(from "Chairman's Report of the Fifty-First Annual Meeting")
The Barcelona Workshop addressed the request of the Commission, its Scientific Committee and the SWG on Environmental Concerns (SWGEC) to develop further the research proposal on cetaceans and pollutants, hereafter called POLLUTION 2000+. The starting point for the Workshop was established by the SWGEC, the Scientific Committee and the Commission in which the measured variables-pollutants and biomarkers (indicators of exposure and/or effects) and the target species had been identified and agreed upon.
PCBs were chosen as model compounds because of their overwhelming anthropogenic origin, very high concentrations in some cetacean populations, recognised effects upon wildlife and the substantial background information already available on patterns in variation, geographical distribution, tissue kinetics and mechanisms of action.
The programme will focus on harbour porpoises and bottlenose dolphins. Last year the Scientific Committee stressed that the programme was intended to address specifically the main recommendation of the IWC Pollution Workshop. Researchers are encouraged to address the other recommendations of that Workshop and consider other species and sources of samples. The priorities of POLLUTION 2000+ do not imply that other approaches are untenable but rather that it is important for the IWC to focus its effort on particularly important questions that would have wide ranging benefits to studies of cause-effect relationships in cetaceans. The programme is intended to produce a model for studies of other contaminants in other species and areas, by bringing together biologists, toxicologists, pathologists, toxico-pathologists and others in a multidisciplinary collaborative programme.
The following short-term objectives are identified for POLLUTION 2000+:
Given these objectives and the levels of resources and effort necessary to examine them, the Scientific Committee agreed that the work should be divided into two phases - information from Phase 1 is important in providing the calibration/validation tools necessary to better focus and design Phase 2. Data from Phase 1 will provide information not only essential for completing Phase 2 of POLLUTION 2000+ but also of fundamental importance to many research programmes examining issues of chemical pollutants and cetaceans. Phase 1 concentrates largely on Objective (2) above and comprises two sub-projects: (a) effect of post-mortem time; and (b) relationship between information obtained from biopsy samples with that obtained from live-captured animals or carcasses (either from bycaught or freshly stranded animals).
Highest priority is to be accorded to sub-project (a) which includes the field research component as well as analyses of the bottlenose dolphin sub-project in the Sarasota Bay, and the field research component of the bottlenose dolphin sub-project in Mauritania, Bahamas and the Mediterranean but that only the PCB analyses are being undertaken as part of Phase 1.
Phase 1 data will be analysed initially in a specialist workshop, before embarking on Phase 2. This will result in a revised programme to be presented to the Scientific Committee and the Commission.
The Scientific Committee endorsed and strongly recommended approval of POLLUTION 2000+, and encouraged the Commission to fund what it can of the costs, and work with national governments and other organisations to secure the rest of the funds.
The Scientific Committee also considered a number of papers including general overviews of environmental concerns for cetaceans and specific information on pollutant levels in a variety of species and areas.
15.1.2 Antarctic SOWER 2000 programme
A Workshop was held in March 1999 in Edinburgh, UK, to develop proposals for
the IWC component of collaborative work in the Antarctic between the IWC,
CCAMLR and SO-GLOBEC, to address the aims of the SOWER 2000 research programme.
A specific objective of the SOWER 2000 programme is to 'relate distribution, abundance and biomass of baleen whale species to the same for krill in a large area in a single season'. Conducting sighting surveys from the CCAMLR vessels in 2000, and from SO-GLOBEC vessels in 2000/01 will help achieve this objective. While details of the data collection methods will need to he finalised at a future planning meeting, the Workshop recommended the framework of a broad design to accomplish this.
The Workshop anticipated that two dedicated vessels will be available. The Scientific Committee agreed that the change of location for the 2001 collaboration with SO-GLOBEC from the Antarctic Peninsula to the vicinity of 70°E is acceptable, and will still allow the programme to achieve its objectives.
The Scientific Committee drew the attention of the Commission to the proposal to attach remote sensing devices (including satellite tags) to minke whales as part of this collaborative research. For some member governments, participation of their scientists will/may require the issue of permits under relevant domestic legislation. Detailed descriptions of the remote sensing devices to be used will be required in sufficient time to allow the permit processes to be followed.
The studies proposed for SOWER 2000 in collaboration with SO-GLOBEC and CCAMLR will greatly improve our understanding of many aspects of Antarctic whale ecology. However, they are only a first step towards addressing questions about the present or future dynamics of Antarctic whales necessary to meet the long-term objectives of the SOWER 2000 programme. To make further progress, a variety of practical and theoretical problems must be addressed.
The Workshop strongly recommended continued close collaboration between both the IWC and SO-GLOBEC, and the IWC and CCAMLR in the long term. Given the importance of continuing IWC involvement in CCAMLR and SO-GLOBEC planning, modelling and analysis activities, and the further work necessary to finalise the practical details for the SOWER 2000 programme, the Workshop recommended that the Scientific Committee should establish a Steering Group to coordinate the planning exercise.
In summary, the Scientific Committee strongly recommended endorsement and funding of the SOWER 2000 proposal and established a Planning Steering Group.
Papers on habitat use patterns (other than SOWER 2000) and environmental research were also considered by the Scientific Committee, as well as visual and acoustic surveys conducted in the Southern Ocean Sanctuary.
15.1.3 Arctic matters
The Scientific Committee received two companion documents which together
presented the basis for an Arctic Initiative that will address both climate
change and pollutant concerns.
These documents were prepared in response to requests by the Scientific
Committee at the 1997 and 1998 annual meetings.
A better understanding of whale ecology and responses to climate change in the Arctic will require coordination among cetacean-focused and oceanographic-focused research programmes.
The Arctic Initiative will coordinate with and benefit from ongoing efforts that address this issue, of which the Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy (AEPS) Program and two groups within this organisation, the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program (AMAP) and the Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF), are examples.
The Scientific Committee thanked the authors for the contributions made by these documents to advance planning for an Arctic Initiative, and fully supported the Initiative's further development. The Scientific Committee recommended continued development of the Arctic Initiative, and invited presentation of the revised framework at next year's meeting.
The Scientific Committee established an Intersessional Working Group, using the SOWER 2000 approach as a template, to produce a draft Arctic Initiative proposal, provisionally named ARCTIC 2000, by next year's meeting.
15.1.4 Other Concerns
15.1.4.1 NOISE
The Scientific Committee considered potential impacts that intense sounds
might have on cetaceans.
The sub-committee on small cetaceans discussed the use of acoustic pingers to
reduce entanglement of harbour porpoises in fishing gear at this year's
meeting.
Arising from that focus, there was discussion concerning the potential for
unintended, negative effects of acoustic devices on cetaceans.
These effects potentially work on two levels: overall sound pollution of the
environment, and possible exclusion of cetaceans from important habitats.
As a result, the Scientific Committee expressed concern over potential adverse effects of anthropogenic noise on cetaceans. It recognised that this is a complex subject and that scientific study on this issue involves the integration of a broad range of disciplines including acoustics, audiology, physiology, behavioural ecology and population biology. The Scientific Committee further recognised that with our current limited knowledge of cetaceans, the risks associated with noise exposure cannot be easily quantified for most species.
The Scientific Committee discussed how it might become better informed on the subject of anthropogenic noise impacts on cetaceans without expending unnecessary amounts of time and energy. Over the past several years there have been a number of national and intersessional workshops and special meetings as well as several major research efforts on this subject. One important result of the workshops and research has been that some consensus has been reached on the most important concerns and the most critical research needs.
The Scientific Committee did not recommend convening an IWC workshop on this topic in the near future since it would not be an effective use of IWC resources.
15.1.4.2 OZONE DEPLETION AND UV-B
It has been shown that chemical processes that underlie ozone depletion in the
Arctic are not the same as in the Antarctic.
Even though CFC emissions are decreasing, it is expected that there will be
continued loss of atmospheric ozone over the Arctic for at least 15 more years
due to nitrification processes.
In addition, certain other halons are increasing in the atmosphere and will
also contribute to ozone depletion.
15.1.4.3 HABITAT DEGRADATION
Concern was expressed regarding possible habitat degradation for gray whales
if a proposed salt works is constructed at San Ignacio Lagoon located in the
Baja California peninsula in the Mexican state of Baja California Sur, one of
the three main breeding grounds for the eastern North Pacific gray whale.
It was pointed out that an environmental impact study is in progress, and it
would be appropriate for the Scientific Committee to wait until that study is
received to give the matter further consideration.
The Scientific Committee received a revised proposal for the Workshop on Habitat Degradation. An Intersessional Steering Group was established to develop a final proposal to next year's meeting.
15.1.4.4 DISEASE AND MORTALITY EVENTS
In response to a concern raised, the Scientific Committee was referred to
information on gray whale mortality at the breeding grounds in the Baja
California peninsula.
During the past winter season (1998/99) strandings of gray whales attracted
public attention.
Much concern was expressed in both the local and international media.
However, the pattern of strandings is in fact not notably different from
expectation, and there is little reason for alarm.
Authors of reviews were encouraged to use caution in using media reports as
sources of scientific information.
15.1.4.5 ECOSYSTEM-LEVEL EFFECTS
After considering papers on whale diet and prey, feeding and species
diversity, the Scientific Committee agreed that, while the subject matter is
important, no consensus was reached regarding whether any conclusions could be
drawn from them.
It was agreed that this topic should be considered at a future meeting of the
Scientific Committee.
It should be identified as such sufficiently in advance so that sufficient
expertise can be made available. A quantitative modelling framework should be
used in that consideration.
15.2 Reports from Contracting Governments
The USA gave an illustrated presentation of the threats to cetaceans posed by
global environmental change.
The previous Chairman of the Commission, Dr Peter Bridgewater (Australia) had
stated that 'global climate change, pollution and the hole in the ozone layer
are greater risks to the world's whale populations than whaling'.
The USA illustrated this by reference to chemical contaminants and intestinal
cancers in stranded whales; human health concerns over PCB levels in women in
Greenland, a 1-3.5-°C global temperature increase and 15-95cm rise in sea
level; the size of the Antarctic ozone hole and resulting UV-B exposure;
shipping, oil and gas activities in Arctic regions; and epizootic infection by
the morbillivirus killing seals and dolphins in European waters.
In addition to supporting the work of the IWC Scientific Committee's Standing
Working Group on environmental concerns, the USA has established research and
management efforts covering these major areas, but not limited to the IWC
arena.
The UK congratulated the USA on its presentation. It believed that environmental risks should be a key issue in the IWC and wished to contribute to that debate. It outlined examples of its own work on Southern Ocean ecosystems and the disruptive effect of contaminants on endocrine systems in wildlife. The UK took a precautionary approach to cetacean management, and saw the IWC as having a key role to play in coordinating and encouraging the activities of relevant research bodies.
Italy expressed its concern about the extent of threats to conservation. It saw this as the focus of work for the third millennium, and thought any resumption of commercial whaling would be unsustainable.
Norway also recognised the environmental threats and was involved in research as well as the politics. It asked if the IWC and the Scientific Committee is the right forum. There are other international bodies involved and the IWC should focus on the cetacean aspects. It thought that there is no general pollution problem in cetaceans except at the regional level. Climate change may affect Europe, but what is the relevance to whales? It mentioned migration and food chain effects as possibilities, and biological parameters can be monitored with food and pollutant effects. If the IWC moves into this new field and closes its monitoring of whaling and whales subject to whaling, it would have to move its management advice to another body such as NAMMCO.
Denmark, while concerned about the environment, noted that there is no information reliably linking human health effects to the consumption of whale products. The aim must be to stop pollution.
The Netherlands thought the IWC could develop into an effective body for the conservation of cetaceans and drew attention to the major threats in the environment of pollution and climate change. It welcomed the proposed research programmes, POLLUTION 2000+ and SOWER 2000, and offered an in-kind contribution of Dr P.J.H. Reijnders to coordinate the POLLUTION 2000+ programme.
Switzerland commented that we do not know what environmental changes are doing to cetaceans. The IWC should gather information and there should be a parallel movement by governments to reduce pollutants.
Austria welcomed the advances made and supported the initiatives represented by the two major programmes. It noted that its scientist would chair the group producing the annual report on the state of the cetacean environment.
Australia recalled its long concern and active involvement in these issues, and it spoke for a major role and leadership by the IWC.
Japan introduced a paper on the estimation of total food consumption by cetaceans in the world's oceans using three methods of analysis, concluding that total food consumption by cetaceans is three to six times the world-wide marine commercial fish catch.
New Zealand congratulated the USA on its presentation and endorsed the comments by the UK. It then went on to say that it did not accept Japan's conclusion that whales compete with humans for limited food resources, since baleen whales eat krill, not fish, and sperm whales eat deep water squid and fish. The problems of the fishing industry had more to do with over-capitalisation and unsustainable catches.
The USA similarly disagreed with Japan, pointing out that there have been fishery conflicts throughout the 20th century, and that there is no scientific consensus that killing whales will increase fish stocks. Man is the primary cause of fish depletion, and now possibly climate change.
The Netherlands agreed with New Zealand and the USA. It saw serious problems in the Japanese analysis. Since some of the whale populations are over-estimated, there is a question over the total consumption, and fish consumed by cetaceans are not all commercial species.
Japan subsequently countered these criticisms, believing the order of magnitude of 100 million tons consumed is correct.
Norway pointed out the serious problems raised in the Japanese paper and the need for research on the interactions of species, a matter it has investigated in its Barents Sea ecosystem studies and which is on the Scientific Committee agenda.
Dominica saw the need for an ecosystem approach, and recognised the difficulties with the analyses which make it premature to judge until the Scientific Committee have looked into them. It had similar concerns over an Australian paper.
Antigua and Barbuda spoke on the issue of marine interactions and pointed out that FAO has acknowledged the problem of predator/prey relationships. It is the vanguard of this problem and it thought that the Scientific Committee should collaborate with FAO.
St Lucia applauded the comments of its Caribbean colleagues, believing that the members of the like-minded core group will never change their minds but only sought to discredit the Japanese scientists. The RMS is always deferred, and it would prefer the Commission to be more realistic.
Sweden referred to the report of the Scientific Committee's Standing Working Group on Environmental Concerns on the community-level effect and the problems with simplistic views. It believed the Scientific Committee should continue with its work.
A paper presented by Australia dealt with the potential for impact of large whales on commercial fishing in the South Pacific Ocean, considering how much of marine production is consumed by cetaceans and the competition with fisheries. Although there is evidence of an increase in some populations of large whales, dietary overlap with commercially fished species is low. There are complex ecosystem interactions which require further consideration.
15.3 Health effects
This item had been added at the request of the UK Commissioner in the context
of the Commission's Resolution 1998-11.
The Chairman of the Scientific Committee noted that at last year's Commission
meeting he had specifically asked the Chairman of the Commission if the
intention had been for this item to be discussed by the Scientific Committee
and had been told that this was not the case.
However, the matter was briefly discussed.
The Scientific Committee agreed that it had insufficient expertise in this field to consider the effects on humans of consuming cetacean products, although it could produce information on levels of pollutants in certain tissues for some species and areas. It suggested that the manner in which the Commission addressed certain issues within the Technical Committee might provide a suitable model for consideration of this issue e.g. by periodically holding specialist workshops (e.g. whale killing methods).
The Secretary introduced a document summarising the two replies received from Commissioners in response to that part of IWC Resolution 1998-11 inviting Governments to submit information on this subject. Both Australia and the UK indicated that they had no information to submit. The Secretary also summarised a report of the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme produced by the eight Arctic countries which included information on the accumulation of persistent contaminants in traditional foods.
Denmark, on behalf of Greenland, recognised the IWC interest in these issues, even though it prefers them to be dealt with in appropriate bodies. There is a need to monitor contaminants in Greenlandic and Arctic food, and to see the healthy effects as well, since the people have low rates of heart disease and thrombosis through eating marine mammal food. It called on member governments to reduce PCB and other pollutants which affect the Arctic region.
Norway also spoke of the health advantages (including the low incidence of heart disease, asthma and psoriasis) stemming from the consumption of fish and marine mammals because of their oil content, while St Vincent and The Grenadines reminded the meeting of its 78-year-old active whaler. Japan similarly recalled the longevity of its inhabitants who traditionally eat fish and whale meat, with positive effects on blood flow and brain function, and noted there is little contamination in whales in the Antarctic or North Pacific. People of the Russian Federation also eat whale meat and it too supported Norway's comments.
15.4 Action arising
15.4.1 Recommendations from the Scientific Committee
Japan recalled its interest in questions of climate change and the Antarctic
ecosystem.
It has provided two vessels for research, which represents a substantial
contribution to the Commission's work.
It spoke of the El Ninõ phenomenon and its very important effect, and
suggested that its two vessels may not go the Antarctic in the future but to
higher priority areas.
The Chairman of the Scientific Committee reminded the Commission of the need to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases, and the Commission noted the comments from the Scientific Committee and endorsed its recommendations.
15.4.2 Other
A resolution on health effects from the consumption of cetaceans proposed by
Monaco, Austria, Italy, UK and the USA was amended by consultations between
delegations outside the meeting, and a revised version, including a number of
language changes suggested by Norway, was adopted by consensus.
This is given in Appendix 5.
Denmark gave its support, pointing out that regional organisations are already collecting the data requested, including the Arctic Council. It was also clarified that the role of the Scientific Committee would be to collate the information and pass it on to health authorities.
_