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

Following the 1995 Workshop on Whale Killing Methods, further experiments on dead whales demonstrated that the amount of electricity that might reach the heart and brain of live whales exposed to electric lances was less than first thought. Furthermore, the resistivity (resistance to electricity) of tissues decreases with time post-mortem, and thus the lance is even less effective than previously suggested. The paper noted that there is no evidence that the electric lance is effective in inducing immediate and permanent insensibility. The conclusion was drawn that the lance is not an effective secondary killing method and is likely to cause extra pain and suffering to an already distressed animal.

New Zealand noted that both this paper and the paper presented to the 1995 Workshop on Whale Killing Methods had been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication in two prestigious scientific journals. New Zealand expressed its regret that a vote on a Schedule amendment to ban the electric lance appeared to be necessary, since it would prefer to see a voluntary phase-out of its use.

Professor Wall (Norway) presented a paper which analysed times to death of all the 891 whales killed in Japanese whaling operations during the last two years. This demonstrated that the electric lance is quicker and more efficient than the cold harpoon as a secondary killing method, with median times after the application of the secondary method of 40 seconds compared to 4.7 minutes. There appears to be an inconsistency between the theoretical approach of Professor Blackmore and the field observations which show that the lance does cause rapid death. It was suggested that the electric current could cause immediate insensibility, but that this is still an open question.

Norwegian experience indicates that the use of rifles could be preferable as a secondary method, but that a feasibility study is needed.

Japan, in presenting four documents, reiterated its basic position and thoughts on this issue as follows.

(1)

The issue is outside the competence of the IWC under the terms of the Convention.

(2)

It had participated in and submitted data to the IWC strictly on a voluntary and cooperative basis and this will remain unchanged. Therefore, Japan does not accept the situation in which it would be obliged to submit data as a requirement. Japan's research is in accordance with Article VIII of the Convention which guarantees a signatory nation's sovereign right to conduct research irrespective of other provisions of the Convention including the Schedule.

(3)

In light of diverse value judgements on humaneness in the world which are rooted in different traditions and cultures, the objective criterion and yardstick must be and has been applied, that is 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.

(4)

If and when discussing the issue, it seems fair and scientifically justified to investigate the situation of not only Japanese activities but also of other types of whaling, including aboriginal and subsistence whaling.

(5)

With regard to the electric lance as a secondary killing method, the results of the extensive research submitted showed that this is an effective method. No mention of the electric lance was made in the revised Action Plan which was agreed by consensus last year.

(6)

Any attempt to ban the electric lance is unjustified and would frustrate future voluntary cooperation and collaboration on its part.

The results obtained from the 1995/96 Antarctic operations showed, among other things, that the instantaneous death rate improved to 29.4% from 23.4% for the 1994/95 season and that, as observed above, the electric lance was much more effective in shortening the killing time than the secondary harpoon. The results further showed that the time for application of electric lance was much shorter than in the 1994/95 season, i.e. 30 second vis-a-vis 40 seconds in the median value. This was attributed to the use of pulsating direct current instead of alternating current, to the removal of the secondary resistance attached to the previous lance system and to the increased voltage used for a limited number of the samples to 440V from 220V.

Other Japanese documents showed, among other things, (1) the relationship between the degree of harpoon wound and application time of the electric lance, and (2) effectiveness of the electric lance to shorten the killing time by putting the electrodes behind the brain, rather than across the heart, when the thorax is submerged, which will give the operators wider options for the most appropriate positioning of the electrodes. The experiments also suggested two hypotheses. One is that the relatively low current detected from the dead whale could underestimate the strength of electric current which had actually flowed through the then live whale, because the whale used for experiments had died instantaneously when the same electric lance had been positioned at the same points of the whale body. Another is that a relatively low level of electric current actually killed the whale.

Japan stressed that it had worked very hard in response to the recommendation of last year's Workshop and that whatever magnitude of the current applied to the heart or the brain of the whale, the fact is that the electric lance led whales injured by the first harpoon to rapid death. It concluded that the electric lance was still the most effective secondary killing method currently implementable.

The ensuing discussion in the Technical Committee indicated two main positions. Some delegations considered that the evidence is inconclusive and so were not ready to support the Schedule amendment put forward by New Zealand and the UK to ban the use of the electric lance as a secondary killing method when faced with such conflicting advice.

Sweden suggested that other comparisons, such as between the use of rifles vs electric lance and a second explosive harpoon vs electric lance were needed. It also suggested that humane killing aspects of aboriginal hunts ought to be considered as well as appropriate training of whalers.

Japan pointed out the longer time needed to mount a second explosive harpoon and subsequent longer time to death as well as other difficulties, its internal legal problem concerning the use of rifles, and the weather conditions in the Antarctic which may render the use of a rifle on board the vessel less effective. It proposed further joint studies between Japan and New Zealand to try and resolve the conflicting evidence.

Other delegations were convinced by the evidence presented by New Zealand and the UK, identifying humaneness, of which time to death is only one aspect, as the key issue. They expected no further delay following last year's Resolution with its commitment to reconsider the question of introducing a Schedule amendment.

The UK said that in its view the electric lance did not meet the criteria for humane killing used by the Commission; under these time to death was not the only criterion. It believed that there was no evidence that the electric lance induced immediate insensibility; as a previous humane killing workshop had recognised, the use of electrical killing methods which did not cause immediate insensibility were likely to cause severe pain. Like New Zealand, the UK regretted that it had been necessary to propose a Schedule amendment, but it wanted a firm decision, in some form or other, to phase out use of the electric lance.

A proposal by St Lucia to refer the problem to the Scientific Committee, rather than the Working Group on Humane Killing Methods, was withdrawn after some discussion, to be introduced at a later time.

The Technical Committee therefore could reach no consensus on the proposed amendment to the Schedule, but agreed to forward the various views presented to the Plenary.

4.2 Other matters
There were no other matters raised.

4.3 Action arising
In the Commission, Japan commented that New Zealand and the UK claim that the electric lance is ineffective based on data obtained from dead whales, while it firmly believed that it is the most effective secondary killing method currently implementable to shorten the killing time based on experiments and hard data. It noted that many delegations encouraged the use of rifles and it announced that from the 1996 season it would undertake a limited feasibility field study for assessing their effectiveness and report as appropriate at the next Annual Meeting. It regarded Resolutions directed against it as counter-productive and could not accept a ban on the electric lance and looked for fruitful discussions.

The UK, together with New Zealand, subsequently submitted a proposal to amend the Schedule to prohibit the use of the electric lance. They considered that the electric lance is inhumane as it does not have a stunning effect and therefore causes extreme pain, and the use of electrical devices as a means of killing wild animals is prohibited by the Berne Convention. They would have preferred a commitment by Japan to phase out the use of the lance but had amended their original proposal so that the proposed ban would not come into effect for three years. They welcomed Japan's intention to carry out research on the use of rifles as an alternative secondary killing method.

Japan restated its belief that the electric lance is still the most effective secondary killing method, pointed out its lack of experience with rifles and the problems of weather conditions.

Sweden welcomed the comparative study, while New Zealand appreciated the assistance of Japan in informal discussions but sought a positive statement from the Commission. The Netherlands, France and Chile supported this position.

St Vincent and The Grenadines recognised the conflicting evidence presented and sought input from the Scientific Committee and the results of the study on the use of rifles before taking a decision. St Lucia, the People's Republic of China and South Africa held similar views.

Norway was willing to help Japan in its feasibility studies and suggested that the preliminary results should be submitted next year and a fuller report considered at the Workshop on Killing Methods in two years time.

The USA joined others that believe the most humane killing techniques must be used in whaling but considered that the Commission should re-establish the Humane Killing Working Group to consider the issues.

In response to a question by Grenada, the UK emphasised the need to achieve an immediate stun which is not practicable with electrical devices and wild animals.

The proposal to amend the Schedule by designating existing paragraph 6 as sub-paragraph 6(a) and adding the following sub-paragraph

'(b) In accordance with Article V.1(f) of the Interactional Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, the use of the electric lance as a method of killing whales shall be forbidden from 1 July 1999'

was then put to the vote. There were 16 votes in favour, 8 against and 5 abstentions, so it failed to achieve the three-quarters majority necessary to be adopted.

Mexico explained that it had abstained because it did not want to take a decision before the scientific work is done.

The proposal by the USA to reconvene the Humane Killing Working Group was supported by Switzerland, and Norway suggested that a more permanent Chairman might be appointed who is a specialist in the field. St Lucia was assured that scientific issues would be examined and the People's Republic of China suggested that the Working Group should consist of independent scientists.

The Chairman proposed that the Secretary write to Commissioners to seek their views on re-establishing the Working Group and its agenda and the possibility of holding a meeting prior to the next Annual Meeting.

_