(from "Chair's Report of the 56th Annual Meeting")
Japan gave a short PowerPoint presentation on its JARPA and JARPNII programmes.
In 2003, a total of 37 common minke whales had been taken. The Committee briefly considered the preliminary results of analyses presented. It noted that no permits had been issued for fin and sei whales which had been part of the proposal it had reviewed last year.
The objectives, methodology and arrangements for participation by scientists from other countries remain unchanged from the original proposal. The revised plan for sampling minke whales reduces the numbers of whales sampled per year in 2004 and 2005.
New Zealand referred to the concern it has expressed for many years over scientific permit whaling, believing that the development of modern techniques such as molecular genetics have rendered lethal whale research redundant. Furthermore, it did not believe that the research being done by Japan and Iceland to support fisheries management, rather than whale management, could be justified on moral or ethical grounds and questioned whether the research programmes would meet the ethical requirements of these countries domestic legislation. New Zealand did not dispute the right under Article VIII of the Convention for governments to issue special permits for research whaling, but was of the opinion that this right is being abused. Brazil also acknowledged these rights but considered that the current level of research whaling amounts to commercial-scale operations. It appealed to Japan to reconsider issuing permits to take whales in the Southern Ocean Sanctuary. Argentina associated itself with the remarks of New Zealand and Brazil. Sweden agreed with the moral/ethical argument put forward by New Zealand. It was also opposed to PowerPoint presentations during the plenary, preferring to have documents presented during the plenary with presentations outside the meeting room.
Italy suggested that an overlap between the diet of cetaceans and fish does not necessarily point to competition for food since this depends on the availability of a particular resource. It believed that catching whales to look at stomach contents is a too simplistic way to look at ecosystem trophodynamics. Rather it is necessary to apply complex models, which it did not believe had been done. The USA noted its strong opposition to the scientific permit whaling programmes that it believed had no quantifiable objectives. Like others, Monaco expressed concern regarding the escalation of scientific permit whaling and noted that in the last few years there has been a wealth of information published illustrating that problems with declining fisheries are due to massive over-fishing rather than competition between whales and fish. The UK made similar remarks. Switzerland was against the culling of whales on the assumption that they are in competition for fishery resources and associated itself with the comments of Italy and Monaco. The Netherlands associated itself with earlier remarks, particularly those of Australia, Sweden and Switzerland.
Japan, the Republic of Korea, Norway, St Kitts and Nevis, Iceland and Dominica spoke in support of research programmes under special permit. Japan noted that it publishes the results from its research programmes in an open manner and that it would welcome scientists from New Zealand and other countries at its own planned JARPA review meeting. Contrary to the view of New Zealand, it did not believe its research under special permit to be either unethical or immoral. The Republic of Korea noted that some of its scientists had taken part in Japan's JARPNII programme and thanked Japan for this opportunity to co-operate. It believed that the results from the work would improve both fisheries and whale management. Norway stressed the importance of taking an ecosystem-based approach to the management of marine living resources and referred to on-going co-operation in this area with Iceland and Japan. It stressed that this type of research requires some time to yield useful results, noting that sufficient information for use in ecosystem modelling approaches had only been obtained in its own programme after some 10 years. It commended Japanese scientists on the interesting preliminary results from JARPNII. St Kitts and Nevis suggested that those governments holding the view that alternative approaches to lethal whale research exist should develop their own research programmes to demonstrate this. It supported the work of Japan and urged them to continue. Iceland noted the agreement in various international fora that an ecosystem approach should be applied to the management of marine living resources. As part of the marine ecosystem, it believed that whales must be included in multi-species modelling for ecosystem-based management and that the only way to get information on feeding ecology with the accuracy necessary for such modelling is to look at stomach contents. It therefore considered such research important. Furthermore, Iceland indicated that it does not believe that there is anything wrong or unethical in taking animals from abundant stocks for scientific research. It does not take the view that some animals are more equal than others. Dominica welcomed the debate on this agenda item. It supported the remarks of Norway and Iceland and the continuation of research activities from which countries like itself without the capability for running such programmes could benefit. Referring to Iceland's comment on ecosystem management, Australia noted that this does not mean ecosystem manipulation which it believed seemed to be the objective of some of the existing research programmes.
Finally, the Chair of the Scientific Committee clarified that the Committee would continue to use existing guidelines to review future scientific permit research proposals and that it would not include work to revise the process as part of its standing agenda.
The Commission noted the Scientific Committee report and endorsed its recommendations.
17 For details of the Scientific Committee's deliberation on this
Item see J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 7
(suppl.).
18 J. Cetacean Res. Manage 5(suppl.):
63-77
19 Rep. Int. Whal. Commn 48: 95-105.
20 Ann. Rep. Whaling Comm 2003:103;
_