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

Prior to discussions of the Working Group on substantive issues, Japan had indicated that it believed this issue to be outside the competence of IWC. Given this, it stressed that its contributions, including the provision of data and attendance at the Working Group meeting were done on a voluntary basis. The Russian Federation made a similar statement later in the meeting. In response, the UK stated its belief that the Commission has a moral responsibility to consider welfare issues.

Denmark had provided detailed information regarding the 2004 Greenland hunt of minke and fin whales. In response to a number of comments, Denmark indicated that: (1) it would consider reporting time to death information separately for different killing methods next year; (2) day-to-day management of the resources is the responsibility of the Greenland Home Rule Government but that it would provide additional assistance on veterinary matters if requested, but that it would be difficult to have 100% veterinarian coverage of the hunt due to limited space in whaling vessels; (3) the question of animal welfare is important and that Greenland has done much to improve the hunt over the years; (4) there are obligatory rifle shooting tests, but not a yearly obligation to take the test; and (5) that the minimum calibre requirement is 7,63 mm, not 9,3 mm used by Norway, but that it did not plan to interfere with the calibre of rifles used in the hunt. With respect to improvements in whale hunting methods in Greenland, it was reported that the harpoon cannon renovating program was finished in 1998. The harpoon cannons are inspected every 2 years - reducing the risks for the hunters to a minimum and maximizing the efficiency when killing whales. Last year, two courses on the handling and instruction of the use of the penthrite grenade were held.

Japan had provided summary information from the 2003/2004 and 2004/2005 JARPA and the 2003 and 2004 JARPNII programmes. It reported that it had made significant efforts to improve whale killing methods, successfully reduced average time to death of minke whales to less than two minutes, and increased the instantaneous death rate. Japan stated that it will continue to reduce time to death by improving killing methods.

In response to a question on whether it had time to death data on sperm whales, Japan noted that the number of sperm whales harvested in JARPNII is statistically too small to evaluate time to death data, but that it would provide data in an appropriate manner when enough become available. When asked whether there were any differences in the harpoon cannons and the grenade used to kill different species, Japan indicated that the cannons used to kill different species are the same size, but for larger species, the powder in the penthrite grenade is increased and a delayed-time fuse system is used. With respect to a question about harpoons used as the secondary killing method, Japan reported that a cold harpoon is used as the secondary method for killing minke whales and an explosive harpoon is used to kill large species. A comparison was drawn between the instantaneous death rate for the Japanese and Norwegian hunts (i.e. 35-44% for the former and 80% for the latter). Japan, as it has on previous occasions, indicated that there are two reasons for the differences: (1) in its scientific research programme, Japan cannot approach whales unnoticed under its random sampling method, whereas Norwegian commercial whalers approach whales unnoticed; (2) the sea areas and conditions differ in that Japan's research is conducted in the open ocean, whereas Norway's hunt is coastal.

Norway had provided data on its whaling in 2003 and 2004. It reported that its projects on hunting and killing methods, which have been very costly and that have lasted for nearly 25 years, would now be discontinued for the time being since no new projects have been sponsored. Consequently the hunting and killing of the whales will be controlled using periodic or random checks. Some Working Group members expressed disappointment with this move (see also discussions on Norway's 'Blue Box' in sections 6.3.1.2 and 6.3.2.1). Norway, clarified that of the reported 19 struck and lost animals, most were lost after they were dead. It explained that if large swells occur while the animals are hanging in the harpoon line alongside the boat, (i.e., before they are strapped and hauled on board), the harpoon might break or be torn loose if the whale is hoisted above water during swelling. If the harpoon breaks loose while the animal is still alive, the hunters normally chase down and kill the animal using another grenade.

The UK had presented a summary review of research on the humaneness of Norwegian whaling carried out by a Norwegian scientist, indicating that while the review found the histological and pathological sampling methodology of the research to be accurate, it took issue with the sampling reported and the conclusions drawn. Furthermore, the review found that the research may not be representative of Norwegian commercial whaling as a whole. In response, Norway stated that the UK paper, submitted very late, should have been presented to an IWC forum of experts, as the Working Group is inappropriate for reviews of scientific papers. It noted that two other well respected reviewers of the research in question had concluded that the use of histological preparations to diagnose death had been too conservative. It further explained that the research was not based on a statistically random sample of whale brains from the Norwegian hunt, as suggested by the UK's reviewers, but rather a study of potential brain damage as a result of harpoon hits and grenade explosions in different parts of the whale body. Norway also explained that the variations in Instantaneous Death Rate (IDR) from the study and the reported IDR of 80.7% from the 2002 hunting season was mainly a result of different grenades (the research had mainly been carried out before the final version of the Norwegian grenade was introduced). With regard to the 46% of whales that had been re-shot with rifles, Norway stated that many hunters routinely re-shoot the whales with rifles to be certain that the animals are dead, but that the number of animals actually requiring a second shot is much lower. The UK had made available (although not as an official IWC document) a transcript of a film of a hunt by a Norwegian commercial whaling vessel undertaken in what it considered to be less than ideal sea conditions. The UK stated that the time to death of the whale killed in the film (14 minutes) and the number of rifle shots (7) indicate a need for observers and specified ocean conditions for a hunt. In response, Norway reported that a 14 minute time to death only occurs in about 2% of the animals, but noted that, for some reason, the hunters in the film did not follow standard advice in that they did not haul the whale to the boat immediately after it was shot. Finally the UK had proposed that the Working Group recommend holding a workshop in 2006 on whale killing methods and associated welfare issues.

The Russian Federation had given a detailed presentation of the Chukotka hunt in 2004. The hunt consisted of 110 gray whales (mean time to death of 29.3 minutes) and 1 bowhead whale (time to death of 30 minutes). In response to concern expressed about the killing methods used and a request for more information on work to reduce time to death, the Russian Federation indicated that because of small boat size, the placing of scientists or non-hunters on boats to estimate time to death is difficult and added to the general difficulty in determining time to death. The Russian Federation acknowledged the assistance and/or advice on the improvement of whaling killing methods it had received from Norway, Japan, the Netherlands, and the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission (AEWC).

The USA had presented data on the Alaska Eskimo bowhead hunt for 2004 and had noted that there was no gray whale hunt in 2004 due to the need for the Makah Indian Tribe to satisfy domestic legal requirements. With respect to the bowhead hunt, the USA reported that the efficiency of the 2004 hunt was 84%, which is above the 75% efficiency goal set several years ago, this increase in efficiency being largely brought about by two AEWC initiatives, i.e. regular hunter training and an extensive weapons improvement programme (see Annex F for further details). It noted that time to death is difficult to estimate in the bowhead whale hunt - environmental conditions under which hunts are conducted are treacherous and there is a need to protect hunter safety.

In response to a call for information from Iceland and St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Iceland had reported that it is using the same methods as the Norwegians and that training had been provided to those involved. It stressed that it had not yet taken enough whales in its research programme for there to be statistically reliable results on time to death. Iceland indicated that it is continually trying to improve the effectiveness of its whale killing methods and that the discussion on how to improve the methods that have been developed in Norway and used by Iceland would not be facilitated by the small amount of data from Iceland. Iceland pointed out that the relevant Resolutions not only encourage governments to submit information regarding whaling but also comparative data from the killing of other large animals. It noted that those countries calling for Iceland to submit data that has no significance in improving whale killing methods, had themselves not submitted the data they have available as called for in various Resolutions. St. Vincent and the Grenadines indicated that whale killing methods employed in its hunt have not changed, and that its hunters catch about one whale per year. Further, St. Vincent and the Grenadines indicated that the hunters have very small boats on which it would be difficult to place observers. However, St. Vincent and the Grenadines would welcome help to improve the time to death.

The only contribution had been from the UK who had reported on two workshops on determining criteria for insensibility and death in stranded cetaceans. It believed that there needs to be additional work on the criteria for determining the time of onset of permanent insensibility since the existing IWC criteria are not among the suitable measures for determining unconsciousness and death in cetaceans. The UK reported that the overall consensus of experts who examined this matter was that a package of measures will provide the most accurate assessment of the state on sensibility of a whale, questioning the validity of the existing, single-measure IWC approach for determining death in a harpooned whale. Norway commented that the IWC criteria lead to an over-estimation of time to death, and that the IWC data should be used in conjunction with post-mortem data to give better estimates. It also noted that it is easy to get close enough to stranded whales to examine them as suggested by the UK, but that it is impossible to perform such detailed examinations during hunting. The UK stressed that there is no intention to risk human life, and that new technology may be developed to allow measurements to be taken from a distance.

The Chair concluded that the Working Group would not be able to advise the Commission on matters identified in IWC Resolution 2004-3, and that several of these matters require further work and expert knowledge.

Despite efforts over the years to improve killing methods that actually have not changed dramatically in over a hundred years, New Zealand remained convinced that many whales suffer greatly before death in all types of whaling (commercial, aboriginal subsistence, scientific). It noted that again this year, the Commission had received reports from aboriginal subsistence hunts in which whales had been targeted repeatedly with inadequate weapons. It reported that like many other governments, New Zealand has strict rules and performance criteria for the slaughter of domestic animals with the objective of achieving the minimum possible time to death and suggested that there should be continuous efforts to achieve similar outcomes in whale hunting. Since New Zealand has one of the highest rates of whale strandings, it therefore has experience of the need, on occasion, to euthanase stranded animals. Knowing the difficulty in placing a shot to achieve instantaneous insensibility in stranded animals, it suggested that placing an accurate shot with a harpoon or rifle on a moving target from an unstable platform at sea would be much harder. Finally, New Zealand believed that not only did Articles V and VI of the Convention give the legal authority to the Commission to address welfare issues, but that members also had a moral responsibility to take all possible steps when hunting such large and advanced animals to ensure that suffering is minimised. It urged that this issue be maintained as an essential part of the Commission's agenda.

The Russian Federation, while agreeing that improving the humaneness of hunts is important, noted the position of New Zealand but asked that the views of other governments not believing IWC to have competency in this area be respected. Japan took a similar view, indicating that it had extended full co-operation in response to different recommendations made by the Working Group and various workshops in the past, but was opposed to mandatory reporting. It stated that its efforts to improve its killing methods have resulted in a steady improvement of times to death and instantaneous death rate. It firmly believed that data on whales killed should be used in a constructive way and not as a means for criticising whaling countries. Such an approach makes no contribution towards reducing times to death. The Solomon Islands noted the extent of collaboration among whale hunters of different nationalities, including in relation to welfare issues, and believed that this should be encouraged. Mauritania acknowledged the need to reduce suffering of whales taken but stressed the need to also take account of hunter safety.

The USA welcomed the recommendation for a workshop but urged that it include a session in which aboriginal subsistence hunters could discuss whale killing methods, particularly the issue of time to death. Sweden, the Russian Federation and Switzerland supported this position. Germany appreciated the reports made this year by a number of Contracting Governments and acknowledged the significant work of Norway to improve whale killing methods. However, like Australia and New Zealand, it was concerned that the IWC criteria for determining insensibility and death are inadequate and that current methods do not guarantee instantaneous death. Germany believed that workshops of specialists in this area are indispensable in helping to improve killing methods and therefore supported a workshop next year. Finland also supported the workshop proposal and Denmark indicated that it would participate.

As one of the co-sponsors of the workshop proposal, Norway believed that it would give the possibility to move a step forward on this issue. It was pleased that the proposal recognised the need to take account of hunter safety and stressed the need for comparative data from the killing of other large mammals so as to be able to put the hunting of whales into context with other hunts. It urged Contracting Governments to provide such comparative data. Responding to Australia's earlier comments, Norway noted that while Australia has repeatedly identified concerns over animal welfare issues, it did not recall Australia providing any report or making any intervention or contribution since 1982 that has provided new information or information that could be used to improve whale hunting methods. Referring to Australia's claim that there are no humane killing methods for whales, Norway assumed that this also applies to the methods used in Australia to euthanase stranded whales. Noting Australia's repeated claims that it is not possible to achieve an instantaneous kill of a moving animal from a moving platform, Norway indicated that it would be useful for comparative purposes, if Australia could provide data to the workshop from their planned cull next year of some 60,000 camels from helicopters. Norway indicated that information on time to death, criteria for instantaneous death, weapons and ammunition used and number of shots required would be useful. Responding to Norway's remarks, Australia noted that the statement that it had played no constructive role in animal welfare issues was incorrect. It reminded the Commission that it had participated in all Working Group meetings and workshops and that one of its scientists was the Vice-Chair for the last workshop at IWC/55 in Berlin. Australia recognised the need for data to be made available to the proposed workshop next year and looked forward to Norway validating the 14 minute time to death as discussed in the Working Group meeting (see section 7.1.1) and explaining why some 2% of whales take some 14 minutes to die.

The Russian Federation welcomed the proposal that the workshop would address specific aspects of aboriginal hunts, including hunter safety and costs. Assuming that this would be done as a seminar within the workshop, the Russian Federation requested that the workshop steering group develop a very specific agenda. It wished to know in advance who would participate in such a seminar and stressed that the workshop should not be a forum for discussing welfare issues alone. It hoped to see practical recommendations arising from the meeting. The Russian Federation hoped that New Zealand would participate in view of its extensive experience in the euthanasia of stranded whales.

Repeating its position that discussion of whale killing methods and associated welfare issues are outside IWC's competence, particularly in relation to animals caught in nets, Japan stated that it would not block the workshop proposal but could not join in any consensus. Dominica and St. Vincent and The Grenadines, while recognising the importance of welfare issues, also did not believe IWC has competence in this area. Gabon believed that animal welfare is important but that it is also subjective as whale killing methods are related to traditional practices and rituals. It considered the term 'humane methods' to be semantic and ambiguous.

St. Lucia, supported by Dominica, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Vincent and The Grenadines and Gabon, requested that the workshop proposal be amended to: (1) introduce the concept of practical criteria to determine the onset of irreversible sensibility and death; and (2) take account of cost issues for aboriginal subsistence hunters. The Republic of Korea requested that the proposed review of the welfare implications of methods used to kill whales caught in nets be clarified so as to refer to those animals where it has not been possible to release them alive. With these changes, the workshop proposal was adopted by consensus, noting the views expressed on IWC's competency in this area (see Annex G). The USA requested that aboriginal hunt schedules be taken into account when deciding when to hold the workshop during IWC/58.

_