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

The results of the 1993 Norwegian programme were considered. Only 69 minke whales were taken, fewer than planned, because of poor weather and ice conditions, and permission was not received to operate in Russian Federation waters. Prey abundance, diet, genetics, reproduction and pollution studies were continuing.

Japan is continuing its Southern Hemisphere programme which the Scientific Committee has discussed extensively in the past. It noted that the minke whale population estimate in Area V is 295,000 and the planned sample size 300 ± 10%. Increased effort is being placed on environmental aspects of the programme in light of the Commission's Resolution on environmental effects.

The Norwegian proposal for 1994 is the final year of its programme, with a planned take of 127 minke whales. Unless the operations are hampered by extreme weather, there are no immediate plans for a further catch of minke whales in Norwegian waters.

The Scientific Committee also reviewed a research programme from the Government of Japan to clarify the stock structure of minke whales in the northwestern North Pacific. Following the agreed review guidelines, the objectives of the research are to clarify the stock structure and mixing rates of minke whales around Japan based on problems encountered by the Scientific Committee in its discussion of implementation trials for North Pacific minke whales. The objectives directly address questions of interest to the Scientific Committee and the proposal gave a number of reasons why lethal sampling (100 whales in the first year feasibility study) was required. Much of the discussion centred on the replacement of the proposed research take by the collection of biopsy samples and the use of existing stored samples from earlier takes for genetic analysis. Japanese scientists judged from calculations on the impact of various levels of research catch that an annual take in the range of 100-200 whales would have no harmful effect on the populations, even in the worst case scenarios. The Scientific Committee noted the difficulties in adequately providing advice on this matter in the past and decided it should consider the general question of how to provide such advice at its next meeting. It agreed that the guideline for research cooperation had been met.

In the Plenary, the Netherlands concluded that none of the programmes meet the criteria established by the Commission and announced that it intended to propose Resolutions requesting Japan and Norway to review their programmes. New Zealand supported the Netherlands, urging Japan in particular to consider making use of DNA analyses of stored samples from the North Pacific and to develop biopsy techniques. The UK, USA, Spain, India, Germany, Austria, Brazil, France and Australia all supported the position of the Netherlands and New Zealand and expressed their doubts over the need for a lethal research programme.

Norway pointed out that there is little support in the report from the Scientific Committee to criticise the North Pacific proposal, a position strongly reinforced by Japan, while St Lucia, St Vincent and The Grenadines and Dominica referred to the favourable comments of the Scientific Committee.

14.2 Action arising
The Netherlands introduced three Resolutions dealing with special permit catches, proposed with Austria, Australia, France, Germany, Ireland, Monaco, New Zealand, UK and USA, and subsequently joined by Spain. Concerning the proposed take by Norway, it noted that no revisions had been made to the original programme, but welcomed the fact that Norway has decided not to issue any new permit in 1995. It believed that the objectives are unachievable in any realistic time frame in the Japanese Southern Hemisphere research proposal, but noted the attempts by Japan to address the concerns expressed by the Scientific Committee and acknowledged that the non-lethal methods for whale population assessment had been very valuable. The objectives of the Japanese North Pacific minke whale programme directly address questions of scientific interest, but it considered that these could be equally well, if not better, be met by non-lethal methods, utilising the more than one thousand stored samples and new biopsy samples. The Resolutions invited Norway to reconsider its programme for 1994 and Japan to restructure its two programmes so that the research interests are adequately addressed with non-lethal means.

Japan expressed its objection to this kind of Resolution, which does not reflect what was discussed in the Scientific Committee. There was no disagreement there on the research or the effect of the catches in the North Pacific, only three scientists raised the non-lethal means, while there was appreciation of the results from the Southern Hemisphere.

Norway put forward another Resolution on scientific permits by Japan for the take of minke whales in the North Pacific, which endorsed the review by the Scientific Committee.

New Zealand endorsed the comments of the Netherlands and supported those three Resolutions. It noted the critical minority statement on the North Pacific proposal and reiterated its view that the essential research needs identified in all three programmes can be conducted by non-lethal means.

After a discussion on the order in which these Resolutions should be taken, it was decided that although the three Resolutions had been presented first in the meeting, because the Norwegian Resolution had been submitted to the Secretariat before the others, it should have precedence.

The Netherlands proposed an amendment to the Norwegian Resolution, which with a further modification by Japan, was adopted by consensus (Appendix 9).

The Resolution (Appendix 10) introduced by the Netherlands on the Japanese North Pacific catches was also adopted, noting the strong objection recorded by Japan because the research proposal meets the objectives and guidelines established.

The next Resolution (Appendix 11) on the Japanese Southern Hemisphere catches was similarly adopted, again noting Japan's objection that it does not reflect the discussion of the Scientific Committee nor the large amount of biological knowledge accumulated.

The third Resolution on the Norwegian programme (Appendix 12) was, at the request of Norway seconded by Japan, put to the vote when it was adopted with 18 votes in favour, with 13 against and 6 abstentions.

_