7. WHALE KILLING METHODS AND ASSOCIATED WELFARE ISSUES

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

In introducing this item, the Chair explained that given the limited time available at IWC/56, the number of sub-groups that had needed to meet and the fact that there had been a 3-day workshop on Whale Killing Methods and Associated Animal Welfare Issues at last year's meeting, the Advisory Committee had agreed not to schedule a meeting of the Working Group in Sorrento. He noted that this agreement was reached on the understanding that: (a) this issue would be placed early on the plenary agenda and given an adequate time allocation; (b) Contracting Governments would be asked to provide data and information as requested in a number of Resolutions to the Secretariat for circulation to Contracting Governments well in advance of the plenary; (c) the Working Group would meet at IWC/57 in 2005.

The Chair further noted that a request for information went out to all Contracting Governments, since previous Resolutions call not only for the reporting of data on whales killed and improvements to whaling operations but also for all Contracting Governments to (1) provide appropriate technical assistance to reduce unconsciousness and death in all whaling operations and (2) to provide relevant data from the killing of other large mammals.


7.1 Reporting on data on whales killed and on improving the humaneness of whaling operations
Denmark and the Russian Federation submitted documents in response to the call for information. These are provided in Annex G. The USA gave an oral report which is summarised in Annex G. Japan did not submit data to the Commission, but did provide information on a bilateral basis. It noted that while it considers this issue to be outside the mandate and scope of the Convention, it has nevertheless worked to improve hunting methods and times to death and has participated in workshops and provided information on a voluntary basis. Japan believed that the data on whales killed should be used by those engaged in whaling to improve the hunts, rather than being used in a non-constructive way by those against whaling. It was disappointed that repeated requests for similar data for terrestrial animals had met with little success.


7.2 Commission discussions and action arising
In the Commission, while appreciation was expressed for the reports submitted there were no specific comments on them.

In response to remarks of Japan, the UK recognised that whale killing data have been used in the past to criticise whaling nations, but stressed that this was not its own intention. The UK sees a need to improve efficiency of the hunts and to reduce times to death. While it is satisfied that efforts are being made by all concerned, the UK believes there is a need for continuous improvement. It did not agree with those who consider animal welfare issues to be outside the mandate of the Convention, and again put forward its view that IWC has a moral obligation to ensure minimum suffering of hunted animals.

Germany noted that animal welfare issues are of vital importance to it, and expressed concern regarding: (1) that current whaling methods do not guarantee instantaneous insensibility or death; (2) that the data presently collected and submitted to the Commission are of insufficient quality and completeness to allow a fully-informed assessment of the welfare implications of whaling operations; and (3) that the criteria used to determine death or irreversible insensibility are inadequate. It regretted that a meeting of the Working Group had not been scheduled in Sorrento, and stressed the need for the group to meet next year. Australia associated itself with Germany's remarks.

The Russian Federation suggested that when countries call for more humane hunts, they should also be prepared to provide help. It noted that following its call for assistance at last year's meeting, only the Netherlands had responded by providing support to a training workshop to be held in Chukotka but also involving the Eskimos of Alaska. It thanked the Netherlands for this support.

Sweden saw the usefulness of comparing data from whaling with data from other hunts, since it believed it important to improve times to death in all hunts. It had therefore tried to gather data on Sweden's moose hunt in which more than 94,000 animals are shot annually. It noted that while no detailed information on times to death are available (there are no official observers of the hunt), information from a questionnaire organised by the hunters association in 1999 had indicated that 75% of animals fell where they were shot and a further 11% fell nearby. Sweden believed that these data suggest that the instantaneous death rate is in the order of 75-86%, i.e. similar to the instantaneous death rate in the Norwegian minke whale hunt. However, Sweden noted that the main concern is the 3.8% (i.e. approximately 3,500 animals) per year that are not found when searched for.

resolution on whale killing issues
New Zealand introduced a draft Resolution on Whale Killing Issues on behalf of the other co-sponsors (UK, Italy, Germany, Austria, Mexico, South Africa, the Netherlands, Belgium, Brazil, Portugal, Sweden, Spain, India, Argentina, Finland and the USA). It indicated that its own position is that it does not want any whales to be hunted, but that if this is to be done, then those involved should be encouraged to use more humane methods. New Zealand indicated that this is the purpose of the proposed Resolution. It considered that the many variables associated with hunting whales at sea make it difficult to ensure a swift and humane death, as demonstrated by the data submitted over the years to the Working Group. It believed that Article V of the Convention provides the legal mandate to the Commission to address welfare issues, and that it was time that modern animal welfare science should be employed to improve whale hunts. The proposed Resolution: (1) expressed concern that current whaling methods do not guarantee death without pain, stress or distress; that data presently collected and submitted to the Commission are of insufficient quality or completeness for it to make a fully informed assessment of the welfare implications of all whaling operations; and that the criteria currently used to determine the onset of death or irreversible insensibility are inadequate; (2) requested the Secretariat to update the data collection form so that Contracting Governments may report data for each whale taken, the killing method used and samples taken; (3) requested that the Working Group on Whale Killing Methods and Associated Welfare Issues reconvene at IWC/57 to examine methods for reducing struck and lost rates and to consider the welfare implications of methods used to kill whales caught in nets; and (4) requested the Working Group to advise the Commission on: establishing better criteria for determining the onset of irreversible insensibility and death; methods of improving efficiency of whale killing methods; and reducing times to death and other associated welfare issues. Germany and India spoke in support of the Resolution.

Norway noted that it takes the issue of animal welfare very seriously, agreed that there is a moral responsibility to do the utmost to reduce animal suffering and referred to the work its scientists have done in this area. However, it had problems with the Resolution proposed and considered it unnecessary in view of the outcome of the 3-day workshop held at IWC/55 last year, of which the draft Resolution made no mention. Regarding the operative paragraphs, Norway knew of no situation in which animals are killed (e.g. euthanasia, pets, stunning of livestock, hunting), where it can be guaranteed that every animal will die without pain, stress or distress, since even with the greatest of precautions, mishaps will occur. While noting that in many countries it is considered acceptable that in industrial slaughter houses instant insensibility should be achieved with one shot for 95% of animals killed, Norway indicated that the reality can be very different, reporting that for pigs, this can be 80% and that for bulls it can be as low as 53%. Referring to Sweden's earlier comments on its moose hunt, it suggested that an animal falling where it is shot is not necessarily an indication of instantaneous death. Its own studies had indicated a rate of 20%. Norway also objected to the statement that 'data presently collected and submitted to the Commission are of insufficient quality or completeness for it to make a fully informed assessment of the welfare implications of all whaling operations'. It noted that Norway had collected detailed data for over 20 years, and that its research had led to not only its own hunting methods being safer and more efficient but also those of other hunting nations through transfer of expertise and technology. It further noted that it has presented annual reports to IWC on welfare issues for many years and published many papers in scientific journals. It therefore did not believe that there is any problem with access to Norwegian data. Regarding the concern expressed in the proposed Resolution to the current criteria used to determine the onset of death or irreversible insensibility, Norway agreed that there are problems with these criteria as they are not sufficient to determine the onset of unconsciousness and death exactly, but that provided the data are being collected by competent individuals using the same methods, the criteria can be used to compare different hunting methods and to evaluate the skills of individual whalers. Norway also reported that from neuropathological research it had done, it is evident that the IWC criteria will result in some animals being classified as alive, when in fact they are dead, thus suggesting some overestimation of times to death. Norway therefore considered that its 80% instantaneous death rate should be regarded as a minimum. Finally, Norway requested that the Commission should: (1) take note of the substantial information provided by Contracting Governments at the Workshop on Whale Killing Methods held in Berlin last year; (2) encourage Contracting Government to continue the co-operative approach agreed to at the Workshop regarding improvements in data collection and reporting, technical developments of killing methods, and criteria and methods to determine death, both operationally and from post-mortem approaches; and (3) to employ the best methods available for killing whales, both for purposes of hunting and euthanasia, including stranded whales and whales taken incidentally in fishing operations.

Denmark noted that it supports all efforts to conduct hunting in as humane a way as possible. However, like Norway it thought the proposed Resolution was redundant in view of last year's workshop, and was disappointed that neither the workshop nor past work was mentioned. Japan made similar remarks and asked that the Resolution be withdrawn. Monaco indicated that despite its concern for animal welfare issues, it would have problems in supporting the Resolution as currently proposed as it did not adequately recognise the real efforts and progress made on this issue, particularly by Norway. Iceland associated itself with Norway and appreciated Monaco's remarks. It believed that in some countries, public concern is being directed away from domestic issues to whaling. The Russian Federation associated itself with Monaco and in addition noted that from its perspective, the issue of struck and lost rates is more an issue related to conservation than to humane killing.

The USA noted its support for IWC's long-standing commitment to animal welfare issues, that it has held workshops periodically since 1980 and that it is working closely with others on the criteria used to determine the onset of death or irreversible insensibility.

Sweden was disappointed that it appeared that the Resolution could not be adopted by consensus. Recognising the importance of previous workshops, the Netherlands indicated that it would not have a problem if these were referenced in the Resolution. Austria suggested something similar and the addition of some of Norway's statements. The Chair therefore requested that New Zealand work with Austria, Norway, Sweden and Denmark with a view to revising the proposed Resolution.

On returning to this issue, New Zealand reported that although the cosponsors had consulted widely with others, no agreement had been reached that would enable the Resolution to be passed by consensus. It did, however, propose a minor amendment that would explicitly recognise the significant contribution of Norway in this area.

On being put to a vote, the Resolution was adopted (see Resolution 2004-3, Annex C), there being 29 votes in support of the Resolution and 22 against.

_