15. SCIENTIFIC PERMITS

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


15.1 Report of the Scientific Committee
Last year, the Scientific Committee had noted the difficulties it had in providing adequate advice on the effects on stocks of scientific permit catches. Its advice has usually taken the form that the take of x Whales for a short period would have little effect on the status of the stock; however, the effect of a small take for a short period will always be negligible. It agreed that a fuller discussion should take place this year. A Working Group was established to draft guidelines for providing advice to the Commission. Comments were made by some members late in the meeting during the discussion of the report. The Scientific Committee agreed that although some progress has been made, the matter required further consideration next year.

In the Commission, Japan commented on the lack of consensus because three members had thought the approach taken was in the form of a management procedure, but Australia shared the concern expressed by those members.


Results from existing permits
The Scientific Committee received seven documents from Japan related to the analyses of its scientific programme in the Antarctic (JARPA). These were discussed, and the Committee also drew the Commission's attention to its previous discussions of this proposal, and the lack of time available at Annual Meetings to discuss the results of the JARPA programme.

Reports on the first cruise of the Japanese feasibility study under special permit in the North Pacific in 1994 and the results obtained were considered by the Scientific Committee. The number of whales sampled, 21 instead of the 100 planned, was the result of abnormally poor weather conditions. Samples were collected for genetic, morphological, pollutant and parasitological analyses, and a sightings survey was also carried out.

Results from the now completed 1992-1994 Norwegian programme, particularly those related to food and feeding, were presented and the emphasis on the role of minke whales in the ecosystem was noted.


Review of new or revised permits
The 1995/96 programme by Japan in the Antarctic is largely a continuation of the earlier programme but with two major changes - the addition of another objective, the elucidation of the effects of environmental change on cetaceans, in response to the Commission's Resolutions on the environment and pollution; and the extension of the research area to the west for one year only at this stage and an increase of 100 ± 10% minke whales, to clarify the problems of stock structure that had come to light when examining the data from previous years. The Scientific Committee agreed that a more thorough review of the programme and that the data accumulating would be valuable and should be undertaken, and a Steering Group was established to determine the features of such a review. The Scientific Committee endorsed its report and the proposal for an intercessional Working Group.

In the Commission, the USA called upon Japan to refrain from undertaking the new element until the proposed review is completed, and to adhere to the spirit and intent of the Sanctuary. It also expressed its reservation about the continuation of Japan's North Pacific programme, believing that the stock identification objectives could be accomplished by non-lethal means. The UK, Netherlands and Australia all associated themselves with this statement. New Zealand emphasised that the information necessary for management and conservation can be obtained by non-lethal techniques, and it was particularly concerned at the proposal to increase the catch in the Sanctuary, the scene of the worst excesses of commercial whaling. India shared this view, and France, Austria, Chile, Germany, Brazil, Oman, Switzerland, Sweden, Spain, South Africa, St Lucia and Monaco associated themselves with the previous statements.

Japan welcomed the proposal to review its special permit programme, noting comments in the Scientific Committee on the high quality of the work. Elucidation of the Antarctic ecosystem and minke whale stock structure and biology are essential contributions to science of the Southern Ocean, but it recognised the financial constraints in the Commission. It would be prepared to host such a Working Group. It would be pleased if non-lethal methods could meet the aims of its programme, which were realistic and necessary.

St Lucia questioned if it is possible to identify stocks by non-lethal means, and thought that some studies still require lethal methods. A document listing various studies and the available research techniques was referred to the Scientific Committee for comment next year.


15.2 Action arising
The UK, on behalf of Australia, Brazil, France, Netherlands, New Zealand, Oman, South Africa and the USA, introduced a Resolution on whaling under special permit. This did not affect the sovereign right of governments to issue permits, but given the developments in non-lethal research, it replaces the Resolutions of 1986 and 1987 on the evaluation of permit proposals by the Scientific Committee. Research intended to assist the Comprehensive Assessment or implementation of the RMP should only be conducted using non-lethal methods, and lethal methods should only be used in exceptional circumstances to address critically important questions. The Scientific Committee is requested to undertake a thorough appraisal of all existing programmes in the light of the recommendation on non-lethal research, and to ensure all future programmes are appraised in the same light and have clearly defined objectives related to identified research needs, are likely to be met, and there are non-lethal alternatives.

Finland asked what exceptional circumstances might lead to the use of lethal methods, and the UK thought it difficult to prejudge what a Contracting Government or the Scientific Committee might decide.

The Russian Federation proposed a number of editorial improvements to the text which were accepted by the Sponsors.

St Vincent and the Grenadines believed this was a moral question, not a scientific one, which made whales special creatures not to be studied by killing. It wondered if the Commission could resolve this contradiction. In response, India pointed out that it only carries out non-lethal research on its populations of tigers, elephants, lions and rhinos. St Lucia commented on the use of language which was not quantitative, such as cetaceans/whales, exceptional circumstances, critically important issues, which could be interpreted differently. Mexico, while in favour of the Resolution, looked for further consideration of the lethal versus non-lethal research issue. Dominica supported the views of St Vincent and the Grenadines and Mexico. The UK clarified that the request to the Scientific Committee is with respect only to special permit programmes.

The Resolution, shown in Appendix 10, was then adopted with 23 votes in favour, 5 against and 2 abstentions.

Japan introduced a Resolution, co-sponsored by Norway, on further research needs relevant to both Agenda Items 15 and 16. Because New Zealand is strongly opposed to lethal research it moved a number of amendments to avoid any suggestion of endorsement of past lethal research and to make clear that any future research is conducted entirely by non-lethal means. It believes that developments in genetics and DNA techniques, use of dead animals from other causes, photo-identification, sightings surveys and previous catch histories give no justification for any killing of whales to gain vital scientific information. Chile seconded these changes, which were also supported by Australia and the UK, but Japan considered them such substantive amendments as to be a new proposal, a view shared by Norway.

Denmark held the opinion that lethal research should be avoided in a Sanctuary but was not generally opposed to the possibility of scientific whaling elsewhere and so had problems with both the original and amended texts. St Lucia asked if modern technology could determine age at sexual maturity or pregnancy rate without examining the whole body.

The Chairman ruled that the proposed changes were an amendment, which was supported by Brazil and Finland, and was ruling was upheld on being put to the vote, with 23 votes in favour, 4 against and 4 abstentions. Mexico explained its abstention because the original sponsors considered the amendments substantially changed and ran counter to their proposal.

Switzerland suggested that research entirely by non-lethal means was not possible, for example to study the effects of pollutants on internal organs, and suggested the phrase 'whenever possible'. This amendment was seconded by St Vincent and the Grenadines and supported by St Lucia, while Oman found this wording confusing. This language was not adopted, receiving 11 votes in favour, 13 against with 6 abstentions.

Japan then withdrew the original proposal which terminated the debate.

_