(from "Chair's Report of the 58th Annual Meeting")

The Scientific Committee reviewed results from Japan's research programmes in the Antarctic (i.e. the first year of JARPAII) and North Pacific (JARPNII) and Iceland's programme in the North Atlantic.

JARPAII - Japanese Whale Research Program under Special Permit in the Antarctic - is a new large-scale Antarctic programme that commenced with the first year of a two-year feasibility study during the austral summer of 2005/06. The objectives are defined by Japan as: (1) monitoring of the Antarctic ecosystem; (2) modelling competition among whale species and developing future management objectives; (3) elucidation of temporal and spatial changes in stock structure; and (4) improving the management procedure for Antarctic minke whale stocks. JARPAII will focus on Antarctic minke, humpback and fin whales and possibly other species in the Antarctic ecosystem that are major predators of Antarctic krill. During the 2-year feasibility study a maximum of 850±10% Antarctic minke whales and ten fin whales will be killed and sampled in each season. Annual sample sizes for the proposed full-scale research (lethal sampling) are 850±10% Antarctic minke whales, 50 humpback whales and 50 fin whales. Last season, a total of 853 Antarctic minke whales and 10 fin whales were caught. Discussion in the Committee focused on the representativeness of samples. The need to take Antarctic minke whales in the second year of the feasibility was questioned, given the success in sampling them during the first year. Japan indicated that the takes are necessary since only half of the study area had been sampled.

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 annually in the western North Pacific. Under the lethal component of the offshore programme a total of 100 common minke, 50 Bryde's, 100 sei and 5 sperm whales were caught. In the coastal component, 60 common minke whales were taken in the spring and 60 in the autumn. The Committee's deliberations covered issues related to: (1) contaminant levels and diseases; (2) changes in diet over the last two years; (3) possible bias due to weather conditions and the nature of the vessels used.

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. In the event, Iceland issued a permit to take 38 common minke whales in 2003 and 25 minke whales in 2004. The take for 2005 was 39 minke whales. The Committee's discussions focused on whether the sampling could be considered representative given the lack of sampling in the offshore parts of the study area due to unfavourable weather conditions.

Finally, the Committee continued preparations for a full review of the JARPA programme (an 18 year programme that finished in 2004). Now that the complete set of results is available, the review workshop will be held in December 2006.

It was noted that it is many years since a number of the stocks taken under special permit have been assessed. The Committee therefore agreed to assign priority for in-depth assessment of these stocks in accordance with the time since last assessment. It agreed that consideration should be given to beginning an assessment of North Pacific sei whales. An intersessional working group was therefore established to prepare the information required to enable a decision on whether to begin an assessment to be taken at next year's meeting.

The Commission's discussions then focused on brief PowerPoint presentations by Japan of results from its JARPAII and JARPNII programmes and a presentation by Australia on scientific research in the Southern Ocean. A more general discussion then followed.

Noting that Japan claimed that its minke whale takes represented 0.37% of the stock, New Zealand sought clarification on: (1) which abundance estimate was used; and (2) on which areas was the abundance estimate based. Japan indicated that the abundance estimate used was 228,000 and was based on JARPA data for Areas III and IV.

Austria noted that it was surprised that minke whale biomass had remained fairly constant over a long period of time since this would contradict the indications that there has been a decrease in minke whale abundance. Japan noted that abundance estimates from its JARPA programme have been stable. It recognised that abundance estimates between the CPII and CPIII surveys have shown some decline, but that this may not necessarily been due to a decrease in numbers - there may be other reasons (see section 5.1).

Belgium noted that Japan's assertion that minke whale distribution is being pushed south by fin and humpback whales is simply an hypothesis that has not been agreed by the Scientific Committee. It urged Japan to make distinctions between what are hypotheses and what are agreed facts.

Australia asked how Japan was able to conclude that the 10 fin whales taken represented only 0.03% of the stock when the Scientific Committee has not agreed an abundance estimate. Japan noted that its abundance estimate of 31,000 was from its JARPA data. Australia expressed deep concern that Japan was taking fin whales in the absence of an agreed Scientific Committee abundance estimate, particularly when the species is listed as endangered. It believed that lethal research programmes should not target endangered species.

Responding to a question from Sweden regarding how long the JARPAII would continue, Japan reported that it would be reviewed every six years and revised as appropriate. Switzerland questioned why Japan could not give a better indication of the number of years its research programme would be conducted. Japan explained that the review period is to decide whether there is a need to continue. There would not be an automatic extension.

Australia considered the approach to developing an ecosystem model described in Japan's presentation as being too simplistic, noting that in particular it appeared to be missing an assessment of the fishing effort for the species mentioned (e.g. saury, walleye Pollock, mackerel, Japanese anchovy and sardine). Japan responded that its presentation had perhaps been shortened too much and assured Australia that it is collecting data on fisheries and fishing effort and that these aspects would be incorporated into the model.

Brazil shared Australia's concerns. It believed the 'whales eat fish' argument to be too simplistic and that it could not be accepted by any serious scientific body. Brazil believed that it is clear that the depletion of world fishery resources is a result of over-fishing. Japan noted that the fishing effort in its territorial waters has been decreasing. It stressed that it had not attributed a decline in fishery resources to consumption by whales, but indicated that whales cannot be ignored as a component of the ecosystem in Japanese waters. It believed it has a responsibility to its fishing communities to investigate this issue.

Mexico suggested that showing a film of a minke whale near fishing nets does not prove that there is competition between whales and fisheries. Luxembourg agreed. Mexico noted that this year the Scientific Committee agreed that there remains a critical lack of data, particularly on low trophic levels, to allow an evaluation of the reliability of multi-species models. It further noted that the Committee had agreed that multi-species models are useful in allowing the Committee to develop hypotheses regarding trophic dynamics. It therefore was concerned that Japan seemed to be presenting information as facts rather than hypotheses. Spain associated itself with Mexico's remarks.

Monaco suggested that there are good multi-species models available for the South Atlantic and Pacific waters that demonstrate that it is not whales that are the main culprit in reducing fish stocks, but rather the industrial fishing effort. It was embarrassed to see the presentation of incomplete or old models and noted that hypotheses that have been shown to be false should not be repeated. In response, Japan suggested that there is too much generalisation of arguments. It accepted that some studies may show that there is no competition between whales and fisheries but noted that the degree of competition differs from region to region. It is not possible therefore to generalise findings from one part of the world to another. Japan added that the film footage showing a minke whale near fishing nets was only part of the evidence of competition.

Portugal questioned how whale populations can be increasing if they are in competition with fisheries at a time when fish catches are declining. It considered Japan's model to be an over-simplification of the situation and that the hypothesis needed further testing. Japan suggested that this interpretation is reversing the cause and effect seen in its territorial waters. It explained that prior to the moratorium, the average harvest over a long period was 350 minke whales per year without a decrease in CPUE (catch per unit effort). On the introduction of the moratorium, this take suddenly stopped, but at the same time the fish catch began to reduce. Japan noted that one hypothesis to explain this situation is that it is the increase in whale numbers that is causing the decrease in fisheries catch.

Dominica sought clarification from Japan regarding the extent to which its research provides information to address questions related to the precautionary principle. Noting that the basic concept of the precautionary principle is that lack of scientific evidence should not prevent action, Japan indicated that its research programme meets this goal in that it wishes to take action before anything serious happens to its coastal fisheries.

The USA noted its opposition to lethal research whaling. It considered that the Commission's discussions on this matter illustrates why it is important to reach agreement on an RMS to phase out special permit whaling. The USA also noted the importance of having existing and new research programmes reviewed thoroughly to determine the best way to gather information on target species prior to any decision to conduct lethal takes and to determine if the experimental design is adequate. It believed that such a review should be done by the Scientific Committee. In response, Japan questioned whether the USA has the same policy with respect to lethal research with other animals. It questioned why whales are being treated differently.

Norway, Gabon, St. Vincent and The Grenadines, Iceland and Denmark spoke in support of Japan. Norway congratulated Japan on its ecosystem modelling work. It noted that it is a difficult issue and one that it is struggling with, together with Iceland, in the North Atlantic. Norway recognised that it is too early in Japan's research programme to draw firm conclusions, but it was certain that there is an important relationship between fish and whales in the North Pacific. It believed the research should continue. Iceland associated itself with these remarks. In contrast to the comments of Brazil, Iceland suggested that all major fisheries research organisations regard multi-species research as very important in improving management of fisheries. St. Vincent and The Grenadines considered that IWC should base its discussions on scientific findings. It believed that some countries were simply taking the opportunity to criticise the work of Japan. Denmark indicated that it could not be denied that whales eat fish. It noted that there is a problem in the North Atlantic with fisheries and believed that a sensible multi-species approach is needed.

Japan made a number of comments on Australia's presentation. With respect to peer-reviewed publications, Japan indicated that there are many such publications and that it has made many submissions to the IWC Scientific Committee on the results from its special permit research programmes. Like last year, Japan reported that for ethical reasons, many western scientific journals refuse to accept papers based on lethal studies of whales. This has led to a bias in the number of publications in the academic press which Japan regretted. Referring to Australia's comment that lethal research is not required for management purposes, Japan indicated that while the data obtained from its research programmes are not required for management under the RMP, the Scientific Committee had agreed that the data can be used to improve the RMP itself. Regarding the IUCN listings of humpback and fin whales, while Japan acknowledged IUCN listings as being one of the most authoritative listings of species 'under difficult conditions', it noted that many scientists consider that the current IUCN criteria, which are based mainly on terrestrial fauna, are not exactly applicable to marine species. It further noted that CITES, which was using similar criteria, have recently agreed to modify them for the listing of marine species. Regarding satellite tagging, Japan agreed that it is a very useful technique for some species, but that it has not found it feasible to use with minke whales in the Antarctic, despite several years of trying. It asked whether Australia had been more successful. Regarding the use of whale faeces to gather information on the diet of whales, Japan agreed that this technique could provide some indication of what food is consumed, but noted that it does not provide information on where, when, how much and rate of digestion which are important for ecosystem modelling. Iceland reported that its own lethal research programme involves inter alia the evaluation of non-lethal methods, including the use of faeces, but noted that the collection of whale faeces had been unsuccessful even after a period of over two months. Regarding the use of DNA techniques for age-profiling, Japan noted that while this is an emerging area of research, it understood that it would not be ready for use for another 5-10 years. In the meantime, the only accurate way to determine age is to use earplugs. Regarding toxin concentrations, Japan noted that as different toxins accumulate in different tissues/organs, samples need to be taken from a range of tissues. Biopsy techniques would only provide limited information on body burdens. It reported that Antarctic minke whales have very low levels of mercury and PCBs, i.e. almost at the limit of detection and below the precautionary level set for food. Finally Japan emphasized that extensive parts of its research programmes in the Antarctic and North Pacific use non-lethal techniques, including large sightings surveys. It believed it is using the best combination of techniques to achieve the stated objectives of the programmes.

Responding to Japan, Australia acknowledged that data from JARPA had been submitted to the Scientific Committee but noted that its concern is that JARPAII has begun before the review of the outcome of JARPA had been completed. With respect to Japan's comments on ecosystem modelling, Australia suggested that while Japan may wish to find ways to manipulate the ecosystem, it did not believe this aspect fell under IWC's mandate. Japan noted that it believed that work involving whales should be reported to IWC.

Regarding Japan's comments on the IUCN listing, Australia asked Japan if it is asserting that fin and humpback whales are neither vulnerable nor endangered. Japan indicated that it is in the process of considering asking CITES to change its listings.

Australia empathised with the difficulties encountered by Japan with respect to the use of satellite tags on minke whales. However, it considered that it had made great strides with this technique and offered to share the technology with Japan if it would cease lethal whale research. Australia also offered to provide advice to Icelandic scientists on the collection of whale faeces.

With respect to the use of earplugs to ascertain age, Australia believed that gathering earplugs from so many animals was not an effective or precautionary approach to obtaining the information sought. Japan noted that this would be wasteful if it was only taking whales to collect earplugs to determine age, and indicated that it takes many samples (>100) from each whale killed for a range of studies.

Australia noted that it was well-aware that Japan incorporates non-lethal techniques in its research programmes and acknowledged that Japan does good work on these aspects. It believed that the way forward was for Japan and Australia to co-operate. Japan noted that it already co-operates with Australia. It also noted that it provides vessels for SOWER and that the scientists on board are international. In addition, Japan welcomed the participation of foreign scientists in its Antarctic and North Pacific programmes.

Responding to a question from Gabon, Australia reported that its own research programmes have clear and defined goals based on core IWC mandates, including work on abundance estimates, the evaluation of the recovery of depleted species and whalewatching.

New Zealand believed that the issue of special permit whaling has been a major source of controversy within the Commission for many years and that addressing this activity is the most vital issue facing the Commission. However, it noted that Japan had ignored calls and Resolutions urging it to end its lethal research programmes. New Zealand considered that through JARPAII, Japan had created a new level of permit whaling, generating so much whale meat that it is necessary for a vessel to go down to the Southern Ocean half-way through the season to transfer the meat back to Japan. New Zealand believed that Japan's conduct had tarnished IWC in the eyes of the world and that it is a widely held view that its research is unnecessary and that its science is dubious. It considered it unnecessary to kill whales to study them unless there is an ulterior commercial motive and questioned whether Japan's research programmes were really science-driven. New Zealand considered special permit whaling to be a disgrace and thought it time that the Commission recognised this.

Sweden continued to oppose extensive special permit whaling outside of IWC control and believed that it undermined the IWC. It was deeply concerned regarding the expansion proposed in JARPAII regarding the species and numbers to be taken and wanted this programme to end. Sweden did not believe, however, that Japan's data should be neglected, recognising that there is an ongoing discussion on possible competition between whales and fisheries. However, it considered this to be an issue for the Scientific Committee and not the Commission. Sweden urged members to recognise that over-fishing is perpetrated by many countries from both whaling 'camps', including the European Union, and suggested that countries should try to regulate their own fisheries to maintain the integrity of the ecosystems, including the establishment of sanctuaries for whales and fish so as to restore populations and facilitate high quality research.

Mexico associated itself with the remarks of Sweden. While it welcomed the efforts to illustrate what a code of conduct might look like, Mexico indicated that it could not support an RMS that does not set clear limits to special permit whaling. It believed that no permit proposal should be considered by the Scientific Committee or Commission without agreed abundance estimates of the targeted stocks and it expressed disappointment that JARPAII would be targeting vulnerable populations of whales.

The UK associated itself with the comments of New Zealand and Sweden. It noted that while Japan's presentation on JARPNII had suggested that whale numbers of several species in the Southern Ocean are increasing, it understood that the Scientific Committee had not been able to make such estimates. The UK also noted its concern regarding the effect of JARPNII on the 'J' stock of minke whales. It requested Japan to continue to report the proportion of the 'J' stock taken, although it would prefer the ending of takes altogether.

India indicated that it is against lethal research. It therefore supported the development and use of non-lethal techniques and congratulated Australia on its work in this regard. India believed that the issuance of research permits should be based on a comprehensive evaluation of a programme's objectives and past performance.

Brazil believed its position against special permit whaling to be well-known. It considered that Japan is abusing its rights under Article VIII of the Convention. It saw no scientific justification in Japan's programmes, believing them to be political manipulation of the Convention to slow negotiations. Argentina made similar remarks.

Italy considered research on whales to be fundamental to the Convention and, like New Zealand, believed the issue of special permit whaling to be the most important item being addressed by the Commission. It took the view that further progress on an RMS will not be made until the issue is resolved. Referring to its earlier comments during RMS discussions (see section 8.2.2), Italy considered that confusion between special permit operations and any trade or commercial use of its proceeds should be avoided and that trade of whale products from such activities should not be allowed.

Regarding comments on the absence of abundance estimates for Southern Hemisphere humpback whales, Japan drew the meeting's attention to the estimates and trends endorsed by the Scientific Committee at its 58^th Annual Meeting. It noted the criticism of its research programmes by anti-whaling countries to which it had provided detailed responses. Japan regretted the nature of the discussions.

¹⁶ See for example: Ann. Rep. Whaling Comm 2005: 37-38; 2004: 38; 2003: 29.

_