by the Commission two years ago, through which Contracting Governments are encouraged to base their research programmes to the maximum extent possible on non-lethal methods. Switzerland considers that Japan has made considerable progress in this area and its co-sponsorship of the present Resolution should be regarded as an encouragement to Japan for further efforts in this field.

Germany understood that Japan was being asked to reconsider its programme not only to improve it, but possibly to abstain or refrain from it.

Australia, although a co-sponsor of the Resolution, associated itself fully with the comments by Switzerland and Germany. In the interests of consensus it had agreed to somewhat weaker language which did not really embody the level of disapproval that it feels for the Japanese research programme. It emphasised that the programme is not in full accordance with the Commission's guidelines, and stressed the special nature of the Antarctic region. Sweden also wished to co-sponsor the Resolution, associating itself with the previous comments, specifically of Switzerland.

The UK also agreed with the previous comments, particularly those of Australia. It is reluctant even to consider lethal means of research and needs to be convinced that non-lethal means are impossible, so its problem is whether research is carried out at all. It therefore could not sponsor the Resolution.

The Netherlands understood that Japan was being asked to reconsider if a permit should be issued at all for research takes that do not fully satisfy the Commission's criteria, and New Zealand hoped that Japan would improve its research by switching to non-lethal operations.

Japan spoke again of the motivation for its programme to obtain unbiased data in the absence of commercial whaling, and of the useful information identified which was appreciated by scientists and Commissioners. It regretted the German comment but would take into account all the constructive comments made by the Scientific Committee.

St Lucia noted the contributions made by the Japanese research and thought it unfair to suggest it is of no use and should be stopped. It encouraged Japan and all national research organisations to continue for everyone's benefit.

The Resolution as amended, shown in Appendix 5, was then adopted by consensus on the proposal of the USA, noting the comments made.

Norwegian research proposal
New Zealand introduced a Resolution co-sponsored by Australia, France, Germany, Netherlands, New Zealand, Switzerland, UK and USA on the Norwegian proposal for special permits. The proposal as explained in the Scientific Committee is designed primarily to assist with the development of a fisheries stock assessment model and is not addressed to the Comprehensive Assessment, other critically important research needs, nor the rational management of the minke whale stock. The role of minke whales was of little practical assistance in the development of the model. It therefore seemed to be an inappropriate programme for whaling under a special permit.

The UK fully associated itself with these comments. The inclusion of minke whales would contribute little more than fine tuning of the fisheries management. It thought perhaps that the results of a suggested workshop on multispecies fisheries should be awaited before reaching a conclusion on the relationship between whales and multispecies marine fisheries research.

Norway could not accept the Resolution, since the opening words of Article VIII of the Convention stated that 'Notwithstanding anything contained in this Convention...' means that scientific research whaling takes precedence over any other Article in the Convention or Schedule. Article V makes the rights of a government to take whales for scientific purposes absolute and indisputable. It asked that the Resolution be put to the vote.

Japan supported the proposal for a vote. It praised the very ambitious Norwegian research programme and saw the management of the fisheries ecosystem as a most important challenge.

On being put to the vote, the Resolution (shown in Appendix 6) was adopted with 17 votes in favour, 5 against and 6 abstentions.

_