(from "Chairman's Report of the Fiftieth Annual Meeting")
8.1.1 Name of the Working Group
Norway summed up the situation after last year's meeting in Monaco where
several delegations had expressed views on the use of the term 'humane
killing'.
It noted that several interpretations of the term had been advanced, and
concluded that the understanding of this term was influenced by very
subjective perceptions in addition to differences in cultural and traditional
backgrounds.
On this basis, Norway proposed that the name of the Working Group should be
'Working Group on Hunting Methods' as this name would cover all the relevant
aspects of discussion in the group.
A broad range of views on the many interpretations of the term 'humane' were presented and discussed. It was noted that there are a wide range of cultural and social influences on the views and feelings evoked by its use; and that it seems to take on a different meaning depending upon the species to which it is applied. The UK considered that the term 'humane', when applied to killing methods, meant killing without causing suffering; and to drop the term would suggest that the IWC was no longer concerned to achieve this objective. The Working Group was unable to reach agreement and the matter was referred to the Plenary.
Two main views emerged:
The Netherlands suggested a compromise which was supported by several delegations - that the title be changed to 'Improvement of Hunting Methods'. This was supported by Norway amongst others. However, Japan stated that it did not believe that further improvement was possible in some circumstances.
New Zealand stated that in its view it was important to retain the name of the Working Group, so that it could continue to focus its attention on such issues as time to death and insensibility. It acknowledged that there were differences of opinion amongst delegations about humane killing that should continue to be debated, and that if the Working Group were to only consider hunting methods, it could lose that focus and simply receive technical reports.
Japan brought to the attention of the Group its comments on this issue from last year, i.e. that the issue is outside the competence of the IWC under the terms of the Convention. However, it noted that it may contribute information and participate in the Working Group on a voluntary basis. Japan stated that it had fully cooperated by responding to the recommendations of the Working Group in the past, but questioned the apparent difference in times to death and humaneness accepted for aboriginal subsistence catches and those expected in other types of whaling operations.
St Vincent and The Grenadines agreed that the topic of humane killing fell outside the competence of the IWC.
8.1.2 Information on improving the humaneness of aboriginal subsistence
whaling
IWC Resolution 1997-1: (1) welcomed the steps taken so far by the aboriginal
subsistence whalers of the USA, the Russian Federation and Greenland to
improve the humaneness of whaling techniques in aboriginal subsistence
hunts; (2) urged them to do everything possible to reduce still further any
avoidable suffering caused to whales in such hunts; (3) requested the USA, the
Russian Federation and Denmark to continue to inform the Commission on an
annual basis of progress made in this matter, and to provide other information
concerning the taking of whales under aboriginal subsistence quotas; and (4)
requested all Contracting Parties to provide appropriate technical assistance
to improve the humaneness of aboriginal subsistence whaling.
It also agreed to consider this issue at Annual Meetings of the Humane Killing
Working Group and requested that the next Workshop on Whale Killing Methods
should review the data received by the Commission on this matter.
The USA had commented last year that the lateness of the 1997 meeting, combined with the early start of the 1998 meeting, would make it difficult for them to respond meaningfully on the subject of improving the humaneness of aboriginal subsistence whaling at the 1998 meeting of the Working Group. It also stated that the 1998 Makah hunt would not have begun by the time of the Annual Meeting.
At the present meeting, the USA presented the following information. Concerning the Makah, the development of the weapon system described last year and the training of hunters was continuing. During the Makah hunt, all relevant data will be gathered for a report to the planned Workshop. In the Alaskan Eskimo bowhead hunt, the penthrite grenade continues to show great promise for improving the humaneness of the hunt, particularly given the improved fuse mechanism. Of twenty bowheads landed in the autumn of 1997, 12 were landed using the penthrite grenade, and only one animal struck with this weapon was lost. This one loss was attributed to adverse weather and associated sea conditions. The Eskimo hunters are pleased with the weaponry and the Alaskan Eskimo Whaling Commission had ordered more such devices for use in the hunt presently underway.
Denmark, like the USA, had little new information to report due to little or no hunting occurring in the intervening period between the Annual Meetings, which coincided with the northern winter. Improvements to the Greenland hunt included the overhaul of all but eight of the harpoon cannons and new regulations on techniques for controlling the use of the penthrite grenade put in place by the Greenland Home Rule Authority. Problems with violations of national regulations which had been reported to the police were attributed to the high cost to individual whalers of the new weaponry.
The Russian Federation presented a paper on the Chukotka gray whale hunt. During the 1997 season, 79 whales had been harvested (48 males, 31 females). The hunt had been conducted from whaling boats and sea kayaks under the direct control of fishing inspectors from the Chukotka Regional Fisheries Inspection Agency. Rifles were used in most settlements, and 20 darting guns received from the Alaskan Eskimos were also used for the first time. The use of darting guns as an aid in the hunt resulted in catches for 16 out of 17 shots. Time required for each catch using rifles was 30 to 120 minutes (average 77 minutes); while catches using darting guns took approximately half as long (36 minutes average).
Japan commented that the wording 'improving the humaneness' in the title of Agenda Item 8.1.2 is not appropriate because of its vagueness, notwithstanding how nations involved in aboriginal subsistence whaling perceive this terminology.
8.1.3 Workshop on Whale Killing Methods
At last year's meeting it was agreed that a Workshop on Whale Killing Methods
should be held at the same time as the Scientific Committee meeting, i.e.
before the 1999 Annual Meeting, and that the annual meeting of the Working
Group should be retained.
It had been agreed that planning for the 1999 Workshop should occur at the
1998 meeting.
The question of a possible change to the name of the Workshop was raised, but it was noted that this had been decided previously and was not open for discussion.
A copy of the Terms of Reference from the last Workshop, held in Dublin in 1995, was circulated and their relevance to the 1999 Workshop discussed. Japan noted that the intention of the Commission, as expressed in IWC Resolution 1997-1, was that the Workshop should focus on aboriginal subsistence whaling, and suggested that the Workshop should be limited to aboriginal subsistence whaling. However, it was agreed that whale killing methods for all types of whaling would be included, and that the terms of reference of the Workshop should be similar to those for the Dublin Workshop, thereby not excluding the comparison with hunting methods of large terrestrial mammals. Norway repeated its request from last year that Sweden and the UK submit to the workshop data on the efficiency of the hunt of elk/moose (Alces alces) and red deer known to exist in these countries.
There was disagreement on the use of the word 'humaneness' in the list of the Terms of Reference for this Workshop with conflicting views:
After substantial discussion, the Working Group could not agree fully on this matter and it was referred to Plenary.
The Chairman summed up the agreed plans for the Workshop as follows.
TIME AND PLACE
The three day Workshop will be held after the 1999 Scientific Committee and
would overlap one to two days with the Committee and Working Group meetings of
the Commission.
This would allow expertise within the Scientific Committee to be utilised, and
would not disadvantage nations with small numbers of delegates and scientists
needed in other Working Groups.
The overlap would be timed to coincide with a non-scientific meeting such as
Finance and Administration to further reduce the likelihood of important
participants not being available.
The Advisory Committee would decide on the exact timing.
Final confirmation of the location of the next Annual Meeting is not yet
available.
The Workshop will be in the same location as is agreed for the meetings of the
Scientific Committee and the Commission.
FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION IMPLICATIONS
A request will be made in the Finance and Administration Committee for an
amount up to 0,000 for Invited Experts at the Workshop who are either not
members of national delegations and/or from non-IWC member countries with
required expertise.
The Chairman of the Finance and Administration Committee commented that he
believed that amount could be provided for in the budget.
CHAIRMAN OF WORKSHOP
Norway proposed Dr S. Ridgway (USA) the Chairman of the previous workshop
(however health problems might prevent his participation).
It was therefore suggested that Prof K. Nielsen (Denmark) be asked to replace
Ridgway.
Denmark supported this proposal.
In case neither of these two were available, the Working Group recommended
that the selection of Chairman be referred to the Advisory Committee with the
understanding that any member country could send in a nomination for
consideration.
PARTICIPATION
The importance of including sufficient scientific and technical expertise as
a priority was agreed, as was the participation of other members of any
delegation including hunters. Participation by non-member nationals would be
by invitation only.
8.1.4 Any other business
The UK welcomed the report from the Russian Federation on its aboriginal
subsistence operation.
It requested information from Denmark on the Faroese pilot whale drive; and
made two separate requests to Japan - one on the use of the rifle as a
replacement for the electric lance as a secondary killing method in research
whaling and the other on the use of electricity in the Dall's porpoise
fishery.
Denmark commented that it did not recognise IWC competence on small cetacean issues. It noted that a representative of Faroese Home Rule would be at the meeting in the next few days who may provide information to individual members. Denmark was not in a position to comment on Faroese Home Rule issues.
Japan repeated its view that the IWC was not competent to deal with small cetacean issues, and that it therefore would not provide information on the Dall's porpoise fishery. Japan further stated that it believed the humaneness issue is outside the competence of the IWC. However, interested member countries, non-government organisations and members of the press could request information from Japan on the use of the rifle as an alternative to the electric lance and it would provide such data. Japan further stated its willingness to be open in giving information on time to death to anyone, including the public.
Some delegations recalled a statement made by Japan at the 49th Annual Meeting on replacement of the electric lance with the use of rifles. Japan had undertaken to report to an appropriate forum of the Commission on progress and results made in this process. They noted that the withdrawal of the proposed Schedule amendment on the use of the electric lance at that meeting had been done on this basis. In responding, Japan repeated that it cooperated with IWC on a voluntary basis regarding provision of information. It stated that it would be providing this information on a voluntary basis to the Workshop in 1999, which would be composed of scientific and technical experts.
Norway outlined last year's research on hunting methods and the use of new equipment, veterinary inspections, number of animals taken and time to death in the minke whale hunt for 1997. A new penthrite grenade had been trialed on one vessel in 1997 and large-scale field trials using this weapon would take place in the 1998 season. It would provide further information to the Workshop next year.
8.2 Action arising
In the Plenary, Japan repeated its view that this subject is outside the terms
of reference of the Commission.
It believes that humane killing is a subjective term and proposed the more
neutral term 'hunting methods'.
The UK recalled the long history of consideration of this topic in the
Commission since 1959, and thought the meaning of humane killing was clear -
to kill or render insensible with minimum suffering.
It recognised that some other languages did not have the same understanding of
the term, but emphasised the ordinary English meaning.
It proposed that it was not necessary to hold a meeting of the Working Group
after the Workshop next year, but to reconvene it the following year, when the
terms of reference and name could be reconsidered.
Chile supported the suggestion of the Netherlands for the title 'Improvements of Hunting Methods', and an extensive debate followed on these various proposals. Norway and Sweden supported a UK suggestion that the Working Group and the Workshop should have the same name 'Killing Methods'. New Zealand took a similar position and thought it should be the Commission and not the Workshop who should decide, a view shared by Denmark. France stated that it believed that the Commission does have competence in the matter and believed that the Working Group should find a solution to the question of the name. Antigua and Barbuda suggested 'Gear and Methods'. During discussions, the USA, Spain, Australia, Netherlands, Finland, St Lucia, Oman, South Africa, Italy, Switzerland and Germany all expressed support for the position set out by the UK. The Republic of Korea thought it appropriate to use the term 'Hunting Methods'. Monaco commented that although this was a semantic problem, it was culturally controversial and any misunderstanding should be removed.
The Chairman concluded that it was clear that there was no consensus at this meeting. He stated that the Working Group will not meet at the 1999 meeting and confirmed that any decision on the name should be taken by the Plenary.
Japan then proposed that 'humaneness' should be deleted from the terms of reference of the Workshop, and a further round of comments ensued. The UK expressed surprise at this proposal, since the terms of reference for the Dublin Workshop had been accepted, noting that the issue of the safety of the crews had been included. New Zealand and the USA concurred. Japan stated that there was not a common understanding of the term 'humaneness' and that it should be dropped, since this is not an ethics committee; it preferred to talk of killing methods. The Netherlands announced that it has scientists at work on humane killing issues and will hold a meeting of experts later this year to consider practical proposals.
Italy, Switzerland and Sweden, supported by Finland, spoke of the need to retain the concept of suffering in the terms of reference, which can be judged by time to death, and Australia commented that how to measure this was the role of the Workshop. Antigua and Barbuda pointed out that these are substantive issues. It believed that killing cannot be considered humane, and believed that retention of this word is repugnant. Dominica and St Kitts and Nevis shared this position, and Grenada spoke of humane killing of other animals and the use of the electric chair for humans. Monaco believed that no-one objected to consideration of time to death and reduction in suffering, the evidence for which should be assembled, a position shared by South Africa. The Chairman recognised that there was support for consideration of the issues but dispute over the word 'humane', with reservations by a number of countries. He established a small group comprising Monaco, UK, Japan, Norway and the USA to consider the terminology issue and to report back, to Plenary.
On its return, the small group reported that it had reached no specific agreement. The USA had considered that the introduction of the word 'practicalities' may clarify matters. Norway had introduced a substantial revision to the Terms of Reference which could not be accepted by others. Subsequently, revised language for paragraph (v) of the Terms of Reference was agreed. (The final Terms of Reference are shown in Appendix 1). Australia wished to emphasise that death should be without pain, stress or distress, with instantaneous insensibility and so could not join in a consensus. The UK shared some of these concerns but agreed to the terms given in Appendix 1 in order to allow the Workshop to carry out its work; the UK was not attempting to find a universal definition of humaneness.
Finally, New Zealand thanked Japan for providing it with data on the use of the electric lance, although it was not in the form expected, and it looked forward to the Workshop next year for further information to be provided on a voluntary basis. Japan stated again its view that this matter is outside the competence of IWC, but it has no intention to withhold the information which it will provide to interested parties, Governments, NGOs and the Press. It will submit data to the expert forum of the Workshop.
_