(from "Chairman's Report of the Fifty-First Annual Meeting")
The research activities of the 1998/99 JARPA cruise had to be modified due to a fire on board the research mother ship Nisshin Maru on 19 November 1998 during transit to the Antarctic. The vessel returned to Japan on 20 December 1998, and departed again on 5 January 1999 for the Antarctic; this resulted in a seven week delay to the original schedule and other adjustments to the programme.
Minke whales predominated throughout the research period. Compared to previous cruises in this region, more minke whales and fewer fin, sperm and southern bottlenose whales were seen.
There was some discussion on the likely influence of the change from the original plan on the results, for example in the proportions of males to females and the various reproductive classes. At present it is not possible to distinguish between two hypotheses proposed, but work is continuing.
Commenting on the lack of success of the satellite tagging experiment, the Scientific Committee suggested that the organisers consult with a number of US researchers who had now developed a reasonably reliable system for at least the larger rorquals. It emphasised the contribution that satellite telemetry could make to determining important breeding areas.
14.1.1.2 NEW OR REVISED PROPOSALS
The JARPA survey plans for the 1999/2000 season were reviewed.
This is a continuation of the programme that has been extensively discussed
previously by the Scientific Committee.
This is the 11th full-scale survey of a 16 year research programme,
and the objectives, survey items and methods are the same as in previous
years.
The survey will cover Area IV and the eastern half of Area III to focus on the
issue of stock distribution within the framework of the objectives of the
programme.
14.1.2 North Pacific
14.1.2.1 EXISTING PERMITS
The 1998 JARPN survey took place in the eastern part of sub-area 7 and
sub-area 8 from 26 April to 21 June 1998.
The survey also covered the early period of migration as had that in 1997, in
response to the comments made by the working group on North Pacific minke
whale trials in 1996.
The Scientific Committee noted that several documents relating to the JARPN programme were presented to the meeting and were discussed in the relevant sub-committees.
14.1.2.2 NEW OR REVISED PROPOSALS
The Scientific Committee first received a proposal for a special permit for
minke whales in 1994 when it undertook a detailed review.
Subsequent discussions for future years largely referred to the comments in
the 1994 review.
After some general discussion last year, the Scientific Committee was informed
that more detailed information would be presented.
This year, after reviewing briefly progress to date, two options for the 1999 JARPN survey were proposed. The first was for the survey to occur in sub-area 7W and 11 from June-August with 50 individuals in each area. The second was for the survey to occur in sub-areas 7 in June, 11 in July and 12 in August with 25 whales being taken in each of sub-areas 7 and 11 and 50 individuals in sub-area 12.
In discussion, a number of concerns were raised. These included the fact that the focus of the research whaling plans described by Japan for 1999 is in areas (sub-areas 7, 11, 12) where minke whales from the so-called 'J' stock (primarily occurring in the Sea of Japan and Yellow Sea) mix with animals from the genetically distinct 'O' stock, occurring in the Pacific side of Japan. The specific objectives of this year's research includes estimating mixing rates of J stock animals with O stock animals in these sub-areas. The principal objectives of JARPN is determining the mixing rate between the O stock and the putative W stock further to the east, not between the O and J stock. Further, such information is not needed to improve the already specified Implementation Simulation Trials.
Another concern raised was the prospect that it was expected that the programme would take three to five J stock animals; given the uncertain status of the J stock due to the continuing incidental takes and historical over-exploitation, these removals have the potential for an adverse effect on this stock; given the uncertainties involved, conducting this research, especially in sub-areas 7 and 11, is not consistent with the precautionary principle.
Concern was also expressed that to address mixing rates, greater statistical power is required than the proposed catches would allow. It was suggested that this could be remedied by using non-lethal biopsy sampling. The potential for this methodology for minke whales has improved in recent years and the Scientific Committee has recommended feasibility testing in Greenland waters.
A number of points were raised in response to these concerns. One was that the precautionary arguments raised above must be weighed against the important information that a sample in sub-areas 11 and 7 will produce. With respect to adverse effects on the J stock, the mixing rates data available to try to estimate expected numbers of J stock animals were obtained in the time of commercial whaling. The present mixing rate of J stock animals will be much smaller. Even so, the expected catch of J stock whales is negligible compared with the annual bycatch by the Republic of Korea and Japan.
After this full discussion, a majority of the Scientific Committee was unable to respond positively to a request for the Committee to ask the Commission to urge the Russian Federation to allow access to the JARPN vessels to sample minke whales in sub-area 12.
14.1.2.3 JARPN REVIEW
Last year, the Scientific Committee agreed that a comprehensive review of
JARPN should be planned for the year 2000.
An ad hoc group was convened to examine this further. The proposal for this review was patterned on the review of the Japanese Southern Hemisphere research programme. However, one difference was that the previous review was a mid-point review, while this is a review at the end of the planned research period.
The Scientific Committee agreed the following terms of reference for the review meeting:
The main objectives of JARPN were (1) to determine whether or not the W stock exists, and if so to estimate mixing rates between the O and W stocks, and (2) to determine the feeding ecology of minke whales in the North Pacific.
It is expected that the report of the results of this review will inform the Scientific Committee relative to the plausibility of options being considered in the Implementation Simulation Trials of the RMP when those results are considered during the next Annual Meeting.
The Scientific Committee recommended that the review meeting planned should be adopted and it established an Intersessional Steering Group.
In the Commission, Japan clarified that when the Scientific Committee is satisfied that the objectives of the research have been achieved, leading to the setting of catch limits, it will end its programme. The USA responded that there are many steps before catch limits can be set, including establishing an inspection and observation scheme.
14.2 Review of ethical considerations
Last year the Commission adopted IWC Resolution 1998-4 which infer alia
requested that the Secretariat undertake for the next Annual Meeting a
comprehensive review of the ethical considerations taken into account by other
international scientific organisations with respect to scientific research.
The Secretary therefore wrote to a number of international scientific organisations to seek information on this topic.
The general conclusion drawn was that the broad sense of the legislation, guidelines and codes of conduct which exist emphasises causing the minimum of stress and distress, suffering and pain, and at the same time considering if the research results can be achieved using fewer animals or by other (non-lethal) means.
New Zealand commented on the creative analysis made by the Secretary, and particularly noted one comment from the Council for International Organisations of Medical Sciences which stated that 'scientists should not lose sight of their moral obligations to have a humane regard for their subjects.'
The UK also congratulated the Secretary, and went on to comment on its domestic legislation which includes an internal ethical review process.
The Chairman remarked that the Commission noted the paper.
14.3 Action arising
A resolution on special permits for scientific research was introduced by New
Zealand on behalf of the co-sponsors Austria, Brazil, France, Italy, Germany,
Monaco, Netherlands, Oman, South Africa, Switzerland, UK and the USA.
This requested the Scientific Committee to ask two questions when it considers
such programmes: is the information sought required for management purposes,
and could it be obtained by non-lethal means?
New Zealand confirmed that these questions are in addition to the other
guidelines already in place.
Japan commented that certain information can only be obtained by lethal methods and using only non-lethal means could be limiting for studies such as those on age, growth and pregnancy. Pollution studies also need a lethal approach as well as stock management. It appealed for an accurate judgement.
Monaco responded that Japan implied that the lethal take is done for science, but there is no justification for catches on this scale. It called for an intersessional workshop on non-lethal methods of study, recalling the EC directive for alternative techniques.
Norway pointed out that any party to the Convention has a right to issue scientific permits, and supported the Japanese views. Dominica asked if countries will abide by the advice obtained.
The resolution shown in Appendix 3 was then adopted by a majority, noting the views expressed.
A second resolution on whaling under special permit was then introduced by Australia on behalf of Austria, Brazil, France, Germany, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, South Africa, UK and the USA. This requested the Government of Japan to refrain from issuing any scientific permits for the take of minke whales in the Southern Ocean Sanctuary and the North Pacific in the 1999/2000 seasons. Australia endorsed the development of non-lethal techniques and noted the conclusion of the Secretary's review of ethical considerations with respect to scientific research.
New Zealand recalled that some 4,000 whales had been killed in the Southern Ocean Sanctuary since 1994 and the meat was sold in the markets. Such a high level of sampling was not acceptable, although it acknowledged the treaty rights of Japan. It thought there was a lack of scientific papers resulting and pointed to the success of the Larsen gun for biopsy sampling. The only motive for such research must be if it is vital for management.
France agreed with the statements by Australia and New Zealand.
Sweden also expressed its concern over the scientific permit programme since the moratorium, and supported a phase out as suggested in the Irish proposal.
Japan felt that it must rebut these comments. It spoke of the ethical aspects and Japanese culture, in which whales are killed with care and the treasure of life is recalled before a meal. Over 150 papers had been published from the programmes, and Japan mentioned the quantity and quality of the information supplied to the IWC. This would lead to improvement of management as discussed in the JARPA review, and it would continue its research under its sovereign rights of Article VIII.
Norway agreed that the JARPA review two years ago by the Scientific Committee had found useful results, pointed out the value of age data for management, and so could not support the resolution.
The Republic of Korea spoke of the relationship between whales and fisheries, and encouraged a limited number of samples.
Dominica wanted to ask the Scientific Committee on the use of special permits for managing stocks, and thought the questions asked had been answered already. It concurred with Norway in placing emphasis on the good results obtained, the rights in Article VIII, and the possible stress imposed by satellite tagging. It would not support the resolution.
Monaco said that Japan's whaling was contrary to the spirit and intention of the Convention in design and scale. It urged all Contracting Governments to refrain from invoking Article VIII unless approved by the Scientific Committee and the Commission. Japan responded that it is exercising its legitimate right and requested Monaco to withdraw from the Convention.
The resolution given in Appendix 4 was then adopted, with 20 votes in support, 10 against and 4 abstentions.
_