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

11.1.1 Revised Management Procedure
The Scientific Committee noted the report of an independent panel appointed by the USA to review the RMP, considered the issues arising where appropriate and concluded they had been adequately addressed.

The Scientific Committee considered a number of matters directly related to the calculation of catch limits, including the documentation of RMP-related computer programs, questions of process error and the progress on standard analysis programs for estimating absolute abundance.

In considering further trials of the CLA, the Scientific Committee agreed that the CLA was robust to a wide range of uncertainty, including the question of multi-species effects and performance in the presence of environmental degradation.

There was discussion of the presentation of the trial results, the effects of under-reporting of historical catches and documentary performance in combination trials.

Matters not directly related to the calculation of catch limits included monitoring and data requirements, and consideration of six principles concerning the role of science in resource management. The Scientific Committee agreed that these principles had all been taken into account in developing the RMP, with great weight being given to taking account of uncertainty.

The Scientific Committee reiterated its recommendation of last year that the Commission adopt the specifications of the RMP and endorse the annotations, including the minor amendments proposed this year and adopt the guidelines for conducting surveys and analysing data within the RMS. In addition, it recommended adoption of the guidelines for data collection and analysis under the RMS other than those required as direct input for the CLA.

Methodology - Estimation of g(0)
The Scientific Committee reviewed in detail the sources of differences in the estimation of g(0) - the probability of sighting a whale on the trackline - in northeastern Atlantic minke whale sighting surveys. A new estimate of 0.587 (CV 0.063) based on a sub-set of the data had been presented; this compared with 0.36 (CV 0.079) used previously by the Committee. It identified five potential factors which contribute to the differences. The underlying causes raise a number of important issues which will be fully addressed at next year's meeting.

In the Technical Committee, the Netherlands asked whether this problem would have an effect on the existing estimates of North Atlantic and Southern Hemisphere minke whales. In response the Chairman of the Scientific Committee clarified that in the case of North Atlantic minke whales this may indeed have consequences for the estimate. If g(0) is re-estimated for Southern Hemisphere and North Pacific minke whales, where at present it is assumed that g(0)=1, then, the estimated g(0) shall be <1. Upon a question from Norway the Chairman of the Scientific Committee pointed out that no new estimates of abundance had been suggested in the Scientific Committee for the northeastern Atlantic minke whale stock. The USA emphasised the importance of the g(0) issue.

The Scientific Committee also commented on its recognition of the problems of investigating avoidance or attraction behaviour which could bias shipboard line transect estimates for North Atlantic minke whales.

In the Plenary, there was extensive questioning of the Chairman of the Scientific Committee by the Commissioners on the details of the g(0) issue and its implications for the assessment of the northeast Atlantic minke whale stock. Ireland sought clarification of the Report of the Scientific Committee, while the Netherlands refuted the claim by Norway that the estimate made at the Glasgow meeting in 1992 is still valid, believing that the questions over g(0) mean that there is no generally accepted abundance estimate. The UK associated itself with these remarks. Germany noted that a special working group will address the problem and received confirmation that until the Scientific Committee has resolved the issue, the exact status of the stock is not known. Spain also noted the uncertainty involved. Ireland received confirmation that if the alternative value of g(0) is correct, the estimate of numbers would be dramatically reduced.

Norway expressed surprise at these questions, pointing to the statements that the Scientific Committee had no business to discuss on this stock and no new estimate of abundance had been suggested. The Chairman of the Scientific Committee reiterated that there is an estimate of g(0) from two years ago, and a new analysis and estimate this year. It was not possible to resolve the cause of the difference this year and it was not deemed appropriate to take the next step to make a new estimate of abundance while there is uncertainty over the value of g(0) to use. The Netherlands repeated its intervention, concluding that the most important issue was the consequential effect on the abundance estimate, which could result in very different catch limits if the RMP is applied, possibly even zero if the revised estimate of g(0) is nearer the new value calculated. Norway maintained that the original abundance estimate has not been challenged in the Scientific Committee and still stands until a different result is produced, but Ireland understood that additional data and analysis now indicates uncertainty about g(0).

11.1.2 Southern Hemisphere baleen whales
The Scientific Committee has as its priority species the humpback whale. It reviewed genetic information on stock identity, possible sex-segregated migration and estimates of abundance. The best estimates from the IDCR cruise data south of 60°S were 4,500 (CV 0.23) for the 1978/79 - 1983/84 surveys and 5.600 (CV 0.28) for the 1985/86 - 1990/91 surveys. These estimates pertain to only part of the range of humpback whales at the time of the surveys. The Scientific Committee was not in a position to attempt to carry out assessments at this meeting.

The Scientific Committee reviewed the implications of the catch history revisions of past USSR whaling records now available. It noted that it only uses estimates of current abundance based on direct methods such as sightings surveys or other methods that do not depend on catch data, so revisions to past records have no effect on its estimates of current abundance.

The level of depletion of stocks will be underestimated if catches are under-reported and the reverse for over-reporting, which both occur in the USSR records. Under-reported catches may be sufficient to explain an apparent failure of a stock/species to recover when protected.

The RMP uses estimates of recent abundance together with a time series of recorded or estimated historic catches to determine the appropriate catch limits. It is robust to underestimations of total historic catches by up to 50% and implementation is only being considered for minke whales where the level of misreporting is small and certainly less than 50%.

Estimates of abundance for other species than minke and humpback whales based on the first thirteen IDCR cruises (1978/79 - 1990/91) south of 60°S represented only partial stock estimates, except for blue whales. This was reported to the Plenary under Item 16.

11.1.3 North Pacific minke whales
The Scientific Committee considered the preparations for implementation of the RMS for North Pacific minke whales.

11.1.4 North Atlantic minke whales
The Scientific Committee had no business to discuss under this item.

11.1.5 Southern Hemisphere minke whales
Sighting data and genetic information were considered by the Scientific Committee.

11.1.6 North Pacific Bryde's whales
The Scientific Committee agreed that it should begin the Comprehensive Assessment process for North Pacific Bryde's whales at its next meeting.

11.1.7 Other stocks
Time did not permit review by the Scientific Committee of abundance estimates for eastern North Atlantic fin whales, eastern tropical Pacific humpback whales and North Pacific minke whales.

11.1.8 Future work plans
The Scientific Committee identified six specific topics that should be considered for discussion at the 47th Annual Meeting.

11.2 Review of Schedule paragraph 10(e) and other related paragraphs
This item was referred directly to the Plenary.

In the Plenary, the UK observed that one Contracting Government has resumed commercial whaling, taking 157 minke whales in the northeast Atlantic. It deplored Norway's action which in its view weakens the credibility and reputation of the IWC and urged it to reconsider its decision to exercise its objection to the IWC's moratorium on commercial whaling. This statement was supported by the Netherlands, New Zealand, Ireland, Germany, France, Brazil, Australia, Argentina and Spain.

11.3 Proposed new system of supervision and control
Norway suggested the establishment of an ad hoc Working Group to consider questions of supervision and control of whaling operations as proposed in the paper it had submitted. The USA and Japan expressed their support and the USA expected that NGOs could attend this Working Group. The Working Group was therefore established to report directly to Plenary on this Item.

The Plenary subsequently received the report of the Working Group on Supervision and Control, chaired by Mr E. Lemche (Denmark). The Technical Committee had decided that observers would be admitted to the Working Group, but it was unclear whether this meant that the normal rules for observers' participation would apply, or if all observers would automatically participate. This question was referred to the Commission.

The Working Group took as a starting point that their discussions should be governed by the 1992 Resolution on the Revised Management Scheme, which noted that the additional steps required to complete the RMS included agreement upon a fully effective inspection and observation programme. Norway had presented a proposal on an inspection and observation programme, but a number of delegations felt that this, while a useful starting point, was not nearly comprehensive enough.

Some delegations preferred terms of reference worked out and an agenda agreed upon at the outset, and had produced a list to this end. The Chairman stated that terms of reference would have to be given by a higher body, i.e. the Technical Committee and in the absence of an agenda he produced a list of talking points which was accepted by the Working Group as a starting point for its work.

The Working Group agreed that the work on the inspection and observation programme is based on the assumption that IWC rules will be as amended by the adoption of the RMP/RMS and noted that any future changes to the RMS may require further changes to the inspection and observation programme.

Despite the difficulties of embarking on these discussions, the following points were addressed.

Aim of programme of Inspection and Observation
There was agreement that the objective of the Working Group should be to develop a fully effective inspection and observation programme which would ensure that whaling operations under jurisdiction of Member Governments comply with IWC rules (Convention and Schedule).

Furthermore, there was agreement that the Working Group should focus its work to an inspection and observation programme for commercial whaling in accordance with the Commission's priority of work on Management Procedures for commercial aboriginal subsistence whaling.

The UK referred to the 1992 Resolution which states that among the additional steps required to complete the Revised Management Scheme are '... arrangements to ensure that total catch limits over time are within the limits set under the Revised Management Scheme...'. In view of this there would need to be a linkage between enforcement under inspection and observation to commercial whaling and scientific whaling programmes.

Discussion took place over the possible application of an agreed scheme for observation and inspection to scientific research under a special permit. There was consensus that such research was a sovereign right of Contracting Governments, guaranteed by Article VIII of the Convention. Such research by member countries would have to comply with IWC rules.

Focus of work
Some delegations held the view that this Working Group should concentrate on the international rules, i.e. IWC rules, noting that member governments may have to transform IWC-rules into national law. The rules to be complied with should be the international rules.

Some delegations underlined that the international inspection and observation programme of the IWC will be the regulations as adopted in the Schedule. In addition national regulations for implementing the IWC rules, should be examined to ensure their effectiveness.

There was agreement that the Working Group should aim at a system that will be generally applicable, but would concentrate on such whaling operations which might be permitted by the IWC in the foreseeable future.

Some delegations stated that international observers may not have enforcement jurisdiction. Other delegations held the view that certain enforcement powers might be given to international observers by agreement with the flag or coastal state.

Inspection and observation Programmes in other international agreements
Delegates and observers present provided information on a number of observer programmes operating under other treaties. These included the Observer Programme in the South Pacific, Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission and European Community Inspectors in fisheries conducted by member states.

It was proposed that other IWC member countries may bring forward information on other programmes of this nature. The Working Group agreed to propose that the Commission through the Secretariat ask member countries to provide such information.

Role of inspectors and observers, etc.
NATIONAL INSPECTORS
Norway presented the roles and duties of national inspectors as proposed in its paper. Some delegations held the view that more enforcement powers ought to be given to the national inspector.

There was agreement that it is the duty of member governments to impose penalties for infractions. National inspectors should be given enforcement powers. If prosecution or legal actions would be required, that would be the responsibility of national judicial or administrative systems.

There was disagreement over whether the possibility of IWC sanctions should be considered or multilateral agreements in respect of sanctions along IATTC lines.

INTERNATIONAL OBSERVERS
Norway presented the roles and duties of international observers as proposed in its paper. Observers shall observe the whaling activity to ensure transparency, be it on board or on shore, and report to the IWC.

The Working Group concluded that observers should report on the whaling activity, including possible infractions and give copies of the reports to the captain of the vessel, the national inspector and the IWC. The Working Group also reached agreement on a number of points such as that the report should be sent to national authorities whose whaling operations were being observed, as the observers will also report on the efficiency of the national system on inspection and control.

There was agreement in the Working Group that the observers duties represented at least the above mentioned points. Some delegations stated that the list of duties for the observers would have to be more extensive.

There were divergent views in the Working Group as to the necessity and advantage of providing real time reporting.

Some delegations held the view that if vessels could not accommodate both national inspectors and international observers, the national inspector should yield to the international observer. Other delegations could not accept that enforcement of jurisdiction be transferred to international observers.

A discussion also took place on the possible role of international inspectors.

It was noted that the IWC can only set catch limits for a species in an area and this may represent a problem to be addressed when more than one member state is involved in catching in that area.

Further items
Because of time limitation, inspector and observer coverage, the administration aspects and Schedule provisions relating to penalties were not discussed, although consideration of them is essential in drawing up a new observation and control system.

The Working Group also compiled a list of additional points. It was agreed that all these points should be discussed, but not necessarily have implications for the inspection and observation programme.

Proposed terms of reference for Working Group on Supervision and Control
The Working Group agreed to recommend the following terms of reference for future work:

The Working Group shall provide advice to the Commission on a comprehensive inspection and observation programme for adoption as a component of the Revised Management Scheme for commercial whaling. The purpose of the programme is to ensure that whaling operations under the jurisdiction of Contracting Governments comply with IWC regulations and national rules implementing such regulations.

In providing that advice, the Working Group will take into account, as necessary, relevant international and national observer systems, and the potential usefulness of elements of those systems to the inspection and observation programme.

The Working Group shall provide draft text for Schedule amendments and may, within a general framework, propose different rules for different forms of whaling to which the programme would apply.

Possible timetable
The Working Group agreed that it should continue its work and expected such work to be a time consuming 3 - 4 days.

The Working Group agreed that it should meet in the week(s) preceding the 47th Annual Meeting, either coinciding with the Scientific Committee, or the Working Groups and sub-committees immediately before the 47th Annual Meeting. Some delegations noted the importance of NGO participation in meetings on this topic.

Some delegations proposed an intersessional meeting of the Working Group well in advance of the 47th Annual Meeting. Norway offered to host such a meeting. Other delegations foresaw difficulties as to participation in such an intersessional meeting.

11.4 Adoption of the Revised Management Procedure
11.5 Proposed data standards
11.6 Proposed survey guidelines
Norway suggested that these items should be referred directly to the Plenary, since the text of the Norwegian proposals on these agenda items was taken directly from the Scientific Committee report. This was agreed. In the Plenary, Norway proposed to reintroduce its proposals next year, given that some items are also covered in a Resolution on the RMS.

11.7 Action arising
The Technical Committee and the Commission endorsed the internal recommendations of the Scientific Committee concerning future studies, research activities and analyses. Concerning the RMP, the Technical Committee took note of the specific recommendations and passed them on to the Plenary for action.

11.7.1 Revised Management Scheme
Australia introduced a Resolution co-sponsored by Finland, Germany, Netherlands, South Africa, Spain and the USA on the Revised Management Scheme. Sweden also wished to co-sponsor what it regarded as an important step forward. Similarly Switzerland wished to be listed as a co-sponsor, noting the view that the RMP is the most rigorously tested management procedure for a resource yet designed and which it believed should be adopted and not just accepted together with finalising the RMS.

The USA recalled that the Scientific Committee had again unanimously recommended that the Commission adopt the specification of the RMP and endorse the annotations. It also recommended adopting the guidelines for conducting surveys and analysing data, provided advice on minimum standards for data and recommended guidelines for data collection. The USA believed it premature to adopt the RMP into the Schedule until the entire RMS can be adopted as a package. It is committed to science-based solutions to international environmental problems. There are still difficult issues to resolve which this Resolution does not address, including unauthorised whaling, illicit trade in whale products, under-reporting of catch data, the effects of environmental degradation and humane killing concerns. The Resolution does not give approval to any activity contrary to the moratorium or the sanctuaries established and the USA does not support a resumption of commercial whaling.

The Netherlands shared these views and accepted the Scientific Committee's advice on the RMP.

France associated itself in the appreciation of the work of the Scientific Committee in achieving the RMP and identified features in the text of the Resolution which led to its support, including the exclusion of any possibility of lifting the moratorium in the light of present knowledge. The UK generally associated itself with the remarks of the USA and France, but was not listed as a sponsor of the Resolution because there is no reference to humane killing which it regards as an issue of great importance and of relevance to some aspects of the RMS.

Ireland identified a series of concerns which it considered must be satisfied, including the question of Catch-cascading, small populations, the need for reliable data on catches, the g(0) issue and problems with the Catch Limit Algorithm. Mexico considered the CLA unclear, and India shared the concerns of Ireland and Mexico.

Denmark saw no problem in taking a step forward by adopting the RMP, neither did St Vincent and The Grenadines, Chile regarded this as a matter of priority and New Zealand accepted the consensus of the complete package.

The Resolution (Appendix 5) was then adopted, Norway noting its existing objection to Schedule paragraph 10(e).

New Zealand introduced a Resolution (Appendix 6) on behalf of Australia, Netherlands, UK and the USA concerning the unreliability of past whaling data, which was also adopted by consensus.

A Resolution on international trade in whale meat and products sponsored by Argentina, Australia, Brazil, India, Monaco, New Zealand and the USA was then considered.

Japan reminded the meeting of its reservations in CITES and commented on operative paragraph 4. The USA noted the discussion in the Infractions sub-committee on whale meat from Taiwan, recalled the 1978 Resolutions on this subject and non-member whaling, and considered that the IWC must take an active role on the question. New Zealand endorsed this approach and mentioned the possibility of genetic testing of samples. Norway stated its view that trade is not in the mandate of the IWC, a position shared by Sweden and Denmark, the latter believing CITES not IWC is the appropriate forum. Switzerland also had doubts on the legal competence.

Denmark had instructions to request a vote on the Resolution (Appendix 7), which was adopted by 14 votes in favour, 6 against with 7 abstentions.

Supervision and control
Discussion in the Plenary on the admission of observers to the Working Group involving Norway, Japan, USA, Netherlands, France, UK, Australia, Denmark and St Vincent and The Grenadines led to the understanding that the normal Commission rules would apply.

The matters agreed by the Working Group were all endorsed by the Commission.

A further extended discussion then took place between Denmark, Norway, Brazil, UK, France, New Zealand, Germany, Japan and Spain on the next meeting of the Working Group. This included consideration of the costs incurred for an intersessional meeting, the length of time needed for an adequate meeting and the importance of the subject. Eventually it was agreed to accept the offer of Norway to host an intersessional meeting in the second week of January 1995, followed by a one day meeting on the Monday of the week preceding the 47th Annual Meeting in Dublin. The Working Group report will go first to the Technical Committee for consideration.

_