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

There were also comments on application of the CLA and the need for agreement on all aspects of the RMS, including the monitoring question.

The Technical Committee agreed to hold this item open. Norway later reported that its informal working group on the international inspection and observation schemes had established an 11 point agenda and had so far considered the first three items, i.e. level of coverage, qualifications of inspectors and observers and cost of the scheme. The discussions would continue and be reported at a later stage to the plenary.

14.1 Consideration on the additional steps (minimum data standards, guidelines for conducting survey, inspection and observer scheme)
Japan noted that in spite of there being two views in the Scientific Committee on monitoring; one that it is not required other than as part of the RMP; the other that, while it is impossible to identify precisely the process of monitoring because it is open-ended, this important work should not preclude implementation of the RMS for stocks having passed the test encompassed by the implementation trial process provided that the principle of monitoring is made part of the RMS.

The USA believed that monitoring is an essential requirement for the RMS. The whaling industry should be obliged to provide the information for periodic review of the basis of the catch limit calculation. The impact of environmental threats must also be monitored, and sightings surveys and abundance estimates every six years are not an adequate basis. In response to a question from Norway, the USA reserved its decision on adopting the RMP.

14.2 Setting of catch limits for the Southern Hemisphere minke whales and North Atlantic minke whales
The Scientific Committee reported to the plenary its discussions on interpreting the results of the implementation trials for North Atlantic minke whales conducted at the previous annual meeting. Inspection of the results for three management options showed that catch-cascading over the Central and Eastern Medium Areas consistently outperformed both other options in all trials in terms of the average catches obtained and the risk-related performance was satisfactory in almost all trials. The Scientific Committee therefore recommended this option for implementation of the RMP for North Atlantic minke whales.

For the Southern Hemisphere minke whales, the Scientific Committee discussed moving the northern boundary of the Small Areas from 60°S up to 55°S, because it is possible for certain 10° sectors to be completely covered by ice when surveyed early in the season. It was agreed to retain the current boundaries for the time being but to consider variations next year.

The results from the implementation trials performed and specified last year were given careful consideration and the Scientific Committee had some difficulty choosing the best option. Taking into account the Commission's expressed desire that stocks not be depleted below 54% of their unexploited level, and that stocks below this level be permitted to recover, and the objective related to total catch, the Scientific Committee recommended the Small Areas option without catch-cascading.

Japan suggested that 15° square Small Areas should be considered by the Scientific Committee in the near future because of the wide migrations of minke whales, and strongly recommended the calculation of catch limits for the initial five years.

14.3 Action arising
Norway introduced a Resolution on the Revised Management Scheme, proposed with Japan, which sought to make some progress towards the completion of the RMS. It asked for time for consultation to see if there was a possibility of developing an amended form that would command the support of the majority of Commissioners.

New Zealand, on a point of order, thought the Resolution was really a decision to amend the Schedule, by deciding to adopt the RMS at the 46th Annual Meeting, and thus required a three-quarters majority.

Discussion of the Resolution was deferred until consultations had taken place on this matter. On returning to the item, Norway announced a series of modifications to the proposed text, including changing the operative word 'decides' to 'considers' with respect to adopting and implementing the RMS at next year's meeting. This would solve the procedural point raised earlier.

New Zealand still had problems despite the amendments - it thought the Scientific Committee had recommended only the core element of the RMP in 1991, not the RMP itself; it thought it premature to endorse the RMP before seeing the whole RMS; that decisions relating to catch limits should only be taken after adoption of the RMP; that it is premature to talk about completing and adopting the RMS next year while it is still being worked on; similarly it is premature to decide to calculate catch limits for the northeastern Atlantic minke whale stock and the Southern Hemisphere minke whales next year before the RMS is adopted; it was unclear about a proposed intersessional meeting of the Technical Committee; and it could not take note of an intention by Norway unilaterally to set catch limits, since these can only be set by the Commission.

Australia indicated that, while its view on the resumption of commercial whaling is well-known, there were matters in the Resolution it could support - such as the adoption into the Schedule of the RMP as specified in Annex H of the Scientific Committee's report; and the operative paragraphs which were broadly compatible with last year's Resolution. While it had some wording concerns over the first two operative paragraphs, it shared most of the concerns just expressed about the remainder, and therefore was unable to support the Resolution.

The USA, Netherlands, Germany, UK expressed similar reservations, shared by Spain. Ireland also had serious problems since it believed the RMP as now proposed is not sufficiently conservative to protect all populations, and did not wish to appear to encourage the actions of Norway in resuming whaling.

Because there was some support for some operative paragraphs and opposition to others, Chile proposed voting paragraph by paragraph. This was supported by the Russian Federation, and acceptable to the sponsors, Norway and Japan. Australia called for a vote on such a division, which was defeated with 14 votes in favour to 16 against.

The Russian Federation explained its yes vote to allow it to express properly its position on each part, and Chile also voted yes because it thought this would enhance consensus. But that seemed not to be the case.

The vote on the Resolution as a whole resulted in 6 votes in favour, 18 against with 6 abstentions, so it was not adopted.

New Zealand explained that it opposed the Resolution because of its continuing concern over the RMP. Whilst it congratulated the Scientific Committee for its hard work to produce a better management procedure than its two predecessors, it was not convinced that it will give sufficient protection to whale stocks. The tuning level of 72% calls for a deliberate depletion of Southern Ocean minke by something over 100,000 whales. Why is this necessary? It would prefer to maintain the existing stock and harvest the alleged prodigious annual increment. It saw considerable uncertainty in population estimates, and the protection level of 54% caused concern because exploitation could still occur below this level.

India stated that it wanted to be sure about the methodology used for assessment, and that assessment was made over the entire habitat by both whaling and non-whaling countries. It also rejected allusions to the influence of NGOs on its views and those of other countries.

Finland had found some of the operative paragraphs of the Resolution acceptable, others not, and so had voted against the whole.

_