DRAFT - Scientific Committee Handbook

Working methods of the IWC's Scientific Committee 

1. INTRODUCTION  
2. PLACE IN THE COMMISSION SYSTEM  
3. MEMBERSHIP AND OFFICERS   
4.  STRUCTURE AND MEETINGS
5. REPORTS AND PAPERS
6. RESEARCH FUNDS
7. PROCESS FOR REVIEW OF SCIENTIFIC PERMITS  
8.  DATA AVAILABILITY PROCEDURES  
9. SCIENTIFIC WORK
10. LIST OF WEB PAGES LINKED TO THE SC HANDBOOK          
11.  CONSOLIDATED COMPILATION OF SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE RULES OF PROCEDURE, WORKING METHODS, GUIDELINES AND PROTOCOLS      

The “Scientific Committee Handbook” (hereafter ‘the Handbook’) has transitioned from paper to a digital document and now to a web-based resource. The purpose of the Handbook, however, has remained the same as originally intended, that is, a place to incorporate the instructions the SC receives from the Commission and a guide to the working methods of the SC.  The Handbook is periodically discussed and updated by the SC, and then presented to the Commission for final approval. 

The Handbook is intended to be an accessible source of information on SC working methods and activities and is hoped to be of value to scientists and non-scientists alike. The Handbook uses links to the relevant pages of the IWC website, where all formal Commission documentation and current amendments are located and, as a result, the 2024 update is now more concise and focuses on current working practices, using non-legal terms. Any queries on content should be directed to the Head of Science, Management and Conservation and if any technical issues arise, please contact the IT Department

1.1. The Scientific Committee 

The SC was established in 1950, in accordance with the Rules of Procedure, which are decided by the Commission and published in the Reports of the Commission Meetings. The SC first convened in 1950 and has met annually since then, including virtually during the global Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) II/COVID pandemic between 2020 and 2022 (SC68B; C; D). The SC met in person in 2023 and 2024, SC69A and SC69B, respectively, and thereafter meets biennially, in line with Commission meetings (SC70 and IWC70 are proposed to be held in 2026).

1.1.1 SC Terms of Reference

The Commission establishes and amends the SC’s Terms of Reference (ToR) via the Convention, the Schedule and the Rules of Procedure. The SC’s current ToR (2024) are taken from Convention Article IV.1(a), (b) and (c); Article IV.2; Article V.2 (a) and (b); Article VIII.3; Schedule paragraph 13(b) and 30 and; Rules of Procedure M.4).  The following ToR are current to August 2024:

(1)    encourage, recommend, or if necessary, organise studies and investigations related to whales and whaling;  

(2)    collect and analyse statistical information concerning the current condition and trend of whale stocks and the effects of whaling activities on them;

(3)    study, appraise, and disseminate information concerning methods of maintaining and increasing the population of whale stocks;  

(4)   provide scientific findings on which amendments to the Schedule shall be based to carry out the objectives of the Convention and to provide for the conservation, development and optimum utilisation of the whale resources;

(5)    publish reports of scientific activities and findings;  

(6)    review current threats and methods to mitigate them in order to maintain cetacean populations at viable levels;  

(7)    receive, review and comment on Special Permits issued for scientific research;   

(8)    assess stocks subject to aboriginal subsistence whaling;  

(9)    review research programmes of Contracting Governments and other bodies. 

The Commission may also direct the work of the SC via: 

(1)    Commission Resolutions;

(2)    decisions taken by Commission at their biennial meeting.  

Resolution 2014-4 includes a comprehensive list of resolutions related to the work of the SC prior to 2013. The Resolutions currently relevant to the work of the SC are:

(1)    conduct Comprehensive Assessments [Comprehensive assessments provide the Commission with information on the current status of a particular whale population within a particular region, usually an ocean basin. The assessment tells the Commission whether that population is recovered, recovering, or is a cause for concern. (Rep. int. Whal. Commn 34:30)] of whale stocks;

(2)    advise on the ‘Revised Management Procedure’ (Rep. int. Whal. Commn 45:43); 

(3)    advise on the ‘Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling Management Procedure’ (Rep. int. Whal. Commn 45:42-43);  

(4)    study the effects of environmental change on cetaceans (Rep. int. Whal. Commn 43:39-40; 44:35; 45:49);  

(5)    advise on scientific aspects of whale sanctuaries (Rep. int. Whal. Commn 33:21-2; 45:63);  

(6)    advise on scientific aspects of small cetaceans (Rep. int. Whal. Commn 41:48; 42:48; 43:51; 45:41);  

(7)    advise on scientific aspects of whale watching (Rep. int. Whal. Commn 45:49-50); 

(8)    advise on the contribution made by live cetaceans to ecosystem functioning into their work (Resolution 2016-3);

(9)    advise on ghost fishing gear and its impacts to cetaceans (Resolution 2018-3);

(10) advise on anthropogenic underwater noise and cetaceans (Resolution 2018-4); and

(11) assess current knowledge of the impact of marine plastic pollution on cetaceans and provide a global risk assessment that identifies ‘hotspots’ of cetacean exposure to plastic debris (Resolution 2022-1).

 Because the SC covers such a wide range of technical matters with respect to the conservation and management of cetaceans as outlined above (and see section 9), the SC seeks guidance from the Commission in setting priorities. The SC submits a draft agenda for a particular biennium to the Commission for its comment, approval and budgeting. The SC agenda is revised based on any instructions given by the Commission.  

2. PLACE IN THE COMMISSION SYSTEM

The SC is one of four Committees established by the Commission, the others being the Finance and Administration Committee, the Technical Committee and the Conservation Committee (see Fig. 1). 

Figure 1. Schematic summary of IWC structure showing information/reporting flow to and from the Scientific Committee.

Formally, the SC reports directly to the Commission (which considers the SC’s reports under appropriate items in its Plenary agenda) but in practice, some relevant sections of its reports are first reported to other bodies of the Commission, depending on their Agendas and meeting timings  (see Table 1 ) read more

3. MEMBERSHIP AND OFFICERS 

3.1 Membership (SC RoP A.1-7, C.5; Financial Regulations C.1)

The membership of the SC comprises the following: 

a. National Delegates;

b. Invited Participants (IPs)

c. Observers from accredited Inter-Governmental Organisations (IGOs) and Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs).

3.2 Officers (RoP I, M.9 and SC RoP C) [SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE COMMISSION]

The formal officers of the SC are the Chair and the Vice-Chair [and the Vice-Chair Elect]; they are assisted by the Secretariat’s Head of Science, Conservation and Management (HoSCM) and Convenors. The Chair and the Vice-Chair [and the Vice-Chair Elect] are elected by the Heads of Delegation, every two years. Unless there are special circumstances, the Vice-Chair succeeds the Chair [and the Vice-Chair Elect succeeds the Vice-Chair automatically]. Although voting can occur to allow the election of these officers, the preferred approach is to reach consensus.   

The role of the SC officers is to facilitate the work of the SC in providing the best scientific advice to the Commission. As is the case for the Chair of the Commission, the SC Chair’s role is ‘to serve the Commission, and as such, shall serve in an individual capacity and not represent the views of their Contracting Government, when acting as Chair’ (Commission Rule F.1). To accentuate this, when presenting the results of the SC’s work at the Commission meeting, the Chair (and, if present, Vice-Chair [and Vice-Chair Elect]) of the SC usually sits at a SC table with the HoSCM rather than a national delegation. They work together to deliver the report and answer questions. The Chair and Vice-Chair [and the Vice-Chair Elect] change office at the end of the Commission meeting. 

The IWC Secretariat’s HoSCM is the liaison officer dedicated to supporting SC activities. The HoSCM also oversees the production of all IWC scientific meeting reports and publications (see sections 5.2-5.4).  

 Read all details on the role of these officers

A list of Chairs since the inception of the Scientific Committee is given in Table 2.

3.3 The Convenors Group (SC RoP D.3.)

The ‘Convenors Group’ comprises the Chair, Vice-Chair, Vice-Chair Elect, HoSCM, Executive Secretary, and convenors and co-convenors of subgroups. The composition of the group may change due to contingencies or rearrangement of the Subcommittees and working groups.

The group’s role is to provide advice to the Chair and Vice-Chair [and Vice-Chair Elect] whenever requested and to ensure that:

(a) the SC functions in line with the SC’s Rules of Procedure and the Commission’s instructions;

(b) the SC’s Agenda is discussed by the relevant subgroups and Plenary and that the necessary expertise is available during meetings to do so; and

(c) that clear scientific advice is delivered to the Commission.

For more details on the appointment of Convenors and Co-convenors and their role

3.4 Conflict of interest 

The SC is mindful of the need to avoid potential or perceived situations of ‘conflict of interest’, especially regarding chairing duties or membership in evaluation groups (e.g., chairing Special Permits or AWMP/Implementation Review discussions, IWC-SORP Research Fund and Small Cetacean Voluntary Research Fund funding). SC’s members are encouraged to self-report any such situation that may concern them. Given their role, the Chair, Vice-Chair, Vice-chair Elect, and HoSCM may take over additional duties when an unavoidable situation of ‘conflict of interest’ becomes apparent. In situations where they have themselves a conflict of interest, an ad hoc Chair may be appointed by consensus of the SC Chair, Vice-Chair, Vice-Chair Elect and HoSCM. 

4. STRUCTURE AND MEETINGS (RoP M.4b, SC RoP C1-5, D1-3)

The SC held Annual Meetings up until IWC69 (2024) and subsequently moved to a biennial format at the behest of the Commission. These meetings have traditionally been held in-person lasting approximately two weeks, usually in April/May, but in years dominated by COVID (2020-22), both Annual Meetings and Intersessional Workshops met virtually. Because of successful application of virtual meetings combined with funding concerns, virtual meetings are likely to occur in the future when deemed appropriate.

Intersessional Workshops or pre-meetings that do not comprise the whole SC may be held to discuss specific topics or progress on-going work. The results of these are reported to full [biennial] SC meetings for consideration/endorsement.

4.1 The plenary and subgroups

4.1.1 Agenda and workplan

The Commission determines the scope of work for the SC (see Section 1.2). From this, the SC develops its agenda and agrees a detailed two year workplan and budget that is included in its published reports and submitted to the Commission for approval/modification. The SC also presents a preliminary draft plan and budget for the following two years.

4.1.1.1 Plenary

Plenary sessions deal with items on the agenda that require the full SC (including final review of subgroup reports); these can be dealt with through either written reports or more commonly discussion.

4.1.1.2 Subgroups

Initially to address primarily technical/specialist agenda items, the SC forms a number of Subcommittees and working groups (generically called subgroups) that are open to all meeting participants. Their work is organised by appointed convenors and co-convenors (item 3.3, above). Subgroups can be created, merged or dissolved as required, depending on the SC's agenda and workplan, unless they have been established as ‘Standing’ groups by the Commission. These decisions and appointments are made by the Chair (Rule C) who may consult with the others (e.g. the Vice-Chair, the Vice-Chair Elect and the HoSCM) (Rule C).

Subgroups are subservient to the SC; they report and make recommendations to the SC Plenary, but it is the SC that makes final recommendations to the Commission. For example, the full SC may not agree with the conclusions or recommendations of a subgroup [see Item 5 to learn how these instances are handled in reports].

For more details of the working of subgroups and a current list

4.2 Logistics

The full [biennial] meeting is made up of Plenary and subgroup sessions (section 4.1).

Plenary Sessions are where the whole SC meets to discuss agenda items relevant to all. Typically, the meeting will open with a plenary session and then comprise the final sessions to review the work of the Subcommittees.

Subcommittee sessions are where the SC splits into smaller groups to discuss specific topics. During the Subcommittee phase several sessions are typically run concurrently to maximise the use of time. SC members may be involved in multiple subgroups. Attempts will be made to avoid conflicts (i.e., subgroup meetings) in such circumstances but some overlap of subgroup meetings may be unavoidable.

4.3 Intersessional Groups

A large part of the work of the SC is accomplished between meetings. To ensure this work is carried out, intersessional groups are established at each meeting. The lifespan of such groups is the intersessional period, reporting their progress at the following meeting. If further work is required they must be formally re-established.

There are three types of intersessional groups:

1.      Steering Groups (SG)

2.      Intersessional Correspondence Groups (ICG)

3.      Advisory Groups (AG)

5.     REPORTS AND PAPERS (SC RoP E1-5)

The SC informs its discussions at its meetings through the use of a range of different types of documents. Specific rules are applied on how to handle their submission and discussion. Similar rules apply to documents submitted to intersessional workshops.

5.1 Types of documents

The SC receives and writes several types of documents and reports. These are summarised briefly below. All papers are publicly available in the Secretariat’s archives although some have conditions on citation (see Item 5.2). For financial and environmental reasons, all documents are distributed wholly electronically on the IWC website.

The categories of documents are as follows:

1.      National Progress Reports; (read more)

2.      Primary Papers; (read more)

3.      For Information Papers; (read more)

4.      Working Papers; (read more)

Working papers are intended to expedite resolution of disagreements or stimulate debate within the meeting. They are only distributed with the agreement of the convenor or co-convenor of a subgroup or the plenary. As such papers are often written at the last minute in order to stimulate discussion or present the results of a preliminary analysis which subsequently the author feels (or is told) is flawed, it has been agreed that they officially disappear at the end of the meeting. Working papers cannot be cited as Working papers within the Plenary or subgroup reports. If important to conclusions, especially those related to management advice, they may be appended to a subgroup report if agreed by the Chair of the subgroup, in which case information contained in the working paper becomes citable.

Alternatively, if they contain substantive or lengthy contributions they may be upgraded to a Primary paper with the author’s permission, and with the agreement of the Chair in consultation with the Vice-Chair, Vice-Chair Elect and the HoSCM, provided that:  

1.      the working paper has been presented and discussed within a subgroup or during the Plenary, such that there has been the opportunity to comment on it; and

2.      the text of the subgroup or plenary report would be significantly improved, streamlined or clarified by the ability to reference the paper as a Primary Paper.

Working papers themselves have no status once the meeting is closed, do not form part of the official archive and thus cannot be cited.

5.      Scientific Committee Reports (including subgroups/workshops). (read more)

5.2 Style of subgroup reports

Subgroup reports need to be:

(1)    concise and comprehensible both to those who attended the meeting and scientists who did not; and

(2)    as complete as possible (including references and artwork) by the end of the meeting as the Chair, Vice-Chair, Vice-Chair Elect, and HoSCM have only three weeks after close of meeting (see Commission Rule of Procedure M.5) to finalise the full SC report (including subgroup reports as Annexes) before distribution to Commissioners and Contracting Governments.

Since 2016, the SC’s advice, agreements, recommendations and conclusions are written according to a standard format, which helps in highlighting and identifying them, the primary intended recipients (of course it is recognised that in a general sense, the whole report provides advice to the Commission) and the context in which they were generated. See below for more details.

5.3 Advice, recommendations and conclusions

Important action items, such as agreements and recommendations, are highlighted by placing them in blue boxes. These boxes include a code indicating the primary intended recipients of the action, brief text providing the context in which recommendation arose followed by a clear description of the recommendation itself including where appropriate a timeline (see [link to how to document]. Endorsed recommendations from SC meetings and workshops are held in the Database of Recommendations (DoR) along with those from other SCs and Commission Resolutions. The Committee is encouraged to report progress on its Recommendations to the Secretariat and close any where the actions have been completed, superseded or are no longer relevant.

5.4 Scientific Committee Chair’s overview of subgroup work

At IWC68, the SC presented the SC Communications Initiative, a proposal to introduce new tools to communicate with the Commission, the media and the general public.  These tools include a new summary document, published approximately one month before the Commission meeting, and a ‘science hub’ at Commission meetings, staffed by SC members who can engage with delegations and observers, and answer questions. The SC’s formal presentation to Plenary remains the key opportunity to inform the Commission and the format for those will be an audio-visual presentation delivered by the SC officers, supported by the HoSCM, from the stage. The Commission endorsed the SC Communications Initiative which will be launched at IWC69.

5.5 Distribution of reports

The Rules of Procedure (M.5)  deal with the availability of reports. In summary, the SC’s Meeting report, Reports of Special Committee Meetings (and sometimes intersessional Workshops) are confidential until they are sent by the Secretary to the full SC, Commissioners and Contracting Governments and/or made available on the website normally within 21 days of the meeting. Confidentiality applies to the ‘outside’ world and does not preclude SC members from discussing the report with their Commissioners. Reports of intersessional Steering Groups or subgroups are confidential until they have been discussed by the SC, normally at an SC Meeting.

The SC may agree recommendations which include a request to the Secretariat to contact CGs, non-CGs or IGOs in order to raise specific concerns or offer assistance to address urgent matters. Neither the IWC Secretariat nor any other IWC Committee or Working Group can send a letter to an individual Contracting Government until requested to do so by the Commission. The SC developed a form to ensure the correct information is conveyed to the right entities; any such requests need to include who is responsible for drafting, who needs to approve text and the full contact details of all recipients.

6. FUNDING THE WORK OF THE SCIENTIFIC COMMITEE 

There are three funding streams available to SC; 

·    Funds allocated from the Commission core fund which, from 2025 onwards, are based on a zero-based budget approach [Zero-based budgeting (ZBB) is a budgeting technique in which all expenses must be justified for a new budget period starting from zero, versus starting with the previous budget and adjusting it as needed] and formally referred to as the ‘Scientific Committee Research Fund’.

·       Voluntary funds provided by Contracting Governments, NGO’s and other donors. 

·       Funds sought by the Secretariat fundraising personnel for SC approved projects, workshops and activities.

The SC is required to develop a budget each biennium, towards the end of the SC meeting, that will include all SC workplan activities that have been identified and approved for the next biennium plus the anticipated costs for IPs to attend the next SC meeting. The budget is then submitted to the Commission for approval at its biennial meeting and will operate from the beginning of the next Financial Year. The Financial Year of the IWC, and therefore also the SC, is January to December and, as such, workplans and budget spend must align with this period.

The procedures that govern the finances of the IWC, including the SC, are updated from time to time and current rules and regulations are detailed in the latest Rules of Financial Procedure.  

6.1 The Scientific Committee Research Fund

The Commission allocates funds to support activities that the SC has determined are essential to provide the best scientific advice to the Commission. These activities include intersessional workshops, data processing, data collection and collation, analyses and the support of IPs to SC meetings.  Activities that are permitted with regards to the work of the SC are updated from time to time and are included in formal document references  (link to said documents)

Until the 2023-2024 biennium, the SC developed its budget based on indicative budget amounts provided by the Secretariat and the Commission (also known as an incremental budget [Incremental budgeting is a method of creating a budget based on the previous period's budget, with some adjustments for inflation, growth or reduction, or other factors]). In 2024, the SC was requested to develop a zero-based budget, for the biennium 2025-26, to include 1) the support of IPs to SC meetings as a single cost to be considered as a separate budget item and 2) the total cost of all approved intersessional workshops, statistical modelling work, database development and maintenance and research proposals, as an itemised list of separate work. These two amounts are considered as separate ‘pots’, however, once allocated by the Commission, the SC Chair may move up to 10% of the funds available from one budget pot to the other, during the budget period.

Underspent funds within the biennium will likely be returned to the Commission’s core funds and it is anticipated that a new zero-based budget will be requested for the subsequent biennium. 

At the time of writing, this was the first iteration of the zero-based budget approach, and the IWC Finance Department should be contacted for the most recent development and current procedures.

6.1.1. Development of Scientific Committee Research Fund Proposals

Scientific Committee funding proposals primarily arise from discussions at SC meetings. Budget requests addressing the broader work of the SC (e.g., IPs, overall workplan) will be developed by the SC Chair, SC Vice Chair, [SC Vice Chair Elect], HoSCM and the Finance Department. Budget requests specific to individual Subcommittees will be developed and coordinated by the relevant Subcommittee convenors and must demonstrably advance the Subcommittee workplan and the overall agenda of the SC.   

All budget requests must follow the eligibility and evaluation processes established by the Commission and the SC. Where the actual submission process may vary from time to time, these formal requirements must be met. The complete process for the last call for research fund proposals (SC69B) is detailed here.

Each biennium, the Vice Chair, in coordination with the Finance Department and SC meeting document control team, will determine all processes associated with budget request submissions, so that Subcommittees have sufficient time and support to complete their internal review process prior to the development of the overall SC budget. The following process should be taken to fulfill the current research proposal evaluation, prioritisation and ranking requirements.  

 All research proposals must be clearly linked to Subcommittee discussions at the SC meeting during which the proposal is being submitted and/or fulfill a recommendation that remains open in the SC Database of Recommendations and/or must address Commission Resolutions. SC funds are now extremely limited so if a proposal does not fit any of these criteria, the Subcommittee convenors should assess if the proposal still merits the effort of the assessment and ranking procedure. Projects that do not demonstrably fulfil the approved work of the SC will not be considered in the overall budget request or will be ranked very low.  If a proposal is not approved, a rationale should be provided in the Subcommittee report.  

·       All budget requests will be submitted via the form developed for the relevant biennium, which will require supporting information on project proposal objectives and its relevance to the work of the SC and how it addresses Commission priorities (e.g., Resolutions). Other information will include a named Principal Investigator and all coordinators and collaborators, methodology, workplan, a list of project outputs and a fully justified, itemised budget. In-kind support, value for money, previous budget requests to the SC and the project team’s experience and expertise will all be evaluated. A typical form template can be reviewed here. All forms accepted by the convenors are considered SC documents and, as such, will be available to all meeting participants.

·       Budget requests for research, data processing, data collection and collation, data analyses and the development and/or maintenance of databases must be scored by two anonymous, independent reviewers from within the SC. Any activity that requires resources from the Secretariat, including database maintenance, must be agreed by the relevant Secretariat personnel and included in the budget.

·       Other activities, such as workshops, that are agreed during the course Subcommittee discussions must be fully detailed, and include an itemised budget, and be submitted via the form developed for the relevant biennium. These workshops do not require two independent reviewers but must be presented and fully justified during the Subcommittee meeting and noted as approved in the report.

·       Workshops that are proposed during intersessional meetings are not considered developed at the SC meeting and are subject to review by two independent members of the SC. If any questions arise regarding which process a workshop review must undergo, the Subcommittee convenors should seek the advice of the SC Chair, SC Vice Chair, [SC Vice Chair Elect] and the HOSCM.

·       Standard scoring and evaluation criteria have been developed for the independent reviewers use and can be found here.

·       All budget requests must be fully presented at the Subcommittee meeting and a paragraph summarising the contents of the proposal must be included in the Subcommittee report. Following presentation of the budget request at the Subcommittee meeting, usually by the principal investigator or one of the main collaborators, all those named on the proposal should leave the room so that members of Subcommittee can determine if;

o   the proposal fulfils the required criteria,

o   the evaluation submitted by the independent reviewers supports approval

o   the proposal will result in outcomes that will clearly advance the priority work of the SC and merits inclusion in the Subcommittee overall budget request.

Where appropriate, the Subcommittee may also consider the outcomes of previous similar or related proposals by the same authors/groups.

·       All budget requests must also be ranked within each Subcommittee. It is at the discretion of the Subcommittee convenors to determine if the ranking process will occur after each project presentation and approval, or if all projects are ranked once all proposals have been presented. Regardless of the process adopted, the project proponents (principal investigators and main collaborators) must leave the room whilst their proposal is discussed. When prioritising each project, the Subcommittee should base their ranking on the scientific merits, the value for money and feasibility of the proposals, and how well the requests align with SC priorities (e.g., recommendations) and Commission directions (e.g., the ICRW/Schedule and Resolutions). Where appropriate, the Subcommittee may also consider the outcomes of previous similar or related proposals by the same principal investigators/groups.

·       The Subcommittee convenors should give special consideration to any conflict of interests (e.g., caution should be used for projects proposed by active members of the SC). If the Subcommittee convenor is a project proponent, they must request that the SC Chair or SC Vice Chair take over chairing duties when their proposal is being assessed, unless the convenors are representing a request that has been developed by the whole Subcommittee. It is critical that all stringent safeguards are in place to ensure that all proposals are subject to equal scrutiny and evaluation. The Subcommittee convenors can decide to complete the approval and prioritisation process anonymously by all relevant members of the SC, particularly for controversial cases or cases were there may be multiple conflicts of interest.

·       As part of the prioritisation process, the Subcommittee should also determine what the consequences are for the SC if the proposed work is not completed. The paragraph summarising the contents of the proposal that is included in the Subcommittee report must also articulate the agreed impacts of not conducting the proposed work.

·       The Subcommittee must prepare a full list of approved and prioritised budget requests, as per the specific instructions provided for that SC meeting, for review and overall ranking by the SC convenors.

The evaluation and prioritisation process should be initiated as early as possible within the subgroup and The use of the agreed evaluation criteria helps to ensure this.

The subgroup report will contain a short summary of all proposals, evaluation, costs and ranking. A table summarising all budget requests, including priority ranking, will be included at the end of each subgroup report and this table, along with pro forma must be available to the Vice-Chair by the deadline specified for each biennial budget period . 

In some circumstances, one proposal may address the needs/recommendations of more than one subgroup. For example, for CMP species, budget requests will likely be applicable for the work of other subgroups (e.g., SM, NH, SH, IST). In these circumstances, the convenors of the relevant subgroups will discuss where the proposal fits best, and the proposal will be developed by one subgroup (noting that it applies for the work of other subgroups) following the process described above. 

Step 2: Scientific Committee Officers and Convenors 

The Vice-Chair and the Vice-Chair Elect will compile an overall budget summary document including a short summary of the objectives of each proposed item for funding. The Chair, Vice-Chair, Vice-Chair Elect and Convenors will then evaluate and numerically rank the budget requests across all subgroups to produce a final list of ranked projects to be presented to the SC. This list will be included in the SC report for presentation to the Commission. All SC budget requests shall be decided by the Commission based on available resources and SC priority. The SC officers present at the Commission meeting will provide advice on SC budgetary matters, if requested to do so. 

It is possible that changes may occur in some projects during the intersessional period that will require timely consideration. In these circumstances, the SC Chair has authority to modify the individual project SC’s budget proposal but would be expected to consult with relevant stakeholders (e.g. Vice-Chair, Vice-Chair Elect, HoSCM, Convenors, etc) when the magnitude and implications of the decision are warranted. 

Step 3: Intersessional tracking, Mid-term and final evaluation of the budget

Applications to SC that are approved and funded will be formalised through a contract, issued by the Secretariat, that clearly defines the project aims and deliverables plus payment milestones and procedures. During the intersessional period, it is the responsibility of the relevant Subcommittee convenors to regularly liaise with the funded project or activity leads and ensure the project is progressing as planned or, if not, to assist where necessary.  The Secretariat will oversee payment of invoices. and will copy the related Subcommittees convenors in all relevant correspondence with project leads. A mid-term (i.e. one year after the funding request) and a final evaluation of the budget is necessary. In the mid-term, the Chair, Vice-Chair, Vice-Chair Elect, HoSCM and Secretariat will present to the Bureau a summary of all projects and activities progress and projected budget for the following year. The final evaluation of the budget will be presented to the SC meeting and included in the full report.

6.5 Voluntary research funds (Financial Regulations Rule C and its Appendixes 1 and 4)

6.2 Voluntary Funds

Projects

Guidelines on Acceptance of Funds have been established to ensure funds are only accepted from appropriate sources, and will advance work that is consistent with IWC objectives.
A Code of Ethical Fundraising was also endorsed by the Commission in 2018. 

Each biennium, the Commission approves a research budget from core funds for the SC for activities that the SC believes are essential to its work in providing the best scientific advice to the Commission (Financial Regulations Rule C, SC RoP G.1, G.3). This includes inter alia Workshops (see Item 4), data processing, data collection and collation (SC RoP H), analyses and the costs of inviting experts to the full [biennial] SC and intersessional meetings (see Item 3.1).

In addition to the main research fund, there are three voluntary research funds of relevance to the SC’s work (see Section 6.3). Reports on all funds are submitted regularly to the SC for discussion and ultimately to the Commission for approval via the SC’s report.

The following voluntary research funds support the work of the SC:

1.      The Voluntary Fund for Small Cetaceans Conservation Research supports (a) SM priority Invited Participants at SC meetings;

(b) Research projects and activities in areas, species or on populations of small cetaceans, identified as of direct interest or a priority of the SC;

(c) Other small cetacean work in developing countries that may be identified, from time to time, by the Commission, and in consultation with intergovernmental agencies as requiring, or likely to benefit from, support through the Fund.

2.      The IWC’s Southern Ocean Research Partnership (IWC-SORP) Fund was established as an integrated, collaborative consortium for cetacean research, which aims to maximise conservation-orientated outcomes for Southern Ocean cetaceans through an understanding of the post-exploitation status, health, dynamics and environmental linkages of their populations, and the threats they face.

3.      The Voluntary Fund for Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling (ASW) was established by the Commission to assist subsistence hunts in achieving compliance with IWC measures. These measures span a range of issues including hunter safety, reporting processes and weapons improvement programmes which reduce animal suffering and increase efficiency during these hunts.

For details of these funds and the disbursement process, See Annex 1: Chapter 5 to this document for all relevant pro-forma and criteria. [On web page too, or text to be here only?]

Table 6: Summary of Funds available to support Scientific Committee activities and relevant coordinating bodies

7. SPECIAL PERMITS

Article VIII of the Convention allows governments to issue special permits to their nationals to take whales for scientific research. The Schedule (Para. 30) provides for the SC to review and comment on them (see also SC RoP F). Although the SC and the Commission itself can comment on proposed permits, the final decision over content and numbers of animals resides with individual Contracting Governments. The issue of scientific permit whaling was for a time controversial within the Commission, as was the related issues question of the review of scientific permit proposals and results. At present (2024) there are no ongoing special permit requests or outstanding reviews of results.

All proposed permits have to be submitted for review by the SC following Guidelines adopted by the Commission (Annex 1: Chapter 4). (read more…)

8. DATA AVAILABILITY PROCEDURES

The SC established a Data Availability Agreement (DAA) in 2003 (IWC 2004), noting that the question of data availability is a complex and sensitive one. A balance must be struck between the needs of the Committee to provide the best management and conservation advice and the rights of the scientists who have invested considerable time and effort in collecting data.

The Committee agreed (IWC, 2003) the following three principles for a fair DAA:

·       data represent a significant temporal and financial investment by scientists and research institutes – use of their data by others should be accompanied by appropriate safeguards;

·       the right of first publication is generally accepted as standard practice by the primary scientist or research institute ; and

·       if important management and conservation decisions are to be made, they must be based on a full scientific review of data and analysis that can be independently verified.

The DAA is intended to facilitate a transparent scientific basis for advice to the Commission, facilitate collaboration and transparency, and streamline data transfers by setting realistic expectations for data sharing and protecting the rights of the data owners.

It should be noted that in general those wishing to analyse data owned by others are encouraged to consider cooperative studies with the data holders (and indeed any other applicants for the data). As such, data transfer would occur directly between the owners and requesters and not require intervention under the DAA.

8.1 The Recommended Process

8.1.1 When does the DAA apply?

The Committee through its DAA does not always need to become involved in data requests amongst members. Data for the following Committee activities are the priority:

(1)    data for analyses required to provide the best management advice on strike/catch limits (e.g. AWMP and RMP) including Implementations and Implementation Reviews. Inter alia this includes data underlying the abundance estimates used and data related to stock structure;

(2)    data for analyses required to complete Comprehensive or in-depth assessments (i.e. after a pre-assessment has been completed). Inter alia this includes data used for abundance estimates and data related to stock structure;

(3)    other data of conservation and management importance (e.g. for abundance estimates for endangered populations for which there is insufficient information for a formal assessment).

(4)    data used for any abundance estimates to be added to the IWC Table of Agreed Abundance Estimates for which the Committee’s internal review process - currently via the ASI Subcommittee - requires data provision.

(5)    data used in the estimation of bycatch.

Data requests granted under this DAA will restrict use of the data to producing papers for the Scientific Committee that are directly relevant to activities (1)-(4) above.

Data obtained under IWC sponsored or co-sponsored research (e.g. Antarctic cruises under IDCR and IWC-SOWER, IWC-POWER and IWC-SORP are dealt with in Appendices II and III) unless being considered in the context of Committee work under (1)-(4) above where the process below applies.

Use of the word ‘meeting’ below includes Biennial Meetings, Special Meetings and workshops.

8.1.2 Conditions for Data Owners

All data owners who wish their data to be considered for Committee activities (1)-(4) under Item 8.1.1 must provide a listing and brief description of the data following advice from the Data Availability Group (DAG- see section 2.4) in consultation with the convenors of the relevant Subcommittees. Such lists must be provided to the Secretariat and DAG no later than 6 months before the first meeting of the activity for which they are to be used. In some cases, such as data related to providing advice on ASW, the lists of data (periodically updated) could remain on file with the Secretariat, with periodic updates, to avoid needing to submit a list prior to each time the Committee conducts an Implementation Review or provides advice to the Commission about strike/catch limits. Further, it should be noted that the data themselves do not need to be provided (but can be) to the Secretariat. Data transfers can occur between the requestor and the owner or the Secretariat, whichever is most suitable.

Data owners may provide data to be treated under this procedure, even if they do not intend to analyse the data themselves. Data owners shall be notified of any DAA requests, including a description of the objectives of the study and the methods to be used.

For data requests approved by the DAG, data requested shall be provided by the data holders or Secretariat promptly after the relevant conditions (see Item 2.3) have been accepted, normally within 2 weeks.

8.1.3 Conditions for data recipients

Any accredited person as defined in the Committee’s Rules of Procedure may request data following a pro forma developed by the DAG in consultation with the data owners (an example is given as Appendix 1). Before applying for data via the DAA, data recipients must recognise that if applications are accepted, the conditions below will apply.

·       Data must not be transmitted to persons not named in the data request without the permission of the data owners (that permission must be copied to the DAG). However, named persons may allow people whom they supervise (e.g. technicians) to work on the data.

·       Papers may only be submitted to a meeting in accordance with the time restrictions assigned by the DAG (see Item 2. 4). Such papers must not include the raw data or the data in a form in more detail than is necessary for readers to understand the analysis.

·       Data owners must be offered co-authorship.

·       Papers submitted to meetings must contain the following statement at the top of the title page – ‘The data used in this paper were made available under the Rules for Data Availability of the IWC Scientific Committee – this paper cannot be cited except in the context of IWC Scientific Committee meetings unless permission is given by the authors and the data holders.

·       Formal publication rights (i.e. outside Committee meetings) remain strictly with the data owners (although data owners and recipients are encouraged to collaborate on publications).

·       Given the iterative nature of the Committee’s work, the normal length of agreement between the data holders and the principal investigator(s) should be considered to be the length of the relevant Committee activity (e.g. Implementation Review or in-depth assessment), as determined by the DAG, or earlier if the recipient ceases to be accredited.

·       Data (and any copies) must be destroyed or returned to the data owner or Secretariat immediately after the end of the activity, unless an extension is granted, or further collaboration is agreed.

Data requesters must sign a form agreeing to the above. Such forms will be held by the data owner and the Secretariat. In the event these conditions are not followed, the DAG will investigate and determine any necessary sanctions in addition to any response taken by the data owner.

8.1.4 Data Availability Group (DAG)

Responsibility for the application of the DAA shall be undertaken by a small group comprising: the Chair; the Vice-Chair (assigned as chair of the DAG), the Vice-Chair-Elect; and the Head of Science, Conservation and Management, hereafter called the Data Availability Group (DAG). The DAG will call upon relevant convenors for advice with respect to the DAA and particular Committee activities and data applications.

When a DAA application is submitted, the DAG shall:

·       decide whether an application fulfils the criteria with respect to the objectives of the study and the relevant SC activity (see Item 8.1.1);

·       determine whether the methods proposed are considered broadly standard or novel, and how this affects any proposed timelines for the submission of papers in addition to normal Committee guidelines. The DAG may take advice from the data owner, applicant or other relevant scientists in this process; and

·       ensure that for methods deemed ‘novel’ not using standard software, the analytical methods are sufficiently documented such that they can be fully reviewed and any associated analytical software must be lodged with the Secretariat.

9. SCIENTIFIC WORK

The SC covers a wide range of scientific subjects related to the conservation and management of cetaceans, such as the Aboriginal Whaling Management Procedure, Revised Management Procedure, In-depth and Comprehensive Assessments, Environmental Concerns, Whale Watching, Small Cetaceans and Conservation Management Plans.

With respect to whale stocks, the approaches developed by the SC may differ depending on the nature of actual or potential direct exploitation and indirect exploitation. The broad approach remains the same and is summarised in Fig. 2.

9.1 Whale Stocks subject or potentially subject to direct takes under IWC regulations

9.1.1 ASW stocks

Over the last 25 years, the SC developed, and the Commission adopted, the Aboriginal Whaling Management Procedure (AWMP). Long-term robust methods of calculating strike limits have been agreed for each hunt that meet the nutritional and cultural needs of the communities and the Commission’s conservation objectives (Strike Limit Algorithms (SLAs)). These are the Greenland hunts for common minke, fin, humpback and bowhead whales, the Chukotka (Russian Federation) hunts for gray and bowhead whales, the potential Makah hunt for gray whales of Washington State and the Alaskan hunt for bowhead whales (Table 10). It has been agreed that there is no need for an SLA for the small St. Vincent and The Grenadines hunt for humpback whales, at least until the completion of the in-depth assessment of North Atlantic humpback whales.

Table 10: AWS and RMP Implementation and Implementations Reviews [this table needs periodic updates]

There is a system of regular Implementation Reviews with established guidelines, including adoption of new abundance estimates every ~10 years, to ensure that use of the respective SLAs remains appropriate in the light of new information. Advice is provided to the Commission’s Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling Subcommittee (ASW) who then report to the Commission on non-scientific issues related to ASW.

Items related to the stock structure and abundance of these stocks are dealt with by, respectively, the SD-DNA and ASI subgroups.

9.1.2 Whale stocks that might be subject to IWC regulated whaling if there is ever agreement to lift the moratorium

From 1985-1992, the SC developed a robust procedure (the Revised Management Procedure, RMP) for the management of commercial whaling should the Commission decide to re-establish commercial whaling. The procedure was designed to meet management objectives for commercial whaling and, unlike the AWMP that has a different SLA for each hunt, was a generic procedure with a single Catch Limit Algorithm (CLA) for all baleen whale stocks. Those stocks that might be subject to whaling under the formal RMP follow an approach with established Requirements and Guidelines (for: the Implementation and Implementation Review process; surveys and abundance estimation; and data and analyses). The process is summarised in Fig 2, and the RMP and its requirements and guidelines can be found in Annex 1: Chapter 2.1 and 2.3). The RMP pre-Implementation Review for new species/populations is usually preceded by a Comprehensive Assessment or an In-Depth Assessment (see below).

9.1.3 Handling AWMP and RMP Implementation Reviews and general modelling issues within the Scientific Committee

The Subcommittee on Implementation Simulation Trials oversees both AWMP and RMP Implementation Reviews (and any general modelling issues referred to it by the SC).  The primary objectives of such reviews’ objectives are to:

(1) review any new information (including data relevant to stock structure, biological data and abundance) to ascertain whether the present situation is as expected (i.e. within the space tested during the development of an SLA) or the previous RMP implementation or Implementation Review) and to determine whether new simulation trials are required to ensure that the Commission’s conservation objectives are met; and

(2) review information required for the SLA or Catch Limit Algorithm, i.e. catch data and, when available at the time of the Review, new abundance estimates (note that receiving new abundance estimates can also occur outside an Implementation Review at an SC Meeting).

9.2 Stocks not subject to directed takes by IWC Contracting Governments

For stocks not subjected to direct hunting by Contracting Governments or to Conservation Management Plans, the SC uses a Comprehensive Assessment (the first time a species/area is assessed) or ‘In-Depth’ Assessments (subsequent assessments that occur when new information suggests it is needed) (Table 11). Such assessments take into account the available information available from the Southern Hemisphere (SH), Northern Hemisphere (NH) and in some cases CMP Subcommittees in the light especially of information on population structure (the SD-DNA working group). When the SC agrees that sufficient data are available, the In-depth Assessment (IA) Subcommittee follows an ideally 2-3 year process using computer modelling to establish the ‘status’ of the species/population(s), i.e., where the population is now compared to its pre-exploitation state and what the current trends are. This follows a similar approach to the RMP/AWMP but does not use SLAs or the CLA to determine robust removal levels, but rather indicates where conservation measures are required.

In addition to assembling the information required to conduct an assessment, the SH, NH and CMP Subcommittees also consider (a) new information on stocks for which a recent assessment has occurred and (b) stocks for which there is limited information to examine steps needed to develop a longer-term strategy.

9.3 Special Permit catches

Discussion of Special Permits, if issued by Contracting Governments (SP), has been carried out in special Plenary sessions. The SC has developed a process for reviewing these (Annex 1) and their scientific merit/results to provide advice to the Commission. Although no formal assessment process for examining the effects of Special Permit catches on stocks exists, it should normally follow a similar modelling approach to that used by the SC when examining direct removals in the light of uncertainty (c.f. the AWMP and RMP approaches). There are currently no requests for Special Permit whaling.

9.4 Cetacean stocks that are or might be the subject of Conservation Management Plans

The Subcommittee on Conservation Management Plans (CMP), focuses on the scientific aspects of stocks that are: 

(1) the subject of existing CMPs (i.e. SE Pacific and S Atlantic southern right whales, North Pacific gray whales, the franciscana dolphin and the South American river dolphins) or

(2) are high priority candidates for a CMP (i.e. Humpback whales in the northern Indian Ocean including the Arabian Sea).

It also periodically reconsiders potential CMPs, recognising that the Commission has stressed the need for Range States to support any IWC CMPs (i.e. northern Indian Ocean blue whales, Mediterranean fin whale and sperm whale).

Table 11: Current assessment/management status of large whale stocks and SC subgroups responsible

9.5 Stock definition and DNA testing

The Subcommittee on Stock Definition and DNA testing (SD-DNA) reviews:

(1) new papers on stock structure on behalf of other subgroups;

(2) DNA testing matters including those related to DNA registries (Annex 1: Chapter 2.7);

(3) guidelines for ensuring DNA data quality and for analyses of genetic data (Annex 1: Chapter 2.6);

(4) general statistical and other issues related to stock structure using a suite of data and techniques;

(5) terminology appropriate to stock definition, unit-to-conserve and ‘viable’ population for use across subgroups and the SC; and

(6) population models to test spatial stock structure models.

As genetic data are frequently used to give advice to the IWC there is a need to agree on data quality criteria for DNA marker types (sequences, microsatellites, Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms [SNPs]; and possibly nuclear DNA sequencing in the future. The group has developed guidelines and considerations on DNA quality and analyses that will be updated as necessary (Annex 1: Chapter 2.6).

9.6 Cetacean abundance estimates, stock status and international cruises

The Subcommittee on cetacean Abundance estimates, stock Status and International cruises (ASI) focuses on:

(1) reviewing new abundance estimates on behalf of other subgroups, which are included in the IWC Table of Abundance Estimates;

(2) Assisting the Secretariat in maintaining a table of categorised abundance estimates and a related webpage of population (abundance) estimates.

(3) methodological issues, including design-based and model-based line transect estimates and mark-recapture abundance estimates;

(4) discussion on how to present information on the status of stocks including a summary of information on the status of stocks based on completed in-depth assessments or RMP and AWMP Implementations; and

(5) the design and analyses of IWC research projects related to abundance estimation including relevant IWC-SORP projects and IWC-POWER cruises (https://iwc.int/power), including Guidelines on survey design and techniques (Annex 1: Chapter 2.4).

9.7 Non-deliberate human-induced mortality of cetaceans (HIM)

The Subcommittee on Non-deliberate Human-Induced Mortality of cetaceans (HIM) currently addresses the assessment and scientific aspects of mitigation of non-deliberate mortality of cetaceans, including:

(1) approaches for addressing the entanglement of large whales and  bycatch of small cetaceans;

(2) collisions with vessels (ship strikes); 

The group also considers methods to estimate mortality rates from these causes for use in the SC’s In-depth Assessments and Implementation Trials and contributes to the joint work programme of the Scientific and Conservation Committees, providing scientific input to the work of the Commission’s Ship Strikes Working Group, Bycatch Mitigation Initiative and the Global Whale Entanglement Response Network.

The HIM Subcommittee also considers scientific advice relevant to furthering cooperation with other international bodies including FAO, CCAMLR, regional fisheries management bodies, and the International Maritime Organization. Specific topics that are considered:

1.      Bycatch and entanglement

                   i.         Estimation of rates of entanglement, risks of entanglement and mortality for large whales and evaluate mitigation measures for preventing large whale entanglement;

                  ii.         Estimation of rates of bycatch, risks of, and mortality for small cetaceans including consideration of scientific aspects of bycatch mitigation measures and prevention;

2.      Vessel Strikes

                   i.         Review progress on developing a global database of vessel strike incidents;

                  ii.         Estimation of risks and mortality from vessel strikes;

                 iii.         Consideration of methods for assessment of vessel strike risks and identification of high-risk areas;

                 iv.         Evaluate methods and options to mitigate risk of vessel strikes, with a focus on identified high risk areas.

9.8 Environmental concerns

The Subcommittee on Environmental concerns (E) focuses on a wide range of topics, including:

(1) chemical pollution;

(2) diseases of concern, including harmful algal blooms;

(3) strandings and mortality events;

(4) climate change;

(5) underwater noise;

(6) marine debris;

(7) habitat alteration, including deep-sea mining; and

(8) cumulative impacts.

9.9 Ecosystem modelling

The Subcommittee on Ecosystem Modelling (EM) covers topics including:

(1) co-operation with the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR);

(2) the role of cetaceans in the ecosystem and ecosystem services;

(3) several issues relevant to ecosystem modelling, including ensemble averaging, effects of long-term environmental variability, Individual-based energetic models, Multispecies Distribution Models and aspects of ecosystem services;

(4) relevant aspects of Special Permits programmes;

(5) review of ecosystem modelling developments outside the IWC.

9.10 Small cetaceans

The Subcommittee on Small Cetaceans (SM) covers a wide range of topics. These are usually the following:

(1) a focus on the priority small cetacean species/stock/topic;

(2) update on the Voluntary Fund for Small Cetacean Conservation Research;

(3) review progress on previous recommendations where new information is available (some species may be periodically considered);

(4) review takes of small cetaceans;

(5) update on progress made on the topic of ‘poorly documented hunts of small cetaceans for food, bait or cash.’

9.11 Whale watching

The Subcommittee on Whale Watching (WW) focuses on scientific aspects of whale watching especially:

(1) the impact of whale watching on cetaceans (Modelling and Assessment of Whale watching Impact, MAWI);

(2) data collection and analytical techniques including use of platform of opportunity data;

(3) emerging concerns;

(4) in joint work with Conservation Committee it also oversees the promotion, and updating of the Whale Watching General Principles and Guidelines.  Whale Watching General principles and guidelines).

9.12 Sanctuaries

The SC also has a Working Group on Sanctuaries (SAN) that, when necessary, carries out:

(1) reviews of existing IWC Sanctuaries;

(2) reviews of any new Sanctuary proposals;

(3) responses to requests from the Commission on scientific aspects of sanctuaries.

9.13 IWC databases and catalogues

The Working Groups on Global Databases (GDR) and Photo-identification (PH) supports the SC’s work related to the management of data and catalogues.  The IWC is increasingly acting as a repository of data (including genetic samples currently stored at the US NOAA’s Southwest Fisheries Science Center, La Jolla, California). These databases and archives include the catch database, the global ship-strikes database and a number of photo-id and sightings databases.

Under this topic the SC addresses common guidelines and principles for IWC databases including data availability, database design issues and the provision of a summary of holdings.

The PH Subcommittee also supports the SC’s population assessments through photo-ID databases (catalogues of cetacean photo-identifications and associated geographical and biological data, including genetic data when applicable and appropriate), including:  

(1) develops guidelines for catalogues contributing photo-ID data to IWC assessments and/or that are IWC funding recipients (Annex 1: Chapter 3.3);

(2) supports the collaboration of photo-ID catalogues in order to integrate databases as an underpinning of cetacean population assessments.

(3) reviews developments in emerging technologies that improve the archiving and analysis of photo-ID data.

10. LIST OF WEB PAGES AND PORTALS LINKED TO THE SC HANDBOOK [TO BE COMPLETED] 

• Venues and dates of all previous meetings
• Intersessional correspondence groups 
• Abundance summary table
•  Biennial report on agreed abundance estimates including a basin wide summary
• Meetings’ portal 
•  SORP  and http://www.marinemammals.gov.au/sorp
• WW portal

11. CONSOLIDATED COMPILATION OF SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE RULES OF PROCEDURE, WORKING METHODS, GUIDELINES AND PROTOCOLS: ANNEX 1

In 2018, the Committee introduced the use of a consolidated compilation of Committees’ Rules of Procedure, details on working methods, guidelines and protocols (e.g. ‘Annex P’, ‘Requirements and Guidelines for Implementations under the Revised Management Procedure’, ‘Data Availability Guidelines’, ‘Guidelines for DNA data quality control for genetic studies relevant to IWC’) to allow this material to be easily accessible and reference all updates throughout time.

Annex 1 contains the following documents already agreed by the Scientific Committee and endorsed by the Commission:

1) Rules of Procedure of the Commission, Financial Regulations and Rules of Procedure of the Scientific Committee;

2) Requirements and Guidelines for Implementations under the Revised Management Procedure (RMP);

3) Requirements and Guidelines for Conducting Surveys and Analysing Data within the Revised Management Scheme

4) Draft Guidelines for Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling Management Procedure Implementation Reviews

5) The Revised Management Procedure (RMP) for Baleen Whales

6) Guidelines for DNA data quality control for genetic studies relevant to IWC

7) Data Availability Guidelines

8) Protocol for access to samples/data from the Institute of Cetacean Research (ICR)

9) Protocol for access to samples/data from the Cetacean Research Center (CRC), National Fisheries Research and Development Institute

10) Protocol for access to data from the University of Auckland under Procedure B for the In-Depth Assessment of Western North Pacific common Minke whales

11) Protocol for access to samples/data from the National Research Institute of Far Seas Fisheries (NRIFSF), Fisheries Research Agency, Japan, for data availability

12) Southern Ocean Research Partnership (SORP): Data availability protocol

13) Southern Hemisphere Blue Whale Catalogue Terms of Reference and Sharing Agreement

14) Procedure to consider applications for the use of acoustic data, tissue samples or photo-identification photographs

15) Template for Research Proposal: Request for use of: (1) IWC IDCR/SOWER; and/or (2) IWC-POWER samples/data

16) DNA registries template

17) IWC Guidelines for Photo-Identification Catalogues

18) Southern Hemisphere Blue Whale Catalogue - Terms of Reference and Sharing Agreement

19) Process for the Review of Special Permit Proposals and Research Results from Existing and Completed Permits

20) Annex S. Trial Approach to Improve the Scientific Committee’s Process for Developing a Consensus Budget Recommendation to the Commission. (J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 16 (suppl.), 2015)

21) Annex S. Improving the Committee Budget Review Process: Proposal for a Revised Method of Defining and Adopting the Budget and Implications for the Working Methods (J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 17 (suppl.), 2016)

22) Annex V. Matters Related to Working Methods (J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 19 (suppl.), 2018)

23) Annex R. Proposed Funding Mechanism for Allocation of IWC SORP Funds (J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 12 (suppl.), 2011)

24) Annex W. Update to the Funding Mechanism for Allocation of Funds from the IWC-SORP Research Fund (J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 18 (suppl.), 2017)

25) Annex R. Ad hoc Working Group on IWC Global Data Repositories and National Reports (GDR) (J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 19 (suppl.), 2018)

26) Technical guidelines on new proposals for Data bases

27) Informal guidelines for Rapporteurs and sub-groups’ chairs, including templates

28) Guidelines on logistic arrangements for Invited Participants’ attendance at Scientific Committee meetings

29) IWC policy for paying travel for Invited Participant.