(from "Chairman's Report of the Forty-Third Meeting")

Greenland whaling
Denmark presented a document for the Greenland Home Rule Government. Denmark stated that as of 1 April 1991 vessels with harpoon guns are permitted only to use detonating penthrite grenade harpoons for minke and fin whales. Efforts are being made to distribute the grenade to the sixteen municipalities in West Greenland which catch minke and fin whales and user courses are being arranged for the spring of 1991. It was noted that future purchase of grenades may be difficult due to the fact that the specially manufactured percussion caps are subject to export restriction in the producing country.

Alaskan bowhead whaling
The USA representatives presented a report through the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission (AEWC). The background of the AEWC weapons improvement programme was discussed in great detail.

Other matters

(a)

New Zealand presented a document and discussed the use of firearms to humanely dispatch stranded whales. Due to the high rate of pilot whale stranding in New Zealand the question of how to dispatch those animals beyond all hope of rescue has been addressed. Seychelles expressed the hope that New Zealand's experience could be made available to other countries and asked if that could include information on how to make the decision whether to try to save the life of a stranded animal or to kill it humanely. Norway thanked New Zealand for a very useful report.

(b)

Brazil said that it is withdrawing its objection to the ban of the cold harpoon and added that since 1987 whaling has been banned in that country. Brazil also stated that it recognises the cold grenade harpoon as an inhumane and extremely cruel device and supports its continued prohibition if commercial whaling should start up again. The UK and Seychelles thanked Brazil.

(c)

The Chairman explained that there was a difference in perception regarding the terms of reference for this Working Group and drew attention to the extract from the Chairman's Report of the 1990 meeting which read

'The present terms of reference of the Working Group are to review available papers and evaluate the results of experimental programmes on alternatives to the cold grenade harpoon for killing minke whales, and humane killing in aboriginal subsistence whaling.'

At last year's meeting the UK suggested that the terms of reference should be considered at the next meeting, and Australia proposed to add to the terms of reference 'and other whaling activities'. The Technical Committee agreed to recommend this extension to the terms of reference. In the Commission, Denmark recorded that by 'other whaling activities' Denmark meant 'other whaling activities also covered by the Convention', and Japan recorded its reservation on the extension of the terms of reference.

The Chairman had run the Working Group under the revised terms of reference, noting the reservation expressed by Japan and clarification made by Denmark. Iceland supported the clarification of Denmark.

The whole question of Terms of Reference was referred to the Technical Committee for full discussion.

Other business

(a)

The USSR was not present to discuss its position on its objection to the ban on the use of the cold grenade harpoon.

(b)

The UK asked Japan to present the laws which regulate the killing of Dall's porpoise as part of updating the file in the Secretariat on National Laws on Killing Animals. Japan again stated that this matter was outside the competence of the IWC and it was not appropriate to deal with it in this forum. Japan did agree to discuss the matter on a bilateral basis with New Zealand and the UK.

(c)

Noting the fruitful discussions held on aspects of other aboriginal subsistence whaling activities, Brazil asked for an update on such activities carried out in St Vincent & The Grenadines, especially whether any struck and lost events happened since the last Commission meeting. The request was supported by the USA, noting its continued interest in this matter.

(d)

The UK supported by Seychelles, USA, Netherlands and New Zealand, noting that a considerable body of data has been submitted since 1980 on the development of the penthrite grenade harpoon, proposed that a Workshop of technically qualified veterinary and other experts be convened to evaluate the data presented and to report to the next meeting of the Humane Killing Working Group. The remit of this Workshop would be to examine the current methods of killing whales, including their comparative efficacy and physiological effects. This would particularly involve an analysis of the penthrite grenade harpoon. In addition, the Workshop would analyse the data available on times to death resulting from the use of black powder, penthrite grenades and other methods of killing whales and to advise on what progress has been made since the 1980 Workshop.

Denmark supported by Iceland and Norway, while not dissenting from the desirability of such a comprehensive evaluation of the progress made since 1980, preferred that technically qualified experts attend the next meeting of the Humane Killing Working Group and present their findings there.

Technical Committee discussion

(a)

With respect to the terms of reference, Japan questioned the competence of the IWC. What is considered humane is a subjective judgement. Japan believes that the IWC does not have regulatory competence over small cetaceans. It did not see a need to extend the terms of reference and reserved its position.

The UK supported the proposed extension. The history of the IWC demonstrates that it has assumed responsibility in this area. The development of alternatives to the cold grenade harpoon shows the help that governments can give each other in this context.

Denmark confirmed its reservation of last year and Iceland, St Vincent & The Grenadines and St Lucia also opposed the extension. Switzerland and the USA favoured the extension proposed by Australia.

(b)

The UK asked Iceland and Japan if they would withdraw their objections to the ban on the use of the cold grenade harpoon. Iceland stated that it has already announced it will withdraw its objection when minke whaling resumes, while Japan confirmed that it will not withdraw.

The USSR explained that its objection had been lodged both because of its view of the scope of the Convention and for technical reasons. Since it has not engaged in commercial whaling since 1987 there had been no technical review but its principal position concerning the Convention was unchanged.

(c)

Regarding the proposed Workshop, Japan understood that it would review data up to 1990 by a group of veterinarians and other experts to report to the Humane Killing Working Group. It recalled that the USA had brought up this matter in 1975 in order to shorten the time to death. As a result the penthrite explosive harpoon had been developed by Japan and brought into operation in the Antarctic in the 1982/83 season and for its coastal operations in 1984. Death times have been reduced from four to two minutes and the effectiveness of the penthrite harpoon was widely recognised. The technology had been transferred to Norway and then to Alaska and Greenland. It saw no need for another review and believed that this was not so urgent a matter as the development of the Revised Management Procedure. It joined Denmark, Norway and Iceland in preferring to bring experts into the Humane Killing Working Group.

Norway commented on its extensive research programme started after the 1980 Workshop on Humane Killing. The only possible alternative to the cold grenade harpoon was an explosive grenade if it could be made to detonate inside the body of the whale. The results had been reported on a regular basis to IWC. The technology and knowhow developed had extended to Iceland, Greenland and Alaska. It was not opposed to the UK proposal but considered that the relevant context to evaluate whale killing methods must be killing methods employed for the large mammals, especially methods used and regarded as humane in different countries for the hunting of large mammals.

The UK expressed its recognition of the work on the explosive harpoon which had been started by Japan, followed up by Norway and then in Alaska, but said that it was time to take stock. It would draft terms of reference for the proposed Workshop to submit to the plenary.

Iceland shared the views of Norway and thought that the work should not be restricted to whales only but wildlife in general.

The Chairman summarised that members of the Technical Committee had different views on this matter and the concept would be forwarded to the plenary. This proposal was supported by Australia.

Plenary comment
In the plenary, Brazil restated that it is withdrawing its objection to the second sentence of Schedule paragraph 6, and thereby hoped to contribute on a modest scale to better and more humane methods of killing, and to begin the process of thorough review of the Schedule.

15.2 Action arising
In the plenary the UK stated that it considered now would be the right time to review the development in the technology of whaling and take stock of the current performance of whaling techniques. The last technical workshop was held in 1980 which pointed to the potential of penthrite explosive harpoons for producing rapid and humane death in struck whales. Japan and Norway had developed the application of penthrite and the UK believed the time had come for a further workshop of technically qualified experts to report on progress. It therefore introduced some proposed terms of reference for such a workshop of veterinary, explosives and other experts nominated by member states plus others by invitation after advice from the Chairman, Secretary and Chairman of the Scientific Committee. The 1-3 day meeting in the week before the next Annual Meeting would review the literature on development of whaling technology and submissions by member states, and prepare opinions and advice. It would evaluate the physiological effects of different methods, compare them and the resulting times to death and prepare a report for the Humane Killing Working Group, with a view to development of recommendations, if any, to the Technical Committee and plenary.

Denmark seconded this proposal.

Iceland also expressed support, and suggested expanding the purpose to compare the whaling methods to those used in the killing of other large wildlife. After exchanges between Australia, New Zealand, Iceland, Norway and Sweden it was agreed that those attending the workshop should bring information on killing methods from other fields of wildlife which would be assessed in comparative terms with those used in whaling.

Japan expressed doubt that there is anything to be reviewed since it reported in 1983 on its development of explosive harpoons in the Antarctic. It did think it useful to make a comparison of humaneness of killing with other large mammals, and to attempt a definition of humane killing, and so would participate.

The USA and Switzerland supported the UK proposal, while Oman noted that it is not in favour of having an addition of the large wild animals. Following further clarification between Denmark, Iceland and the UK on the comparative assessment of methods, the terms of reference shown in Appendix 6 were adopted.

_