(from "Chair's Report of the 57th Annual Meeting")

Two continuing permits were discussed this year. JARPNII is a long-term research programme primarily aimed at feeding ecology in the context of contributing to the 'conservation and sustainable use of marine living resources in the western North Pacific, especially within Japan's EEZ.' The programme involves the taking of 150 minke whales, 50 Bryde's whales, 50 sei whales and 10 sperm whales each year in the western North Pacific.

A proposed permit by Iceland, primarily for feeding ecology studies for 100 common minke whales, 100 fin whales and 50 sei whales in each of two years was presented two years ago; the government had only given a permit for 25 common minke whales from Iceland in 2004. Again, as in the past, different views on the value of this research were expressed in the Scientific Committee.

The previous JARPA programme was an 18 year programme that finished in 2004. The complete programme will be reviewed by the IWC Scientific Committee in 2006, when all of the data and analyses become available.

The Committee continued preparations for a full review of the JARPA programme when the complete set of results is available following the completion of the 16-year programme in 2006.

Norway recalled that a large suite of projects had been carried out in the JARPA programme, with many yielding valuable information on the stock structure of minke whales in Areas III to VI of the Antarctic and on a range of biological parameters, including changes in these parameters over time. It noted that although most of the JARPA results have been presented at least in preliminary form to the Scientific Committee at a range of meetings, the full review planned for late 2006 is needed and the results should be published subsequently in the scientific literature. Norway agreed that while some of the primary data (e.g. tissue samples for genetic and chemical analysis) could have been obtained in theory by non-lethal means, this would have been prohibitively expensive. Moreover, information on such aspects as age and reproductive history could not be obtained by non-lethal means. Norway congratulated Japan's scientists on their work. Senegal, Mauritania, Benin, Cameroon, the Republic of Guinea and Iceland also commended Japan on its work.

The UK agreed with Norway regarding the quality of some aspects of JARPA (e.g. the in vitro fertilisation of minke whale eggs), but expressed concern as to whether many statistical analyses of the data had been adequate. It believed that further work in this area is required before Japan embarks on a new programme in the Antarctic. Until then it would have severe reservations on the quality of JARPA and on Japan's future plans. Monaco noted that Japan's scientific whaling programme is not only controversial outside of Japan, but also within Japan's scientific community. It found, like others, that the hypothesis that there is significant competition between whales and fish to be too simplistic, that fish themselves are a greater predator of other fish than whales and that declining fisheries are due to industrial fishing rather than competition between whales and fish. Furthermore, it considered lethal research programmes to be outdated since non-lethal techniques are available. New Zealand saw no need to reiterate its well-known views on Japan's scientific permit whaling. It stood by its rejection of the scientific rationale behind them and the lack of ethical approval for them.

Japan thanked those delegations making positive remarks about its presentation and the results from JARPA, and was pleased that some Contracting Governments recognise that Japan has published papers in the scientific literature - something frequently denied in the media and elsewhere. To note the importance of JARPA, Japan drew attention to the Scientific Committee's mid-JARPA review done in 1997 in which many favourable comments were made. Included in this report was the comment that while suitable non-lethal methods were available, logistics and the abundance of minke whales in the Antarctic probably precluded their successful application. Japan supported the planned JARPA review next year and indicated that it welcomed constructive comments.

New Zealand asked how Japan could be certain that JARPA II would have no adverse effects on isolated populations of humpbacks in the South Pacific if sampling of humpbacks was to take place in the western part of Area VI. Japan clarified that humpbacks would only be taken from Areas IV and V. It had no plans to sample them from Area VI. In response, New Zealand asked how Japan could be sure that humpbacks from Area V are not the endangered breeding populations from Fiji, the Cook Islands and Samoa. Japan noted that the D-stock, whose breeding grounds are located off the west coast of Australia, occurs in Area IV, while the E-stock, whose breeding grounds are located off the east coast of Australia occur in Area V. In response to another question from New Zealand, Japan clarified that it has no plans at present to sample other species, such as crabeater seals and seabirds. Rather it hoped to use existing information from CCAMLR in the initial stages of the work.

The Republic of Korea while noting the need for lethal research programmes, did not understand why Japan needed to double the takes of minke whales. Japan explained that such an increase is needed to obtain sufficient statistical power to detect significant temporal changes in various biological parameters (e.g. age at sexual maturity, pregnancy rate, blubber thickness, etc.). The UK noted that Japan was planning to continue to include a ±10% allowance for the minke whale takes (i.e. 850 ± 10% for JARPA II). Given the consistency with which the upper allowable catch limit has been reached during JARPA, the UK did not believe it necessary for Japan to continue to allow for this margin of error.

Referring to Japan's earlier presentation, the USA noted that the age of sexual maturity of minke whales has decreased from 17-18 years to around 7-10 years. Given this, it suggested that the doubling of the take of minke whales proposed in JARPA II is problematic. Japan believed the opposite to be true. It believed that the decrease in the age of sexual maturity, due to improved feeding conditions, explains the increase in minke whale abundance that had been seen. Such conditions prevailed until the 1970s when the age of sexual maturity began to level off and is now showing a tendency to increase again. Japan believes that this implies that availability of food has become less favourable.

As in previous years, there was severe disagreement within the Committee regarding advice that should be provided on a number of issues, including: the relevance of the proposed research to management, appropriate sample sizes and applicability of alternate (non-lethal) research methods.

Brazil and France associated themselves with the remarks of Monaco made under the previous agenda item in relation to lethal research programmes. Brazil also noted the concern with which it has watched scientific whaling escalate over the years in spite of past recommendations of the Commission. It believed that despite the large number of whales killed in such programmes, very few peer-reviewed papers had been published. It therefore considered Japan's action as a blatant abuse of the rights to Contracting Governments granted under Article VIII and simply a means of maintaining a market for whale meat. Brazil considered this latest research plan to have a political rather than a scientific objective, i.e. to push the Commission into adopting compromises in order to bring in a commercial whaling scheme. By including humpback whales, Brazil believed that Japan is deliberately attacking a species of great importance both for non-lethal research by other nations but also for non-lethal appropriation for whalewatching. It believed that the proposal would destroy any hope of reaching a compromise and better understanding of the rights of Southern Hemisphere nations to the non-lethal management of whale resources. Brazil requested Japan to take account of the broader implications of their actions.

The USA noted that it continues to oppose lethal whale research programmes except in exceptional circumstances. It too expressed concern over the significant expansion of JARPA II over JARPA and believed that there is no compelling justification of this since, in general, much of the information can be gained through non-lethal research or is in fact not needed for management purposes. The USA considered that JARPA II would make it much more difficult if not impossible to reach consensus on an RMS and that it would serve to polarise IWC yet further. It urged Japan to not go forward with JARPA II. Spain and Finland associated themselves with the remarks of Germany and the USA. New Zealand associated itself with Germany, the USA and Brazil, noting that it has been a consistent opponent to Japan's scientific whaling programmes. It also drew attention to the objection by 63 members of the Scientific Committee to a review of the JARPA II proposal before a formal review of the JARPA programme results has been conducted and to a recent (16 June) article in the journal Nature that inter alia delivered what New Zealand considered to be a forceful rebuke of JARPA II proposals. However, New Zealand's most serious concern in relation to JARPA II is its potential impact on populations of threatened or endangered species in the Southern Hemisphere, again referring to the real threat to endangered breeding populations of humpbacks from Fiji, the Cook Islands and Samoa. Finally, it noted with surprise the statement from Japan during Scientific Committee discussions that no conflict had been found between the planned research and Japan's revised domestic legislation on animal welfare.

St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Vincent and The Grenadines, the Republic of Palau and St. Lucia spoke in support of Japan's proposals contained in JARPA II. St. Kitts and Nevis noted that UNCLOS recognises the importance of scientific research in the sustainable use of marine resources and gives clear rights to coastal states to conduct such research. It noted: (1) that since developing countries have limited resources, they are dependent on the work of more developed countries; and (2) the importance of marine resources in the sustainable development and poverty alleviation of coastal developing states. These were the reasons why countries such as St. Kitts and Nevis are members of IWC. Finally it expressed the view that science within the organisation is much further advanced than its politics which it considered to be backward. St. Vincent and The Grenadines was satisfied that Japan has provided valuable information that has been used to advance the work of the Commission and had no problems in supporting its new proposal. The Republic of Palau and St. Lucia both gave importance to gaining an understanding of ecosystem interactions so that management of fishery resources could be improved. Like St. Kitts and Nevis, the Republic of Palau stressed the importance of marine resources to its people. It believed that emotional criticism ignores both science and international law and is a rejection of the basic principle of resource management based on science. St. Lucia believed that the takes proposed by Japan would not adversely affect the stocks in question, and that in any case, reviews are planned after the 2-year initial feasibility study and again after six years.

In responding to a number of comments, Japan firmly opposed the view that its proposals are politically and commercially motivated, and drew attention to Convention Article VIII-2 that states that 'any whales taken under these special permits shall so far as practicable be processed and the proceeds shall be dealt with in accordance with directions issued by the Government by which the permit was granted' - the use of the word 'shall' conferring an international obligation. It disagreed that the JARPA II proposal would have a detrimental effect on RMS negotiations since it has been clear for some years that the process has been breaking down. Japan found it unacceptable that JARPA II is being used as a scapegoat for stalled RMS discussions. It also could not accept that the proposed takes of minke, humpback or fin whales would have an adverse effect on the stocks as they represented such a small percentage of the total stock numbers. It again stressed that with respect to humpbacks, no animals would be taken from Area VI (whales in Area VI being those that migrate to the South Pacific islands). With respect to the publication of papers in peer-reviewed western scientific journals, Japan noted that many western journals will not accept papers presenting results obtained from lethal research programmes. It considered such treatment of its scientists to be unfair and unequal. With respect to the position of the 63 members of the Scientific Committee referred to by New Zealand, Japan noted that as the Committee comprises some 200 scientists, the vast majority had not objected to taking part in a review of the JARPA II proposal. With respect to the article in Nature, Japan noted that some of its authors are Scientific Committee members and national delegates and that there had been a breach in the Committee's confidentiality rules in relation to information included in the article. Japan requested that such breaches do not occur again. Finally it again stressed that some of the information it believes necessary to collect cannot be obtained using non-lethal techniques and did not believe that its proposals in relation to an ecosystem approach are too simplistic.

Japan opposed strongly the proposed Resolution since it contravened certain elements of the Convention, e.g. that science should be the basis for decision-making and the clear rights provided under Article VIII. It further took the view that the previous 30 Resolutions also went against the spirit of Article VIII and international law, and pointed out that the Convention has a higher standing than Resolutions, which are non-binding. Japan considered that denying the right to lethal research was a value judgement and an imposition of others' ethical positions and that science and international law should prevail over emotion. It found parts of the proposed Resolution to be misleading, noting for example, that while it could agree that there are 'no agreed data' on fin whales, scientists have agreed that abundance is increasing. What is not agreed is by how much they are increasing. Japan suggested that IWC began ignoring science when it adopted the moratorium, which was not a recommendation supported by the Scientific Committee. It believed that the future of IWC is more important than emotional attitudes and national politics.

The Resolution was adopted when put to a vote (see Resolution 2005-1, Annex C). There were 30 votes in support, 27 against and 1 abstention. Denmark explained that because of a change in its position following a parliamentary decision, it had voted in support of the Resolution. Previously it had not participated in votes on similar Resolutions. Denmark noted that Greenland's Home Rule Government does not support the changed position.

Japan withdrew a proposed Resolution in support of its research programme in the Antarctic.

_