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

(1)

identify the relationship between objectives and research needs previously identified by the Scientific Committee;

(2)

evaluate the likelihood of the programme meeting its objectives by providing reliable answers to the questions posed;

(3)

identify, where a proposal specifies lethal methods, non-lethal methods and alternative sources of data that might be used in meeting the research objectives.

In addition, the Scientific Committee agreed to assess Special Permits following the provisions of paragraph 30 of the Schedule.

There was a brief discussion of the relative merits of lethal versus non-lethal techniques.

Provision of advice on the effect on stock(s) of Scientific Permit catches
Last year, the Scientific Committee had discussed proposals for an approach to the way in which it should provide advice to the Commission on this subject but had been unable to reach agreement. It considered some new ideas this year and established a Working Group which made some progress but had insufficient time to reach agreement. The Scientific Committee agreed to consider this matter again at next year's meeting and encouraged members to submit documentation presenting further proposals.

Review of results from existing Scientific Permits
JAPAN - SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE
Seven primary papers were submitted and discussed arising from the JARPA programme, covering sightings, photo-identification, genetic analyses, oceanographic studies, levels of pollutants, population and age analyses. The Scientific Committee agreed to carry over its recommendation from last year for a major review of JARPA.

JAPAN - NORTH PACIFIC
Ten papers on the general results, genetics, catch composition, foetal conception dates, morphological measurements and observations, parasites, pollutants and stock structure were considered in the Working Group on North Pacific minke trials.

Review of new or revised Scientific Permit proposals
JAPAN - SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE
The 1996/97 Research Plan for the Japanese Whale Research Programme under Special Permit in the Antarctic is largely a continuation of the programme that has been discussed previously by the Scientific Committee. The extension of the research area to the west last year into the Area III will be repeated for the second area into Area VI, for the same reasons i.e. to try and clarify problems in stock structure that had come to light during previous years. The intention is to use information from a number of approaches (genetics, morphometrics, pollutant burdens, parasite loads) to examine stock structure, since information from genetic studies alone has not proved sufficient for stock differentiation.

Following discussion, the Scientific Committee agreed that the information provided on the number, sex, size and stock of the animals to be taken had been specified to the extent possible, and that the opportunities for participation in the research programme were adequate, as in previous years. With respect to the additional items referred to it under the Resolution, the Scientific Committee recalled that it had discussed essentially the same programme for a number of years now and referred to its decision last year to hold an intersessional meeting to review the overall programme. It believed that this was the most appropriate forum to discuss the long-term research programme further.

JAPAN - NORTH PACIFIC
The programme to elucidate the stock structure of minke whales in the northwestern North Pacific continues with a catch of 100 minke whales proposed, although the sampling area has moved further towards the coast. No adverse effect on stocks is anticipated. The minke whale feeding ecology study is an additional research objective. While noting the similarity of this programme to those it has previously reviewed, the Scientific Committee had no additional comments to those it had made in previous years.

NORWAY
The Scientific Committee had discussed a proposal from Norway, but this was subsequently withdrawn.

14.2 Action arising
The Netherlands endorsed the conclusion of some members of the Scientific Committee that the RMP could form the basis for providing advice and a framework to evaluate potential long-term effects on the stocks of scientific permit catches.

The USA called on Japan to refrain from undertaking its proposed research until the review of its research programme in the Antarctic has been completed, and urged it to adhere to the spirit of the Sanctuary. New Zealand endorsed these comments. Norway reminded these delegations that the review had not been undertaken because the Commission did not give it sufficiently high priority.

Japan introduced a paper giving comments on past IWC Resolutions on this subject. It argued that these Resolutions were in conflict with Article VIII of the Convention, the Report of the Scientific Committee which did not entirely deny the effectiveness of lethal research, and with the Schedule concerning the need for the best scientific advice in keeping paragraph 10(e) under review, the basis for which had now been changed. Japan also indicated to the Netherlands that other members of the Scientific Committee expressed different views.

The UK, which introduced the Resolution last year which had received 23 votes in support, observed that while sovereign rights cannot be removed by a Resolution, the Commission can recommend how those rights are exercised; that initial implementation of the RMP can be based on broad knowledge of stocks obtained by non-lethal means; and that the Commission can change its mind and give different instructions to the Scientific Committee.

Japan, in response, was pleased to have the JARPA review before the next meeting and also sought the non-lethal means by which sufficient information for implementing the RMP could be obtained in a realistic time-frame, but was puzzled by changes in the Resolutions when the Convention does not change.

Australia introduced a Resolution cosponsored with Brazil, France, Netherlands, New Zealand, UK and USA on Special Permit catches by Japan. Australia and others do not support or condone the use of Article VIII of the Convention for research involving the killing of whales and hold that almost all information essential for management can be gained using non-lethal techniques. It had particular concern where permits granted appear by their scale and nature to subvert the intent of the moratorium. The Commission has adopted Resolutions expressing the view that research in the Southern Ocean Sanctuary should be undertaken using non-lethal means and establishing criteria against which the programmes should be assessed. A large majority of the Commission has expressed deep concern at Japan's continuing proposals and the increasing number of whales being taken. The Resolution notes that neither proposal for 1996/97 meet the criteria established under IWC Resolution 1995-9 and requested Japan to reconsider and restructure its research programmes using non-lethal means and to refrain from issuing permits to take minke whales in the Southern Ocean Sanctuary and the North Pacific. New Zealand associated itself with these comments and emphasised the development of non-lethal techniques and the commercial income derived from the sale of the whale products from scientific whaling. Denmark also opposed scientific whaling in the Sanctuary without prejudging its more general attitude to scientific whaling. Austria firmly believed that non-lethal research is the general trend, states should refrain from issuing Special Permits, and the aim of the Sanctuary is conservation of wildlife and the ecosystem. Chile also believed the research goes against the spirit of the Sanctuary, a position shared by the Valdivia Group.

Norway was strongly opposed to the Resolution as there are important objectives such as feeding ecology and stock identity which cannot yet be studied by non-lethal means.

Japan pointed out the large number of scientific papers it has contributed from its research which have been highly appreciated. It appealed for specific programmes of non-lethal research which could provide equal or superior results. It believed the Southern Ocean Sanctuary was introduced contrary to Article VIII, it had a right to conduct this research, and to process and deal with the proceeds. It could not respect the Resolution if it was adopted.

St Vincent and The Grenadines thought that the positions of the majority and minority continue to be as polarised as ever.

The Resolution shown in Appendix 7 was then put to the vote and adopted with 21 votes in favour, 7 against and 1 abstention.

_