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

6.1.1 Terms of reference
The 45th Annual Meeting had charged the Working Group with considering its mandate further this year. The discussion revealed that the Working Group was in the same position as the previous year and, on the Chairman's proposal, the meeting agreed to proceed on the basis of the terms of reference proposed in 1993 - to review information and documentation available with a view to advising the Commission on promoting the development of humane methods of killing whales. The objection of Japan to this change, and the interpretation of Denmark and Norway that this referred to whales covered by the Convention, were taken into account.

Japan also raised the further issue concerning the name and title of the Working Group, since 'humane' is not defined. It suggested a more objective name should be sought, such as 'Killing Methods of Whales'. This matter was referred to the Commission for its consideration.

6.1.2 Action arising from the 1992 Workshop on Humane Killing Methods
A number of papers were submitted to the Working Group and presented by the respective delegations.

Norway introduced its paper on hunting methods in Norway, a report from the 1993 scientific and traditional catch. This indicated a substantial decrease in the median (72 seconds to 0) and mean (334 to 228 seconds) survival times compared with the latest data collected from the traditional catch during 1984 - 86, and an increase (from 44.8% to 53.5%) in the percentage of animals that died and lost consciousness instantaneously.

The USA gave an account of the hunting efficiency and recovery methods developed and employed by native Alaskans in the subsistence hunt for the bowhead whale. The development of the penthrite projectile and the benefits of the AEWC's focus on efficiency are evident in the statistics of the 1993 hunt when close to 80% of the whales struck were landed, which represents a dramatic improvement over the 50% efficiency rate found in this hunt historically.

New Zealand presented a report on its preliminary investigation of techniques for killing whales, focussing on anatomical studies and basic work on the euthanasia of stranded animals. Multiple projectiles fired from a 12-gauge shotgun were ideal for small cetaceans and explosive penthrite charges for larger animals. It also had preliminary evidence that electric lancing is likely to cause unnecessary pain and suffering to a whale already harpooned.

Japan reported on the humane killing of Antarctic minke whales for the 1993/94 season. This recalled the development of the penthrite grenade harpoon used since 1983 and efforts to reduce the kill time while ensuring crew safety. The median time to death was calculated as four minutes. It also presented a paper setting out the reasons why it thought comparison with cases of other animals is essential, since comparative studies, particularly with terrestrial animals, will offer direct information on time to death and assessment of stress which may inspire improvement in the presently used methods.

Japan also reported on a bilateral meeting with Norway to exchange information for refinement of the design of the penthrite grenade harpoon.

The UK offered a compilation of figures on times to death and struck-and-lost rates in recent Norwegian scientific and commercial whaling operations derived from Norwegian Government reports, in the belief that it might assist discussion.

Denmark outlined the ways the 1993 Greenland action plan on whale hunting methods implemented the IWC's 1992 Action Plan. This included provisions concerning overhaul and repairs of harpoon guns, training, the use of the detonating grenade harpoon and establishment of a Working Group to examine the rifle hunt. Time to death is now also required to be reported.

Discussion of these papers ranged over a number of topics where delegates held different views, including the use of rifles and the electric lance for secondary killing, as well as appreciation of the new material presented.

6.1.3 Preparations to reconvene the Workshop on Humane Killing Methods
6.1.3.1 Terms of reference
The UK had prepared a discussion paper reviewing the areas on which the Workshop could focus and proposing terms of reference. It noted that the proposal is to reconvene the 1992 Workshop, with no substantial changes other than updating to take account of the Action Plan and new data.

At the conclusion of the ensuing debate the Working Group agreed that the terms of reference for the 1995 Workshop would be to:

(i)

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

(ii)

assess the methods, their efficacy and physiological effects;

(iii)

evaluate the time to death achieved by the various methods;

(iv)

review and evaluate all data, relevant to the Workshop, available through the IWC or held by national governments or organisations;

(v)

complete a comparative analysis of the methods and consider revision of the Action Plan as appropriate, with a view to improving the humaneness of whale killing techniques while paying proper regard to the safety of the crew.

6.1.3.2 Practical arrangements
A number of delegations supported the proposal by Norway that, since this Workshop was a reconvening of the 1992 Workshop, it should, wherever possible, reflect the same arrangements as for the earlier workshop. Following discussion of the various aspects, the Working Group made the following proposals.

The Working Group agreed to recommend to the Commission that, if possible, the Workshop be held in conjunction with the IWC's 1995 Annual Meeting.

On the question of who should chair the Workshop, Denmark observed that, since this is a reconvening of the 1992 Workshop, there is already an existing chairman and vice-chairman and that other approaches be made only if these are unavailable. The relevant governments agreed to approach the respective chairman and vice-chairman to ascertain if they would be available for the 1995 Workshop.

Some delegations believed that national governments should be responsible for providing funding for their own experts to attend while others suggested that there was a case for provision to be made for a small number of recognised experts to be invited by the Commission to attend as the Commission's experts.

It was agreed to report these two views to the Commission for its final decision.

The Working Group recommended that participants be technical experts but recognised that it was the decision of member governments as to who they sent.

Since it had been agreed that the 1995 Workshop is a reconvening of the 1992 Workshop, the arrangements for the admission of observers should be on the same basis as in 1992.

In the Plenary, Japan reiterated its position that humane killing does not fall within the competence of the IWC, but it was prepared to cooperate on a voluntary basis. It thought there was general recognition that the explosive harpoon is the best method available and that this issue had been fully addressed. It was concerned over the direction being taken by the Commission, since it seemed that the more information it provided the more it was criticised. It believed that the electric lance was humane. Japan restated its views that the name of the Working Group and Workshop should be 'Killing Methods' and, on the terms of reference, the desirability of including comparisons with terrestrial hunting methods.

Australia acknowledged the pragmatic stance of Japan on this matter. It preferred to retain the existing name and was unconvinced of the need to consider land animals. It also advocated a sparing use of IWC funds. The UK agreed with Australia on many points and was concerned over the effect of removing 'humane' from the name. New Zealand echoed these thoughts and believed that changing the name would send a wrong signal. It would be disappointed if there were no improvements in techniques and expressed particular concern over the continuing use of the electric lance.

The USA supported continued use of the name Humane Killing Working Group and Norway spoke in favour of the arrangements for the Workshop including a full review and evaluation of comparative data, in which other large mammals could be useful.

6.1.4 Other matters
Last year the Commission adopted a Resolution inviting the Danish Government to encourage the Faroese Government to provide all additional information on its pilot whale hunt to the 46th Annual Meeting and the forthcoming Workshop preceding the 47th Annual Meeting. The Faroese representative advised that it is the opinion of his Government that the IWC does not have legal competence on this issue and that questions concerning those species are more efficiently dealt with on a regional basis through organisations such as NAMMCO. There is no need to repeat the work of NAMMCO, but the Faroese Government is willing to discuss such matters on a bilateral basis. The UK hoped the Faroes would be able to participate in the 1995 Workshop.

6.2 Action arising
Following interventions from the UK, Japan, USA, Denmark, New Zealand and Norway on various points of clarification and interpretation, the Chairman summarised the conclusions on reconvening the 1992 Workshop, leaving the detailed arrangements to the Secretary and the Convenor of the Working Group. The Workshop will be held immediately prior to the next Annual Meeting; the terms of reference are those proposed by the Working Group; the same name will be retained; technical experts from different specialities will attend, some nominated by member governments and others invited by the Commission; all the papers should be related to the terms of reference and be submitted through member governments; comparative studies with other species may be included where relevant; NCO observers will be admitted in accordance with normal IWC procedures; and the UK will approach Professor Sir Richard Harrison to see if he will act as Chairman once again.

Australia introduced a Resolution on the use of the electric lance as a secondary method of killing whales, co-sponsored by Brazil, France, Germany, Monaco, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the Russian Federation, South Africa, UK and USA.

Japan considers the electric lance is still the most effective secondary killing method and while it recognised some improvements in the revised Resolution presented compared with the original, it lodged a strong objection to some elements. However, it will send the necessary experts to the Workshop so that discussion can take place in an objective manner. Norway supported this statement.

The Resolution shown in Appendix 1 was then adopted, noting Japan's objection.

_