(from "Chairman's Report of the Forty-Seventh Annual Meeting")
Papers were presented and discussed in the context of the Workshop Agenda Items dealing with the methods in use and their development, the assessment of methods, times to death, review and evaluation of relevant data, comparative analysis of the methods, and methods of secondary killing.
Modern scientific methods are available for investigating whale killing much more directly as has been suggested in this and in previous workshops. Such direct investigations will require considerably greater resources than member governments have, so far, been prepared to provide.
In the absence of data from such direct methods, nevertheless, slow but useful progress has been made over the past 20 years. The training of whalers in anatomy and targeting has been a very positive step and the development of the penthrite grenade was certainly a major step forward.
There can be little doubt that a penthrite grenade of proper size relative to the whale size, delivered into the thorax in the vicinity of the heart, which is, relatively speaking, not far behind the brain, can render the animal unconscious and insensible within a few milliseconds, whereas more than 100 milliseconds are required for awareness of sensation to develop. This can be referred to as 'instantaneous' death.
Scientists and technologists (including whalers) working with whaling have presented some strong indirect evidence that a majority of whales are killed 'instantaneously' by grenades currently using penthrite dosages of between 18-35g; however, others at the Workshop have questioned the reliability of this indirect evidence.
The size and precise targeting of the penthrite grenade are critical. To minimise danger to whalers, the lowest dosage of penthrite consistent with rapid insensibility (before awareness of sensation can develop) of the whale must be used. Direct studies of a few whales would help to set this dosage of penthrite required as the primary killing method.
In this Workshop, the major debate focused on secondary killing methods used in cases when the whalers considered that whales were not immediately killed. There was considerable opposition to electrocution as a secondary killing method, with an expressed preference for the rifle. Japanese scientists strongly defended the effectiveness of their electric lance method and pointed out that in any case the rifle could not be used under Japanese law.
Because of the shortage of time, an ad hoc Working Group dealt with specific recommendations for future research. This group reported two major objectives, given below.
There was a general agreement that further workshops should be held by the IWC. In the interim, there should be increased cooperation and the collaboration of individuals from different countries in research on whale killing methods. For example, Japanese, Norwegian and Americans could work together on penthrite grenade studies and secondary methods associated with whaling in the three countries.
A major value of this Workshop has been the close and frank exchange of ideas among different participants with different points of view.
In the Technical Committee, Sweden supported the incorporation of better technology into traditional hunting methods, accounting for the cultural aspects, the increased training and licensing of hunters and an openness to supply data. The Russian Federation emphasised that such changes should be made without endangering cost efficiency and human life, a position it confirmed in the Plenary.
Japan outlined its position that humane killing is outside the competence of the IWC, but it submitted data strictly on a voluntary and cooperative basis and does not accept the situation where it would be obligated to submit data as required. In light of diverse value judgments on humaneness in the world which is rooted in different traditions and cultures, the objective criterion has been applied, i.e. reduction of the time to death. The development of the penthrite grenade harpoon by Japan for use on minke whales and subsequent improvements reduced the time to death considerably. With regard to the electric lance as a secondary killing method, the results of the extensive research conducted in the 1994/95 Antarctic season submitted to the Workshop show that it is an effective method. No mention of the electric lance was made in the revised Action Plan which was agreed by consensus. Japan expanded on its statement of its position in the Plenary.
6.3 Use of electric lance as a method of killing whales
New Zealand noted the comments by the Workshop Chairman that drew attention to
the considerable opposition to electric killing methods; and particularly
drew attention to comments at the Workshop that death is not always
instantaneous.
It is not just the time to death that is an issue but what happens in that
time.
Further discussion involving Norway, UK, Netherlands and Australia centred on the pain inflicted, the lack of statistical analysis of the data provided by Japan and the goal of instantaneous insensibility. A number of delegations believed that this goal may be better achieved using a rifle. Japan pointed out that the electric lance is more effective than a second harpoon in reducing the time to death, that the rifle had only a minor mention in the Workshop, and that use of a rifle on Japanese ships is not allowed and would be more difficult in Antarctic sea conditions for the purpose of reducing killing time. It further stressed that any attempt to ban the electric lance is unjustified and would frustrate future voluntary collaboration and cooperation.
6.4 Other matters
Concerning information requested on Faroese pilot whaling, at the 45th Annual
Meeting Denmark noted that its views were well known on this issue.
The UK acknowledged the helpful information supplied to the Workshop on Whale
Killing Methods by the Faroese scientist, to which it would return in Plenary.
6.5 Action arising
The Technical Committee agreed to forward the two recommendations on research
needs from the Workshop on Whale Killing Methods and the revised Action Plan,
and the Commission formally endorsed the latter (Appendix 1).
New Zealand and the UK noted their proposed Schedule amendment dealing with the electric lance, and Norway reserved its right to present a Resolution in the Plenary.
In the Commission, the UK introduced a Resolution on killing methods in the Faroese pilot whale drive fishery on behalf of Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Netherlands, Spain and Sweden. While it was for the Faroese themselves to decide whether or not to continue the hunt, because of the welfare aspects of the pilot whale hunt the provision of information by the Faroese Government to the Whale Killing Methods Workshop was appreciated. There was still concern over the use of the gaff so the news that an alternative is being developed was welcomed and the Government was encouraged to continue to improve the humaneness of the hunt. Finland and the Netherlands joined in welcoming the positive developments.
Denmark recalled that its position as regards the IWC's competence for small cetaceans is well known and remains unchanged. It was encouraged by the acknowledgement of the work done to improve the performance in the drive and could therefore accept the Resolution. Japan also recorded its basic position on small cetaceans in the IWC.
The Resolution, which appears as Appendix 2, was then adopted without vote.
At a later session Norway introduced a Resolution on whale killing methods, sponsored jointly by Japan. This was based on the discussions in the Workshop and primarily noted the progress made over the past 20 years in the development of the penthrite grenade and the training of whalers in anatomy and targeting. While opposition to the electric lance was expressed there is no conclusive evidence available and more research is needed on secondary killing methods, the results of which will be presented to another Workshop in perhaps three years time. Japan considers killing methods to be outside IWC competence but has still contributed to past Workshops.
The Republic of Korea commented on the differences of opinion on the effectiveness of the electric lance and supported the Resolution.
The UK criticised this Resolution because it would postpone any action until the next Workshop in 1998 when what is needed is not further research, but that the existing data be published and analysed. It therefore introduced an alternative Resolution on behalf of Brazil, Finland, France, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Oman and the USA. This also recognised the value of the work done by the Workshop and called on Contracting Governments to examine the data presented, particularly with reference to the electric lance which it believed is ineffective and causes unnecessary severe pain. This is a technical, not a cultural issue, and it looked for a reconsideration of the matter next year and in the meantime urged suspension of the use of the electric lance. Austria strongly supported the second Resolution and the Netherlands also called on Japan to prepare for the substitution of the electric lance by the rifle at the earliest possible date. Germany also expressed its support.
St Lucia believed that both analysis of existing data and new research into methods that would cause the least amount of pain and shorten the time to death were required and Brazil could agree with much of the presentation by Norway of the first Resolution but thought the second gave more incentive to Japan to find an alternative method.
Japan pointed out that the Workshop had reached no conclusion on the matter but did reach consensus on the revised Action Plan. It found some of the language in the second Resolution misleading.
New Zealand opposed the first Resolution and supported the second because, while it opposed the resumption of any commercial whaling, so long as whaling activity continues it was concerned to ensure that the methods used for secondary killing were as humane as possible. The Resolution on humane killing adopted last year indicated that any conclusion of the Workshop was not the only basis for taking action, and there was a clear balance of opinion and considerable opposition to electric killing methods.
On being put to the vote, the Norwegian/Japanese Resolution was defeated, receiving 7 votes in favour, with 18 against and 6 abstentions.
Switzerland explained its abstention because no conclusive evidence was brought forward at the Workshop on the electric lance and so it could not decide if further research should be performed. Japan noted that the IWC had again rejected the constructive and sensible approach because it did not satisfy the political agenda, and this would be taken into account in future cooperation and collaboration on this issue. India abstained because of the inconclusive findings of the Workshop and the inconsistent wording of the Resolution.
The second Resolution was then adopted by 20 votes in favour, with 5 against and 6 abstentions, and appears as Appendix 3.
_