(from "Chairman's Report of the Fifty-Second Annual Meeting")
Japan believed that its programme is important for the management of whales but also important in that it will address issues such as pollution and consumption of marine resources by cetaceans. It commented that the question of cetacean-fishery interactions has become a major issue throughout the world. Given some estimates that cetaceans may consume 3-6 times the amount of marine resources harvested for human consumption, it is an important issue in the context of food security. Japan noted declining catches in some of its own fisheries and that its research had shown that minke whales are eating commercially important fish species. It considered that this issue must be addressed from a scientific perspective without delay. Japan stressed that its whale research programmes: (1) are providing valuable information and addressing important resource management issues; (2) are legal under Article VIII of the Convention; and (3) pose no risks to the whale populations.
Dr Kawahara, Director for the Far Seas Laboratory, stated that the overall objective of JARPN II is to try to contribute to the conservation of the marine resources (including whale stocks) to enable sustainable use in the 200 mile EEZ of Japanese waters, especially in the western North Pacific. JARPN II has three objectives: (1) to study feeding ecology (highest priority), including prey consumption by cetaceans and prey preference; (2) to elucidate stock structure of minke, Bryde's and sperm whales; and (3) to monitor the impact of pollutants such as POPs and heavy metals on cetaceans and the marine ecosystem. Dr Kawahara gave further details on how the objectives were to be achieved (see Section 13.1.2.2).
13.1.2 Report of the Scientific Committee
The Chair of the Scientific Committee began by
summarising the outcome of the February 2000 Scientific
Committee workshop to review methods, results, and
success in meeting its objectives of the JARPN research
programme between 1994 and 1999. She then reported on
the outcome of the Scientific Committee's review of the
proposals in JARPN II.
13.1.2.1 OUTCOME OF THE JARPN REVIEW MEETING
The main objectives of JARPN were to determine: (1)
whether or not the hypothesised 'W' minke whale stock
exists and if so to estimate mixing rates between the 'O' and
'W' stocks; and (2) the feeding ecology of minke whales in
the North Pacific. In 1999, the sub-objective to estimate the
mixing rate between the 'J' and 'O' stocks was added.
Regarding the existence of the 'W' stock, revised DNA analyses carried out during the workshop gave a significant effect between sub-areas 7 and 8 on the one hand, and sub-area 9 on the other when commercial data were excluded, and a small but not significant effect when commercial data were included. The workshop agreed that this should be examined further. It also agreed that the possible existence of a group of minke whales to the east of Japan that differed from the 'O' stock could not be ruled out, but that the data nevertheless provided a basis to restrict the number of 'W' stock hypotheses that need to be considered in the RMP trials. The workshop also reviewed results from a number of other data types with respect to stock structure. In summary, the workshop noted that some of the difficulties experienced in discussing stock structure arose from lack of clarity in the Committee as to what constitutes a stock.
Regarding mixing rates between the 'O' and 'W' stocks, the workshop agreed that it would be premature to draw conclusions on the extent of the possible presence of 'W' stock animals west of sub-area 9, prior to completion of further analyses. It also agreed that if there was a 'W' stock, there had also to be a non-negligible level of dispersal between this and the 'O' stock. Regarding mixing rates between the 'J' and 'O' stock, the workshop reviewed estimates of the proportion of 'J' stock animals in sub-area 11 by month and sex, based on data from JARPN surveys and past Korean and Japanese coastal operations. The workshop recommended that the sensitivity of these results to the omission of samples for the west of sub-area 9 in 1995 be checked as it may contain some 'W' stock animals.
The workshop noted that the discussions and decisions on mixing rates were relevant to Implementation Simulation Trials. However, a key aspect in the trials, not covered by those discussions, is the variety of assumptions about the proportion of animals in sub-area 12 (the Okhotsk Sea) that may originate from the hypothesised 'W' stock since there are no data available from JARPN for this sub-area. The workshop therefore recommended that further genetic samples from sub-areas 12 and 9, and possibly from 8, be obtained to help discriminate among alternative 'W' stock hypotheses.
Since the focus of the JARPN review meeting was on the stock structure work, the results from work on feeding ecology were considered only briefly. The workshop noted that the consumption calculations were performed only for August and September. It was also noted that with the sampling design used in JARPN so far it was not possible to (1) obtain a quantitative measure of temporal and geographical changes in minke whale diets, or (2) to perform extrapolations to calculate the annual consumption of the entire population found in the research areas. The workshop agreed that if surveys are to be performed in future, the sampling design should permit such calculations. However, it was noted that the feeding ecology investigations under JARPN were only a feasibility study and that the primary objective of JARPN had been to obtain data necessary to address questions related to stock identity implying a sampling design less than optimal for the ecological studies. The latter were conducted using well-established and appropriate methods, and the workshop considered the study to be successful within those limitations.
In future studies, in addition to improving the sampling design to enable a more quantitative estimation of temporal and geographical variation in diet, the workshop also agreed that it is necessary to obtain an improved understanding of the distribution and abundance of relevant prey species to better understand the dynamics of minke whale food choice and consumption. It therefore recommended that acoustic and trawl surveys, designed to address such questions, should be conducted concurrently with future whale surveys, if possible.
The workshop noted that under Resolution 1999-2 on special permits for scientific research, the Scientific Committee had been asked to advise the Commission on whether the information sought in research programmes under Special Permit was: (a) required for management; and (b) could be obtained by non-lethal means. The workshop did not have a long discussion on this item as the Chair of the Scientific Committee had advised that full discussions should be held in the Committee rather than in the workshop. In fact only item (a) was addressed, the outcome being that information obtained during JARPN had been and will continue to be used to refine Implementation Simulation Trials for North Pacific minke whales and was consequently relevant to their management.
Two further recommendations were made by the workshop: (1) that research be undertaken to find the breeding grounds, recognising that the most definitive stock structure data will come from such grounds; and (2) that the age-composition data collected during JARPN be analysed further to provide information for use in conditioning Implementation Simulation Trials.
The Chair of the Scientific Committee reported that the Committee had endorsed the workshop recommendations and that some of the matters dealt with at the workshop had been further considered during the Committee meeting and used in re-specifying trials. Regarding the question on non-lethal research from Resolution 1999-2, the Scientific Committee referred to all its previous discussions on the subject and noted that there was no consensus.
13.1.2.2 REVIEW OF JARPN II PROPOSAL
The Chair of the Scientific Committee explained that the
major discussion on components of the JARPN II proposal
related to the stock identity of minke and Bryde's whales
took place in the Sub-Committee on the RMP, while that
related to pollutants took place in the Standing Working
Group on Environmental concerns. Given the extent of the
proposal and the overall workload of the Committee, the
Chair explained that she had encouraged participants to
submit working papers with questions and comments on the
proposal. These working papers are included as an Annex to
the Scientific Committee's report.
The Chair drew the Commission's attention to the fact that there had been insufficient time to fully discuss each of the questions or comments made to the proposers of the proposal or to the responses they received. The authors of the questions to the proposers, while appreciative of the effort made to answer their points, indicated that the replies received did not fully satisfy all their concerns even though considerable time was spent addressing some of the questions raised. The proposers indicated at the end of the discussion that they had tried to respond to the questions in detail and that they were willing to respond to further comments and questions after the Scientific Committee meeting. A short summary of the proposal, its objectives and its methodology is given below together with the comments and discussion of the Scientific Committee. In reviewing the JARPN II proposal, the Scientific Committee took account of the Commission's guidelines on reviewing scientific permits.
THE PROPOSAL
The overall goal of the research is to contribute to the
conservation and sustainable use of marine living resources
including whales in the western North Pacific, especially
within Japan's EEZ. For the overall goal, it is important to
gather the information on resources and to merge it as a
whole ecosystem. In this research special attention will be
paid to the ecosystem surrounding cetaceans, and the data
and materials related to cetaceans, prey species and
oceanographic conditions will be collected. The sub-projects
are: feeding ecology (including prey consumption and
preferences of cetaceans and ecosystem modelling); stock
structure; environmental effects on cetaceans and the marine
ecosystem.
Numbers of animals and their management stocks are specified in the proposal. A total of 100 minke whales (effectively 'O' Stock and putative 'W' Stock), 50 Bryde's whales (Western North Pacific Stock) and 10 sperm whales (Western Division) will be sampled in each year. Random sampling will be carried out and thus the sex and length of the catch cannot be specified.
Comments and discussion
Some questions were raised about the more detailed
objectives of the sub-projects. In particular the proponents
clarified that the overall hypothesis to be tested is:
Top predators influence the dynamics of prey species which are the target of commercial fisheries and competition exists between top predators and fisheries.
However, they stressed that this is intended to be a feasibility study and that more detailed hypotheses corresponding to each component will be developed later. Some members thought that the proposal was too poorly developed and narrow to distinguish among the effects of such factors as fishing, predation and climate change such as the recent 'regime shift'. Others stressed that the main purpose of a feasibility study is to improve methodology, and that from such a perspective, the proposal is reasonably balanced between detailed hypotheses and established methodology on one side and more open ideas on the other.
OBJECTIVES
The proposal states that the primary objective of the
programme is broader than the IWC's remit. It considered
this to be a critically important research need. However it
identifies some aspects of the programme that address
research needs identified by the Committee, some of which
are directly relevant to management. These include:
Comments and discussion
There were some concerns expressed that the estimation of
sample sizes was inadequate in certain cases, notably with
respect to all aspects of the sperm whale component and
aspects of the pollution and stock structure components. In
response, the proposers stated that this was intended to be a
feasibility study, particularly in the case of the sperm whale
component. Sample sizes for some aspects of the programme
would be modified in the light of the results obtained.
Some members expressed concern that most of the objectives of the programme did not address questions of high priority for the rational management of the stocks concerned and would not contribute significantly to research needs identified by the Committee - the Bryde's whale samples do not relate to Implementation Simulation Trials. They particularly doubted the value of the sperm whale component that they believed would not provide any useful results for any of the three sub-objectives. In response the proposers stated that for all three objectives the study could obtain useful information to formulate a full-scale study especially of feeding ecology as the sperm whale plays an important role in the ecosystem.
Some other members strongly believed that the proposal does not directly address any of the five guidelines above. They recognised that the primary objective of the proposal that pertained to top predators was scientific in nature, but believed that none of the objectives or sub-objectives were necessary for the management of any of the large whale species being killed.
Other members drew attention to the ambitious nature of the programme and drew parallels with the feeding ecology programme carried out by Norway, which also began with a feasibility study and has now made a valuable contribution towards multispecies modelling and management. They also noted the need to determine the impact of cetaceans on fish stocks as a matter of some urgency. Thus in addition to the information on North Pacific minke whale stock structure relevant to Implementation Simulation Trials, they believed that it represented an attempt to address a critically important research need.
METHODOLOGY
Random sampling is to be employed for stock structure. The
feeding ecology project will follow the protocols established
in the Norwegian research programme regarding number,
weight and size of prey. There will be concurrent prey
surveys conducted in the area using echo integrators,
mid-water trawls, driftnets and jigs. Prey consumption will
be measured indirectly (based on standard metabolism) and
directly (temporal changes in stomach contents per day).
Prey preference studies will mirror those used in the
Norwegian surveys.
The stock structure sub-project will employ a number of genetic and non-genetic techniques (as did JARPN). Final choice of sampling area will depend on whether permission is obtained to enter the Russian EEZ. Pollutant studies will be carried out by examining samples from each whale caught, from stomach contents and trawls and from lower trophic levels, air and seawater. A variety of chemicals will be measured, largely organochlorines and heavy metals. The health condition of the animals will be examined by external and internal examination and chemical tests/measures of sex hormones, enzyme induction, immune system etc.
Oceanographic observations will be made using XCTD, CTD, EPCS and echo sounders. This and satellite information will be used in the feeding ecology and environmental studies.
The proposal also considers the question of the use of non-lethal methods. For the feeding ecology project, the existing commercial data are not appropriate because only some qualitative and rough quantitative records are available.
Comments and discussion
There was considerable discussion ofmethodological issues.
These can be roughly grouped under two headings: (1) is the
methodology described likely to meet the programme's
objectives; and (2) can the research be carried out using
non-lethal methods? After the initial presentation of the
proposal, some concerns were expressed that insufficient
methodological detail was given to allow proper evaluation
of parts of the proposal. Further details were provided in
some of the Annexes (see below).
Several members discussed the value of simultaneous prey sampling. As one example of the methodological problems, some members stressed that the methodology does not exist to sample quantitatively the range of cephalopod species consumed by sperm whales. Given this, they asserted that there was no scientific rationale for the inclusion of sperm whales in JARPN II. In response, the proposers noted that deep-sea squid may be caught using driftnets at night or mid-water trawls for quantitative analysis. There was no time for further discussion of this and no agreement was reached.
Some members commented that with the sample size and methods proposed, it was unlikely that several of the objectives of the programme would be met. In particular they believed that the sperm whale component would provide little information and that at least should be dropped from the proposal. Concern was also expressed that the ecosystem modelling approach was poorly developed. They also noted that the likely precision of any fisheries information (both past data and future) was poor and that this would be a key component of any modelling exercise. Given their concerns they believed that the research programme was premature and that it be reconsidered by Japan following the FAO and IWC workshops on related matters. Until that time at least, they believed that the study should not proceed.
The proposers stated that Japan was willing to review the results of the meetings of FAO and others and incorporate useful information into JARPN II in order to improve the programme. However, Japan could not agree with the view that these meetings are a prerequisite for initiating the research.
Other members stated that this was a feasibility study and that one of the aims was to investigate the methodology. They referred to the success of the earlier Norwegian programme. They felt that the sperm whale component was important in the context of trophic levels. Although there are not decades of abundance data for fish (the TAC management approach was only adopted in 1997) as is the case in Norway, there are substantial relative abundance data. Several Japanese Fisheries Agency research cruises would also be cooperating and providing abundance data for several fish species. Model development is at an early stage, but they believed that the combination of ECOSIM and MULTSPEC had the potential to address fundamentally important questions and the approach would be developed on a step-by-step basis. All aspects of the programme would improve as data became available.
With respect to the use of non-lethal means, some members believed that insufficient use had been made of presently existing samples and data, noting, for example the suitability of frozen samples for genetic analysis. They also noted that techniques now existed to address many questions related to feeding, stock structure and pollution through biopsy samples and such techniques were rapidly evolving. Other members noted that detailed information on these items can not be obtained from biopsy samples. They also commented on the difficulties in obtaining biopsy samples and thus the need for lethal sampling. There was no time for further discussion of this item, and, as in previous discussions within the Committee on this, no consensus was reached.
EFFECT OF CATCHES ON THE STOCK
The effect of catches on the stock was assessed using the
standard HITTER method and a variety of stock structure
hypotheses based on the results of the JARPN surveys and
assuming a catch of 100 minke whales. From the results of
HITTER calculation, the proponents concluded that the
effect on the minke whale stock is negligible.
The 50 Bryde's whales will be sampled from the western North Pacific Stock. It is unlikely that Bryde's whales from other stocks will be taken. Two stock scenarios were used: whole area and sub-area 1 according to the recent Implementation Simulation Trials. From the results of the HITTER calculation, the proponents concluded that effect on the Bryde's whale stock is negligible.
Sperm whales will be sampled from the Western Division. While no calculation was made for the sperm whales, the sample size is so small that the proponents believed it was clearly below the critical level to affect the stock.
Comment and discussion
Some members commented that the values chosen for the
HITTER method for the minke whale case were insufficient
to adequately address the effect of the catches on the stock.
They also questioned the criterion used to define
'negligible.' Other members believed that the approach
taken used the best data available and the conclusion was
valid. The Committee noted that the calculations were based
on the assumption that catches continue for only two
years.
RESEARCH COOPERATION
The proposal stated that participation of foreign scientists,
especially those from neighbouring countries, is welcome,
insofar as their qualifications meet the requirements set by
the Government of Japan. These requirements are the same
as those for JARPN.
Comments and discussion
As it had for JARPN, the Committee agreed that this
guideline had been met.
13.1.3 Commission discussions
In the Commission, discussions focused on the JARPN II
proposal. Italy commented that JARPN II had no
relationship to the IWC Pollution 2000+ that has been
developed over a number of years, and noted that this remark
was also made in the Scientific Committee. Italy further
mentioned that three of its scientists (experts in pollution and
biopsy work) had developed a working paper that was not
discussed, but tabled alongside a response from the
Government of Japan, and it questioned why non-lethal
approaches were not properly discussed. The Commission
has repeatedly advocated such approaches, and once again,
Japan has refused to acknowledge their usefulness.
The Netherlands commented, as they had on previous occasions, that in its view, the granting of Special Permits for research involving the killing of cetaceans should be limited to exceptional circumstances where the research addresses critically important research needs for the management of whaling, and where alternative sources of data are not available and non-lethal research methods cannot be used. It regretted that in spite of various IWC Resolutions affirming that the current lethal research programmes of Japan do not address critically important research needs, Japan continues to grant permits under these programmes and to allow the meat and other products of the catch to be traded commercially. The Netherlands added that it is particularly concerned about the proposed extension of the North Pacific research programme by an annual catch of 50 Bryde's whales and 10 sperm whales. This would be the first time that these species were hunted since the moratorium took effect in 1986, and will be widely regarded by the outside world as a new threat to these depleted species. The Netherlands added that it also has misgivings about the scientific merits of the proposed JARPN II. Firstly it considers it highly unlikely that the objectives will be achieved with the programme size and methodology proposed - particularly for the Bryde's whale and sperm whale components. Secondly, The Netherlands considers that the pollution component will not allow adequate monitoring of pollution trends for temporal or spatial variation, and so will not contribute to the overall objective of ecosystem monitoring.
Monaco associated itself with Italy and with the Netherlands. In addition, Monaco, referring to papers tabled but not discussed by the Scientific Committee, commented that it has serious doubts about the internal procedures of the Committee as far as allowing flow of information during its meetings and asked its Chair to comment on the basis for the decisions she must have made.
The Chair responded that there was no censoring of papers, and certainly no censoring of discussions on the lethal versus the non-lethal issue, which has been discussed many times by the Committee.
New Zealand associated itself with the comments of Italy, the Netherlands and Monaco and remarked on the use by Japan of comments taken out of context to provide a misleading impression of the view of the Scientific Committee. In stressing its concerns about the JARPN II proposal, New Zealand focused on three aspects. Firstly, that the primary objective of JARPN II is more concerned with feeding ecology than with management issues of vital importance in the Comprehensive Assessment. Secondly, historical samples from previous commercial whaling operations are not being used in JARPN II allegedly because fresh samples are used (although historical frozen samples have been used successfully by a Swedish scientist). And thirdly, non-lethal sampling of Bryde's and minke whales may provide the best information on stock structure. New Zealand therefore strongly urged Japan to take account of all comments made by the Scientific Committee and the opposition expressed by Commissioners and the public around the world, to reconsider the JARPN II proposal and to withdraw all elements of lethal research from the programme.
Norway recalled that similar comments had been made in 1988 when Norway presented similar plans for a feasibility study of the feeding ecology of minke whales in the Barents Sea and the North Atlantic, and then three years later submitted plans for a full-scale 3 year research programme. On both occasions Norway was criticised (the plans were immature, there was a lack of methodology, etc.), but 13 years later, the criticisms have been proved wrong. The research is not yet finished, but Norway reported that in collaboration with Iceland, valuable contributions are being made to multi-species modelling and management of fish stocks and marine mammals in the North Atlantic, and are of great interest to fishery scientists. Norway thought it important that another country with extensive research facilities such as Japan enter this important field, and it looked forward to close cooperation with Japan. It felt sure that Norway and Japan would supply the world with critically important research needs for the future management of marine living resources.
The People's Republic of China, speaking as a coastal country in the area of the North Pacific Ocean, referred again to its concern regarding competition between cetaceans and fisheries, and supported the Japanese proposal. St Lucia referred to the right under the Convention for Japan to perform this research, noted the concern of FAO regarding declining fish catches and St Lucia's concern with food security, and also supported Japan's proposals.
In response to the criticisms it received, Japan commented that it had provided information on why the use of non-lethal methods alone would not meet the programme's objectives, and referred to poor success rates for biopsy sampling of Bryde's whales in the North Pacific. Higher success rates would be expected with humpback whales since they tend to move more slowly. Referring to the analysis of historical samples, Japan noted that it had supplied Sweden with the samples, appreciated that it could be analysed, but added that in the new proposal, sampling would be done within the EEZ of Japan for which historical samples are not available. Regarding comments that responses to questions raised about the JARPN II proposal were inadequate and that insufficient time had been spent on the issue, Japan noted that the Scientific Committee had spent nine hours discussing the proposal. Finally, Japan as an archipelago island country, referred to its dependence on fish and cetaceans, its concerns for food security and that it wanted to be able to continue to benefit from the ocean.
13.1.4 Action arising
The Commission noted the report of the Scientific
Committee.
RESOLUTION ON WHALING UNDER SPECIAL PERMIT IN THE NORTH
PACIFIC OCEAN
The UK introduced a Resolution on behalf of the other
co-sponsors (Australia, Austria, Brazil, Germany, Italy,
Monaco, the Netherlands, New Zealand and the USA),
strongly urging Japan to refrain from issuing Special Permits
for whaling in the North Pacific Ocean under JARPN II. It
associated itself with others who had expressed serious
concerns about the proposal. It considered that the impact of
whales on fisheries was negligible compared to the
numerous human-induced problems including increased
fishing effort and overfishing, improved technology, poor
enforcement, pollution, global warming, etc. The UK had
political as well as scientific concerns over the proposal, and
with other countries had raised these with the Japanese
government. It noted that most members of the IWC are
opposed to whaling under Special Permit, and considered
that only in exceptional circumstances can scientific
research justify the killing of whales; studying cetacean-prey
interactions is not such an exception. The UK believed that
including Bryde's and sperm whales represented a major
extension of pelagic factory ship whaling. It believed that if
commercial factory ship whaling ever resumed,
management would not be able to withstand commercial
pressures to maintain returns on investment. The UK was
concerned that the proposal represented not just a feasibility
study for a research programme, but also a feasibility study
for the resumption of full-scale pelagic whaling. It hoped
these particular concerns were unfounded and that Japan
would decide not to proceed with JARPN II.
The USA expressed its grave concerns about the JARPN II proposal and the future direction this implied. It took major exception to the proposed expansion of lethal scientific whaling to Bryde's and sperm whales, and continues to have serious concerns about the minke whale component that it believes is not providing useful information to the Scientific Committee. The USA noted that the distribution of whale products on the market in Japan maintains consumer demand.
Australia strongly endorsed the comments of the UK and USA and spoke about recent developments in international law that raise the possibility that Japan might not be acting within its legal rights when issuing scientific permits. These reservations are based on the proposition that the rights set out in Article VIII are not unfettered and that they are qualified by the well-recognised international legal doctrine known as abusive rights. Australia reported that this doctrine has been adopted by the 1982 Convention on Law of the Sea, quoted a number of cases where it had been referred to by international courts and mentioned a recent decision (involving this concept) by WTO's appellate body on the shrimp-turtle case. Monaco and Sweden also expressed concern about the Japanese proposal and expansion to other species.
Norway did not support the Resolution and considered it inappropriate under the Convention.
Japan considered that countries against the proposal may not understand it sufficiently to refute its scientific premise: it believed that this type of research is needed to manage stocks sustainably. It also recalled that Article VIII states that whales taken under special permits shall be processed. It noted that many countries were promoting non-lethal research and invited them to develop and implement such programmes themselves. It further believed that the moratorium and the Southern Ocean Sanctuary were without scientific basis and thus are in contravention of the Convention and that the targets of any criticism should be those countries that are putting such proposals in place. If any countries wanted to take up matters legally, then they should do so. Japan has considerable experience in dealing with legal issues.
Antigua and Barbuda congratulated Japan on its detailed explanation of its research plans. As a coastal state, Antigua and Barbuda considered itself a vanguard with regard to the Law of the Sea Convention, and that it is committed to upholding the provisions of that Convention in which the undertaking of marine research is one of the most important pillars. Antigua and Barbuda spoke about the way in which it believes the Scientific Committee to be restricted (e.g. in the type of discussions it can have, in the type of judgements it can make), and that it is time for it to be allowed to inform the Commission properly about the use and value of scientific research proposals. It urged members not to take its grievances outside the organisation but rather to solve the problems internally through collaboration and in the spirit of compromise.
On proceeding to a vote, there were 19 votes in favour of the Resolution, 12 against, with two abstentions. The Resolution was therefore adopted (Resolution 2000-5, Appendix 1). South Africa noted that it prefers to be guided by the Scientific Committee and sincerely regretted that on this occasion, the Scientific Committee had not provided clear guidance. Oman was of the same opinion.
The Chair of the Scientific Committee indicated that she was disturbed by the way the Scientific Committee's deliberations were misrepresented in the discussions on JARPN II by some delegations. The Scientific Committee neither endorsed nor rejected Japan's research proposal. Its role is to provide constructive criticism and report all views to the Commission.
13.2 Southern Hemisphere minke whales
13.2.1 Report of the Scientific Committee
The Scientific Committee has, for some years, had a general
problem with giving quantitative advice on the effect on
stocks of scientific permit catches. Discussion this year had
focused on two approaches, one based on RMP-like
simulations, the other on simulations using the
HITTER-FITTER or BALEEN II program. When
considering the effect of scientific permit catches on stocks,
the Committee agreed that as a general principle it would
examine the effects of proposed catches assuming they were
ongoing, as well as for a shorter period, even if the proposal
was initially presented as a feasibility study.
The Scientific Committee had reviewed results from the JARPA research programme. The programme is ongoing, and in addition to information obtained from catches, sightings data, biopsy data from humpback, blue and right whales and photo-identification data are collected. The Committee also reviewed the JARPA survey plan for the 2000/2001 season and noted that the objectives, survey items and methods are the same as for previous years. The survey will focus on the issue of stock distribution in Area V and the western half of Area VI. Progress on JARPA tasks and other studies using JARPA samples were presented in a number of papers. The sample size is 300 animals in Area V and 100 animals in Area VI.
This is an ongoing research permit and a major review was carried out in 1997. The Scientific Committee drew attention to its previous considerations. There was some discussion this year over the suitability of the sample size including the effect of multi-year sampling and the need to sample outside the original Areas proposed. The Committee reached no consensus on whether the information could be obtained by non-lethal means.
The Committee agreed to carry out some simple intersessional work to begin to address quantitatively the effect of the permit catches on the stock. The Chair emphasised that this would be a small study, but that it may provide more quantitative advice for the Commission. She added that it was thought important to do this work in view of concern about possible declines suggested by the third circumpolar survey.
13.2.2. Commission discussions and action arising
The Commission noted the report of the Scientific
Committee.
Japan expressed appreciation to the Scientific Committee for its hard work. Japan reported that despite a fire on board one of the vessels during the last survey, new information had still been obtained. It had submitted numerous papers to the Scientific Committee regarding minke whale stock structure (one of the main objectives of the work). It had also provided information on an increasing trend in humpback whales and of the possible relationship between whale and krill distribution. Japan sought support for the implementation of its research.
RESOLUTION ON WHALING UNDER SPECIAL PERMIT IN THE
SOUTHERN OCEAN SANCTUARY
New Zealand introduced a Resolution on behalf of 12 other
co-sponsors that requested the Government of Japan to
refrain from issuing any Special Permits for the
2000/2001 season for the take of minke whales in the
Southern Ocean Sanctuary. It referred to IWC discussions in
1964, when the Infractions Sub-Committee as well as the
Scientific Committee directed attention towards Article VIII
of the Convention. Returning to the situation today, New
Zealand recalled that each year, by a substantial majority, the
Commission calls for an end to Japan's continued whaling
under Special Permit in the JARPA programme. It noted that
some of this whaling takes place in Antarctic areas claimed
by New Zealand and Australia, a fact that both countries
condemn, but above all that the whaling occurs in the
Southern Ocean Sanctuary, in which 440 minke whales are
killed each year - a total of 5,000 animals being taken for
research that the Scientific Committee has found not
required for management purposes. New Zealand stressed its
view that there are adequate non-lethal techniques that could
be used and referred to strong ethical research codes in both
New Zealand and Japan that would have problems with such
a programme of research. Finally, New Zealand reminded
the meeting that there is now no accepted abundance
estimate for Southern Hemisphere minke whales and that it
is thus not possible to estimate the impact of the removals
from this stock.
Australia fully endorsed New Zealand's remarks. It stressed that legal issues it raised under the JARPN II discussions are pertinent also to this discussion (see Section 13.1.4). Australia referred to claims by some IWC members that at the recent CITES Conference of Parties, world opinion was supportive of a resumption of commercial whaling. For the record, Australia noted that at the CITES meeting, five votes were taken on proposals to reduce the level of protection for whale species. Two received more than 50 votes, with one of them achieving a majority (53 in favour, 52 against), but a lower majority than an equivalent proposal had achieved at the previous Conference of Parties - hardly convincing evidence that world opinion was in favour of a resumption in whaling. Australia added that none of Japan's proposals obtained 50 votes or a majority, and that in relation to the Southern Hemisphere minke whale proposal, the vote was 46 in favour and 61 opposing, clearly indicating that world opinion does not support whaling in the Southern Ocean Sanctuary.
Sweden, the Netherlands, the USA, France and the UK associated themselves with the views expressed by New Zealand and Australia. Sweden, France and Germany wished to co-sponsor the proposal. Brazil considered that Japan's scientific permit whaling weakens further the possibility for dialogue within the Commission and damages the credibility of the IWC. South Africa stated that it firmly believes in the integrity of the Southern Ocean Sanctuary.
St Vincent and The Grenadines did not support the proposed Resolution and commented on two factual errors. Firstly, regarding Southern Hemisphere minke whale abundance estimates, it recalled that the Scientific Committee had concluded on this issue, i.e. that 'without calculation of confidence limits for the crude point estimate, it was not possible to conclude whether the appreciable difference noted was statistically significant'. Secondly, it noted that there is only one species of minke whale of importance to the JARPA programme, and therefore the third paragraph of the Resolution noting that two species should be listed in the Schedule is irrelevant. Norway also opposed the Resolution.
In response to a number of comments, Japan indicated that it does not accept New Zealand's claim for territorial waters within the Antarctic and that a take of 440 minke whales is negligible.
On being put to a vote, there were 20 votes in favour of the Resolution, 10 against and three abstentions. The Resolution was therefore adopted and is given as Resolution 2000-4 in Appendix 1.
_