(from "Chair's Report of the 55th Annual Meeting")

'Twenty-five working papers from nine Contracting Governments were presented and discussed in the context of the Workshop Agenda Items (Description of killing methods in use and under development, Assessment of methods including review of time to death, hunter safety and associated problems, evaluation of criteria for death, collection of animal welfare data, and development of a revised action plan).

While there are still areas in which improvements can be made, there can be little doubt that the papers and discussions at this workshop represent substantial progress in the development and application of killing methods, and these are reflected in a general trend of improved data on time to death and instantaneous death rate. There have also been encouraging improvements in the provision of relevant data on whale killing methods from Contracting Governments, and it is hoped that this trend will continue.

Many of the advances that are detailed in the full report from the Workshop can be attributed to the excellent work of Norwegian scientists, veterinarians and technicians. Their improvements in penthrite grenades, harpoon delivery systems, secondary killing efficiency and post-mortem determination of the effectiveness of the aforementioned have advanced the application of whale killing methods not only in Norway, but also in the several countries to which Norway has provided equipment or technical advice.

It is reasonable to surmise from this workshop that the use of appropriately powerful penthrite grenades, fired from improved delivery systems represents the current state of 'best practice' for a primary killing method. Similarly, several important papers on the ballistics, technical characteristics and field application of guns used as secondary killing methods can now allow users of this technology to make informed decisions on the most appropriate calibre and power choices for their weapons. Moves to incorporate these current 'best practice' methods will (and have been) leading to better and safer outcomes for the hunters, and more humane outcomes for the whales.

Discussions at the workshop highlighted the important practical, logistic and fiscal differences that exist between Commercial Whaling and Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling, particularly in the manner and extent in which data are collected, and the degree to which effort can be invested in the development and application of improved killing methods. Contracting Governments representing Aboriginal Subsistence Whalers were keen to ensure that workshop participants understood these difficulties and the degree to which they contributed to the differences in whale killing techniques and performance between the different types of whaling.

While Japan expressed a view that welfare issues were beyond the competence of the IWC (and excluded themselves from those discussions), and differences were expressed about whether or not killing issues for small cetaceans could be discussed at the workshop, the overall level of cooperation and common ground was a positive feature of this workshop. The positive contributions of non-whaling countries like the United Kingdom and New Zealand to the technical improvement of killing methods, or methods to determine time of death were well received and helpful towards the aims of the workshop. Indeed it is really encouraging to note that consensus was reached on the usefulness of a suite of data identified at the workshop to better assess whale killing methods and associated welfare issues.

The workshop participants also agreed to some minor revisions in the Action Plan, which specifies a continued, cooperative approach to further improvements in data collection and reporting, technical development of killing methods, and criteria and methods to determine death (both operationally and from post-mortem approaches). A further workshop in 3-5 years is recommended, and it is hoped that the improvements represented at this workshop will continue and be a feature of the next meeting.'

8.2 Commission discussions and action arising
New Zealand indicated that it had been pleased to participate in the workshop. It welcomed progress in the use of the penthrite grenade, but expressed disappointment with the lack of progress in some areas since the last workshop, noting that Times to Death (TTD) in many hunts are still, in its opinion, unacceptably long. With respect to aboriginal subsistence whaling, it regretted that many of these hunts employ small-arms weapons that it believed are inadequate for killing a large animal. New Zealand drew attention to its remark at the workshop (and included in the report) that the research presented suggested a current level of best practice for determining the minimum specifications of rifles used to kill whales (i.e. a minimum calibre of .375 inches with round nosed full metal-jacketed bullets) and that it would be appropriate to consider a broad implementation of these best practice standards. It acknowledged that this may require investment in new firearms, but in its view, it would be preferable for a village or settlement to have one effective weapon than many of too small a calibre. While agreeing that .375 calibre round nosed full metal-jacketed bullets are very effective for minke whales, Norway did not agree that they should be recommended as a minimum calibre. It drew attention to discussions on this issue at previous whale killing method workshops. Norway noted the importance of marksmanship and training for all calibres and recommended that hunters use the calibre with which they feel most comfortable.

New Zealand and a number of other governments expressed disappointment that some countries had not provided data, including those on the number of animals struck and lost. It called on them to make this available in future. Noting that it does not hunt whales but that strandings occur quite frequently, New Zealand indicated that it would provide welfare data on euthanised whales to the Commission. Mexico recalled a remark from Japan at an earlier Annual Meeting that it may report killing data from its catches under special permit elsewhere. It urged Japan to publish this information. Spain agreed. The UK made a similar remark and noted that JARPNII has been extended to from one to five species. Australia commented that there are disparities in some of the TTD reported to the workshop, some of which could be explained by the difficult conditions under which some hunts are performed while others suggested that improvements in hunting practice are need. It noted that while efforts to reduce TTD were welcomed by the workshop, Australia believed that data presented re-inforced its view that current killing methods are not humane. Austria noted the importance of distinguishing between primary and secondary killing methods to the extent possible. Germany noted the importance it gave to this issue. It appreciated the outcome of the workshop, particularly the Revised Action Plan and the consensus reached on the usefulness of a suite of data proposed by the UK to better assess whale killing methods and associated welfare issues. Together with a number of countries, it recognised the contribution of Egil Ole Øen and Norway in this area and thanked Mr Øen for the advice and assistance he has given to other whaling operations. The UK thanked the Chair and the Vice-Chair and the Secretariat for their contributions to the workshop. While it generally supported the Chair's summary report, it considered that it might be rather too optimistic to suggest that widespread improvements have been achieved. It could see no improvement in TTD in Japan's hunts.

The Russian Federation informed the meeting that it had presented all the data it has to the workshop. It noted that it is trying to make its hunts more humane and emphasised that over 70% of the whales harvested in the Russian Federation are taken using a darting gun. Rifles are used mainly as a secondary killing method. The Russian Federation recalled that a previous Resolution requesting all Contracting Governments to provide appropriate technical assistance to improve the humaneness of aboriginal subsistence whaling had been sponsored by over 12 countries. It noted that it had approached all sponsoring countries, but reported that not one of them had offered to provide help. It did, however, recognise the assistance provided by Norway, Japan and the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission. It requested those countries calling for more humane hunts to provide technical support. The Netherlands indicated that they would be willing to work bilaterally with the Russian Federation to explore how support could be organised.

Norway noted the many positive comments on its activities to improve whale killing methods and its contribution to the workshop. It also noted the more positive attitude at this latest workshop compared with those held in the past and that recent improvements and improved knowledge has been recognised. Norway believed that all whaling communities are concerned about the humaneness of their hunts and are trying their best to improve given the resources and weapons available to them and the conditions under which the hunts take place. It noted however that improvements would take time and warned that hunter safety should not be compromised. Regarding comparisons with the killing of other large animals, Norway noted that available data indicate that the TTDs for its takes of minke whales are: (1) better than for all terrestrial mammals except, perhaps, impala; (2) not quite as good as those for seals taken in Norway; and (3) and similar to those in slaughter houses. While recognising that the UK had provided some data in the past on red deer hunts in Scotland, it noted that these data had not included TTDs or the number of animals escaping wounded. Norway urged Contracting governments to provide comparative data. Sweden agreed with the importance of comparisons with other hunts, believed that efforts should be made to improve killing techniques in all hunts, and indicated that it would try to get comparative data from hunts in Sweden.

Denmark drew attention to the progress made in the development of whale killing methods reflected in improved data on TTDs and instantaneous death rates. It noted that it provided these data on a voluntary basis. Denmark considered that it is important to note that a continued dialogue and communication between different groups is needed in understanding the differences between developed and developing countries. It was of the opinion that some have unrealistic expectations in developing even more effective killing methods. Denmark indicated that it is doing its best to reach best practice, but like Norway, believed that hunter safety should not be compromised. It agreed with the comments of the Russian Federation regarding its call for assistance and thanked Norway for the help it had already provided.

Responding to a remark from Australia regarding its planned takes under special permit (see Section 12), Iceland emphasised that no decision had been made on: (1) the implementation of the research; or (2) whale killing methods that would be used, although it stressed that cold harpoons would not be used. Australia did not understand why consideration of killing methods had not be included as part of the research plan.

The UK drew attention to document IWC/55/24 listing questions it wished to pose to several Contracting Governments regarding killing methods and associated welfare issues. It noted that this document was submitted for information and that it would pursue the matter bilaterally with relevant governments. It reported that it had initially requested that these questions be appended to the workshop report, but noted that it had withdrawn this request after several countries objected. It was therefore reluctant to agree to Denmark's request made during the plenary to withdraw the paper.

The Commission adopted the report of the workshop including the Revised Action Plan (see Annex E).

_