(from "Chair's Report of the 55th Annual Meeting")
12.1.1 Improvements to review procedures
Last year, the Committee had noted that the existing guidelines, which had
developed over a number of years, inevitably include some duplication and
overlap within the broad headings used.
With the aim of providing a proposal to the Commission on restructuring the
guidelines, it agreed to revisit this issue in a year in which there is no
major new scientific permit proposal to review.
The Scientific Committee also agreed to start planning for the review of the final JARPA results, which are expected in 2005, and recommended that a small intersessional Working Group be formed, including inter alia some Japanese scientists familiar with the programme.
12.1.2 Review results from existing permits
JAPAN: SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE (JARPA)
The Committee received a number of reports of work undertaken as part of the
recent field season of JARPA as well as documents using some or all of the
JARPA data collected thus far.
These were considered where relevant to the main Scientific Committee agenda.
JAPAN: NORTH PACIFIC (JARPNII)
The Committee reviewed the results of the first full year of the JARPNII
programme reviewed last year23.
A total of 100 common minke, 50 Bryde's, 39 sei and 5 sperm whales were
taken.
It agreed that a more detailed review should be undertaken after the
completion of the two years of research under JARPNII.
For this review, comprehensive results will be provided, including
recalculation of sample sizes.
12.1.3 Review of new or revised proposal
JAPAN: SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE
The Committee briefly discussed the JARPA proposal.
This is a continuation (15th year) of a 16-year programme.
Progress had been fully reviewed in 1997.24
ICELAND: NORTH ATLANTIC
Most of the discussion at the 2003 meeting centred on the proposal for a
two-year feasibility study in Icelandic waters involving the taking of 100
common minke whales, 100 fin whales and 50 sei whales.
The stated goal was to improve understanding of the biology and feeding
ecology of important cetacean species in Icelandic waters for better
management of living resources based on an ecosystem approach.
It includes multiple specific objectives with different priorities for the
different species.
For common minke whales the primary specific objective is to increase the
knowledge of the species' feeding ecology in Icelandic waters.
For fin and sei whales the primary specific objective is the study of
biological parameters during the apparent increase in population size in
recent decades.
These objectives are the basis for the proposed sample sizes.
Other research objectives include studies of population structure, pollutants,
parasites and pathogens, and the applicability of non-lethal methods.
There was considerable disagreement within the Committee over most aspects of this research programme, including objectives, methodology, sample sizes, likelihood of success, effect on stocks and the amount and quality of data that could be obtained using non-lethal research techniques.
12.2 Commission discussions and action arising
Japan gave a short PowerPoint presentation on its JARPA and JARPNII
programmes.
There was no discussion.
The Commission noted the Scientific Committee report and endorsed its recommendations.
RESOLUTION ON WHALING UNDER SPECIAL PERMIT
Germany introduced a draft Resolution on Whaling under Special Permit on
behalf of the other co-sponsors (Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Finland,
France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Mexico, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand,
Portugal, San Marino, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, UK, USA).
The draft Resolution called on the Commission to:
Germany specifically referred to the ongoing programmes of Japan (JARPA and JARPNII) and that planned by Iceland and indicated that it did not believe that the scientific arguments used to defend such programmes stood the test of thorough scientific scrutiny. In addition, it noted that it believed that over-fishing is causing declines in fisheries, not the fact that whales eat fish.
The USA associated itself with Germany's remarks. It remained opposed to Japan's lethal research programme in the North Pacific and noted that many Scientific Committee members were of the opinion that there were no quantifiable objectives and reasonable performance standards to legitimise the study. The USA particularly objected to the expansion to takes of sei whales and 50 minke whales in coastal waters and drew attention to the numerous Resolutions adopted noting that the data from permit catches are not critical to management. Regarding Iceland's proposed research plan, the USA considered it to be almost the same as its previous feasibility study between 1986 and 1989, noting that data on stomach contents from the fin and sei whales taken remain generally unpublished. The USA believed that the only part of the latest proposal relevant to IWC management is the secondary objective on population structure, but noted that such work is now routinely studied using non-lethal techniques involving genetic analysis from skin biopsies.
New Zealand agreed with the comments of Germany and the USA regarding the JARPNII programme. Regarding Iceland's proposed research plan, New Zealand believed that it was clear from the Scientific Committee report, that many of the scientists had difficulties with the scientific rationale underpinning the proposal, particularly because, like JARPNII, it appeared to be mainly concerned with issues of no direct relevance to the Convention. New Zealand considered Iceland's research plan to be outside the Terms of Reference for such proposals. It also asked how Iceland intended to dispose of any whale products generated from such a study, if implemented. Monaco associated itself with the views of Germany, the USA and New Zealand and considered the lethal research programmes to be rather outdated. The UK, Mexico, Australia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and Austria made similar remarks as previous speakers. While the UK recognised that lethal research programmes have provided some useful data, it believed this had been done at considerable cost in terms of the number of whales killed. It was disappointed that Iceland had put forward a research plan and commented that Iceland's ecotourism industry would be damaged if it resumed whaling. As Iceland was not yet committed to when it might implement its plan, the UK urged it to reconsider. Mexico, Switzerland and Australia expressed particular concern regarding the proposed take by Iceland of fin and sei whales. Brazil was concerned regarding the increasing number of whales being taken under Special Permit and considered it an abuse of Treaty rights. Sweden considered that the analysis of the diet of whales is important but believed that such work should await the resumption of commercial whaling. With respect to Iceland's research plan, Austria considered that it should have included information on intended whale killing methods. It also expressed interest in learning of the costs of such a programme. It did not consider Iceland's proposal to be finalised, and hoped that Iceland would submit a final version for review by the Scientific Committee in 2004 or later.
Norway noted that the draft Resolution targeted three different operations. It noted that Japan's JARPA programme had been reviewed by the Scientific Committee and that the Scientific Committee had generally agreed that it had provided new interesting information. Norway further noted that this programme had only two seasons left to run and that consequently there would be no point in stopping it now. With respect to Japan's JARPNII programme and Iceland's proposal, Norway noted that these were designed, inter alia, to study feeding ecology and would provide critically important information for the understanding of interactions between species and in the long-term provide information needed for multispecies management. Norway referred to two NAMMCO workshops on this subject. The Republic of Korea considered that ecological data are needed and in view of the limitations of non-lethal research, considered that appropriate lethal research is needed. Dominica made similar remarks. Denmark drew attention to Article VIII of the Convention regarding the right of Contracting Governments to issue special permits for lethal takes for research purposes. While it considered the report of the Scientific Committee on its review of existing and new proposals entirely appropriate, Denmark did not believe it appropriate to establish a Commission policy on scientific permit whaling since this would be contrary to the Convention. It indicated that it would not participate in any vote on the Resolution. Antigua and Barbuda also referred to the rights given under Article VIII and that the Convention requires whales taken under special permit to be utilised. It noted that UNCLOS encourages marine scientific research and drew attention to the fact that lethal research on other animals is conducted in many IWC member countries, including those opposed to special permit whaling.
In responding to the comments made concerning its proposed research plan, Iceland noted that most of them were of a scientific nature and that the Commission, a political forum, was not the right place to discuss science. It stressed its right under the Convention to conduct lethal research and to utilise the whales taken, but noted that scientific permit whaling is not commercially viable. Iceland drew attention to the different views expressed with the Scientific Committee on the merits of its proposed research plan, and felt that the draft Resolution misrepresented the Committee's discussions. It also considered that the draft Resolution contained incorrect statements. It believed that the bottom line was that there is a fundamental divide among Contracting Governments on how to look at whales and believed that IWC should be guided by law rather than emotion.
Like Iceland, Japan also drew attention to its rights under Article VIII of the Convention and could not understand why these could not be accepted. It referred Contracting Governments to its original research plans for their scientific justification and did not agree that its research is not relevant to management. Japan also noted that the results of its research are published in both domestic and international scientific journals, and asked that papers were not discriminated against merely because they used data obtained from lethal research.
The Resolution was passed when put to a vote (Resolution 2003-2, Annex F). There were 24 votes in favour, 21 against and one abstention.
RESOLUTION ON SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE MINKE WHALES AND SPECIAL PERMIT
WHALING
Australia introduced a draft Resolution on Southern Hemisphere minke whales
and Special Permit whaling on behalf of the other co-sponsors (i.e. Argentina,
Austria, Brazil, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Mexico, Monaco, New Zealand,
Portugal, San Marino, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, UK and USA).
Noting, inter alia, that Japan continues to issue Special Permits for
lethal scientific research on minke whales in the Southern Ocean Sanctuary
when there are no valid abundance estimates for this population and when
alternative non-lethal techniques are available, the draft Resolution called
on the Commission to:
Australia considered the large-scale whaling operation conducted under JARPA that had taken over 6,000 whales from the Southern Ocean Sanctuary to be an affront to the Commission and to the commercial whaling moratorium and believed that the overwhelming purpose of JARPA is to maintain a supply of whale meat to markets for commercial return. Finally, Australia considered that the hypothesis that too many fish are eaten by whales had already been repudiated by respected scientists and that depletions in global fisheries are caused by over-fishing. It urged all members of the Commission to support the Resolution. New Zealand, Germany, the USA, Monaco and Brazil spoke in support of the Resolution. The USA noted that the current JARPA programme has only 2 years remaining. It looked forward to its completion and hoped that there would be no extension. Monaco stressed that the legality of issuing scientific permits was not being challenged, but considered that the numbers of whales now being taken under special permit is much larger than envisioned when the Convention was established. Brazil considered JARPA to be a violation of the Southern Ocean Sanctuary.
Japan acknowledged that a new estimate for minke whale abundance in the Southern Hemisphere should be available in two years, but noted that results from JARPA in Areas IV and V have shown minke whale populations to be stable. It re-iterated that some of the information gathered through JARPA cannot be obtained by non-lethal techniques. Responding to Brazil, Japan pointed out that it has an objection to the Southern Ocean Sanctuary with respect to minke whales, and that, while it has a responsibility to report data from JARPA to the Scientific Committee and the Commission, it has a right under Article VIII of the Convention to issue Special Permits. Norway noted that the draft Resolution referenced Scientific Committee reports from 2000 and 2001 and considered that it should have referred to the latest Committee report in which some of the statements are not now so strong. In any case, Norway believed that the number of whales taken under JARPA is insignificant in terms of the size of the stock. Antigua and Barbuda re-iterated its earlier remark concerning other lethal research and Iceland again commented that the Commission was being driven by politics, not science. Monaco disagreed. Dominica commended Japan for its work under JARPA and looked forward to the establishment of a similar programme in future to provide information to allow the sustainable use of cetacean resources, whether this be whalewatching or for food.
Responding to a question from Monaco, the Scientific Committee Chair clarified that there is currently no agreed abundance estimate for Southern Hemisphere minke whales but that the Committee expects to provide a new estimate in two years time.
The Resolution was adopted when put to a vote (Resolution 2003-3, Annex G). There were 24 votes in favour, 20 against and one abstention.
22 For details of the Scientific Committee's deliberation on this Item
see J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 6 (suppl.).
23 J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 5 (suppl.): 63-77
24 Rep. Int. Whal. Commn 48: 95-105.
_