The convention governing the International Whaling Commission (IWC) states similarly that its "regulations with respect to the conservation and utilization of whale resources ... shall be based on scientific findings".

But the practice differs greatly from the principle. The IWC took a decision in 1982 to impose a global moratorium on all commercial whaling at a time of growing scientific evidence that the Antarctic minke whale population, at least, could certainly sustain a limited harvest. Whaling countries, angered by this decision which they considered to be without scientific justification, hit back later in the 80's by making use of a provision in the IWC Convention which allowed them to issue permits to their nationals to catch some whales for the purpose of scientific research - research is conducted as a part of these "scientific" whaling operations, but is that their primary purpose? Most recently there is the proposal for a whale sanctuary throughout the Southern Ocean - a transparent attempt to prevent the resumption of whaling on the 3/4 million strong Antarctic minke population for reasons which have nothing to do with science. This has been accompanied by the unedifying spectacle of Western nations and "conservation" (or, more accurately, "preservationist") groups desperately searching for some plausible surrogate scientific rationale with which to attempt to justify the proposal.

These other reasons are discussed elsewhere in this volume. My brief is to address aspects of President Clinton's expressed concern at "the absence of a credible, agreed management and monitoring regime that would ensure that commercial whaling is kept within a science-based limit".

SUSTAINABLE UTILISATION
Obviously such limits should be consistent with "sustainable utilisation" - but exactly what does that mean? The most ready analogy is that of a pensioner whose sole asset is a capital sum invested in a bank. Sustainable utilisation for him means living off the annual interest without dipping into the capital. In other words, harvesting only the natural annual growth of a population, without depleting it to a low level where this growth is greatly reduced.

THE IWC'S NEW MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE
In the 1970's, in response to mounting public criticism following the substantial depletion of many whale populations by whaling conducted under its aegis, the IWC introduced the so-called "New Management Procedure" (NMP). The underlying principles were fine - essentially to get whale populations to and keep them at reasonably high proportions of their size before exploitation started, by ensuring that catch limits set did not exceed sustainable levels.

But the NMP proved unworkable in practice. Why? Not because there was anything wrong with the concept, but because the NMP didn't go far enough. It failed to specify how the "annual interest" (i.e. the sustainable catch level from a whale stock) was to be calculated, what data needed to be collected to do this, and how to take account of uncertainties.

CALCULATING SUSTAINABLE YIELD LEVELS
So how can sustainable yield levels be calculated? For the pensioner, the process is simple: to evaluate how much interest will become available annually, ask the bank teller how much capital is in his account and what the interest rate is, and then just multiply the two together.

So why isn't fisheries management equally easy? - because the teller is unco- operative. All he will tell you, and only once a year, is how much you have in your account, which he can get wrong by typically 20%. And he certainly won't tell you directly what the interest rate is.

How do we then get the information needed to be able to perform this key multiplication to calculate the sustainable yield for whale populations? For the capital component, sighting surveys are conducted from research vessels to determine the numbers of whales. By the standards normally attainable in fisheries research, the results obtained are good (error margins of typically 20%). The difficult component is the interest rate. Basically some (careful) exploitation is needed before this can be evaluated, because the calculation requires the information from a series of sighting surveys on how the size of the population changes in response to this harvesting.

THE FUNDAMENTAL RISK-REWARD TRADE-OFF
The bottom line then is that some trade-off is inevitable. If such initial harvests are kept too low, the potential productivity of the resource remains undiscovered. But if these catches are set too large, there is a high risk that unintended heavy depletion may occur before this is realised and corrective action can be taken.

The goal of a risk-free harvesting strategy is unattainable, for exactly the same reason that no car or aircraft can ever be made completely "safe". Risk can be reduced (though never eliminated), but only at the expense of higher costs - or correspondingly, lesser rewards in the form of smaller catches in resource utilisation terms.

WHERE DOES THE COMPUTER COME IN?
The role of the computer is to calculate the sizes of the anticipated trade-offs between risk and reward when harvesting whale populations. This is the basic function of the computer simulation trials used to test the IWC Scientific Committee's proposed "Revised Management Procedure" (RMP). Quantitative information about these trade-offs allows a sensible choice to be made between the extremes of rapid extinction of the resource under unsustainable catch levels, and complete protection which forbids any harvesting ever.

WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A "MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE" AND THE TRADITIONAL APPROACH TO FISHERIES MANAGEMENT?
How does such a "Management Procedure" approach differ from the usual methods used to regulate fisheries? There catch limits are calculated according to the current "best perceptions" of the status and productivity of the resource. But it is then not entirely clear how the answer obtained should be adjusted to take the inevitable uncertainties in these perceptions into account - in other words, how to make proper allowance for risk.

In contrast, the "Management Procedure" approach puts such uncertainties up front, by insisting that if these current "best perceptions" are in error, the trend in catches set over the longer term must be such that the Procedure self-corrects before there is any substantial risk that the resource could be damaged. For example, it has been suggested that global climatic change could result in a change in the environment which is deleterious for whale stocks. The RMP has already been tested to ensure that catch limits for whales would be adjusted downwards appropriately should this occur.

Why are such Procedures needed for whales in particular? Whales are long-lived animals and their populations can at best grow at only a few percent per annum. Thus even relatively low levels of catch, if continued, can lead to problems unless there is adequate monitoring and an option for adjusting catch limits. In other words, the risk involved in harvesting whale populations can be evaluated sensibly only for a Procedure which is to be consistently applied for a number of decades.

Thus, as in sport, a Management Procedure involves all the parties concerned agreeing the rules before the game is played (and sticking to them during it!).

IS THIS APPROACH BEING USED SUCCESSFULLY ELSEWHERE?
This approach is not entirely new in fisheries. Iceland has been applying it in the management of its capelin fishery. Arising out of the IWC's initiative for whales, South Africa has now come to base catch limit decisions for its major fisheries for hake, sardine and anchovy on the approach.

WHAT SORT OF CATCH REGIME FOR WHALES WOULD RESULT UNDER THE RMP?
As far as catch limits for whales under the IWC Scientific Committee's proposed RMP are concerned, these would initially be set at annual levels of about 0.5% of current population sizes. That would apply to stocks of species not greatly depleted by past whaling activities, such as many of the world's minke whale populations. For stocks still markedly depleted such as the blue and fin whales of the Antarctic, this percentage would be considerably less - indeed zero for those and many other stocks for a number of decades yet.

In addition, there would be provisions to ensure that catches are widely spread, rather than concentrated in a few small regions. This is necessary to provide safeguards against uncertainties in knowledge about the positions of the boundaries between stocks. The annual percentage take could be increased over time, but this would be permitted only provided the results from the monitoring population trends over time by sightings surveys suggest that such larger levels of catch are sustainable. However, if the survey series stops, catches are phased out quite rapidly.

TO WHAT LEVEL OF RISK DOES THE RMP CORRESPOND?
What risks would be involved in the application of the RMP to whale stocks? Broadly speaking, there would be no more than a 5% chance, even under the worst set of circumstances or misconceptions likely, that catches (other than perhaps ones of a negligible size) would be taken from a population reduced to more than 10% below its most productive level. (This is the so-called 54% "protection level" - an abundance 54% of that before any harvesting took place.) And populations would need to be reduced to well below that level before any real concerns about possible extinction might arise.

HOW DOES THIS LEVEL OF RISK COMPARE TO THAT ACCEPTED IN HARVESTING OTHER OF THE WORLD'S MARINE RESOURCES?
If this criterion (no more than a 5% chance that the population is below 54% of its pre-exploitation size for harvesting to be allowed) were applied to the rest of the world's fisheries, nearly all would have to be closed immediately. Off the northeast coast of the US and off western Europe, for example, harvesting continues from cod stocks which are below not just 50% of their pristine levels, but arguably less than as little as 10%. Even when allowing for biological differences between whales and fish, the low levels of risk some nations demand be met for harvesting the former, are totally inconsistent with the much higher levels which they are prepared to accept for exploiting their own stocks of the latter.

ABORIGINAL WHALING ON THE BOWHEAD WHALE OFF ALASKA
President Clinton's statement made reference to the aboriginal whaling on bowheads in which native Alaskans engage. Some years ago, there was justifiable concern that these activities were putting this population at risk. However, the US has commendably invested considerable research effort towards addressing this problem, with results which show that there can now be no serious scientific reservations that current levels of catch place the population under any real threat. Yet, were the RMP to be applied in this case, it is so risk averse that an immediate cessation of these whaling activities would be required.

THE NMFS REVIEW OF THE RMP
Recently, the US National Marine Fisheries Service commissioned an independent review of the RMP by a panel of seven North American scientists. Their brief to assimilate and comment upon seven years of work by the IWC Scientific Committee (without having had any prior involvement therein) in the short space of five days was a daunting one. The panel concluded that the RMP as it stood could be used safely for a period of at most 20 years, but also recommended that some further computer simulation trials be carried out. However, it seems to me that all the specific extra trials which they recommend have effectively already been carried out and considered by the IWC's Scientific Committee. It is unclear from the panel's written report whether they were unaware of this, or did actually have some reservations about what had been done, which their report fails to elaborate. Obviously the panel should clarify this ambiguity expeditiously to the IWC's Scientific Committee.

NORWAY'S RESUMPTION OF COMMERCIAL WHALING
Norway has, of course, resumed commercial whaling on minke whales. This it is legally entitled to do, since it lodged an objection to the IWC's 1982 moratorium decision. I understand that the annual catch limit set by the Norwegians for their overall operation is within the limit which the RMP would specify, so that there are no scientific grounds to query that decision.

However, I understand also that the areal distribution of the catches permitted by Norway is not in accord with the provisions of the RMP, and I believe that legitimate questions can be directed at Norway on this point. Of course, such a deviation from the RMP does not necessarily mean that any real danger to the resource will eventuate. But if Norway does wish to depart from the RMP's provisions, I believe that it has some scientific obligation to present the results of computer simulation trials to the IWC's Scientific Committee to demonstrate that such deviations as they might plan do indeed not involve undue long term risk.

THE POTENTIAL EFFECT OF INCREASED CONSUMPTION BY GROWING MARINE MAMMAL POPULATIONS ON COMMERCIAL FISH RESOURCES
What of the concerns often expressed that increasing marine mammal populations will consume more fish and thus put fishing industries at risk? The counter argument often made is that there is no scientific proof that this is so. But equally, there is no scientific proof that it isn't. The scientific methods which have been used in the past to address this question have been crude, and there has been a justifiable argument that basing management decisions (such as a marine mammal cull, for example) upon their results would be premature. Marine science can never, by its nature, prove something without some residual doubt. But methods are being improved, and cases may soon arise where the preponderance of indications that growing numbers of marine mammals will impact fisheries is so strong, that hard decisions will have to be faced to avoid the chance that important industries are put at risk. For example, growing fur seal herds off southern Africa are now more than 2 million strong. Their consumption of commercial species equates to the total catch by all the fishing industries in the area, and their continued growth may constitute a threat to the region's most valuable fishery for hake.

IN CONCLUSION
To conclude, let me return to President Clinton's concern for science-based limits, and credible management and monitoring for potential commercial whaling. From the scientific side, the RMP has been more thoroughly researched and tested than any comparable marine resource management system worldwide. Its own requirement for regular sighting surveys, as well as the regular review process associated with its implementation for any species and region, ensures adequate monitoring. It is so risk averse that the only real scientific basis for questioning its immediate implementation is that it is so conservative that it will waste much of a potential harvest. If the United States fails to endorse the RMP, is there any way that the US could then avoid the judgement of complete hypocrisy, unless it immediately suspended not only the aboriginal whaling by Alaskans, but indeed closed every one of the country's fisheries?