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

On a point of order, Norway drew attention to the fact that the report of the Workshop on Whale Killing Methods had been obtained by a newspaper before it was released to delegations. The Chairman regretted that a confidential document had been leaked and stressed the need for respect of confidentiality of documents.

7.1.1 Report of Workshop
A three-day Workshop on Whale Killing Methods met under the Chairmanship of Professor Sir Richard Harrison before the Annual Meeting. The Workshop had been established by a Resolution of the Commission last year, which noted that a considerable body of data had been submitted to the Humane Killing Working Group since 1980 on the development of the penthrite grenade harpoon; believed that more information is available on the efficacy and physiological effects of killing methods; and knowing of the AEWC and Greenland weapons education and training programmes, proposed that a Workshop including but not limited to veterinarians, weapons explosive experts, physiologists, forensic pathologists experienced with trauma and practising whalers be convened. The purpose of the Workshop would be to:

(i)

consider all methods currently in use in whaling or known to be in development;

(ii)

assess the methods, their efficacy and physiological effects;

(iii)

evaluate the times to death achieved by various methods;

(iv)

evaluate progress since 1980;

(v)

complete a comparative analysis of the methods.

The Workshop would report to the Humane Killing Working Group its results and recommendations sufficiently before the next meeting to allow consideration and preparation by the members for discussion. Members of the Humane Killing Working Group which met in Reykjavik in 1991 were invited to nominate suitable experts to form a small Planning Group which met in London in February 1992.

Participants from Australia, Denmark, Iceland, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, UK, USA, an invited participant and 11 NGO observers attended the Workshop.

Professor Harrison presented the Workshop report to the Working Group, expressing the view that there remain many gaps in knowledge as it relates to the humane killing of great sea mammals.

The Workshop received papers and presentations reviewing current technology, including the development and testing of the Norwegian penthrite harpoon, and the development of alternatives to the cold harpoon by Japan which led to the adoption of penthrite as a preferred explosive. No new information was available on the use of electricity in whaling equipment, although the Japanese use of electric lances to kill minke whales in the Antarctic which did not die from the first explosive harpoon was discussed. The use of large-calibre rifles and high velocity projectiles was also considered.

The pathophysiological effects of projectiles, explosives and other whale killing techniques were considered in the context of cetacean morphology and physiology including responses to stress and injury and assessment of time to death or loss of sensibility to external stimuli. Included in this discussion were the question of voluntary breathing in cetaceans, the effects of explosive injuries and the characteristics of penthrite grenade explosions and the mechanism of death. No new information was available to the Workshop on drugs as a means of inducing rapid loss of sensibility.

The effects of the different components of whaling operations, including the chase, approach and methods used to drive whales were considered. The fisheries discussed included the Japanese Antarctic and coastal minke whaling, Norwegian small-type coastal whaling, the Alaskan bowhead hunt, the Greenland minke and fin whale hunting (including information on the action plan by the Home Rule Government on improvement of whaling equipment), and the Faroe Islands pilot whale drive hunt.

In a comparison of materials, methods and efficacy, the Workshop noted times to death recorded in the Japanese 1983/84 Antarctic commercial catch (mean time to death 2 min. 26 secs) and the 1984 coastal whaling (1 min. 14 secs) and the Norwegian small-type whaling 1984-86 (mean 6 min. 34 secs, median 1 min. 15 secs).

At the Workshop on Humane Killing Techniques for Whales held in 1980, a working definition was accepted that humane killing of an animal means:

'... causing its death without pain, stress or distress perceptible to the animal. That is the ideal. Any humane killing technique aims first to render an animal insensitive to pain as swiftly as is technically possible, which in practice cannot be instantaneous in the scientific sense.

The group noted that the development of a means of achieving a rapid, painless death would also and incidentally increase the efficiency of the whaling operations and improve the quality of the meat obtained (by reducing the stress caused to the whale). Thus the commercial whaling industry is interested in attaining the same objectives.'

In the present Workshop two views emerged.

One view was that the ideal of humane killing, to cause the death of an animal without pain, stress or distress perceptible to the animal, should be applied to the killing of any animal for commercial or other purposes. In that view, assessment of the degree to which particular equipment or techniques used in whaling operations could be considered to be humane would require assessment against the ideal of killing after instantaneous insensibility, as should exploitation of any other animal.

The other view, while accepting that the 1980 definition represented an ideal, stressed that any assessments of particular operations had to be made in the context of what was achievable with the resources that could reasonably be made available. In that view, if whaling operations, which are hunting operations, were to be compared, the comparisons should be made with other hunting activities such as those for large terrestrial mammals. From that perspective, the new information that had been made available to the Workshop was of interest, but could have only limited relevance to the hunting of any wild animal, including whales.

In evaluating progress since 1980, Workshop participants expressed a range of views. The Workshop did agree, though, that based on its discussions, it should provide, for consideration by the Humane Killing Working Group, advice relating to whaling methods and improvements in humane killing aspects of whaling operations, including measures intended to allow assessment of the physiological state of hunted animals. Its advice, which it considered could provide the basis for advice and recommendations from the Commission to appropriate governments and national agencies, was as follows.

Equipment and methods

(1)

Encourage continued cooperation between Japanese and Norwegian agencies to refine the design of penthrite grenades as far as possible.

(2)

Review means of improving accuracy of delivery of penthrite grenade harpoons, including assessment of refined sighting equipment suitable for rapid action under conditions encountered at sea. Support the development and implementation of programmes to provide training in the safe handling and effective use of devices such as the penthrite grenade and in other aspects of the hunt.

(3)

Review constraints on shooting distance and relative orientation of vessel and whale and identify and encourage reduction of practices which may lead to increased times to death in whales.

(4)

Review effectiveness of secondary killing methods with a view to reducing time to death in whales.

Indication of insensibility and death

(5)

Investigate the basis of agreed criteria for assessment of loss of sensibility and time of death in whales, using observations, including those of muscle tone, jaw and flipper disposition; and recordings of EEG and evoked responses under controlled conditions; to establish baselines.

Assessment of cause of death in relation to observed time to death

(6)

Where possible undertake post-mortem assessment of representative penthrite-killed animals, to determine location and extent of injuries and precise cause of death, including specific assessment of the role of concussive cerebral damage and arterial embolism in death. Develop standardised protocols for post-mortem recording of major indicators of rapid death.

Collection and provision of information on time to death

(7)

Undertake analyses and presentation of any further information on penthrite harpoon use, including times to death and strike area on body, in Japanese commercial Antarctic whaling for 1984-1986/87 seasons and in Japanese coastal minke whaling since 1984. Introduce where appropriate methodology comparable to that used in commercial Antarctic whaling, in collecting and analysing data for times to death in catches under special scientific permit.

(8)

Encourage collection and presentation of struck and lost rates and standardised time to death records in aboriginal subsistence catches of whales and undertake assessment of requirements for controls on the use of rifles to kill unsecured whales.

(9)

Encourage the incorporation of data collection and reduction of struck and lost rates in initiatives in Greenland relating to the beluga and narwhal hunts

Assessment or physiological status of hunted animals

(10)

Develop procedures for, and where possible implement collection of, representative samples of blood, brain and other tissues from selected animals, to allow assay of stress indicators and other physiological parameters in animals killed in whaling operations.

Working Group discussion
There was lengthy discussion in the Working Group on various points in the Workshop Report, by way of clarification of particular points, expressions of views, and statements of positions on various aspects of the matters considered. After considering the ten specific points proposed by the Workshop, when some member governments committed themselves to action in future years, they were passed to the Commission for further action.

In addition, on the proposal of the UK, an extra Item was added that the next steps should be to (11) Encourage the Commission both to review progress regularly in all the above areas, seeking data and papers; and to consider holding further workshops.

Japan repeated the comment made by its representatives at the Workshop that it was the view of its Government that sufficient progress had been made without the need for further workshops. It suggested the deletion of the word 'all' from the proposed formulation.

7.1.2 Greenland whaling
Denmark presented a paper concerning the introduction of the detonating grenade harpoon in Greenland, to update information provided in previous years.

7.1.3 Alaskan bowhead whaling
The USA submitted a report on the hunting efficiency and recovery methods developed and employed by native Alaskans in the subsistence hunt of the bowhead whale, in response to a request from the Working Group last year. Second generation penthrite bombs are being used at Barrow.

7.1.4 Other matters
The question of a definition of humane killing was further considered with the Chairman recalling that two proposals for new definitions had been presented earlier.

It was noted that the Working Group and the Workshop on Whale Killing Methods had been conducted using the 1980 definition although the UK expressed the belief that not all Workshop participants had found this definition satisfactory. Japan again stressed the importance of using the 1980 definition in its entirety. The Working Group eventually decided to recommend to the Commission that further work on the question of the definition be taken up, if and to the extent that, it decides this is desirable in the context of the other items for future action.

Plenary discussion
In the plenary discussion, Japan recalled the progress made in the development of the penthrite explosive harpoon, and the appreciation recorded by other governments in earlier years. Although it believed that discussion of whale killing methods was outside the competence of the IWC, it was ready to listen to experts and continue cooperation on this matter. It stated that it would endeavour to collect and provide information on time to death in its Antarctic operations, and thought that any further consideration should be in the Working Group rather than another Workshop. It emphasised its belief that human safety should not be ignored in any new definition of humane killing.

The UK, while believing that the Workshop had achieved some good results, expressed disappointment that there were so little data from the Antarctic pelagic whaling since 1983/84, and over the inability to reach a suitable modern definition of humane killing. It also still had serious concerns over the times to death, the use of the electric lance as a secondary method of killing whales, rifle fire as a primary means, and the pilot whale hunt fisheries and their method of killing. There is still a lack of knowledge about the way whales die, and their pain perception and pathways. While more progress must be made, the benefit of the doubt should be given primarily to the whale.

Australia noted that any recommendations will have to be directed to specific governments if they are to have effect. There is a need to obtain analyses of existing data presented to the Commission, particularly from the more recent Antarctic minke whaling. Improvements in technology may make some difference in reducing longer death times but more accurate delivery will be necessary. Available information on the use of electric lances needs to be reassessed, and the use of rifles to kill unsecured cetaceans is not an acceptable technique. It concluded from the Workshop that the killing of whales is often not humane. Whales should not be taken to test further the methods currently used, but all operations should be permitted only under a regulatory framework in which the ideal applies, of killing methods which cause death without pain, stress or distress and render the animals insensible instantaneously.

Japan pointed out that the data on the use of the electric lance came from a period when the cold grenade harpoon was used and is not relevant now. Denmark did not think the Workshop report expressed concern about the Faroe Islands pilot whale hunt, and reaffirmed that, while it is willing to exchange information and cooperate in scientific research on these matters, its opinion is that management advice should not be given by the IWC on small cetaceans.

New Zealand noted that the UK and Australia had already covered many of the points it wished to raise, but commented that the perception of what is humane has changed over the years and has to be seen in the context of the time. Improvements in whaling technology should seek to take advantage of developments in other areas.

Australia, in response to a comment from Japan, offered to provide through the Secretariat codes of practice concerning the killing of kangaroos for comparative examination.

7.2 Action arising
The UK, on behalf of the other co-sponsors Australia, Brazil, France, Germany, Ireland, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Sweden and USA, put forward a Resolution to accept the 11 point action plan as the basis for advice to members of the IWC, and as a means of keeping up the momentum from the Workshop and Working Group discussions.

Switzerland stated that it thought any modern hunting laws should include regulations on the weaponry used and on the hunting methods. It wished to be added to the list of co-sponsors, as did Finland.

New Zealand regretted that no more up-to-date information on killing methods from countries engaged in whaling was available and hoped for more data in future. It was shocked by the electric lance detail and thought more consideration needed to be given to that form of killing method.

Denmark accepted the Resolution with a reservation concerning competence on small cetaceans as expressed in the report of the Humane Killing Working Group. Mexico supported the Resolution but with a similar reservation. Australia, Spain, Norway, USA and Brazil all voiced support for the Resolution.

Japan expressed its respect for the life of animals and accepted the Resolution except for reservations on Point 9 because it believed white whales and narwhals are small cetaceans outside the Commission's competence, and Point 11 since the Workshop had exhausted the information which should be examined in future by the Working Group.

The Commission then adopted the Resolution (shown in Appendix 1) by consensus, with the reservations noted.

_