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

Insufficient time was available to discuss the results in any detail, although several members commented on the high quality of certain aspects of the work.

The Scientific Committee noted that the Japanese proposal for 1993/94 in Area IV was a continuation of the programme it has discussed extensively in the past and it drew the Commission's attention to those discussions. It further noted that the population estimate in Area IV is 76,692 and the planned sample size is 300 ± 10%. The plan follows that enacted the previous year that had incorporated comments and suggestions from the Committee. The immediate focus of the programme had switched to estimation of the average natural mortality rate, but the long-term aim was still to estimate age-specific natural mortality. In discussion, there was also support for the continued emphasis on the sighting component of the programme.

Results from the first year of the Norwegian programme that had been designed to address questions concerning seasonal and geographical variation in feeding and condition of the Northeastern Atlantic minke whale were presented to the Scientific Committee. Biological samples were obtained from 92 animals; another 3 were struck but lost. Data and samples necessary for the study of condition and diet were given the highest priority. The study focussed on the position of minke whales in the ecosystem. It was intended to provide information for the multi-species model MULTSPEC and more information would be provided next year. The commercial catch had often been of whales seeking the vessel. This may have implications for the sampling procedure and for abundance estimation. The method used in sampling whales under special permit was different and behavioural observations were being collected that will allow the question of ship-seeking behaviour to be addressed further.

The Norwegian proposal for 1993 and 1994 was a continuation of the programme presented last year. The sampling strategy had been modified in the light of the first year's experience to take into account the likelihood of poor weather and variability in whale abundance. The Scientific Committee had discussed the proposal extensively last year and it drew the Commission's attention to those discussions.

18.2 Action arising
Japan spoke of the important results being obtained from its scientific research programme in the Antarctic, which are useful for the management of the minke whale stocks. It put forward a Resolution, with Norway, acknowledging the contributions made by its government and its own and other scientists. and encouraging the government to continue to support research on whales.

Australia recognised the contribution by Japan in non-lethal and benign research and supported those efforts strongly, but did not accept the need for lethal research. It was therefore unable to support the Resolution. The USA, Netherlands. Ireland, India. New Zealand, UK, France, Denmark, Spain and Germany shared these views.

St Lucia pointed out that it is necessary to kill animals sometimes to get certain information, and thought that to ask Japan to reconsider its programme was an affront. It supported the Resolution, as did the Solomon Islands.

Attempts by the Russian Federation and Switzerland to find some common ground were unsuccessful, and on being put to the vote, the Resolution failed with 10 votes in favour, 12 against and 9 abstentions.

The Russian Federation, St Lucia and Chile explained their yes votes as appreciation and encouragement for Japan's research efforts, a view shared by Norway, while Brazil voted no because of the lethal aspects.

St Lucia, seconded by the Russian Federation, suggested amending a Resolution proposed by Australia, Netherlands, New Zealand, UK and USA on the special permit catches by Japan in the Southern Hemisphere. This would invite the Government of Japan to reconsider and improve the proposed research rather than just to reconsider. New Zealand recalled that it abstained on a similar Resolution last year because those words seemed to it to be ambiguous and could suggest that more whales should be caught, and therefore opposed the amendment.

Japan saw no reason in the report of the Scientific Committee why the Resolution should be degraded from the one adopted last year, but the amendment was defeated with 9 votes in favour, 10 against and 12 abstentions.

The original Resolution, shown in Appendix 7, was then adopted by 14 votes in favour, 8 against with 9 abstentions.

A Resolution proposed by Australia, Netherlands, New Zealand, UK and USA on a Norwegian proposal for special permits was opposed by Norway, Japan and St Lucia because of the value they saw in the research in the context of marine resource management, the need for ecosystem studies, and the importance of addressing the impact of environmental changes upon whale stocks.

The Russian Federation thought the scientific research was oriented to Norway's unilateral decision to resume commercial whaling, an allegation on its purely scientific undertaking regretted by Norway.

On being put to the vote, the Resolution shown in Appendix 8 was adopted by 14 votes in favour to 7 against, with 10 abstentions.

_