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

11.1.1 Revised Management Procedure
GUIDELINES FOR SURVEYS
At its meeting last year, the Commission adopted Resolution 1994-5 that asked for further elaboration of the 'Guidelines for conducting vessel surveys and analysing data within the Revised Management Scheme' given in Annex J (Rep. int. Whal. Commn 44: 168-74) as endorsed by the Commission, to ensure adequate levels of international collaboration in the survey design, conduct and analysis.

The Scientific Committee agreed that international collaboration should be considered in the context of the way in which the Committee needs to conduct its business with respect to conducting surveys and analysing data. Noting that more specific aspects of the Scientific Committee's work may require further discussion, the Scientific Committee proposed amendments of the Guidelines to take account of the Commission's request, whilst recognising that further updating may be required next year. It noted that in agreeing the Guidelines in 1993, the intention had been for their annual review.

ESTIMATION OF g(0), PROCESS ERROR AND PRESENTATION OF TRIAL RESULTS
The Scientific Committee discussed a number of improvements in methodology relating to abundance estimation and, in particular, developed a set of working guidelines for future surveys where it was expected that the probability of sighting a whale on the trackline would be less than 1.

The Scientific Committee also identified further work to be carried out on the questions of process error and the presentation of trial results.

GUIDELINES FOR DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS-OPERATIONAL DATA
The present guidelines state that those operational data currently specified in the Schedule shall be collected and reported but that the Scientific Committee should refine specific data needs.

The Scientific Committee agreed that a review of existing and new methods for collecting operational data was an important prerequisite in refining specific data needs. Those countries involved in whaling operations were encouraged to submit such reviews so that this matter could be resolved.

PREPARATIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION
The Scientific Committee examined the question of the interpretation of implementation simulation trials. At present this is carried out by 'human integration' of results, primarily giving advice based on 'worst cases'. Integration across the results of alternative hypotheses using weighted probabilities had not been attempted because it was extremely difficult to see exactly how this should be done. The Scientific Committee agreed in principle that developing such approaches would be desirable and looked forward to further developments which could enable their practical application.

The Scientific Committee also addressed the question of plausible hypotheses for sub-stock structure and examined a number of criteria to take into account when formulating hypotheses about 'sub-stocks' for use in implementation trials.

11.1.2 Southern Hemisphere baleen whales
The main focus of the Scientific Committee's work concerned its continuing assessment of Southern Hemisphere humpback whales.

The Scientific Committee examined both the availability of photo-identification data and the value of establishing a central catalogue. The Scientific Committee agreed to two recommendations in this regard and the possibility of awarding a contract study to facilitate such work will be considered further next year.

The Scientific Committee examined the usefulness of photo-identification studies, particularly with respect to abundance estimation. It developed a series of guidelines to be considered when carrying out such work.

The Scientific Committee reviewed progress on both short- and long-term assessment work, particularly with respect to historical data and abundance estimates (from shore-based and IDCR surveys).

The Scientific Committee welcomed further information to that which it received last year, with respect to the Soviet Antarctic pelagic whaling data after World War II. It also received information on undeclared catches of humpback whales in the Arabian Sea by the former USSR between 1963-66, and on an undeclared catch of sperm whales off Ecuador-Peru by Germany in 1938.

The catch history revision of USSR Southern Hemisphere whaling provoked a series of exchanges in the Technical Committee, initiated by Japan asking if the new data presented to the Scientific Committee were provided by the Russian Federation. The latter stated that the data included in the Scientific Committee report this year were not provided by the Russian government and requested that they should be excluded. It would identify the sections in the Plenary.

Japan pointed out that the uncertainty of these data was one element of last year's Commission discussion which led to the establishment of the sanctuary. It thus believed that the confusion on the status of the data might have misled last year's conclusion.

The USA believed that the status of these Soviet catch records reported to the IWC last year at both Puerto Vallarta and Norfolk Island is just a technical issue and misses the significant history related to false reporting of catches during past Soviet whaling operations in the Southern Hemisphere. The first report of massive under-reporting of Soviet pelagic whaling operations was made public by a Russian scientist at the Society of Marine Mammalogy's Tenth Biennial Conference in November 1993. In early 1994, Professor Alexey V. Yablokov published some of the unreported catch data presented at the Society of Marine Mammalogy Conference in Nature. Yablokov reported that four Soviet factory ships operated in the Southern Hemisphere after World War II. One of these factory ships processed 717 right whales, 1,433 blue whales and 7,207 humpback whales. The USSR had previously reported catches of no right whales, 156 blue whales and 152 humpback whales for the same factory ship. The data published in Nature are part of the same data submitted at last year's meeting of the Scientific Committee by four former USSR scientists. Therefore, in the view of the USA there is no question on the massive under-reporting of catches by past Soviet whaling operations as it is well established in scientific materials independently available to the IWC.

The Russian delegation replied that the data presented to the Scientific Committee last year, to the 1994 Norfolk Island meeting on the Southern Ocean Sanctuary, and published in the scientific literature introduced by the US delegation in the debate in the Technical Committee, were not submitted by the Russian Government. It outlined that study of this issue is in progress in Russia and no official conclusion has been reached so far. The general concerns expressed over the status of these data, whether they came from an official government source and their subsequent use by the IWC, were all referred to the Plenary.

Japan noted the statement of the Russian delegation. It reminded the Committee that the Convention requires the Contracting Government to provide the catch data and only those data are considered as official.

The Scientific Committee also considered information on other Southern Hemisphere species, including revised estimates of abundance for fin and sei whales based on extrapolated IDCR data.

11.1.3 North Pacific minke whales
The Scientific Committee received a number of papers describing the results of studies on stock identity conducted under the Japanese special permit catch. New data are available (with additional data to be collected this year) to examine the question of sub-stock structure and/or to recondition the implementation simulation trials. Recognising the difficulty of conducting such detailed work at an Annual Meeting, the Scientific Committee proposed that a three day Workshop should be held prior to next year's Annual Meeting.

11.1.4 North Atlantic minke whales
At its 1992 meeting, the Scientific Committee presented what it termed as the best currently available estimate for this area. An integral part of obtaining this estimate was the estimation of a correction factor, g(0).

At the 1994 meeting, analyses were presented to the Scientific Committee that suggested alternative values of g(0). The Scientific Committee was unable to determine the cause of the discrepancy at that Annual Meeting. It recognised the importance of this and established an intersessional group to examine this matter further with a view to fully addressing the issue at this year's meeting.

The intersessional group made substantial progress during the year. In particular, Norwegian scientists had identified mistakes in the computer programs used in the original analysis that had substantial implications for the estimate, and had drawn these to the attention of the group. In addition, the group identified a number of ways in which the abundance estimate for this area could be improved. Although the group was not in a position to quantify the cumulative effects of these improvements and error corrections, they were potentially large. A number of analyses were identified that were carried out and brought to the Annual Meeting.

At the present Annual Meeting these matters, most of which were extremely technical, were extensively discussed by the Working Group on Abundance Estimation and fully documented in its report.

The Scientific Committee drew the Commission's attention to the following conclusions.

(1)

The process followed by the Scientific Committee when accepting the abundance estimate at its 1992 meeting was not satisfactory. An important factor arising out of the experience of the last two years is that the Scientific Committee is developing procedures to minimise the likelihood that similar mistakes happen in the future.

(2)

The Scientific Committee does not consider the 1992 estimate valid.

(3)

The Scientific Committee is working extremely hard to produce an estimate for this area (both for the 1989 survey and for the survey to be undertaken this summer) and has made considerable progress towards this end on both theoretical and practical levels. The Scientific Committee has recommended a procedure and workplan that should allow it to provide an estimate of abundance for this stock at the next Annual Meeting. This process implies considerable work by Scientific Committee members.

(4)

The Scientific Committee is determined to avoid its previous mistake of prematurely accepting an abundance estimate. It agreed that at this meeting it is not in a position to provide an estimate of abundance for this stock. It emphasises that nothing in its Report should be interpreted as implying any particular estimate or range.

(5)

The Scientific Committee had agreed in 1992 that should the Commission so wish, the RMP could be used to calculate catch limits for North Atlantic minke whales. In view of the lack of an abundance estimate for the Northeastern Atlantic, it believes this is no longer the case until an acceptable estimate is obtained.

Norway expanded on this statement in the Commission, pointing out that the questions raised in Mexico on the field observations and surveys had little influence on the stock estimate, but the g(0) group had agreed on improvements in the methods of calculation. It is working actively to finalise the RMS thereby lifting the moratorium on those species whose abundance is not in doubt. It proposed that a special meeting of the Scientific Committee, hosted by Norway in Oslo, should be held expeditiously after the final meeting of the intersessional group if it has reached consensus, to have abundance estimates agreed before the quotas are set for the 1996 Norwegian small-type whaling season.

The Technical Committee also noted comments emphasising the Scientific Committee's work and plans, and the lessons to be leaned.

11.1.5 Southern Hemisphere minke whales
The Scientific Committee noted that new information on both latitudinal and longitudinal aspects of the Small Areas defined by the Scientific Committee for Southern Hemisphere minke whales was available. The Scientific Committee was informed that a proposal to revise the boundaries will be presented in the future.

The Scientific Committee recognised that it was now five years since the IDCR abundance estimates for minke whales had been reviewed in detail and it recommended that in 1996 it should have a special session to develop the basis for a review of IDCR abundance estimates at the 1997 meeting.

It also identified work necessary to examine apparent downward trends in abundance estimates in the context of process error. The Scientific Committee received the results of genetic studies and again noted the importance of obtaining samples from putative breeding grounds. It recommended that special efforts should be made to obtain such samples.

In the Technical Committee Australia suggested that the adoption of the Southern Ocean Sanctuary last year precludes the implementation of the RMP in that area, at least for the time being, and suggested the Scientific Committee could drop this item. Japan objected as it believed its Special Permit research showed the need for revision of the Small Areas. It further stated that because one nation lodged an objection to the sanctuary, the effort to implement the RMP should be continued. Support for both positions was voiced in the ensuing discussion, and the question of future research in the sanctuary was directed to the Plenary.

11.1.6 North Pacific Bryde's whales
The Scientific Committee began the Comprehensive Assessment process for North Pacific Bryde's whales. It compiled a revised catch series and then considered the question of stock identity. On the basis of several sources of information (genetic, morphometric, distributional and mark-recapture data) the Committee agreed to provisional stock boundaries. The Scientific Committee examined abundance and endorsed an abundance estimate (23,751; CV 0.20) for the western North Pacific stock area. However, it stressed that acceptance of this estimate for management purposes would need to be in accordance with the Committee's relevant procedures.

11.1.7 General matters
The Scientific Committee considered the report of a Workshop, partly funded by the IWC, whose main objective was to examine the use of genetic data for stock identity within the concept of management. Many hope to use genetic data to determine stock structure but there has been a growing realisation that analysing genetic data is much more complex than had previously been thought, especially when the methods are applied to incompletely isolated populations. The Workshop considered general species studies, some case studies, genetic tools and detectability of sub-populations and made a number of recommendations. The Scientific Committee welcomed this report, noting that items in the report were of value in several sub-committee discussions.

The Scientific Committee briefly discussed the value of data from Platforms of Opportunity.

The Scientific Committee welcomed the reports of two co-operative international surveys held in the North Pacific and encouraged their continuance, and also noted an extensive research effort planned for the North Pacific in 1995/96. It noted that some of the planned cruise tracks will enter the EEZs of countries other than Japan and recommended that the relevant nations facilitate entry permits for research vessels in their waters.

The Scientific Committee noted the problems that had arisen with respect to the validation of computer programs and established a number of procedures to minimise these problems.

11.1.8 Future work
The Scientific Committee identified the following major topics that would need to be addressed as part of the Comprehensive Assessment next year:

(1)

Revised Management Procedure - regular review and update of Guidelines and continued preparations for implementation, especially obtaining abundance estimates for Northeastern Atlantic minke whales and further development of trials for North Pacific minke whales;

(2)

Southern Hemisphere baleen whales - continuation of the assessment of stocks of humpback whales and planning for an evaluation of minke whale abundance estimates in 1997;

(3)

North Pacific Bryde's whale - continuation of the assessment following the plan developed last year.

11.2 Action arising
In the Technical Committee, the Netherlands intimated that it would expect further discussion of the Northeastern Atlantic minke whale issue to take place in the Plenary session.

The Technical Committee agreed to forward the report and recommendations of the Scientific Committee, together with the comments noted above, to the Plenary. It noted that any financial implications had already been addressed by the Finance and Administration Committee.

The Commission formally accepted the amendments to the guidelines for conducting surveys proposed by the Scientific Committee.

The Russian Federation proposed deleting certain sections of the Report of the Scientific Committee dealing with catch history revision, on the grounds that the discussion recorded made an assessment of the behaviour of a Contracting Government in which that Government did not participate.

New Zealand expressed its concern over such a suggestion for deletion, because the material had been tabled by the Russian Commissioner at the Norfolk Island meeting and discussed there and in the Scientific Committee in Mexico. A second element was the ability of the Commission and its Committees to receive, look at and act on material from a wide range of sources as well as that provided by Governments. France fully shared this view, and did not think that the Commission should rewrite past reports. The Netherlands, UK, Germany, Australia, USA, Sweden, Spain and Switzerland spoke in a similar vein, particular mention being made of the part catch histories play in the RMP. Denmark also opposed deletion of sections of the Scientific Committee report.

St Lucia spoke of the principle of opinions being reported as such in the Commission's documentation, as distinct from scientific facts which can be replicated, while St Vincent and the Grenadines asked what would happen if the information is disputed by the government concerned?

The Russian Federation indicated that under the appropriate Agenda Item it would ask for the Report of the Scientific Committee to be adopted without the sections it had identified.

Japan pointed out that the RMP has been tested and is robust to a degree of under-reporting of catches. In addition, the former USSR catches refer to blue and humpback whales, while the current implementation trials of the RMP are for minke whales.

Northeastern Atlantic minke whales
The Netherlands, on behalf of 13 co-sponsors, introduced a Resolution on the Northeastern Atlantic minke whales. This noted the five conclusions of the Scientific Committee on determining abundance estimates and the fact that there is no valid estimate for this stock. It also affirmed the view that notwithstanding objections lodged, no commercial whaling should take place while the moratorium is in force, and called on the Government of Norway to reconsider its objection to Paragraph 10(e) of the Schedule and to halt its whaling activities. The USA offered its strong support for this Resolution, as did Ireland for the reasons advanced and because it questioned the legal basis for Norway's current whaling activities while the NMP is still written in the Schedule. Mexico saw some inconsistencies between the legal questions raised and the terms of the Resolution, and France and Switzerland expressed interest in leaning Norway's response to the legal question. Oman, UK and Austria all voiced their support for the Resolution.

The Russian Federation proposed some amendments to the wording, which were accepted by the Netherlands, extended by Australia and agreed. A proposal by the Russian Federation to delete the first operative paragraph and add language to the end of the text was not seconded.

Denmark could not support the Resolution, on the basis that a new stock estimate was expected next year and it believed a take of 230 whales in one year would not adversely affect the stock.

The Russian Federation then proposed voting separately on the first operative paragraph, because it had legal difficulties with an international organisation being involved in a national decision-making process. This was opposed by the Netherlands and after a number of interventions to clarify precisely the subject of the vote, the proposal was defeated with 2 votes in favour, 21 against and 9 abstentions.

Before the vote on the substantive Resolution with the accepted amendments was taken, Japan expressed its opposition, appreciating Norway's efforts to estimate the abundance, and Norway commented that its objection to Schedule Paragraph 10(e) is the legal basis for setting its own catch limit. The Resolution, shown in Appendix 6, was then adopted with 21 votes in favour, 6 against and 6 abstentions.

The Russian Federation explained its yes vote as being in favour of states working through the IWC on matters concerning whales and whaling, but should not be considered as agreement to the legal implications of involvement in the decision-making process of states. Switzerland, while sharing the concerns of other countries about Norway's whaling, abstained because it respected the sovereign rights of Norway and could not agree with the phrasing used. The USA indicated that the Resolution clearly expresses its position, but found the unilateral determination by Norway of the abundance estimate and setting its own catch limit unacceptable, and called for all nations to find cooperative solutions within the IWC.

Norway made a statement responding to the Resolution, appreciating acceptance of the constructive approach taken by the Scientific Committee, and outlining again the work carried out. It is seriously concerned at the lack of willingness to move forward on the RMS for those stocks whose abundance is not in doubt. It adheres strictly to the principle of sustainable use of natural resources based on the best scientific advice available, and the most conservative parameters of the RMP were used in setting the catch limit and this had now been reduced even further. Norway has no future in the IWC if the RMS is never to be implemented, the moratorium lifted and catch limits set. But for the time being it will continue lo see if it is possible to work in good faith with all members to achieve something.

In the Plenary Australia raised again its point that adoption of the Southern Ocean Sanctuary precludes the adoption of the RMP in that area, at least for the time being, and therefore considered that the Scientific Committee could drop preparation for implementation of the RMP for minke whales within the Sanctuary until otherwise advised by the Commission. This would help to reduce the work load on that Committee. The UK and the USA supported this statement, as did Chile, Brazil, Ireland, India, Oman, Spain, South Africa, France, New Zealand, Netherlands, Mexico and Germany. Japan was opposed to this majority view because of its objection to the Sanctuary and the advanced state of the Scientific Committee's work on minke whales. It thought priority should be given to large whales rather than small cetaceans and whale watching, which it believed were outside the Commission's terms of reference.

_