(from "Chairman's Report of the Fifty-First Annual Meeting")

9.1.1 Methods in use and development
9.1.1.1 COMMERCIAL WHALING
Norway described the development of a new penthrite grenade, the construction of new harpoons for 50 and 60mm harpoon guns, a study on pathological changes in the minke whale after penthrite grenade detonation, an illustration chart for the position of the brain in the minke whale and also measurements of stress hormones in minke whales. In 1998, 63% of the 625 whales caught died instantaneously (<=10s) and the mean time from the shot until all signs of life ceased was 198s.

Norway also gave details of its programme to improve weapons and hunting methods during the 1981-86 Norwegian minke whale hunt. Several methods were evaluated, including electricity, drugs and compressed air. None of these resulted in new equipment design or field trials. However, field trials using high-velocity projectiles, traditional and modified cold harpoons and penthrite grenades were conducted. The work resulted in development and implementation of a new penthrite grenade that gave a substantially higher (45%) percentage of instantaneous death than former killing methods (17% with the cold harpoon). The conclusions of the investigation into the rifle strongly suggest that rifles with calibre 9.3mm, .375 and .458 with round-nosed full metal jacketed projectiles have sufficient impact energy and penetration force to kill a minke whale when the projectiles hit in or near the brain.

Norway stressed that the primary killing method (harpoon), is aimed at the thoracic/lung region. The secondary killing method (rifle) is aimed at the head and brain. Work has been undertaken to determine the position of the brain in the minke whale in relation to external features to provide a target area for gunners and also an illustration chart which could be used for educational purposes on whaling vessels from the 1999 hunting season.

For the sake of convenience, information on the Japanese scientific whaling was discussed at this point in the Workshop. Japan commenced its research on whale killing methods on a regular basis in its Whale Research Programmes under Special Permits in the Antarctic and northwestern Pacific Oceans from the 1993/94 season. The object of the research is improvement of whale killing methods to shorten the time to death by analysing the sampling vessels' chase and catch data, and the data from the necropsies of sampled whales. The rapid feedback to the gunners of the efficiency of the rifle shots and the education of the crews has succeeded in reducing the time to death. On no occasion since the introduction of the rifle as the secondary killing method has the electric lance been deployed.

New Zealand asked for information on the use of electricity to kill other cetaceans, in particular Dall's porpoises, but Japan slated it would not enter into discussion on this matter since it considers small cetaceans to be outside the competence of the IWC.

Japan expressed concern that it was always being asked to provide data and yet when similar requests had been made to other countries concerning terrestrial hunts no information had been provided. Requests had been made of Australia for kangaroo culls, Sweden for moose hunts and UK for red deer culls. Norway said that this had been its experience too. In reply, the UK said that it was aware of the outstanding request and a working paper had been prepared and could be distributed for information. Sweden also presented data on its moose hunt.

9.1.1.2 ABORIGINAL SUBSISTENCE WHALING
The USA described the history of the AEWC's weapons improvement programme since 1987, when it began working with Dr Øen (Norway) to develop a penthrite grenade for use in the Alaskan bowhead subsistence hunt. Field trials of the penthrite grenade conducted in Barrow, Alaska in several years since 1988 have resulted in a number of modifications to the grenade. There was a demonstration of the darting gun with the old and new barrels, and with a replica of the penthrite grenade. The darting gun with a 35 fathom line and float attached is used as the primary killing method and could be fired more than once before the shoulder gun was used as the secondary weapon. These two weapons were the only ones used in the hunt.

Greenland introduced a number of papers providing the status for the Greenland Action Plan on Whale Hunting Methods, a report on improvements in Greenlandic whaling and an overview on the efficiency in the Greenlandic hunt of minke and fin whales in the years 1990-1998.

The USA reviewed information presented to the Commission in 1997 on weaponry used in the Makah whale hunt, and provided the Workshop with an update on research conducted since then. The efforts of the Makah tribe relative to their subsistence hunt of the gray whale were focused on the development of the rifle as a means of killing whales. In summary, the .50BMG was confirmed and improved as a suitable killing weapon to use in the Makah tribal hunt and the .577 is also suitable and has the additional advantages of lighter weight and multiple shot capability.

The Russian Federation described the techniques used by Chukchi whalers for the gray whale catch. They take basically young whales in the coastal waters of the Chukchi Peninsula (up to 20km offshore) initially using 6-10 manual harpoons with attached buoys to slow animal movements. Then the kill is performed using darting guns (obtained as an humanitarian aid from Alaska), rifles and sometimes special spears. When using darting guns the time from first harpooning to death takes on average 30-40 minutes. Chukchi whalers do their best to reduce whaling time and animal suffering as much as possible and will continue these efforts in future. Questions on the number of bullets fired, and the use of automatic guns, were raised but not discussed further.

St. Vincent and The Grenadines indicated that it would provide more detailed information on its hunt than appeared in a book on whaling in Bequia during the Commission meeting.

The Government of the Faroe Islands had for information purposes only provided the Workshop with material on killing methods and equipment in its pilot whale hunt. The UK produced a list of questions to the Faroe Islands with reference to this material and Denmark stated that the questions and comments should be forwarded to the Faroe Islands Government.

9.1.1.3 EUTHANASIA OF STRANDED WHALES
New Zealand explained that sperm whale strandings have a high media profile, and there is a public expectation in New Zealand that live stranded sperm whales should be humanely euthanased if re-floating is not possible. After extensive trials of a number of weapons and projectiles, it was decided to concentrate on a modified 14.5 x 114mm anti-aircraft round to develop the Sperm Whale Euthanasia Device (SWED).

In March 1997 the SWED was used to euthanase two large male sperm whales stranded on Farewell Spit, South Island. The first animal was killed immediately by a single shot. The second animal was thought to have been rendered insensible by the first shot but continued breathing and was shot a second time using the same target area. After 30 minutes, however, the animal resumed breathing. Failure to kill both whales emphasises the need to target the brain accurately if a humane death is to be achieved.

9.1.2 Assessment of methods
Norway introduced evidence from pathological findings on tissue and brain damage caused by the detonation of the penthrite grenade to suggest that the IWC criterion of death based on immobility is incomplete and sometimes misleading. Conversely, New Zealand presented a paper which concluded that the current IWC criteria result in mean times to death values for whales being underestimated.

New Zealand also presented a study of the legislation in 53 countries to assess the legal requirements for slaughtering animals for meat consumption. The main conclusions were that stunning is usually required when the animals are killed in slaughterhouses; the majority of countries require the humane treatment of animals prior to and during slaughter; in many countries religious slaughter is exempt from stunning; and the requirements for humane slaughter apply to a wide range of species killed for meat consumption.

9.1.3 Times to death and evaluation
The Netherlands introduced a paper resulting from a meeting of experts held in Lelystad in March 1999. This dealt with the determination of the occurrence of irreversible unconsciousness in whales, as it has been considered that the IWC criteria for determining death are not valid and do not correspond to current scientific or clinical standards. It was suggested that the parameters which seem at present to be most promising for further evaluation and actual application are:

(1)

behaviour: frequency of breathing;

(2)

responses: blowhole-, corneal, pupillary- and pain responses.

After an extended discussion, the Chairman concluded that the Workshop agreed on the need to find better criteria based on better evidence.

9.1.4 Review and evaluation of relevant data
A paper from the UK reviewed recent data submitted to the IWC relating to the efficiency and humaneness of whale killing methods. Norwegian data indicated that in 1984-86, 45% of whales were killed immediately. There has been a gradual increase to 60% as training programmes have been implemented. Japanese data indicate that in 1983/84, 30% of whales were killed immediately and that there has been no improvement in this figure since. It was concluded that at least 40% of whales are not killed immediately in the Norwegian industry and in Japanese whaling this figure is 70%. Survival times for 50% of wounded whales is more than 6 minutes and some whales can survive for an hour or more. In discussion, it was suggested that the percentage of whales killed immediately in both the Japanese and Norwegian hunts would increase with better criteria for death in whales.

9.1.5 Revised Action Plan on whale killing methods
Delegations discussed a modified version tabled by the UK and New Zealand of the Revised Action Plan on Whale Killing Methods that was adopted at the previous Workshop in Dublin.

Denmark stated in relation to item D(9) in the Plan that Denmark does not recognise IWC competence on small cetaceans and would consequently not provide such information.

After extensive and comprehensive discussion on matters mainly of principle, the UK and New Zealand proposal on the Revised Action Plan was adopted with changes (Appendix 1).

9.1.6 Any other business
Norway proposed that scientific papers on technical improvements and killing methods such as those currently presented to the Workshops on Whale Killing Methods could be submitted for publication to the new journal published by the IWC. So far the journal is only publishing papers within the field of interest of the Scientific Committee of the IWC.

The Netherlands questioned the added value of the new journal for publication of scientific papers relating to the Workshop topics and noted that journals already existed where such papers could be submitted.

The Chairman concluded that he could not see agreement from the floor and suggested that Norway may wish to explore this matter further with the Commission.

9.1.7 Commission discussion
In the Commission, Norway spoke of the new material submitted by the whaling nations and commended the improvements in the times to death and hunters' safety, as well as the New Zealand progress in killing stranded whales. To avoid the same questions being asked at each meeting it believed that delegates should have technical expertise in the subject. It commended the progress made in this work, but noted that suffering in animals is difficult to quantify. Because of the very strict criteria it used for death times, it believed that whale hunts are better than those for most large terrestrial animals.

New Zealand was pleased that Japan no longer uses the electric lance, but regretted the lack of information on the Dall's porpoise hunt. It noted that some 40-70% of whales are not killed instantly in the Norwegian and Japanese hunts, questioned the number of bullets used in the Greenland hunt, and thought the situation in the Russian Federation hunt requires attention. It will continue its own work on the euthanasia of stranded cetaceans.

The UK associated itself with these remarks, commended the progress achieved, but looked for more information on the aboriginal subsistence hunts. There still need to be improvements in the effectiveness and humaneness, and it was disappointed that the Workshop did not address small cetaceans, since white whales and narwhals are included in the Action Plan. It had concerns over the use of electric harpoons in the Dall's porpoise hunt, since the Berne Convention prohibits the use of electrical methods for killing wild animals.

Denmark mentioned that the members of the small Faroese administration had been occupied with other matters and so could not attend the meeting but had provided information.

Sweden supported the comments from the previous speakers in thanking the whaling nations, noted the repetitive arguments and spoke of the need for more data.

Brazil and the USA thought that humane killing is within the Commission's competence. The latter provided substantial information on Alaska bowhead and Makah whaling practices, but pointed out that it is difficult to get detailed data from aboriginal subsistence hunts.

Japan maintained that this subject is outside the IWC's competence, and it participated and provided data on a voluntary basis. It appreciated the cooperation with Norway, but noted that while the whaling nations collect the data as a courtesy to the IWC, they are often misused. It deplored the way that jurisdiction was extending to small cetaceans and remote environmental issues, and the subjective use of the word humane.

The Russian Federation explained that automatic guns are prohibited in its hunt, commented that it received technical assistance only from Japan, Norway and the AEWC; it did not have enough experienced whalers and so was arranging a training seminar.

The Netherlands noted that some progress had been made since the Dublin Workshop, but better criteria (such as cranial nerve reflexes) are needed for permanent insensibility since the present ones are not satisfactory. It regretted the lack of information on aboriginal subsistence hunts, commented on the difference between the Norwegian and Japanese percentages for immediate kills and asked for information on sea conditions.

The Solomon Islands spoke of the cultural differences and practices carried over generations which exist, regretted the imposition of values from others, and called for cooperation in the future and respect for the coastal communities. Dominica supported this statement, and reiterated its view that management of small cetaceans is outside IWC competence.

Following some further comments on technical details, the Commission then accepted the report of the Workshop, noting the comments made.

9.2 Name of the Working Group
There was considerable discussion at the 50^th (1998) Annual Meeting on the name of the Humane Killing Working Group, with no consensus, and it was concluded that any decision should be taken at the plenary session of the 51^st Meeting.

This year Japan opposed the use in the name of the term 'Humane', which is subjective and cultural, and proposed instead 'Whale Killing'. France, Norway, Antigua and Barbuda and Denmark agreed.

The UK had some difficulty with this since it attached importance to the word and concepts of humaneness. This idea is not unique to one culture, reflecting a minimum of pain and suffering. English is the language of the Commission, but it would not insist if there was some acknowledgement of improvement. It suggested the name 'Working Group on Welfare Considerations of Whale Killing Methods'.

The USA viewed improvements as the ultimate goal, believing that the Commission has full competency as reflected in the 1992 Resolution and the Action Plan, and would consider the UK proposal. Australia and New Zealand had similar positions to the UK's, preferring to retain the name but they considered the alternative sensible. France also accepted the UK proposal.

Japan would not support this, nor St Lucia, who suggested 'Whale Harvesting Methods'. Denmark thought welfare was a very positive term and preferred 'Killing', as did Antigua and Barbuda, while St Vincent and The Grenadines thought there should not be an implied judgement in the title. The Solomon Islands agreed, recalling its comments on different cultures.

Switzerland could agree with the UK, but suggested 'Whale Killing Methods and Pertaining Welfare Issues'. The UK responded that the name at the moment of Humane Killing reflects the main purpose, humane is said to be inappropriate, and it thought welfare could be the primary focus. It took up Switzerland's point by proposing the term 'associated' instead of 'pertaining'. The Chairman, in response to a query from Antigua and Barbuda, indicated that 'welfare' applied also to users.

On being put to the vote, Japan's proposal for the title to be the 'Working Group on Whale Killing Methods' was defeated, with 10 votes in favour, 15 against, with 9 abstentions. Japan commented that the second name would win by a clear majority so a vote would be a waste of time, but it still objected to the name. The Chairman then concluded that the Commission had agreed that the name should be 'Working Group on Whale Killing Methods and Associated Welfare Issues'.

9.3 Information on improving the humaneness of aboriginal subsistence whaling

9.4 Other matters
Both these items were included in the report of the Workshop.

9.5 Action arising
9.5.1 Recommendations from the Whale Killing Methods Workshop
Norway re-stated its suggestion that papers on technical improvements should be considered for publication in the Journal of Cetacean Research and Management, if submitted. Australia thought this a sensible proposal and the Commission agreed.

Australia then introduced a draft Resolution arising from the Workshop, sponsored together with Austria, Brazil, New Zealand, UK and USA, to encourage obtaining more and better information, and to accept the revised Action Plan. The Netherlands thought this a good resolution and wished to be a co-sponsor. It suggested adding sea conditions prior to death to the data to be submitted annually.

St Vincent and The Grenadines stated that it had not taken part in the Workshop, the element of welfare prevents it, and it would not be bound by the resolution. St Lucia and Dominica took the same position.

Japan recalled that it had responded positively to the Workshop, and had provided technical data to the Working Group, but these were used with malice against it, including humaneness as a subjective judgement. It called for the Commission to complete the RMS and stock assessments, but it will continue its efforts to shorten times to death and provide data on a voluntary basis, but not to those who misuse it. It believed that the resolution deviates the IWC from its task and it would not participate in a vote.

Denmark, on behalf of Greenland, shared the views of St Vincent and The Grenadines and Japan and would not participate in the vote. It believed the issue is outside IWC competence, but since 1987 Greenland had submitted more than 20 documents with information, and the improvement of equipment was not without cost. Very detailed information was requested which is difficult to obtain in Greenland.

The Resolution shown in Appendix 2 was then adopted by a majority, noting that Antigua and Barbuda, Grenada and St Kitts and Nevis also did not participate.

_