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

The UK recalled that welfare issues have been discussed within the Commission since 1980, when the first workshop was held, and noted that the extent of concern over this matter, at least in the UK, is demonstrated by the fact that over a two-day period, his delegation had received over 700 emails urging improvements to the welfare of hunted whales. The UK was pleased with the level of engagement at this year's workshop and particularly with the number of papers presented by the aboriginal subsistence hunters. It recognised that aboriginal subsistence hunting techniques have been determined by centuries of culture and tradition and that there are constraints on the extent to which modern killing techniques can be transferred successfully from a commercial whaling or scientific permit whaling environment to an aboriginal subsistence environment. Nevertheless, the UK believed that improvements have and can be made by recourse to training and to the availability of more powerful weapons. However, despite considerable improvements in killing methods, notably by Norway, the UK believed that unacceptable times to death are not uncommon. It believed that if the Commission is ever to authorise the resumption of commercial whaling, then it is under an ethical and moral obligation to take steps to minimise suffering and distress caused to hunted whales. The UK felt that the ability to make improvements depends crucially on the availability of data on killing methods and times to death and therefore expressed deep concern that Norway, by replacing on-board observers with the 'blue box', will fail to collect vital welfare data. It urged all those countries engaged in whale hunts to provide data on individual whales so that an assessment can be made of whether and how improvements are being made and to encourage the transfer of best practice. The UK emphasised, however, that data collection can never resolve the serious and inherent welfare concerns over the killing of whales, which are highly sentient, and urged the Commission to continue to strive to prevent the prolonged suffering of hunted whales as a matter of urgency. The UK noted that the workshop had made important recommendations, such as the need to improve the accuracy of primary and secondary shots. The use of underpowered weaponry was of concern to the UK when larger species are being taken, and it was particularly concerned that the same weaponry as used for an 8m minke whale is being used for whales that can exceed 20m length. The expansion of special permit whaling by Japan and possibly Iceland to include significant takes of larger whales, together with Greenland's wish to take fin and bowhead whales increased the UK's concern, and it believed that the robust discussion on this matter during the workshop highlighted the need for further work in this area. Finally, the UK noted that although there had not been time at the workshop to review the Plan of Action, it believed it remained in place and that its review should be a priority for the Working Group next year.

Luxembourg associated itself with the UK's comments, particularly regarding the concern expressed over Norway's introduction of the 'blue box', and stressed the need to continue work on whale killing methods and welfare issues within IWC and with the involvement of all whale-hunting nations. Argentina, Spain and Hungary made similar remarks. New Zealand agreed with the UK and also expressed concern regarding: (1) regarding the use of underpowered weapons to kill larger species (e.g. fin whales by Japan), which it had addressed with one of its workshop papers; and (2) the statements of Japan and Iceland in the workshop that in future they would provide information to fora of their own choosing. Japan clarified that while the calibre of the weapons used to kill fin whales in JARPAII is the same as that used to kill minke whales, the power had been increased by increasing the amount of penthrite used. It therefore considered New Zealand's criticism irrelevant. India believed that wherever whale killing is permitted, it should be done humanely.

The USA noted that prior to the workshop there had been an historic meeting of aboriginal subsistence hunters, and that their input to the workshop had been crucial. In particular, the USA drew attention to the four major points affecting each aboriginal hunt agreed at the pre-meeting, i.e., in summary: (1) subsistence hunting is for food to meet cultural and nutritional needs, guaranteeing the survival of the Native people; (2) the safety of his crew is a whaling captain's most important responsibility; (3) with safety assured, achieving a humane death for the whale is the highest priority; and (4) efforts to modernise aboriginal subsistence whaling equipment and practices can be made only within the context of each communities' economic resources and the need to preserve the continuity of hunting traditions. The USA considered that the workshop had been successful in identifying practical recommendations with which it agreed. It looked forward to further work and co-operation among aboriginal subsistence hunters and to a future thorough review of the Plan of Action. Finally it welcomed the efforts underway to reduced times to death in commercial whaling and whaling under special permit and looked forward to further improvements to the humaneness of these hunts.

Denmark had hoped to learn something new from the workshop, such as new ways to kill whales more humanely, but found that it was largely a meeting where different points of view were presented. It suggested that this demonstrates that either a situation has been reached where whale killing methods cannot be further improved or that participants do not really care, using the occasion only to further their political aims. In this regard, Denmark expressed concern regarding the quality of some of the papers and considered that much of the information now being requested has nothing to do with refining killing methods but rather to attacking those nations taking whales, as reflected at the end of the summary prepared by the workshop Chair. It agreed with the recommendation that a further workshop should not be contemplated for two years at which time progress and the need for another meeting could be assessed. Lastly Denmark stressed the importance to animal welfare of Norway's work to develop the penthrite grenade which it considered a leap-forward in reducing animal suffering. Noting that one small component part (the time delay fuse) now has to be imported to Norway from another Contracting Government, it expressed concern that the latter has refused to allow export. Denmark hoped that this country would reconsider its export policy since having to revert to other killing methods (e.g. using the cold harpoon or rifles) once the current stock of fuses have been used would be detrimental to animal welfare.

St. Lucia associated itself with Denmark and noted that the problem with export of the fuses to Norway also has repercussions for the Alaskan hunt. It believed that the Commission is continually raising the bar for aboriginal subsistence hunts. It is asking them to improve their equipment without ensuring that they can get access to specific equipment. St. Lucia hoped that the intention was not to use this as a way of phasing-out aboriginal subsistence hunts. It considered that no comprehensive information was provided at the workshop to help these hunts improve times to death. Rather the workshop provided a forum to criticise data generally provided by whaling countries. St. Lucia requested the Commission to respect cultural diversity.

St. Vincent and The Grenadines associated itself with St. Lucia. It noted that it has co-operated in recent years by providing available data to the Commission and that it still uses traditional methods to catch whales. It reported that all whales struck over the last six years have been taken (i.e. no struck and lost) and that times to death have decreased considerably to around 20 minutes. This has been due mainly to perfecting the use of the darting gun, which in turn has had a bearing on the men involved in the hunt. Prior to the last six years, the average age of the whalers was 50 to 60, whereas now it is 25 to 40. The youthful nature of the whalers now allows them to go closer to the whale and to strike it nearer to its vital organs. Whales killed generally sink and are retrieved using compressed air tanks, a technique not possible 50 years ago. St. Vincent the The Grenadines believed it was very much on track in improving times to death and hunting efficiency. Sweden was pleased to note these improvements. Antigua and Barbuda appreciated concerns regarding times to death and other welfare issues, but commended the efforts of aboriginal subsistence hunts given the challenges they face. Dominica also understood the wish to reduce times to death and to increase instantaneous death rates, but hoped that the Commission would not seek to impose methods and conditions that would make the livelihoods of subsistence hunters more difficult than they are at present.

Austria was not as pessimistic about the workshop as Denmark, noting that 25 papers had been presented and discussed and a 27-page report had been produced. While it considered that much had been achieved, it believed animal welfare could still be improved and looked forward to reviewing the action plan and to receiving new high quality data like that provided this year by the subsistence hunters. Austria believed that only with data could progress be achieved. Switzerland believed that whale killing methods could continue to be improved. It noted that Norway is using very effective calibre rifles as back-up weapons and believed that it should be possible to use more powerful weapons in other hunts. Switzerland recalled that in the workshop it had proposed that hunts should preferably move away from using rifles as the primary killing technique and use exploding harpoons, or at least have some tests made with higher calibre rifles. Like Austria, Australia felt that there was much of value that emerged from the workshop, and like others was impressed by the way that the aboriginal subsistence hunters had met prior to the meeting and by the way they were able to present to the workshop a clear picture of their hunts, the challenges faced, and the social and environmental factors involved. It believed the Commission owed the subsistence hunters a significant debt for providing a window into their lives that it did not have previously.

The Russian Federation considered that whale killing is a very specific issue that should only be discussed among professionals. Like Denmark, its hunters had not learned anything new from the workshop, rather the two Russian hunters attending had lost time both whaling (it was the height of the season) and in training new hunters. The Russian Federation considered that perhaps Switzerland had misunderstood their hunters' reports in which they stated which calibre weapons should be used under which hunting conditions. However, if Switzerland was genuinely willing to help improve the hunt, the Russian Federation was willing to talk to them. Switzerland noted that while it did not have experience in whaling, it has long experience in hunting and undertook to discuss this matter further outside the meeting. The Russian Federation stressed that in subsistence whaling, the highest priority is safety of the hunters and although it agreed that methods could be improved, noted that economic considerations in these hunts cannot be neglected. Nevertheless, the Russian Federation reported that its hunters will continue to try to improve and that it should have further information on methods and needs for next year's Annual Meeting in Anchorage. Finally, the Russian Federation underlined that it is providing whale killing information to the Commission on a voluntary basis.

Mainly in response to the comments of Switzerland, Denmark indicated that the Greenland Action Plan is in place and is helping to improve hunting gear, taking hunter safety into account. In addition, Greenland has been reducing the number of rifle quotas issued over at least the last five years, and has limited them to areas where boats without mounted harpoons are not in place. Furthermore, the hunter association has set a limit of 30 animals per year to be taken with rifles. Higher calibre rifles are used in Greenland with those of 7.62 being used in some places. While this will continue to be recommended, Denmark noted that the hunters' experience is that struck and lost rates could be higher, which cannot be ignored. With respect to fin whale hunting, the use of penthrite grenades started in the late 1980s and beginning of the 1990s, with the gear not being the same as that used in the minke whale hunt. Finally Denmark noted that Greenland participates and provides information on whale killing on a voluntary basis. While it intends to continue to contribute to future workshops, it would reconsider its position if it believed the information provided is misused.

Japan also stressed that it provides data on whale killing methods and times to death on a voluntary basis, believing that animal welfare is outside the mandate of the Commission. It noted that in its hunts, times to death have reduced and instantaneous death rates increased. Japan therefore considered that it had made significant improvements and was disappointed that at the workshop, which was supposed to be a gathering of experts, some participants had ignored the accumulated knowledge. It hoped for normal discussions in future under a normalised IWC and until then reported that it will provide data to NAMMCO and other fora where there could be more constructive debate. Sweden regretted this move, believing that it would not help the process of normalisation and urged Japan to reconsider. The Netherlands also urged countries with whale hunts to share data at IWC so as to contribute to the process of improving killing methods.

Norway commended the work of the aboriginal subsistence communities to improve their whale hunts, and reminded the meeting that it was Japan that had developed the first prototype of the penthrite harpoon grenade. Regarding its own commercial hunt, it reported that since the first whale killing methods workshop it has submitted over 25 extensive reports and scientific publications on its work to improve the humaneness and efficiency of its hunt which had led to substantial increases in instantaneous death rates and decreases in times to death. Between 1981 and 1983 when the cold harpoon was used, only 17% of whales died instantaneously, the average time to death was over 11 minutes and more than 17% of animals needed re-shooting with harpoons. The latest data, from the period 2000 to 2002 during which a new and improved harpoon grenade has been used, show an instantaneous death rate of 80%, an average time to death of 2 minutes and 17 seconds (using IWC criteria) and that only 0.5% needed a second shot. Norway noted the tendency of some to compare data from the hunting of wild animals with the euthanasia of animals or the killing of animals in slaughter houses. It stressed that different methods were used in these different situations, rendering a meaningful comparison impossible. In slaughter houses, animals are first rendered unconscious by stunning and are then killed. These animals are usually tame and used to human contact. In contrast, under hunting conditions, animals must be rendered unconscious and bled out more or less in one and the same operation. Norway further noted that welfare is only one of the many aspects taken into account in regulations governing the slaughter of domestic animals, others including economics, trade, safety of personnel and in some countries, religion and tradition. It explained that techniques for slaughter houses are not applicable to wild animals or animals unaccustomed to being enclosed or handled by people. However, Norway noted that none of the projectiles used in slaughter houses or in hunting are so effective that an animal will die instantaneously regardless of where the projectile hits the body; the effect will largely depend on the site of impact. As projectiles in hunting are fired from longer distances, the risk of only wounding an animal is higher than in slaughter houses. Whales are not domestic animals and cannot be restrained before being killed. Therefore the killing of whales has to be done to the same principles of killing wild terrestrial animals. Norway considered that the weapons it uses in its whale hunt are highly effective in causing instantaneous death when used as recommended.

_