REPORT OF THE SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE IWC/54/4

Contents


1. Introductory items
2. Adoption of Agenda
3. Review of data, documents and reports
4. Cooperation with other organisations
5. REVISED MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE (RMP) – GENERAL ISSUES
6. RMP – PREPARATIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION
6.1 North Pacific minke whale Implementation
6.2 Procedures and scheduling of Implementations (Implementation Reviews)
6.3 North Atlantic minke whale Implementation Review
6.4 Western North Pacific Bryde’s whales
6.5 Other
6.5.1 Sightings surveys plans for North Pacific minke whales
6.5.2 Initial planning for an in-depth assessment of North Pacific minke whales
6.5.3 Revision of RMP annotations
6.5.4 Data availability
6.5.6 Comparison between CLAs and SLAs
7. Estimation of Bycatch and Other Human-Induced Mortality (annex m)
7.1 Estimation of bycatch based on fisheries data and observer programmes
7.2 Estimation of bycatch based on genetic data
7.3 Further review of information and methods to estimate mortality from ship strikes
7.4 Methods for estimating additional human-induced mortalities
8. Aboriginal SUBSISTENCE Whaling Management procedure (annex e)
8.1 Review intersessional progress
8.2 Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort Seas stock of bowhead whales
8.3 Gray whale trial structure
8.4 Greenlandic fisheries and the Greenlandic Research Programme
8.5 Scientific aspects of an Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling Scheme
8.6 Presentation of results to the Commission
8.7.Workplan
9. ABORIGINAL SUBSISTENCE WHALING STOCK ASSESSMENTS
9.1 Annual review of catches and catch limits
9.1.1 Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort Seas stock of bowhead whales
9.1.2 In-depth assessment of eastern North Pacific gray whales
9.1.3 Minke and fin whales off West Greenland
9.1.4 Humpback whales off St Vincent and the Grenadines
9.2 Catches by non-member nations
9.3 Contaminated gray whales from the eastern North Pacific stock
10.WHALE STOCKS
10.1 Matters relevant to more than one stock (Annex G)
10.2 Antarctic minke whales – abundance estimates (Annex G)
10.3. Southern Hemisphere blue whales – plans for assessment (Annex G)
10.4 Southern Hemisphere humpback whales (Annex H)
10.5 North Atlantic humpback whales – completion of Comprehensive Assessment (Annex H)
10.6 Other small stocks – bowhead, right and gray whales (Annex F)
10.6.1 Small stocks of bowhead whales
10.6.2 North Atlantic right whales
10.6.3 Southern Hemisphere right whales
10.6.4 Other small stocks of right whales
10.6.5 Western North Pacific stock of gray whales
10.7. Other
10.7.1 Fin whales in the North Atlantic
10.7.2 Sperm whales
10.7.3 Status of abundance estimates
11. sTOCK DEFINITION (annex I)
11.1 Further review of terminology
11.2 Review of historical responses of cetacean sub-stocks to severe depletion
11.3 Statistical and genetic issues pertaining to stock definition
11.4 Simulation testing
12. ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS (annex J)
12.1 Cooperative research in the Antarctic
12.2 Steering group report on POLLUTION 2000+
12.3 Habitat related issues
12.4 Other
13. SMALL CETACEANS (Annex K)
13.1 Status of humpback dolphins
13.2 Progress on previous recommendations
13.3 Takes of small cetaceans
14. WHALEWATCHING (ANNEX L)
14.1 Report of the intersessional working groups
14. 2 Whalewatching activities and noise impacts
14. 3 Review of research on effectiveness of and compliance with whalewatching guidelines and regulations
14. 4 New information on previously discussed topics
15. DNA testing
15. 1 Progress on genetic methods for species, stock, individual identification
15.2 Progress on collection and archiving of samples from catches and bycatches
15.3 Reference databases and standards for a diagnostic register of DNA profiles
16. sCIENTIFIC pERMITS
16.1 Advice on effects of scientific permit catches
16.2 Suggestions for improving review procedures
16.3 Review of results from existing permits
16.3.1 Japan – Southern Hemisphere minke whales
16.3.2 Review of results from existing permit for feasibility study
16.4 Review of new or revised proposals
16.4.1 JARPA
16.4.2 JARPN II
Proposal (summary of SC/54/O2)
17. Whale Sanctuaries (Annex n)
17.1 Review of the Indian Ocean Sanctuary
17.2 Other
17.3 Suggestions for improving the review process
18. RESEARCH AND WORKSHOP PROPOSALS AND RESULTS
19. COMMITTEE PRIORITIES AND INITIAL AGENDA FOR THE 2003 MEETING
20. Data processing and computing needs for 2002/2003
21. FUNDING REQUIREMENTS FOR 2002/2003
22. COMMITTEE WORKING METHODS
22.1 Increasing participation of scientists from developing countries
22.2 Participation by member nations in the Committee’s work
22.3 General methods of improving the Committee’s efficiency and effectiveness
23. ELECTION OF OFFICERS 104
24. PUBLICATIONS 104
25. OTHER BUSINESS 104
26. ADOPTION OF REPORT 104


Report of the Scientific Committee

The meeting was held at the Kaikyo Messe Conference Centre, Shimonoseki, Japan, from 27 April - 9 May 2002 and was chaired by J.E. Zeh. A list of participants is given as Annex A.




1. Introductory items
    1. Chair’s welcome and opening remarks

    Zeh opened the meeting and introduced Hatanaka who welcomed the participants to Shimonoseki. After the customary introductions, Zeh brought to the Committee’s attention the sad death of Dr Fujio Kasamatsu the previous year. Dr Kasamatsu played a significant role in the IWC Scientific Committee for many years. He made significant contributions to the Southern Hemisphere minke whale assessment cruises, participating from 1979/80 to 1988/89, acting as senior scientist from 1983/84 and cruise leader from 1988/89. A moment of silence was observed in his memory.
    In regard to the participation of Iceland, Zeh read the following statement on behalf of the Chairman of the Commission:
    Iceland’s instrument of adherence to the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling is expressly conditioned on a reservation with respect to paragraph 10(e) of the Schedule. This committee is not an appropriate forum to discuss this or issues related to this. The participation of Iceland in this meeting does not prejudice the positions of individual members of the IWC regarding the issue of Iceland’s adherence to the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling.

      1. Appointment of rapporteurs

    Donovan was appointed rapporteur with assistance from Last, Perrin, Smith and other members where appropriate. Chairs of sub-committees appointed rapporteurs for their individual meetings. In accepting his charge, Donovan took the opportunity to congratulate Manchester City on winning the First Division Championship, and looked forward to Ireland dominating and subsequently winning the 2002 World Cup.

      1. Meeting procedures and time schedule

    Grandy described the meeting arrangements, the facilities available to participants and various housekeeping items. The Committee agreed to a work schedule prepared by the Chair.

      1. Establishment of sub-committees and working groups

    The meeting was preceded by a two-day (25-26 April) Working Group to continue to review Southern Hemisphere minke whale abundance estimates. As last year, the agenda items covered by this meeting were subsumed into the main agenda and the report of the sub-committee on In-Depth Assessments (Annex G). A number of sub-committees and Standing Working Groups were established:
    Annex D – Sub-committee on the Revised Management Procedure;
    Annex E – Standing Working Group on the Development of the Aboriginal Whaling Management Procedure;
    Annex F – Sub-committee on Bowhead, Right and Gray Whales;
    Annex G – Sub-committee on the Comprehensive Assessment of Whale Stocks – In-Depth Assessments;
    Annex H – Sub-committee on the Comprehensive Assessment of North Atlantic Humpback Whales;
    Annex I – Working Group on Stock Definition;
    Annex J – Standing Working Group on Environmental Concerns;
    Annex K – Standing Sub-committee on Small Cetaceans;
    Annex L – Sub-committee on Whalewatching;
    Annex M – Working Group on Estimation of Bycatch and Other Human-Induced Mortality;
    Annex N – Working Group to Review Sanctuaries and Sanctuary Proposals.
    Working groups (under Zeh and Bjørge) dealt with DNA testing and review of JARPN II, respectively. Their reports appear in this report under Agenda Items 15 and 16, respectively.

      1. Computing arrangements

    Allison outlined the procedures for participants requesting computing work from the Secretariat, and the printing facilities available for delegate use.

    2. Adoption of Agenda

    The adopted Agenda is given as Annex B1. Statements on the Agenda are given as Annex R. The Agenda took into account the priority items agreed last year and approved by the Commission (IWC, 2002g, pp.69-71). Annex B2 links the Committee’s Agenda with that of the Commission.

    3. Review of data, documents and reports
    3.1 Documents submitted

    The list of documents is given as Annex C.

    3.2 National progress reports on research

    Progress reports presented at the 2001 meeting are now accessible on the IWC website. Reports from previous years will also become available in this format.
    The Committee reaffirmed its view of the importance of national progress reports and recommends that the Commission continues to urge member nations to submit them following the approved guidelines (IWC, 1998f). It was also noted that non-member nations wishing to submit progress reports are welcome to do so.
    As discussed under Item 7, the Committee also recommends that the Commission
    (1) encourages member nations to report details about the type of fishing gear involved in large whale bycatches (Item 7.1.4) and;
    (2) again encourages member nations to submit more complete records of ship strikes (Item 7.3).
    A summary of the information included in the reports presented this year is given as Annex O.

    3.3 Data collection, storage and manipulation

    Borodin requested that the following statement appear in the report.
    For the last few years (IWC, 1997b, pp.137-8; IWC, 1998d, p. 177, IWC, 2002g, p.2) the Russian delegation has made a statement about the necessity for independent experts with primary information of whaling (vessel logbooks, scientific reports, etc.) to present these materials at the national level so that they may undergo an expert review. This has not been done. This year we repeat our statement and the need for it to be included in reports.

    3.3.1 Catches and other statistical material

    Table 1 lists data received by the Secretariat since the 2001 meeting.





    Table 1
    List of Data and Programs received by the IWC Secretariat since the 2001 meeting.

    Date

    From

    IWC ref.

    		 Details
    Catch data
    1-3-02 Norway: N. Øien E35 Individual catch records from the Norwegian 2001 commercial catch. Access: restricted.
    27-4-02 Japan: T. Sakamoto D172 Individual catch records from the Japanese 2001 North Pacific Special Permit catch (JARPNII) and 2001/02 Antarctic Special Permit catch (JARPA)
    21-4-01 T. Miyashita E37 Japan 2000 minke bycatch data by sub-area.
    Sightings data:
    25-2-02 L. Burt CD25 New version of DESS data base: version 3.2 (includes 1999/2000 + 2000/01 data).
    15-3-02 L. Burt CD26 New version of DESS data base: version 3.2 rev (corrects year 2000 problem).
    25-2-02 P. Ensor D171 2001/02 SOWER cruise data (sightings, effort, weather, ice-edge, inter-stratum & way pts.). 2002 report with figures and tables (including Blue whale cruise data).
    8-2-02 D. Thiele CD15-24 SO-GLOBEC 2001 cruise data, USA + German boats (sightings, biopsy data, behaviour logs, reports + scanned photos).
    25-4-02 D. Thiele CD27-28 SO-GLOBEC 2002 cruise data
    16-10-01 S. Hedley CD14 Data checking program DAS check (for possible use in CCAMLR and GLOBEC data validation)
    Data for North Atlantic Minke Implementation Review      
    1-11-01 Norway: N. Øien E32-33 1996-2001 Norwegian sightings survey data – Access: IR only
    20-12-01 Norway: N. Øien E34 Dive time data for 2 VHF radio tagged minke, Aug/Sept 2001 – Access: IR only
    13-12-01 Norway: H. Skaug D170 Norway 1997-99 minke genetic data: DNA micro satellite, MtDNA + catch positions. Access: IR only
    25-3-02 Norway: H. Skaug E36 Norway 2000-01 minke genetic data. Access: IR only
    Other Programs
    30-4-02 A.Punt D173 Programs developed under contract for North Atlantic humpback assessments (see Item 10.5.1)
    12-4-02 +17-4-02 G. Givens E38 G-G Candidate SLA program
    9-4-02 + 17-4-02 E. Dereksdottir E39 D-M Candidate SLA program



    3.3.2 Progress of data coding and validation projects

    Allison reported that the format of the IWC catch database had been amended to allow inclusion of data from the year 2000, and that the opportunity had been used to add new fields to allow additional reproductive and maturity data to be incorporated into the database. During the year, coding of the outstanding pre-1945 individual catch data from the North Pacific had been completed and was being validated. Work had begun on encoding the revised Soviet catch data, the first phase of which is anticipated to take about two years to complete.
    The backlog in validation of the SOWER sightings data had been overcome, thanks to the hard work of Marion Hughes in the Secretariat. Data from both the 1999/00 and 2000/01 SOWER sightings cruises had been validated and incorporated into the DESS database. The validation process has been speeded up with the use of new validation software developed within DESS in 1999/2000 under contract, and assistance from another member of staff who is being trained in this work.
    Hedley is undertaking validation of the 1999/2000 joint IWC/CCAMLR cruise data as part of the DESS contract, and is developing new software for the purpose. It is hoped this software will also be of use in validation of the IWC/SO-GLOBEC cruise data.
    Smith expressed his appreciation to the people involved in the data encoding work.

    3.3.3 Progress on program verification and other computing tasks

    Allison reported on progress with the computing work identified last year (IWC, 2002g, p.71).
    The common control program implementing the Fishery type 2 model had been amended to implement changes agreed last year and at the Intersessional meeting of the Standing Working Group. The changes included both amendments to the bowhead whale trials and the new factors for use in the gray whale trials. The code for the five potential SLAs had been forwarded to Allison and she had applied the Evaluation and Robustness Trials to each of them. Results are discussed under Item 8.2.
    The control program for the North Pacific minke whale trials had been amended as specified in IWC (2001c, pp.114-125) and used during the Intersessional Workshop. During the Workshop, modifications were made to the trial structure and two new baseline models added. The work to implement these changes within the control program for two baselines had been carried out together with some initial conditioning runs. This is discussed under Item 6.1.
    Allison expressed her gratitude to Punt for his great assistance with modelling issues.
    There had not been time to make progress on the control program for North Pacific Bryde’s whale trials because of the additional work arising from the intersessional meetings noted above.
    Progress made on the DESS contract is reported and discussed under Item 10.1.1.

    4. Cooperation with other organisations
    4.1 Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species (CMS)
    4.1.1 Scientific Council

    The 2002 meeting of the Scientific Council had not occurred during the IWC intersessional period. Perrin will attend as IWC observer at the meeting in September.

    4.1.2 Agreement on Small Cetaceans of the Baltic and North Sea (ASCOBANS)

    The 2002 meeting of ASCOBANS had not occurred during the IWC intersessional period. Donovan will attend as the IWC observer in June. Reijnders informed the Committee that a workshop to draft a recovery plan for harbour porpoise in the Baltic had taken place in Jastarnia, Poland in January 2002 (this is discussed under Item 13.2.3).

    4.1.3 Agreement on the Conservation of Cetaceans of the Black Sea, Mediterranean Sea and Contiguous Atlantic Area (ACCOBAMS)

    The report of the IWC observer at the 1st Meeting of Parties to ACCOBAMS held in Monaco is given as IWC/54/10H. A Scientific Committee was established and will include on it a representative from the IWC Scientific Committee. A number of resolutions were adopted including establishment of a stranding network and database; establishment of Guidelines for the regulation of whalewatching; and conservation of bottlenose dolphins in the Black Sea. The Committee thanked Allison for attending this meeting and providing the report.
    The first meeting of the ACCOBAMS Scientific Committee is provisionally scheduled for September 2002; Donovan will represent the IWC.

    4.2 International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES)

    The report of the IWC observer at the ICES Annual Science Conference (ASC) held in Oslo, Norway is given as IWC/54/10B. The ICES Working Group on Marine Mammal Population Dynamics and Habitats (WGMMPH) met in April 2001 and addressed the status and ecology of marine mammals in the North Sea, in particular questions concerning ecological quality objectives (EcoQO) and possible indices. Other topics included the impact of fisheries on marine mammals, contaminants and diet.
    Development and implementation of EcoQOs for marine mammals were discussed by the Working Group on Ecosystem Effects of Fishing Activities (WGECO), and the Study Group on Ecosystem Assessment and Monitoring (SGEAM) at their 2001 meetings.
    A new action plan developed for the Living Resource Committee (LRC) includes marine mammals as an integral part. LCR theme sessions at the ASC meeting contained several marine mammal papers including ageing of minke whales and reproduction and growth in harbour porpoises. Suggested future theme sessions of relevance to marine mammals include titles such as ‘Environmental Influences on Trophic Interactions’ and ‘Biological Effects of Contaminants in Marine Pelagic Ecosystems’.
    The Committee thanked Haug for attending the meeting on its behalf. He will be unable to attend the next ICES meeting, but the Norwegian delegation agreed to provide an IWC observer.

    4.3 Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC)

    The reports of the IWC observer at the 68th Meeting of the IATTC and the 5th Meeting of the Parties to the International Dolphin Conservation Program held in San Salvador, El Salvador are given as IWC/54/10A.
    Items of relevance to cetaceans at the IATTC meeting were the International Dolphin Conservation Program (AIDCP) and bycatch issues.
    The main topic addressed at the International Dolphin Conservation Program (AIDCP) meeting was adoption of a new certification and labelling system for ‘dolphin safe’ tuna, under the definition ‘Dolphin safe tuna is tuna captured in sets where there is no mortality or serious injury of dolphins’. Several resolutions addressing new government-administered regimes for verifying and tracking tuna catches to be labelled as dolphin safe were adopted. Other topics included placing observers on vessels transiting the eastern Pacific en route to the western Pacific (where dolphin-based fishing is reported not to occur), fishing by non-members of the IDCP and development of a system for implementing per-stock per-year mortality caps.
    For the year 2000, the total dolphin mortality from tuna purse-seine fishing was reported as 1,636, from eight species/stock categories. The reported levels of take are less than 1% of the estimated abundance for all stocks.

    4.4 International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT)

    The Committee had no observer’s report from the most recent ICCAT meeting, but Kell agreed to act as observer at the next meeting.

    4.5 Convention for the Conservation of Atlantic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR)

    The report of the IWC observer at the 12th meeting of the CCAMLR Commission held in Hobart, Australia is given as IWC/54/10D. No discussions were specifically related to the cetaceans. The Committee thanked Fernholm for attending the meeting on its behalf.
    The report of the IWC observer at the 20th meeting of the CCAMLR Scientific Committee held in Hobart, Australia is given as IWC/54/10C. The main items of relevance to the IWC were the Ecosystem Monitoring Programme, management of krill and ecosystem management.
    The Ecosystem Monitoring Program meeting began work on defining ‘Small Scale Units’ for exploitation (based on the needs of predators) for better management of the krill fishery. The expertise accumulated by members of the IWC during its own discussions on this subject may be helpful to CCAMLR. It was suggested that IWC members with knowledge of Small Scale Unit development could attend the forthcoming meeting of the CCAMLR Working Group on Ecosystem Monitoring and Management.
    The Total Allowable Catches (TACs) calculated for the CCAMLR western Atlantic Ocean sector in July 2000 were 4 million tonnes. The annual krill catch is anticipated to rise from the current catch of around 100,000 tonnes to 150,000 tonnes. No TACs were available for the eastern Atlantic Ocean sector, and it was suggested that old datasets are analysed to achieve first estimates of the standing stock of krill that may serve as the basis for the estimation of preliminary TACs.
    Regarding ecosystem management, the CCAMLR Scientific Committee encouraged its working groups to focus on ecosystem models rather than single species models, a first step being the estimation of temporal and geographical scales of environmental variables and their relationship to krill distribution and abundance. New methods to better estimate the consumption of krill were also presented. It was noted that the effects of water and air temperature increases on ecosystems in the Antarctic Peninsula region, the Scotia Sea and the peripheral parts of the Southern Ocean need to be considered. It was thought that development of a management strategy for the krill-based system may take another 5-10 years.
    In regard to collaboration between the IWC and CCAMLR, a paper reporting the results of cetacean sightings made on the CCAMLR 2000 krill survey was submitted at the meeting. A combined IWC-CCAMLR workshop linking cetacean distribution and krill abundance is envisaged to take place in 2002/2003. Further discussion of IWC-CCAMLR collaboration is given under Item 12.1.1 and in Annex J.
    The Committee thanked Kock for attending the meeting on its behalf and agreed that he should represent the IWC at the next meeting of the CCAMLR Scientific Committee.

    4.6 Southern Ocean GLOBEC (SO-GLOBEC)

    Matters relating to IWC collaboration are discussed under Item 12.1.2 and in Annex J. The Committee thanked Thiele for her work in promoting the collaboration.

    4.7 North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission (NAMMCO)

    The report of the IWC observer at the 11th meeting of the NAMMCO Council held in Ilulissat, Greenland is given as IWC/54/10E. Agenda items of relevance to the IWC included: the NASS-2001 synoptic survey; white whales and narwhals; and marine mammal-fisheries interactions. Concern was expressed regarding the status of white whale stocks. The importance of continued research into marine mammal-fisheries interactions was stressed and priority recommendations included estimates of consumption by minke whales.
    The Committee thanked Fischer for attending the meeting on its behalf.
    The report of the IWC observer at the NAMMCO Scientific Committee meeting held on board the Norwegian coastal steamer MS Nordkapp is given as IWC/54/10F. Items of relevance to the IWC included the role of marine mammals in the marine ecosystem; marine mammal stock status and advice; and North Atlantic Sightings Surveys.
    A conference due to be held in January 2003 will aim to facilitate the incorporation of user knowledge into management advice provided by the Scientific Committee. The preparation of Stock Status Reports has begun so that users can supply information to these Reports.
    The Working Group on the Economic Aspects of Marine Mammal-Fisheries Interactions concluded that significant uncertainties remain in the calculation of consumption by marine mammals, and that this uncertainty is the most important factor hampering the development of models linking consumption with fisheries economics. A further workshop was convened to investigate the methodological and analytical problems associated with estimating marine mammal consumption. Two approaches were considered: (1) analyses of stomach contents in combination with estimates of stomach evacuation rates; and (2) analyses of stomach or intestinal contents or faeces scaled to satisfy the estimated energy expenditure of the animals. Problems with both were discussed and a series of research need recommendations was made. IWC plans to convene a Workshop on a similar theme were noted. Results from this workshop would be taken into account in preparations for an ecosystem modelling workshop planned to investigate the ecological role of minke whales, harp and hooded seals in the North Atlantic.
    The NASS-2001 synoptic survey covered the areas around Iceland, the Faroe Islands and west Norway including parts of the North Sea. The priority target species were minke and fin whales. The Icelandic coastal shelf was covered by an aerial survey, whilst the Faroese and Icelandic portions were ship borne and used identical survey methodology for the first time. The abundance estimates from these surveys were reviewed by a NAMMCO Working Group in March 2002. Preliminary estimates for minke whales concluded that the abundance of minke whales around Iceland has been stable or shown a moderate increase over the period 1986-2001. Abundance estimates for fin, humpback, sperm whales and dolphins were also presented.
    The Committee thanked Øien for attending the meeting on its behalf. Øien will be unable to attend the next meeting of the NAMMCO Scientific Committee. The Committee thanked Walløe for agreeing to represent it at that meeting.
    A number of papers (SC/54/H2, O8, O9, O10, O12) concerning abundance estimates from the NASS surveys were presented and discussed at the relevant sub-committee.

    4.8 FAO – Committee on Fisheries (COFI)

    The report of the IWC observer at the FAO COFI conference on Responsible Fisheries in the Marine Ecosystem, held in Reykjavik, Iceland is given as IWC/54/10I. The Reykjavik Declaration on Responsible Fisheries in the Marine Ecosystem was adopted at the conference. The Declaration is relevant to the work of the IWC Scientific Committee in relation to the Commission’s decision to make the study of interactions between whale and fish stocks a priority topic. The Declaration incorporates the belief that including ecosystem considerations in fisheries management provides a framework to enhance management performance. It also affirms that the incorporation of ecosystem considerations implies more effective conservation of the ecosystem, sustainable use and an increased attention to interactions, such as predator-prey relationships, among different stocks and species of marine living resources. Areas identified for investigation include the structure, components and functioning of relevant marine ecosystems, diet composition and food webs, species interactions and predator-prey relationships, the role of habitat and the biological, physical and oceanographic factors affecting ecosystem stability and resilience.
    The Committee thanked Komatsu for attending the meeting on its behalf and agreed that he, or an alternate member of the Japanese delegation, should represent it at the next meeting.

    4.9 United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)

    During the intersessional period the Secretariat received a letter from UNEP documenting plans to produce a World Digital Atlas on Marine Mammals (SC/54/O24). Zeh summarised the initiative, the objective of which is to create a global overview and information resource on the conservation and sustainable management of marine mammals. The Committee noted the ambitious nature of the plan and the difficulties encountered in establishing population estimates and trends. It agreed that the IWC should send a letter suggesting guidelines and advice on the best way to achieve the objectives. Individual members of the Committee wishing to be involved should contact the organisation directly.


    4.10 Other
    4.10.1 North Pacific Marine Science Organisation (PICES)

    Kato introduced the current activities of PICES. Following on from the Working Group convened to assess the feeding impact of marine birds and mammals, PICES have established a Bird and Mammal Advisory Panel whose aim is to send experts to other committees and organisations to provide scientific advice on ecosystem modelling and other information relevant to marine birds and mammals. At the 2001 Annual Meeting held in Victoria, Canada a workshop was convened entitled ‘Changes in prey availability to mammals, seabirds and fish: mechanisms and effects’. The 2002 meeting will be held in October and has scheduled a symposium entitled ‘Responses of upper trophic level predators to variation in prey availability: an examination of trophic linkages’. Further information on the activities of PICES is available from its website (www.pices.ios.bc.ca).
    The Committee thanked Kato this report. It was agreed that he should serve as IWC observer at the 2002 meeting and that his report should be included in the compendium of observers’ reports (IWC/54/10) at the next and future meetings.

    4.10.2 Eastern Caribbean Cetacean Commission (ECCO)

    The Committee also agreed that it should have an observer at meetings of ECCO. Rambally agreed to represent the Committee at future ECCO meetings.

    5. REVISED MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE (RMP) – GENERAL ISSUES
    5.1 Adjustment of the convergence criteria for the CATCHLIMIT program

    Last year, one of four tasks remained incomplete: adjustment of the convergence criteria to be robust when less precise integration is used, possibly optimising the two-level convergence criteria (IWC, 2002g, p.5, item 5.1, task (3)).
    This year Allison reported that lack of time had prevented her from examining the convergence criteria. She suggested that this work was best done in conjunction with using the program for Implementation Simulation Trials. The Committee agrees that this item should be carried forward to next year’s meeting.

    5.2 Population component to which MSYR, MSYL, density-dependence should apply

    This issue is related to both the RMP and AWMP. The calculations specified at the 2000 meeting to inform discussions on this issue (IWC, 2001d, pp.91-2 and 106) had not been conducted owing to time constraints. However, Allison reported that many of the preparatory changes to programs had been done. The Committee recommends that these calculations be conducted intersessionally and reported to next year’s meeting.

    5.3 Evaluation of abundance estimators against simulated datasets
    5.3.1 Report of the Intersessional Working Group on Abundance Estimation

    The intersessional working group (IWC, 2001b, p.6) had continued its work of expanding the existing set of simulated datasets to enable evaluation of performance over a wider range of potential survey and biological conditions. Its report is given in Annex D (Appendix 2).
    The program used to create simulated line transect abundance data had been expanded to include responsive movement and the models of measurement error used in the analytical methods to estimate abundance of North Atlantic minke whales (SC/54/RMP5). Evaluating the performance of new methods to estimate abundance is an ongoing process and the Committee agrees that the item should be a standing item on its agenda. In addition, it recommends that existing simulated datasets and associated documentation should be archived with the Secretariat.

    5.4 Work plan

    The Committee agrees to re-establish the Working Group, under Palka, with the priority task of expanding the existing set of simulated datasets with the features needed to evaluate the new methods being developed to estimate the abundance of Southern Hemisphere minke whales using IDCR/SOWER data (see Annex G, Appendix 5). In addition, the Committee recommends that existing simulated datasets and associated documentation should be archived with the Secretariat.

    6. RMP – PREPARATIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION
    6.1 North Pacific minke whale Implementation
    6.1.1 Report of Implementation Simulation Trials group
    Report of the Intersessional Workshop

    Donovan summarised the results of the Workshop, held in Seattle on 19-22 January 2002 (SC/54/Rep1). In its deliberations, note had been taken of the Committee’s strong desire for the Implementation to be concluded at its 2002 meeting. Decisions had been taken on diagnostics for conditioning of trials and abundance estimates had been reviewed. The question of data availability had been raised and was referred to the Committee for further consideration (see Item 6.5.4). Genetic data analysis had been discussed at length, including hypothesis testing methods, a Bayesian approach and the Boundary Rank method. However, there was not complete agreement as to the plausibility of four resultant hypotheses on stock structure, involving from two to four stocks. Japan had advised on its harvest plans, and these had been taken into account in the conceptual specification of a number of revised trials. A number of other issues requiring Committee consideration had been identified, and an ambitious work plan had been developed to complete the trials in time for the 2002 Committee meeting.
    Thanks were expressed to Donovan and the other Workshop participants. It was noted that some of the stock-related issues raised at the Workshop would require consideration under Agenda Item 11, Stock Definition.

    Report of the Implementation Simulation Trials group

    Butterworth presented this report (Annex D, Appendix 3). It had not been possible to have trial results ready for consideration at this meeting, mainly because further consideration of the genetic analyses in terms of the Group’s mandate had led to the necessary development of substantial new hypotheses, which required further trials to be conducted to be able to report that any RMP variant recommended had been tested under trials that adequately spanned the plausible range of uncertainty.
    As part of the Group’s activities, a small group of US and Japanese genetics experts had met in Tokyo in December 2001; the participants were thanked for their contributions. However, attention was drawn to certain problems that had arisen, ascribed to lack of clarity in the meeting’s Terms of Reference.
    Taylor commented that overburdening of the Secretariat and inadequate time allocations for meetings were major reasons for the failure to complete the trials by the deadline. Kawahara remarked that the Terms of Reference for the Workshop mentioned only modification of trials, whereas two quite new scenarios had been put forward, consideration of which, he felt, should have awaited the next Implementation Review.
    Miyashita had been asked by the Workshop to prepare revised abundance estimates; they are contained in Annex D, Appendix 4.

    6.1.2 Consider relative plausibility of trials

    Given the concerns raised under Item 6.1.1, particularly the inability to complete the Implementation as originally determined (see IWC, 2002g, p.8), this item and Items 6.1.3 and 6.1.4 were discussed after Item 6.2.
    Under this item, the Committee reviewed the trial structure as well as the relative plausibility of trials. Because of its inability to complete the trials prior to the meeting, the Committee established three small groups to:
    (1) consider the initial results from conditioning of the Baseline-A trials (convened by Allison);
    (2) examine the specifications for the distribution of putative W stock in sub-areas 12SW and 12NE (convened by Allison);
    (3) work on details of the specification for the Baseline-D trials (convened by Smith).
    The Committee endorsed the conclusions of small group (2), contained in Annex D (Appendix 5). However, lack of time prevented the other two small groups from completing their work during the meeting, and they will be taken further by the intersessional steering group set up under Item 6.1.4

    PLAUSIBILITY OF DIFFERENT STOCK STRUCTURE HYPOTHESES

    SC/54/RMP15 gave the results of an AIC (Akaike’s Information Criterion)-based evaluation of the plausibility of baseline stock scenarios defined in SC/54/Rep1. They were based exclusively on mtDNA data derived from JARPN and JARPN II surveys. The four mtDNA haplotypes that presented the highest frequencies in sub-areas 7, 8 and 9 were used as independent parameters in the AIC. Different combinations of these haplotypes were used in evaluating the baseline scenarios and some of their variants. In addition, five groups of haplotypes, defined by a phylogenetic approach, were used for the AIC-based evaluation. The relative weighting of the model was assessed following the methodology of Burnham and Anderson (1998). Results of the AIC for the different combinations of haplotypes used were consistent, providing the best evaluation for Baseline-A. That scenario suggests that sub-areas 7, 8 and 9 comprise a single stock (O) with sporadic occurrence of individuals from a different stock (W) in part of sub-area 9. Although the AIC revealed that Baseline-A was the most consistent with the available mtDNA data in those areas, the authors noted that a more comprehensive evaluation of stock structure in the western North Pacific was still needed. Such comprehensive evaluation should consider the results of several approaches, both genetic and non genetic.
    In response to a question for clarification, the authors indicated that the analyses in SC/54/RMP15 were based on all the genetic samples from Areas 7, 8 and 9, including possible J-stock animals.
    There was extensive discussion of this paper with respect both to the appropriateness of using AIC criteria in this situation for assessing relative plausibility, and to the implication of the results of the analyses for the trials. Details are given in Annex D, Item 6.3.1. In summary, there was general agreement that developing objective measures for evaluating plausibility and assessing relative plausibility or weightings is highly desirable. However, there was substantive disagreement about the general applicability of the AIC approach used in SC/54/RMP15, its application to genetic data with a large number of haplotypes and its relevance for assessing the plausibility of the different scenarios being considered in the trials. Nevertheless, the Committee agrees that further simulation testing of the other methods is desirable. It also agrees that the baseline scenarios defined in SC/54/Rep1should be retained.
    Information and analyses on the proportion of immature animals by sex taken in the JARPN and JAPRNII surveys from sub-areas 7W, 7E, 8 and 9 is given in Annex D, Appendix 8. The results indicated that the proportions of immature and mature animals by sex in sub-areas 7E, 8 and 9 are similar, and different from the proportions in sub-area 7W. The main source of the difference is the occurrence of a higher proportion of immature males in sub-area 7W than in the other areas. Sub-area 7W was consistent with the inshore waters where many immature animals had been taken by small-type whaling. The authors believed it reasonable to conclude that immature animals are distributed in coastal sub-area 7W and that mature males are distributed in offshore waters from 7E to sub-area 9. They concluded that the results are consistent with the occurrence of a single stock in sub-areas 7, 8 and 9 which aggregates by sex and reproductive status.
    In discussion, Butterworth suggested that the high proportion of immature males within sub-area 7W compared to sub-areas 7E to 9 raised the question of whether there could in fact be many separate stocks to the east of Japan. The most parsimonious interpretation of the data on maturity status and sex is that there are not.
    It was pointed out that there was a very low proportion of immature females in all of the samples from areas 7, 8 and 9 and that there was no difference in the proportion of immature females by longitude. Thus, the lower proportion of immature females in areas to the east of 7W indicates that sampling is missing a high proportion of the population no matter what stock structure model is assumed. Taylor, Martien and Polacheck considered that the information provided in Annex D, Appendix 8 was consistent with the hypothesis of only a single stock in the areas to the east of Japan; however, it was not inconsistent with the existence of more than one stock in those areas either. They further noted that if there are two or more stocks in the area east of Japan, the habitats for the more coastal and pelagic ones are substantial and very different. In such circumstances, it would not be unexpected that the latitudinal, spatial and temporal distributions of mature and immature animals by sex within each stock might be quite different, even though there may be substantial segregation by maturity state and sex within each stock.
    The Committee also briefly reviewed Hatanaka and Miyashita (1997) which provided data on the proportion of mature animals by sex taken in the commercial coastal catches along the eastern side of Japan. It reported a similar pattern to the pattern found in the JARPN and JARPNII samples. The authors concluded that immature females as well as males were found in the western part of Area 7 early in the season (April to May) as well as in Area 11 in May and June. Hatanaka considered that these results further confirmed the consistency of the single stock hypothesis. There was limited time for further discussion of this question but there was no agreement about whether the available data on the proportion of immature animals by area and time were consistent only with a single stock hypothesis.
    SC/54/RMP16 considered stock archetypes for North Pacific minke whales. Five archetypes were depicted: panmixia (corresponding to Baseline-B), maternal feeding ground site fidelity (Baseline-C), isolation-by-distance (Baseline-C), intrusion (Baseline-A) and broad mixing (Baseline-D). The authors discussed how these models relate to genetic measures. They emphasised that there were a number of reasons that no signal would be detected using nuclear data when a signal was detected using mtDNA data, including the fact that the effect size is much smaller for nuclear data, resulting in much lower statistical power and male biased dispersal estimates. As long as statistical power remains low, it is not possible to distinguish between maternal feeding ground site fidelity and actual separation of breeding grounds without data from the breeding ground. They also noted that the performance of analytical methods using genetic data to define stock structure has not been tested for any method other than Boundary Rank (Martien and Taylor, 2001).
    In discussion, the difficulty of making inferences about breeding stocks simply based on detected differences in mtDNA frequency on the feeding grounds was further noted. There was general agreement on the importance and need to obtain data from the breeding grounds in order to make conclusive inferences about stock structure.
    SC/54/RMP17 explored use of the trend in p-values as sample size increases to assess the probability that the observed trend in p-values for North Pacific minke whale samples taken in sub-areas 7 and 8 came from a panmictic population. Following detailed discussion, reported in Annex D, Item 6.3.1, Taylor concluded that the results in SC/54/RMP17 provided support for hypotheses which included a potential coastal stock. Further, it was important to consider the power of the statistical tests to distinguish a difference in hypothesis-testing when considering the plausibility of different hypotheses.


    DISCUSSIONS RELATED TO DETAILS OF THE TRIAL SPECIFICATIONS

    SC/54/RMP18 raised detailed concerns from one Workshop participant who had been unable to attend the final part of the meeting when much substantive agreement had been reached. They related to: inter-annual variability in mixing proportions; assignment of W stock whales between Areas 12NE and 12SW; Small Area definitions and RMP variants; and finality of the specifications. They were referred for consideration, respectively, to the relevant groups already established to deal with: (a) finalising the Baseline-D trial specifications; (b) finalising the trial specifications with respect to the distribution of putative W stock animals within Area 12; and (c) considering further various aspects of the Baseline-D trial specifications. The Committee agrees that, as in the past, an intersessional Steering Group is required to oversee the finalisation of the trial specifications (see Item 6.1.4).


    DISCUSSIONS RELATED TO THE BYCATCH LEVELS TO USE IN THE TRIALS

    SC/54/RMP8 reported results from market surveys of North Pacific minke whale products conducted in Korea from May 1999 to November 2001, and from market surveys in Japan from February 1999 to January 2002. A total of 315 products were identified as North Pacific minke whale based on sequencing of the mtDNA control region and by DNA profiling. Eight market surveys in Korea over the period yielded 193 separate North Pacific minke whale products, comprising at least 126 individual whales, 95% of which showed the characteristic mtDNA haplotype of the J-stock. In Japan, five market surveys yielded 122 North Pacific minke products, representing at least 97 individuals, 42% of which showed the characteristic mtDNA haplotype of the J-stock. Relatively few replicate products were found, indicating that products from many other individuals probably remained unsampled. Replicate samples of a small number of individuals were detected in consecutive survey periods, 2-7 months apart, but very few replicate samples of individuals were shared between surveys more than seven months apart, suggesting that products from an individual whale are not stored long-term and are sold in less than seven months. The duration of products from an individual on the Korean market was probably much less. Given the conservative nature of these censuses, it appeared that the total yearly Korean bycatch of North Pacific minke whales remains high, as does the Japanese catch of J-stock minke whales. This indirect evidence of high bycatch is confirmed by the reported bycatch (SC54/ProgRep Japan; SC54/ProgRep Korea).
    As well as comparing the genotypes of all products within each of the markets sampled, SC/54/RMP8 also compared genotypes of products between markets. Surprisingly, two individual multi-locus genotypes were also shared between the Korean and Japanese market samples. Using the conservative Korean allele frequencies, the probability of these particular genotype matches occurring purely by chance was less than 0.05. Additional data are needed to ascertain with more confidence if these products represent the same individual whales in both markets. However, the small number of potential matches between the two countries indicate, that bycatch products from Japan and Korea must be considered additive rather than overlapping.
    There was extensive discussion on the possible implications of the information in SC/54/RMP8 and of other new information on what values to use for the level of bycatch in the simulation trials. It was noted that the plausible range of values to use in the trials has been the subject of considerable debate.
    Annex D, Appendix 9 reviewed changes in specifications over time and the new information available at the meeting, and proposed a range of plausible values for consideration in the trials. However, full agreement on the proposals could not be reached. There was lack of agreement on procedural aspects. Most members agreed that it was appropriate to consider revising the values to use for the level of bycatch in the simulation trial; in their view such a decision was fully consistent with the general procedures and timeframes recommended for conducting future implementations (see Item 6.2 and Table 1). Hatanaka and Kawahara disagreed because of the extensive amount of time spent on this issue in the past and because the trials are in their final stage of specification. Kim believed that new information had to be considered later, at the time of the in-depth assessment as the RMP reached its almost final stage. The sub-committee had not been able to reach consensus on this question and its Chair determined that it would consider possible revision to the level of bycatch to be used in the Implementation Trials.
    Details of the sub-committee’s lengthy discussions on this subject, and the decisions reached, appear in Annex D, Item 6.3.1.

    6.1.3 Consider Implementation options

    SC/54/Rep1 included consideration of an RMP variant involving ‘partial-cascading’ (item 10.2). In this option, two Small Areas are defined (one comprising sub-area 9 and the other defined as comprising sub-areas 7, 8, 11 and 12). In addition, those two Small Areas are defined as a combination area for the purpose of cascading. However, in that option the catch cascades into the Small Area 7+8+11+12 are all taken from sub-areas 7W and 11. This form of cascading was referred to as ‘partial cascading’ and, as noted SC/54/Rep1 is not in accord with the definition of Catch-cascading included in the RMP specifications. The Workshop had recommended that the Scientific Committee should review the concept of ‘partial-cascading’ and, if deemed appropriate, should develop any necessary additions to the RMP annotations.
    There was general agreement that the issue of partial cascading and appropriate Small Area definitions for situations involving coastal whaling needed further discussion and consideration, and that a solution to this general problem was not possible at this meeting. However, a decision was required in terms of the North Pacific minke Implementation Trials, to allow work to proceed. For pragmatic reasons, it agrees to use the RMP management variants defined in SC/54/Rep1 in the simulation trials. It emphasised that this decision should not be considered a precedent for future trials and that the issue will need to be further considered next year. Acceptable performance could still be achieved (in part relying on some of the conservative features within the CLA). However, this would mean that a solution to the multi-stock problem for any proposed ‘RMP’ implementation would be highly dependent upon the specific details and set of assumptions about mixing and migration. SC/54/RMP18 considered that such a change would represent a fundamental change in how the RMP was conceived to be implemented and would impose a substantially larger burden upon the Implementation Trial process.
    There was extensive discussion about the partial cascading concept and the concerns raised in SC/54/RMP18 about the appropriateness of the Small Area options that would intentionally allow for and probably result in the catches within a Small Area being taken not in proportion to the stocks contained within it.
    There was general agreement that the concept of partial cascading and the definition of a number of the Small Area variants being considered in the North Pacific minke whale Implementation Trials were not fully in accord with the definition of Small Areas in the RMP. There was also agreement that the definition of Small Areas created problems in the application of the RMP to whaling on the migration route, particularly in the context of coastal whaling and the North Pacific minke whale situation. This is because synoptic abundance estimates used to calculate the catch limits for a Small Area are from the feeding and migration areas when a large proportion of the animals are on the feeding grounds, as this is the best time for conducting such surveys.

    6.1.4 Specify intersessional work to permit completion of Implementations

    The Committee recognised that substantial intersessional work was still required if final Implementation Trial results were to be available at next year’s meeting. While some of the work may be possible to complete via e-mail, there was general agreement that it was impractical to complete most of the substantial work required in this way and that an intersessional workshop would be necessary. The Committee noted that two of the small groups concerned with substantive issues related to the implementation trials had been unable to report on progress directly to the plenary. In those circumstances the Committee agreed that the terms of reference for the intersessional workshop should be the same as those adopted last year, (see SC/54/Rep1) apart from term of reference (1). It therefore recommends that such a workshop be held as proposed.
    With respect to the small group looking into the conditioning of the Baseline-A trials (see Item 6.3.3), it was reported that technical problems were being encountered in conditioning. There were indications of minimisation problems in the estimation of the parameters as well as concerns about lack of fit to some of the abundance estimates. Since these problems had not been solved before the end of this year’s meeting, the Committee recommends that Punt and Allison collaborate to try to find an acceptable solution. Once this was achieved, the results would be circulated to the small group reviewing the conditioning results (under Allison, see Item 6.1.2 above) for comments and suggestions. A final review and agreement on the conditioning will take place at the proposed Intersessional Workshop.
    Concerns were expressed about the problems being encountered with the conditioning of the Baseline-A trials and possible implications for completion of the simulation trials. It was agreed that the same procedure as outlined in the preceding paragraph be followed to complete the conditioning of Baseline-C and D trials and the sensitivity trials to each of these baselines.

    6.2 Procedures and scheduling of Implementations (Implementation Reviews)

    As already noted (Item 6.1.2) the sub-committee on the RMP had discussed this item before considering Items 6.1.2-6.1.4.

    Proposals from last year and experience to date

    Last year, the Committee expressed concern about the length of time taken to complete the RMP Implementation for North Pacific minke whales, and made some preliminary proposals for expediting the conduct of future Implementation (Reviews), noting that they should be considered further this year (IWC, 2002g, pp.12-13).
    This year, the Committee noted that, once again, its own timetable for the completion had not been met (Item 6.1.1). In view of the fact that the Implementation Trial process for North Pacific minke whales had taken longer than envisaged, the Committee first heard individual members’ comments on the causes for the delays, then went on to draw lessons as a Committee from the experience gained and finally proposed a procedure for ensuring that future Implementations be completed on schedule once the prerequisites are met. Details of the lengthy discussions on this subject are given in Annex D, Item 6.2.1.
    The Committee noted that expeditious completion of RMP Implementations was possible, because this had been achieved in the case of North Atlantic and Southern Hemisphere minke whales in the early 1990s. However, both biologically and operationally, North Pacific minke whales were a more difficult case because: (i) coastal whaling was concentrated into limited areas; (ii) harvesting took place on migration routes, as well as on the feeding grounds, so that the temporal as well as the spatial dimension needed to be taken into account in understanding and modelling stock structure; and (iii) related to the temporal dimension, the clear evidence of stock differentiation, e.g. between J and O stocks, did not automatically make area delineation easy because of the seasonally-dependent overlap proportion in different areas. Past exploitation and potential depletion of some stocks was also an exacerbating factor. However, it was noted that to a greater or lesser extent some of these factors also applied to the Southern Hemisphere case, and more to the North Atlantic.
    The reasons why the Implementation had proved so difficult to complete were manifold, but nine issues were identified in this context. They are detailed in Annex D, Item 6.2.1.
    With respect to determining plausible scenarios, some members considered that a hypothesis must be supported by some data to be considered plausible. Others noted that this left the question as to what is the appropriate null hypothesis in the absence of informative data. Assuming a single stock for an entire region may not be a reasonable null hypothesis; experience with other species and areas shows that this is rarely the case. The Committee agrees that there needs to be a minimum level of information to start the Implementation process, so that the question of choosing null hypotheses in the total absence of suitable information would not arise (see recommendations below). However, a choice must be made regarding how wide a range of hypotheses to begin with, and whether the intention should be that hypotheses should only be narrowed as the Implementation process progresses.
    The Committee also identified issues that arose after the results of initial Implementation Simulation Trials were available, where these suggested problems with the Implementation.
    Hatanaka noted that in some cases, the results implied very small RMP catch limits for stocks from which several hundred animals had been taken annually over several decades without signs of depletion. This would be difficult to explain to those with an interest in the harvesting whales in the area.
    The Committee recognised that this could occur, but noted that the RMP is designed to be conservative in cases where the data are insufficient. The option of basing catch limits on estimates of abundance in Small Areas at one time of year would tend to be the one selected when data are sparse, and could often result in rather low catch limits in areas where the historical harvest had been high. The Committee felt that in such cases it was necessary to explain the reasons for this and to identify what improvements to the data could change the outcome (such as more appropriate abundance data, better information on stock structure to enable the more conservative hypotheses to be excluded, etc). It may also be possible to identify changes in harvesting strategy that would solve the problem without the need for additional data. The experience had shown that it would not generally be appropriate to continue postponing completion of the Implementation indefinitely until such data were forthcoming.
    There was considerable debate over whether an alternative version of the RMP needed to be developed to cover ‘difficult’ coastal whaling cases such as the North Pacific minke whale. The Committee noted that management of coastal whaling was clearly one of the main interests of the Commission in developing the RMP. It was also noted that none of the specific problems associated with the North Pacific minke Implementation were caused by specific provisions of the RMP. However, the problem of defining Small Areas for whaling on migratory corridors will be a recurring problem.
    After considerable discussion of the issues involved, the Committee agreed that the RMP could be implemented for coastal whaling, taking advantage of the flexibility already provided for in the RMP provisions, and the potential to consider operational measures, such as spreading catches spatially with Small Areas.

    Proposed process

    The Committee went on to consider solutions to the problems identified. They could be usefully divided into two types: (1) general policy and scientific issues and (2) process issues (as discussed in Annex D, item 6.2.2) as listed below:
    (1) General policy and scientific issues, e.g.
    (a) What level of population structure merits conservation?
    (b) What constitutes plausible hypotheses, and how to rank or weight these?
    (c) How should Small Areas initially be chosen, i.e. how should the RMP definition be converted to a more applicable working definition?
    (d) How should balance in trials be achieved, in particular to avoid excessive emphasis on scenarios which are more difficult in a conservation context?
    (e) How should abundance estimates be calculated for cascading when the main synoptic survey estimates for the total stock size are not very applicable to the size of a (sub-) stock migrating through a coastal whaling area?
    (2) Process issues, e.g.
    (i) Where and when is the dividing line between an In-Depth Assessment and the start of an Implementation?
    (ii) How to ensure that the In-Depth Assessment results in a suitable range of hypotheses about stock structure?
    (iii) How and when to determine whether a sufficient baseline of information exists to begin the Implementation process?
    (iv) How and when to select factors of sufficient potential relevance to include in hypotheses for Implementation Simulation Trials?
    (v) When and how should plausibility of hypotheses be assessed in order to narrow down the range?
    (vi) What arrangements are required to ensure adequate access to the data by Committee members?
    (vii) What data should be used for conditioning and how precise does the conditioning need to be?
    (viii) When should it be determined that new data cannot be considered for the current Implementation?
    (ix) How can it be ensured that final specification and conduct of trials proceeds expeditiously after this point?
    (x) How can the description and results of the trials be presented in a sufficiently transparent manner to be comprehensible to non-specialist Committee members?
    (xi) What kind of accompanying advice/information/explanation should be included with the final recommendation for an Implementation?
    Suggestions for dealing with each are given in Annex D, item 6.2.2.
    The Committee agreed that the Implementation process should proceed expeditiously once it had been ascertained that the basic requirements to proceed had been met. However, it was emphasised that decisions made in order to complete the Implementation should not set an immutable precedent for future Implementations and Implementation Reviews. To proceed expeditiously with an Implementation, it is often necessary to make provisional decisions about certain factors, that should not be taken as final judgements that bind future Implementations.
    Whatever the results of an Implementation, they should be presented to the Commission. It may also be appropriate to include recommendations as to how the Implementation might be improved in the future, particularly with respect to new information. It was noted that the RMP provides for the subsequent Implementation Review to be brought forward in the event of major new data becoming available.
    The Committee recommended that Implementations and Implementation Reviews be conducted according to the schedule shown in Table 2.
    In that context, the assessment that precedes an Implementation is termed Pre-Implementation Assessment to distinguish it from the In-Depth Assessments conducted for species on which whaling is not currently envisaged. The Pre-Implementation Assessment should take account of all relevant knowledge on the species in the region. The proposed schedule does not define the length of time required for this assessment. As part of that assessment, the Committee would decide whether to proceed with an Implementation. Once the decision to proceed is made, the process should be completed according to the schedule in Table 2.

    Table 2. Recommended schedule for an Implementation and subsequent Implementation Reviews

    (1) x+ Annual meetings

    (2) Intersessional workshop (3) Annual Meeting (4) Intersessional workshop (5) Annual meeting  
    ‘Pre-implementation assessment’1 Trial structure development Conditioning and final trial structure Review results of final trials Committee oversight
    The assessment will be geared towards answering specific questions agreed by the RMP s-c, including: (a) plausible stock hypotheses consistent with the data (taken inter alia from the agreed list of archetypes); (b)abundance estimates; and (c) level of To determine the appropriate trial structure. This will include a precise specification of the plausible hypotheses and ‘units to conserve’ arising from stage (1), and elimination of those inconsistent with the data. This will interact with more detailed The meeting will review the results of conditioning. Trials may be modified based on these results, but trial structure will not change. If an otherwise plausible hypothesis is poorly implemented, modify its implementation. Results of new analyses of dat The meeting will review the results of final Trials and make recommendations on: (a) management areas; (b) RMP options, e.g. cascading, capping; (c) associated operation restrictions (e.g. in time) (d) research needs (either within or outside operations Review and agree recommendations for implementation, and final abundance estimates.2 Calculate catch limits using CLA for the recommended management options. Make recommendations to the Commission. This might include more than one management option with a
    information available in the context of ‘likely’ whaling operations - taking into account the complexity of the situation wrt spatio-temporal issues. Will use a ‘simple model filter’ (à la Punt) to assess importance of hypothesised factors in terms of ma information in operations, incl. whether coastal, pelagic, on migration, on feeding, on breeding or combinations of these – comments from ‘users’ and scientists (who may suggest modifications). The basic building blocks for constructing Small Areas will a presented at stages 1) or 2) may be considered as part of this process. Final Trials will be determined following further consideration of plausibility: ranking or weighting of hypotheses. Specification of scenarios, management areas, and cascading ) to narrow range of plausible hypotheses. If more than one RMP implementation variant is supported, it might be appropriate to link recommendation for ‘less conservative’ option with recommended research. If results not forthcoming to support this by ne dvice on the implications of each and recommendations regarding appropriate research . (At this stage the Commission may wish to amend the Schedule and establish catch limits.)
    nagement. specification of plausible hypotheses should be inclusive enough that it is deemed unlikely that the collection of new data during the Implementation process would suggest a novel hypothesis not already specified in the basic trial structure. On be determined, along with options for Small Areas and management variants. Data and methods for conditioning of trials will be specified (but email group can adapt them if problems). After this stage, there shall be no changes to the agreed trials struct variants to include in the final trials. Updates to standard data series (e.g. abundance, catches, bycatch) will be included in the final Trials. Include discussion of what research may reduce range of uncertainty and likely time frame of such research. xt Implementation Review, then limits will be set at that time on the more conservative variant.
    the basis of this the Committee will recommend whether or not to move to the IST stage (2) or not. If not it will make research recommendations to try to obtain necessary information. ure that implements the agreed plausible hypotheses.

    1 It is anticipated that the Pre-Implementation Assessment (which is similar to an in-depth assessment, but is more management-oriented) will be conducted with broad-base participation, and will ensure that all relevant knowledge about the species in the region is taken into account. Once the Assessment phase is completed, much of the work will be done by smaller groups, whose mandate is to ensure that the results of the Assessment are adequately reflected in the design and selection of trials.
    2     Definitive abundance estimates, for the management areas being considered, for calculating catch limits (as opposed to conditioning trials) must be available under RMP rules at least 3 months prior to stage (5). Allowing for 3+ months to prepare them, they should be requested at stage (3), since the time following stage (4) may be insufficient.





    (9) Annual Meeting (8) Intersessional Workshop (7) Annual Meeting (6) Intervening period
    Data collection: see box 4
    Carry out Implementation Review. Make recommendations to Commission. Determine new trials to account for new information (depending on complexity, this may resemble either stage (2) or stage (3) Examine new information and determine if this is inside/outside tested parameter space and/or if it has narrowed hypotheses. If yes, need new trials and at least one workshop If no, straight to Implementation Review at Annual Meeting (9) RMP annotation 9 specifies that an Implementation Review should normally be scheduled no later than 5 years since completion of the previous Implementation (Review), but earlier if important new evidence on stock identity, major changes to abundance estim
    ation methodology, etc.




    A number of assumptions are made for this process (see Discussion in report). These include:

    (1) Agreement within the Scientific Committee of what are the minimum information requirements for a Pre-implementation Assessment to occur;

    (2) Availability to the Committee of the data on abundance and stock identity at the beginning of the Pre-implementation Assessment (see item 6.6.4). This will also be linked with agreed processes to validate new collection/analysis methods before accepted for providing management advice (e.g. abundance estimates, stock-id).

    (3) Agreement that once Stage (2) begins, the process will continue until Stage (5) and a recommendation to the Commission on the Implementation will occur about 1.5 yrs later

    (4) Agreement on a set of stock structure archetypes for consideration when developing stock hypotheses –will include an initial proposal for appropriate ‘units to conserve’ (see stage (1))

    (5) Broader agreement on issues surrounding plausibility, appropriate levels of uncertainty – in effect, when is it acceptable to implement.


    Annex D, Item 6.2.2 lists five general issues requiring serious consideration. They are: (a) issues related to stock structure; (b) plausibility and levels of uncertainty; (c) spatio-temporal considerations; (d) data availability and transparency; (e) levels of information needed both for conducting a Pre-Implementation Assessment and for proceeding to an Implementation. Action to resolve items (a), (b) and (d) had already been initiated at this meeting. A report from the sub-group established to advise on (b) is attached as Appendix 13 to Annex D. The Committee recommends that items (c) and (e) should be discussed next year; papers or submissions on each are encouraged.

    6.3 North Atlantic minke whale Implementation Review
    6.3.1 Report of steering group

    An e-mail correspondence group under Smith was established last year under terms of reference given in IWC (2002g, p.12). Working from the six items described there, the group identified data sources and analysis steps required for preparations to conduct an Implementation Review. The timing requirements for data and analysis availability under the RMP were noted.
    The following identified items are described more fully in Annex D, Item 6.4.1:
    (1) new data from sightings surveys, and information on dive times;
    (2) new abundance estimates, together with analyses of surfacing rates;
    (3) information on stock structure from DNA studies;
    (4) potentially relevant ecological information.
    The correspondence group had noted that the availability of new estimates of abundance did not meet the three months’ lead-time required under the RMP. The delay in making estimates from the new data available was necessitated by the need for ‘quality control of the analyses’.

    6.3.2 Implementation Review

    Annex D, Items 6.4.2.1-6.4.2.3, reports information provided to the meeting on stock structure and abundance, based on analyses of genetic data (SC/54/RMP6); a sightings survey in 2001 (SC/54/RMP1); radio tracking experiments (SC/54/RMP2); estimation of bias and variability in radial distance (SC/54/RMP3); and spatial distribution (SC/54/RMP4). SC/54/RMP5 presented an analysis of data from Norwegian annual surveys 1996-2001.
    The Committee concluded that the analyses suggest that animals in the North Sea Small Area may be differentiated from animals in other areas. Further, there is the possibility that the distinction made between Medium Areas E and C may need to be reconsidered. The Committee was interested in seeing further application of the boundary rank method to the genetic samples collected from catches since the last Implementation was completed. Further, Walløe indicated that Norway was interested in removing the Lofoten Island Small Area distinction and combining that area with surrounding areas.
    Examination of the previous Implementation Simulation Trials indicated that these possibilities had not been completely considered then. Further, the RMP specification suggests that Implementation Simulation Trials may be required when Small Area definitions are changed.
    Given the limited time available, further consideration of this item was left to a small group under Cooke (Annex D, Appendix 12). The Committee noted that any decisions concerning Implementation Simulation Trials would be taken next year.
    The Committee noted Norway’s plans to continue undertaking surveys in the North Sea, and recommends that the Commission requests the relevant UK Government authorities to grant permission in timely fashion for the Norwegian vessels to undertake surveys in its EEZ.
    Kell reported that at the Commission meeting in 2001 the UK had indicated that it had regretted denying access but had done so after careful consideration for reasons outlined in IWC (2002b). The UK had noted the request to reconsider its decision and had given an undertaking to do so.

    6.3.3 Specify intersessional work to permit completion of Implementation Review

    The intersessional work required is specified in Annex D, Appendix 14.

    6.4 Western North Pacific Bryde’s whales
    6.4.1 Report of Implementation Simulation Trials group

    Allison reported that because of other priorities, there had not been time to code and run any trials as recommended last year. She planned to establish a process for examining catch data prior to trials taking place. The data would be tabled by areas small enough such that any future trials would only use combinations of the prepared datasets and not require any further disaggregation.
    In considering the above, the Committee noted its discussions below, concerning the need to reconstruct the past catches. It agreed that Allison’s proposals for examining catch data should be held over until that reconstruction had been completed.

    CATCH DATA TO BE USED IN THE TRIALS

    Last year, the Committee had been provided with information on unreported catches of large whales, including Bryde’s whales, in Japanese coastal whaling operations, and had encouraged further investigation of the issue. SC/54/O13 had been prepared in response to the Committee’s request for preparation of a paper to be considered at this year’s meeting. It contained further information on such catches by species, region and month for limited operations by one whaling company between 1965-78, and compared them with official statistics. The senior author of SC/54/O13 was Mr I. Kondo, whose book on the subject had been drawn to the Committee’s attention last year.
    SC/54/O13 described major under-reporting of sperm, sei and Bryde’s whales taken off the Pacific coast of northern Japan; with catches often over twice the officially reported catch. There were problems with species identity: some fin whales taken in the Sea of Japan and the Okhotsk Sea, for example, had been recorded as sei whales. Sei and Bryde’s whales were not completely separated in the record. The information had been derived from operation summary charts of one company, covering monthly whaling operations by geographical region, giving positions of whales taken, monthly catches by species and cumulative catches by season. Figures derived from those charts differed in some minor aspects from those given in Kondo (2001b), but were regarded by the authors as true figures. Kondo (2001b) recorded under-reporting of Bryde’s whales off the Bonin Islands in 1981-1987 but the original records have been lost.
    In discussion, Sakamoto noted that verification of information is essential before the Committee uses it because the accuracy of the information is unknown.
    The Committee agrees that further work is needed to reconstruct past catches in more detail. An intersessional Working Group under Brownell (members Kasuya, Smith) was given the task of investigating the quality and nature of data provided in the past, including requesting data from additional whaling companies, and suggesting methods of dealing with it, for use in the Implementation Trials. Given that unreported catches are experienced in finfish fisheries investigations, the group was authorised to seek advice from, and as necessary co-opt, someone outside the Committee with relevant expertise. It was also authorised to co-opt Committee members with relevant expertise, as appropriate. Copies of the operation summary charts should be lodged with the Secretariat.
    Komatsu stated that Japan disagreed that the operation summary charts should be lodged with the Secretariat since the information on the charts has neither been verified nor endorsed by the Government of Japan. He further stated that Kondo had refused to make contact with Japanese Government officials who had requested to see him to provide the information on the past whaling data. Therefore the Government of Japan was unable to check and verify the information and it maintains its position at this time that the statistics already provided are still the official data. Komatsu also indicated that Japanese scientists would not serve on the intersessional group.
    Kasuya responded that Mr Kondo saw no reason to meet with the Government of Japan because he had already made details of the statistics available in his book, and because he was making these details available to IWC in the paper written with Kasuya (SC/54/O13).
    Smith expressed his considerable regret at the lack of response from Japanese scientists in assisting with the work of the intersessional group.

    Stock structure

    SC/54/O17, appendix 10, provided information on mitochondrial DNA control region sequencing and microsatellite analyses conducted on samples of the ordinary form Bryde’s whales from different localities of the western North Pacific. A total of 58 unique mtDNA sequences (haplotypes) were discriminated in the total samples. No significant differences among the three localities in the North Pacific were revealed. In contrast, striking mtDNA differences were found among oceanic regions. Additional analyses found some degree of heterogeneity between historical samples from Ogasawara and recent JARPN II samples but the same test found no significant heterogeneity between JARPN II and the central western North Pacific (CWMP) or between Ogasawara and CWNP. Microsatellite analysis gave no significant deviation from the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium or significant differences in allele frequencies. In contrast, striking nuclear DNA differences were found among samples from the western North Pacific, the western South Pacific and the eastern Indian Ocean, confirming the occurrence of different genetic populations in those three regions. Overall the results provided support for the stock structure scenario defined by the Committee during the Comprehensive Assessment (IWC, 1997a, p.32). The authors noted that the mtDNA heterogeneity found between Ogasawara and JARPN II is difficult to interpret at this stage and that other information (apart from genetics) should be considered in future to provide a better interpretation and conclusion.
    The Committee noted that sample sizes in the above study remain small, and it was suggested that genetic and pollutant analyses (see SC/54/O17 appendix 13) might be coupled to provide useful information.
    It was agreed that the results reported in SC/54/O17 provided no reason to change the stock structure in the existing trials, but that as much work as possible should be undertaken before the next meeting to allow a full and detailed discussion at that time.
    In discussion of the Implementation Schedule (Table 2) in this context, it was noted that activities so far were still within the Pre-Implementation Review referenced in ‘Box 1’; it would be necessary to review progress at next year’s meeting to determine exactly what point had been reached on the schedule. Hopefully by that time, meeting the criteria in Box 1 would be well advanced.
    The Committee noted that it may be in a position at the next meeting to complete the Pre-Implementation. If so, any new data after that meeting that might indicate additional hypotheses would only be considered in the subsequent Implementation Review. Coding of the trials, as specified (IWC, 2000c), would accordingly be suspended until next year’s meeting.

    6.4.2 Sightings surveys

    Information on two Bryde’s whale surveys conducted in the western North Pacific, in July-August and August-September 2001, was provided in SC/54/RMP10 and RMP13. Details are summarised in Annex D, item 6.5.2.
    Plans for a Bryde’s whale survey in the western North Pacific in August-September 2002 were given in SC/54/RMP14. It will only take place if the planned minke whale survey (see Item 6.5.1) does not receive permission to operate in the Russian Federation EEZ.
    The Committee endorses the proposal in SC/54/RMP14 and asks Shimada to provide Committee oversight for the survey should it take place.

    6.5 Other
    6.5.1 Sightings surveys plans for North Pacific minke whales

    SC/54/RMP9 detailed plans for a sightings survey for minke whales in the Sea of Okhotsk in summer 2002. It will take place from 23 July-20 September, using two vessels, with the objective of estimating abundance using IO passing mode. Biopsy samples for assessing stock structure will be collected opportunistically. Training and experiments in distance and angle estimation will be conducted.
    The Committee endorses the proposal and recommends that the Commission requests the relevant authorities of the Russian Federation to grant permission in timely fashion for the Japanese vessels to undertake surveys in its EEZ.
    SC/54/RMP12 described a joint Japan/Korea sightings surveys in the Sea of Japan in 2002. Using two vessels, the main objective is to obtain information on distribution and density of the East China Sea-Yellow Sea-Sea of Japan minke whale stock, using normal closing mode. One vessel will conduct opportunistic biopsy sampling. One survey has already been undertaken (10 April - 9 May) and the other will take place from 13 May - 1 July. Kim reported that one Korean scientist will be participating.
    The Committee endorses the proposal and asks Miyashita to provide Committee oversight for the surveys.
    SC/54/RMP19 provided information on plans to conduct a sightings survey from 20 August - 19 September 2002 in western Korean waters. It’s objective is to estimate minke whale abundance in terms of the RMP, in both closing and passing mode, and to obtain general information on seasonal cetacean distribution.
    SC/54/RMP20 detailed a Korean sightings survey in the Yellow Sea, undertaken in September 2001. Due to bad weather, only 49.5% (621.6 out of 1255.7 n.miles) could be undertaken on effort. Minke whales were aggregated in the southern part of the offshore area.
    SC/54/RMP21 described a revised plan for a sightings survey in eastern Korean waters. It had been revised in accordance with discussions at last year’s meeting, particularly in terms of coverage probability and randomness of start points. One vessel will operate from 14 May - 18 June. The survey area is divided into 7 rectangular blocks taking account of land shapes, with a total predetermined transect distance of 1,370 n.miles (see also Kim, 2001a).
    The Committee endorses the proposals in SC/54/RMP19 and RMP21 in terms of the RMP and asked Miyashita to provide Committee oversight for the surveys. It recommends that the survey report and plans be elevated to full paper status to ensure they are entered into the record (SC/54/RMP19, 20, 21).

    6.5.2 Initial planning for an in-depth assessment of North Pacific minke whales

    The Committee judged that work on this assessment should be delayed until the North Pacific minke whale Implementation is complete. However, members noted with concern the information it had received about much higher levels of bycatch (reported as 148 from Korea in 2001) in the region of the J-stock (see Annex D, Item 6.3.1), which, on the basis of some of the current trials, could lead to severe depletion on a short time scale. Some members commented that an updated assessment could lead to a reappraisal of this possibility. The Committee agrees that there is a need to address the assessment of North Pacific minke whales as a matter of urgency at next year’s meeting, but noted that the Implementation Simulation Trials would provide some information on this issue.

    6.5.3 Revision of RMP annotations

    There are no matters requiring attention at this time.

    6.5.4 Data availability

    The Intersessional Workshop (see Item 6.1.1 and SC/54/Rep1) had encountered difficulties over access to genetics data important to the development of trials. It had noted that the matter of data availability is complex and sensitive, involving the need to strike a balance between the Committee’s needs and the rights of scientists who had collected the data, and the great importance of the issue to the Committee’s work in the context both of the development of Implementation Simulation Trials and in discussions of their relative plausibility. It had strongly recommended that the question of data availability should be considered at this meeting.
    The matter was referred to a working group under Donovan (Baker, Cooke, Hammond, Hatanaka, Perrin, Smith, Walløe). The Working Group had the task of reviewing the question further and recommending possible courses of action, for agreement by the Commission.
    Donovan reported that the group had only a limited time to meet and discuss what is clearly a vital issue to the work of the Committee (see SC/54/Rep1 and Annex D).
    The Working Group had agreed to address issues under two headings: (1) data access and safeguards to protect the rights of data providers; and (2) arrangements for analysis. There was consensus that the data required to develop plausible hypotheses and develop appropriate Implementation Simulation Trials are as important as those required for the CLA itself in the overall implementation process. Although some useful clarifications were made, no agreement as to how to solve the question of data access had been reached in the time available.
    The Working Group has also agreed that it would be unhelpful to try to rush through any proposed solution to this issue at the present meeting. The Committee agrees that the group should continue to work intersessionally with a view to providing the Committee with either a consensus recommendation, or a limited number of options to consider at the next meeting. It was recognised that a decision on this important issue must be taken at the next meeting.
    The Committee also agrees that, in order to obtain a better understanding of the current system established in Japan for access to genetic and other data, it would be helpful if members of the Committee requesting data copied both their requests and the replies received to the intersessional group (via Donovan).

    6.5.6 Comparison between CLAs and SLAs

    Walløe and Hatanaka commented on the comparison of the catch trajectories between the Bowhead SLA (recommended by the Committee for the management of the aboriginal subsistence fishery for bowhead whales in Alaska) and the RMP’s CLA reported in Annex E (Appendix 6). They noted that under the base-case (BE01) trial, the CLA did not allocate catches until 2030 and that the catch did not reach the current need level in the 100 year simulation period. They believed that this emphasised that the CLA was far too conservative. Even accepting that a somewhat larger risk may be appropriate for aboriginal whaling, they believed that the RMP was too restrictive at least in terms of tuning level and productivity.
    The Chair of the SWG on the AWMP drew attention to the reasons why a direct comparison of the Bowhead SLA and the CLA was inappropriate as summarised under Item 8.2.1.3.

    6.6 Work Plan

    The Workplan agreed by the sub-committee on the RMP is given in Annex D. The discussion of the Committee’s overall Workplan is given under Item 19.

    7. Estimation of Bycatch and Other Human-Induced Mortality (annex m)
    7.1 Estimation of bycatch based on fisheries data and observer programmes

    The Committee reviewed records of large whale bycatch in National Progress reports for the statistical year 2001. Common minke whales were the most recorded species (over 230); the records were very clumped, notably in Japan and in eastern Korea. This raises the question as to whether this is due to better reporting in these areas, or whether there is some aspect of the fisheries in these two regions which made bycatch more likely than elsewhere.
    SC/54/ProgRep Japan records that all minke whale bycatches occurred in trap nets. Similar nets in other parts of the world (e.g. Newfoundland, Canada) are also known to entrap large whales (Lien, 1994). The Committee had no information regarding the use of trap nets in other countries and agrees that a request from the Commission to member states and other states asking for details of fishery categories might help elucidate this point (see Item 7.1.4).
    Issues of reporting efficiency and how current reporting schemes are implemented were discussed in detail, as such matters are crucial to providing advice to the Commission on how best to estimate total large whale mortalities in fishing gear.
    In the Republic of Korea, all large whales whether bycaught, stranded or floating at sea, have been subject to a national reporting scheme since 1996. All such animals have to be reported to the marine police agency located in every port. The marine police assess the cause of death and make a thorough report. The Prosecutor then judges whether the law has been breached based on the report. Domestic disposition of bycatch is only allowed through this system, which now works routinely. It was queried whether marine police officers were qualified to make pronouncements on the cause of death of cetaceans, noting that this requires specialist experience.
    Biological sampling has proved difficult because it requires appropriate expertise. Starting this year, a biological sampling programme is being implemented by hiring experts to sample carcasses in collaboration with the regional authorities and the marine police. Furthermore, guidelines on bycatch reporting will soon be incorporated into the fisheries law. Sohn asserted that the existing mandatory reporting scheme in Korea made any further attempts to estimate bycatch unnecessary there. He further pointed out that the bycatch is highly sporadic in a range of coastal fisheries and occurs mainly within 3 miles of the coast. Fisheries operating in this area are small scale and there are few relevant data that could help in any bycatch estimation methods.
    All bycatches of large cetaceans must also be reported in Japan. Recent changes in domestic legislation (since 1 July 2001) now make it possible for Japanese fishermen to market bycaught whales, provided each was recorded and a DNA sample taken (IWC, 2002d, p.363). Prior to 1 July, it had not been compulsory to report bycaught whales, but Ministry guidance encouraged the reporting of any such events.
    The number of bycaught minke whales recorded in Japan in 2001 (79) was considerably higher than in 2000 (29). In 2001, there had been 54 minke whales reported over the six months since the new legislation was introduced compared to 25 in the preceding six months. There was some discussion as to why there had been an apparent increase since the introduction of the new legislation, but Nagatomo stated that it was not clear if this was a significant increment, and that several more years of data would be needed to determine this.
    Bycatch reports in Japan and Korea might be more complete than in other countries because there was no dis-incentive for reporting. In the USA and some other countries, penalties for reporting bycaught whales might impede accurate reporting. Mattila confirmed that in the USA, records of bycaught whale numbers seemed to be declining in some fisheries, possibly because fishermen were becoming aware of the potential threat to their livelihood posed by the accidental capture of whales.
    There was some discussion as to whether incentives for reporting bycatch might actually lead to increases in whale mortalities. Last year, it had been reported that the new fisheries Ministerial Ordinance and related guidelines would allow fishermen to kill animals that could not be released from nets in order to market them (IWC, 2002g, p.15). Nagatomo stated that even though fishermen are now able to market whale meat from bycatches, they must still make best efforts to release whales from nets when caught, and only if they cannot be released can they be killed. It was not known how many bycaught minke whales had died as a direct result of entanglement and how many had been killed in order to remove them from the nets; the operating body itself can decide how to deal with an entangled whale. Japanese fishermen are able to apply for compensation for nets damaged by bycaught whales.
    The Committee agrees that there is no clear explanation as to why recorded bycatches of minke whales are so much more frequent in some areas than others. The aggregated total number of bycatches in National Progress Reports are unlikely to represent a complete estimate of the total bycatch mortalities, since not all countries are IWC members and not all members submit bycatch records to the IWC. Recommendations regarding this issue are given under Item 7.1.4.
    Komatsu stated that Japan cannot agree with the above conclusion and recommendations. He pointed out that Japan voluntarily submits bycatch data in Japan’s National Progress Report since this is a matter of responsibility of national governments. He expressed the view that any inference that these data are inaccurate is unacceptable. He also noted that the apparent increase in bycatch may reflect an increase in the stock.
    Perrin noted that no data are available to the Committee on the minke whales bycaught but released. If this number has decreased since the fishermen were authorised to kill and market bycaught whales, that could explain the increase in reported bycatches.

    7.1.1 Collation of information from fisheries

    Last year, the Committee reviewed a list of categories of information that might appear on a form that could be distributed to identify certain fisheries where bycatch is thought to take place, in order to assist in the future design of appropriate sampling schemes (IWC, 2002g, p.13). An intersessional group was established to take this matter further (IWC, 2002f, p.413). The success of this exercise will depend on how the first field of the query (fishery category) is interpreted. Each country is likely to categorise fisheries in an individual manner, based on some combination of target species, gear type and geographical area. A recommendation to help address this issue is given under Item 7.1.4.
    This information gathering exercise could be used to identify fisheries for which there is little or no information on bycatch but which share common characteristics with fisheries where bycatch has been monitored. The Committee agrees that it is important to consider such fisheries, as well as fisheries where bycatch is known to occur. Consideration of these data might suggest the relative priority of monitoring programmes to assess incidental takes for different fisheries.
    The Committee recommends that modelling studies should be encouraged to try to estimate how much observer coverage of a particular fishery would be required to allow reliable estimates of large whale bycatch. Such studies should assist in assessing how best to utilise data as they become available from the information gathering process. The Committee encourages papers on these types of statistical studies to be submitted.
    Kim questioned the need to consider estimation of bycatch given that he believed the mandatory bycatch reporting system in the Republic of Korea resulted in all bycatch being reported. He suggested that if there was reason to believe that bycatch was occurring in a particular fishery within a country, then the Commission could ask that member government to establish a bycatch reporting system rather than ask for fisheries information. Other members noted examples where independent observer schemes had been established for fisheries that already had reporting schemes. In several cases these revealed much greater levels of bycatch than had previously been reported.

    7.1.2 Fatality rates of large whales entangled in fishing gear

    The issue of disentangling large whales was raised in Resolution 2001-4 (IWC, 2002c) and is considered in detail under Item 12.3.5. Discussion of this topic under the present agenda item focused on the entanglement and freeing of large whales from fishing gear, especially in the Northwestern Atlantic. Large whales are sometimes seen at sea entangled in fishing gear and the experiences of researchers in that region working with several species of large whale might be useful in providing a photographic or diagrammatic catalogue of the types of damage likely to prove ultimately fatal and the types that might be reasonably assumed to be non-fatal. Mattila responded that there were some types of damage that were clearly potentially fatal, including those where young animals were entangled and could be expected to ‘grow into’ ropes that could ultimately result in their death. Minke whales, as one of the smallest of the baleen whales are the most likely to die as a result of entanglement in the short term, whereas larger whales may swim away with gear attached and succumb at a later date if feeding is impaired or if the entanglement leads to serious infection.
    The Committee considered whether there is information on the proportion of entangled animals that are ultimately known to have died as a result, and whether there is any relationship with fishing effort or gear density. Researchers at Memorial University in Newfoundland have been involved in such research for over 30 years and may have relevant information. It was agreed that the Committee should contact this group to request a paper for next year’s meeting.
    SC/54/BC6 reported on a bycatch reduction strategy emanating from a Workshop held in Annapolis in January 2002. The strategy includes a suggestion that formal national Plans of Assessment to estimate bycatch rates should be developed. Such Plans would include collection and analysis of data to describe fishing fleets, including the size of the fleet (number of vessels), fishing methods, fishing areas and measures of fishing effort. They should also include, where appropriate and possible, bycatch monitoring schemes based on independent observations. The strategy is currently in draft form for review and is intended to be presented at FAO’s next Committee on Fisheries (COFI) meeting.

    7.1.3 Other

    Last year, the Committee recommended that a request be made for further information about a planned cetacean strandings scheme in China. No information was available at this meeting but the Secretary of the Commission will contact Chinese authorities to ask if some written document on the proposed scheme, together with methods of necropsy that would be used, might be submitted to a future meeting of the Committee.

    7.1.4 Recommendations to the Commission

    Given the discussions above on information needs, the Committee makes the following recommendations to the Commission.
    (1) The Secretary be asked to write a letter to the relevant authorities in each member country requesting a list of fisheries, broken down by gear type, target species and geographical area, to the extent to which this is routinely done in each country. This would provide a first step that might assist in developing a sampling strategy for monitoring bycatch.
    (2) Member nations are urged to include more specific information on large whale bycatches in the National Progress Reports such that they ideally include not only gear type, but the way in which this gear is being used and the target species. As a minimum, the gear description should correspond to an item listed in the response to the request for information given in (1) above.
    In order to encourage cooperation, the objectives of collecting this information must be clearly specified. Data will also be welcomed from non-member states that may be willing to volunteer information even if a formal request from the IWC is not appropriate.

    7.2 Estimation of bycatch based on genetic data

    SC/54/BC1 updated previous work listing the species of cetaceans determined from DNA analysis from market samples in both Japan and Korea. Several species were found that the authors believed were unlikely to have been derived from either scientific whaling or bycatch.
    In Dalebout et al. (2002b), microsatellite DNA profiling of North Pacific minke whale products from the Japanese and Korean market was used to determine the minimum number of whales available for sale and to track the movements of products from individual whales through these markets. The same methods were used in Dalebout et al. (2002b), SC/54/RMP8 and SC/54/BC3, and are very similar to those used in tagging and recapture studies to investigate populations of living animals. Six microsatellites were used to profile market products identified as derived from North Pacific minke whales through phylogenetic analyses of mitochondrial DNA control region sequences. These loci are a subset of those specified in the Norwegian DNA registry and those used by Japanese researchers. These six microsatellite loci, in combination, gave a reasonably low probability of a match (identity) between products by chance for the Japanese market. The probability of a match by chance was higher for the Korean market due to the lower genetic diversity of the J-stock (East Sea/Sea of Japan).
    SC/54/RMP8 reported on eight market surveys conducted in the Republic of Korea between March 1999 and November 2001. Products were purchased in southeastern coastal cities in short periods of a few days in each survey. Surveys yielded a total of 122 minke whale products representing at least 97 unique individuals. Over 90% of these animals were J-stock based on diagnostic nucleotide substitutions at the mtDNA control region (e.g. Baker et al., 2000). Products from the same individuals were generally only found within the same survey. These results suggest that products from individual whales are not stored long-term in the Republic of Korea, and in general pass through the market in a period of less than seven months. Given the conservative nature of these censuses, it appears that the total yearly Korean bycatch of minke whales remains high. This is consistent with SC/54/ProgRep Korea in which 148 North Pacific minke whales are reported as bycatch, 132 of which were taken off the East Sea/Sea of Japan coast.
    In SC/54/BC3, 167 minke whale samples, purchased in Japanese markets between December 1997 and January 2002, were found to represent 142 individuals. J-stock products, presumed to come from bycatch in the Sea of Japan, contributed 41% of these, while the remainder were O-stock animals assumed to have come from scientific whaling in the North Pacific. There was no significant difference in the proportion of products from the two stocks among different prefectures.
    Pastene noted that the interpretation of market samples is very difficult and referred to Pastene et al., 2001 from last year that summarised several molecular surveys conducted in the Japanese retail market. It had identified several factors affecting the estimation of the mixing proportion between O and J-stocks in the market: (a) randomness of the survey; (b) geographical variation in the distribution of J/O stock products across Japanese prefectures; (c) duplicate sampling; (d) period in which products from an individual remain in the market. On point (d) it was recognised that processed products will stay in the market for a longer period than fresh meat. It was further noted that samples obtained in surveys should be weighted according to the availability of the whale products across the different prefectures.
    In response, Baker noted that SC/54/BC1 and SC/54/BC3 had also conducted analyses to evaluate biases. For example, after eliminating replicate products from the sample of Japanese markets there were no significant differences in the ratio of J:O stock animals by prefecture. It was suggested that a larger sample size would still be helpful, but concluded that bycaught whale meat appears to be treated by the market in the same way as JARPN products.
    The Committee agrees that sample design requires attention, and that a purpose of the proposed workshop (see 7.2.1) will be inter alia to develop appropriate sampling strategies for the Japanese whale meat market.
    There was general agreement that there were currently too few reference samples to assign the sei whale samples in SC/54/BC1 to individual populations or geographical areas. Concern was expressed as to where any such samples might have come from, with no current legal whaling of sei whales. The sei and Bryde’s whale products uncovered in the sampling had mostly been unique individuals. This does not support the suggestion that these samples could have been in the supply chain for a longer period of time than the minke whale products, as might be expected for stockpiles.
    Morishita noted that in Japan, meat from pre-moratorium whaling is still held in cold stores, as shown in SC/54/BC5, so that meat from such animals is still being marketed, although there are decreasing amounts of it available. It was further noted that the data in SC/54/BC5 on whale meat stockpiles had been updated in 2001. He stated that verification of the origin of sei and other larger whale products in the stockpile has been conducted but the report on this was not yet available.
    There was some discussion about the apparent increase in bycatch of minke whales including J-stock animals. Trends in the population size of J-stock minke whales are unknown and J-stock population size has not been estimated.
    It was suggested that if samples from reported bycaught minke whales could be compared with samples found in the market, it would be possible to determine what proportion comes from undocumented sources. The Committee agrees that this is a promising approach to improve estimation of total bycatch over time.
    Kasuya commented on the surprisingly high proportion of J-stock whales in the market samples. Many members noted that the availability of data on the annual proportion of J-stock animals taken in the North Pacific, from incidental catches and JARPN, would allow better estimation of bycatch. They also reiterated that estimation of bycatch would be improved by the ability to compare market samples with a register of all legally caught whales. However, Nagatomo stated that monitoring, control and management of the domestic whale meat market is the sole responsibility of the government based on its sovereign right, and that matters related to their domestic market are therefore outside the jurisdiction and competence of the IWC. The Government of Japan is consequently in no position to provide its market-related genetic data to the IWC. However, Nagatomo indicated that if data from DNA sequence analyses from parties concerned were forwarded to the Institute of Cetacean Research they would compare the data with their database and provide the results.
    Funahashi and Kasuya clarified that the request to the Government of Japan was not for market-related genetic data, but for information on the numbers and locations of J-stock animals from bycatch and JARPNII. This information is required to improve estimates of total takes over time from the J-stock, as required for the RMP. Funahashi also stated that she and colleagues would be glad to discuss cooperative research projects involving an exchange of genetic data. Such an exchange would require third party oversight to resolve possible conflicts in identification