(from "Chair's Report of the Fifty-Third Annual Meeting")

In his report to the Commission, Prof. Briand first noted the criticism made by Japan, and supported by Norway, of his ruling at last year's Working Group meeting over the inclusion of certain documents concerning small cetaceans as being inappropriate and misguided. He reported that Japan indicated that it would object to the current Chair being reappointed next year and referred delegates to the official record of last year's Working Group meeting for a full and accurate account of his ruling. He noted the expressions of confidence in his Chairmanship from the UK, Germany, New Zealand and Denmark. Prof. Briand then went on to summarise the Working Group's discussions as provided below.

5.1.1 Data on whales killed
Information had been provided by Denmark, Norway and Japan to meet the requirements of Resolution 1999-1 encouraging countries to report on the numbers of whales killed by various methods, the number and proportion killed instantaneously, etc.. Denmark had provided detailed information on: (1) the 2000 Greenland hunt of minke whales, with statistics being provided on most parameters; and (2) its collaboration with Norway on the introduction and training in the use of the new penthrite grenade harpoons in the minke and fin whale hunts.

Reporting on its 2000 traditional minke whale hunt using harpoon guns with the new Whalegrenade-99 penthrite grenade, Norway had (1) provided the required data on whales killed and (2) noted that the results showed that all signs of life had ceased instantaneously in 78.2% of animals, and that the average time from the shot until all signs of life had ceased was 136 seconds. No whales were reported to have escaped wounded.

The Working Group had noted Japan's remark that it would participate in the Working Group and provide data from the Japanese Whale Research Program under Special Permit in the Antarctic (JARPA) strictly on a voluntary basis since it considered the issues covered by the Group to be outside IWC's terms of reference and that gathering data on whales killed as part of JARPA fell outside the competence of the Working Group. Japan had provided brief statistics on TTD (time to death) in the Antarctic Area V and western part of Area VI, indicating improvements on TTD in the 2000/2001 hunt compared with the 1998/1999 season. In the 2000/2001 JARPA, Japan had used a number of Norwegian new grenades for the first time and had begun comparative tests with its own grenades. Italy and the UK had (1) expressed disappointment regarding the absence of critical statistical parameters such as variance, and (2) asked if Japan knew why only 36% of the whales were killed instantaneously compared to 78% in the Norwegian hunt. New Zealand enquired as to why mean TTD in 2000/2001 JARPA was higher than had been reported for the Antarctic commercial hunt in 1983/84. Several countries requested Japan to provide data on whales killed from JARPN II.

In response, Japan had (1) noted that it could provide variance data for JARPA to interested parties on request, (2) commented that results from JARPN II may be reported in the proper place, and (3) attributed the difference in instantaneous death rates between Japanese and Norwegian hunts to differences in the nature of the hunt, choice of animals and the fact that it is easier to target the animals in a commercial hunt. It considered comparison with 1983/84 data to be inappropriate, as the two sets of data were not collected in the same way and that different chasing methods between commercial whaling and JARPA may cause differences in TTD.

5.1.2 Information on improving the humaneness of aboriginal subsistence whaling
Denmark had provided information on improvements to whale hunting methods in Greenland over the past three years, including various training courses, past and future, on the handling of the new Norwegian grenade, on improvements to gear, routines and on the use of more powerful rifles. The USA had reported on the use of the new Norwegian grenade by Bowhead subsistence hunters in the Alaskan Arctic and that the indications were that it may produce more rapid death, be more reliable and safer for the crews than the traditional black powder. The Alaskan Eskimo Whaling Commission is continuing to conduct field trials using the new grenade. The Norwegian expert in this area mentioned his willingness to pursue his collaboration with authorities, scientists, whale hunters and whale hunters' organisations to improve the design of hunting gear and penthrite grenades, and referred to the planning of workshops, preparation of manuals and lectures for whale hunters and administrators in Greenland, the Faroe Islands, Iceland, Alaska and Japan.

5.1.3 Need for a second workshop on whale killing methods
There was broad support in the Working Group for a second workshop on whale killing methods (i.e. as follow-up to the May 1999 workshop), but preferably not before 2003. It was recommended that the workshop objectives, funding and organisation be discussed during the course of IWC/54.

5.1.4 Proposal to include welfare issues in Chapter VI of the Schedule
The UK had presented a revised version of a document discussed at the RMS meetings in Adelaide and Monaco. It viewed the collection and reporting of welfare data as a key element of the RMS, and that improving the humaneness of whaling was a long-standing, legitimate concern of the IWC.

Responding to the UK, Norway had remarked that individual IWC member states should be trusted to address animal welfare issues in terms of their own national legislation, and that there would be more appropriate agencies than IWC to handle any necessary intergovernmental co-operation on these matters. In commenting on the UK document, Norway considered that there is no need for continuous monitoring of the kind proposed since periodic checks would suffice, that the checklist provided was too long, and that post mortems and other detailed expert examinations would be of no relevance to the tasks of an international observer. Japan and Iceland supported this position. The Russian Federation considered that this issue fell strictly under the jurisdiction of national legislation and that it would be practically very difficult to provide all the data requested. Denmark considered that most of the information was already present in Chapter VI of the Schedule, but would not object to including killing methods of baleen whales in the RMS as far as commercial whaling is concerned, but that it would find it impossible to collect such data from aboriginal subsistence hunts. Germany, Finland, Argentina and the USA supported the UK proposal, but the USA also noted that it would not be applicable to aboriginal subsistence hunts. The UK had clarified that it had no intention to interfere with national legislation and that post mortems would be required only when possible. It had also noted that its proposal was intended primarily to apply to commercial whaling.

5.2 Commission discussions and action arising
In the Commission, New Zealand noted the improvements towards reducing TTD in hunted whales, but requested clarification from Japan as to why TTDs from 2000/2001 JARPA were longer than in the 1983/84 commercial hunt. Japan explained that in commercial whaling, the hunt focuses on large whales that come close to the boat and are easier to target, whereas in research whaling, the size of whales taken varies from small to large and the operators work under certain constraints (e.g. needing to avoid damage to ear plugs) that result in longer TTDs. It further noted that the TTDs in JARPA are reducing.

Regarding the UK's proposal to include welfare issues in Chapter VI of the Schedule, the USA supported the proposal on the understanding that it was not applicable to aboriginal subsistence whaling. Denmark clarified that it believed that some of the items proposed by the UK did not belong in an RMS, but could be discussed by the Working Group on Whale Killing Methods and Associated Welfare Issues. The Republic of Korea welcomed any technological improvements in whale killing methods, but along with Norway and Japan did not agree to the inclusion of welfare issues in the RMS. Norway reiterated that it considered animal welfare to be outside the scope of the Convention but that it is willing to continue to provide data on improvements to killing methods used in the Norwegian hunt and to help improve the hunting methods of other whaling countries. It considered that the role of an international observer in whaling operations would be to check that only lawful and approved killing methods are used. Like Norway, Japan also considered the issue to be outside the Convention's scope. It thought the UK proposal unnecessary for controlling whaling and managing stocks, considered that it would impose an excessive burden on whaling operations and believed that it was being proposed as a tactic to delay completion of the RMS. Iceland supported the comments of Norway and Japan.

In response to claims that the collection of animal welfare data is outside the competence of IWC, the UK referred the meeting to recommendations on new observer schemes adopted at the 31^st Annual Meeting (see Rep. Int. Whal. Commn 30, 1980, Appendix 8) that included a recommendation that '... all countries involved in observer scheme arrangements consider the possibility of combining the duty of IWC observers with such other functions as the countries concerned may agree with respect to scientific research and collection of information relating to humane killing....'. It considered that this clearly set a precedent. The UK also drew attention to the outcome of a recent RSPCA workshop involving leading international cetacean scientists and vets that concluded that there is considerable potential for suffering by cetaceans during current whaling activities, that existing IWC criteria for determining death in cetaceans are insufficient to allow the assessment of the onset of insensibility or death and that there are serious welfare concerns arising from the inadequacy of these criteria. The UK believed these views highlighted the need to collect welfare data.

Referring to the criticism of the ruling by the Working Group Chair at last year's meeting, the UK noted that the ruling was not favourable to the UK but that it had accepted it. Along with New Zealand, Italy, the USA, Germany, Mexico and Ireland, the UK reaffirmed its continued support for the Working Group Chair. Japan did not believe that the record of last year's discussions accurately reported what had happened. Prof. Briand, noting that Japan had challenged his appointment as Working Group Chair at IWC/54, believed that the views of a single country should not take precedence and requested that the Advisory Committee develop a proposed procedure for the appointment of sub-group Convenors.

RESOLUTION ON WHALE KILLING METHODS
On behalf of Australia, the Netherlands and Germany, the UK proposed a Resolution whereby the Commission would agree to convene a workshop on whale killing methods in 2003 and encourage Contracting Governments to provide: (1) information on technical developments in whale killing technologies, and to the extent possible, variance data on times to death; and (2) technical assistance to reduce time to unconsciousness and death in all whaling operations. The UK noted that despite the arguments within the Commission over its competency in killing methods and animal welfare, all countries believe these issues to be important. Germany, Sweden, the Netherlands, Finland and Oman spoke in favour of the Resolution. Sweden noted that it attached great importance to this issue, stressed the need to improve killing procedures in aboriginal subsistence whaling procedures, and added that the revised Schedule should include text to the effect that the hunting of whales should be undertaken so that the hunted whale does not experience unnecessary suffering.

Japan requested that an operative paragraph be added urging all relevant Contracting Governments to provide, for comparison purposes, information on killing techniques and associated information regarding wild and domesticated animals. In addition, it expressed its reservation to the preambular paragraph referring to kills of sperm and Bryde's whales and noted that if a workshop were to be held, Japan would participate only on a voluntary basis. Norway associated itself with the amendments proposed by Japan, and itself proposed an amendment to the final preambular paragraph to the effect that the onset of permanent insensibility in whales should be correlated as far as possible with post mortem examinations. Denmark agreed in principal to Norway's proposal, but pointed out the differences between commercial and aboriginal subsistence operations that made some of the procedures proposed not possible. Regarding Japan's proposals, Denmark recalled that some years ago the Commission agreed to make some comparison between whale killing and the hunts of large land animals, but felt the comparison of killing techniques and times to death of hunted and domestic animals to be unreasonable.

After amendments to incorporate Norway's proposal and to include reference to comparisons with data from the killing of other large mammals, the Resolution was adopted by consensus (see Resolution 2001-2, Annex C). Japan's reservation to the fifth preambular paragraph was noted.

_