4. WHALE STOCKS (2004)

4. WHALE STOCKS

(from "Chair's Report of the 56th Annual Meeting")

4.1 In-depth assessment of western North Pacific common minke whales

4.1.1 Report of the Scientific Committee

The Committee reviewed the progress made by an intersessional steering group established last year to plan for the in-depth assessment of western North Pacific common minke whales, with a focus on 'J' stock. The Committee developed a series of priority research items that needed to be accomplished before an assessment could be undertaken, including: analysis of survey data; further work on stock identity; and consideration of ways to elucidate the proportion of 'J' stock animals found in the Sea of Japan. It entrusted this work to a further intersessional group.

4.1.2 Commission discussion and action arising

Japan believed that a reported increase in bycatch of 'J' stock animals is a sign of increasing abundance of this stock which its own research suggests to be greater than 15,000 animals. It anticipated that this would be elucidated by the in-depth assessment. The Republic of Korea was pleased to have started work on this stock around the Korean Peninsular. It too believed that the 'J' stock is increasing, but believed that it should be referred to as the 'Korean peninsular stock'.

The UK, supported by Australia, was concerned by the apparent change in position regarding the abundance of this stock. It recalled that last year, the Scientific Committee had taken a very precautionary variant when determining stock abundance. While it did not dispute that bycatch could be increasing, it suggested that this could be due to a number of reasons, including changes in the distribution of the animals or the effort expended in setting nets.

The Commission noted the Scientific Committee report and endorsed its recommendations.

4.2 Antarctic minke whales

4.2.1 Report of the Scientific Committee

The Committee has carried out annual surveys in the Antarctic (south of 60°S) since the late 1970s. The last agreed estimates for each of the six management Areas for minke whales were for the period 1982/83 to 1989/90. At the 2000 meeting, the Committee agreed that whilst these represented the best estimates for the years surveyed, they were no longer appropriate as estimates of current abundance. An initial analysis of available recent data had suggested that current estimates might be appreciably lower than the previous estimates³.

Subsequently, considerable time has been spent considering Antarctic minke whales with a view to obtaining final estimates of abundance and considering any trend in these. This has included a review of data collection methods and analytical methodology. After considering many of the factors affecting abundance estimates, there is still evidence of a decline in the abundance estimates, although it is not clear how this reflects any actual change in minke abundance. Three hypotheses that might explain these results have been identified:

(1): a real change in minke abundance;
(2): changes in the proportion of the population present in the survey region at the time of the survey;
(3): changes in the survey process over time that compromise the comparability of estimates across years.

A considerable amount of work has been undertaken and further work is ongoing. The final part of the Third Circumpolar Survey undertaken as part of the IWC's SOWER research programme has been completed. This work will again be a priority item for discussion at next year's Scientific Committee meeting. Particular attention will be given to the potential relationship between minke whale distribution and the extent and nature of sea ice.

4.2.2 Commission discussion and action arising

Japan considered that the difference in abundance estimates between CPII and CPIII cannot be fully explained by biological reasons and that the employment of different survey designs, survey methods and timing between the series, as well as differences in sea ice, may have had an impact. It was therefore pleased to see that the Scientific Committee is now working on elucidating the reasons for these differences and awaited the outcome with interest. Japan noted that results from JARPA do not show any sign of declines in abundance and concluded that stock abundance is stable, supporting the view that the differences between CPII and CPIII are apparent.

Australia noted that Japan's suggestion that abundance estimates are stable is not the consensus view of the Scientific Committee. Rather it believed it to be clear that uncertainty surrounding stock abundance continues and drew attention to the high priority given by the Scientific Committee on this issue. Referring to its comments on this matter in earlier years, Australia again expressed concern that a large number of minke whales are being taken in the Antarctic despite the uncertainty in stock abundance. The USA and Germany agreed.

St Lucia congratulated those involved in the SOWER series and thanked Japan for providing the vessels and support to this work. It urged other governments with similar resources to contribute in a similar fashion to ensure continuation of this important work.

The Commission noted the Scientific Committee report and endorsed its recommendations.

4.3 Southern Hemisphere whales other than minke whales

4.3.1 Report of the Scientific Committee

4.3.1.1 humpback whales

Considerable progress has been made in recent years in working towards an assessment of humpback whales. Attention has focussed both on data from historic whaling operations and on newly acquired photo-identification, biopsy and sightings data. The Committee made a number of research recommendations to further progress towards an assessment. An intersessional group was established last year to review progress and determine whether it is feasible to set a deadline for the assessment to be completed. Further work was identified this year and progress was reviewed. Further work remains to be completed.

4.3.1.2 blue whales

The Committee is beginning the process of reviewing the status of Southern Hemisphere blue whales. An important part of this work is to try to develop methods to identify pygmy blue whales from 'true' blue whales at sea and progress is being made on this. Work on genetic and acoustic differentiation techniques is continuing and there is considerable progress with morphological methods. The Committee has agreed on a number of issues that need to be resolved before it is in a position to carry out an assessment, which it believes should commence in 2006. This year, the Committee reviewed a paper by Branch et al. (In Press⁴). The Committee agreed that this research supported the conclusions that: (1) on average, the Antarctic blue whale population is increasing at a mean rate of 7.3% per annum (95% CI 1.4-11.6%); (2) had an estimated circumpolar population size of 1,700 (95% CI 860-2,900) in 1996; and (3) that this population is still severely depleted with the 1996 population estimate estimated to be at 0.7% (95% CI 0.3-1.3%) of the estimated pre-exploitation level.

4.3.2 Commission discussion and action arising

Australia was encouraged that Southern Hemisphere humpback whales are apparently increasing in and around its waters and reported that it is good news for its whalewatching industry that relies on increasing numbers of humpback whales. Believing that some sightings surveys and modelling exercises may be over-estimating the numbers of some humpback populations, Australia looked forward to greater clarity of what it believed were apparent anomalies.

Japan reported that results from JARPA indicated sharp increases in the numbers of humpback and fin whales. It quoted estimates of 41,000 for humpbacks whales and 15,000 for fin whales in the north of the survey area (suggesting an estimate of 68,000 for the total stock). Australia, the UK and New Zealand believed these estimates to be flawed. Japan responded that the areas where these increases have been seen are south of 60° south. It believed that there are certain biological reasons for these increases but also suggested that some animals may have moved south from Australian waters. Japan also suggested that the increase in numbers of various large whale species in the Southern Hemisphere may not be helpful to the recovery of blue whales, given interspecific competition. Brazil, supported by Australia did not agree.

The Commission noted the Scientific Committee report and endorsed its recommendations.

4.4 Other small stocks - bowhead, right and gray whales

4.4.1 Report of the Scientific Committee

4.4.1.1 small stocks of bowhead whales

The Committee received information of a number of analyses on the stock identity, movements and abundance of bowhead whales from the DavisStrait/Baffin Bay and Hudson Bay/Foxe basin regions. There were no reports of any catches in 2004.

4.4.1.2 north atlantic right whales

The Committee has paid particular attention to the status of the North Atlantic right whale in the western North Atlantic in recent years (e.g. see special issue 2 of the Journal Right whales: worldwide status). The Committee is extremely concerned about this population, which, whilst probably the only potentially viable population of this species, is in serious danger (ca 300 animals). By any management criteria applied by the IWC in terms of either commercial whaling or aboriginal subsistence whaling, there should be no direct anthropogenic removals from this stock.

This year, the Committee once again noted that individuals from this stock are continuing to die or become seriously injured as a result of becoming entangled in fishing gear or being struck by ships. It repeated that it is a matter of absolute urgency that every effort be made to reduce anthropogenic mortality in this population to zero. This is perhaps the only way in which its chances of survival can be directly improved. There is no need to wait for further research before implementing any currently available management actions that can reduce anthropogenic mortalities.

The Committee reviewed progress on a number of research and management recommendations concerning this stock.

4.4.1.3 north pacific right whales

The Committee received reports of sightings of the endangered North Pacific right whales, including news of one biopsy sample and three photo-identification photographs

4.4.1.4 southern right whales

The Committee received reports of continuing increases in Southern right whale numbers off South Africa. It was estimatedthat there are more right whales there now than at any time in the last 150 years. The Committee recommends that the over 30 year monitoring programme be continued, noting its value to conservation and management.

The Committee also received reports of right whales off Brazil and Argentina, and reviewed the report of a photo-identification workshop held in Adelaide, Australia.

4.4.1.5 western north pacific gray whales

This is one of the most endangered populations of great whales in the world. It numbers less than 100 animals and there are a number of proposed oil and gas-related projects in and near its only known feeding ground. The Committee held a Workshop in October 2002 to review this further. The Workshop report was published in J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 6 (Suppl.). Overall, the Workshop agreed with the conclusions of previous reviews on western gray whales. Specifically, that the population is very small, and suffers from a low number of reproductive females, low calf survival, male-biased sex ratio, dependence upon a restricted feeding area and apparent nutritional stress (as reflected in a large number of skinny whales). Other major potential concerns include behavioural reactions to noise (notably in light of increasing industrial activity in the area) and the threat of an oil spill off Sakhalin which could cover all or part of the Piltun area and thus potentially exclude animals from this feeding ground. The Workshop had noted that assessments of the potential impact of any single threat to the survival and reproduction of western gray whales were insufficient and had strongly recommended that risk assessments consider the cumulative impact of multiple threats (from both natural and anthropogenic sources). Last year, the Committee adopted the Workshop report and endorsed its recommendations, including the research and monitoring plan.

In reviewing progress this year, the Committee noted with great concern that the evidence is compelling that this population is in serious danger of extinction. It reiterated that the population is small (only about 100 whales) and appears to have biological problems (only 23 reproductive females, three or more years calving interval, male biased sex ratio, and apparent low calf survival). Furthermore, there is only a single known coastal feeding habitat (approximately 60km long and 5km wide) used by females and calves which faces an obvious and immediate threat from industrial activities, including noise, vessel traffic and the potential for a catastrophic oil spill. Noting, its similarly strong concerns for North Atlantic right whales, the Committee recommended as a matter of absolute urgency that measures be taken to protect this population and its habitat off Sakhalin Island.

Plans for the Russia-USA research collaboration and national research plans from Russia and Korea were presented. As in previous years, the Committee strongly recommended that the ongoing Russia-USA and Russian and Korean national programmes on western gray whale research and monitoring continue and expand into the future. Results from these programmes will be the only way to monitor and assess the status of this critically endangered population.

The Committee also strongly recommended that all range states develop or expand national monitoring and research programmes on western gray whales. The Committee noted particularly that the precise location and status of the breeding grounds of this highly endangered whale (presumably in Chinese waters) are still unknown.

4.4.2 Commission discussion and action arising

New Zealand welcomed the news that there are more southern right whales now than there have been for the past 150 years but noted that the global population is still only around 10% of its estimated pre-exploitation level. It also noted that all these small stocks were once abundant and suggested that it will be centuries, if ever, before they recover.

Further discussion focused on the western North Pacific stock of gray whales. Noting the concern expressed by the Scientific Committee regarding this stock, the Russian Federation considered that as yet there is no evidence that the oil development programme off Sakhalin Island is having an actual impact on the gray whales. The Republic of Korea shared the Scientific Committee's concern and believed that more studies were needed to assess the impact, if any of the oil industry's activities. It noted the historic and cultural importance of this species to the Korean peoples and that in 1962, the Korean Government had declared its migration corridor a national treasure. It reported that it had conducted a national census that would complement the work of the Scientific Committee, and stressed the importance of involving range states in work on this stock. The USA, Germany and Italy also expressed concern regarding the status of this stock and welcomed the Scientific Committee's recommendations. Japan considered that the countries in which the headquarters of the major oil companies involved are based should work closely with range states on this issue.

The Commission noted the Scientific Committee report and endorsed its recommendations.

resolution on western north pacific gray whale

The UK introduced a draft Resolution on western North Pacific gray whales of behalf of the other co-sponsors South Africa, Belgium and Germany. Among other things, the draft Resolution: (1) endorsed all of the Scientific Committee's conclusions and recommendations; (2) requested the Secretariat to offer its services and scientific expertise to the organisations concerned with oil and gas development projects and to participate actively in any international panels convened to consider the impacts of these projects on the western gray whale; and (3) requested all range states to develop, begin or continue scientific research programmes on the migration, distribution, breeding, population assessment and other research of the entire range of this stock.

While the general sentiment of the draft Resolution was supported by all, the Republic of Korea, Norway and Japan questioned whether it was necessary given that it was largely a repeat of the Scientific Committee recommendations. Referring to the third pre-ambular paragraph, the Russian Federation repeated its earlier comments that there is no evidence that oil and gas exploration is having an impact on the population and that this population was under threat of extinction prior to these activities beginning. It proposed some revisions to the text to reflect its view. Japan questioned why the co-sponsors had not consulted with the range states. Iceland objected to the last pre-ambular paragraph referring to IWC as the international recognised body for the conservation of whale stocks and believed this statement to be contrary to UNCLOS.

The UK explained that the key difference between the draft Resolution and the Scientific Committee recommendations was that the former urges governments to involve IWC in the independent work taking place around Sakhalin Island. It could not support the Russian Federation's proposed amendments since these would not reflect the Scientific Committee views, and it believed that it had consulted with range states and invited them to comment on the draft Resolution.

Sensing strong support for the draft Resolution, the Chair requested parties to consult to try to resolve differences. Such consultation took place and a revised draft Resolution was submitted with Germany, Italy, Switzerland and Austria being added to the list of sponsors. The Russian Federation believed that the revised proposal would help it in its discussions with the oil and gas industry and called on range states to participate. It hoped that the draft Resolution could be adopted by consensus. The Republic of Korea associated itself with these remarks and urged members to be cognisant of the sovereign rights of range states. Norway's view on the need for a Resolution remained unchanged, believing it to be superfluous. It indicated it would abstain from any vote. Japan was of a similar view and indicated that it too would abstain. In the end, the revised Resolution (2004-1, see Annex C) was adopted by consensus, noting the views of Norway and Japan.

³ J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 3 (suppl.): 29-32
⁴ In Marine Mammal Science